White Queen

Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
Like the history then!
Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
the Yorks!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Well I think the BBC may have missed a trick as it is on at the same time as spooky The Returned which started last night and has got very good reviews (and I am hooked.)  Of course people who don't like subtitles can still watch The White Queen and I confess that I will whizz through it on i player (how to turn a one hour programme into ten minutes by FF-ing the bad bits).  I'm also off on holiday soon  so will miss at least one episode of it and won't bother catching up with that one.
 
My only hope is that people will see this stuff and want to learn more but unfortunately I suspect they will just go out and buy Gregory's books instead of learning about the facts.
 
 
Liz

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:10
Subject: White Queen

 
Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
Like the history then!
Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
the Yorks!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

If you look under google images there is quite a nice picture of the 'York brothers'. Pity the screenplay won't match up. And I don't recall seeing many moustaches in 15th century portraits.
 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:10
Subject: White Queen


 

Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
Like the history then!
Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
the Yorks!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The York brothers who look nothing like the real York brothers of
course! But hey, it's only fiction so who cares?
ME!!!!
Paul

On 10/06/2013 21:15, Hilary Jones wrote:
> If you look under google images there is quite a nice picture of the 'York brothers'. Pity the screenplay won't match up. And I don't recall seeing many moustaches in 15th century portraits.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013, 20:10
> Subject: White Queen
>
>
>
>
> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> Like the history then!
> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> the Yorks!
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

George's facial hair rather threw me too. Why bother with it? The actor is scrummy enough without it. In fact, he's the best looking of the lot. IMO anyway. Max Irons isn't hot enough  oops, weak joke. As for Richard...many things have I thought about our lad, but not that he was ever cherubic and more Welsh than the valleys. The actor is very cuddly, especially to pass the time on a wet Sunday afternoon in Pontypridd (inviting thought), but definitely not English enough, aristocratic or delicate' enough to be Richard. Well, that's my view anyway.

Sandra

From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen

The York brothers who look nothing like the real York brothers of
course! But hey, it's only fiction so who cares?
ME!!!!
Paul

That's interesting because I don't think the guy who plays George is good looking, but I saw him in Pillars of the Earth  and he was so vile (the character I mean, not him personally)  maybe that has influenced me?  Irons is okay - better looking than his father I think but sounds too much like a public schoolboy.  (I know that's silly since Ray Winstone was roundly criticised because of his East End accent when he played Henry VIII and we don't even know what their accents were  really like.  )
 
Barnard looks delicate in some photos I've seen of him and a bit "cuddly" (to be polite) in others.  I doubt he'll use his Welsh accent for this (I hope not!) and to be honest "aristocratic" looking always makes me think of chinless wonders which is one thing Richard certainly wasn't!
 
They're all too young for me anyway, I shall be watching James Frain!
 
Incidentally, I just found this  http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/category/cast/

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: White Queen

 
George's facial hair rather threw me too. Why bother with it? The actor is scrummy enough without it. In fact, he's the best looking of the lot. IMO anyway. Max Irons isn't hot enough  oops, weak joke. As for Richard...many things have I thought about our lad, but not that he was ever cherubic and more Welsh than the valleys. The actor is very cuddly, especially to pass the time on a wet Sunday afternoon in Pontypridd (inviting thought), but definitely not English enough, aristocratic or delicate' enough to be Richard. Well, that's my view anyway.

Sandra

From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:08 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: White Queen

The York brothers who look nothing like the real York brothers of
course! But hey, it's only fiction so who cares?
ME!!!!
Paul

I knew I liked James Frain!
 "I read enough history to make sense of what the parameters of the world were  and to make sense of the convoluted family trees! I did just enough to reassure me that I understood the period, and left the rest to imagination. It was fascinating to see how different the history was from the Shakespearean versions (written under a Tudor monarchy with a vested interest in having the history presented from their point of view).
"
http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/james-frain-as-lord-warwick/
 
 

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 12:13
Subject: Re: White Queen

 
That's interesting because I don't think the guy who plays George is good looking, but I saw him in Pillars of the Earth  and he was so vile (the character I mean, not him personally)  maybe that has influenced me?  Irons is okay - better looking than his father I think but sounds too much like a public schoolboy.  (I know that's silly since Ray Winstone was roundly criticised because of his East End accent when he played Henry VIII and we don't even know what their accents were  really like.  )
 
Barnard looks delicate in some photos I've seen of him and a bit "cuddly" (to be polite) in others.  I doubt he'll use his Welsh accent for this (I hope not!) and to be honest "aristocratic" looking always makes me think of chinless wonders which is one thing Richard certainly wasn't!
 
They're all too young for me anyway, I shall be watching James Frain!
 
Incidentally, I just found this  http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/category/cast/

Agree with you - where's that Norman breeding?



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

George's facial hair rather threw me too. Why bother with it? The actor is scrummy enough without it. In fact, he's the best looking of the lot. IMO anyway. Max Irons isn't hot enough  oops, weak joke. As for Richard...many things have I thought about our lad, but not that he was ever cherubic and more Welsh than the valleys. The actor is very cuddly, especially to pass the time on a wet Sunday afternoon in Pontypridd (inviting thought), but definitely not English enough, aristocratic or delicate' enough to be Richard. Well, that's my view anyway.

Sandra

From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:08 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: White Queen

The York brothers who look nothing like the real York brothers of
course! But hey, it's only fiction so who cares?
ME!!!!
Paul

I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
But he looks good and talks sense. 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 12:23
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

I knew I liked James Frain!
 "I read enough history to make sense of what the parameters of the world were  and to make sense of the convoluted family trees! I did just enough to reassure me that I understood the period, and left the rest to imagination. It was fascinating to see how different the history was from the Shakespearean versions (written under a Tudor monarchy with a vested interest in having the history presented from their point of view).
"
http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/james-frain-as-lord-warwick/
 
 

From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 12:13
Subject: Re: White Queen

 
That's interesting because I don't think the guy who plays George is good looking, but I saw him in Pillars of the Earth  and he was so vile (the character I mean, not him personally)  maybe that has influenced me?  Irons is okay - better looking than his father I think but sounds too much like a public schoolboy.  (I know that's silly since Ray Winstone was roundly criticised because of his East End accent when he played Henry VIII and we don't even know what their accents were  really like.  )
 
Barnard looks delicate in some photos I've seen of him and a bit "cuddly" (to be polite) in others.  I doubt he'll use his Welsh accent for this (I hope not!) and to be honest "aristocratic" looking always makes me think of chinless wonders which is one thing Richard certainly wasn't!
 
They're all too young for me anyway, I shall be watching James Frain!
 
Incidentally, I just found this  http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/category/cast/

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> But he looks good and talks sense. 

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Carol

Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).  
 
Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
 
 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> But he looks good and talks sense. 

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Carol

Yes. All peers are Lords and can add their title to this.

----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen




Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> But he looks good and talks sense.Â

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Carol

According to Burke's Peerage now, marquesses, earls, viscounts and, in some circumstances, barons, are referred to (in conversation) as Lord Whoever (not family name, but title). Whether the same applied in the 15th century I cannot say, but I have no reason to think not. If so, Lord Warwick would be right for the Earl of Warwick, except at formal functions, when his exact rank would be used  the Earl of Warwick.

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Ooops, sorry. I meant Debrett's, not Burke's. =^..^=

From: SandraMachin
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen


According to Burke's Peerage now, marquesses, earls, viscounts and, in some circumstances, barons, are referred to (in conversation) as Lord Whoever (not family name, but title). Whether the same applied in the 15th century I cannot say, but I have no reason to think not. If so, Lord Warwick would be right for the Earl of Warwick, except at formal functions, when his exact rank would be used  the Earl of Warwick.

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

I've never seen this practice in the 15th century. "My Lord of Warwick" yes, but "Lord Warwick" looks to me like an anachronism.
Marie

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> According to Burke’s Peerage now, marquesses, earls, viscounts and, in some circumstances, barons, are referred to (in conversation) as Lord Whoever (not family name, but title). Whether the same applied in the 15th century I cannot say, but I have no reason to think not. If so, Lord Warwick would be right for the Earl of Warwick, except at formal functions, when his exact rank would be used â€" the Earl of Warwick.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>
>
>
>
>

But do we know what form they used in conversation? In the written word it probably was the Earl of Warwick or My Lord of Warwick, but when they were chatting...? There is no way of knowing that, unless that time machine happens along. Is there? It may well be an anachronism, but I don't know how we can be sure.

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen


I've never seen this practice in the 15th century. "My Lord of Warwick" yes, but "Lord Warwick" looks to me like an anachronism.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> According to Burke’s Peerage now, marquesses, earls, viscounts and, in some circumstances, barons, are referred to (in conversation) as Lord Whoever (not family name, but title). Whether the same applied in the 15th century I cannot say, but I have no reason to think not. If so, Lord Warwick would be right for the Earl of Warwick, except at formal functions, when his exact rank would be used â€" the Earl of Warwick.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I've never seen this practice in the 15th century. "My Lord of Warwick" yes, but "Lord Warwick" looks to me like an anachronism.
> Marie

Carol responds:

That was my thought, too. "Lord Hastings" or "Lord Stanley," yes, but neither was an earl and those are their last names. What was Richard Neville called before he married Anne Beauchamp, does anyone know? "Lord Neville"? "Lord Richard"? He was the eldest son of an earl.

Carol

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> But do we know what form they used in conversation? In the written word it probably was the Earl of Warwick or My Lord of Warwick, but when they were chatting...? There is no way of knowing that, unless that time machine happens along. Is there? It may well be an anachronism, but I don’t know how we can be sure.

Carol responds:

It depends who was addressing him. If the person was a social inferior, it would be "Your Grace" or possibly "My Lord." If the person was an equal or a social superior, it would depend on whether the conversation was public or private. To Edward IV, he would have been "Richard" or "Cousin" in private, "my Lord of Warwick" in public--especially if Edward happened to be displeased with him. Our Richard, who outranked Warwick but was much younger, may have called him "Cousin" in private and "My Lord" or "Your Grace" in public, with Warwick almost certainly calling Richard "Your Grace" in public and perhaps "Richard" or "Cousin" (or even "Dickon," if that nickname is not Hall's invention) in private.

Carol

"Lord Richard" unless he held a courtesy title.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen




mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I've never seen this practice in the 15th century. "My Lord of Warwick" yes, but "Lord Warwick" looks to me like an anachronism.
> Marie

Carol responds:

That was my thought, too. "Lord Hastings" or "Lord Stanley," yes, but neither was an earl and those are their last names. What was Richard Neville called before he married Anne Beauchamp, does anyone know? "Lord Neville"? "Lord Richard"? He was the eldest son of an earl.

Carol

If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)

M'thinks you'll need it.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen



 
Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).  
 
Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
 
 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> But he looks good and talks sense. 

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Carol

As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
>
> M'thinks you'll need it.
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
>
>  
> Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).  
>  
> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
>  
>  
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> > But he looks good and talks sense. 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

When his father died after Wakefield he inherited the title of Earl of Salisbury as well but by then he was already Earl of Warwick, which he'd been since his marriage at the age of ten.  I suppose he was so young they didn't have to sort an alternative title out for him. Kendal certainly doesn't come up with one.
 

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

"Lord Richard" unless he held a courtesy title.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> I've never seen this practice in the 15th century. "My Lord of Warwick" yes, but "Lord Warwick" looks to me like an anachronism.
> Marie

Carol responds:

That was my thought, too. "Lord Hastings" or "Lord Stanley," yes, but neither was an earl and those are their last names. What was Richard Neville called before he married Anne Beauchamp, does anyone know? "Lord Neville"? "Lord Richard"? He was the eldest son of an earl.

Carol

Oh gawd. You're right, I shall sit there shouting at the telly - and probably having more than one slurp. Very bad headache next day.
 
Cis - on the throne!:) 


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:19
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).  
 
Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
 
 

From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> But he looks good and talks sense. 

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Carol

Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.



________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
>
> M'thinks you'll need it.
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
>
>  
> Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).  
>  
> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
>  
>  
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> > But he looks good and talks sense.à
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Aren't they sometimes referred to by the name of their Earldom - like just 'Warwick', a bit like bishops. I seem to remember that from Fawlty Towers, which seems appropriate to this discussion:)



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:29
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

According to Burke's Peerage now, marquesses, earls, viscounts and, in some circumstances, barons, are referred to (in conversation) as Lord Whoever (not family name, but title). Whether the same applied in the 15th century I cannot say, but I have no reason to think not. If so, Lord Warwick would be right for the Earl of Warwick, except at formal functions, when his exact rank would be used  the Earl of Warwick.

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Or the bit from Beyond the Fringe? (Also appropriate....)

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen



 
Aren't they sometimes referred to by the name of their Earldom - like just 'Warwick', a bit like bishops. I seem to remember that from Fawlty Towers, which seems appropriate to this discussion:)

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:29
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

According to Burke's Peerage now, marquesses, earls, viscounts and, in some circumstances, barons, are referred to (in conversation) as Lord Whoever (not family name, but title). Whether the same applied in the 15th century I cannot say, but I have no reason to think not. If so, Lord Warwick would be right for the Earl of Warwick, except at formal functions, when his exact rank would be used  the Earl of Warwick.

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

...or in condition to complete "Kubla Khan"?
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen



 
Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.

________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
>
> M'thinks you'll need it.
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
>
>  
> Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).  
>  
> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
>  
>  
>
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>  
>
> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> > But he looks good and talks sense.à
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Aren't they sometimes referred to by the name of their Earldom - like just 'Warwick', a bit like bishops. I seem to remember that from Fawlty Towers, which seems appropriate to this discussion:)

Carol responds:

In third person, definitely, but in conversation, I'm not sure. Shakespeare has a scene (I can't recall which play, might be "Kin Lear") in which the kings of England and France address each other respectively as "England" and "France," but I doubt that ever happened in real life. His use in other plays of "Your Grace" and "My Lord" probably reflects genuine Elizabethan etiquette, which would not have changed all that much from the fifteenth century, with the exception of the Tudor introduction of "Your Majesty."

On a related note, does anyone know of any letters addressed to Richard either as king or as Duke of Gloucester other than the one from King James about the peace treaty and the notorious "Monsieur mon Cousin" note from the dying spider in France? I wonder if most of them were destroyed by the Tudors along with Yorkist wills and Richard's council records.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> When his father died after Wakefield he inherited the title of Earl of Salisbury as well but by then he was already Earl of Warwick, which he'd been since his marriage at the age of ten.  I suppose he was so young they didn't have to sort an alternative title out for him. Kendal certainly doesn't come up with one.

Carol responds:

Thanks. Good point. I'd forgotten that he was married so young. I suppose he was Lord Richard until then, just as Edward must have been Lord Edward until he received the earldom of March when he was about twelve (not sure of the exact age, but he and Edmund were already earls when they wrote their charming letter about bonnets and breviaries and annoying tutors).

What about younger sons of an earl or duke, though? Were they addressed as "my lord" and referred to as, say, "Lord Edmund" (or "Lord George" or "Lord Richard") by courtesy? Or would our Richard, as the youngest son of a duke, have been merely "Richard" until he was knighted at his brother's coronation (and then made a duke about six months later)? Or "Master Richard" if addressed by a servant? (That sounds too nineteenth century.)

Carol

Everything will be fine as long as we keep repeating "this is only fiction, this is only fiction, this is only fiction........." mantra like. What could possibly go wrong? eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>  
>
> As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
> >
> > M'thinks you'll need it.
> >
> > Judy 
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: White Queen
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).  
> >  
> > Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
> >  
> >  
> >
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
> > Subject: Re: White Queen
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> > > But he looks good and talks sense. 
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
> Everything will be fine as long as we keep repeating "this is only fiction, this is only fiction, this is only fiction........." mantra like. What could possibly go wrong? eileen

Carol responds:

Other than people believing that it's "history"? But at least it *should* be an improvement over Shakespeare. Too bad their Richard actually looks older than their Edward!

Carol

I am in&.too bad we are not all some place together.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:53 AM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen



Oh gawd. You're right, I shall sit there shouting at the telly - and probably having more than one slurp. Very bad headache next day.

Cis - on the throne!:)


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:19
Subject: Re: White Queen




Probably not but that won't stop them. The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo).

Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?



From: justcarol67 <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
Subject: Re: White Queen



Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> But he looks good and talks sense.Â

Carol responds:

But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.

Carol

Well we certainly do it now (just one example - Princess Margaret's son "David Linley" or "Lord Linley" despite the fact that his surname is Armstrong-Jones and Viscount Linley is the title) but I didn't think they did then.  Mind you if this is the worst anachronism there is, we will be very lucky.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:38
Subject: Re: White Queen

 
I've never seen this practice in the 15th century. "My Lord of Warwick" yes, but "Lord Warwick" looks to me like an anachronism.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> According to Burkeâ¬"s Peerage now, marquesses, earls, viscounts and, in some circumstances, barons, are referred to (in conversation) as Lord Whoever (not family name, but title). Whether the same applied in the 15th century I cannot say, but I have no reason to think not. If so, Lord Warwick would be right for the Earl of Warwick, except at formal functions, when his exact rank would be used â¬" the Earl of Warwick.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>
>
>
>
>

Provided their father was an Earl or above - he was a Duke from four until his death - his younger sons without courtesy titles were Lord George, Lord Richard etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> When his father died after Wakefield he inherited the title of Earl of Salisbury as well but by then he was already Earl of Warwick, which he'd been since his marriage at the age of ten.  I suppose he was so young they didn't have to sort an alternative title out for him. Kendal certainly doesn't come up with one.

Carol responds:

Thanks. Good point. I'd forgotten that he was married so young. I suppose he was Lord Richard until then, just as Edward must have been Lord Edward until he received the earldom of March when he was about twelve (not sure of the exact age, but he and Edmund were already earls when they wrote their charming letter about bonnets and breviaries and annoying tutors).

What about younger sons of an earl or duke, though? Were they addressed as "my lord" and referred to as, say, "Lord Edmund" (or "Lord George" or "Lord Richard") by courtesy? Or would our Richard, as the youngest son of a duke, have been merely "Richard" until he was knighted at his brother's coronation (and then made a duke about six months later)? Or "Master Richard" if addressed by a servant? (That sounds too nineteenth century.)

Carol

Quoi? His late brother-in-law Henry was Duke of Warwick but the title was demoted to Earl of Warwick again. Henry was, as far as I know, the only one ever to be Duke of Warwick. Was that not because he was playfellow of H6?



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

Provided their father was an Earl or above - he was a Duke from four until his death - his younger sons without courtesy titles were Lord George, Lord Richard etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> When his father died after Wakefield he inherited the title of Earl of Salisbury as well but by then he was already Earl of Warwick, which he'd been since his marriage at the age of ten.  I suppose he was so young they didn't have to sort an alternative title out for him. Kendal certainly doesn't come up with one.

Carol responds:

Thanks. Good point. I'd forgotten that he was married so young. I suppose he was Lord Richard until then, just as Edward must have been Lord Edward until he received the earldom of March when he was about twelve (not sure of the exact age, but he and Edmund were already earls when they wrote their charming letter about bonnets and breviaries and annoying tutors).

What about younger sons of an earl or duke, though? Were they addressed as "my lord" and referred to as, say, "Lord Edmund" (or "Lord George" or "Lord Richard") by courtesy? Or would our Richard, as the youngest son of a duke, have been merely "Richard" until he was knighted at his brother's coronation (and then made a duke about six months later)? Or "Master Richard" if addressed by a servant? (That sounds too nineteenth century.)

Carol

Carol's point about the Duke of York's sons ........
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen



Quoi? His late brother-in-law Henry was Duke of Warwick but the title was demoted to Earl of Warwick again. Henry was, as far as I know, the only one ever to be Duke of Warwick. Was that not because he was playfellow of H6?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: White Queen




Provided their father was an Earl or above - he was a Duke from four until his death - his younger sons without courtesy titles were Lord George, Lord Richard etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> When his father died after Wakefield he inherited the title of Earl of Salisbury as well but by then he was already Earl of Warwick, which he'd been since his marriage at the age of ten.  I suppose he was so young they didn't have to sort an alternative title out for him. Kendal certainly doesn't come up with one.

Carol responds:

Thanks. Good point. I'd forgotten that he was married so young. I suppose he was Lord Richard until then, just as Edward must have been Lord Edward until he received the earldom of March when he was about twelve (not sure of the exact age, but he and Edmund were already earls when they wrote their charming letter about bonnets and breviaries and annoying tutors).

What about younger sons of an earl or duke, though? Were they addressed as "my lord" and referred to as, say, "Lord Edmund" (or "Lord George" or "Lord Richard") by courtesy? Or would our Richard, as the youngest son of a duke, have been merely "Richard" until he was knighted at his brother's coronation (and then made a duke about six months later)? Or "Master Richard" if addressed by a servant? (That sounds too nineteenth century.)

Carol

Many apologies - looked like an answer to my post.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 22:22
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

Carol's point about the Duke of York's sons ........
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen

Quoi? His late brother-in-law Henry was Duke of Warwick but the title was demoted to Earl of Warwick again. Henry was, as far as I know, the only one ever to be Duke of Warwick. Was that not because he was playfellow of H6?

________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <mailto:stephenmlark%40talktalk.net>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 21:23
Subject: Re: White Queen

Provided their father was an Earl or above - he was a Duke from four until his death - his younger sons without courtesy titles were Lord George, Lord Richard etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> When his father died after Wakefield he inherited the title of Earl of Salisbury as well but by then he was already Earl of Warwick, which he'd been since his marriage at the age of ten.  I suppose he was so young they didn't have to sort an alternative title out for him. Kendal certainly doesn't come up with one.

Carol responds:

Thanks. Good point. I'd forgotten that he was married so young. I suppose he was Lord Richard until then, just as Edward must have been Lord Edward until he received the earldom of March when he was about twelve (not sure of the exact age, but he and Edmund were already earls when they wrote their charming letter about bonnets and breviaries and annoying tutors).

What about younger sons of an earl or duke, though? Were they addressed as "my lord" and referred to as, say, "Lord Edmund" (or "Lord George" or "Lord Richard") by courtesy? Or would our Richard, as the youngest son of a duke, have been merely "Richard" until he was knighted at his brother's coronation (and then made a duke about six months later)? Or "Master Richard" if addressed by a servant? (That sounds too nineteenth century.)

Carol

He probably ran straight in from his murder scene in The Borgias without
shaving!
Paul


On 11/06/2013 11:23, SandraMachin wrote:
> George's facial hair rather threw me too. Why bother with it? The actor is scrummy enough without it. In fact, he's the best looking of the lot. IMO anyway. Max Irons isn't hot enough  oops, weak joke. As for Richard...many things have I thought about our lad, but not that he was ever cherubic and more Welsh than the valleys. The actor is very cuddly, especially to pass the time on a wet Sunday afternoon in Pontypridd (inviting thought), but definitely not English enough, aristocratic or delicate' enough to be Richard. Well, that's my view anyway.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:08 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
> The York brothers who look nothing like the real York brothers of
> course! But hey, it's only fiction so who cares?
> ME!!!!
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

But why Hilary? According to her article in Radio Times she is a
historian!!!
Gossip, and a writer of bad fiction yes. But a historian? Please!
Paul
On 11/06/2013 17:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
>
> As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
>>
>> M'thinks you'll need it.
>>
>> JudyÂ
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>> To: "" <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Probably not but that won't stop them. The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo). Â
>> Â
>> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
>> Â
>> Â
>>
>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
>>> But he looks good and talks sense.ÃÂ
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: White Queen


But why Hilary? According to her article in Radio Times she is a
historian!!!
Gossip, and a writer of bad fiction yes. But a historian? Please!
Paul
On 11/06/2013 17:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.
>
> 
>
> ________________________________
>  From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>   
>   
> 
> As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
>>
>> M'thinks you'll need it.
>>
>> JudyÂ
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>> To: "" <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo). Â
>> Â
>> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
>> Â
>> Â
>>
>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
>>> But he looks good and talks sense.ÃÂ
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>   
>         
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

I already made the mistake, but perhaps the fans should know it is an
historian, which Philippa is certainly not!
Interestingly the article in Radio Times is for the most part non
controversial, although I never knew Margaret Beaufort was Anne's
bestie! While saying how Elizabeth Woodville continued plotting after
her daughter was on the throne, no mention of why she would want to, if
her sons were dead for certain.
And has anybody else heard of it being called "The Cousins War" before
PG named her books that way?
Paul

On 12/06/2013 10:02, Hilary Jones wrote:
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 9:51
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
> But why Hilary? According to her article in Radio Times she is a
> historian!!!
> Gossip, and a writer of bad fiction yes. But a historian? Please!
> Paul
> On 11/06/2013 17:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
>> Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>
>>
>>
>> As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
>>>
>>> M'thinks you'll need it.
>>>
>>> JudyÂ
>>> Â
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
>>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>> Probably not but that won't stop them. The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo). Â
>>> Â
>>> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
>>> Â
>>> Â
>>>
>>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
>>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
>>>> But he looks good and talks sense.ÃÂ
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I came into work later than usual this morning and just before I left the BBC breakfast programme said that PG was going to be on there a bit later. I couldnt' stay and watch it but that's probably jsut as well. 


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: White Queen


But why Hilary? According to her article in Radio Times she is a
historian!!!
Gossip, and a writer of bad fiction yes. But a historian? Please!
Paul
On 11/06/2013 17:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.
>
> 
>
> ________________________________
>  From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>   
>   
> 
> As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
>>
>> M'thinks you'll need it.
>>
>> JudyÂ
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>> To: "" <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Probably not but that won't stop them.  The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is  sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo). Â
>> Â
>> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
>> Â
>> Â
>>
>> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
>> Subject: Re: White Queen
>>
>> Â
>>
>> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
>>> But he looks good and talks sense.ÃÂ
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>   
>         
>
>

Yes...she is...and I am a brain surgeon 4 days a week...on the fifth day I split atoms as I wind down for the weekend...eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> But why Hilary? According to her article in Radio Times she is a
> historian!!!
> Gossip, and a writer of bad fiction yes. But a historian? Please!
> Paul
> On 11/06/2013 17:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: White Queen
> >
> >
> >
> > As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
> >>
> >> M'thinks you'll need it.
> >>
> >> JudyÂ
> >> Â
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> >> To: "" <>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
> >> Subject: Re: White Queen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Probably not but that won't stop them. The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo). Â
> >> Â
> >> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >>
> >> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
> >> Subject: Re: White Queen
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> >>> But he looks good and talks sense.ÂÂ
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

If you read her Facebook (heaven forefend) it really has gone to her head. Does anyone know whether Baldwin was her researcher? I'm sure I read it somewhere. 



________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

Yes...she is...and I am a brain surgeon 4 days a week...on the fifth day I split atoms as I wind down for the weekend...eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> But why Hilary? According to her article in Radio Times she is a
> historian!!!
> Gossip, and a writer of bad fiction yes. But a historian? Please!
> Paul
> On 11/06/2013 17:54, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > Methinks after ten weeks we will all be in a fog.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: White Queen
> >
> >
> >
> > As I don't drink wine maybe I'd better try laudanum......
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >> If you're drinking wine, may I suggest keeping a Jeroboam handy ;-)
> >>
> >> M'thinks you'll need it.
> >>
> >> JudyÂ
> >> Â
> >> Loyaulte me lie
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> >> To: "" <>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:19 AM
> >> Subject: Re: White Queen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> Probably not but that won't stop them. The interview with Rebecca Ferguson refers to her scene when Elizabeth first meets Cis who is sitting "on the throne" (and I don't think they mean the loo). Â
> >> Â
> >> Perhaps we could create a drinking game for watching it - one slurp (I don't sip in case you didn't guess) for every anomaly or historical error?
> >> Â
> >> Â
> >>
> >> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013, 16:09
> >> Subject: Re: White Queen
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I hope he brings out the charmisma of Warwick who was actually a better sailor than soldier; in fact he was a great pirate. That's what I reckon it was really all about with Warwick and Edward, there wasn't room for two such charmismatic people at the top in England.
> >>> But he looks good and talks sense.ÃÂ
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> But "Lord Warwick"? Was that name ever used? He was an earl, not a baron, and Warwick was his earldom, not his last name.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> If you read her Facebook (heaven forefend) it really has gone to her head. Does anyone know whether Baldwin was her researcher? I'm sure I read it somewhere. 

Carol responds:

Excerpt from an interview:

"Abe - Do you have a favorite place to conduct research?

"Philippa Gregory â€" 'Actually, most of the original documents and resources have been edited and transcribed so many times that the local libraries and historical sites often have thorough and helpful information. For The White Queen, the Richard III Society proved to be a great resource.'"

http://www.abebooks.com/books/author-interview-white-queen/philippa-gregory.shtml

Implication: She does her own research and the primary materials are easily accessible. Huh? Maybe she means More, Vergil, and Shakespeare? Wonder how the Society helped her--or which materials she supposedly used.

She must have billed herself as an historian in her query letter and Abe Books believed her.

At least, she doesn't believe that Richard murdered his nephews (though the idea that he might have wanted them as his heirs is preposterous), and I confess that I rather like "Cousin's War" as an alternative to "Wars of the Roses." But note that one of her favorite authors is that other "historian," Alison Weir! {"Weir simply reports fact"!!!???)

I've never read any of Philippa's books (I'm not interested in bad historical fiction), and I don't intend to watch the series assuming that it's shown here in the U.S. I have, however, read Weir and cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, particularly a person ostensibly familiar with "the original documents and resources," could call a More-based interpretation "fact."

Carol

I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.

I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.

This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
Elaine




--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> Like the history then!
> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> the Yorks!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Not sure whether this posted the first time so am trying again


I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Whilst Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard III and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience which includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because are historians therefore they are telling the truth. And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book.

I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.

This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
Elaine






--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> Like the history then!
> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> the Yorks!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Thank you for your very good assessment, and the desperation felt by many.

On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:26 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:



Not sure whether this posted the first time so am trying again

I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Whilst Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard III and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience which includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because are historians therefore they are telling the truth. And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book.

I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.

This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
Elaine

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> Like the history then!
> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> the Yorks!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Oh we'll said Elaine....excellent post...and so true...so very true. Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.
>
> I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.
>
> This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> > of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> > Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> > It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> > Like the history then!
> > Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> > the Yorks!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:

1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)

2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.

PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.

It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.

~Weds



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'

I agree with your rant. But if someone produces something of sufficient worth we can turn the tide ('m not at all denegrating JAH et al but their books are for the converted). Look at Thomas Penn. Loads of people bought his book believing it to be fiction; which says something for good writing and a good title!!
 

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 22:22
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and
writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence.
Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.

I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.

This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
Elaine

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> Like the history then!
> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> the Yorks!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
 
'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if it's in the
right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
readership. It's up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
comfortable. As Gregory points out when matters of fact are in dispute I make
up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
accounts for the known facts'.
 
I think Gregory says it all .....


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:

1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)

2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.

PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.

It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'

Hilary, have you considered self-publishing as an e-book?  The process is quite simple on Amazon, for example.  I am sure there are a lot of people out there who would love to read your novel.  It has been known for successful e-books to be turned into paper books - the 50 Shades trilogy for example.  Once you have demonstrated there is a market, traditional publishers tend to become interested.


________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:




 
I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
 
'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if it's in the
right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
readership. It's up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
comfortable. As Gregory points out when matters of fact are in dispute I make
up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
accounts for the known facts'.
 
I think Gregory says it all .....


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
Subject: Re: White Queen


 

I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:

1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)

2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.

PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.

It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'

Wednesday,
 
I couldn't agree more about the simplistic language and lazy readers.  In fact I said as much on the Ricardian group on FB  and was roundly castigated for it on another  FB page (and called "arrogant")   by someone who quoted me there.  I suppose people don't like admitting that the stuff they read is in words of one syllable. 
 
Liz

From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
Subject: Re: White Queen

 
I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:

1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)

2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.

PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.

It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'

Yes I have. I want to polish it though. And I've now nearly finished a second, which I think is a tad better than the first. I intend to ebook them down the line once I'm sure of the quality - so many ebooks are a bit dubious on that



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 10:02
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen

 

Hilary, have you considered self-publishing as an e-book?  The process is quite simple on Amazon, for example.  I am sure there are a lot of people out there who would love to read your novel.  It has been known for successful e-books to be turned into paper books - the 50 Shades trilogy for example.  Once you have demonstrated there is a market, traditional publishers tend to become interested.

________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

 
I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
 
'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if it's in the
right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
readership. It's up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
comfortable. As Gregory points out when matters of fact are in dispute I make
up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
accounts for the known facts'.
 
I think Gregory says it all .....

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:

1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)

2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.

PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.

It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'

Oh by the way, I didn't include the bit where the editor said I should have Richard secretly visiting Anne at Amboise because Anne's marriage to Edward was 'a boring diversion'. Even PG didn't come up with that one! 



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 10:02
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen

 

Hilary, have you considered self-publishing as an e-book?  The process is quite simple on Amazon, for example.  I am sure there are a lot of people out there who would love to read your novel.  It has been known for successful e-books to be turned into paper books - the 50 Shades trilogy for example.  Once you have demonstrated there is a market, traditional publishers tend to become interested.

________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

 
I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
 
'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if it's in the
right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
readership. It's up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
comfortable. As Gregory points out when matters of fact are in dispute I make
up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
accounts for the known facts'.
 
I think Gregory says it all .....

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:

1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)

2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.

PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.

It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'

Small point, please don't blame the BBC, who commission ideas and can
rarely be held responsible for the final content. Starkey, who you
quote, makes his programmes for Channel 4 who also give most programme
makers free reign.
I hate the way the BBC is criticised, chiefly by a government who simply
wants to privatise everything that moves. BBC as SKY 1? Imagine!
Imagine the BBC with commercials every few minutes. Bet that would score
complaints galore. Tried watching BBC programmes on Yesterday, or the
History channel? Horrible.
For only a few pence a day we get all these wonderful tv and radio
channels! I'd happily pay more to keep it as it is.
I love the BBC and will put up with the odd crap it shows, like White
Queen, and The Voice. It does have to be commercial at times, and such
shows generate huge sales abroad.
As to degenerate? Have you not noticed the wonderful biographical dramas
of Hattie Jacques, Frankie Howard, Hughie Green, Van Gogh etc of late,
or the series about Roman empresses, Pompeii, Dutch art, the Dark Ages,
Michael Wood on the Middle Ages or on Shakespeare, to name just a few.
One off documentaries like the marvellous film about Delphi that
Michaels Scott made a couple of years ago. And on the radio, dramas
about the Plantagenets, I Claudius, Shakespeare productions with the
likes of Branagh? None of these would be made if the channels were
simply commercial. Name the last time ITV made a serious documentary
series, or showed any Shakespeare or serious drama other than something
based on Agatha Christie or the works of a popular novelist.

Would you shut down Channel 4 because of Starkey? No,of course not.
What the likes of Starkey and Weir believe is not something I can do
much about, [there are those so blind they cannot see - will not] and
Starkey has a track record of successful television programmes behind
him. So he gets the meetings.
Philippa Gregory can say " my novels have been best sellers so millions
will watch". She gets the meetings too.
I have edited a number of documentaries and dramas, but have not
produced or directed anything in this country. I do not have a track
record as a director or producer here.
I don't get the meetings.
So my version of Richard's story looks like a huge risk to money men. As
it would cost an awful lot of money to make it is a risk. I don't have a
fan base because of my novels. I don't get meetings. I don't blame the
BBC or Channel 4 for this. An editor making a huge epic. A huge risk. I
can't even get past agents to get at directors with a track record
either. Nor have I been able to get past the agents of producers and
directors I have worked with in the past.
Except the one I am trying to get something financed with. And bless
him, he isn't Speilberg. Nor does he know him!

So let's not destroy the BBC because you don't approve of a couple of
programmes. There are plenty of rubbish channels to switch off first,
channels that show commercials interspersed with the odd programme, as
the BBC would become if it was privatised.
I am dreading the White Queen, but will watch it, if only to pick it
apart and write letters galore to Radio Times in the hope one will get
published and a few people out there will hear the message I am trying
to send and look deeper into things.
Paul



On 12/06/2013 22:22, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.
>
> I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.
>
> This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
>> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
>> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
>> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
>> Like the history then!
>> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
>> the Yorks!
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul, the BBC does indeed show  some great programmes and they are usually on BBC 4 which to my mind is one of the few tv stations watching.  BBC also produces some utter dross. Have you ever seen BBC3 for example?  If you did, I bet it was only once.  As it's publicly funded, presumably it has to cater for all of us. 
 
As for me, I can't remember the last time I watched an ITV drama that wasn't "Foyle's War"
 
Liz
 

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 11:31
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen

 
Snip>  As to degenerate? Have you not noticed the wonderful biographical dramas
of Hattie Jacques, Frankie Howard, Hughie Green, Van Gogh etc of late,
or the series about Roman empresses, Pompeii, Dutch art, the Dark Ages,
Michael Wood on the Middle Ages or on Shakespeare, to name just a few.
One off documentaries like the marvellous film about Delphi that
Michaels Scott made a couple of years ago. And on the radio, dramas
about the Plantagenets, I Claudius, Shakespeare productions with the
likes of Branagh? None of these would be made if the channels were
simply commercial.
Name the last time ITV made a serious documentary
series, or showed any Shakespeare or serious drama other than something
based on Agatha Christie or the works of a popular novelist.

Excellent news.  I shall look forward to them both.


________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:


 
Yes I have. I want to polish it though. And I've now nearly finished a second, which I think is a tad better than the first. I intend to ebook them down the line once I'm sure of the quality - so many ebooks are a bit dubious on that

________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 10:02
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen

 

Hilary, have you considered self-publishing as an e-book?  The process is quite simple on Amazon, for example.  I am sure there are a lot of people out there who would love to read your novel.  It has been known for successful e-books to be turned into paper books - the 50 Shades trilogy for example.  Once you have demonstrated there is a market, traditional publishers tend to become interested.

________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

 
I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
 
'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if it's in the
right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
readership. It's up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
comfortable. As Gregory points out when matters of fact are in dispute I make
up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
accounts for the known facts'.
 
I think Gregory says it all .....

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:

1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)

2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.

PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.

It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'

Well Russell Howard is on BBC3 so it isn't all bad. And as you say they
have to cater for all tastes as the licence holder. Without the charter
they would cut all the good stuff and make all their channels like BBC1
and 3 combined. Imagine that? I'd spend much more time at the theatre
and cinema!
Yes, Foyles War good, rest of ITV not so much so....As for those Agatha
Christie adaptations I imagine the poor lady is spinning in her grave!
Got a great plot with amazing characters, so let's change at least half
of it! And people love nuns in mystery films, let's put nuns in
everything!>:o
Paul


On 13/06/2013 12:50, liz williams wrote:
> Paul, the BBC does indeed show some great programmes and they are usually on BBC 4 which to my mind is one of the few tv stations watching. BBC also produces some utter dross. Have you ever seen BBC3 for example? If you did, I bet it was only once. As it's publicly funded, presumably it has to cater for all of us.
>
> As for me, I can't remember the last time I watched an ITV drama that wasn't "Foyle's War"
>
> Liz
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 11:31
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>
>
> Snip> As to degenerate? Have you not noticed the wonderful biographical dramas
> of Hattie Jacques, Frankie Howard, Hughie Green, Van Gogh etc of late,
> or the series about Roman empresses, Pompeii, Dutch art, the Dark Ages,
> Michael Wood on the Middle Ages or on Shakespeare, to name just a few.
> One off documentaries like the marvellous film about Delphi that
> Michaels Scott made a couple of years ago. And on the radio, dramas
> about the Plantagenets, I Claudius, Shakespeare productions with the
> likes of Branagh? None of these would be made if the channels were
> simply commercial.
> Name the last time ITV made a serious documentary
> series, or showed any Shakespeare or serious drama other than something
> based on Agatha Christie or the works of a popular novelist.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Well said Elaine, absolutely agree. I wonder if the BBC will have a disclaimer e.g. this is definitely not history and is loosely based on characters who lived at the timeof nthe Wars of the Roses. If not would we be justified in bombarding them with questions asking what evidence do you have for saying xyz?

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.
>
> I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.
>
> This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> > of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> > Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> > It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> > Like the history then!
> > Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> > the Yorks!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

I don't often do "applause" posts, but I agree with everything you say about the BBC, Paul, and other channels, and commissioning etc.

Col

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Small point, please don't blame the BBC, who commission ideas and can
> rarely be held responsible for the final content. Starkey, who you
> quote, makes his programmes for Channel 4 who also give most programme
> makers free reign.
> I hate the way the BBC is criticised, chiefly by a government who simply
> wants to privatise everything that moves. BBC as SKY 1? Imagine!
> Imagine the BBC with commercials every few minutes. Bet that would score
> complaints galore. Tried watching BBC programmes on Yesterday, or the
> History channel? Horrible.
> For only a few pence a day we get all these wonderful tv and radio
> channels! I'd happily pay more to keep it as it is.
> I love the BBC and will put up with the odd crap it shows, like White
> Queen, and The Voice. It does have to be commercial at times, and such
> shows generate huge sales abroad.
> As to degenerate? Have you not noticed the wonderful biographical dramas
> of Hattie Jacques, Frankie Howard, Hughie Green, Van Gogh etc of late,
> or the series about Roman empresses, Pompeii, Dutch art, the Dark Ages,
> Michael Wood on the Middle Ages or on Shakespeare, to name just a few.
> One off documentaries like the marvellous film about Delphi that
> Michaels Scott made a couple of years ago. And on the radio, dramas
> about the Plantagenets, I Claudius, Shakespeare productions with the
> likes of Branagh? None of these would be made if the channels were
> simply commercial. Name the last time ITV made a serious documentary
> series, or showed any Shakespeare or serious drama other than something
> based on Agatha Christie or the works of a popular novelist.
>
> Would you shut down Channel 4 because of Starkey? No,of course not.
> What the likes of Starkey and Weir believe is not something I can do
> much about, [there are those so blind they cannot see - will not] and
> Starkey has a track record of successful television programmes behind
> him. So he gets the meetings.
> Philippa Gregory can say " my novels have been best sellers so millions
> will watch". She gets the meetings too.
> I have edited a number of documentaries and dramas, but have not
> produced or directed anything in this country. I do not have a track
> record as a director or producer here.
> I don't get the meetings.
> So my version of Richard's story looks like a huge risk to money men. As
> it would cost an awful lot of money to make it is a risk. I don't have a
> fan base because of my novels. I don't get meetings. I don't blame the
> BBC or Channel 4 for this. An editor making a huge epic. A huge risk. I
> can't even get past agents to get at directors with a track record
> either. Nor have I been able to get past the agents of producers and
> directors I have worked with in the past.
> Except the one I am trying to get something financed with. And bless
> him, he isn't Speilberg. Nor does he know him!
>
> So let's not destroy the BBC because you don't approve of a couple of
> programmes. There are plenty of rubbish channels to switch off first,
> channels that show commercials interspersed with the odd programme, as
> the BBC would become if it was privatised.
> I am dreading the White Queen, but will watch it, if only to pick it
> apart and write letters galore to Radio Times in the hope one will get
> published and a few people out there will hear the message I am trying
> to send and look deeper into things.
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 12/06/2013 22:22, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> > I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.
> >
> > I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.
> >
> > This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> >> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> >> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> >> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> >> Like the history then!
> >> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> >> the Yorks!
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

That says it all Hilary. What hope have we got if that is what the people want. Bodice rippers that have nothing to do with history.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
>  
> 'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
> and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
> researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
> indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if it’s in the
> right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
> mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
> about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
> and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
> attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
> passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
> into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
> as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
> man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
> readership. It’s up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
> comfortable. As Gregory points out ‘when matters of fact are in dispute I make
> up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
> gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
> accounts for the known facts’.
>  
> I think Gregory says it all .....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
>  
>
> I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:
>
> 1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)
>
> 2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.
>
> PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.
>
> It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'
>
>
>
>
>
>

wednesday_mc wrote:
//snip//
"PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of
money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes
historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting."
//snip//

Thanks for the critique of PG's "style". I particularly like the above;
especially that last sentence! (Made it possible for me to turn my
air-conditioning off!)
Doug

Yes but at least it is drama rather than " Have I got News for You" or "QI". Well maybe they think that endless Casualty and Holby City and Eastenders is sufficient.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, the BBC does indeed show  some great programmes and they are usually on BBC 4 which to my mind is one of the few tv stations watching.  BBC also produces some utter dross. Have you ever seen BBC3 for example?  If you did, I bet it was only once.  As it's publicly funded, presumably it has to cater for all of us. 
>  
> As for me, I can't remember the last time I watched an ITV drama that wasn't "Foyle's War"
>  
> Liz
>  
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 11:31
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>
>  
> Snip>  As to degenerate? Have you not noticed the wonderful biographical dramas
> of Hattie Jacques, Frankie Howard, Hughie Green, Van Gogh etc of late,
> or the series about Roman empresses, Pompeii, Dutch art, the Dark Ages,
> Michael Wood on the Middle Ages or on Shakespeare, to name just a few.
> One off documentaries like the marvellous film about Delphi that
> Michaels Scott made a couple of years ago. And on the radio, dramas
> about the Plantagenets, I Claudius, Shakespeare productions with the
> likes of Branagh? None of these would be made if the channels were
> simply commercial.
> Name the last time ITV made a serious documentary
> series, or showed any Shakespeare or serious drama other than something
> based on Agatha Christie or the works of a popular novelist.
>
>
>

Well said Paul. Like Liz, I turn to ITV for the 'detectives', not the serious stuff, I've yet to find any. 



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 11:31
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen


 

Small point, please don't blame the BBC, who commission ideas and can
rarely be held responsible for the final content. Starkey, who you
quote, makes his programmes for Channel 4 who also give most programme
makers free reign.
I hate the way the BBC is criticised, chiefly by a government who simply
wants to privatise everything that moves. BBC as SKY 1? Imagine!
Imagine the BBC with commercials every few minutes. Bet that would score
complaints galore. Tried watching BBC programmes on Yesterday, or the
History channel? Horrible.
For only a few pence a day we get all these wonderful tv and radio
channels! I'd happily pay more to keep it as it is.
I love the BBC and will put up with the odd crap it shows, like White
Queen, and The Voice. It does have to be commercial at times, and such
shows generate huge sales abroad.
As to degenerate? Have you not noticed the wonderful biographical dramas
of Hattie Jacques, Frankie Howard, Hughie Green, Van Gogh etc of late,
or the series about Roman empresses, Pompeii, Dutch art, the Dark Ages,
Michael Wood on the Middle Ages or on Shakespeare, to name just a few.
One off documentaries like the marvellous film about Delphi that
Michaels Scott made a couple of years ago. And on the radio, dramas
about the Plantagenets, I Claudius, Shakespeare productions with the
likes of Branagh? None of these would be made if the channels were
simply commercial. Name the last time ITV made a serious documentary
series, or showed any Shakespeare or serious drama other than something
based on Agatha Christie or the works of a popular novelist.

Would you shut down Channel 4 because of Starkey? No,of course not.
What the likes of Starkey and Weir believe is not something I can do
much about, [there are those so blind they cannot see - will not] and
Starkey has a track record of successful television programmes behind
him. So he gets the meetings.
Philippa Gregory can say " my novels have been best sellers so millions
will watch". She gets the meetings too.
I have edited a number of documentaries and dramas, but have not
produced or directed anything in this country. I do not have a track
record as a director or producer here.
I don't get the meetings.
So my version of Richard's story looks like a huge risk to money men. As
it would cost an awful lot of money to make it is a risk. I don't have a
fan base because of my novels. I don't get meetings. I don't blame the
BBC or Channel 4 for this. An editor making a huge epic. A huge risk. I
can't even get past agents to get at directors with a track record
either. Nor have I been able to get past the agents of producers and
directors I have worked with in the past.
Except the one I am trying to get something financed with. And bless
him, he isn't Speilberg. Nor does he know him!

So let's not destroy the BBC because you don't approve of a couple of
programmes. There are plenty of rubbish channels to switch off first,
channels that show commercials interspersed with the odd programme, as
the BBC would become if it was privatised.
I am dreading the White Queen, but will watch it, if only to pick it
apart and write letters galore to Radio Times in the hope one will get
published and a few people out there will hear the message I am trying
to send and look deeper into things.
Paul

On 12/06/2013 22:22, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and
writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence.
Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.
>
> I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.
>
> This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
>> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
>> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
>> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
>> Like the history then!
>> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
>> the Yorks!
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I actually don't mind if they like boddice rippers (quite a few people I know watched The Tudors for the laugh). It's when they believe it I become really cross. Like incest (how PG loves it) in 'The Other Boleyn Girl' 



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 16:02
Subject: Re: White Queen

 

That says it all Hilary. What hope have we got if that is what the people want. Bodice rippers that have nothing to do with history.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
>  
> 'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
> and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
> researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
> indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if itâ¬"s in the
> right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
> mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
> about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
> and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
> attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
> passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
> into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
> as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
> man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
> readership. Itâ¬"s up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
> comfortable. As Gregory points out â¬Üwhen matters of fact are in dispute I make
> up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
> gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
> accounts for the known factsâ¬".
>  
> I think Gregory says it all .....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
>  
>
> I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:
>
> 1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)
>
> 2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.
>
> PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.
>
> It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Paul

I think the BBC is in a Catch 22 situation. Whatever they do will bring criticism and that's because of what they are and how they are funded. They do good work but without without a BBC there would be no one to report impartially or to hold institutions to account. What saddens me though is that the BBC has lost credibility especially in the last year but this is not the place to discuss that.

I am saddened by the state of television today and feel nostalgic for the days when the BBC made such high quality drama and other programmes. Remember Play of the Month and all the Shakespeare plays, which was where and when many of us were first introduced to Shakespeare, Chekov etc. Also, Shakespeare on Radio 3 long ago when I would listen to and follow with the text in front of me. It saddens me to see the way the BBC has dumbed down and morphed into something that at times is barely indistinguishable from any other channel. Although they still can make quality dramas and other programmes as you point out. But the drama budget is now mainly concentrated on producing soap operas, where Eastenders from the BBC is indistinguishable from Emmerdale on ITV. Same storyline, same plots, same stock characters over and over again. That's where the money/budget goes and it is to attract ratings and keep the same audience. The Voice on BBC against Britain's Got Talent or any other Simon Cowell show.

You mention Starkey making his programmes for Channel 4. But these people have their own production companies so aren't they making them independently and then selling them to the TV channels and probably going to the highest bidders? In some cases, such as last year with the Shakespeare cycle of plays for the BBC, they only financed the first play, Richard II, and the producer was forced to find other ways to finance the other plays. I think he got sponsorship from one of the American TV channels eventually. This was because the BBC would not/could not allocate the funds required for the series of three plays. These are the type of changes that have affected how the BBC funds programmes and also what choices they make, That's the same everywhere, which is what Hilary was talking of with her novel. They simply won't take chances on some things unlike in the past. In addition, the competition to grab the viewing market makes them compete for the same audience, which is why their programmes are similar to their rivals and have the same content, which to us is sad as we remember a BBC with more integrity. Having said that though there were always programmes in the past, which catered for a similar market but there were also more quality dramas and documentaries to tip the balance in favour of quality.

I think we are in agreement as regards Starkey, Weir and Gregory and how they are able to manipulate opinion through the power they have. That comes, as you say, from the fact that they have "a name" which sells books, TV programmes etc. and regardless of whether they are truthful or honest or have integrity they can persuade TV companies/book publishers to take up the option to make their programmes or publish their books. Depending how much clout they have they also can demand overall control and can stipulate or demand whatever. Starkey reminds me of that character of David Walliams' in Little Britain where he wants to act the part, write the theme tune and sing the theme tune. In other words he wants it all – its my programme: I produce, I direct, I present. The camera follows me around – I act the part of the presenter with dramatic flourishes worthy of Olivier, pregnant pauses for dramatic irony, penetrating stares and disdainful expressions. In other words, it's a performance; for those who maybe are not aware what's happening are taken in by the whole charade. It's manipulation of the media and by the media on the viewer. It's a type of propaganda.

One of my main complaints was the way history is presented and how the media and those with influence are manipulating us using mainstream communications such as television.
Elaine








--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Small point, please don't blame the BBC, who commission ideas and can
> rarely be held responsible for the final content. Starkey, who you
> quote, makes his programmes for Channel 4 who also give most programme
> makers free reign.
> I hate the way the BBC is criticised, chiefly by a government who simply
> wants to privatise everything that moves. BBC as SKY 1? Imagine!
> Imagine the BBC with commercials every few minutes. Bet that would score
> complaints galore. Tried watching BBC programmes on Yesterday, or the
> History channel? Horrible.
> For only a few pence a day we get all these wonderful tv and radio
> channels! I'd happily pay more to keep it as it is.
> I love the BBC and will put up with the odd crap it shows, like White
> Queen, and The Voice. It does have to be commercial at times, and such
> shows generate huge sales abroad.
> As to degenerate? Have you not noticed the wonderful biographical dramas
> of Hattie Jacques, Frankie Howard, Hughie Green, Van Gogh etc of late,
> or the series about Roman empresses, Pompeii, Dutch art, the Dark Ages,
> Michael Wood on the Middle Ages or on Shakespeare, to name just a few.
> One off documentaries like the marvellous film about Delphi that
> Michaels Scott made a couple of years ago. And on the radio, dramas
> about the Plantagenets, I Claudius, Shakespeare productions with the
> likes of Branagh? None of these would be made if the channels were
> simply commercial. Name the last time ITV made a serious documentary
> series, or showed any Shakespeare or serious drama other than something
> based on Agatha Christie or the works of a popular novelist.
>
> Would you shut down Channel 4 because of Starkey? No,of course not.
> What the likes of Starkey and Weir believe is not something I can do
> much about, [there are those so blind they cannot see - will not] and
> Starkey has a track record of successful television programmes behind
> him. So he gets the meetings.
> Philippa Gregory can say " my novels have been best sellers so millions
> will watch". She gets the meetings too.
> I have edited a number of documentaries and dramas, but have not
> produced or directed anything in this country. I do not have a track
> record as a director or producer here.
> I don't get the meetings.
> So my version of Richard's story looks like a huge risk to money men. As
> it would cost an awful lot of money to make it is a risk. I don't have a
> fan base because of my novels. I don't get meetings. I don't blame the
> BBC or Channel 4 for this. An editor making a huge epic. A huge risk. I
> can't even get past agents to get at directors with a track record
> either. Nor have I been able to get past the agents of producers and
> directors I have worked with in the past.
> Except the one I am trying to get something financed with. And bless
> him, he isn't Speilberg. Nor does he know him!
>
> So let's not destroy the BBC because you don't approve of a couple of
> programmes. There are plenty of rubbish channels to switch off first,
> channels that show commercials interspersed with the odd programme, as
> the BBC would become if it was privatised.
> I am dreading the White Queen, but will watch it, if only to pick it
> apart and write letters galore to Radio Times in the hope one will get
> published and a few people out there will hear the message I am trying
> to send and look deeper into things.
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 12/06/2013 22:22, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> > I'm dreading this like I was dreading Desperate Remedies when I knew they would trash Rossetti and they did. He was no angel but he didn't deserve that trashy drama that was just sensationalising for effect and dumbing down. I didn't bother complaining to the BBC then as I knew from past experience it would be of no use; they would just hide behind author's interpretation again. I forced myself to watch in dismay until I could stand it no longer. The BBC has degenerated to such an extent and that goes for that trashy spin off magazine called BBC History with its tame pool of "popular" historians cum fiction writers such as Tracy Borman, Sarah Gristwood and the rest of Alison Weir's gang of girls. And they are not the only ones. Weir and her cohorts have cornered much of the market and are interviewed on television and radio documentaries, newspaper, magazines and other media, running organised tours throughout the country and interviewing and writing reviews for each other and those whom they wish to promote and giving talks where they interview each other in meet the author scenarios. They are not the only ones either. David Starkey is a similar case; he has his finger in many pies. Not only producing and presenting his own programmes which promulgate his warped views on Richard and the Wars of the Roses but he is also responsible for producing/directing other programmes. Did anyone notice that he was the producer/director of the Ian Mortimer programme last weekend? He is also on the editorial advisory board of History Today along with Nigel Saul who is another virulent critic of Richard and actually proclaims his belief in Shakespeare as an historian. Whilst they are only two members of the editorial advisory board of History Today, the point I am making is to show the influence of those who are and have been the fiercest critics of Richard and that they have positions of influence. Whether it be on television reaching out to a wider audience that includes viewers who do not have specialist knowledge and therefore could be swayed and influenced by what they hear and see, which will undoubtedly be the case for many who watch The White Queen by Phillipa Gregory who will take it as gospel as do those who believe Weir and Starkey. They believe what they say because they are historians therefore they are telling the truth. "And I saw it on television or read it in Alison Weir's book., so it must be true". Meanwhile we weep and rage at the injustice of it all as the facts are chased further from the truth and hidden in another layer of spin and obfuscation by those with books to sell and careers to maintain and profiles to keep in the public eye.
> >
> > I am not a fan of Bacon but I like his quote "truth is the daughter of time" and one day it will be made clear. We just need to maintain our scruples and keep to the high moral ground against those who continue with their money grubbing schemes to make money out of the controversy surrounding Richard. Amy License, Alison Weir, Phillipa Gregory, and the others should be seen for what they are; leeches and parasites whose aim is to just make money. The proof of that lies in the fact that their researches are so flawed and that they are so lazy regarding researching as the recent comment on how Gregory researches demonstrates.
> >
> > This has been a bit of a rant. But I do get very annoyed about how history is continually dumbed down and presented and how we seem to be fighting against those who have the media in their pocket. And how they use their influence unfairly when in fact they should not have any influence at all.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> Hate to say it but warning is needed that 'The White Queen' or 10 hours
> >> of Woodville history turned into fictional soap opera by Philippa
> >> Gregory starts at 21.00 this coming Sunday on BBC1 in the UK.
> >> It's in HD so the frocks will look nice, even if they aren't accurate.
> >> Like the history then!
> >> Batten down the hatches and prepare to be angered, personally and for
> >> the Yorks!
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

  I once read of someone who pitched the idea of a biography of someone (can't remember who) who was an amazing figure of the 1920s, a WWI hero etc and was told it wouldn't sell "because he isn't famous enough".  A friend of mine, with a proven track record, although he hasn't written a book for a few years, was told more or less the same thing.   I was lucky enough to read the proposal he did for the book and it was fantastic, plus the amount of work that went into it was incredible.  It must be soul destroying.
 
People are idiots and I often think that literary agents and editors are too - don't "they" want to read decent books  Surely we can't be the only ones?


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 16:02
Subject: Re: White Queen

 
That says it all Hilary. What hope have we got if that is what the people want. Bodice rippers that have nothing to do with history.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I was driven to dig this out. It's an editior's comment on my novel. As you can see, I was not in the Gregory category and therefore failed :)
>  
> 'A well-written serious novel about Anne Neville
> and Richard III set against the political background of the time, well
> researched and accurate in every respect with no sensational passages may
> indeed be taken up and have appeal to a small niche market (if itâ¬"s in the
> right place at the right time or if it wins the Booker, it may take you into
> mass market sales, but this is a chance in a million). A well-written novel
> about Anne Neville and her relationship with Richard, eventually her husband
> and a complex man, explored in some depth, with excellent characterisation, may
> attract a few more readers. A well-written more sensational dramatic and
> passionate account of young, attractive Anne Neville, political pawn pushed
> into dynastic marriage by a scheming father, an innocent abroad who learns fast
> as strives to make sense of scheming courtiers who surround her as well as the
> man to whom she is married, will probably attract a good mass market
> readership. Itâ¬"s up to you which tack you take and with which you will be
> comfortable. As Gregory points out â¬Üwhen matters of fact are in dispute I make
> up my own mind based on the evidence as I understand it, and when there is a
> gap in the historical record I invent, as a novelist should, a fiction which
> accounts for the known factsâ¬".
>  
> I think Gregory says it all .....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2013, 23:51
> Subject: Re: White Queen
>
>
>  
>
> I actually located a used copy of The White Queen and read it to try and understand what all the fuss is about. All I can come up with is:
>
> 1. It's written in language a ten-year-old could understand (very few compound sentences please) so no one has to work very hard to get through it. I think that's why it appeals to the general public, who don't want to work very hard to read anything. (Daily Mail, anyone?)
>
> 2. It's a popular novel, not a literary novel. As such, it more resembles an extended outline or first draft. Which means it's a book that's extremely easy, fast, and cheap to adapt to a screenplay or teleplay. Which unfortunately also means there's no real depth to any character or event: it's all simplistic, and it's all surface.
>
> PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting.
>
> It's not necessarily that she writes badly (aside from casting historical fact to the wind). Her audience is those who want thinly spun sugar, when some of us prefer a medieval banquet.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I know - it's frightening. All the fans on her website say she must be right because 'she is a historian who does her own research'. Everything begins with 'Philippa says'
>
>
>
>
>
>

Anytime Dickon needs an ice-moggie, I'm available. ::sweet smile::

Any road, I'm glad I could help out with your electricity bill.

Meow,
~Velvet Paws!Weds


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
> //snip//
> "PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of
> money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes
> historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting."
> //snip//
>
> Thanks for the critique of PG's "style". I particularly like the above;
> especially that last sentence! (Made it possible for me to turn my
> air-conditioning off!)
> Doug
>

wednesday_mc wrote:

"Anytime Dickon needs an ice-moggie, I'm available. ::sweet smile::
Any road, I'm glad I could help out with your electricity bill."

You get my very first "LOL"!
Doug
>
> Meow,
> ~Velvet Paws!Weds
>
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate"
> <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> wednesday_mc wrote:
>> //snip//
>> "PG writes on the same level as Danielle Steele, who also made a lot of
>> money. But grief, both authors' books are shallow. I suspect PG writes
>> historical fiction to save herself the bother of original plotting."
>> //snip//
>>
>> Thanks for the critique of PG's "style". I particularly like the above;
>> especially that last sentence! (Made it possible for me to turn my
>> air-conditioning off!)
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Tv Review of the programme this morning spoiled by Matthew Wright saying
how wonderfully readable and enjoyable the novels are!
BUT....
"First episode all about sex and I wanted more swords and battles and
intrigue. Oh that is coming, said the reviewer, as it is supposedly the
real life inspiration for Game of Thrones. But with risable dialogue,
and actors chewing the scenery, it is only marginally more like reality
than Game of Thrones is! Oh and Max Irons is very good looking."

Just two feet shorter than the real life Edward was!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I don't imagine George R.R. Martin would be pleased at his work being mentioned in the same paragraph as PG's...and definitely not the inadvertent suggestion that PG's work may have been the "real life inspiration for Game of Thrones."

Lord love a duck.

~Weds


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Tv Review of the programme this morning spoiled by Matthew Wright saying
> how wonderfully readable and enjoyable the novels are!
> BUT....
> "First episode all about sex and I wanted more swords and battles and
> intrigue. Oh that is coming, said the reviewer, as it is supposedly the
> real life inspiration for Game of Thrones. But with risable dialogue,
> and actors chewing the scenery, it is only marginally more like reality
> than Game of Thrones is! Oh and Max Irons is very good looking."
>
> Just two feet shorter than the real life Edward was!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

It was meant that the events in White Queen are those that inspired Game
of Thrones.
Paul

On 14/06/2013 18:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I don't imagine George R.R. Martin would be pleased at his work being mentioned in the same paragraph as PG's...and definitely not the inadvertent suggestion that PG's work may have been the "real life inspiration for Game of Thrones."
>
> Lord love a duck.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> Tv Review of the programme this morning spoiled by Matthew Wright saying
>> how wonderfully readable and enjoyable the novels are!
>> BUT....
>> "First episode all about sex and I wanted more swords and battles and
>> intrigue. Oh that is coming, said the reviewer, as it is supposedly the
>> real life inspiration for Game of Thrones. But with risable dialogue,
>> and actors chewing the scenery, it is only marginally more like reality
>> than Game of Thrones is! Oh and Max Irons is very good looking."
>>
>> Just two feet shorter than the real life Edward was!
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

We shall have much of this now. There was an article in I think the Telegraph last week that implied that PG had discovered that the Plantagenets were more exciting than the Tudors. No-one knew that before! We shall have to take a deep breath, try to maintain our sanity - but avoid kicking the cat:) BTW totally OT talking of the BBC did you see that marvellous prog the other night on the secret life of cats? Can't imagine Sky sponsoring that. 



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 16:57
Subject: White Queen


 

Tv Review of the programme this morning spoiled by Matthew Wright saying
how wonderfully readable and enjoyable the novels are!
BUT....
"First episode all about sex and I wanted more swords and battles and
intrigue. Oh that is coming, said the reviewer, as it is supposedly the
real life inspiration for Game of Thrones. But with risable dialogue,
and actors chewing the scenery, it is only marginally more like reality
than Game of Thrones is! Oh and Max Irons is very good looking."

Just two feet shorter than the real life Edward was!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I think it might mean the same thing to people who don't know the actual history, or how George twists history for his own uses, or how experienced George is in writing for television. His credentials as a screenwriter as well as an author are 100% more solid than PG's.

I know it's a marketing ploy to try and get the same viewers of Game of Thrones to watch White Queen, but eesh, the latter is nowhere near the same creative quality as the former. You need a playbook to keep track of how George has twisted actual history. But he doesn't call it history. Unlike PG.

~Weds


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> It was meant that the events in White Queen are those that inspired Game
> of Thrones.
> Paul
>
> On 14/06/2013 18:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
> > I don't imagine George R.R. Martin would be pleased at his work being mentioned in the same paragraph as PG's...and definitely not the inadvertent suggestion that PG's work may have been the "real life inspiration for Game of Thrones."
> >
> > Lord love a duck.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >> Tv Review of the programme this morning spoiled by Matthew Wright saying
> >> how wonderfully readable and enjoyable the novels are!
> >> BUT....
> >> "First episode all about sex and I wanted more swords and battles and
> >> intrigue. Oh that is coming, said the reviewer, as it is supposedly the
> >> real life inspiration for Game of Thrones. But with risable dialogue,
> >> and actors chewing the scenery, it is only marginally more like reality
> >> than Game of Thrones is! Oh and Max Irons is very good looking."
> >>
> >> Just two feet shorter than the real life Edward was!
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
Paul

On 15/06/2013 16:38, wednesday_mc wrote:
> I think it might mean the same thing to people who don't know the actual history, or how George twists history for his own uses, or how experienced George is in writing for television. His credentials as a screenwriter as well as an author are 100% more solid than PG's.
>
> I know it's a marketing ploy to try and get the same viewers of Game of Thrones to watch White Queen, but eesh, the latter is nowhere near the same creative quality as the former. You need a playbook to keep track of how George has twisted actual history. But he doesn't call it history. Unlike PG.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> It was meant that the events in White Queen are those that inspired Game
>> of Thrones.
>> Paul
>>
>> On 14/06/2013 18:36, wednesday_mc wrote:
>>> I don't imagine George R.R. Martin would be pleased at his work being mentioned in the same paragraph as PG's...and definitely not the inadvertent suggestion that PG's work may have been the "real life inspiration for Game of Thrones."
>>>
>>> Lord love a duck.
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>> Tv Review of the programme this morning spoiled by Matthew Wright saying
>>>> how wonderfully readable and enjoyable the novels are!
>>>> BUT....
>>>> "First episode all about sex and I wanted more swords and battles and
>>>> intrigue. Oh that is coming, said the reviewer, as it is supposedly the
>>>> real life inspiration for Game of Thrones. But with risable dialogue,
>>>> and actors chewing the scenery, it is only marginally more like reality
>>>> than Game of Thrones is! Oh and Max Irons is very good looking."
>>>>
>>>> Just two feet shorter than the real life Edward was!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I've also theorized the traits of certain real life persons sometimes get spread around among more than one character. Keeps things more 3-D, in terms of the story, and we can't just assume what the end result will be.

The good news about G of T is our 22-year old nephew now takes an interest in 15th C. history. We chat about these things right after each show, and my husband and I explain: "This/that is similar to....." 

I've heard some people are working on Ricardian graphic novels, so if anyone hears of an especially good one, let me know. A lot of these kids just don't read in depth the way we did, sad to say. 

Judy,
who is woefully behind on the G of T episodes, since we don't get HBO
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen



 
I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet!

Oh poor you. The last but one episode of series 3 is a real shocker,
that had even this jaded gentleman gasping in horror and disbelief!
Paul


On 16/06/2013 16:07, Judy Thomson wrote:
> I've also theorized the traits of certain real life persons sometimes get spread around among more than one character. Keeps things more 3-D, in terms of the story, and we can't just assume what the end result will be.
>
> The good news about G of T is our 22-year old nephew now takes an interest in 15th C. history. We chat about these things right after each show, and my husband and I explain: "This/that is similar to....."
>
> I've heard some people are working on Ricardian graphic novels, so if anyone hears of an especially good one, let me know. A lot of these kids just don't read in depth the way we did, sad to say.
>
> Judy,
> who is woefully behind on the G of T episodes, since we don't get HBO
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>
>
>
>
> I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
> throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
> pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
> young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

You mean THAT wedding?

(Read the books but not seen series 3 - like to wait for the BRs)

Wait till you see THAT push

And THAT toilet scene



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 19:33
Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones



 
Oh poor you. The last but one episode of series 3 is a real shocker,
that had even this jaded gentleman gasping in horror and disbelief!
Paul

On 16/06/2013 16:07, Judy Thomson wrote:
> I've also theorized the traits of certain real life persons sometimes get spread around among more than one character. Keeps things more 3-D, in terms of the story, and we can't just assume what the end result will be.
>
> The good news about G of T is our 22-year old nephew now takes an interest in 15th C. history. We chat about these things right after each show, and my husband and I explain: "This/that is similar to....."
>
> I've heard some people are working on Ricardian graphic novels, so if anyone hears of an especially good one, let me know. A lot of these kids just don't read in depth the way we did, sad to say.
>
> Judy,
> who is woefully behind on the G of T episodes, since we don't get HBO
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>
>
>
>
> I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
> throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
> pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
> young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
> Paul
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

On 16/06/2013 20:14, david rayner wrote:
> You mean THAT wedding?
>
> (Read the books but not seen series 3 - like to wait for the BRs)
>
> Wait till you see THAT push
>
> And THAT toilet scene
>
I hope both are something to do with the demise of THAT horrible Joffrey!
BR's are already available. In UK at least.
Paul



>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 19:33
> Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones
>
>
>
>
> Oh poor you. The last but one episode of series 3 is a real shocker,
> that had even this jaded gentleman gasping in horror and disbelief!
> Paul
>
> On 16/06/2013 16:07, Judy Thomson wrote:
>> I've also theorized the traits of certain real life persons sometimes get spread around among more than one character. Keeps things more 3-D, in terms of the story, and we can't just assume what the end result will be.
>>
>> The good news about G of T is our 22-year old nephew now takes an interest in 15th C. history. We chat about these things right after each show, and my husband and I explain: "This/that is similar to....."
>>
>> I've heard some people are working on Ricardian graphic novels, so if anyone hears of an especially good one, let me know. A lot of these kids just don't read in depth the way we did, sad to say.
>>
>> Judy,
>> who is woefully behind on the G of T episodes, since we don't get HBO
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
>> throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
>> pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
>> young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
>> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
>> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul wrote:
>
> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)


Didn't she have two? Morton and Bray? Sort of like Thor's ravens: "Fly out each day and report to me each night."

Had or was?
----- Original Message -----
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen



Paul wrote:
>
> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)

Didn't she have two? Morton and Bray? Sort of like Thor's ravens: "Fly out each day and report to me each night."

Only for the first two seasons, I'll have to wait till March for series three.

No, what happens to Joffrey is that there's another... but that would be telling.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 22:53
Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones



 
On 16/06/2013 20:14, david rayner wrote:
> You mean THAT wedding?
>
> (Read the books but not seen series 3 - like to wait for the BRs)
>
> Wait till you see THAT push
>
> And THAT toilet scene
>
I hope both are something to do with the demise of THAT horrible Joffrey!
BR's are already available. In UK at least.
Paul

>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 19:33
> Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones
>
>
>
>
> Oh poor you. The last but one episode of series 3 is a real shocker,
> that had even this jaded gentleman gasping in horror and disbelief!
> Paul
>
> On 16/06/2013 16:07, Judy Thomson wrote:
>> I've also theorized the traits of certain real life persons sometimes get spread around among more than one character. Keeps things more 3-D, in terms of the story, and we can't just assume what the end result will be.
>>
>> The good news about G of T is our 22-year old nephew now takes an interest in 15th C. history. We chat about these things right after each show, and my husband and I explain: "This/that is similar to....."
>>
>> I've heard some people are working on Ricardian graphic novels, so if anyone hears of an especially good one, let me know. A lot of these kids just don't read in depth the way we did, sad to say.
>>
>> Judy,
>> who is woefully behind on the G of T episodes, since we don't get HBO
>>
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
>> throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
>> pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
>> young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
>> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
>> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Are you in States then? All 3 series are on Blu Ray now here in the UK.
Spoiler.
Joffrey's "fans" will be very pleased with his spectacular and much
deserved demise in the middle of series 4, assuming it has been
commissioned [PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!}
Paul


On 17/06/2013 21:25, david rayner wrote:
> Only for the first two seasons, I'll have to wait till March for series three.
>
> No, what happens to Joffrey is that there's another... but that would be telling.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 22:53
> Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones
>
>
>
>
> On 16/06/2013 20:14, david rayner wrote:
>> You mean THAT wedding?
>>
>> (Read the books but not seen series 3 - like to wait for the BRs)
>>
>> Wait till you see THAT push
>>
>> And THAT toilet scene
>>
> I hope both are something to do with the demise of THAT horrible Joffrey!
> BR's are already available. In UK at least.
> Paul
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh poor you. The last but one episode of series 3 is a real shocker,
>> that had even this jaded gentleman gasping in horror and disbelief!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 16/06/2013 16:07, Judy Thomson wrote:
>>> I've also theorized the traits of certain real life persons sometimes get spread around among more than one character. Keeps things more 3-D, in terms of the story, and we can't just assume what the end result will be.
>>>
>>> The good news about G of T is our 22-year old nephew now takes an interest in 15th C. history. We chat about these things right after each show, and my husband and I explain: "This/that is similar to....."
>>>
>>> I've heard some people are working on Ricardian graphic novels, so if anyone hears of an especially good one, let me know. A lot of these kids just don't read in depth the way we did, sad to say.
>>>
>>> Judy,
>>> who is woefully behind on the G of T episodes, since we don't get HBO
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:30 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
>>> throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
>>> pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
>>> young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
>>> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
>>> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Are you sure?

Amazon are taking preorders, but I doubt it'll be released until next year.

Where did you see it for sale?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Game-Thrones-Season-3-DVD/dp/B00AQGE43M/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1371506143&sr=8-9&keywords=game+of+thrones



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 22:06
Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones



 
Are you in States then? All 3 series are on Blu Ray now here in the UK.
Spoiler.
Joffrey's "fans" will be very pleased with his spectacular and much
deserved demise in the middle of series 4, assuming it has been
commissioned [PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!}
Paul

On 17/06/2013 21:25, david rayner wrote:
> Only for the first two seasons, I'll have to wait till March for series three.
>
> No, what happens to Joffrey is that there's another... but that would be telling.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 22:53
> Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones
>
>
>
>
> On 16/06/2013 20:14, david rayner wrote:
>> You mean THAT wedding?
>>
>> (Read the books but not seen series 3 - like to wait for the BRs)
>>
>> Wait till you see THAT push
>>
>> And THAT toilet scene
>>
> I hope both are something to do with the demise of THAT horrible Joffrey!
> BR's are already available. In UK at least.
> Paul
>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, 16 June 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: Re: WQ v. Game of Thrones
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh poor you. The last but one episode of series 3 is a real shocker,
>> that had even this jaded gentleman gasping in horror and disbelief!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 16/06/2013 16:07, Judy Thomson wrote:
>>> I've also theorized the traits of certain real life persons sometimes get spread around among more than one character. Keeps things more 3-D, in terms of the story, and we can't just assume what the end result will be.
>>>
>>> The good news about G of T is our 22-year old nephew now takes an interest in 15th C. history. We chat about these things right after each show, and my husband and I explain: "This/that is similar to....."
>>>
>>> I've heard some people are working on Ricardian graphic novels, so if anyone hears of an especially good one, let me know. A lot of these kids just don't read in depth the way we did, sad to say.
>>>
>>> Judy,
>>> who is woefully behind on the G of T episodes, since we don't get HBO
>>>
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 6:30 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think George simply though the idea of two families fighting for the
>>> throne a terrific idea for a book, and that was it, with the York ma and
>>> pa and brothers clearly inspiration for the Starks, and the ghastly
>>> young son and ambitious Lannister mother for the Lancasters.
>>> Clearly all the other claimants are fiction, unless you think Margaret
>>> Beaufort had a real dragon!:-)
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!