White Queen cont

I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
First big hit against the Yorks.
Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
 
The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
 
Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
Subject: White Queen cont


 

I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
First big hit against the Yorks.
Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Excellent questions, Paul. I am not a writer, so have no clue why this particular one, continues to choose the Lancasters over the Plantagenets. Perhaps she is just a part of the rabble, and is cashing in on t he whole Tudor mythology. What bothers me is her hubris, calling herself an author/historian.

On Jun 17, 2013, at 3:18 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
First big hit against the Yorks.
Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.

I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.

Col

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>  
> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
>  
> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> Subject: White Queen cont
>
>
>  
>
> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> First big hit against the Yorks.
> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur. It's the 'just for the drama of it' that gets me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical fiction and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your character isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at Waterloo as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a minor role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs like saying that major historical characters were there when they weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she writes fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian and believe it. That's what I find more than a little annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.  



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 

I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.

I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.

Col

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>  
> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
>  
> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> Subject: White Queen cont
>
>
>  
>
> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> First big hit against the Yorks.
> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

That is exactly what I think, you just stated it far better than I!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:20 AM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur. It's the 'just for the drama of it' that gets me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical fiction and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your character isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at Waterloo as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a minor role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs like saying that major historical characters were there when they weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she writes fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian and believe it. That's what I find more than a little annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.

________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.

I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.

Col

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> Â
> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
> Â
> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :)Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> Subject: White Queen cont
>
>
> Â
>
> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> First big hit against the Yorks.
> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Must be the Hexham/Hegeley Moor campaigns in the North-East, after which Henry was captured and Margaret fled into Scotland. Hardly a day's ride from Grafton, but then again it was Warwick's brother Montagu who fought the battles for King Edward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_hexham


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hedgeley_Moor



Duchess Cecily (or more usually a previous Duchess of Gloucester) is sometimes regarded as the model for the Duchess in Wonderland, with the piglet she nurses being baby Richard:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121636/


http://starwarstika.50webs.com/burton.html


http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/explain/alice808.html



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



 
It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
 
The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
 
Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
Subject: White Queen cont


 

I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
First big hit against the Yorks.
Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

There are some lovely comments in the Guardian reviews - I live in hope that folks have more sense than we sometimes give them credit for! 



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:27
Subject: RE: White Queen cont

 

That is exactly what I think, you just stated it far better than I!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:20 AM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur. It's the 'just for the drama of it' that gets me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical fiction and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your character isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at Waterloo as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a minor role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs like saying that major historical characters were there when they weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she writes fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian and believe it. That's what I find more than a little annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.

________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.

I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.

Col

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> Â
> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
> Â
> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :)Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> Subject: White Queen cont
>
>
> Â
>
> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> First big hit against the Yorks.
> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Well, the costumes were just wrong, weren't they? The BBC wardrobe Dept. obviously don't understand how the 15th century "princess line" gowns were made. There was no separate bodice and skirt. They were just big tents with a deep neck opening turned over to make a collar, & cinched in under the bust with a cummerbund. Underneath was a kirtle, which would have been fitted round the waist. It works really well - I had a winter wedding and used that technique for my wedding dress.
And they've introduced the boat-shaped necklines from the 1480s into the 1460s. To say nothing of lack of head coverings, linen shifts, etc.
As for the men in their baggy trousers! I can only suppose they wanted to have the guys able to strip to the waist without their hose falling down.

It was eminently watchable, but what a childish take on history! The good news, surely, is that few people will be able to take it seriously. Will they?

Marie


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>  
> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
>  
> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> Subject: White Queen cont
>
>
>  
>
> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> First big hit against the Yorks.
> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

I was just thinking the same, reading it right now. I especially liked the remarks about Edward (and Henry VIII) looking like "prize winning porkers"!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/17/the-white-queen-tv-review

--- On Mon, 17/6/13, Hilary Jones wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> To: ""
> Date: Monday, 17 June, 2013, 15:45
>

>
> There are some lovely comments in the Guardian
> reviews - I live in hope that folks have more sense than we
> sometimes give them credit for! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Pamela Bain
>
> To: ""
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:27
>
> Subject: RE: White Queen cont
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> That is exactly what I think, you just stated it far better
> than I!
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:]
> On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:20 AM
>
> To:
>
>
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
> Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur.
> It's the 'just for the drama of it' that gets
> me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical fiction
> and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your character
> isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at Waterloo
> as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a minor
> role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs like
> saying that major historical characters were there when they
> weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century
> Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she writes
> fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian and
> believe it. That's what I find more than a little
> annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: colyngbourne >
>
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
>
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
> I think the early reference to Edward conducting
> "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed,
> made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard
> announces the pre-contract. The audience will
> "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did
> definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to
> Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we
> know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and
> construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference
> to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think
> Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth
> Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic
> pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor
> Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up
> so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the
> throne later on.
>
>
>
> I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of
> Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville,
> against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few
> hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they
> included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple
> of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
>
>
> Col
>
>
>
> --- In ,
> Hilary Jones >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons
> playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to
> TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby
> was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer
> and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were
> done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles),
> the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and
> there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a
> son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in
> Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And
> there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the
> background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>
> > Â
>
> > The only redeeming performance was Frain's
> marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but
> riveting all the same. In a different class.
>
> > Â
>
> > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off
> to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background
> would understand what they were on about? Until half way
> through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because
> they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't
> understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the
> battle :)Â
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >
>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum >
>
>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>
> > Subject: White Queen cont
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Â
>
> >
>
> > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of
> Savoy arriving at the
>
> > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of
> his marriage to EW!
>
> > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of
> Duchess Cecily.
>
> > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was
> haggard and spiteful.
>
> > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little
> pride!
>
> > First big hit against the Yorks.
>
> > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the
> Yorks. Why not
>
> > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those
> Lancastrian women? Or
>
> > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by
> how she views Cis!
>
> > Paul
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.
>
> I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
> Col
>


I reckon they did. And not only was Edward not present (as usual, he'd started north but never quite made it to the scene of the action), nor was Queen Margaret. She didn't take her son to Scotland afterwards (as per Philippa Gregory) because she'd already done the going to Scotland bit. She'd taken her son and disappeared off to the continent at the end of 1463 to try to drum up support there.
Marie



> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> >  
> > The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
> >  
> > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> > Subject: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> > First big hit against the Yorks.
> > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

And which one of us is the one saying how handsome and interesting Richard is? If it isn't one of us I live in hope! 



________________________________
From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:48
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 

I was just thinking the same, reading it right now. I especially liked the remarks about Edward (and Henry VIII) looking like "prize winning porkers"!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/17/the-white-queen-tv-review

--- On Mon, 17/6/13, Hilary Jones wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> To: ""
> Date: Monday, 17 June, 2013, 15:45
>

>
> There are some lovely comments in the Guardian
> reviews - I live in hope that folks have more sense than we
> sometimes give them credit for! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Pamela Bain
>
> To: ""
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:27
>
> Subject: RE: White Queen cont
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> That is exactly what I think, you just stated it far better
> than I!
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:]
> On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:20 AM
>
> To:
>
>
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
> Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur.
> It's the 'just for the drama of it' that gets
> me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical fiction
> and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your character
> isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at Waterloo
> as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a minor
> role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs like
> saying that major historical characters were there when they
> weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century
> Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she writes
> fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian and
> believe it. That's what I find more than a little
> annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: colyngbourne >
>
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
>
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
> I think the early reference to Edward conducting
> "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed,
> made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard
> announces the pre-contract. The audience will
> "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did
> definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to
> Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we
> know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and
> construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference
> to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think
> Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth
> Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic
> pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor
> Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up
> so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the
> throne later on.
>
>
>
> I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of
> Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville,
> against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few
> hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they
> included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple
> of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
>
>
> Col
>
>
>
> --- In ,
> Hilary Jones >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons
> playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to
> TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby
> was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer
> and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were
> done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles),
> the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and
> there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a
> son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in
> Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And
> there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the
> background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>
> > Â
>
> > The only redeeming performance was Frain's
> marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but
> riveting all the same. In a different class.
>
> > Â
>
> > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off
> to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background
> would understand what they were on about? Until half way
> through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because
> they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't
> understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the
> battle :)Â
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >
>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum >
>
>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>
> > Subject: White Queen cont
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Â
>
> >
>
> > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of
> Savoy arriving at the
>
> > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of
> his marriage to EW!
>
> > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of
> Duchess Cecily.
>
> > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was
> haggard and spiteful.
>
> > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little
> pride!
>
> > First big hit against the Yorks.
>
> > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the
> Yorks. Why not
>
> > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those
> Lancastrian women? Or
>
> > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by
> how she views Cis!
>
> > Paul
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes one of the reviews says the series covers the battle of Hexham to the battle of Bosworth.



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:54
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 



--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.
>
> I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
> Col
>

I reckon they did. And not only was Edward not present (as usual, he'd started north but never quite made it to the scene of the action), nor was Queen Margaret. She didn't take her son to Scotland afterwards (as per Philippa Gregory) because she'd already done the going to Scotland bit. She'd taken her son and disappeared off to the continent at the end of 1463 to try to drum up support there.
Marie

> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> >  
> > The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
> >  
> > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> > Subject: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> > First big hit against the Yorks.
> > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I wondered whether the show's intention was to show that Edward created confusion all around with his affairs, to the extent that Richard might have genuine reason to think he'd been married before. Unless they are actually suggesting that the only pre-contract tale out there concerned Elizabeth Lucy.....

--- On Mon, 17/6/13, colyngbourne wrote:

> From: colyngbourne
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> To:
> Date: Monday, 17 June, 2013, 14:52
>
>
> I think the early reference to Edward conducting
> "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed,
> made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard
> announces the pre-contract. The audience will
> "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did
> definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to
> Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we
> know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and
> construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference
> to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think
> Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth
> Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic
> pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor
> Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up
> so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the
> throne later on.
>
>
>
> I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of
> Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville,
> against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few
> hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they
> included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple
> of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
>
>
> Col
>
>
>
> --- In ,
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> >
>
> > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons
> playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to
> TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby
> was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer
> and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were
> done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles),
> the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and
> there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a
> son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in
> Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And
> there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the
> background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>
> >  
>
> > The only redeeming performance was Frain's
> marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but
> riveting all the same. In a different class.
>
> >  
>
> > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off
> to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background
> would understand what they were on about? Until half way
> through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because
> they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't
> understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the
> battle :) 
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum
>
>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>
> > Subject: White Queen cont
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of
> Savoy arriving at the
>
> > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of
> his marriage to EW!
>
> > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of
> Duchess Cecily.
>
> > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was
> haggard and spiteful.
>
> > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little
> pride!
>
> > First big hit against the Yorks.
>
> > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the
> Yorks. Why not
>
> > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those
> Lancastrian women? Or
>
> > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by
> how she views Cis!
>
> > Paul
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah, reading this review I now get the purpose of Anthony Woodville sayig it was a fake wedding and asking who the priest was. Evidently PG doesn't understand that a priest was not necessary for a valid wedding in them there olden days.
Marie



--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> I was just thinking the same, reading it right now. I especially liked the remarks about Edward (and Henry VIII) looking like "prize winning porkers"!
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/17/the-white-queen-tv-review
>
> --- On Mon, 17/6/13, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> > To: ""
> > Date: Monday, 17 June, 2013, 15:45
> >
>
> >
> > There are some lovely comments in the Guardian
> > reviews - I live in hope that folks have more sense than we
> > sometimes give them credit for! 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> >
> > To: ""
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:27
> >
> > Subject: RE: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > That is exactly what I think, you just stated it far better
> > than I!
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:]
> > On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
> >
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:20 AM
> >
> > To:
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur.
> > It's the 'just for the drama of it' that gets
> > me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical fiction
> > and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your character
> > isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at Waterloo
> > as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a minor
> > role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs like
> > saying that major historical characters were there when they
> > weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century
> > Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she writes
> > fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian and
> > believe it. That's what I find more than a little
> > annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: colyngbourne >
> >
> >
> > To:
> >
> >
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
> >
> > Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the early reference to Edward conducting
> > "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed,
> > made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard
> > announces the pre-contract. The audience will
> > "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did
> > definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to
> > Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we
> > know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and
> > construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference
> > to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think
> > Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth
> > Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic
> > pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor
> > Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up
> > so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the
> > throne later on.
> >
> >
> >
> > I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of
> > Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville,
> > against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few
> > hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they
> > included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple
> > of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
> >
> >
> >
> > Col
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In ,
> > Hilary Jones >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons
> > playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to
> > TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby
> > was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer
> > and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were
> > done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles),
> > the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and
> > there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a
> > son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in
> > Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And
> > there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the
> > background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> >
> > > Â
> >
> > > The only redeeming performance was Frain's
> > marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but
> > riveting all the same. In a different class.
> >
> > > Â
> >
> > > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off
> > to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background
> > would understand what they were on about? Until half way
> > through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because
> > they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't
> > understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the
> > battle :)Â
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ________________________________
> >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > >
> >
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum >
> >
> >
> > > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> >
> > > Subject: White Queen cont
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Â
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of
> > Savoy arriving at the
> >
> > > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of
> > his marriage to EW!
> >
> > > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of
> > Duchess Cecily.
> >
> > > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was
> > haggard and spiteful.
> >
> > > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little
> > pride!
> >
> > > First big hit against the Yorks.
> >
> > > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the
> > Yorks. Why not
> >
> > > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those
> > Lancastrian women? Or
> >
> > > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by
> > how she views Cis!
> >
> > > Paul
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --
> >
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

See what you mean about the Battle of Hexham but surely PG wouldn't have done enough research to know about it would she?

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.
>
> I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> >  
> > The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
> >  
> > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> > Subject: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> > First big hit against the Yorks.
> > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I've just read the comment below that about Edward having a "face like a Belfast ham" :-) :-)

--- On Mon, 17/6/13, Hilary Jones wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> To: ""
> Date: Monday, 17 June, 2013, 15:55
>

>
>
> And which one of us is the one saying how handsome
> and interesting Richard is? If it isn't one of us I live
> in hope! 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Janet Ashton
>
> To:
>
>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:48
>
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I was just thinking the same, reading it right now. I
> especially liked the remarks about Edward (and Henry VIII)
> looking like "prize winning porkers"!
>
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/17/the-white-queen-tv-review
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 17/6/13, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> > From: Hilary Jones
>
> > Subject: Re: White Queen
> cont
>
> > To: ""
>
>
> > Date: Monday, 17 June, 2013, 15:45
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
>
> > There are some lovely comments in the Guardian
>
> > reviews - I live in hope that folks have more sense
> than we
>
> > sometimes give them credit for! 
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> >
>
> > From: Pamela Bain
>
> >
>
> > To: ""
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:27
>
> >
>
> > Subject: RE: White Queen
> cont
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >  
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That is exactly what I think, you just stated it far
> better
>
> > than I!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:]
>
> > On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:20 AM
>
> >
>
> > To:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: White Queen
> cont
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur.
>
> > It's the 'just for the drama of it' that
> gets
>
> > me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical
> fiction
>
> > and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your
> character
>
> > isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at
> Waterloo
>
> > as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a
> minor
>
> > role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs
> like
>
> > saying that major historical characters were there when
> they
>
> > weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century
>
> > Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she
> writes
>
> > fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian
> and
>
> > believe it. That's what I find more than a little
>
> > annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> >
>
> > From: colyngbourne >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > To:
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: White Queen
> cont
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I think the early reference to Edward conducting
>
> > "pretend marriages" with women he wants to
> bed,
>
> > made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when
> Richard
>
> > announces the pre-contract. The audience will
>
> > "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did
>
> > definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage
> to
>
> > Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that
> we
>
> > know Richard is just taking something known to be a
> fake and
>
> > construing it as real and serious. And I think the
> reference
>
> > to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me
> think
>
> > Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth
>
> > Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic
>
> > pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of
> Eleanor
>
> > Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic
> set-up
>
> > so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take
> the
>
> > throne later on.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle
> of
>
> > Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville,
>
> > against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few
>
> > hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it,
> they
>
> > included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a
> couple
>
> > of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Col
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In
> ,
>
> > Hilary Jones >
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It was like watching Prince William playing Max
> Irons
>
> > playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped
> out to
>
> > TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear.
> Hubby
>
> > was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an
> engineer
>
> > and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they
> were
>
> > done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see
> freckles),
>
> > the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers
> and
>
> > there was talk of Edward 'already being married
> with a
>
> > son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice
> in
>
> > Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her.
> And
>
> > there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in
> the
>
> > background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>
> >
>
> > > Â
>
> >
>
> > > The only redeeming performance was Frain's
>
> > marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick,
> but
>
> > riveting all the same. In a different class.
>
> >
>
> > > Â
>
> >
>
> > > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to
> pop off
>
> > to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the
> background
>
> > would understand what they were on about? Until half
> way
>
> > through Hubby thought Edward was called HenryÂ
> because
>
> > they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't
>
> > understand why he came back happy when he'd lost
> the
>
> > battle :)Â
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ________________________________
>
> >
>
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > To: RichardIIISociety forum >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>
> >
>
> > > Subject: White Queen
> cont
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Â
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona
> of
>
> > Savoy arriving at the
>
> >
>
> > > court of Edward IV just in time for the
> announcement of
>
> > his marriage to EW!
>
> >
>
> > > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal
> of
>
> > Duchess Cecily.
>
> >
>
> > > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was
>
> > haggard and spiteful.
>
> >
>
> > > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious
> little
>
> > pride!
>
> >
>
> > > First big hit against the Yorks.
>
> >
>
> > > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against
> the
>
> > Yorks. Why not
>
> >
>
> > > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all
> those
>
> > Lancastrian women? Or
>
> >
>
> > > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't
> judging by
>
> > how she views Cis!
>
> >
>
> > > Paul
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

In other words, inserting Elizabeth Lucy and Arthur into the pre-contract is just to copy More although it gives Edward a legitimate child who lived to 1542.
----- Original Message -----
From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 2:52 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



I think the early reference to Edward conducting "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed, made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard announces the pre-contract. The audience will "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the throne later on.

I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville, against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple of dozen men from Northamptonshire.

Col

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> Â
> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
> Â
> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :)Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> Subject: White Queen cont
>
>
> Â
>
> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> First big hit against the Yorks.
> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

Now that I didn't know - though perhaps I should have guessed from the EOY playing cards thing?



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:33
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 

Must be the Hexham/Hegeley Moor campaigns in the North-East, after which Henry was captured and Margaret fled into Scotland. Hardly a day's ride from Grafton, but then again it was Warwick's brother Montagu who fought the battles for King Edward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_hexham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hedgeley_Moor

Duchess Cecily (or more usually a previous Duchess of Gloucester) is sometimes regarded as the model for the Duchess in Wonderland, with the piglet she nurses being baby Richard:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121636/

http://starwarstika.50webs.com/burton.html

http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/explain/alice808.html

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:38
Subject: Re: White Queen cont


 
It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
 
The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
 
Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :) 

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
Subject: White Queen cont

 

I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
First big hit against the Yorks.
Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Quote from the article you posted:
Well look at them  she's heaving and pouting and blushing, while doing her damnedest to maintain her demurity. He's tearing off her clothes with his eyes; this young man has a reputation (take-'em-to-beddy-Eddie they call him in court  behind his back, obviously, otherwise it's off-with-your-heady).

Ok, I was laughing at that one.
I watched it this morning. Fairly lame, and as noted, neither actors in the main roles did I actually feel any affinity towards. Even knowing them from books.

I was not impressed at all how they portrayed Cecily. That may be the first of many times I will be peeved, I'm almost certain.
Rita

From: Janet Ashton
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 10:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen cont


I was just thinking the same, reading it right now. I especially liked the remarks about Edward (and Henry VIII) looking like "prize winning porkers"!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/17/the-white-queen-tv-review

--- On Mon, 17/6/13, Hilary Jones wrote:

> From: Hilary Jones
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
> Date: Monday, 17 June, 2013, 15:45
>

>
> There are some lovely comments in the Guardian
> reviews - I live in hope that folks have more sense than we
> sometimes give them credit for!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Pamela Bain
>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 15:27
>
> Subject: RE: White Queen cont
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That is exactly what I think, you just stated it far better
> than I!
>
>
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
>
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:20 AM
>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
> Yes I'd got it was Elizabeth Lucy and our Arthur.
> It's the 'just for the drama of it' that gets
> me. I read Bernard Cornwell on writing historical fiction
> and he says yes, embroider round the edges if your character
> isn't a historical one (so he can put Sharpe at Waterloo
> as long as Wellington didn't lose it and plays a minor
> role in Sharpe's story) but don't tell fibs like
> saying that major historical characters were there when they
> weren't or have snowdrops growing in fifth century
> Britain. PG doesn't write historical fiction; she writes
> fiction. Trouble is people think she's a historian and
> believe it. That's what I find more than a little
> annoying. Sorry for the rant, but it does annoy me.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: colyngbourne >
>
>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 14:52
>
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
> I think the early reference to Edward conducting
> "pretend marriages" with women he wants to bed,
> made by Anthony W, is setting the scene for when Richard
> announces the pre-contract. The audience will
> "know" that Anthony has told us Edward did
> definitely engineer a fake wedding before the marriage to
> Elizabeth (complete with bastard child issue), so that we
> know Richard is just taking something known to be a fake and
> construing it as real and serious. And I think the reference
> to the anon. woman already having a child, makes me think
> Gregory is working along the lines of "Elizabeth
> Lucy", to add into the disbelief of an authentic
> pre-contract: since there is no serious mention of Eleanor
> Talbot having a child, is there? It is all a dramatic set-up
> so the audience know Richard is faking reasons to take the
> throne later on.
>
>
>
> I reckon they conjured the battle as being the Battle of
> Hexham, which was mid-May, but fought by John Neville,
> against (principally) the Duke of Somerset, and a few
> hundred miles north. Again, just for the drama of it, they
> included Edward as fighting in it, and as mustering a couple
> of dozen men from Northamptonshire.
>
>
>
> Col
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com ,
> Hilary Jones >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons
> playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to
> TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby
> was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer
> and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were
> done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles),
> the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and
> there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a
> son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in
> Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And
> there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the
> background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>
> > Â
>
> > The only redeeming performance was Frain's
> marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but
> riveting all the same. In a different class.
>
> > Â
>
> > Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off
> to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background
> would understand what they were on about? Until half way
> through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because
> they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't
> understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the
> battle :)Â
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> >
>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum >
>
>
> > Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>
> > Subject: White Queen cont
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Â
>
> >
>
> > I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of
> Savoy arriving at the
>
> > court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of
> his marriage to EW!
>
> > The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of
> Duchess Cecily.
>
> > Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was
> haggard and spiteful.
>
> > Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little
> pride!
>
> > First big hit against the Yorks.
>
> > Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the
> Yorks. Why not
>
> > write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those
> Lancastrian women? Or
>
> > perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by
> how she views Cis!
>
> > Paul
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

oh it was supposed to be take on history? I didn't realise....
Richard looked good for an 11 year old didn't he? Especially with a
mother out of Alice in Wonderland!!
Paul

On 17/06/2013 15:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Well, the costumes were just wrong, weren't they? The BBC wardrobe Dept. obviously don't understand how the 15th century "princess line" gowns were made. There was no separate bodice and skirt. They were just big tents with a deep neck opening turned over to make a collar, & cinched in under the bust with a cummerbund. Underneath was a kirtle, which would have been fitted round the waist. It works really well - I had a winter wedding and used that technique for my wedding dress.
> And they've introduced the boat-shaped necklines from the 1480s into the 1460s. To say nothing of lack of head coverings, linen shifts, etc.
> As for the men in their baggy trousers! I can only suppose they wanted to have the guys able to strip to the waist without their hose falling down.
>
> It was eminently watchable, but what a childish take on history! The good news, surely, is that few people will be able to take it seriously. Will they?
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>> Â
>> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
>> Â
>> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :)Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>> Subject: White Queen cont
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
>> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
>> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
>> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
>> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
>> First big hit against the Yorks.
>> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
>> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
>> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

They grew up quickly in those days because life was short:) But - the tabloids seem to have pulled it to bits, so it must be bad. We must stop gloating. (I do wish MB didn't look like a hamster).


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 18:36
Subject: Re: White Queen cont


 

oh it was supposed to be take on history? I didn't realise....
Richard looked good for an 11 year old didn't he? Especially with a
mother out of Alice in Wonderland!!
Paul

On 17/06/2013 15:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Well, the costumes were just wrong, weren't they? The BBC wardrobe Dept. obviously don't understand how the 15th century "princess line" gowns were made. There was no separate bodice and skirt. They were just big tents with a deep neck opening turned over to make a collar, & cinched in under the bust with a cummerbund. Underneath was a kirtle, which would have been fitted round the waist. It works really well - I had a winter wedding and used that technique for my wedding dress.
> And they've introduced the boat-shaped necklines from the 1480s into the 1460s. To say nothing of lack of head coverings, linen shifts, etc.
> As for the men in their baggy trousers! I can only suppose they wanted to have the guys able to strip to the waist without their hose falling down.
>
> It was eminently watchable, but what a childish take on history! The good news, surely, is that few people will be able to take it seriously. Will they?
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>> Â
>> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
>> Â
>> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :)Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>> Subject: White Queen cont
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
>> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
>> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
>> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
>> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
>> First big hit against the Yorks.
>> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
>> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
>> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 19:49
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



 
They grew up quickly in those days because life was short:) But - the tabloids seem to have pulled it to bits, so it must be bad. We must stop gloating. (I do wish MB didn't look like a hamster).


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 18:36
Subject: Re: White Queen cont


 

oh it was supposed to be take on history? I didn't realise....
Richard looked good for an 11 year old didn't he? Especially with a
mother out of Alice in Wonderland!!
Paul

On 17/06/2013 15:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Well, the costumes were just wrong, weren't they? The BBC wardrobe Dept. obviously don't understand how the 15th century "princess line" gowns were made. There was no separate bodice and skirt. They were just big tents with a deep neck opening turned over to make a collar, & cinched in under the bust with a cummerbund. Underneath was a kirtle, which would have been fitted round the waist. It works really well - I had a winter wedding and used that technique for my wedding dress.
> And they've introduced the boat-shaped necklines from the 1480s into the 1460s. To say nothing of lack of head coverings, linen shifts, etc.
> As for the men in their baggy trousers! I can only suppose they wanted to have the guys able to strip to the waist without their hose falling down.
>
> It was eminently watchable, but what a childish take on history! The good news, surely, is that few people will be able to take it seriously. Will they?
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
>> Â
>> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
>> Â
>> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :)Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
>> Subject: White Queen cont
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
>> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
>> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
>> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
>> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
>> First big hit against the Yorks.
>> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
>> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
>> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
>> Paul
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Ye s indeed, but the street fighting was only at the 1st Battle of St Albans. The second was fought on Nomansland Common to the north of the town. Okay, pedantic, but I used to live in St Albans.
Marie

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 19:49
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
>  
> They grew up quickly in those days because life was short:) But - the tabloids seem to have pulled it to bits, so it must be bad. We must stop gloating. (I do wish MB didn't look like a hamster).
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 18:36
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>  
>
> oh it was supposed to be take on history? I didn't realise....
> Richard looked good for an 11 year old didn't he? Especially with a
> mother out of Alice in Wonderland!!
> Paul
>
> On 17/06/2013 15:47, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Well, the costumes were just wrong, weren't they? The BBC wardrobe Dept. obviously don't understand how the 15th century "princess line" gowns were made. There was no separate bodice and skirt. They were just big tents with a deep neck opening turned over to make a collar, & cinched in under the bust with a cummerbund. Underneath was a kirtle, which would have been fitted round the waist. It works really well - I had a winter wedding and used that technique for my wedding dress.
> > And they've introduced the boat-shaped necklines from the 1480s into the 1460s. To say nothing of lack of head coverings, linen shifts, etc.
> > As for the men in their baggy trousers! I can only suppose they wanted to have the guys able to strip to the waist without their hose falling down.
> >
> > It was eminently watchable, but what a childish take on history! The good news, surely, is that few people will be able to take it seriously. Will they?
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >> It was like watching Prince William playing Max Irons playing Prince William. And he'd obviously popped out to TK Maxx to get the latest German winter quilted wear. Hubby was looking for the zips on dresses (he's an engineer and asked if there were no buttons and laces how they were done up). The heroine was awful (and did I see freckles), the Rivers family looked like a group of yeoman farmers and there was talk of Edward 'already being married with a son'. Poor Cis was like the duchess out of Alice in Wonderland. No I don't want PG to write about her. And there was a guy in a lirapipe who kept cropping up in the background. Was he left over from Agincourt?
> >> Â
> >> The only redeeming performance was Frain's marvellous Warwick. Not quite as I imagine Warwick, but riveting all the same. In a different class.
> >> Â
> >> Yep I wondered which 'battle' he had to pop off to. Do you reckon anyone who knows none of the background would understand what they were on about? Until half way through Hubby thought Edward was called Henry because they kept referring to King Henry. He couldn't understand why he came back happy when he'd lost the battle :)Â
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> >> To: RichardIIISociety forum <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, 17 June 2013, 9:18
> >> Subject: White Queen cont
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> I forgot to mention how nice it was to see Bona of Savoy arriving at the
> >> court of Edward IV just in time for the announcement of his marriage to EW!
> >> The worst thing for me was the ghastly portrayal of Duchess Cecily.
> >> Wearing a dreadful hat from another era, she was haggard and spiteful.
> >> Nothing of her lasting beauty, and precious little pride!
> >> First big hit against the Yorks.
> >> Makes me wonder what Philippa Gregory has against the Yorks. Why not
> >> write a novel about Proud Cis instead of all those Lancastrian women? Or
> >> perhaps we should be grateful she didn't judging by how she views Cis!
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

david rayner wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

Carol responds:

Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.

http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/

She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?

I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!

Carol

Richard looks about 25 in 1464.

But we should be thankfull, remember Shakespeare has Richard fighting at St Albans when all of 3 years old.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:11
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



 

david rayner wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

Carol responds:

Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.

http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/

She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?

I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!

Carol

Sad to say, about the best we can hope for is this series will have the "shelf life" of an open bag of crisps.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



 

david rayner wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

Carol responds:

Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.

http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/

She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?

I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!

Carol

She appeared to be wearing a nice Laura Ashley curtain material in duck egg blue with a boat neckline (as Marie says) and another dress made of what they used to make tablecloths with over here after WWII called 'chenille'. Richard and George looked about 18 and 20 in the glimpse we had of them. It was the lirapipe and the pointed Norman helmets of the footsoldiers that got me (let alone Cis's headgear from a hundred years' before).
 
I doubt it will destroy PG's reputation despite all this; the problem is most people are used to blurring fantasy with fact, even though all the newspapers apart from one free one are saying that it is rubbish. With Richard life is never fair; we should have learned that. It's about what makes money.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:11
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 


david rayner wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

Carol responds:

Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.

http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/

She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?

I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!

Carol

Pray there is not a follow on. What is PG going to write about next?



________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:42
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 

Sad to say, about the best we can hope for is this series will have the "shelf life" of an open bag of crisps.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen cont


 

david rayner wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

Carol responds:

Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.

http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/

She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?

I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!

Carol

You know that reminds me of the Black Arrow which I love. But that's because no-one thinks of the Black Arrow as anything but fiction, like Ivanhoe. If PG would stop claiming to be a historian I could perhaps live with it - er perhaps:) 



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:41
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 

Richard looks about 25 in 1464.

But we should be thankfull, remember Shakespeare has Richard fighting at St Albans when all of 3 years old.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:11
Subject: Re: White Queen cont


 

david rayner wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

Carol responds:

Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.

http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/

She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?

I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!

Carol

I sadly agree, Hilary. A certain amount of latitude is expected in costuming (as opposed to dressing re-enactors, say). Flattering the actor is part of the "game." If the PD says, "Give her billowing sleeves," you do it, or you're off the job.

It's a pity, but in recent years, the proliferation of Fantasy and Goth attire (in films, video gaming, etc.) has resulted in a blurring of medieval and Renaissance styles. Costuming for stage and screen in the UK was once the model of near-perfection; now, to save money, I wouldn't be surprised to learn the costumiers pull from inventory whatever kinda-sorta works.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen cont



 
She appeared to be wearing a nice Laura Ashley curtain material in duck egg blue with a boat neckline (as Marie says) and another dress made of what they used to make tablecloths with over here after WWII called 'chenille'. Richard and George looked about 18 and 20 in the glimpse we had of them. It was the lirapipe and the pointed Norman helmets of the footsoldiers that got me (let alone Cis's headgear from a hundred years' before).
 
I doubt it will destroy PG's reputation despite all this; the problem is most people are used to blurring fantasy with fact, even though all the newspapers apart from one free one are saying that it is rubbish. With Richard life is never fair; we should have learned that. It's about what makes money.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:11
Subject: Re: White Queen cont

 


david rayner wrote:
>
> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby

Carol responds:

Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.

http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/

She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?

I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!

Carol

Can she write?:-)
Paul

On 18/06/2013 21:12, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Pray there is not a follow on. What is PG going to write about next?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:42
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
> Sad to say, about the best we can hope for is this series will have the "shelf life" of an open bag of crisps.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:11 PM
> Subject: Re: White Queen cont
>
>
>
>
> david rayner wrote:
>> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby
> Carol responds:
>
> Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.
>
> http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/
>
> She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?
>
> I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

This is my fourth attempt to get the message below to go through - this time I'm sending from the group website rather than yahoo mail's web interface (though why two yahoo services can't speak to each other, God alone knows...) - so apologies if duplicate copies suddenly start turning up.

Jonathan

Honestly can't speak for her novels - never looked at them and I'm not particularly inclined to - but I'm *very* disappointed with the dramatisation. Looking at imdb (I know, not hugely reliable), I can't work out whether she had any direct involvement with scripting - she's down as both a writer and an exec, but that may just be contractual. However, the other credited writers, Emma Frost and Malcolm Campbell, don't have the track record to suggest they're capable of turning base metal into gold. But, to be fair to them, I think even Russell T Davies would struggle in this particular case!

Re costuming, accuracy always seems to go out of the window with anything medieval in a way that doesn't happen with later periods. I can cope with head-wear being downplayed and I can even understand the acknowledged caution about putting men in tights (though I think it's slightly paranoid), but they could at least make an effort to get the silhouettes right and therefore suggest the late 15th C in an impressionistic way, rather than ending up with this neverland of no time and no place, which sucks the life out of every scene even before the actors have chance to open their mouths.

Anachronistic armour is slightly more forgiveable, as that's very expensive to get right - no surprise that the last two screen adaptations of 'Henry V' went more for mail and tabards than full plate - but that doesn't explain the ordinary soldiery. A sallet or two, rather than those Norman knock-offs, shouldn't have broken the budget. And speaking of helmets, what on earth was on Edward IV's head? Oh - and having him spend half the episode wondering around in a cuirass made him look like an eccentric refugee from Waterloo...

Jonathan

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Can she write?:-)
> Paul
>
> On 18/06/2013 21:12, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > Pray there is not a follow on. What is PG going to write about next?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 20:42
> > Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >
> > Sad to say, about the best we can hope for is this series will have the "shelf life" of an open bag of crisps.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: White Queen cont
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > david rayner wrote:
> >> Another deliberate innacuracy - Elizabeth's first husband John Grey of Groby was not killed by Edward in the snows of Towton, but in the street fighting of 2nd St Albans a few weeks earlier. Warwick was in command of the Yorkists there and, you guessed it, Edward was not present.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grey_of_Groby
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Speaking of deliberate inaccuracies, I just read the interview with Faye Marsay, who plays Anne Neville.
> >
> > http://www.thewhitequeen.co.uk/faye-marsay-as-anne-neville/
> >
> > She says that Anne is thirteen at the beginning of the story (Edward's secret marriage to EW) and thirty-five at her death. Wonder if she knows that's about five years off for the age in May 1464 (Anne was not quite eight) and about six for her death (she was not quite twenty-nine), which suggests that, like Shakespeare though to a lesser extent, PG is taking liberties with her characters' ages to fit the plot. I haven't seen the series (it doesn't air here), but I'm guessing that she has Richard about fifteen in 1464, so he'd be thirty-six (real math) or thirty-seven (PG's math) at death? Do her Richard and her George exchange witty remarks about the "Grey mare" like their Shakespearean counterparts?
> >
> > I noted Elizabethan sleeves on one of the gowns in the photos. Hope this series destroys PG's reputation as a "historian"!
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>