White Queen - comments anyone?

Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
work and the adaptation!
Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history

Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".

Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Well written.

Comment made and waiting moderation!

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
work and the adaptation!
Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history

Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".

Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
Paul


On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Well written.
>
> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> work and the adaptation!
> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>
> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>
> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

We both got published Jonathan, which is good. Some of the nauseatingly
worshipful messages about Philippa though! These people have no idea
about history, or good writing, or good drama do they?
Paul

On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Well written.
>
> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> work and the adaptation!
> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>
> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>
> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Well, I, too, gave the BBC my two pence. Wonder if they'll publish what I said?

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
We both got published Jonathan, which is good. Some of the nauseatingly
worshipful messages about Philippa though! These people have no idea
about history, or good writing, or good drama do they?
Paul

On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Well written.
>
> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> work and the adaptation!
> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>
> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>
> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> Paul
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

They published it! Do forgive the typos...I was in a "state."

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
We both got published Jonathan, which is good. Some of the nauseatingly
worshipful messages about Philippa though! These people have no idea
about history, or good writing, or good drama do they?
Paul

On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Well written.
>
> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> work and the adaptation!
> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>
> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>
> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> Paul
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I just think it's a really, really appalling script - flat, turgid and utterly lifeless.  How on earth you can make those events - regardless of the fictionalisation - dull, God alone knows, but they've succeeded magnificently.

Take another fairly recent historical, 'Rome' (and I'm deliberately choosing a middling-to-good drama, rather than a high-watermark one like 'I, Claudius' or 'The Monocled Mutineer').  That wasn't exactly a slave to accuracy - especially towards the end, when they had to compress another season's worth of plot into the last part of season two - but it was sharply written, engaging and found an idiom that was modern enough not to alienate the most history-shy viewer yet still evoke a distinct and credible world.  There was a lovely scene when Titus Pullo, just about to execute Cicero, asked rather self-consciously if the latter would mind if he took some peaches from the nearby tree.  'Rome' was full of little bits of human detail like that, but I've seen nothing even remotely comparable in 'The White Queen'.  The closest to that kind of digression was Isabel relating the events of Towton to Anne in the manner of a fairy-tale, but the actors were
unable to "claim" the lines from the dramatist, so the final effect was stilted, artificial and over-wrought.

How much comes down to PG's involvement as an exec, I don't know.  I'd ask if much dialogue has been lifted straight from the books, but I don't think anyone would want to look closely enough at either them or the TV adaptation to check!

The real tragedy would be if the series crashes and burns, and the commissioning executives blame the subject matter rather than the cack-handed realisation.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 13:43
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
We both got published Jonathan, which is good. Some of the nauseatingly
worshipful messages about Philippa though! These people have no idea
about history, or good writing, or good drama do they?
Paul

On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Well written.
>
> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> work and the adaptation!
> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>
> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>
> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> Paul
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Just realised you can "rate"comments, so I've positively rated both yours and Paul's.  Not mine - I'm not that disingenuous, unlike - probably - Philippa Gregory!

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 14:29
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
They published it! Do forgive the typos...I was in a "state."

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 
We both got published Jonathan, which is good. Some of the nauseatingly
worshipful messages about Philippa though! These people have no idea
about history, or good writing, or good drama do they?
Paul

On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Well written.
>
> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> work and the adaptation!
> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>
> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>
> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> Paul
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Definitely backtracking. The previous week's issue of the Radio Times referred to Philippa Gregory as "the historian" (p. 3) and published a lengthy explanation of the Wars of the Roses, probably written by her because it carries a little photo of her, which reproduces as fact many of the fantasies in her novels, such as:-
1) Margaret Beaufort had been Anne Neville's "dearest friend" in the North (has PG ever studied a map?);
2) "They were not even known as the Wars of the Roses. At the time they were known as 'the Cousins' Wars'..."
3) Elizabeth and Edward were "married within weeks" of their first meeting. How does she know? Is she aware that Edward granted Rivers a pardon as he passed through Stony Stratford after Towton in 1461?
4) "Elizabeth was a commoner..."
5) "Within days" of the announcement of the marriage "there were rumours of seduction, and even witchcraft...." Not so far as we know, not unless you call the summer of 1469 "within days" of 1st May 1464.
6) Elizabeth gave birth to Prince Edward "in the crypt of a church near to Westminster Abbey." Philippa dear, Westminster Sanctuary covered a large area and enclosed a small town, with rows of houses and a market place. Yes, St Margaret's church was also within its bounds but you didn't have to be inside the church to be in sanctuary, only within the bounds of the sanctuary area. We certainly know that on at least one of the two occasions she went into sanctuary (and probably both) Elizabeth commandeered the Abbot's own house. Philippa also writes as though Elizabeth was the only person in Westminster Sanctuary, when in fact at all times Westminster and St Martin's sanctuaries housed a variety of fugitives ranging from murderers through to petty criminals and battered wives.
7) "... George started rumours that she was a witch, even printing pamphlets accusing her of bewitching his brother. He claimed that she was a poisoner, and took his pregnant wife, Isabel Neville, away from court. When Isabel died, George claimed that she had been poisoned by the witch-queen." Where do I start? George may very well have believed Elizabeth to have bewitched his brother and poisoned his wife, but we have no documentary evidence. We know his servant Thomas Burdet was accused of distributing seditious pamphlets, but we don't know what they said and the indictment does not name Clarence. Crowland says Clarence feared being poisoned at court but doesn't mention the Queen. We don't know that Isabel was ever at court during her last pregnancy. The indictments of Ankarette and the others don't say who Clarence thought had put them up to it. Clarence's attainder accuses him of calling the king a poisoner, but not the queen. Yawn.
7) "... Richard seized the throne, accusing her of having bewitched Edward into a bigamous marriage." The article doesn't mention the main grounds for the voiding of her marriage, ie Edward IV's prior marriage to Eleanor Butler.
8) In 1471 "...Anne's mother dived into sanctuary at Beaulieu Abbey but Anne, not yet 15, chose instead to stay with the army, and marched with them for more than a hundred miles....." PG apparently blissfully unaware that the Countess of Warwick had sailed in a separate ship which had fetched up in a totally different place, so Anne had no opportunity to follow her into sanctuary.
9) After Clarence's execution, Anne "took his two orphan children into her keeping and raised them as far from court as she could possibly go: to the beautiful northern castle of Middleham, where she and her husband, Richard, made their home. There they received the shocking news that Edward the king was dead...." Philippa darling, Warwick and his sister became royal wards when their father was executed, and were both looked after at court (almost certainly in the Queen's household) until Warwick's wardship was granted to Dorset. It was only in the early summer of 1483, after Dorset had fled, that Warwick was brought to London and entered Anne's household.
I haven't started on the Margaret Beaufort section; I'm all done in.
"Historian" indeed! I suspect her trouble is that she gets confused between what she read in whatever few books she read when she was doing her "research" with what she wrote in her novels. I heard her on Radio 4 once. She was SO vague about the facts, and when asked about the Princes made one gaffe after another. Wish I could remember the details.
Marie (yawn)

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> Paul
>
>
> On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > Well written.
> >
> > Comment made and waiting moderation!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> > Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> > work and the adaptation!
> > Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
> >
> > Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
> >
> > Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> > of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> > Paul
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Well, Jonathan, I went back and rated yours and Paul's...plus a couple of others.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
Just realised you can "rate"comments, so I've positively rated both yours and Paul's.  Not mine - I'm not that disingenuous, unlike - probably - Philippa Gregory!

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 14:29
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 
They published it! Do forgive the typos...I was in a "state."

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
We both got published Jonathan, which is good. Some of the nauseatingly
worshipful messages about Philippa though! These people have no idea
about history, or good writing, or good drama do they?
Paul

On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Well written.
>
> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> work and the adaptation!
> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>
> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>
> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> Paul
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Your patience Marie amazes me. Well done. I stopped making notes of all
the errors half way through episode 1 as I'd soon run out of paper!
Next week I understand tells us how Margaret Beaufort played a major
part in Warwick's rebellion! No mention in the cast list of Queen
Margaret or Prince Edward. Surprises me as tv Middleham is so close to
the French King's pad the company could have easily popped over for a
meeting with Louis! They'd probably get the Louis mixed up though and
shoot in Versailles.
I expect her "research" was limited to Alison Weir and More.
Paul
On the Radio Saturday is the start of series about the Stuarts. Mary
goes home to Scotland to have her son, who becomes King James I and IV!
Roman numerals from the Philippa Gregory school of research!


On 25/06/2013 14:46, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Definitely backtracking. The previous week's issue of the Radio Times referred to Philippa Gregory as "the historian" (p. 3) and published a lengthy explanation of the Wars of the Roses, probably written by her because it carries a little photo of her, which reproduces as fact many of the fantasies in her novels, such as:-
> 1) Margaret Beaufort had been Anne Neville's "dearest friend" in the North (has PG ever studied a map?);
> 2) "They were not even known as the Wars of the Roses. At the time they were known as 'the Cousins' Wars'..."
> 3) Elizabeth and Edward were "married within weeks" of their first meeting. How does she know? Is she aware that Edward granted Rivers a pardon as he passed through Stony Stratford after Towton in 1461?
> 4) "Elizabeth was a commoner..."
> 5) "Within days" of the announcement of the marriage "there were rumours of seduction, and even witchcraft...." Not so far as we know, not unless you call the summer of 1469 "within days" of 1st May 1464.
> 6) Elizabeth gave birth to Prince Edward "in the crypt of a church near to Westminster Abbey." Philippa dear, Westminster Sanctuary covered a large area and enclosed a small town, with rows of houses and a market place. Yes, St Margaret's church was also within its bounds but you didn't have to be inside the church to be in sanctuary, only within the bounds of the sanctuary area. We certainly know that on at least one of the two occasions she went into sanctuary (and probably both) Elizabeth commandeered the Abbot's own house. Philippa also writes as though Elizabeth was the only person in Westminster Sanctuary, when in fact at all times Westminster and St Martin's sanctuaries housed a variety of fugitives ranging from murderers through to petty criminals and battered wives.
> 7) "... George started rumours that she was a witch, even printing pamphlets accusing her of bewitching his brother. He claimed that she was a poisoner, and took his pregnant wife, Isabel Neville, away from court. When Isabel died, George claimed that she had been poisoned by the witch-queen." Where do I start? George may very well have believed Elizabeth to have bewitched his brother and poisoned his wife, but we have no documentary evidence. We know his servant Thomas Burdet was accused of distributing seditious pamphlets, but we don't know what they said and the indictment does not name Clarence. Crowland says Clarence feared being poisoned at court but doesn't mention the Queen. We don't know that Isabel was ever at court during her last pregnancy. The indictments of Ankarette and the others don't say who Clarence thought had put them up to it. Clarence's attainder accuses him of calling the king a poisoner, but not the queen. Yawn.
> 7) "... Richard seized the throne, accusing her of having bewitched Edward into a bigamous marriage." The article doesn't mention the main grounds for the voiding of her marriage, ie Edward IV's prior marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> 8) In 1471 "...Anne's mother dived into sanctuary at Beaulieu Abbey but Anne, not yet 15, chose instead to stay with the army, and marched with them for more than a hundred miles....." PG apparently blissfully unaware that the Countess of Warwick had sailed in a separate ship which had fetched up in a totally different place, so Anne had no opportunity to follow her into sanctuary.
> 9) After Clarence's execution, Anne "took his two orphan children into her keeping and raised them as far from court as she could possibly go: to the beautiful northern castle of Middleham, where she and her husband, Richard, made their home. There they received the shocking news that Edward the king was dead...." Philippa darling, Warwick and his sister became royal wards when their father was executed, and were both looked after at court (almost certainly in the Queen's household) until Warwick's wardship was granted to Dorset. It was only in the early summer of 1483, after Dorset had fled, that Warwick was brought to London and entered Anne's household.
> I haven't started on the Margaret Beaufort section; I'm all done in.
> "Historian" indeed! I suspect her trouble is that she gets confused between what she read in whatever few books she read when she was doing her "research" with what she wrote in her novels. I heard her on Radio 4 once. She was SO vague about the facts, and when asked about the Princes made one gaffe after another. Wish I could remember the details.
> Marie (yawn)
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
>> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
>> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
>> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
>> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
>> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
>> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>> Well written.
>>>
>>> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
>>> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
>>> work and the adaptation!
>>> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>>>
>>> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>>>
>>> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
>>> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Absolutely, Marie. Would you consider posting something along the lines of your excellent remarks on that BBC blog? May be one of our uphill struggles...but we're well acquainted with those. 

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
Your patience Marie amazes me. Well done. I stopped making notes of all
the errors half way through episode 1 as I'd soon run out of paper!
Next week I understand tells us how Margaret Beaufort played a major
part in Warwick's rebellion! No mention in the cast list of Queen
Margaret or Prince Edward. Surprises me as tv Middleham is so close to
the French King's pad the company could have easily popped over for a
meeting with Louis! They'd probably get the Louis mixed up though and
shoot in Versailles.
I expect her "research" was limited to Alison Weir and More.
Paul
On the Radio Saturday is the start of series about the Stuarts. Mary
goes home to Scotland to have her son, who becomes King James I and IV!
Roman numerals from the Philippa Gregory school of research!

On 25/06/2013 14:46, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Definitely backtracking. The previous week's issue of the Radio Times referred to Philippa Gregory as "the historian" (p. 3) and published a lengthy explanation of the Wars of the Roses, probably written by her because it carries a little photo of her, which reproduces as fact many of the fantasies in her novels, such as:-
> 1) Margaret Beaufort had been Anne Neville's "dearest friend" in the North (has PG ever studied a map?);
> 2) "They were not even known as the Wars of the Roses. At the time they were known as 'the Cousins' Wars'..."
> 3) Elizabeth and Edward were "married within weeks" of their first meeting. How does she know? Is she aware that Edward granted Rivers a pardon as he passed through Stony Stratford after Towton in 1461?
> 4) "Elizabeth was a commoner..."
> 5) "Within days" of the announcement of the marriage "there were rumours of seduction, and even witchcraft...." Not so far as we know, not unless you call the summer of 1469 "within days" of 1st May 1464.
> 6) Elizabeth gave birth to Prince Edward "in the crypt of a church near to Westminster Abbey." Philippa dear, Westminster Sanctuary covered a large area and enclosed a small town, with rows of houses and a market place. Yes, St Margaret's church was also within its bounds but you didn't have to be inside the church to be in sanctuary, only within the bounds of the sanctuary area. We certainly know that on at least one of the two occasions she went into sanctuary (and probably both) Elizabeth commandeered the Abbot's own house. Philippa also writes as though Elizabeth was the only person in Westminster Sanctuary, when in fact at all times Westminster and St Martin's sanctuaries housed a variety of fugitives ranging from murderers through to petty criminals and battered wives.
> 7) "... George started rumours that she was a witch, even printing pamphlets accusing her of bewitching his brother. He claimed that she was a poisoner, and took his pregnant wife, Isabel Neville, away from court. When Isabel died, George claimed that she had been poisoned by the witch-queen." Where do I start? George may very well have believed Elizabeth to have bewitched his brother and poisoned his wife, but we have no documentary evidence. We know his servant Thomas Burdet was accused of distributing seditious pamphlets, but we don't know what they said and the indictment does not name Clarence. Crowland says Clarence feared being poisoned at court but doesn't mention the Queen. We don't know that Isabel was ever at court during her last pregnancy. The indictments of Ankarette and the others don't say who Clarence thought had put them up to it. Clarence's attainder accuses him of calling the king a poisoner, but not the queen. Yawn.
> 7) "... Richard seized the throne, accusing her of having bewitched Edward into a bigamous marriage." The article doesn't mention the main grounds for the voiding of her marriage, ie Edward IV's prior marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> 8) In 1471 "...Anne's mother dived into sanctuary at Beaulieu Abbey but Anne, not yet 15, chose instead to stay with the army, and marched with them for more than a hundred miles....." PG apparently blissfully unaware that the Countess of Warwick had sailed in a separate ship which had fetched up in a totally different place, so Anne had no opportunity to follow her into sanctuary.
> 9) After Clarence's execution, Anne "took his two orphan children into her keeping and raised them as far from court as she could possibly go: to the beautiful northern castle of Middleham, where she and her husband, Richard, made their home. There they received the shocking news that Edward the king was dead...." Philippa darling, Warwick and his sister became royal wards when their father was executed, and were both looked after at court (almost certainly in the Queen's household) until Warwick's wardship was granted to Dorset. It was only in the early summer of 1483, after Dorset had fled, that Warwick was brought to London and entered Anne's household.
> I haven't started on the Margaret Beaufort section; I'm all done in.
> "Historian" indeed! I suspect her trouble is that she gets confused between what she read in whatever few books she read when she was doing her "research" with what she wrote in her novels. I heard her on Radio 4 once. She was SO vague about the facts, and when asked about the Princes made one gaffe after another. Wish I could remember the details.
> Marie (yawn)
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
>> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
>> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
>> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
>> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
>> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
>> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>> Well written.
>>>
>>> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
>>> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
>>> work and the adaptation!
>>> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>>>
>>> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>>>
>>> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
>>> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Me too, I am so impressed by both of you!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



Your patience Marie amazes me. Well done. I stopped making notes of all
the errors half way through episode 1 as I'd soon run out of paper!
Next week I understand tells us how Margaret Beaufort played a major
part in Warwick's rebellion! No mention in the cast list of Queen
Margaret or Prince Edward. Surprises me as tv Middleham is so close to
the French King's pad the company could have easily popped over for a
meeting with Louis! They'd probably get the Louis mixed up though and
shoot in Versailles.
I expect her "research" was limited to Alison Weir and More.
Paul
On the Radio Saturday is the start of series about the Stuarts. Mary
goes home to Scotland to have her son, who becomes King James I and IV!
Roman numerals from the Philippa Gregory school of research!

On 25/06/2013 14:46, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> Definitely backtracking. The previous week's issue of the Radio Times referred to Philippa Gregory as "the historian" (p. 3) and published a lengthy explanation of the Wars of the Roses, probably written by her because it carries a little photo of her, which reproduces as fact many of the fantasies in her novels, such as:-
> 1) Margaret Beaufort had been Anne Neville's "dearest friend" in the North (has PG ever studied a map?);
> 2) "They were not even known as the Wars of the Roses. At the time they were known as 'the Cousins' Wars'..."
> 3) Elizabeth and Edward were "married within weeks" of their first meeting. How does she know? Is she aware that Edward granted Rivers a pardon as he passed through Stony Stratford after Towton in 1461?
> 4) "Elizabeth was a commoner..."
> 5) "Within days" of the announcement of the marriage "there were rumours of seduction, and even witchcraft...." Not so far as we know, not unless you call the summer of 1469 "within days" of 1st May 1464.
> 6) Elizabeth gave birth to Prince Edward "in the crypt of a church near to Westminster Abbey." Philippa dear, Westminster Sanctuary covered a large area and enclosed a small town, with rows of houses and a market place. Yes, St Margaret's church was also within its bounds but you didn't have to be inside the church to be in sanctuary, only within the bounds of the sanctuary area. We certainly know that on at least one of the two occasions she went into sanctuary (and probably both) Elizabeth commandeered the Abbot's own house. Philippa also writes as though Elizabeth was the only person in Westminster Sanctuary, when in fact at all times Westminster and St Martin's sanctuaries housed a variety of fugitives ranging from murderers through to petty criminals and battered wives.
> 7) "... George started rumours that she was a witch, even printing pamphlets accusing her of bewitching his brother. He claimed that she was a poisoner, and took his pregnant wife, Isabel Neville, away from court. When Isabel died, George claimed that she had been poisoned by the witch-queen." Where do I start? George may very well have believed Elizabeth to have bewitched his brother and poisoned his wife, but we have no documentary evidence. We know his servant Thomas Burdet was accused of distributing seditious pamphlets, but we don't know what they said and the indictment does not name Clarence. Crowland says Clarence feared being poisoned at court but doesn't mention the Queen. We don't know that Isabel was ever at court during her last pregnancy. The indictments of Ankarette and the others don't say who Clarence thought had put them up to it. Clarence's attainder accuses him of calling the king a poisoner, but not the queen. Yawn.
> 7) "... Richard seized the throne, accusing her of having bewitched Edward into a bigamous marriage." The article doesn't mention the main grounds for the voiding of her marriage, ie Edward IV's prior marriage to Eleanor Butler.
> 8) In 1471 "...Anne's mother dived into sanctuary at Beaulieu Abbey but Anne, not yet 15, chose instead to stay with the army, and marched with them for more than a hundred miles....." PG apparently blissfully unaware that the Countess of Warwick had sailed in a separate ship which had fetched up in a totally different place, so Anne had no opportunity to follow her into sanctuary.
> 9) After Clarence's execution, Anne "took his two orphan children into her keeping and raised them as far from court as she could possibly go: to the beautiful northern castle of Middleham, where she and her husband, Richard, made their home. There they received the shocking news that Edward the king was dead...." Philippa darling, Warwick and his sister became royal wards when their father was executed, and were both looked after at court (almost certainly in the Queen's household) until Warwick's wardship was granted to Dorset. It was only in the early summer of 1483, after Dorset had fled, that Warwick was brought to London and entered Anne's household.
> I haven't started on the Margaret Beaufort section; I'm all done in.
> "Historian" indeed! I suspect her trouble is that she gets confused between what she read in whatever few books she read when she was doing her "research" with what she wrote in her novels. I heard her on Radio 4 once. She was SO vague about the facts, and when asked about the Princes made one gaffe after another. Wish I could remember the details.
> Marie (yawn)
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
>> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
>> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
>> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
>> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
>> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
>> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
>> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>> Well written.
>>>
>>> Comment made and waiting moderation!
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>>
>>> To: RichardIIISociety forum <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
>>> Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
>>> work and the adaptation!
>>> Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
>>>
>>> Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
>>>
>>> Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
>>> of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.

At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.

And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.

It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.

What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.

I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.

You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.

~Weds

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> Paul

Paul
It's not a different type of drama for the BBC though. It's what I was saying about Desperate Remedies, which was also a highly individual take on the history of the PRB that played fast and loose with the actual facts. It's what they are doing more and more of these days, which is sad. They are blurring the lines. This is what is called junk history if people accept it as the truth. But it is fiction, romantic fiction. The type of fiction that was laughed at as bodice rippers and swooning females at the mercy of bounders and cads rescued by dashing heroes. In other words, pure escapism. And by all accounts it is not very good escapism as a lot of people are simply bored and embarrassed. The sadness is in the BBC dumbing down to appeal to the perceived audience and attract ratings. The real sadness here though is that history is being presented as such. That is the real tragedy and it comes from the blurring of the lines between writers of fiction and history, which is what I was going on about the day with the likes of Alison Weir moving back and forth from fiction writing to history as well as other writers. It is a popular movement and there are probably many reasons for it especially financial reasons as there is a lot of money to be made. Ian Mortimer does it and I'm sure others here can think of many others. I believe it is the dumbing down in the way history is presented that is at the root of it and writers who probably wouldn't make the grade as historians in an academic sense have found populist ways through their agents and publishers to keep their profiles before the public by writing escapist junk. Eileen mentioned that Philippa Gregory churns out books at a remarkable rate. How much research can you do when your next publishing deal is in the pipeline? And why change tack if the sales are good.

Weds, you're right. It's the wrong battleground and the wrong target. We don't want a great or even a good drama of Richard to appeal to the masses. We want more people to know the truth and recognise the good that he did. We need to take the battle to the masses through the factual evidence.
Elaine







--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> Paul
>
>
> On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > Well written.
> >
> > Comment made and waiting moderation!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> > Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> > work and the adaptation!
> > Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
> >
> > Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
> >
> > Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> > of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> > Paul
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I'm not Paul but it will be interesting to see what they make of Mantel's novels which are much more cerebral.
 
You are absolutely right. Since the Da Vinci Code it has been about what sells, particularly in this economic climate. The age of great real historical dramas was the 1970s/80s, both in film and television. Think of A Man for All Seasons, Anne of the Thousand Days, Elizabeth R etc. The mass market wants action, action, or boddice ripper, or so we're told. Such a pity that Penman did not write ten years' earlier. It will be a brave person who finances something more 'serious' - and yet Jane Austen still sells and sells. Perhaps no-one has yet woken up to the fact that, dare I say it, an ageing and more discriminative population might just prove a significant market for a quality product.       


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 21:06
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 


Paul
It's not a different type of drama for the BBC though. It's what I was saying about Desperate Remedies, which was also a highly individual take on the history of the PRB that played fast and loose with the actual facts. It's what they are doing more and more of these days, which is sad. They are blurring the lines. This is what is called junk history if people accept it as the truth. But it is fiction, romantic fiction. The type of fiction that was laughed at as bodice rippers and swooning females at the mercy of bounders and cads rescued by dashing heroes. In other words, pure escapism. And by all accounts it is not very good escapism as a lot of people are simply bored and embarrassed. The sadness is in the BBC dumbing down to appeal to the perceived audience and attract ratings. The real sadness here though is that history is being presented as such. That is the real tragedy and it comes from the blurring of the lines between writers of
fiction and history, which is what I was going on about the day with the likes of Alison Weir moving back and forth from fiction writing to history as well as other writers. It is a popular movement and there are probably many reasons for it especially financial reasons as there is a lot of money to be made. Ian Mortimer does it and I'm sure others here can think of many others. I believe it is the dumbing down in the way history is presented that is at the root of it and writers who probably wouldn't make the grade as historians in an academic sense have found populist ways through their agents and publishers to keep their profiles before the public by writing escapist junk. Eileen mentioned that Philippa Gregory churns out books at a remarkable rate. How much research can you do when your next publishing deal is in the pipeline? And why change tack if the sales are good.

Weds, you're right. It's the wrong battleground and the wrong target. We don't want a great or even a good drama of Richard to appeal to the masses. We want more people to know the truth and recognise the good that he did. We need to take the battle to the masses through the factual evidence.
Elaine

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> Paul
>
>
> On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > Well written.
> >
> > Comment made and waiting moderation!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> > Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> > work and the adaptation!
> > Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
> >
> > Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
> >
> > Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> > of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> > Paul
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

You are so very right. It's no good fighting, produce an alternative. But for people like Paul who do you bribe?



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 


Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.

At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.

And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.

It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.

What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.

I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.

You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> Paul

I agree....Paul and others need to be read, seen and heard!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 25, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



You are so very right. It's no good fighting, produce an alternative. But for people like Paul who do you bribe?

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:23
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?





Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.

At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.

And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.

It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.

What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.

I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.

You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> Paul

If they were going to hire professional scriptwriters, why use PG's material at all?

It's not as if there's a shortage of sources for these people and events. Even a "Plantagenets" prequal to the Terrible Toodurs would be an improvement.

But Game of Thrones remains the most relevant comparison; it makes no attempt to explain the family relationships and histories with tiresome exposition: let the viewers catch up in therir own time. This could be seen as a cynical ploy to sell the books and/or DVDs (which contain exhaustive backstory features), but it makes it much more watchable as drama.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> I just think it's a really, really appalling script - flat, turgid and utterly lifeless.  How on earth you can make those events - regardless of the fictionalisation - dull, God alone knows, but they've succeeded magnificently.
>
> Take another fairly recent historical, 'Rome' (and I'm deliberately choosing a middling-to-good drama, rather than a high-watermark one like 'I, Claudius' or 'The Monocled Mutineer').  That wasn't exactly a slave to accuracy - especially towards the end, when they had to compress another season's worth of plot into the last part of season two - but it was sharply written, engaging and found an idiom that was modern enough not to alienate the most history-shy viewer yet still evoke a distinct and credible world.  There was a lovely scene when Titus Pullo, just about to execute Cicero, asked rather self-consciously if the latter would mind if he took some peaches from the nearby tree.  'Rome' was full of little bits of human detail like that, but I've seen nothing even remotely comparable in 'The White Queen'.  The closest to that kind of digression was Isabel relating the events of Towton to Anne in the manner of a fairy-tale, but the actors were
> unable to "claim" the lines from the dramatist, so the final effect was stilted, artificial and over-wrought.
>
> How much comes down to PG's involvement as an exec, I don't know.  I'd ask if much dialogue has been lifted straight from the books, but I don't think anyone would want to look closely enough at either them or the TV adaptation to check!
>
> The real tragedy would be if the series crashes and burns, and the commissioning executives blame the subject matter rather than the cack-handed realisation.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 13:43
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>  
> We both got published Jonathan, which is good. Some of the nauseatingly
> worshipful messages about Philippa though! These people have no idea
> about history, or good writing, or good drama do they?
> Paul
>
> On 25/06/2013 10:37, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > Well written.
> >
> > Comment made and waiting moderation!
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 9:48
> > Subject: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just posted on the BBC website full of praise for Philippa Gregory's
> > work and the adaptation!
> > Others might like to go there and air their own views. Go to
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogbbctv/posts/The-White-Queen-Philippa-Gregory-on-resurrecting-history
> >
> > Let's see if they publish my comments as it is "part moderated".
> >
> > Basically I called it what it is, lousy history and dreadful drama full
> > of inaccuracies and factual mistakes.
> > Paul
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>

This is just my take, okay? If I had a screenplay I wanted to get into production, I'd convert it to a play because they are far less expensive to produce. Why? Because I want exposure ASAP, and if the play was a success, I could wave that success in producers' faces. Because there's far more theatre produced in Britain than there is film.

I'd get in touch with the British equivalent of Moises Kaufmann, or in touch with a British community theatre company that's respected and well-known and ask their director(s) to look at it.

If that company turned it down, I'd move on to the next one, and then the next. I'd fight hard for a solid local platform and get it produced there first. Once it was in production, I'd have the chance to see what works and what doesn't dramatically, and to tinker with it.

IF my play were good enough, it would draw a solid audience, perhaps be taken to London or New York and be seen by producers of screenplays who are always on the lookout for such things.

*Then* I'd start hacking the screenplay round.

In the meantime, I'd also turn the screenplay into a solid historical novel and self-publish it through Amazon's Kindle Store (for ebooks) and Smashwords (for those who want a printed version. It's not difficult. It's free to publish. You get a far higher royalty than with a legacy publisher, AND you keep all of your rights. Forever. And you're always on the shelf, you're never remaindered.

I'd follow the marketing guide laid out by Kirsten Lamb in "We Are Not Alone." I'd use Facebook and Twitter (social networking) and the Societies (personal networking) for R3 and make friends with every Richard fan out there. Friendships first, marketing second. Because no one wants to be hit over the head with any product. And friends support friends much more than strangers support strangers.

One person at a time, I'd build a readership through a shared interest in Richard. Who here wouldn't read Paul's (or anyone else's book) if he or us said we had one? I'd build my own market, my own reader platform.

One friend tells three others, those three would tell three more each...and the reader platform is built through friendship. Not through, "Buy my scholarly work on R3 published by Penguin that made me make all sorts of changes and didn't let me write past 90,000 words." With that sort of platform, where friends support friends' projects, you can move the world.

I know this isn't the traditional way, but the traditional way is dying. We're already being left behind.

Richard has a way of drawing people to him. If he can manage to help Philippa find him in a car park, and inspire a thunderstorm to gather the moment his bones touch air in 500+ years, he can certainly manage to help us find people who will buy stuff about him that we create. Our job is to produce that stuff.

If we can't depend on the Ricardian or the BBC to move that stuff, then we band together to support one another and move it for all of us. Richard liveth yet. If we're in service to the king, then perhaps we should serve?

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You are so very right. It's no good fighting, produce an alternative. But for people like Paul who do you bribe?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>  
>
>
> Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.
>
> At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.
>
> And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.
>
> It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.
>
> What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.
>
> I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.
>
> You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> > different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> > entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> > historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> > And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> > story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> > Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>

A very good game plan, Weds - the e-book revolution means we don't have to jump through publishers' hoops any more or learn to live with countless rejections slips from people who have half-read our efforts.  Get the message out there.  


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:




 
This is just my take, okay? If I had a screenplay I wanted to get into production, I'd convert it to a play because they are far less expensive to produce. Why? Because I want exposure ASAP, and if the play was a success, I could wave that success in producers' faces. Because there's far more theatre produced in Britain than there is film.

I'd get in touch with the British equivalent of Moises Kaufmann, or in touch with a British community theatre company that's respected and well-known and ask their director(s) to look at it.

If that company turned it down, I'd move on to the next one, and then the next. I'd fight hard for a solid local platform and get it produced there first. Once it was in production, I'd have the chance to see what works and what doesn't dramatically, and to tinker with it.

IF my play were good enough, it would draw a solid audience, perhaps be taken to London or New York and be seen by producers of screenplays who are always on the lookout for such things.

*Then* I'd start hacking the screenplay round.

In the meantime, I'd also turn the screenplay into a solid historical novel and self-publish it through Amazon's Kindle Store (for ebooks) and Smashwords (for those who want a printed version. It's not difficult. It's free to publish. You get a far higher royalty than with a legacy publisher, AND you keep all of your rights. Forever. And you're always on the shelf, you're never remaindered.

I'd follow the marketing guide laid out by Kirsten Lamb in "We Are Not Alone." I'd use Facebook and Twitter (social networking) and the Societies (personal networking) for R3 and make friends with every Richard fan out there. Friendships first, marketing second. Because no one wants to be hit over the head with any product. And friends support friends much more than strangers support strangers.

One person at a time, I'd build a readership through a shared interest in Richard. Who here wouldn't read Paul's (or anyone else's book) if he or us said we had one? I'd build my own market, my own reader platform.

One friend tells three others, those three would tell three more each...and the reader platform is built through friendship. Not through, "Buy my scholarly work on R3 published by Penguin that made me make all sorts of changes and didn't let me write past 90,000 words." With that sort of platform, where friends support friends' projects, you can move the world.

I know this isn't the traditional way, but the traditional way is dying. We're already being left behind.

Richard has a way of drawing people to him. If he can manage to help Philippa find him in a car park, and inspire a thunderstorm to gather the moment his bones touch air in 500+ years, he can certainly manage to help us find people who will buy stuff about him that we create. Our job is to produce that stuff.

If we can't depend on the Ricardian or the BBC to move that stuff, then we band together to support one another and move it for all of us. Richard liveth yet. If we're in service to the king, then perhaps we should serve?

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You are so very right. It's no good fighting, produce an alternative. But for people like Paul who do you bribe?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>  
>
>
> Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.
>
> At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.
>
> And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.
>
> It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.
>
> What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.
>
> I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.
>
> You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> > different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> > entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> > historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> > And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> > story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> > Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think Richard might have appreciated this:-

An American photographer on vacation was inside a church in Oldham taking photographs when he noticed a golden telephone mounted on the wall with a sign that read '£10,000 per call'.

The American, being intrigued, asked a priest who was strolling by what the telephone was used for. The priest replied that it was a direct line to heaven and that for £10,000 you could talk to God. The American thanked the priest and went along his way.

Next stop was in Manchester... There, at a very large cathedral, he saw the same golden telephone with the same sign under it. He wondered if this was the same kind of telephone he saw in Oldham and he asked a nearby nun what its purpose was. She told him that it was a direct line to heaven and that for £10,000 he could talk to God.

'O.K., thank you,' said the American.

He then travelled to Blackburn, Darwen, Burnley, Rochdale and Littleborough. In every church he saw the same golden telephone with the same '£10,000 per call' sign under it. The American, upon leaving Lancashire decided to travel to Yorkshire to see if Yorkshiremen had the same phone.

He arrived in Todmorden, and again, in the first church he entered, there was the same golden telephone, but this time the sign under it read '50 pence per call.'

The American was surprised so he asked the priest about the sign. 'Father, I've travelled all over Lancashire and I've seen this same golden telephone in many churches. I'm told that it is a direct line to heaven, but in Lancashire the price was £10,000 per call. Why is it so cheap here?'

The priest smiled and answered, 'You're in Yorkshire now, son. It's a local call.'

Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 

This is just my take, okay? If I had a screenplay I wanted to get into production, I'd convert it to a play because they are far less expensive to produce. Why? Because I want exposure ASAP, and if the play was a success, I could wave that success in producers' faces. Because there's far more theatre produced in Britain than there is film.

I'd get in touch with the British equivalent of Moises Kaufmann, or in touch with a British community theatre company that's respected and well-known and ask their director(s) to look at it.

If that company turned it down, I'd move on to the next one, and then the next. I'd fight hard for a solid local platform and get it produced there first. Once it was in production, I'd have the chance to see what works and what doesn't dramatically, and to tinker with it.

IF my play were good enough, it would draw a solid audience, perhaps be taken to London or New York and be seen by producers of screenplays who are always on the lookout for such things.

*Then* I'd start hacking the screenplay round.

In the meantime, I'd also turn the screenplay into a solid historical novel and self-publish it through Amazon's Kindle Store (for ebooks) and Smashwords (for those who want a printed version. It's not difficult. It's free to publish. You get a far higher royalty than with a legacy publisher, AND you keep all of your rights. Forever. And you're always on the shelf, you're never remaindered.

I'd follow the marketing guide laid out by Kirsten Lamb in "We Are Not Alone." I'd use Facebook and Twitter (social networking) and the Societies (personal networking) for R3 and make friends with every Richard fan out there. Friendships first, marketing second. Because no one wants to be hit over the head with any product. And friends support friends much more than strangers support strangers.

One person at a time, I'd build a readership through a shared interest in Richard. Who here wouldn't read Paul's (or anyone else's book) if he or us said we had one? I'd build my own market, my own reader platform.

One friend tells three others, those three would tell three more each...and the reader platform is built through friendship. Not through, "Buy my scholarly work on R3 published by Penguin that made me make all sorts of changes and didn't let me write past 90,000 words." With that sort of platform, where friends support friends' projects, you can move the world.

I know this isn't the traditional way, but the traditional way is dying. We're already being left behind.

Richard has a way of drawing people to him. If he can manage to help Philippa find him in a car park, and inspire a thunderstorm to gather the moment his bones touch air in 500+ years, he can certainly manage to help us find people who will buy stuff about him that we create. Our job is to produce that stuff.

If we can't depend on the Ricardian or the BBC to move that stuff, then we band together to support one another and move it for all of us. Richard liveth yet. If we're in service to the king, then perhaps we should serve?

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You are so very right. It's no good fighting, produce an alternative. But for people like Paul who do you bribe?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>  
>
>
> Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.
>
> At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.
>
> And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.
>
> It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.
>
> What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.
>
> I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.
>
> You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> > different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> > entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> > historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> > And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> > story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> > Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>

On 25/06/2013 21:06, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> We don't want a great or even a good drama of Richard to appeal to the masses.
Sorry Elaine I totally disagree, as this would be a great way to get
people interested in the period.

> We want more people to know the truth and recognise the good that he did. We need to take the battle to the masses through the factual evidence.
One thing will lead to the other. Just going out there telling people
that they have to learn the truth will not get many involved or even
interested. Years of trying that through the Society has brought little
change to the mind set of the majority has it? In order to get unbder
their skin you need something of genuine popular appeal to kick start
the discussion. 'Did you see that wonderful film last night? I didn't
know Richard was like that, I always thought he was a villain!'
Paul



--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Which brings us back to 'A Man for All Seasons' which was a quality work. People will forever see the sainted More as Paul Schoifield's version of him, even though that wasn't true. Something of both quality and truth could indeed rescue Richard, and 'appeal to the masses' as AMFAS did. In fact ,marketers or whoever very often underestimate the intelligence of the masses.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 9:36
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 

On 25/06/2013 21:06, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> We don't want a great or even a good drama of Richard to appeal to the masses.
Sorry Elaine I totally disagree, as this would be a great way to get
people interested in the period.

> We want more people to know the truth and recognise the good that he did. We need to take the battle to the masses through the factual evidence.
One thing will lead to the other. Just going out there telling people
that they have to learn the truth will not get many involved or even
interested. Years of trying that through the Society has brought little
change to the mind set of the majority has it? In order to get unbder
their skin you need something of genuine popular appeal to kick start
the discussion. 'Did you see that wonderful film last night? I didn't
know Richard was like that, I always thought he was a villain!'
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It's not much easier to get a stage-play financed in the UK.  Even profit-share (hint - there's no profit) at a fringe venue is a big commitment.  Interestingly, the RSC is very open to new writing and one of their aims is that modern writing should cross-fertilise with that of the Tudor/Jacobean period to create drama that's similarly epic in ambition and demanding of actors.  Although what they *don't* want is ersatz Shakespeare, so it's a difficult line to tread.

Radio is still probably the most welcoming arena for new writing, although that's getting harder and harder, as well.

Jonathan


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 1:57
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
This is just my take, okay? If I had a screenplay I wanted to get into production, I'd convert it to a play because they are far less expensive to produce. Why? Because I want exposure ASAP, and if the play was a success, I could wave that success in producers' faces. Because there's far more theatre produced in Britain than there is film.

I'd get in touch with the British equivalent of Moises Kaufmann, or in touch with a British community theatre company that's respected and well-known and ask their director(s) to look at it.

If that company turned it down, I'd move on to the next one, and then the next. I'd fight hard for a solid local platform and get it produced there first. Once it was in production, I'd have the chance to see what works and what doesn't dramatically, and to tinker with it.

IF my play were good enough, it would draw a solid audience, perhaps be taken to London or New York and be seen by producers of screenplays who are always on the lookout for such things.

*Then* I'd start hacking the screenplay round.

In the meantime, I'd also turn the screenplay into a solid historical novel and self-publish it through Amazon's Kindle Store (for ebooks) and Smashwords (for those who want a printed version. It's not difficult. It's free to publish. You get a far higher royalty than with a legacy publisher, AND you keep all of your rights. Forever. And you're always on the shelf, you're never remaindered.

I'd follow the marketing guide laid out by Kirsten Lamb in "We Are Not Alone." I'd use Facebook and Twitter (social networking) and the Societies (personal networking) for R3 and make friends with every Richard fan out there. Friendships first, marketing second. Because no one wants to be hit over the head with any product. And friends support friends much more than strangers support strangers.

One person at a time, I'd build a readership through a shared interest in Richard. Who here wouldn't read Paul's (or anyone else's book) if he or us said we had one? I'd build my own market, my own reader platform.

One friend tells three others, those three would tell three more each...and the reader platform is built through friendship. Not through, "Buy my scholarly work on R3 published by Penguin that made me make all sorts of changes and didn't let me write past 90,000 words." With that sort of platform, where friends support friends' projects, you can move the world.

I know this isn't the traditional way, but the traditional way is dying. We're already being left behind.

Richard has a way of drawing people to him. If he can manage to help Philippa find him in a car park, and inspire a thunderstorm to gather the moment his bones touch air in 500+ years, he can certainly manage to help us find people who will buy stuff about him that we create. Our job is to produce that stuff.

If we can't depend on the Ricardian or the BBC to move that stuff, then we band together to support one another and move it for all of us. Richard liveth yet. If we're in service to the king, then perhaps we should serve?

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You are so very right. It's no good fighting, produce an alternative. But for people like Paul who do you bribe?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>  
>
>
> Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.
>
> At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.
>
> And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.
>
> It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.
>
> What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.
>
> I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.
>
> You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> > different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> > entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> > historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> > And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> > story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> > Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

Hi Paul
I don't disagree but it's because we are being continually disappointed by the interpretations. It's been a rollercoaster ride this last year but raising Richard's profile has led us down some strange paths. We hoped that discovering his remains would lead to a dignified reburial and where are we at with that? The UoLAS have taken over together with the City of Leicester officials who see it as a moneymaking scheme to be milked for all it can be. Richard is still awaiting a fitting reburial with a lasting memorial. The TV programmes were a mixed blessing through their interpretation and the way they were reviewed although there are more people who seem to be prepared to give Richard the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it is because we are too close and therefore our objectivity is clouded. When I was writing that post I was trying to think of alternative ways to present the information to reach a wider audience. Not everyone is as passionate or has spent as long in trying to rehabilitate Richard's reputation as the people on here. Also for the layperson they may not wish to delve as deeply as some of us.
Radio used to have some marvelous drama and was a way for writers to get a footing in the industry. A drama might work and could reach a wider audience. The problems so far have been in the choice of material to adapt as in the case with Philippa Gregory and the reason is that the economic climate is dictating that a popular (to some) and proven writer of fiction gets her work adapted because she has the clout and a backlog of sales to back up her claim. In other words, they won't take a chance on something innovative or unproven. The film industry is in a similar predicament and I think you have spoken of this with regard to your script.
One thing I thought of was a website, I know the Society have their own but I'm sure there would be room for one more. On here we appear to be responding to fresh assaults on the reputation of Richard whenever a new interpretation surfaces, which is not really moving the debate forward.
Elaine








--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> On 25/06/2013 21:06, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> > We don't want a great or even a good drama of Richard to appeal to the masses.
> Sorry Elaine I totally disagree, as this would be a great way to get
> people interested in the period.
>
> > We want more people to know the truth and recognise the good that he did. We need to take the battle to the masses through the factual evidence.
> One thing will lead to the other. Just going out there telling people
> that they have to learn the truth will not get many involved or even
> interested. Years of trying that through the Society has brought little
> change to the mind set of the majority has it? In order to get unbder
> their skin you need something of genuine popular appeal to kick start
> the discussion. 'Did you see that wonderful film last night? I didn't
> know Richard was like that, I always thought he was a villain!'
> Paul
>
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

That's tremendous - I only watched it again about a month ago. Plummer plays Atahualpa - good performances from Nigel Davenport and Robert Shaw as well.

Col

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

>

We can't possibly know how much
work another person has already done, trying to turn a dream into reality.
 
Nor can we presume the ideas
suggested by other people haven't already been pursued, over the course of many
years' devoted labour.
 
But rest assured, if there were
further persons to contact or some resource available for the tapping, Richard,
the Film would already be a reality. The script doesn't languish in some drawer
 it has been (and still is) in many hands. Agents. Well-known actors. Directors.
Everyone agrees it's first-rate&.
 
But, but, but.
 
It's difficult for anyone outside
the business to understand the motion picture industry's workings, because
the only stories we hear are the quirky successes, and these always sound so
simple and serendipitous.
 
Just do it, we say, as if Life were
a trainer. But the successes don't show us the whole picture  and what we
really don't see are the complicated financial machinations. The bottom lines. Even the well-connected bow to these truths. Look at how long it took to make films from "bankable" commodities like The Phantom of the Opera and Les Miz.... 
 
How many Ricardians does it take to
raise L10 million?
 
The one unbreakable rule in movie
making: First comes the money. No idea, regardless of how brilliant or who
suggests or champions it, can escape this reality.
 
And the broad visual sweep of
Richard's life and times isn't well-attuned to the low budget of a small indie
production.
 
What a shame it would be to start with a
brilliant film script, and end up with a mediocre Something Else. A script can't just be tweaked into being a play or book. Well,
not an equally good play or book, anyway. Unless similar time and
craft is put in, the hybrid will always fall short.
 
There are fundamental differences 
structural, aesthetic, emotional  among the art forms. Each
requires a very different type and level of audience immersion and sensory experience
- anda totally different form (not merely style) of
writing.  There are (unfortunately) no
irreducible bits or phonemes that allow a script to morph into something else.
 
Film is visual; it relies on its
own specialized language of camera angles and lighting instructions. Along
with the dialogue, the screenwriter deals heavily in this arcane language, shot
by shot, scene by scene. Most other descriptive details remain sketchy and rely
on others to develop; the script is the basis for a sprawlingly co-operative
effort.
 
Presenting a play takes similar
co-operation, but the objective is opposite. Speech (as dialogue, monologue, or
even song) advances the narrative line. And the writing, much more profuse and
internally descriptive than its screen cousin, must at the same time observe
certain built in limitations (everything technically doable within one basic
space and in accord with human-scale pacing and Real Time) and advantages (the
immediacy and proximity of the action in relation to the audience) of the
stage. A playwright needs a lot of theatrical knowledge and experience (and
what some call a Seeing Ear) to craft a good play.
 
Then there's the novel, which
depends upon a lone reader interacting with&words. There are no intermediaries
to flesh out the details. The writer must evoke everything  involve all five
senses  solely through the reader's imagination. This requires a dense,
multi-faceted form of expression, completely unlike script writing. (And BTW, we
don't yet know how self-publishing will ultimately fare in the Tale of the
Novel. To date, the big successes have relied on Sex as prime mover, i.e., 50
Shades of Gray and its like.  Most books
still achieve, at best, small niche markets.)
 
Very, very different formats with
wholly different goals.

Yet even if these three art forms
were somehow so easily interchangeable that any writer could turn one thing
into the other, QED, the same rule about money obtains. First, raise the cash
to fund a production company&and that Prod Co raises the rest of the money. If
this weren't true, wouldn't we have long ago seen a film based, say, upon an
existing, credible Ricardian novel, rather than the likes of White Queen/Red
Queen? Or wouldn't the groundswell of fan-based efforts surrounding a popular
actor have yielded more positive results by now? Without the cash, there's no
deal. And without the deal, there's no film.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
This is just my take, okay? If I had a screenplay I wanted to get into production, I'd convert it to a play because they are far less expensive to produce. Why? Because I want exposure ASAP, and if the play was a success, I could wave that success in producers' faces. Because there's far more theatre produced in Britain than there is film.

I'd get in touch with the British equivalent of Moises Kaufmann, or in touch with a British community theatre company that's respected and well-known and ask their director(s) to look at it.

If that company turned it down, I'd move on to the next one, and then the next. I'd fight hard for a solid local platform and get it produced there first. Once it was in production, I'd have the chance to see what works and what doesn't dramatically, and to tinker with it.

IF my play were good enough, it would draw a solid audience, perhaps be taken to London or New York and be seen by producers of screenplays who are always on the lookout for such things.

*Then* I'd start hacking the screenplay round.

In the meantime, I'd also turn the screenplay into a solid historical novel and self-publish it through Amazon's Kindle Store (for ebooks) and Smashwords (for those who want a printed version. It's not difficult. It's free to publish. You get a far higher royalty than with a legacy publisher, AND you keep all of your rights. Forever. And you're always on the shelf, you're never remaindered.

I'd follow the marketing guide laid out by Kirsten Lamb in "We Are Not Alone." I'd use Facebook and Twitter (social networking) and the Societies (personal networking) for R3 and make friends with every Richard fan out there. Friendships first, marketing second. Because no one wants to be hit over the head with any product. And friends support friends much more than strangers support strangers.

One person at a time, I'd build a readership through a shared interest in Richard. Who here wouldn't read Paul's (or anyone else's book) if he or us said we had one? I'd build my own market, my own reader platform.

One friend tells three others, those three would tell three more each...and the reader platform is built through friendship. Not through, "Buy my scholarly work on R3 published by Penguin that made me make all sorts of changes and didn't let me write past 90,000 words." With that sort of platform, where friends support friends' projects, you can move the world.

I know this isn't the traditional way, but the traditional way is dying. We're already being left behind.

Richard has a way of drawing people to him. If he can manage to help Philippa find him in a car park, and inspire a thunderstorm to gather the moment his bones touch air in 500+ years, he can certainly manage to help us find people who will buy stuff about him that we create. Our job is to produce that stuff.

If we can't depend on the Ricardian or the BBC to move that stuff, then we band together to support one another and move it for all of us. Richard liveth yet. If we're in service to the king, then perhaps we should serve?

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> You are so very right. It's no good fighting, produce an alternative. But for people like Paul who do you bribe?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2013, 17:23
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>  
>
>
> Why is it so blasted difficult for the BBC to understand that for all intents and purposes, PG's publisher set PG firmly in the historical fiction genre. As adapted to the BBC's uses, it's delving near historical romance (and that makes sense from a marketing POV), but I simply do not understand how anyone could at any time call the productions of PG's keyboard history.
>
> At least she's not claiming to write biographical novels a la Irving Stone. Yet.
>
> And...she's re-imagined history? If their publicists told the truth, they'd say she's cut history to ribbons, reassembled the pieces as she likes, and burned the rest. This doesn't mean she's a better writer, it merely means she's been lucky in her career.
>
> It also means we all should stop whinging and get to work producing some quality entertainment using the actual history. The snark is getting neither Richard nor us anywhere, while PG and her untruths are laughing on their way to the bank and further publicity.
>
> What's sad is that the truth is so much better than any fiction anyone could invent. What's even more sad is that there are writers in the Society who could produce books much better than hers.
>
> I know legacy publishers won't let us do what we want. That's what ebook publishing is for (with print on demand hand-in-hand with it, marketing through social networks, and building your readership person by person). That's what JK Konrath and Kirsten Lamb and Holly Lisle keep shouting to the world.
>
> You don't need a legacy publisher to frame Richard as he deserves, to publish and promote him on your own. You don't need the BBC to stop using people like PG. We need to *replace* PG with a better product.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > BBC Radio Times now backtracking a bit by saying "The White Queen is a
> > different type of period drama for BBC1, an adaptation of Philippa
> > Gregory's best selling novels that re-imagine history in fiction to
> > entertain a mainstream audience. It is not a slavishly accurate
> > historical account of medieval England." No kidding!
> > And no excuse for saying that an historically accurate telling of the
> > story would not appeal to the same audience - because it would!
> > Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>

Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

He was in the stage version that I saw Liz. He was Atahualpa and very good.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:34
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
He was in the stage version that I saw Liz. He was Atahualpa and very good.

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

Big breeches?? So if they did Elizabeth R again now we'd have no ruffs or face paint; far too distracting. Might just as well adopt the tactics of the RSC who for the past few years have been dressing all their plays as though they are set in revolutionary Russia -military jackets and 'long dresses'.



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:34
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 
He was in the stage version that I saw Liz. He was Atahualpa and very good.

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

Except the RSC is deliberately "out of period", whereas the makers of 'The White Queen' are trying to give the impression that they're getting it right!

(Actually, I don't mind poetic license with costume, as long as the end product is coherent and convincing.  But, sadly, 'The White Queen is not - in any department.)

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:08
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
Big breeches?? So if they did Elizabeth R again now we'd have no ruffs or face paint; far too distracting. Might just as well adopt the tactics of the RSC who for the past few years have been dressing all their plays as though they are set in revolutionary Russia -military jackets and 'long dresses'.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:34
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
He was in the stage version that I saw Liz. He was Atahualpa and very good.

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

Certainly with the RSC the acting dominates, which is something that cannot be said for the White Queen. 



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:19
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

Except the RSC is deliberately "out of period", whereas the makers of 'The White Queen' are trying to give the impression that they're getting it right!

(Actually, I don't mind poetic license with costume, as long as the end product is coherent and convincing.  But, sadly, 'The White Queen is not - in any department.)

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:08
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 
Big breeches?? So if they did Elizabeth R again now we'd have no ruffs or face paint; far too distracting. Might just as well adopt the tactics of the RSC who for the past few years have been dressing all their plays as though they are set in revolutionary Russia -military jackets and 'long dresses'.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:34
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
He was in the stage version that I saw Liz. He was Atahualpa and very good.

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

Well, 'The White Queen' has a decent cast, at least in the supporting roles.  But if characters are written in a way that's fundamentally unreal, there's little any actor can do to make them live and breathe...

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:26
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?



 
Certainly with the RSC the acting dominates, which is something that cannot be said for the White Queen. 

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:19
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

Except the RSC is deliberately "out of period", whereas the makers of 'The White Queen' are trying to give the impression that they're getting it right!

(Actually, I don't mind poetic license with costume, as long as the end product is coherent and convincing.  But, sadly, 'The White Queen is not - in any department.)

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:08
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Big breeches?? So if they did Elizabeth R again now we'd have no ruffs or face paint; far too distracting. Might just as well adopt the tactics of the RSC who for the past few years have been dressing all their plays as though they are set in revolutionary Russia -military jackets and 'long dresses'.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:34
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
He was in the stage version that I saw Liz. He was Atahualpa and very good.

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance.  I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________

Totally agree. What a waste of some good folk. You know, I don't buy the 'can't afford it' with costumes. Not that long ago they did 'Charles II' and the costumes were ravishing and authentic. You can't tell me that the 'White Queen's' costumes were potentially more expensive than that. The wigs alone must have cost a fortune. I think it's more about laziness and poor research. Such a wasted opportunity.


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:31
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

Well, 'The White Queen' has a decent cast, at least in the supporting roles.  But if characters are written in a way that's fundamentally unreal, there's little any actor can do to make them live and breathe...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:26
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 
Certainly with the RSC the acting dominates, which is something that cannot be said for the White Queen. 

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:19
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

Except the RSC is deliberately "out of period", whereas the makers of 'The White Queen' are trying to give the impression that they're getting it right!

(Actually, I don't mind poetic license with costume, as long as the end product is coherent and convincing.  But, sadly, 'The White Queen is not - in any department.)

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:08
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Big breeches?? So if they did Elizabeth R again now we'd have no ruffs or face paint; far too distracting. Might just as well adopt the tactics of the RSC who for the past few years have been dressing all their plays as though they are set in revolutionary Russia -military jackets and 'long dresses'.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:34
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
He was in the stage version that I saw Liz. He was Atahualpa and very good.

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:23
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I remember this film very well but didn't realise Dalton was in it (I was tood mesmerised by Plummer)>
 
Talking of the White Queen, someone in the letters page i n the Daily Mail yesterday (I know ....) said something to the effect that "there are only minor errors and it is mostly accurate historically".
 
I've been away for ten days nad not yet caugt up - are we keeping a list?

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 10:46
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
Atahualpa.
 
Believe me twenty-year old Timothy Dalton with a bare chest was far more entertaining :) 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 17:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 

I'm still reeling from the old film version of "Royal Hunt of the Sun" that featured Christopher Plummer playing...was it Montezuma?...in a loincloth.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't 'A Man for all Seasons' and 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' start as plays? I remember watching a lovely one on Cranmer at my local theatre called 'The Unholy Trinity'. You have a good point there. Provincial theatre is often the training ground for good young actors too. 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' had a very young, and very good Timothy Dalton as its star. 

And that people with no interest in Richard, but with an interest in a good story are saying 'have you seen that dreadful rubbish on Sunday night'. Any hopes of getting converts to the WOTR have been truly dashed.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:36
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


 



Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance.  I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.

From: Jonathan Evans <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________

The best thing about TWQ is that it will send me to Ross on Edward IV fairly soon. I have a hard-back copy second-hand waiting along with back numbers of the Ricardian & several other goodies. TWQ episode 2 - Scandinavian blondes in sunshine, men in the dark getting wet or executed, the Bad Fairy MB also in the dark but glowing with PG's hindsight rather than second sight. The MB character holds my attention more than the others & wine certainly helps the unintentional comedy
Happy viewing...
Jan.



On 28 Jun 2013, at 12:48, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> And that people with no interest in Richard, but with an interest in a good story are saying 'have you seen that dreadful rubbish on Sunday night'. Any hopes of getting converts to the WOTR have been truly dashed.
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 12:36
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
>
> Jonathan
>
> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
>
> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
>
> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
>
> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
>
> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
>
> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
>
> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
>
> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.
>
> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
>
> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the fun story! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?




Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.

Jonathan

These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.

Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.

I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.

"That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."

Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.

For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."

If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.

Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.

The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."

Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.

________________________________

I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the “fun story”! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
>
> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
>
> Jonathan
>
> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
>
> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
>
> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
>
> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
>
> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
>
> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
>
> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
>
> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
>
> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
>
> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

liz williams wrote:

"Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more
concerned about the lack of facts."

Doug here:
A version of the "strawman" argument, which is nothing but a rhetorical
version of the the old magician's trick of distracting the crowd from what's
really happening? In this case, arguing against the costuming to distract
from the real argument - PG's playing fast and loose with the facts.
I don't particularly like historical fiction and think it's best done *not*
using actual historical figures, except maybe as "walk-ons", to tell the
story. But if one *is* going to write fiction about actual people, then stay
within the parameters of the known facts!
It really sounds to me as if PG *doesn't* have much imagination, looks for
plots from history, and then runs with them, changing any- and everything
that she thinks might make for a "better"; ie, more saleable, story.
From what I've read here, I'm glad WQ's not available - yet - in the States.
Although, since I believe it *is* a BBC production (How low the mighty...!),
it'll likely show up on BBC America.
Doug

I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
Peter Pan I ever saw!
But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
Paul

On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the â¬Sfun storyâ¬ý! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
>>
>>
>>
>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
>> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>
>>
>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
>>
>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
>>
>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
>>
>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
>>
>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
>>
>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
>>
>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
>>
>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
>>
>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
>>
>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

But the young Oliver Reed was the guy who converted me to Richard! He had the most outstanding eyes - and the right length hair! 



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 16:07
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
Peter Pan I ever saw!
But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
Paul

On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter.  Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London.  BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year.  Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are  anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble.  Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive.  Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the â¬Sfun storyâ¬! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
>>
>>
>>
>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance.  I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
>>
>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
>> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>
>>
>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
>>
>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
>>
>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
>>
>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
>>
>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
>>
>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
>>
>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
>>
>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
>>
>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
>>
>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh..so he is...I had to google him as the name didnt ring any bells..The article goes on to say that 'The Corporation agreed to wait for Rylance who has commitments in the US and here at home (he will direct Vanessa Redgrave and James Earl Jones in Much Ado About Nothing at the Old Vic in September".
--
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 16:07
> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
>
> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> Peter Pan I ever saw!
> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> Paul
>
> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter.  Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London.  BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year.  Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are  anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble.  Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive.  Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the â€Å"fun storyâ€! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
> >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance.  I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> >>
> >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> >> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >>
> >>
> >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> >>
> >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> >>
> >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> >>
> >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> >>
> >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> >>
> >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> >>
> >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> >>
> >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> >>
> >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> >>
> >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I'm going to see Rylance as Olivia in Twelfth Night on Monday. The production is showing in cinemas around the country.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Oh..so he is...I had to google him as the name didnt ring any bells..The article goes on to say that 'The Corporation agreed to wait for Rylance who has commitments in the US and here at home (he will direct Vanessa Redgrave and James Earl Jones in Much Ado About Nothing at the Old Vic in September".
> --
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 16:07
> > Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter.  Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London.  BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year.  Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are  anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble.  Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive.  Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the â€Å"fun storyâ€! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > >> To:
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance.  I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > >>
> > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > >>
> > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > >>
> > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > >>
> > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > >>
> > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > >>
> > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > >>
> > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > >>
> > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > >>
> > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > >>
> > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Doug wrote:
> A version of the "strawman" argument, which is nothing but a rhetorical version of the the old magician's trick of distracting the crowd from what's really happening? In this case, arguing against the costuming to distract from the real argument - PG's playing fast and loose with the facts. [snip]

Carol responds:

Totally OT, but I'm not sure that's a straw man argument. The straw man fallacy sets up a counterargument that's easy to knock down--for example, Sir Thomas More easily proves that E4 didn't marry Elizabeth Lucy--on the (false) assumption that it disproves the larger point, that E4's marriage was invalid because he was already married. (Of course, More didn't know the identity of the woman involved in the precontract because all known copies of Titulus Regius had been destroyed, but it was still a straw man argument because it's a weak or imaginary argument that he set up for the express purpose of proving it wrong.

By the way, can someone please tell me why when I look up "A.M." on Merriam-Webster (to see whether the periods are optional), I'm redirected to "valsava maneuver" in the medical dictionary? I know it has nothing to do with anything, including this post, but it's a reflection of the crazy day I'm having.

Carol

Carol wrote:
"Totally OT, but I'm not sure that's a straw man argument. The straw man
fallacy sets up a counterargument that's easy to knock down--for example,
Sir Thomas More easily proves that E4 didn't marry Elizabeth Lucy--on the
(false) assumption that it disproves the larger point, that E4's marriage
was invalid because he was already married. (Of course, More didn't know the
identity of the woman involved in the precontract because all known copies
of Titulus Regius had been destroyed, but it was still a straw man argument
because it's a weak or imaginary argument that he set up for the express
purpose of proving it wrong.
By the way, can someone please tell me why when I look up "A.M." on
Merriam-Webster (to see whether the periods are optional), I'm redirected to
"valsava maneuver" in the medical dictionary? I know it has nothing to do
with anything, including this post, but it's a reflection of the crazy day
I'm having."

Doug here:
I was thinking in particular of the "zips" and how, as a sign of "historical
accuracy", none were used.
As for "A.M." taking you to "valsava maneuver"; the "M" starts off
"maneuver"; I have no idea what medical term, or name, the "A" stands for.
Did you try searching for "ante meridian"?
Doug

I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).

From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:

"So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."

Tamara

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> Peter Pan I ever saw!
> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> Paul
>
> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the “fun story”! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
> >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> >>
> >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> >> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >>
> >>
> >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> >>
> >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> >>
> >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> >>
> >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> >>
> >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> >>
> >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> >>
> >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> >>
> >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> >>
> >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> >>
> >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
>
> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
>
> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the “fun story”! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > >> To:
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > >>
> > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > >>
> > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > >>
> > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > >>
> > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > >>
> > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > >>
> > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > >>
> > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > >>
> > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > >>
> > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > >>
> > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Could it really be worse than PG?  I've just finished watching episode 2 and I am trying to think of something - anything! - about it that isn't complete and utter shite but the only thing I can come up with is "James Frain".  And he'll only be in it for an other couple of episodes.
 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 22:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
>
> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
>
> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the fun story! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > >>
> > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > >>
> > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > >>
> > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > >>
> > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > >>
> > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > >>
> > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > >>
> > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > >>
> > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > >>
> > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > >>
> > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

An alternate is to watch almost any US produced television show. Everyone is perfect, perfect body, perfect teeth, women in 5" heels and pencil skirts doing police work. Guys, usually young and chiseled, nor as smart as their female cohorts, but snappy dialogue, which could put an end to insomnia everywhere. There are some alternatives, but not too many!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 29, 2013, at 5:20 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Could it really be worse than PG? I've just finished watching episode 2 and I am trying to think of something - anything! - about it that isn't complete and utter shite but the only thing I can come up with is "James Frain". And he'll only be in it for an other couple of episodes.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 22:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
>
> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
>
> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the ýfun storyý! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > >>
> > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com>>>
> > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>>
> > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > >>
> > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > >>
> > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > >>
> > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > >>
> > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > >>
> > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > >>
> > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > >>
> > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > >>
> > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > >>
> > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for ý200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

We get those two and frankly I think they're better than The White Queen! 



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 23:27
Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


An alternate is to watch almost any US produced television show. Everyone is perfect, perfect body, perfect teeth, women in 5" heels and pencil skirts doing police work. Guys, usually young and chiseled, nor as smart as their female cohorts, but snappy dialogue, which could put an end to insomnia everywhere. There are some alternatives, but not too many!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 29, 2013, at 5:20 PM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Could it really be worse than PG?  I've just finished watching episode 2 and I am trying to think of something - anything! - about it that isn't complete and utter shite but the only thing I can come up with is "James Frain".  And he'll only be in it for an other couple of episodes.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 22:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?


That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
>
> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
>
> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the fun story! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > >>
> > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com/>>>
> > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>>
> > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > >>
> > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > >>
> > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > >>
> > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > >>
> > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > >>
> > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > >>
> > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > >>
> > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > >>
> > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > >>
> > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Read another review which said the programme lost one million viewers between ep 1 and ep 2.  The reviewer said she might watch ep 3, but it all depended on how much she had had to drink.........

________________________________
 liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:




 
Could it really be worse than PG?  I've just finished watching episode 2 and I am trying to think of something - anything! - about it that isn't complete and utter shite but the only thing I can come up with is "James Frain".  And he'll only be in it for an other couple of episodes.
 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 22:28
Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?

 
That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
>
> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
>
> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>
> Tamara
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the fun story! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > >>
> > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > >>
> > >> Jonathan
> > >>
> > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > >>
> > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > >>
> > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > >>
> > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > >>
> > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > >>
> > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > >>
> > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > >>
> > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > >>
> > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > >>
> > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

I think that might have been Caitlin Moran (sp?) who complained of a massive plot spoiler when the MB figure told her son she had had a vision that he'd be king of England. Well, maybe not everyone knows their kings of England!
Jan.


On 30 Jun 2013, at 06:23, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

>
>
> Read another review which said the programme lost one million viewers between ep 1 and ep 2. The reviewer said she might watch ep 3, but it all depended on how much she had had to drink.........
>
> ________________________________
> liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>
> Could it really be worse than PG? I've just finished watching episode 2 and I am trying to think of something - anything! - about it that isn't complete and utter shite but the only thing I can come up with is "James Frain". And he'll only be in it for an other couple of episodes.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 22:28
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>
> That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
> >
> > I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
> >
> > From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
> >
> > "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > > writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the fun story! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > > >>
> > > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jonathan
> > > >>
> > > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > > >>
> > > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > > >>
> > > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > > >>
> > > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > > >>
> > > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > > >>
> > > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > > >>
> > > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > > >>
> > > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dangerous in that she seems to be equating 'curved spine' with
'hunchback', so she hasn't done her homework properly on that topic!
Scoliosis is NOT hunchback Hilary, so the Tudor stories were propaganda!
Paul

On 29/06/2013 22:28, EileenB wrote:
> That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
>>
>> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
>>
>> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>>
>> Tamara
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>> I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
>>> writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
>>> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
>>> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
>>> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
>>> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
>>> Peter Pan I ever saw!
>>> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>>>> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>>>>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the â¬Sfun storyâ¬ý! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
>>>>> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
>>>>>
>>>>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
>>>>>
>>>>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
>>>>>
>>>>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Agree Paul. More Dr Oops and her hunchback remark. When I watched "King in the Carpark" again last week it appeared that there was very little on scoliosis is not kyphosis. It might have been my imagination or maybe I wasn't concentrating but in the original I seem to remember that they did make that point whereas this time it appeared to be missing.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Dangerous in that she seems to be equating 'curved spine' with
> 'hunchback', so she hasn't done her homework properly on that topic!
> Scoliosis is NOT hunchback Hilary, so the Tudor stories were propaganda!
> Paul
>
> On 29/06/2013 22:28, EileenB wrote:
> > That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
> >>
> >> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
> >>
> >> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
> >>
> >> Tamara
> >>
> >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>> I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> >>> writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> >>> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> >>> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> >>> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> >>> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> >>> Peter Pan I ever saw!
> >>> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> >>>> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >>>>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the “fun story”! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> >>>>> To:
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> >>>>> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jonathan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Here is a complete change of topic...and a desperate enquiry from someone who is stumped, completely. Does ANYONE know what sort of name medieval men/boys gave to their favourite dogs/hounds? I can't find any references, and it's driving me mad. Thanks for any help at all.

Sandra
=^..^=

Stop press, Professor Hicks gives his comments on TWQ! I don't know if this link will work but he's out there all right.
Jan.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/24/medieval-historians-view-white-queen

On 30 Jun 2013, at 12:20, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:

> Agree Paul. More Dr Oops and her hunchback remark. When I watched "King in the Carpark" again last week it appeared that there was very little on scoliosis is not kyphosis. It might have been my imagination or maybe I wasn't concentrating but in the original I seem to remember that they did make that point whereas this time it appeared to be missing.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > Dangerous in that she seems to be equating 'curved spine' with
> > 'hunchback', so she hasn't done her homework properly on that topic!
> > Scoliosis is NOT hunchback Hilary, so the Tudor stories were propaganda!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 29/06/2013 22:28, EileenB wrote:
> > > That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> > >> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
> > >>
> > >> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
> > >>
> > >> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
> > >>
> > >> Tamara
> > >>
> > >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>> I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > >>> writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > >>> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > >>> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > >>> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > >>> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > >>> Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > >>> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > >>>> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >>>>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the fun story! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > >>>>> To:
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> > >>>>> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > >>>>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Jonathan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ________________________________
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>

I'm not sure I can stomach another episode.....
Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Could it really be worse than PG?  I've just finished watching episode 2 and I am trying to think of something - anything! - about it that isn't complete and utter shite but the only thing I can come up with is "James Frain".  And he'll only be in it for an other couple of episodes.
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 22:28
> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>
>  
> That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
> >
> > I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
> >
> > From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
> >
> > "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
> >
> > Tamara
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
> > > writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
> > > Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
> > > and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
> > > the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
> > > more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
> > > Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > > But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > > I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the “fun story”! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > > >> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > > >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > > >>
> > > >> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
> > > >> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > >> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > > >> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jonathan
> > > >>
> > > >> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > > >>
> > > >> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > > >>
> > > >> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > > >>
> > > >> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > > >>
> > > >> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
> > > >>
> > > >> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > > >>
> > > >> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > > >>
> > > >> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > > >>
> > > >> ________________________________
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

There is a lot of activity on Facebook, with many pages (not all
pro-Richard) devoted to discussion about Richard, several are a great deal
more active than either this group or the Society's Facebook page. On one,
in particular, there is a project to provide rebuttals to the 10 most
popular lies about Richard. There is a wiki on Richard, which, when I
found it a while ago, appeared to be the project of a single individual &
consisted of Wikipedia pages. There is a gentleman, Ian Rogers (
www.girders.net), who has created a timeline (called "diary) for every year
of Richard's life, & is attempting to accumulate information (although a
lot of it is very sparse) on every English person he can find from the 15th
century. Both the parent & American Richard III Society websites have
updated their appearance, & the NSW branch has some excellent material,
including several articles by Annette Carson. There is also a site of the
Richard III Foundation which has some excellent material.

A J


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:25 PM, ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi Paul
> I don't disagree but it's because we are being continually disappointed by
> the interpretations. It's been a rollercoaster ride this last year but
> raising Richard's profile has led us down some strange paths. We hoped that
> discovering his remains would lead to a dignified reburial and where are we
> at with that? The UoLAS have taken over together with the City of Leicester
> officials who see it as a moneymaking scheme to be milked for all it can
> be. Richard is still awaiting a fitting reburial with a lasting memorial.
> The TV programmes were a mixed blessing through their interpretation and
> the way they were reviewed although there are more people who seem to be
> prepared to give Richard the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it is because we
> are too close and therefore our objectivity is clouded. When I was writing
> that post I was trying to think of alternative ways to present the
> information to reach a wider audience. Not everyone is as passionate or has
> spent as long in trying to rehabilitate Richard's reputation as the people
> on here. Also for the layperson they may not wish to delve as deeply as
> some of us.
> Radio used to have some marvelous drama and was a way for writers to get a
> footing in the industry. A drama might work and could reach a wider
> audience. The problems so far have been in the choice of material to adapt
> as in the case with Philippa Gregory and the reason is that the economic
> climate is dictating that a popular (to some) and proven writer of fiction
> gets her work adapted because she has the clout and a backlog of sales to
> back up her claim. In other words, they won't take a chance on something
> innovative or unproven. The film industry is in a similar predicament and I
> think you have spoken of this with regard to your script.
> One thing I thought of was a website, I know the Society have their own
> but I'm sure there would be room for one more. On here we appear to be
> responding to fresh assaults on the reputation of Richard whenever a new
> interpretation surfaces, which is not really moving the debate forward.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >
> > On 25/06/2013 21:06, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> > > We don't want a great or even a good drama of Richard to appeal to the
> masses.
> > Sorry Elaine I totally disagree, as this would be a great way to get
> > people interested in the period.
> >
> > > We want more people to know the truth and recognise the good that he
> did. We need to take the battle to the masses through the factual evidence.
> > One thing will lead to the other. Just going out there telling people
> > that they have to learn the truth will not get many involved or even
> > interested. Years of trying that through the Society has brought little
> > change to the mind set of the majority has it? In order to get unbder
> > their skin you need something of genuine popular appeal to kick start
> > the discussion. 'Did you see that wonderful film last night? I didn't
> > know Richard was like that, I always thought he was a villain!'
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>
>
>

Since I've sworn never to read anything more that Hicks wrote (his
intemperate language about Richard just plain makes me too angry), I'll
need a warning as to whether it's suitable reading material!

A J


On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Stop press, Professor Hicks gives his comments on TWQ! I don't know if
> this link will work but he's out there all right.
> Jan.
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/24/medieval-historians-view-white-queen
>
> On 30 Jun 2013, at 12:20, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> > Agree Paul. More Dr Oops and her hunchback remark. When I watched "King
> in the Carpark" again last week it appeared that there was very little on
> scoliosis is not kyphosis. It might have been my imagination or maybe I
> wasn't concentrating but in the original I seem to remember that they did
> make that point whereas this time it appeared to be missing.
>
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dangerous in that she seems to be equating 'curved spine' with
> > > 'hunchback', so she hasn't done her homework properly on that topic!
> > > Scoliosis is NOT hunchback Hilary, so the Tudor stories were
> propaganda!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 29/06/2013 22:28, EileenB wrote:
> > > > That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her
> attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what
> you wish for....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> <khafara@> wrote:
> > > >> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better
> deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no
> I didn't).
> > > >>
> > > >> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies --
> which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she
> writes this paragraph:
> > > >>
> > > >> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity.
> Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who
> read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just
> as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body
> in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede
> the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the
> chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and
> was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king?
> Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past,
> and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the
> victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential
> process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
> > > >>
> > > >> Tamara
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >>> I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know
> who is
> > > >>> writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she
> does.
> > > >>> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small
> thin
> > > >>> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of
> to play
> > > >>> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you
> think
> > > >>> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the
> best
> > > >>> Peter Pan I ever saw!
> > > >>> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
> > > >>> Paul
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> > > >>>> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary
> Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies
> will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them
> to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting
> in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be
> successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have
> wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing
> Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever
> decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was
> that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in
> serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there
> is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever
> arrive. Eileen
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --- In , Pamela Bain
> <pbain@> wrote:
> > > >>>>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual
> events, just clutter up the ýfun storyý! The saddest thing is that if you
> just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think,
> what??????????
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> From: [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of liz williams
> > > >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
> > > >>>>> To:
> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen -
> comments anyone?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm
> far more concerned about the lack of facts.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com
> >>
> > > >>>>> To: "<mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>" <
> <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>>
> > > >>>>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen -
> comments anyone?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the
> costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Jonathan
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen,
> BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips
> in some of its costumes.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted
> mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers
> who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their
> chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable
> channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so
> busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at
> McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic
> Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe
> Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells
> me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are
> historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if
> the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor
> Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to
> Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage
> to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always
> blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single
> memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once
> she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which,
> Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca
> Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he
> made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress
> Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even
> though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of
> fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are
> true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs,"
> maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes
> when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and
> henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally
> distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence.
> "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and
> block light," says Ede.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another
> stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in
> long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The
> shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't
> have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for
> both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits,
> lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we
> do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The
> White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each
> day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with
> some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for ý200,000
> - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the
> Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a
> rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a
> head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ________________________________
>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Sandra....Lady Cassy's monument at Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, circa 1400 has her little lapdog at her feet and his name engraved on the brass...'Terri'...

"Since the Cassy's brass was almost certainly commissioned by Lady Cassy after her husband's death, it is likely that the naming of the dog represents a personal initiative on her part". English Church Monuments in the Middle Ages by Nigel Paul.

Well that's one at least that we know about ...


Eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a complete change of topic...and a desperate enquiry from someone who is stumped, completely. Does ANYONE know what sort of name medieval men/boys gave to their favourite dogs/hounds? I can’t find any references, and it’s driving me mad. Thanks for any help at all.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
>
>
>

Thank you, Eileen, you're a star! Any more pooch names, anyone????

From: EILEEN BATES
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 2:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Dogs?


Sandra....Lady Cassy's monument at Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, circa 1400 has her little lapdog at her feet and his name engraved on the brass...'Terri'...

"Since the Cassy's brass was almost certainly commissioned by Lady Cassy after her husband's death, it is likely that the naming of the dog represents a personal initiative on her part". English Church Monuments in the Middle Ages by Nigel Paul.

Well that's one at least that we know about ...

Eileen

He makes no mention of Richard, I'm sure.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 30 Jun 2013, at 14:44, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> Since I've sworn never to read anything more that Hicks wrote (his
> intemperate language about Richard just plain makes me too angry), I'll
> need a warning as to whether it's suitable reading material!
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Stop press, Professor Hicks gives his comments on TWQ! I don't know if
>> this link will work but he's out there all right.
>> Jan.
>>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/24/medieval-historians-view-white-queen
>>
>> On 30 Jun 2013, at 12:20, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Agree Paul. More Dr Oops and her hunchback remark. When I watched "King
>> in the Carpark" again last week it appeared that there was very little on
>> scoliosis is not kyphosis. It might have been my imagination or maybe I
>> wasn't concentrating but in the original I seem to remember that they did
>> make that point whereas this time it appeared to be missing.
>>
>>>
>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dangerous in that she seems to be equating 'curved spine' with
>>>> 'hunchback', so she hasn't done her homework properly on that topic!
>>>> Scoliosis is NOT hunchback Hilary, so the Tudor stories were
>> propaganda!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 29/06/2013 22:28, EileenB wrote:
>>>>> That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her
>> attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what
>> you wish for....Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
>> <khafara@> wrote:
>>>>>> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better
>> deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no
>> I didn't).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies --
>> which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she
>> writes this paragraph:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity.
>> Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who
>> read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just
>> as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body
>> in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede
>> the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the
>> chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and
>> was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king?
>> Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past,
>> and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the
>> victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential
>> process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tamara
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
>> <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>> I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know
>> who is
>>>>>>> writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she
>> does.
>>>>>>> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small
>> thin
>>>>>>> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of
>> to play
>>>>>>> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you
>> think
>>>>>>> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the
>> best
>>>>>>> Peter Pan I ever saw!
>>>>>>> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>>>>>>>> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary
>> Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies
>> will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them
>> to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting
>> in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be
>> successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have
>> wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing
>> Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever
>> decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was
>> that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in
>> serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there
>> is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever
>> arrive. Eileen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , Pamela Bain
>> <pbain@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual
>> events, just clutter up the fun story! The saddest thing is that if you
>> just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think,
>> what??????????
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: [mailto:
>> ] On Behalf Of liz williams
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen -
>> comments anyone?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm
>> far more concerned about the lack of facts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To: "<mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>" <
>> <mailto:
>> %40yahoogroups.com>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen -
>> comments anyone?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the
>> costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen,
>> BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips
>> in some of its costumes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted
>> mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers
>> who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their
>> chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable
>> channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so
>> busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at
>> McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic
>> Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe
>> Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells
>> me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are
>> historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if
>> the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor
>> Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to
>> Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage
>> to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always
>> blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single
>> memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once
>> she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which,
>> Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca
>> Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he
>> made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress
>> Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even
>> though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of
>> fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are
>> true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs,"
>> maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes
>> when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and
>> henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally
>> distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence.
>> "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and
>> block light," says Ede.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another
>> stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in
>> long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The
>> shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't
>> have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for
>> both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits,
>> lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we
>> do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The
>> White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each
>> day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with
>> some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000
>> - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the
>> Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a
>> rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a
>> head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Jan Mulrenan wrote:
>
> Stop press, Professor Hicks gives his comments on TWQ! I don't know if this link will work but he's out there all right.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/jun/24/medieval-historians-view-white-queen

Carol responds:

"They've fiddled with the chronology," he admits, but not a word about Richard's and Anne's ages. And, unlike the run-of-the-mill reviewers, he makes it sound more or less historically accurate, with a bit of poetic license. I haven't seen the series, but I've read enough to know that Hicks, as usual, is all wet. Let's hope that he doesn't convince anyone!

Carol

I'm with you on that Eileen. I might fast forward through the episodes
when she starts slandering Richard just to see how bad it is, I expect
More and More and a touch of Vergil, but no real history. But I will
join the millions of viewers who have already dropped out from watching
dreadful drama. Hopefully a lot of those who started watching realise
that it is not only bad drama but not history at all.
Paul


On 30/06/2013 14:33, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> I'm not sure I can stomach another episode.....
> Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>> Could it really be worse than PG? I've just finished watching episode 2 and I am trying to think of something - anything! - about it that isn't complete and utter shite but the only thing I can come up with is "James Frain". And he'll only be in it for an other couple of episodes.
>> Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, 29 June 2013, 22:28
>> Subject: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>
>> Â
>> That sounds promising.......Im beginning to hope she may turn her attention to Richard now...although of course they do say be careful what you wish for....Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@> wrote:
>>> I think at the very least she'd be even-handed, which is a better deal than Richard gets from Barbara Cartland (erm, I meant P. Gregory -- no I didn't).
>>>
>>> From http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n04/hilary-mantel/royal-bodies -- which is mostly about Anne Boleyn and British royalty in general, she writes this paragraph:
>>>
>>> "So much close scrutiny, and none of it much help to posterity. Anne was a mercurial woman, still shaped by the projections of those who read and write about her. Royal bodies do change after death, and not just as a consequence of the universal post-mortem changes. Now we know the body in the Leicester car park is indeed that of Richard III, we have to concede the curved spine was not Tudor propaganda, but we need not believe the chronicler who claimed Richard was the product of a two-year pregnancy and was born with teeth. Why are we all so pleased about digging up a king? Perhaps because the present is paying some of the debt it owes to the past, and science has come to the aid of history. The king stripped by the victors has been reclothed in his true identity. This is the essential process of history, neatly illustrated: loss, retrieval."
>>>
>>> Tamara
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>> I was looking forward to the tv adaptations, though I don't know who is
>>>> writing them and if Ms Mantel has any input, I certainly hope she does.
>>>> Then I read that Cromwell is to be played by Mark Rylance, small thin
>>>> and grey these days, and the last person I would have thought of to play
>>>> the beefie son of a butcher! Look at Holbein's portrait and you think
>>>> more of a middle aged Oliver Reed rather than the guy who was the best
>>>> Peter Pan I ever saw!
>>>> But what do I know? Only in the business since I was 17!
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 28/06/2013 15:24, EILEEN BATES wrote:
>>>>> I see that the RSC will begin its stage dramatisation of Hilary Mantel's novels this winter. Both plays, Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies will run in Stratford until 29 March and then there are plans to take them to London. BBC will also have 'versions' of the books with filming starting in Bruges and UK next year. Im pretty sure they are all going to be successful if the popularity of her books are anything to go by.I have wondered what Hilary Mantel's outlook on RIchard is...because comparing Mantel to Gregory is like comparing steak to hamburger...so IF she ever decided to write a book about Richard and IF her perception of Richard was that he was a bad man/tyrant\usurper and slayer of small boys we will be in serious trouble. Of course her books are highly researched so maybe there is a good chance they would be pretty much accurate should that day ever arrive. Eileen
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>>>>>> I am with you. They could do this naked, but those darn factual events, just clutter up the â¬Sfun storyâ¬ý! The saddest thing is that if you just know a few actual events and/or who people were, you have to think, what??????????
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of liz williams
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:37 AM
>>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I think the costume issue is a minor annoyance. I'm far more concerned about the lack of facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
>>>>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, 28 June 2013, 11:59
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re: White Queen - comments anyone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For anyone interested, a slightly defensive riposte from the costume designer of 'The White Queen' that appeared in today's 'Telegraph'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are challenging times for period dramas. The White Queen, BBC One's new whimple-buster, stands accused by journalists of using zips in some of its costumes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hell hath no fury like an armchair historian who's spotted mascara in the court of Edward IV or incorrect kirtle-usage. Yet producers who insist on slavish accuracy risk repelling viewers and sabotaging their chances of selling the rights to anywhere other than a fetish US cable channel. British Teeth are bad enough. Medieval British Teeth are traumatic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm conflicted about those zips - mainly because I'd been so busy admiring the slenderising silhouettes (hand of Sarah Burton at McQueen?) and minimalist aesthetic (Jil Sander?) that I hadn't noticed them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That's because there aren't any," a slightly wary-sounding Nic Ede, the veteran costume designer (Bright Young Things, Wilde, Far fthe Madding Crowd, Nanny McPhee) behind those graceful Guinevere frocks, tells me. "Of course we wouldn't use zips. There are hooks and eyes, which are historically correct. But there's a lot of sex in the first episode and if the cameras had honed in on the hooks and eyes it would have taken poor Edward 10 minutes to get Elizabeth Woodville's clothes off."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you notice how I conflated 10 centuries when I referred to Guinevere? She's fifth century. The Woodvilles are 15th. That was my homage to the art of successful period costuming. The best designers have always blended various eras to arrive at a distilled essence - preferably a single memorable one which, they hope, is somehow truthful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the record, the ermine-trimmed gown Elizabeth wears once she's crowned queen is fairly authentic, with 10 metres of brocade which, Ede estimates, weighed several kilos. After the first day's shoot Rebecca Ferguson, the actress playing Elizabeth, had to go to the osteopath, so he made her a lighter replica. As for the delectable pale pink woollen dress Elizabeth wears, Ede promises he wasn't influenced by the catwalk, even though that pink is the shade for autumn. "I'm not really a follower of fashion," he says. "I'm much more interested in fashion history."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the linens, silks, laces and ringlets in The White Queen are true to period ("I'm certain they had some form of hot curling tongs," maintains Ede), purists should prepare themselves for disturbing scenes when bras are worn, to "preserve the elongating line". However, wimples and henins - a steepled form of headwear that would probably prove fatally distracting to modern viewers - are conspicuous by their absence. "Directors hate any kind of head pieces because they obscure the face and block light," says Ede.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plucked foreheads, which were also big in 1465, are another stylistic no-no. And yes, Ede took liberties with the men, dressing them in long boots, padded trousers and longer tunics than were usually worn. The shorter tunics, big breeches and curl-toed slippers of the time wouldn't have provided the same Mr Darcy moment.o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The lack of contemporary domestic detail from 1465 allows for both freedom and vociferous disagreement. No clothes survive and portraits, lacking in technical perspective, don't provide a complete story. What we do know is that no one would have looked quite as Timotei-clean as The White Queen cast. "The hems on those trains were filthy by the end of each day's filming," sighs Ede. "But TV has a habit of sanitising everything."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite the carping, he and his team of six have come up with some highly enjoyable eye candy - and dressed a cast of 1,000 for £200,000 - a brilliant job. His next project, The Thirteenth Tale , is set from the Forties to early Sixties, with a tiny cast and "no crowd scenes". Even on a rainy day in Leeds, where he's speaking to me from his bed with a head-cold, the relief in his voice is palpable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I hope that this email gets through. I haven't been able to sign on
because of password/user name problems. There are a few names listed here:
http://www.medievalists.net/2013/06/23/medieval-pet-names/

Bernice


In a message dated 6/30/2013 10:16:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sandramachin@... writes:




Thank you, Eileen, you're a star! Any more pooch names, anyone????

From: EILEEN BATES
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 2:55 PM
To: __
(mailto:)
Subject: Re: Dogs?

Sandra....Lady Cassy's monument at Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, circa 1400
has her little lapdog at her feet and his name engraved on the
brass...'Terri'...

"Since the Cassy's brass was almost certainly commissioned by Lady Cassy
after her husband's death, it is likely that the naming of the dog
represents a personal initiative on her part". English Church Monuments in the
Middle Ages by Nigel Paul.

Well that's one at least that we know about ...

Eileen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]