PG

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG


 

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

and did you notice the captioning "Dr Philippa Gregory" implying her doctorate is in history when it's in English Lit (belive it or not).
 
and did she really say that HT fought at Edgcote (when he was 12!)

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

 
It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Interesting...  TWQ takes a lazy and clichédapproach to the character of Anne (I don't really need to say that) but the *performance* itself is one of the very few that genuinely suggests a life beyond the lumpen and expository lines.  Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of  Anjou are both watchable, too, although the latter is too much on one note (not the fault of the performance but the script).  The men come off worse.  There's not a single male actor able to suggest they're doing anything other than regurgitate words from a page except, perhaps, Michael Maloney, fleetingly.  But, then, he's in a class above any of the other principals.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 9:11
Subject: Re: PG



 
I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG


 

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I too thought the M of A actress was quite compelling. With different hair she had the maturity to play a proper EW. After all EW is now, what, 33ish and about to age more. Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own. 


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:14
Subject: Re: PG

 

Interesting...  TWQ takes a lazy and clichédapproach to the character of Anne (I don't really need to say that) but the *performance* itself is one of the very few that genuinely suggests a life beyond the lumpen and expository lines.  Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of  Anjou are both watchable, too, although the latter is too much on one note (not the fault of the performance but the script).  The men come off worse.  There's not a single male actor able to suggest they're doing anything other than regurgitate words from a page except, perhaps, Michael Maloney, fleetingly.  But, then, he's in a class above any of the other principals.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 9:11
Subject: Re: PG


 
I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

 

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

> Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own

Very fine actor who's perhaps slipped under the radar a bit in recent years.  I wish he had a better vehicle than this!

(He was a terrific Hal in one of the best Shakespeare productions I've ever seen, the two Henry IVs, with Robert Stephens as Falstaff - right up there with McKellen's Richard, Harriet Walter's Cleopatra and David Tennant's Hamlet.)

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:28
Subject: Re: PG



 
I too thought the M of A actress was quite compelling. With different hair she had the maturity to play a proper EW. After all EW is now, what, 33ish and about to age more. Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own. 


________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:14
Subject: Re: PG

 

Interesting...  TWQ takes a lazy and clichédapproach to the character of Anne (I don't really need to say that) but the *performance* itself is one of the very few that genuinely suggests a life beyond the lumpen and expository lines.  Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of  Anjou are both watchable, too, although the latter is too much on one note (not the fault of the performance but the script).  The men come off worse.  There's not a single male actor able to suggest they're doing anything other than regurgitate words from a page except, perhaps, Michael Maloney, fleetingly.  But, then, he's in a class above any of the other principals.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 9:11
Subject: Re: PG

 
I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

 

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Where did EW keep Puff the Magic Dragon stabled during her stay in the horrible and creepy dungeon that was Sanctuary?
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> Cousins Wars!
> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> Cousins Wars!
> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > gaol, or dead.

Hmm,
Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
Marie





So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > Cousins Wars!
> > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
>

Hilary Jones wrote:

"I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of
The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made
Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end
of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another
attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves
him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away."

Doug here:
Ah, "Home and Away"! One of my first introductions to British "soaps".
Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was Australian! Although I must
admit I'd watch "Prisoners of Cellblock H" (I believe that's correct) with
the same guilty conscience as those now viewing TWQ!
Doug
(who, considering the standards of the two mentioned above, is really,
really, *really* glad TWQ isn't airing here)


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG




It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Remind me not to go to the theatre with you Jonathan!!
I hated all three performances you mentioned!
Now, Robert Stephens Lear, and Ian McKellen's Macbeth were wonderful. As
was Judi Dench as Lady M with Ian. Best Richard for me of course is Tony
Sher, streets better than any other I've ever seen. His speaking of the
poetry was wonderful, and he managed to be sexy, even on crutches!
Can't think of a Cleo I've liked. Not even Vanessa Redgrave was up to it.
Paul

On 18/07/2013 11:38, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>> Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own
> Very fine actor who's perhaps slipped under the radar a bit in recent years. I wish he had a better vehicle than this!
>
> (He was a terrific Hal in one of the best Shakespeare productions I've ever seen, the two Henry IVs, with Robert Stephens as Falstaff - right up there with McKellen's Richard, Harriet Walter's Cleopatra and David Tennant's Hamlet.)
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:28
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
>
>
> I too thought the M of A actress was quite compelling. With different hair she had the maturity to play a proper EW. After all EW is now, what, 33ish and about to age more. Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:14
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
>
> Interesting... TWQ takes a lazy and clichédapproach to the character of Anne (I don't really need to say that) but the *performance* itself is one of the very few that genuinely suggests a life beyond the lumpen and expository lines. Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of Anjou are both watchable, too, although the latter is too much on one note (not the fault of the performance but the script). The men come off worse. There's not a single male actor able to suggest they're doing anything other than regurgitate words from a page except, perhaps, Michael Maloney, fleetingly. But, then, he's in a class above any of the other principals.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 9:11
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
> I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
> Subject: PG
>
>
>
> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> Cousins Wars!
> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.

Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!

Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
Elaine




-- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > gaol, or dead.
>
> Hmm,
> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > Cousins Wars!
> > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

Another good post Elaine....I think your remarks concerning Gregory are absolutely spot on. Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>
> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>
> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
> -- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > gaol, or dead.
> >
> > Hmm,
> > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

If you say you also hated Eve Best as the Duchess of Malfi, I'll start to worry I'm the anti-matter version of you!

Yes, I admired Robert Stephens' Lear, too, but something about the rest of the production didn't quite gel for me, though I saw it twice.  I was doing my MA in Stratford at the time and the word I picked up from the company was that Adrian Noble was slowly killing him by putting an actor with poor health and a dodgy hip on a stage with an incredibly steep rake every night and then drenching him in the storm scene.  They said he wouldn't work again and, very sadly, after the Barbican transfer I don't think he did.

Jonathan



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 17:13
Subject: Re: PG


Remind me not to go to the theatre with you Jonathan!!
I hated all three performances you mentioned!
Now, Robert Stephens Lear, and Ian McKellen's Macbeth were wonderful. As
was Judi Dench as Lady M with Ian. Best Richard for me of course is Tony
Sher, streets better than any other I've ever seen. His speaking of the
poetry was wonderful, and he managed to be sexy, even on crutches!
Can't think of a Cleo I've liked. Not even Vanessa Redgrave was up to it.
Paul

On 18/07/2013 11:38, Jonathan Evans wrote:
>> Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own
> Very fine actor who's perhaps slipped under the radar a bit in recent years.  I wish he had a better vehicle than this!
>
> (He was a terrific Hal in one of the best Shakespeare productions I've ever seen, the two Henry IVs, with Robert Stephens as Falstaff - right up there with McKellen's Richard, Harriet Walter's Cleopatra and David Tennant's Hamlet.)
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:28
> Subject: Re: PG
> 
>
>
>   
> I too thought the M of A actress was quite compelling. With different hair she had the maturity to play a proper EW. After all EW is now, what, 33ish and about to age more. Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:14
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>   
>
> Interesting...  TWQ takes a lazy and clichédapproach to the character of Anne (I don't really need to say that) but the *performance* itself is one of the very few that genuinely suggests a life beyond the lumpen and expository lines.  Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of  Anjou are both watchable, too, although the latter is too much on one note (not the fault of the performance but the script).  The men come off worse.  There's not a single male actor able to suggest they're doing anything other than regurgitate words from a page except, perhaps, Michael Maloney, fleetingly.  But, then, he's in a class above any of the other principals.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 9:11
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>   
> I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
> Subject: PG
>
>   
>
> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> Cousins Wars!
> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Is there ANY evidence that wee Harry Tudor was even present at Edgecote, never mind dressed for battle?

I think this prog represented pretty well the decline in quality of BBC documentaries; a dreary narrative slog through events we already knew about. You could say it was was for non-specialists, but I always tell people to avoid narrative histories - they just repeat each other over and over, with no new insights and perspectives.

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Another good post Elaine....I think your remarks concerning Gregory are absolutely spot on. Eileen
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >
> > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >
> > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > >
> > > Hmm,
> > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

That's interesting Marie. I have always wondered why Stanley was arrested one minite and taking part in Richard's Coronation the next. So is there any contemporary evidence for MB sending messages to EW via Dr Lewis?

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > gaol, or dead.
>
> Hmm,
> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > Cousins Wars!
> > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

PG is trying to turn herself from writer of trashy romantic historical fiction into an academic historian.  I don't actually have an issue with that (it's good if she wants to better herself ....) but so far it would appear that she isn't capable of doing so because she doens't understand that her fiction is simply fiction.


From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 23:52
Subject: Re: PG

 
That's interesting Marie. I have always wondered why Stanley was arrested one minite and taking part in Richard's Coronation the next. So is there any contemporary evidence for MB sending messages to EW via Dr Lewis?

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > gaol, or dead.
>
> Hmm,
> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > Cousins Wars!
> > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> >
>

 I saw that too - Stephens at his best (and not long before he died, I recall).



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:38
Subject: Re: PG

 

> Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own

Very fine actor who's perhaps slipped under the radar a bit in recent years.  I wish he had a better vehicle than this!

(He was a terrific Hal in one of the best Shakespeare productions I've ever seen, the two Henry IVs, with Robert Stephens as Falstaff - right up there with McKellen's Richard, Harriet Walter's Cleopatra and David Tennant's Hamlet.)

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:28
Subject: Re: PG


 
I too thought the M of A actress was quite compelling. With different hair she had the maturity to play a proper EW. After all EW is now, what, 33ish and about to age more. Spot on about Maloney too - in an RSC class of his own. 

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 11:14
Subject: Re: PG

 

Interesting...  TWQ takes a lazy and clichédapproach to the character of Anne (I don't really need to say that) but the *performance* itself is one of the very few that genuinely suggests a life beyond the lumpen and expository lines.  Margaret Beaufort and Margaret of  Anjou are both watchable, too, although the latter is too much on one note (not the fault of the performance but the script).  The men come off worse.  There's not a single male actor able to suggest they're doing anything other than regurgitate words from a page except, perhaps, Michael Maloney, fleetingly.  But, then, he's in a class above any of the other principals.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 9:11
Subject: Re: PG

 
I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away.

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

 

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Ah Cell Block H - a guilty pleasure for us all! And that says much for the triumph of good characterisation, even if at times slightly exaggerated, and a set which cost tuppence.



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: PG

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of
The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made
Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end
of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another
attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves
him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away."

Doug here:
Ah, "Home and Away"! One of my first introductions to British "soaps".
Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was Australian! Although I must
admit I'd watch "Prisoners of Cellblock H" (I believe that's correct) with
the same guilty conscience as those now viewing TWQ!
Doug
(who, considering the standards of the two mentioned above, is really,
really, *really* glad TWQ isn't airing here)

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Ah Cell Block H - a guilty pleasure for us all! And that says much for the
triumph of good characterisation, even if at times slightly exaggerated, and
a set which cost tuppence."

Perhaps PG should have been given a few "Cell Block" scripts to study...
Doug



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: PG




Hilary Jones wrote:

"I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of
The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made
Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end
of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another
attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves
him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away."

Doug here:
Ah, "Home and Away"! One of my first introductions to British "soaps".
Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was Australian! Although I must
admit I'd watch "Prisoners of Cellblock H" (I believe that's correct) with
the same guilty conscience as those now viewing TWQ!
Doug
(who, considering the standards of the two mentioned above, is really,
really, *really* glad TWQ isn't airing here)

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Prisoners of Cell Block H? Oh, my word! It was great fun. I was in hospital for four months in 1981, and had it not been for that show, my days would have been well nigh unendurable. But each afternoon, I watched. A guilty pleasure, indeed! 

How reassuring to know others were similarly hooked.

Judy

In a way, I wish there was an easy and painless way to watch TWQ, mainly because I've been invited to participate at WQ, Rubbish and Tosh. ;-) 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: PG



 

Hilary Jones wrote:

"Ah Cell Block H - a guilty pleasure for us all! And that says much for the
triumph of good characterisation, even if at times slightly exaggerated, and
a set which cost tuppence."

Perhaps PG should have been given a few "Cell Block" scripts to study...
Doug

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: PG

Hilary Jones wrote:

"I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of
The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made
Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end
of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another
attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves
him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away."

Doug here:
Ah, "Home and Away"! One of my first introductions to British "soaps".
Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was Australian! Although I must
admit I'd watch "Prisoners of Cellblock H" (I believe that's correct) with
the same guilty conscience as those now viewing TWQ!
Doug
(who, considering the standards of the two mentioned above, is really,
really, *really* glad TWQ isn't airing here)

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Indeed :)



________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 20 July 2013, 17:43
Subject: Re: PG

 


Hilary Jones wrote:

"Ah Cell Block H - a guilty pleasure for us all! And that says much for the
triumph of good characterisation, even if at times slightly exaggerated, and
a set which cost tuppence."

Perhaps PG should have been given a few "Cell Block" scripts to study...
Doug

________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: PG

Hilary Jones wrote:

"I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of
The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made
Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end
of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another
attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves
him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away."

Doug here:
Ah, "Home and Away"! One of my first introductions to British "soaps".
Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was Australian! Although I must
admit I'd watch "Prisoners of Cellblock H" (I believe that's correct) with
the same guilty conscience as those now viewing TWQ!
Doug
(who, considering the standards of the two mentioned above, is really,
really, *really* glad TWQ isn't airing here)

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
Subject: PG

It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
Cousins Wars!
I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I doubt she can read a script.
Paul

On 20/07/2013 17:43, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "Ah Cell Block H - a guilty pleasure for us all! And that says much for the
> triumph of good characterisation, even if at times slightly exaggerated, and
> a set which cost tuppence."
>
> Perhaps PG should have been given a few "Cell Block" scripts to study...
> Doug
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 16:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> "I didn't watch it and presumably PG's fans were all watching the final of
> The Apprentice so she really had the dead spot. In TWQ she's really made
> Anne into a horrible little teenage prig - dragged from her horse at the end
> of the battle of Tewkesbury (she was on the battlefield, of course), another
> attempted gang rape and Richard walks up to her and asks her if she loves
> him. I've seen better acting in Home and Away."
>
> Doug here:
> Ah, "Home and Away"! One of my first introductions to British "soaps".
> Imagine my surprise when I discovered it was Australian! Although I must
> admit I'd watch "Prisoners of Cellblock H" (I believe that's correct) with
> the same guilty conscience as those now viewing TWQ!
> Doug
> (who, considering the standards of the two mentioned above, is really,
> really, *really* glad TWQ isn't airing here)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
> Sent: Thursday, 18 July 2013, 8:47
> Subject: PG
>
> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> gaol, or dead. So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> Cousins Wars!
> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> Paul
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>
> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>
> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> Elaine
>
>
>
>
> -- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > gaol, or dead.
> >
> > Hmm,
> > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Makes it sound as if PG thinks of herself as a new Shakespeare and that
fiction can supersede the truth in popular culture! God help us! [or
whatever, as I'm an atheist!]
Paul

On 23/07/2013 08:44, ricard1an wrote:
> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>
>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>
>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>> Elaine
>>
>>
>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I think I said before she was as dangerous as Shakespeare. Let's hope she moves on - fast! I didn't realise the DVD of TWQ has been released and people are talking of Richard's incest with his niece and whether we are meant to think he poisoned Anne.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 8:58
Subject: Re: Re: PG


 

Makes it sound as if PG thinks of herself as a new Shakespeare and that
fiction can supersede the truth in popular culture! God help us! [or
whatever, as I'm an atheist!]
Paul

On 23/07/2013 08:44, ricard1an wrote:
> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>
>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>
>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>> Elaine
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
Elaine


--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >
> > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >
> > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > >
> > > Hmm,
> > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'. 



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
Subject: Re: PG

 

Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
Elaine

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >
> > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >
> > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >
> > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > Elaine
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > >
> > > Hmm,
> > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

At least somebody is enjoying TWQ:

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/white-queen-adaptation-reinstates-british-drama-queen-sunday-114300076.html

and looking forward to seeing Harry Tudor's second reign begin at the end of the series.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
>
> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > >
> > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > >
> > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.

Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.

The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.

It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.

This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.

As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.

PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.

PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.

I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.

~Weds




---In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
>
> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >
> > --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > >
> > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > >
> > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!

A brilliant and spot on analysis.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 17:02
Subject: Re: PG


 

From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.

Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.

The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.

It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.

This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.

As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.

PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.

PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.

I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.

~Weds

---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
>
> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > >
> > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > >
> > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!

wednesday_mc wrote:

//snip//
Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one
motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power."
For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it
translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations
dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the
motivations. She never deviates from this path."
//snip//

So she *did* learn how to write viewing "Home and Away"...
Doug

Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we're all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I'm certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author's Note at the end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.

Sandra


From: wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: PG


From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.

Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.

The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.

It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.

This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.

As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.

PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.

PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.

I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.

~Weds

---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
> Â
>
> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > >
> > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > >
> > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!

Weds, you are brilliant. I think too many wish to be entertained not educated. It is so sad to "not know, or care about the truth". My family teases me about reading novels set in "real" places, where I have a map or maps, guidebooks, history, language and so forth. Then I can really get into a book. I can check to see what is, what isn't, or what might have been.

On Jul 23, 2013, at 11:11 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



A brilliant and spot on analysis.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 17:02
Subject: Re: PG




From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.

Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.

The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.

It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.

This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.

As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.

PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.

PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.

I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.

~Weds

---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.ý
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
> ý
>
> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > >
> > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > >
> > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!

I don't think Weds does Sandra; I certainly don't. But PG is a cash-cow (not a personal comment) in a hard market and it makes it harder for serious writers like yourself to be taken up and appreciated. In some ways you're lucky because you have already been published before the 'hard times' so have a track record. It makes it ten times harder for new writers who want to do quality work and get published.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 17:29
Subject: Re: Re: PG


 

Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we're all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I'm certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author's Note at the end should explain
what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.

Sandra

From: wednesday_mc
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG

From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.

Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.

The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.

It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.

This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.

As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.

PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.

PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.

I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.

~Weds

---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
> Â
>
> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > >
> > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > >
> > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!

Doug wrote: So she *did* learn how to write viewing "Home and Away"...


I think it's more like "How to Write Your Novel in 30 Days." She's definitely using a formula. But hey, formulas work for popular fiction.

~Weds



--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> wednesday_mc wrote:
>
> //snip//
> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one
> motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power."
> For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it
> translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations
> dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the
> motivations. She never deviates from this path."
> //snip//
>
> So she *did* learn how to write viewing "Home and Away"...
> Doug
>

I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.

I agree entirely with you.

~Weds


--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author’s Note at the end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>
> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>
> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>
> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>
> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>
> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>
> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>
> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>
> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>
> ~Weds
>
> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> > Â
> >
> > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > >
> > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > >
> > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Indeed - and depressingly so.
 
But so many good writers say that their characters just ran off the page and took control of things - and they are often talking about fictional characters, not those based on people who really lived. 


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 17:10
Subject: Re: Re: PG

 
A brilliant and spot on analysis.

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 17:02
Subject: Re: PG


 

From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.

Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.

The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.

It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.

This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.

As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.

PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.

PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.

I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.

~Weds

---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
>
> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > >
> > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > >
> > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm,
> > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!

But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
 
She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
 
Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
 
 


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
Subject: Re: PG

 
I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.

I agree entirely with you.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>
> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>
> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>
> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>
> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>
> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>
> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>
> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>
> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>
> ~Weds
>
> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > >
> > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > >
> > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It gets worse.  Yesterday, while I was mooching around the history section in Waterstone's, I noticed that among the display were biographies of Richard by Baldwin and Hicks, a history of Lancaster and York by Weir, but also there were piles of The White Queen, The Red Queen and The Kingmaker's Daughter.  So people going to what they think is the non-fiction history section will find PG's books - how can we not expect them to think what she writes is fact!


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:


Makes it sound as if PG thinks of herself as a new Shakespeare and that 

fiction can supersede the truth in popular culture! God help us! [or
whatever, as I'm an atheist!]
Paul

On 23/07/2013 08:44, ricard1an wrote:
> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>
> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
complained about
the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>
>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>
>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>> Elaine
>>
>>
>>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
Subject: Re: Re: PG


 

But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
 
She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
 
Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
 
 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
Subject: Re: PG

 
I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.

I agree entirely with you.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>
> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>
> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>
> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>
> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>
> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>
> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>
> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>
> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>
> ~Weds
>
> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > Elaine
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > >
> > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > >
> > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dear God. 
 
 

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 8:53
Subject: Re: Re: PG

 
She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
Subject: Re: Re: PG


 

But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
 
She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
 
Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
 
 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
Subject: Re: PG

 
I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.

I agree entirely with you.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>
> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>
> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>
> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>
> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>
> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>
> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>
> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>
> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>
> ~Weds
>
> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

The Tradescant book is quite graphic (I bought it thinking it was like Margaret Irwin). That probably put her on the course that illicit sex in whatever form sells.



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 9:17
Subject: Re: Re: PG


 

Dear God. 
 
 

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 8:53
Subject: Re: Re: PG

 
She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
Subject: Re: Re: PG

 

But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
 
She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
 
Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
 
 

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
Subject: Re: PG

 
I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.

I agree entirely with you.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: wednesday_mc
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>
> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>
> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>
> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>
> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>
> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>
> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>
> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>
> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>
> ~Weds
>
> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

While perusing the history section in Waterstone's, I picked up Amy Licence's new biography of Elizabeth of York.  I noticed she stated without any qualification that Richard had imprisoned his mother-in-law at Middleham Castle.

Does anyone know what the source is for this?  I have seen it repeated in a lot of traditional accounts as well as it being made by one of the prosecution 'witnesses' in the 1984 Trial programme.  The word 'imprisoned' carries extreme negative connotations and conjures up images of locked doors and lack of freedom of movement.  Are these the circumstances under which the Dowager Countess lived?  What is the evidence or is it an interpretation of the fact she came to live at Middleham after being declared legally dead?

I trust you enlightened the management and told them to put the fiction
in the fiction section? That includes Weir of course!
Paul

On 24/07/2013 06:55, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> It gets worse. Yesterday, while I was mooching around the history section in Waterstone's, I noticed that among the display were biographies of Richard by Baldwin and Hicks, a history of Lancaster and York by Weir, but also there were piles of The White Queen, The Red Queen and The Kingmaker's Daughter. So people going to what they think is the non-fiction history section will find PG's books - how can we not expect them to think what she writes is fact!
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Makes it sound as if PG thinks of herself as a new Shakespeare and that
>
> fiction can supersede the truth in popular culture! God help us! [or
> whatever, as I'm an atheist!]
> Paul
>
> On 23/07/2013 08:44, ricard1an wrote:
>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>>
>> --- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> complained about
> the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>>
>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>>> Elaine
>>>
>>>
>>>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
Paul

On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
>
>
> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
>
> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
>
> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>
> I agree entirely with you.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: wednesday_mc
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: PG
>>
>>
>> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>>
>> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>>
>> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>>
>> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>>
>> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>>
>> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>>
>> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>>
>> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>
>>> Ã
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
>>> Elaine
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
>>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
>>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
>>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
>>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
>>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
>>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
>>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
>>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
>>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
>>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
>>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
>>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
>>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
>>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
>>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
>>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
>>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
>>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
>>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
>>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
Subject: Re: Re: PG


Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
Paul

On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
>
> 
>
> ________________________________
>  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>   
> 
>   
> 
> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> 
> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> 
> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> 
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>   
> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>
> I agree entirely with you.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: wednesday_mc
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: PG
>>
>>
>>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>>
>> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>>
>> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>>
>> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>>
>> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>>
>> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>>
>> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>>
>> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>
>>> Ã
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
>>> Elaine
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
>>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
>>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
>>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
>>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
>>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
>>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
>>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
>>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
>>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
>>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
>>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
>>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
>>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
>>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
>>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
>>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
>>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
>>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
>>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
>>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>   
>         
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh and Penman too thick, too thick - no-one can have the concentration to read books that long:)



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
Subject: Re: Re: PG


Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
Paul

On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
>
> 
>
> ________________________________
>  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>   
> 
>   
> 
> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> 
> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> 
> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> 
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>   
> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>
> I agree entirely with you.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>> Sandra
>>
>>
>> From: wednesday_mc
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: PG
>>
>>
>>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>>
>> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>>
>> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>>
>> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>>
>> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>>
>> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>>
>> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>>
>> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>>
>> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>
>>> Ã
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
>>> Elaine
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
>>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
>>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
>>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
>>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
>>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
>>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
>>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
>>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
>>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
>>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
>>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
>>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
>>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
>>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
>>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
>>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
>>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
>>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
>>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
>>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>   
>         
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Meanwhile, there's the late Eleanor Hibbert (aka Jean Plaidy, Victoria Holt and various other noms de plume), who wrote *My Enemy the Queen* when Gregory was still trying to make it out of college with a diploma, and also Rumer Godden.

But since reviewers and promoters have the historical awareness of ferrets, they don't count.

Tamara

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Oh and Penman too thick, too thick - no-one can have the concentration to read books that long:)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> > 
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> > 
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >   
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author’s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >   
> >         
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> While perusing the history section in Waterstone's, I picked up Amy Licence's new biography of Elizabeth of York.  I noticed she stated without any qualification that Richard had imprisoned his mother-in-law at Middleham Castle.
>
> Does anyone know what the source is for this?


Marie:
It comes from Rous. He wrote: ":matrem suam Annam venerabilem comitissam, illius nobilis dominii Dominam & justissimam heredem, durante vita sua incarceravit, quae sibi maximi cause refugi confugerati"
which mean's something like "he incarcerated her [ie Anne Neville's] mother Anne, the noble countess, [who was] the lady and rightful heir of those noble domains, for the duration of his life, who had fled to him as her greatest hope of refuge."
It could mean "his life" or "her life" but since Richard predeceased the Countess I have gone for "his life".
The question is, of course, how seriously we should take this, and what lay behind it. It is also Rous who tells us that Richard poisoned Anne Neville. He was of course right about the scoliosis and the place of Richard's burial, but in the case of poisoning, for example, he cannot have had any proof, and the question is: where did his information about the Countess of Warwick's life at Middleham come from, what were his purposes in writing his history for Henry VII, and how free an agent was he regarding what he wrote?
The first thing to bear in mind is that, though the Countess would have been Rous's patron before 1471, he would not have seen her between 1471 and 1483 for sure, so would not have witnessed her living conditions for himself.
The second is that when she was in Beaulieu Edward had had the sanctuary surrounded by an armed guard - ie he had imprisoned her there. Edward may well, therefore, have attached conditions to his agreement with Richard to allow her to move to Middleham; she may not, for example, have been allowed to come to London (where she might have made a nuisance of herself over her lands), and perhaps was not to travel more than a certain distance from Middleham (where she might meet fellow discontents and start plotting).
We have little direct evidence of her life, but that is also true for earlier and later periods than 1473-85. Just two things have turned up for the period she lived with Richard and Anne before Richard became king. One is a bequest in a Yorkshire will to one of the Countess of Warwick's servants, and the other is a letter of February 1478, apparently written from court, referring to a "great tablet of gold" (ie an icon such as might have been placed on an altar) that she had commissioned and which Richard was not pleased about; but, the writer assures his correspondent, Sir Richard Clairvaux of N. Yorkshire, that the Countess will still be attending the "ro' ho'" that year. The meaning of ro' ho' has been debated, but it is probably a reference to local Robin Hood plays. So that is proof that she was both seen out and about locally and was commissioning expensive projects.
From Richard's reign there are just two other small things - one a passing reference to a small annuity she was receiving from a certain manor, which may or may not have been the sum total of her allowance. The other is the inclusion of her name amongst the actual petitioners for some of the Beauchamp lands that were claimed by several Beauchamp ladies as coheiresses in 1484. The 1474 Act had forbidden the countess from suing at law for any part of her inheritance, and in earlier petitions in this group, from Edward IV's reign, the Countess is only referred to indirectly. So that suggests she actually had more freedom of action when Richard was king than she had before.
The last point is that she almost certainly commissioned the Beauchamp Pageant early in Richard III's reign, and may also have commissioned the Rous Roll, which was clearly written between July 1483 and April 1484; Rous has also been tentatively suggested as the author of the Beauchamp Pageant. If so, then she may very well have been at Warwick Castle with Richard and Anne in August 1483.
Now, coming to Rous' Historia, as revised for Henry VII, in which he accuses Richard of locking the Countess up, poisoning her daughter, and locking up young Warwick and naming Lincoln as his heir instead. This work was presented to Henry after Stoke, when Warwick was locked in the Tower and Henry VII had, by a clever ruse, confiscated all the Beauchamp inheritance and taken it for himself. The message is, perhaps: 'You needn't fear Warwick and his grandmother; they are no threat to you, and you can safely restore them; the Countess had absolutely no reason to love Richard III, and Warwick wasn't actually his chosen heir - it is the de la Poles you need to worry about.'
There is also a possibility that Rous had been actually ordered by Henry to produce an anti-Richard version of his History. Henry had visited Warwick at times during his reign. This occurred to me just last week after listening to Terry Jones talk on the TNA website about Henry IV's propaganda against Richard II - Jones reckons Henry IV did exactly that with the chroniclers of his time. Could explain the Antichrist stuff. At an rate, ambition was surely not the reason this elderly priest suddenly decided to rewrite his histories and present them to the new king.
Marie


 I have seen it repeated in a lot of traditional accounts as well as it being made by one of the prosecution 'witnesses' in the 1984 Trial programme.  The word 'imprisoned' carries extreme negative connotations and conjures up images of locked doors and lack of freedom of movement.  Are these the circumstances under which the Dowager Countess lived?  What is the evidence or is it an interpretation of the fact she came to live at Middleham after being declared legally dead?
>
>
>

 You must have been away when we discussed the 'ro ho' in connection with the Middleham Jewel. We thought the Clairvaux letter had been 'contrived' by Pollard as a joke, since he seemed to be the only one who mentions it. 



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 16:17
Subject: Re: Dowager Countess of Warwick

 



--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> While perusing the history section in Waterstone's, I picked up Amy Licence's new biography of Elizabeth of York.  I noticed she stated without any qualification that Richard had imprisoned his mother-in-law at Middleham Castle.
>
> Does anyone know what the source is for this?

Marie:
It comes from Rous. He wrote: ":matrem suam Annam venerabilem comitissam, illius nobilis dominii Dominam & justissimam heredem, durante vita sua incarceravit, quae sibi maximi cause refugi confugerati"
which mean's something like "he incarcerated her [ie Anne Neville's] mother Anne, the noble countess, [who was] the lady and rightful heir of those noble domains, for the duration of his life, who had fled to him as her greatest hope of refuge."
It could mean "his life" or "her life" but since Richard predeceased the Countess I have gone for "his life".
The question is, of course, how seriously we should take this, and what lay behind it. It is also Rous who tells us that Richard poisoned Anne Neville. He was of course right about the scoliosis and the place of Richard's burial, but in the case of poisoning, for example, he cannot have had any proof, and the question is: where did his information about the Countess of Warwick's life at Middleham come from, what were his purposes in writing his history for Henry VII, and how free an agent was he regarding what he wrote?
The first thing to bear in mind is that, though the Countess would have been Rous's patron before 1471, he would not have seen her between 1471 and 1483 for sure, so would not have witnessed her living conditions for himself.
The second is that when she was in Beaulieu Edward had had the sanctuary surrounded by an armed guard - ie he had imprisoned her there. Edward may well, therefore, have attached conditions to his agreement with Richard to allow her to move to Middleham; she may not, for example, have been allowed to come to London (where she might have made a nuisance of herself over her lands), and perhaps was not to travel more than a certain distance from Middleham (where she might meet fellow discontents and start plotting).
We have little direct evidence of her life, but that is also true for earlier and later periods than 1473-85. Just two things have turned up for the period she lived with Richard and Anne before Richard became king. One is a bequest in a Yorkshire will to one of the Countess of Warwick's servants, and the other is a letter of February 1478, apparently written from court, referring to a "great tablet of gold" (ie an icon such as might have been placed on an altar) that she had commissioned and which Richard was not pleased about; but, the writer assures his correspondent, Sir Richard Clairvaux of N. Yorkshire, that the Countess will still be attending the "ro' ho'" that year. The meaning of ro' ho' has been debated, but it is probably a reference to local Robin Hood plays. So that is proof that she was both seen out and about locally and was commissioning expensive projects.
From Richard's reign there are just two other small things - one a passing reference to a small annuity she was receiving from a certain manor, which may or may not have been the sum total of her allowance. The other is the inclusion of her name amongst the actual petitioners for some of the Beauchamp lands that were claimed by several Beauchamp ladies as coheiresses in 1484. The 1474 Act had forbidden the countess from suing at law for any part of her inheritance, and in earlier petitions in this group, from Edward IV's reign, the Countess is only referred to indirectly. So that suggests she actually had more freedom of action when Richard was king than she had before.
The last point is that she almost certainly commissioned the Beauchamp Pageant early in Richard III's reign, and may also have commissioned the Rous Roll, which was clearly written between July 1483 and April 1484; Rous has also been tentatively suggested as the author of the Beauchamp Pageant. If so, then she may very well have been at Warwick Castle with Richard and Anne in August 1483.
Now, coming to Rous' Historia, as revised for Henry VII, in which he accuses Richard of locking the Countess up, poisoning her daughter, and locking up young Warwick and naming Lincoln as his heir instead. This work was presented to Henry after Stoke, when Warwick was locked in the Tower and Henry VII had, by a clever ruse, confiscated all the Beauchamp inheritance and taken it for himself. The message is, perhaps: 'You needn't fear Warwick and his grandmother; they are no threat to you, and you can safely restore them; the Countess had absolutely no reason to love Richard III, and Warwick wasn't actually his chosen heir - it is the de la Poles you need to worry about.'
There is also a possibility that Rous had been actually ordered by Henry to produce an anti-Richard version of his History. Henry had visited Warwick at times during his reign. This occurred to me just last week after listening to Terry Jones talk on the TNA website about Henry IV's propaganda against Richard II - Jones reckons Henry IV did exactly that with the chroniclers of his time. Could explain the Antichrist stuff. At an rate, ambition was surely not the reason this elderly priest suddenly decided to rewrite his histories and present them to the new king.
Marie

 I have seen it repeated in a lot of traditional accounts as well as it being made by one of the prosecution 'witnesses' in the 1984 Trial programme.  The word 'imprisoned' carries extreme negative connotations and conjures up images of locked doors and lack of freedom of movement.  Are these the circumstances under which the Dowager Countess lived?  What is the evidence or is it an interpretation of the fact she came to live at Middleham after being declared legally dead?
>
>
>

Thank you so much, Marie - a really useful and informative post.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:




 
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> While perusing the history section in Waterstone's, I picked up Amy Licence's new biography of Elizabeth of York.  I noticed she stated without any qualification that Richard had imprisoned his mother-in-law at Middleham Castle.
>
> Does anyone know what the source is for this?

Marie:
It comes from Rous. He wrote: ":matrem suam Annam venerabilem comitissam, illius nobilis dominii Dominam & justissimam heredem, durante vita sua incarceravit, quae sibi maximi cause refugi confugerati"
which mean's something like "he incarcerated her [ie Anne Neville's] mother Anne, the noble countess, [who was] the lady and rightful heir of those noble domains, for the duration of his life, who had fled to him as her greatest hope of refuge."
It could mean "his life" or "her life" but since Richard predeceased the Countess I have gone for "his life".
The question is, of course, how seriously we should take this, and what lay behind it. It is also Rous who tells us that Richard poisoned Anne Neville. He was of course right about the scoliosis and the place of Richard's burial, but in the case of poisoning, for example, he cannot have had any proof, and the question is: where did his information about the Countess of Warwick's life at Middleham come from, what were his purposes in writing his history for Henry VII, and how free an agent was he regarding what he wrote?
The first thing to bear in mind is that, though the Countess would have been Rous's patron before 1471, he would not have seen her between 1471 and 1483 for sure, so would not have witnessed her living conditions for himself.
The second is that when she was in Beaulieu Edward had had the sanctuary surrounded by an armed guard - ie he had imprisoned her there. Edward may well, therefore, have attached conditions to his agreement with Richard to allow her to move to Middleham; she may not, for example, have been allowed to come to London (where she might have made a nuisance of herself over her lands), and perhaps was not to travel more than a certain distance from Middleham (where she might meet fellow discontents and start plotting).
We have little direct evidence of her life, but that is also true for earlier and later periods than 1473-85. Just two things have turned up for the period she lived with Richard and Anne before Richard became king. One is a bequest in a Yorkshire will to one of the Countess of Warwick's servants, and the other is a letter of February 1478, apparently written from court, referring to a "great tablet of gold" (ie an icon such as might have been placed on an altar) that she had commissioned and which Richard was not pleased about; but, the writer assures his correspondent, Sir Richard Clairvaux of N. Yorkshire, that the Countess will still be attending the "ro' ho'" that year. The meaning of ro' ho' has been debated, but it is probably a reference to local Robin Hood plays. So that is proof that she was both seen out and about locally and was commissioning expensive projects.
From Richard's reign there are just two other small things - one a passing reference to a small annuity she was receiving from a certain manor, which may or may not have been the sum total of her allowance. The other is the inclusion of her name amongst the actual petitioners for some of the Beauchamp lands that were claimed by several Beauchamp ladies as coheiresses in 1484. The 1474 Act had forbidden the countess from suing at law for any part of her inheritance, and in earlier petitions in this group, from Edward IV's reign, the Countess is only referred to indirectly. So that suggests she actually had more freedom of action when Richard was king than she had before.
The last point is that she almost certainly commissioned the Beauchamp Pageant early in Richard III's reign, and may also have commissioned the Rous Roll, which was clearly written between July 1483 and April 1484; Rous has also been tentatively suggested as the author of the Beauchamp Pageant. If so, then she may very well have been at Warwick Castle with Richard and Anne in August 1483.
Now, coming to Rous' Historia, as revised for Henry VII, in which he accuses Richard of locking the Countess up, poisoning her daughter, and locking up young Warwick and naming Lincoln as his heir instead. This work was presented to Henry after Stoke, when Warwick was locked in the Tower and Henry VII had, by a clever ruse, confiscated all the Beauchamp inheritance and taken it for himself. The message is, perhaps: 'You needn't fear Warwick and his grandmother; they are no threat to you, and you can safely restore them; the Countess had absolutely no reason to love Richard III, and Warwick wasn't actually his chosen heir - it is the de la Poles you need to worry about.'
There is also a possibility that Rous had been actually ordered by Henry to produce an anti-Richard version of his History. Henry had visited Warwick at times during his reign. This occurred to me just last week after listening to Terry Jones talk on the TNA website about Henry IV's propaganda against Richard II - Jones reckons Henry IV did exactly that with the chroniclers of his time. Could explain the Antichrist stuff. At an rate, ambition was surely not the reason this elderly priest suddenly decided to rewrite his histories and present them to the new king.
Marie

 I have seen it repeated in a lot of traditional accounts as well as it being made by one of the prosecution 'witnesses' in the 1984 Trial programme.  The word 'imprisoned' carries extreme negative connotations and conjures up images of locked doors and lack of freedom of movement.  Are these the circumstances under which the Dowager Countess lived?  What is the evidence or is it an interpretation of the fact she came to live at Middleham after being declared legally dead?
>
>
>

No, Hilary, I wasn't away for that discussion - I was a major participant. We didn't actually think the letter had been contrived as a joke (probably), but that Pollard's explanation of the ro' ho', as a robing house for heretical religious dancing rites in honour of Sr Penket, almost certainly was a deliberate joke for the benefit of the book's dedicatee Colin Richmond. This has been my theory all along and I put it forward in the discussion.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  You must have been away when we discussed the 'ro ho' in connection with the Middleham Jewel. We thought the Clairvaux letter had been 'contrived' by Pollard as a joke, since he seemed to be the only one who mentions it. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 16:17
> Subject: Re: Dowager Countess of Warwick
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > While perusing the history section in Waterstone's, I picked up Amy Licence's new biography of Elizabeth of York.  I noticed she stated without any qualification that Richard had imprisoned his mother-in-law at Middleham Castle.
> >
> > Does anyone know what the source is for this?
>
> Marie:
> It comes from Rous. He wrote: ":matrem suam Annam venerabilem comitissam, illius nobilis dominii Dominam & justissimam heredem, durante vita sua incarceravit, quae sibi maximi cause refugi confugerati"
> which mean's something like "he incarcerated her [ie Anne Neville's] mother Anne, the noble countess, [who was] the lady and rightful heir of those noble domains, for the duration of his life, who had fled to him as her greatest hope of refuge."
> It could mean "his life" or "her life" but since Richard predeceased the Countess I have gone for "his life".
> The question is, of course, how seriously we should take this, and what lay behind it. It is also Rous who tells us that Richard poisoned Anne Neville. He was of course right about the scoliosis and the place of Richard's burial, but in the case of poisoning, for example, he cannot have had any proof, and the question is: where did his information about the Countess of Warwick's life at Middleham come from, what were his purposes in writing his history for Henry VII, and how free an agent was he regarding what he wrote?
> The first thing to bear in mind is that, though the Countess would have been Rous's patron before 1471, he would not have seen her between 1471 and 1483 for sure, so would not have witnessed her living conditions for himself.
> The second is that when she was in Beaulieu Edward had had the sanctuary surrounded by an armed guard - ie he had imprisoned her there. Edward may well, therefore, have attached conditions to his agreement with Richard to allow her to move to Middleham; she may not, for example, have been allowed to come to London (where she might have made a nuisance of herself over her lands), and perhaps was not to travel more than a certain distance from Middleham (where she might meet fellow discontents and start plotting).
> We have little direct evidence of her life, but that is also true for earlier and later periods than 1473-85. Just two things have turned up for the period she lived with Richard and Anne before Richard became king. One is a bequest in a Yorkshire will to one of the Countess of Warwick's servants, and the other is a letter of February 1478, apparently written from court, referring to a "great tablet of gold" (ie an icon such as might have been placed on an altar) that she had commissioned and which Richard was not pleased about; but, the writer assures his correspondent, Sir Richard Clairvaux of N. Yorkshire, that the Countess will still be attending the "ro' ho'" that year. The meaning of ro' ho' has been debated, but it is probably a reference to local Robin Hood plays. So that is proof that she was both seen out and about locally and was commissioning expensive projects.
> From Richard's reign there are just two other small things - one a passing reference to a small annuity she was receiving from a certain manor, which may or may not have been the sum total of her allowance. The other is the inclusion of her name amongst the actual petitioners for some of the Beauchamp lands that were claimed by several Beauchamp ladies as coheiresses in 1484. The 1474 Act had forbidden the countess from suing at law for any part of her inheritance, and in earlier petitions in this group, from Edward IV's reign, the Countess is only referred to indirectly. So that suggests she actually had more freedom of action when Richard was king than she had before.
> The last point is that she almost certainly commissioned the Beauchamp Pageant early in Richard III's reign, and may also have commissioned the Rous Roll, which was clearly written between July 1483 and April 1484; Rous has also been tentatively suggested as the author of the Beauchamp Pageant. If so, then she may very well have been at Warwick Castle with Richard and Anne in August 1483.
> Now, coming to Rous' Historia, as revised for Henry VII, in which he accuses Richard of locking the Countess up, poisoning her daughter, and locking up young Warwick and naming Lincoln as his heir instead. This work was presented to Henry after Stoke, when Warwick was locked in the Tower and Henry VII had, by a clever ruse, confiscated all the Beauchamp inheritance and taken it for himself. The message is, perhaps: 'You needn't fear Warwick and his grandmother; they are no threat to you, and you can safely restore them; the Countess had absolutely no reason to love Richard III, and Warwick wasn't actually his chosen heir - it is the de la Poles you need to worry about.'
> There is also a possibility that Rous had been actually ordered by Henry to produce an anti-Richard version of his History. Henry had visited Warwick at times during his reign. This occurred to me just last week after listening to Terry Jones talk on the TNA website about Henry IV's propaganda against Richard II - Jones reckons Henry IV did exactly that with the chroniclers of his time. Could explain the Antichrist stuff. At an rate, ambition was surely not the reason this elderly priest suddenly decided to rewrite his histories and present them to the new king.
> Marie
>
>  I have seen it repeated in a lot of traditional accounts as well as it being made by one of the prosecution 'witnesses' in the 1984 Trial programme.  The word 'imprisoned' carries extreme negative connotations and conjures up images of locked doors and lack of freedom of movement.  Are these the circumstances under which the Dowager Countess lived?  What is the evidence or is it an interpretation of the fact she came to live at Middleham after being declared legally dead?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

<begin sarcasm> Too much exposition, contemplation, and backstory as well. Also, if it wasn't published in the past year, it's not a contemporary source (sic), and it's dead to us. <end sarcasm>

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Oh and Penman too thick, too thick - no-one can have the concentration to read books that long:)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> > 
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> > 
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >   
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author’s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >   
> >         
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Didn't SKP write "Sunne" in the 1980s and some of her other books were definitely written before the 1990s because I lent my paperback copy of "Falls the Shadow" to my daughter when she went to America in around 1989 -1990 and it was in such an awful state when it came back I had to buy another one.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
>  
>
> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
>  
> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
>  
> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>
> I agree entirely with you.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author’s Note at the
> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: wednesday_mc
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >
> > From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >
> > Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >
> > The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >
> > It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >
> > This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >
> > As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >
> > PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >
> > PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >
> > I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > > Subject: Re: PG
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > > >
> > > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Paul are Lesley J Nickell's books still available? I read them years ago and enjoyed them.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> >
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> >
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author’s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

My edition is 1983, but to quote 'my adviser' doorstop novels had gone out by the Nineties. After the Da Vinci Code the mass market wants brevity and action, or shall I say that's what the publishing industry wants. It saves on paper and ups margins.



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 19:56
Subject: Re: PG

 

Didn't SKP write "Sunne" in the 1980s and some of her other books were definitely written before the 1990s because I lent my paperback copy of "Falls the Shadow" to my daughter when she went to America in around 1989 -1990 and it was in such an awful state when it came back I had to buy another one.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
>  
>
> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
>  
> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
>  
> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>
> I agree entirely with you.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: wednesday_mc
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >
> > From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >
> > Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >
> > The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >
> > It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >
> > This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >
> > As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >
> > PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >
> > PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >
> > I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > > Subject: Re: PG
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬a
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > > >
> > > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah I see dumbing down to please the mass market.


--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> My edition is 1983, but to quote 'my adviser' doorstop novels had gone out by the Nineties. After the Da Vinci Code the mass market wants brevity and action, or shall I say that's what the publishing industry wants. It saves on paper and ups margins.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 19:56
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
>
> Didn't SKP write "Sunne" in the 1980s and some of her other books were definitely written before the 1990s because I lent my paperback copy of "Falls the Shadow" to my daughter when she went to America in around 1989 -1990 and it was in such an awful state when it came back I had to buy another one.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> >  
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> >  
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> >  
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >  
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
> Author’s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > >
> > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: PG
> > >
> > >
> > > From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> > >
> > > Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> > >
> > > The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> > >
> > > This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> > >
> > > As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> > >
> > > PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> > >
> > > PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> > >
> > > I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.ÃÆ'‚
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > > > Subject: Re: PG
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > > > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Is that why PG only uses words of two syllables?



Liz


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 20:13
Subject: Re: Re: PG

 
My edition is 1983, but to quote 'my adviser' doorstop novels had gone out by the Nineties. After the Da Vinci Code the mass market wants brevity and action, or shall I say that's what the publishing industry wants. It saves on paper and ups margins.

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 19:56
Subject: Re: PG

 

Didn't SKP write "Sunne" in the 1980s and some of her other books were definitely written before the 1990s because I lent my paperback copy of "Falls the Shadow" to my daughter when she went to America in around 1989 -1990 and it was in such an awful state when it came back I had to buy another one.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
>  
>
> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
>  
> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
>  
> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
>  
>  
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>
> I agree entirely with you.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: wednesday_mc
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >
> > From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >
> > Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >
> > The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >
> > It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >
> > This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >
> > As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >
> > PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >
> > PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >
> > I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > > Subject: Re: PG
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬a
> > >
> > > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > > Elaine
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > > >
> > > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > > Elaine
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nope...it's because her chapters are sometimes only two or three pages long she can get more words in.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Is that why PG only uses words of two syllables?
>
>
>
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 20:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>  
> My edition is 1983, but to quote 'my adviser' doorstop novels had gone out by the Nineties. After the Da Vinci Code the mass market wants brevity and action, or shall I say that's what the publishing industry wants. It saves on paper and ups margins.
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 19:56
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>  
>
> Didn't SKP write "Sunne" in the 1980s and some of her other books were definitely written before the 1990s because I lent my paperback copy of "Falls the Shadow" to my daughter when she went to America in around 1989 -1990 and it was in such an awful state when it came back I had to buy another one.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'. 
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> >  
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> >  
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> >  
> >  
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >  
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
> Author’s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > >
> > > From: wednesday_mc
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: PG
> > >
> > >
> > > From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> > >
> > > Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> > >
> > > The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> > >
> > > This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> > >
> > > As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> > >
> > > PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> > >
> > > PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> > >
> > > I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.ÃÆ'‚
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> > > > Subject: Re: PG
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> > > > Elaine
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> > > > complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> > > > > > Elaine
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> > > > > > > > > story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> > > > > > > > > that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> > > > > > > > > woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> > > > > > > > > queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> > > > > > > > > This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> > > > > > > > > mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> > > > > > > > > events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> > > > > > > > > conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> > > > > > > > > of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> > > > > > > > > who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> > > > > > > > > gaol, or dead.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmm,
> > > > > > > Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> > > > > > > But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> > > > > > > Marie
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> > > > > > > > > And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> > > > > > > > > Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> > > > > > > > > And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> > > > > > > > > Cousins Wars!
> > > > > > > > > I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> > > > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> > 
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> > 
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >   
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because we’re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, I’m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Author’s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >   
> >         
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

You're right. You're judged my your potential media personality as well, so I can imagine poor Mantel being dismissed as not glamorous enough. The History Press is different because you can approach them, thus you don't need an agent. But of course that's non-fiction. It's agents for fiction which are the problem because they need to take their cut - a big one. There are now e-books of course, but to get to PG's status (would one want to?) you need a whole team promoting you world-wide. Children's literature is the hardest (my first book was a kid's and I almost got an agent but gave up because I was in Aus). They are only interested in the work of celebrities, regardless of quality,or 'tales of world doom' to outstrip Harry Potter. 



________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: PG

 

I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> > 
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> > 
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >   
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >   
> >         
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Well it seems to me that the History Press need to get their act together, they could make more money for themselves and their authors if they did.  Of course maybe it's intellectual snobbery - they don't push theri books to be "popular" because they aer serious and academic.
 
But who publishes Penman?  They don't do a massive campaign for her books - bloody Gregory is everywhere, posters at the station and all sorts, whenever she publishes anything.  I know lots of people who've never heard of Penman but say "oh she sounds good" when I tell them about her  but they didn't even know she exists.
 
By the way I finally heard from Amazon that JAH's new book is winging it's way to me at last - months after I pre-ordered it!  I just hope it doesn't have that horrible tiny print.


Liz

From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: PG

 
I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> > 
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> > 
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >   
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >   
> >         
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

 Well Mantel isn't glamorous but neither is PG.  I don't like being rude about other people's looks but frankly she's got a face like a bag of spanners. 

Liz

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 7:36
Subject: Re: Re: PG

 
You're right. You're judged my your potential media personality as well, so I can imagine poor Mantel being dismissed as not glamorous enough. The History Press is different because you can approach them, thus you don't need an agent. But of course that's non-fiction. It's agents for fiction which are the problem because they need to take their cut - a big one. There are now e-books of course, but to get to PG's status (would one want to?) you need a whole team promoting you world-wide. Children's literature is the hardest (my first book was a kid's and I almost got an agent but gave up because I was in Aus). They are only interested in the work of celebrities, regardless of quality,or 'tales of world doom' to outstrip Harry Potter. 

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: PG

 

I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.  We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.  That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> > 
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?  AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> > 
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >   
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>  From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >   
> >         
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

So we have snuck to the depths of physical beauty = literary talent. Ye Gods, no wonder we are reading such piffle.
One of my favorite mystery writers is Val McDermid. No beauty, but a page turned for sure!

On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:08 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:




Well Mantel isn't glamorous but neither is PG. I don't like being rude about other people's looks but frankly she's got a face like a bag of spanners.

Liz

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 7:36
Subject: Re: Re: PG


You're right. You're judged my your potential media personality as well, so I can imagine poor Mantel being dismissed as not glamorous enough. The History Press is different because you can approach them, thus you don't need an agent. But of course that's non-fiction. It's agents for fiction which are the problem because they need to take their cut - a big one. There are now e-books of course, but to get to PG's status (would one want to?) you need a whole team promoting you world-wide. Children's literature is the hardest (my first book was a kid's and I almost got an agent but gave up because I was in Aus). They are only interested in the work of celebrities, regardless of quality,or 'tales of world doom' to outstrip Harry Potter.

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: PG



I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> >Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> >Â From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >Â Â
> >Â
> >Â Â
> >Â
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> >Â
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> >Â
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> >Â
> >Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com<http://40gmail.com>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >Â Â
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>Â From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Â Â
> >Â Â Â Â Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I think she looks as if she and Andrew Lloyd Webber are brother and
sister, both have inside out faces! And both are arrogant self publicists.
Paul


On 25/07/2013 10:07, liz williams wrote:
>
> Well Mantel isn't glamorous but neither is PG. I don't like being rude about other people's looks but frankly she's got a face like a bag of spanners.
>
> Liz
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 7:36
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> You're right. You're judged my your potential media personality as well, so I can imagine poor Mantel being dismissed as not glamorous enough. The History Press is different because you can approach them, thus you don't need an agent. But of course that's non-fiction. It's agents for fiction which are the problem because they need to take their cut - a big one. There are now e-books of course, but to get to PG's status (would one want to?) you need a whole team promoting you world-wide. Children's literature is the hardest (my first book was a kid's and I almost got an agent but gave up because I was in Aus). They are only interested in the work of celebrities, regardless of quality,or 'tales of world doom' to outstrip Harry Potter.
>
> ________________________________
> From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
> Subject: Re: PG
>
>
>
> I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.
>
> Elaine
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
>> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>>
>>
>> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
>> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> Â From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>>> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
>>> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>>> Â Â
>>> Â
>>> Â Â
>>> Â
>>> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
>>> Â
>>> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
>>> Â
>>> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
>>> Â
>>> Â
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>
>>> Â Â
>>> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>>>
>>> I agree entirely with you.
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
>>>> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
> Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
>>> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>>>> Sandra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: wednesday_mc
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Â From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>>>>
>>>> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>>>>
>>>> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>>>>
>>>> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>>>>
>>>> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>>>>
>>>> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>>>>
>>>> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>>>>
>>>> ~Weds
>>>>
>>>> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
>>>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>>>
>>>>> Ã’â¬a
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
>>>>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
>>>>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>>>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>>>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
>>>>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
>>>>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
>>>>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
>>>>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
>>>>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
>>>>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
>>>>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
>>>>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
>>>>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
>>>>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
>>>>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
>>>>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
>>>>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
>>>>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
>>>>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
>>>>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
>>>>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â Â
>>> Â Â Â Â Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Sorry if I've offended you Pamela but I was trying to make the point that PG isn't good looking either so on that basis shouldn't be  successful.    (I'm still trying to fathom why she is, other than that people are too lazy to read a proper book.)   Hilary is right though but then women are judged by their looks in every walk of life.  Look at John Inverdale's comments about Marion Bartoli because she isn't an identikit blonde.
 
Personally I  don't  care what any of them  look like as long as they  write a decent book and usually  I don't know what an author looks like until after I've bought the first book.  (In fact until I saw Val McDermid on tv a couple of years ago, having never read any of the books I thought she was a man because I thought it was a bloke's name  - like Val Doonican, which I guess dates me).   
 
Liz

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 14:54
Subject: Re: Re: PG

 
So we have snuck to the depths of physical beauty = literary talent. Ye Gods, no wonder we are reading such piffle.
One of my favorite mystery writers is Val McDermid. No beauty, but a page turned for sure!

On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:08 AM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>> wrote:




Well Mantel isn't glamorous but neither is PG. I don't like being rude about other people's looks but frankly she's got a face like a bag of spanners.

Liz

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 7:36
Subject: Re: Re: PG


You're right. You're judged my your potential media personality as well, so I can imagine poor Mantel being dismissed as not glamorous enough. The History Press is different because you can approach them, thus you don't need an agent. But of course that's non-fiction. It's agents for fiction which are the problem because they need to take their cut - a big one. There are now e-books of course, but to get to PG's status (would one want to?) you need a whole team promoting you world-wide. Children's literature is the hardest (my first book was a kid's and I almost got an agent but gave up because I was in Aus). They are only interested in the work of celebrities, regardless of quality,or 'tales of world doom' to outstrip Harry Potter.

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com/>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: PG



I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> >Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> >Â From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >Â Â
> >Â
> >Â Â
> >Â
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> >Â
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> >Â
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> >Â
> >Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com<http://40gmail.com/>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >Â Â
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>Â From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Â Â
> >Â Â Â Â Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Don't know. Have a very old copy of one of hers on my shelves.
And re Penman, I met her in Yorkshire in 1980 when she was on a
promotional tour for Sunne which had just come out.
Paul
On 24/07/2013 20:00, ricard1an wrote:
> Paul are Lesley J Nickell's books still available? I read them years ago and enjoyed them.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
>> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
>> Paul
>>
>> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
>>> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
>>>
>>> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
>>>
>>> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>>>
>>> I agree entirely with you.
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
>>>> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
>>> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>>>> Sandra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: wednesday_mc
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>>>>
>>>> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>>>>
>>>> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>>>>
>>>> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>>>>
>>>> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>>>>
>>>> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>>>>
>>>> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>>>>
>>>> ~Weds
>>>>
>>>> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
>>>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>>>
>>>>> Ã
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
>>>>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
>>>>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>>>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>>>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
>>>>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
>>>>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
>>>>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
>>>>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
>>>>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
>>>>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
>>>>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
>>>>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
>>>>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
>>>>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
>>>>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
>>>>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
>>>>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
>>>>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
>>>>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
>>>>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
>>>>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Oh my, no offense taken at all......and forgive my one handed typing. My point is that these days, the "media" seems to view beauty as far superior to talent. I am with you...... Talent not beauty is what counts for me. Val is maybe an "ish" .....ish she a gent or a lady. I don't care, her Vera books are super.

On Jul 25, 2013, at 9:59 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Sorry if I've offended you Pamela but I was trying to make the point that PG isn't good looking either so on that basis shouldn't be successful. (I'm still trying to fathom why she is, other than that people are too lazy to read a proper book.) Hilary is right though but then women are judged by their looks in every walk of life. Look at John Inverdale's comments about Marion Bartoli because she isn't an identikit blonde.

Personally I don't care what any of them look like as long as they write a decent book and usually I don't know what an author looks like until after I've bought the first book. (In fact until I saw Val McDermid on tv a couple of years ago, having never read any of the books I thought she was a man because I thought it was a bloke's name - like Val Doonican, which I guess dates me).

Liz

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 14:54
Subject: Re: Re: PG


So we have snuck to the depths of physical beauty = literary talent. Ye Gods, no wonder we are reading such piffle.
One of my favorite mystery writers is Val McDermid. No beauty, but a page turned for sure!

On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:08 AM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com><mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>> wrote:

Well Mantel isn't glamorous but neither is PG. I don't like being rude about other people's looks but frankly she's got a face like a bag of spanners.

Liz

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com><mailto:hjnatdat%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: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 7:36
Subject: Re: Re: PG

You're right. You're judged my your potential media personality as well, so I can imagine poor Mantel being dismissed as not glamorous enough. The History Press is different because you can approach them, thus you don't need an agent. But of course that's non-fiction. It's agents for fiction which are the problem because they need to take their cut - a big one. There are now e-books of course, but to get to PG's status (would one want to?) you need a whole team promoting you world-wide. Children's literature is the hardest (my first book was a kid's and I almost got an agent but gave up because I was in Aus). They are only interested in the work of celebrities, regardless of quality,or 'tales of world doom' to outstrip Harry Potter.

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com><http://40btinternet.com/>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: PG

I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> >ý
> >
> > ________________________________
> >ý From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >ý ý
> >ý
> >ý ý
> >ý
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place.ý We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one.ý That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> >ý
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published?ý AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> >ý
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> >ý
> >ý
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com<http://40gmail.com><http://40gmail.com/>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >ý ý
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weýýýýýýýýre all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iýýýýýýýým certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorýýýýýýýýs Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>ý From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.ýýýýý
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> ýýýýý
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >ý ý
> >ý ý ý ý ý
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

So all those big fat books by Hugo, Tolstoy, Dickens, etc. are by the wayside. Rats, I love them too.

On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> Don't know. Have a very old copy of one of hers on my shelves.
> And re Penman, I met her in Yorkshire in 1980 when she was on a
> promotional tour for Sunne which had just come out.
> Paul
> On 24/07/2013 20:00, ricard1an wrote:
>> Paul are Lesley J Nickell's books still available? I read them years ago and enjoyed them.
>>
>> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
>>> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
>>>> She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>>>> To: "" <>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
>>>>
>>>> She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com>
>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
>>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
>>>>
>>>> I agree entirely with you.
>>>>
>>>> ~Weds
>>>>
>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
>>>>> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weâ¬"re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iâ¬"m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an Authorâ¬"s Note at the
>>>> end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
>>>>> Sandra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: wednesday_mc
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
>>>>>
>>>>> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
>>>>>
>>>>> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
>>>>>
>>>>> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
>>>>>
>>>>> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Weds
>>>>>
>>>>> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
>>>>>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
>>>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
>>>>>> Subject: Re: PG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ã
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
>>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
>>>>>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
>>>>>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
>>>>>>>> Elaine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
>>>>>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
>>>>>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
>>>>>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
>>>>>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
>>>>>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
>>>>>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
>>>>>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
>>>>>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
>>>>>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
>>>>>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
>>>>>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
>>>>>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
>>>>>>>>> Marie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
>>>>>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
>>>>>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
>>>>>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
>>>>>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> --
>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

How is the hand? You are very good for a one handed typist.     

Liz

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 16:21
Subject: Re: Re: PG


Oh my, no offense taken at all......and forgive my one handed typing. My point is that these days, the "media" seems to view beauty as far superior to talent. I am with you...... Talent not beauty is what counts for me. Val is maybe an "ish" .....ish she a gent or a lady. I don't care, her Vera books are super.

On Jul 25, 2013, at 9:59 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Sorry if I've offended you Pamela but I was trying to make the point that PG isn't good looking either so on that basis shouldn't be  successful.    (I'm still trying to fathom why she is, other than that people are too lazy to read a proper book.)  Hilary is right though but then women are judged by their looks in every walk of life.  Look at John Inverdale's comments about Marion Bartoli because she isn't an identikit blonde.

Personally I  don't  care what any of them  look like as long as they  write a decent book and usually  I don't know what an author looks like until after I've bought the first book.  (In fact until I saw Val McDermid on tv a couple of years ago, having never read any of the books I thought she was a man because I thought it was a bloke's name  - like Val Doonican, which I guess dates me).

Liz

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>" <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 14:54
Subject: Re: Re: PG


So we have snuck to the depths of physical beauty = literary talent. Ye Gods, no wonder we are reading such piffle.
One of my favorite mystery writers is Val McDermid. No beauty, but a page turned for sure!

On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:08 AM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com/><mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com/>>> wrote:

Well Mantel isn't glamorous but neither is PG. I don't like being rude about other people's looks but frankly she's got a face like a bag of spanners.

Liz

From: Hilary Jones <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com<http://40yahoo.com/><mailto:hjnatdat%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: Thursday, 25 July 2013, 7:36
Subject: Re: Re: PG

You're right. You're judged my your potential media personality as well, so I can imagine poor Mantel being dismissed as not glamorous enough. The History Press is different because you can approach them, thus you don't need an agent. But of course that's non-fiction. It's agents for fiction which are the problem because they need to take their cut - a big one. There are now e-books of course, but to get to PG's status (would one want to?) you need a whole team promoting you world-wide. Children's literature is the hardest (my first book was a kid's and I almost got an agent but gave up because I was in Aus). They are only interested in the work of celebrities, regardless of quality,or 'tales of world doom' to outstrip Harry Potter.

________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <mailto:kathryn198%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com/><http://40btinternet.com/>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 22:20
Subject: Re: PG

I have discussed this with Annette previously and she told me that it's their publishing companies and agents who are very pro-active who make sure they get their names and products into media organisations. Aggressively promoting their authors. An example of this are the spin offs such as newspaper articles and magazine articles as well as getting them onto television. If you check out their publishing companies you can see a lot of them are with the same ones. Annette's Maligned King was published with The History Press, who also publish JAH and Hancock and they are not renown for pushing their authors and promoting their products in the same way. They are also slow to publish so there's a lack of momentum, which means they don't anticipate or react and their authors miss opportunities. Annette did say on here that for her recent publication, A Small Guide to the Great Debate, she published it independently as it was quicker.

Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Struggling unknowns, Paul :) Only appeal to a 'niche market'; sales too low.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 11:13
> Subject: Re: Re: PG
>
>
> Dare I mention Sharon Penman, Rhoda Edwards, Lesley J Nickell, and
> Rosemary Hawley Jarman?
> Paul
>
> On 24/07/2013 08:53, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > She apparently wrote the Wideacre Trilogy in the Nineties about the seventeenth century which is her Ph.D. literature area. This, according to 'my adviser' revived the historical novel which was dead (!) She went on to write about 'real' people starting with the gardener Tradescant and his supposed affair with the Duke of Buckingham. Then to the Tudors and the rest is history. I'm told we should be grateful - without Philippa there would be no historical novels featuring women. No-one has apparently heard of Sarah Dunant and Mantel is a struggling 'one-off'.
> >
> >Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> >Â From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 20:03
> > Subject: Re: Re: PG
> >Â Â
> >Â
> >Â Â
> >Â
> > But I still don't understand how she got published in the first place. We are constantly told how difficult it is to get an agent, difficult to get published with an agent and impossible without one. That of course is assuming that the book is even any good.
> >Â
> > She seems to have started writing in the early 90s but how did she get the first one published? AFter that, of course it becomes easy.
> >Â
> > Incidentally just which award did the "award winning The Other Boleyn Girl" win?
> >Â
> >Â
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wednesday_mc <mailto:wednesday.mac%40gmail.com<http://40gmail.com/><http://40gmail.com/>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 19:44
> > Subject: Re: PG
> >
> >Â Â
> > I'm not lumping *anyone* else in with PG. I only understand her system of writing and thought perhaps to clarify that system for others. I don't like her system and couldn't bear using it myself, but I understand it.
> >
> > I agree entirely with you.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >> Not all writers feel the way you believe Philippa Gregory does. I am a writer, and have a backlist of 60-70 fiction titles, all published. Richard was the only reason I started writing. He engrossed me in the early 1970s, and he still does. I feel a great deal about what I write, my characters matter to me and I am there with them, for every scene. Richard remains the reason I write. He has always been important to me, and I am overjoyed that he has been found again. Please do not lump all writers into one bundle, because weââ¬â¢re all different. I certainly do not consider myself to be qualified in history, I just love it, and love writing about it. So, some writers of historical fiction DO care what they create. Money is not my be-all and end-all. And no, Iââ¬â¢m certainly not rich. I write for the sheer delight of it. Yes, I weave fact and fiction together, and create situations that may never have existed, but an
Authorââ¬â¢s Note at the
> > end should explain what is fact and what is fiction. All novels that include actual historic figures should have one.
> >> Sandra
> >>
> >>
> >> From: wednesday_mc
> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:02 PM
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> >> Subject: Re: PG
> >>
> >>
> >>Â From what I can tell from PG's books, she writes in a style that is like a ready-made outline for a screenplay, which means she's exceedingly visual and easy for a screenwriter to adapt. I think that's why she's gotten where she has.
> >>
> >> Each of her characters has one positive trait, one negative trait, and one motivation. She uses one plot throughout her books, there are no subplots.
> >>
> >> The motivation in WQ for every male and female character is, "I want power." For her men, that translates into, "I want the throne." For women, it translates into profitable marriages and/or manipulations. The motivations dictate what scenes from history she uses or invents to support the motivations. She never deviates from this path.
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter that the theory behind 'The Other Boleyn Girl' misfired and died. PG writes for a mass audience, and producers look for books that will translate into scripts for the mass audience. Producers can't care less about "historically correct"; they only want to make money. To do that, they have to entertain as many people as possible. Of a necessity, this means pablum and a simplistic presentation.
> >>
> >> This, PG delivers page after page, book after book.
> >>
> >> As for the "I'm an historian!" angle, I suspect she's come to believe her own publicity and forgotten she didn't do her own research. She paid to have it done, which means she hasn't actually breathed in the actual history for weeks on end and hasn't the perspective (or the endless notes) to juggle all the layers of the people and the events she's writing about.
> >>
> >> PG's popular audience couldn't care less. All they want is to be entertained. Not educated.
> >>
> >> PG herself is using historical figures to tell the story she wants to tell. I doubt she gets emotionally involved, either with the figures or the outcome of the events. Her characters are just characters; dead and gone and useful for her purposes. To her, Richard does not still live. He's just another tool in her writer's toolbox. In that, she's following what most writers have been taught to do: use your tools and write your book. Characters aren't real, so don't ever let them take control.
> >>
> >> I doubt very much that Philippa Gregory would have felt anything while walking across a certain car park in Leicester.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> ---In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >>> I worry about the powerful friends in the media - how do they woo them, money? PG yes, but not Weir or Mortimer. It took Mantel two Bookers to get anywhere near that acknowledgement and to her credit she's never claimed to be an historian. All one can say is that 'The Other Boleyn Girl' in both film and TV, seriously msifired and its theories have 'died'.Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@>
> >>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 12:44
> >>> Subject: Re: PG
> >>>
> >>> Ã’â¬a
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that's the problem isn't it? Fiction writers presenting themselves as historians. They also have a fan base who buy into their theories and are hoodwinked into believing what is in their novels is the truth. A great deal of it is caused by the publishing industry and the media and by some writers who are writing history and fiction such as Ian Mortimer, Weir and Gregory. They are occupying a substrata of their own but they appear to have powerful friends in the media as they are often the only voices that are heard and their books, programmes etc are promoted everywhere and they critique each other. It's an insidious poison.
> >>> Elaine
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>> Elaine, the impression I got was that PG was trying to turn her fictional account in to "real history". The problem is that people who do not know the history of the WOTR will think that she is telling the truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@> wrote:
> >>>>> I watched this as objectively as possible and feel that there were some aspects that were worth considering. It's a pity that Laynesmith wasn't given more air time and her views more consideration especially than Gristwood who appeared to be the alternative spokesperson to Gregory who does have a very irritating habit of jerking her head forward to emphasise specific words and phrases. Gristwood's contribution was the know-all populariser, if I can use that phrase, probably for the layperson whilst Purkiss, Pollard and Laynesmith were used sparingly. Purkiss' specialisms are the English Civil War and witchcraft so presumably she was there for the latter reason. Gristwood seems to be very popular at the moment, although the article in the BBC History magazine from her book on women in the WOTR showed both a lack of knowledge and evaluation of the period and was not only superficial but also contained errors which I did point out when I
> >>> complained about the whole article. Jones was the other contributor.
> >>>>> Why can no one acknowledge or include Richard, Duke of York? Here as in other programmes he was omitted and Edward arrives, with Warwick's assistance fully grown ready to take on the Lancastrians. It's like "pick'n'mix" choose your players, shuffle the pack according to whose programme it is. Little rant over!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Gregory presents herself as a historian but lacks the ability to analyse or evaluate situations therefore and as a result her comments are speculative and often wildly off the mark. She comes across as somewhat self indulgent, but then again so does Starkey.
> >>>>> Elaine
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Absolutely agree Paul. I made pages of notes, it was obvious that she was trying to make her nonsense into history. Edward was the usurper? MB worshiped H6? Where is her evidence? As for the Cousins War well at the end my blood pressure was so high I nearly exploded. I hope that my grandchildren will never be taught this claptrap. I'll make sure that they know the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/><http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It was only about 30 seconds into the inside out face lady and her "real
> >>>>>>>> story" behind the White Queen before I gave up. Well she had just stated
> >>>>>>>> that at the coronation of Richard and Anne, the second most important
> >>>>>>>> woman in the kingdom was present, Margaret Beaufort, while the previous
> >>>>>>>> queen was close by in sanctuary "terrified for her life".
> >>>>>>>> This is the real story? Every time she writes something or opens her
> >>>>>>>> mouth PG shows her lack of research and complete misunderstanding of the
> >>>>>>>> events of the WOTR. Margaret Beaufort had just been pardoned for
> >>>>>>>> conspiracy and treason by King Richard, and was only at the Abbey as one
> >>>>>>>> of the new Queen's ladies in waiting. Were she not married to Stanley,
> >>>>>>>> who Richard had also [imo stupidly] pardoned, she would have been in
> >>>>>>>> gaol, or dead.
> >>>>>> Hmm,
> >>>>>> Actually Paul, she maybe isn't quite as wrong as you think. It is only the Tudor histories that claim Stanley was arrested on Friday 13th - no contemporary source suggests he was involved - Mike Jones has pointed this out. There are no pardons for either Stanley or MB because, as Mike Jones suggests, neither was in trouble. Margaret Beaufort wasn't just one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, she was THE bearer of her train.
> >>>>>> But I do agree - Margaret was not the second most important woman in the kingdom, and Elizabeth Woodville was not imminently afraid for her life. She may well have been concerned about the consequences of the reference in Titulus Regius to witchcraft having been used to enable her to gain the throne should she ever come out of sanctuary, but precedent suggests she would have feared imprisonment rather than death.
> >>>>>> Marie
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So being the second most important woman, nonsense!
> >>>>>>>> And why does PG undervalue Cecily Neville so much that all she gets is a
> >>>>>>>> Duchess from Alice in Wonderland caricature?
> >>>>>>>> And I wish she'd stop saying the WOTR were known at the time as the
> >>>>>>>> Cousins Wars!
> >>>>>>>> I'd never read the term anywhere before he trashy novels hit the bookstands!
> >>>>>>>> Paul
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Â Â
> >Â Â Â Â Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

















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

Yahoo! Groups Links