Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.

It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.

No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.

Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.

Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary

It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
Marie



--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
>
> It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
>
> No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
>
> Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
>
> Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
>

On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

 

It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
Marie

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
>
> It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
>
> No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
>
> Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
>
> Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
>

Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
Marie



--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
>
> It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> >
> > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> >
> > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> >
> > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> >
> > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks Marie - I shall catch up and watch it. There is praise for the sensitivity of his acting. I wonder if this bit was shot after they'd discovered the real Richard and it struck home he was acting someone who'd lived and died? As some of us said before the programmed even aired, Richard has a way of 'infecting' things in the nicest possible way. The critique was really endorsing that this is the real story and why was so much time wasted on obscure bits (which could only have been done well if the Penman story had been adapted and better acting). High praise for Rupert Graves as well. 
Sorry folks for going OT. Hilary
 

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

 

Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
>
> It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> >
> > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> >
> > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> >
> > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> >
> > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
 
It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.

 
Liz

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

 
Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
>
> It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> >
> > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> >
> > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> >
> > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> >
> > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?


 

Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
 
It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.

 
Liz

From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

 
Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
>
> It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> >
> > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> >
> > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> >
> > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> >
> > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz wrote:
It is indeed a shame for Anne though. I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys. Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
Sandra adds: Or if indeed they were killed at all. Don't we like to think Richard had them spirited away to safety? What if they then died natural deaths? Illness? Genuine accidents? No one of a Yorkist persuasion was likely to announce it and let Henry Tudor off the hook. Let him worry and get an ulcer because he'd legitimised them. I'd certainly have kept it quiet and let him agonize about when they' might come back and pinch the throne he'd usurped at Bosworth. And he did. Agonize, that is. Through most of his reign.

You're right, actually. We only know (a) they're gone, and (b) who stood to gain (or in Richard's case, to lose). Hmm. That's the trouble with bad writing. Ought to have picked that up at once. And I've a feeling, it makes more sense in the screenplay than it does in the original.... I felt so sorry for that poor actor playing Richard, left to recapping action like a minor player. 

Many years ago, there was a TV show called You Are There. They covered historical events (I recall the assassination of Julius Caesar) as if they had newsmen on the spot. It was really quite clever...much more so than this.

Thomas Stanley looked like an El Greco, BTW.

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?



 
Liz wrote:
It is indeed a shame for Anne though. I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys. Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
Sandra adds: Or if indeed they were killed at all. Don't we like to think Richard had them spirited away to safety? What if they then died natural deaths? Illness? Genuine accidents? No one of a Yorkist persuasion was likely to announce it and let Henry Tudor off the hook. Let him worry and get an ulcer because he'd legitimised them. I'd certainly have kept it quiet and let him agonize about when they' might come back and pinch the throne he'd usurped at Bosworth. And he did. Agonize, that is. Through most of his reign.

Agree, Liz. 

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?



 
Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
 
It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.

 
Liz

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

 
Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
>
> It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> >
> > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> >
> > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> >
> > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> >
> > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh Im so glad others too are puzzled over who was responsible...in TWQ...for the murder of the two boys...I thought I was losing the plot...

What about the one who was the imposter prince...poor little blighter...
Eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Agree, Liz. 
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:29 AM
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>
>  
> Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
>  
> It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
>
>  
> Liz
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
> Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >  
> >
> > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > >
> > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > >
> > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > >
> > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > >
> > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>  
>
> Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
>  
> It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
>
>  
> Liz
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
> Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >  
> >
> > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > >
> > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > >
> > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > >
> > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > >
> > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.

Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>  
>
> Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
>  
> It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
>
>  
> Liz
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
> Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >  
> >
> > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > >
> > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > >
> > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > >
> > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > >
> > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

mariewalsh2003 wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> Marie

Carol responds:

Sorry I can't react to the comments on "The White Queen" because it's only starting to be shown here (on a premium network that I don't subscribe to--though American forum members may be interested to know that the first episode will be available free through Comcast's Pay-Per-View).

Regarding emphasis, you don't need to use capital letters. Asterisks for *emphasis* work just fine and are perhaps less distracting.

Carol

>Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave. 

Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then?  No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.

Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example.... 

And apparently their Graces just wander the halls  - and streets - unattended?

Judy, more bemused than angered
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?



 
I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.

Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>  
>
> Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
>  
> It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
>
>  
> Liz
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
> Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.à Did you see it?à Hilaryà
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> > à
> >
> > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > >
> > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > >
> > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > >
> > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > >
> > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 Well personally I don't even want to see a kiss but I guess if they make Anne out to be a looney then people will sympathise with Richard and say "no wonder he fancied his niece".  I haven't been paying proper attention  - it's been on, but in the background while I surf the internet at the same time - so I don't even know when or why Anne has become unstable.  One minute she seemed normal, the next she's turned into some kind of psycho -   but I guess that's PG for you.

Which reminds me, I still haven't seen Geroge's demise.  I must catch up on that bit!
 
Liz

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:32
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?

 
And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?


 

Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
 
It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.

 
Liz

From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

 
Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
>
> It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> >
> > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> >
> > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> >
> > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> >
> > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Not alone, Liz. Far from it. And I've seen about 1.75 episodes' worth of the series. Figured just seeing the last parts will suffice. I may need to check out other "key moments," just to know how to respond to people.

Since unfortunately more people will see this than will ever read Annette's book, I figured: Better I know how PG handles Richard. We'll be dealing with the fallout for a long time. It's just a relief she exonerates him of murdering the boys. Compared to this, some hank-panky with his teen-aged niece, amidst a marriage rapidly going bad?  Well, it's distasteful to you and me, but we must take whatever we can get from this, *sigh*

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?



 


 Well personally I don't even want to see a kiss but I guess if they make Anne out to be a looney then people will sympathise with Richard and say "no wonder he fancied his niece".  I haven't been paying proper attention  - it's been on, but in the background while I surf the internet at the same time - so I don't even know when or why Anne has become unstable.  One minute she seemed normal, the next she's turned into some kind of psycho -   but I guess that's PG for you.

Which reminds me, I still haven't seen Geroge's demise.  I must catch up on that bit!
 
Liz

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:32
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?

 
And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary

________________________________
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?

 

Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
 
It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.

 
Liz

From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?

 
Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>  
>
> It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> >
> > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> >
> > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> >
> > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> >
> > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.


--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave. 
>
> Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then?  No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
>
> Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example.... 
>
> And apparently their Graces just wander the halls  - and streets - unattended?
>
> Judy, more bemused than angered
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>
>  
> I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
>
> Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
> >  
> > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> >
> >  
> > Liz
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >  
> > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could grow despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.  Did you see it?  Hilary 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > >
> > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > >
> > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > >
> > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > >
> > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact. 

To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?



 
Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave. 
>
> Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then?  No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
>
> Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example.... 
>
> And apparently their Graces just wander the halls  - and streets - unattended?
>
> Judy, more bemused than angered
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>
>  
> I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
>
> Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.à
> > à
> > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.à I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.à Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> >
> > à
> > Liz
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> > à
> > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’â¬aà Did you see it?Ã’â¬aà HilaryÃ’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > >
> > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > >
> > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > >
> > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > >
> > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I  think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
 
I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
 
 


________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 

It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact. 

To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....

Judy 
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?


 
Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.

--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave. 
>
> Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then?  No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
>
> Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example.... 
>
> And apparently their Graces just wander the halls  - and streets - unattended?
>
> Judy, more bemused than angered
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>
>  
> I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
>
> Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.à
> > à
> > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.à I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.à Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> >
> > à
> > Liz
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> > à
> > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’â¬aà Did you see it?Ã’â¬aà HilaryÃ’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > >
> > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > >
> > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > >
> > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > >
> > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I  think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
>  
> I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
>
>  
>
> It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact. 
>
> To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
>
> Judy 
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
>
>
>  
> Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave. 
> >
> > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then?  No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> >
> > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example.... 
> >
> > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls  - and streets - unattended?
> >
> > Judy, more bemused than angered
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> >
> > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
> > >  
> > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > >
> > >  
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >  
> > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃÆ'‚ despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.ÃÆ'‚  Did you see it?ÃÆ'‚  HilaryÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > >
> > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > >
> > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > >
> > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I  think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> >  
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> >  
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact. 
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > Judy 
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave. 
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then?  No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example.... 
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls  - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > >  
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer. 
> > > >  
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.  I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.  Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃÆ'‚ despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.ÃÆ'‚  Did you see it?ÃÆ'‚  HilaryÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing.  I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :). 



________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In , "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I  think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> >  
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> >  
> >  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> >  
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact. 
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > Judy 
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> >  
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.à
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? àNo accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....à
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls à- and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > à
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > à
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "" <>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aà I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aà Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà Did you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà HilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

What about the likes of Susan Howatch's Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.

Sandra
=^..^=


From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
To:
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ


I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ



A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > Â
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> > Â
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? ÃÂ No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÃÂ
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls ÃÂ - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aàI suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aàAlthough personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàDid you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàHilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Game of Thrones - to anyone who has seen the series or read the books - are there any actual references to the Wars of the Roses, or is it simply a hodge-podge of all kinds of semi-historical things that might have happened pre-1600?

I'm curious because some things I've heard about it make it sound very WOTR-like. But other things I've heard make it sound nothing at all like this particular time period (even if you forget the dragons).

Many of my friends are enthusiastic about GOT and I'm curious to read the books myself, but I'm afraid to do so because I don't want to be influenced by it, so to speak. I've got this little idea of my own that I'd like to try out first, and it takes the Wars of the Roses as a starting point, so I'd rather not read somebody else's alternative take on the 15th century.

(My idea is not fantasy, precisely. Nor is it historical fiction. Hard to explain what it is, except that it's something quite silly ;))

Pansy

I love her "Plantaganet" books although the Wheel of Fortune is my favourite of the three



Liz

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
What about the likes of Susan Howatch's Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > Â
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> > Â
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? ÃÂ No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÃÂ
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls ÃÂ - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aàI suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aàAlthough personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàDid you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàHilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Pansy
I read the books years ago (the first 3) before I had been introduced to
RIII in any significant way. The books are fantastic and I really enjoy the
complexity of character. I think there are character parallels to the war
of the roses but nothing particularly overt. For instance Tyrion is a
likely Richard, and is the most honourable and tragic character. But the
story is nothing like war of the roses. The characters that may be similar
to historical reference are scattered throughout and do not face the same
circumstances. So I think it is safe to say that you can read them or watch
the show (not nearly as good as the books imo) very easily without it
influencing your thoughts on the war of the roses. The parallels are
pretty loose and it is very clearly a fiction. The unfortunate thing about
reading this series is it seems George R R Martin lost his way in it. The
first books are a tightly knit story but his later books seem a bit of a
distraction and I personally did not enjoy them as much. Still they are
worth the read.

I still think the best historical fiction writer is Bernard Cornwell. He
tells a great story full of historical fact without getting lost in over
the top drama or boring drudgery. I can't even bring myself to read the
White Queen. My grocer (who before reading the book knew nothing of RIII)
gave me a recap and it was clear she interpreted the fiction as historical
fact. It's a shame. I am boycotting it on principle. :)

Hope this helps.
Farrah

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-08-14, at 8:18 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:



Re: Game of Thrones - to anyone who has seen the series or read the books -
are there any actual references to the Wars of the Roses, or is it simply a
hodge-podge of all kinds of semi-historical things that might have happened
pre-1600?

I'm curious because some things I've heard about it make it sound very
WOTR-like. But other things I've heard make it sound nothing at all like
this particular time period (even if you forget the dragons).

Many of my friends are enthusiastic about GOT and I'm curious to read the
books myself, but I'm afraid to do so because I don't want to be influenced
by it, so to speak. I've got this little idea of my own that I'd like to
try out first, and it takes the Wars of the Roses as a starting point, so
I'd rather not read somebody else's alternative take on the 15th century.

(My idea is not fantasy, precisely. Nor is it historical fiction. Hard to
explain what it is, except that it's something quite silly ;))

Pansy

Yes I like Penmarric and the rest. And Baraara Erskine. I've perhaps spent too long living in a 'trekkie' household :)



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 16:28
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ


 

I love her "Plantaganet" books although the Wheel of Fortune is my favourite of the three

Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
What about the likes of Susan Howatch's Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > Â
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> > Â
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? ÃÂ No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÃÂ
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls ÃÂ - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aàI suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aàAlthough personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàDid you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàHilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Pansy et all, Game of Thrones is a fantasy, and has never made any
claims to be anything else. I remember reading that George R.R Martin
said in an interview that he found the WOTR family feud fascinating and
thought it a good idea to start his series using. But just that. A royal
family feuding. Then of course he added, more than one branch of his
family, and dragons!
I love the tv series which has been fairly faithful to the books
narrative and spirit. Each episode costs around a million UKP and looks
it. It also has brilliant characterisations and dialogue! Brilliant stuff.
Paul
who is devastated to find out his secret love The Borgias has been
cancelled! Again, a series that plays loose with history, but looks
gorgeous, and realistic, that could be Rome, the sets and costumes are
sumptuous, and it is brilliantly written!

On 14/08/2013 15:18, pansydobersby wrote:
> Re: Game of Thrones - to anyone who has seen the series or read the books - are there any actual references to the Wars of the Roses, or is it simply a hodge-podge of all kinds of semi-historical things that might have happened pre-1600?
>
> I'm curious because some things I've heard about it make it sound very WOTR-like. But other things I've heard make it sound nothing at all like this particular time period (even if you forget the dragons).
>
> Many of my friends are enthusiastic about GOT and I'm curious to read the books myself, but I'm afraid to do so because I don't want to be influenced by it, so to speak. I've got this little idea of my own that I'd like to try out first, and it takes the Wars of the Roses as a starting point, so I'd rather not read somebody else's alternative take on the 15th century.
>
> (My idea is not fantasy, precisely. Nor is it historical fiction. Hard to explain what it is, except that it's something quite silly ;))
>
> Pansy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul I may have (perhaps stupid) reservations about GOT, but like you l think the Borgias is gorgeous, accurate or not. It's like watching Renaissance paintings. And Jeremy Irons is not that bad!


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 18:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ


 

Pansy et all, Game of Thrones is a fantasy, and has never made any
claims to be anything else. I remember reading that George R.R Martin
said in an interview that he found the WOTR family feud fascinating and
thought it a good idea to start his series using. But just that. A royal
family feuding. Then of course he added, more than one branch of his
family, and dragons!
I love the tv series which has been fairly faithful to the books
narrative and spirit. Each episode costs around a million UKP and looks
it. It also has brilliant characterisations and dialogue! Brilliant stuff.
Paul
who is devastated to find out his secret love The Borgias has been
cancelled! Again, a series that plays loose with history, but looks
gorgeous, and realistic, that could be Rome, the sets and costumes are
sumptuous, and it is brilliantly written!

On 14/08/2013 15:18, pansydobersby wrote:
> Re: Game of Thrones - to anyone who has seen the series or read the books - are there any actual references to the Wars of the Roses, or is it simply a hodge-podge of all kinds of semi-historical things that might have happened pre-1600?
>
> I'm curious because some things I've heard about it make it sound very WOTR-like. But other things I've heard make it sound nothing at all like this particular time period (even if you forget the dragons).
>
> Many of my friends are enthusiastic about GOT and I'm curious to read the books myself, but I'm afraid to do so because I don't want to be influenced by it, so to speak. I've got this little idea of my own that I'd like to try out first, and it takes the Wars of the Roses as a starting point, so I'd rather not read somebody else's alternative take on the 15th century.
>
> (My idea is not fantasy, precisely. Nor is it historical fiction. Hard to explain what it is, except that it's something quite silly ;))
>
> Pansy
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Who wrote Wheel of Fortune please. Regards. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Sender:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:28:30
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I love her "Plantaganet" books although the Wheel of Fortune is my favourite of the three



Liz

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
What about the likes of Susan Howatch's Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > Â
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> > Â
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? ÃÂ No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÃÂ
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls ÃÂ - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aàI suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aàAlthough personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàDid you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàHilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Coral,
 
Susan Howatch.  It's basically Edward III, John of Gaunt, Katherine Swynford and Richard II all updated to Victorian times on the Gower Peninsula.  It's wonderful.
 Liz

P.S.  there was a girl at my school called Coral, many years ago.  I always thought it was a lovely name but one teacher insisted on calling her "Carol" - I'm sure she did it on purpose!




________________________________
From: "c.nelson1@..." <c.nelson1@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
Who wrote Wheel of Fortune please. Regards. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Sender: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:28:30
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I love her "Plantaganet" books although the Wheel of Fortune is my favourite of the three



Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
What about the likes of Susan Howatch's Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > Â
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> > Â
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? ÃÂ No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÃÂ
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls ÃÂ - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aàI suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aàAlthough personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàDid you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàHilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I have not read any of the books or seen any of the television series, so I don't know. It was just the fact that apparently even with dragons it was more credible that TWQ.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Re: Game of Thrones - to anyone who has seen the series or read the books - are there any actual references to the Wars of the Roses, or is it simply a hodge-podge of all kinds of semi-historical things that might have happened pre-1600?
>
> I'm curious because some things I've heard about it make it sound very WOTR-like. But other things I've heard make it sound nothing at all like this particular time period (even if you forget the dragons).
>
> Many of my friends are enthusiastic about GOT and I'm curious to read the books myself, but I'm afraid to do so because I don't want to be influenced by it, so to speak. I've got this little idea of my own that I'd like to try out first, and it takes the Wars of the Roses as a starting point, so I'd rather not read somebody else's alternative take on the 15th century.
>
> (My idea is not fantasy, precisely. Nor is it historical fiction. Hard to explain what it is, except that it's something quite silly ;))
>
> Pansy
>

Yes I have been called Carole on many occasions and answer to anything. That for tje info. Take care. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Sender:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:05:10
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

Hi Coral,
 
Susan Howatch.  It's basically Edward III, John of Gaunt, Katherine Swynford and Richard II all updated to Victorian times on the Gower Peninsula.  It's wonderful.
 Liz

P.S.  there was a girl at my school called Coral, many years ago.  I always thought it was a lovely name but one teacher insisted on calling her "Carol" - I'm sure she did it on purpose!




________________________________
From: "c.nelson1@..." <c.nelson1@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
Who wrote Wheel of Fortune please. Regards. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Sender: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:28:30
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I love her "Plantaganet" books although the Wheel of Fortune is my favourite of the three



Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
What about the likes of Susan Howatch's Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > Â
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> > Â
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? ÃÂ No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÃÂ
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls ÃÂ - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aàI suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aàAlthough personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàDid you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàHilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

The Wheel of Fortune is by Susan Howatch. There is also a book called Fortune's Wheel by Rhoda Edwards about the early life of Richard up to 1472.
Elaine

--- In , c.nelson1@... wrote:
>
> Who wrote Wheel of Fortune please. Regards. Coral
> Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> Sender:
> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:28:30
> To: <>
> Reply-To:
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
>
> I love her "Plantaganet" books although the Wheel of Fortune is my favourite of the three
>
>
>
> Liz
>
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:40
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
>
>  
> What about the likes of Susan Howatch’s Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
>
> I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
> Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
>
> A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > > Â
> > > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> > >
> > > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> > >
> > > JudyÂ
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then?  No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÂÂ
> > > >
> > > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls  - and streets - unattended?
> > > >
> > > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > Loyaulte me lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÂÂ
> > > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ I suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ Although personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > Liz
> > > > >
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ despite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ Did you see it?ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ HilaryÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ÂÂ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > > Marie
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It isn't even semi-historical; its pure fantasy. It is merely "inspired" by the Wars of the Roses Period.

Beyond the two principle houses being "Lannister" and "Stark", and being set in a kingdom vaguely similar to England, you will look in vain for historical parallels.

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I have not read any of the books or seen any of the television series, so I don't know. It was just the fact that apparently even with dragons it was more credible that TWQ.
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Re: Game of Thrones - to anyone who has seen the series or read the books - are there any actual references to the Wars of the Roses, or is it simply a hodge-podge of all kinds of semi-historical things that might have happened pre-1600?
> >
> > I'm curious because some things I've heard about it make it sound very WOTR-like. But other things I've heard make it sound nothing at all like this particular time period (even if you forget the dragons).
> >
> > Many of my friends are enthusiastic about GOT and I'm curious to read the books myself, but I'm afraid to do so because I don't want to be influenced by it, so to speak. I've got this little idea of my own that I'd like to try out first, and it takes the Wars of the Roses as a starting point, so I'd rather not read somebody else's alternative take on the 15th century.
> >
> > (My idea is not fantasy, precisely. Nor is it historical fiction. Hard to explain what it is, except that it's something quite silly ;))
> >
> > Pansy
> >
>

You have inadvertently told me why I didn't like it. You see I was told it *was* based on the WOTR, that Sean Bean was Richard Duke of York, the little clever guy was Richard (because he had a 'deformity' of sorts) and the other lot were - the other lot. I couldn't for the life of me work out how the blonde couple in southern regions fitted in. Perhaps I should give it a go with a clean slate?  


________________________________
From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 15 August 2013, 21:50
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 

It isn't even semi-historical; its pure fantasy. It is merely "inspired" by the Wars of the Roses Period.

Beyond the two principle houses being "Lannister" and "Stark", and being set in a kingdom vaguely similar to England, you will look in vain for historical parallels.

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I have not read any of the books or seen any of the television series, so I don't know. It was just the fact that apparently even with dragons it was more credible that TWQ.
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > Re: Game of Thrones - to anyone who has seen the series or read the books - are there any actual references to the Wars of the Roses, or is it simply a hodge-podge of all kinds of semi-historical things that might have happened pre-1600?
> >
> > I'm curious because some things I've heard about it make it sound very WOTR-like. But other things I've heard make it sound nothing at all like this particular time period (even if you forget the dragons).
> >
> > Many of my friends are enthusiastic about GOT and I'm curious to read the books myself, but I'm afraid to do so because I don't want to be influenced by it, so to speak. I've got this little idea of my own that I'd like to try out first, and it takes the Wars of the Roses as a starting point, so I'd rather not read somebody else's alternative take on the 15th century.
> >
> > (My idea is not fantasy, precisely. Nor is it historical fiction. Hard to explain what it is, except that it's something quite silly ;))
> >
> > Pansy
> >
>

Thanks Liz and for getting my name right. I. Always quote when people get it wrong. That I have been called worse. Regards. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
Sender:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:05:10
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

Hi Coral,
 
Susan Howatch.  It's basically Edward III, John of Gaunt, Katherine Swynford and Richard II all updated to Victorian times on the Gower Peninsula.  It's wonderful.
 Liz

P.S.  there was a girl at my school called Coral, many years ago.  I always thought it was a lovely name but one teacher insisted on calling her "Carol" - I'm sure she did it on purpose!




________________________________
From: "c.nelson1@..." <c.nelson1@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 21:58
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
Who wrote Wheel of Fortune please. Regards. Coral
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
Sender: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:28:30
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I love her "Plantaganet" books although the Wheel of Fortune is my favourite of the three



Liz

From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:40
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

 
What about the likes of Susan Howatch's Penmarric? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Howatch Another variant, in that it lifts the Plantagenet facts and shifts them to the 19th century.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

I must apologise. I really don't like GOT, though I've tried it, or fantasy, or things which pretend to be history but are based on nothing. I'd rather have half-truths, like Ivanhoe, Sharpe, Hornblower,The Black Arrow, which draw people to explore history and find out the truth for themselves. I hate Stargate, Dr Who, Star Wars but I love the 'Court of the Midnight King'. Sorry - I'm odd, like MB :).

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 14:18
Subject: Re: PG and TWQ

A few weeks ago I read on the internet a comment by someone who said words to the effect that "Game of Thrones" was more credible than TWQ "and they've got dragons".

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "davidarayner" <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> Compared to Game of Thrones TWQ is very clunky, and almost completely lacking in (intentional) humour which makes it mainly a chore to sit through. And as others have said, why invent so much that is demonstrably false when the reality is just as dramatic, the more so for being real?
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Now I have a confession to make. Last night I sat down and watched Episode 6 (the one without the cookshop). Now if you set aside beards, weird clothes and of course historical fact ( :) ), I found it rather good. Perhaps that's because, by default and bad acting on the part of others, the dominant characters seem to have become Richard, Anne and MB. I reckon those three actors do the best they can with a bad script and to me it works. If we're supposed to pity Anne, we don't and I think that's intended (she whines all through the book), Richard within the confines of said script is getting towards the quiet, sensitive and difficult to fathom person I have in my head and Hale is rather marvellous as a completely bonkers MB. As the odd critic has said, the most interesting story is that of Richard and Anne - that is unless you have a cast of thousands.
> > Â
> > I shall watch the next episode with creeping hope. Hilary
> > Â
> > Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 August 2013, 0:06
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ
> >
> > Â
> >
> > It's not just you; the clothes are indeed "down market." That's a very kind way to put it, in fact.Â
> >
> > To my eye, even the regals seem to  recycle their goods and gear. And where are the servants? The courtiers and ladies? The halls should swarm with people, not just cleverly positioned candles....
> >
> > JudyÂ
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Yes Judy I found it a bit odd that EW doesn't appear to have many ladies-in-waiting. Is it just me but most their clothes appear to be a bit down market instead of sumptuous silks and velvets. In the scene of H6's re-adeption the court appeared to be more richly attired. Maybe it was my imagination.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.ÃÂ
> > >
> > > Well put, David. Is it meant to be Visually Symbolic, then? ÃÂ No accounting for the hair and costume choices, otherwise.
> > >
> > > Does any one beside me think these people are living amazingly private, middle-class lifestyles? Margaret B seems to get employment from whoever needs her wrists buttoned at the moment. (I recall seeing only two ladies-in-waiting in the whole royal court.) Oh, and after schlepping her whole wardrobe, including her jewels, into the Abbey, why does Elizabeth wear the same outfit in every scene? That tatty old shawl, for example....ÃÂ
> > >
> > > And apparently their Graces just wander the halls ÃÂ - and streets - unattended?
> > >
> > > Judy, more bemused than angered
> > > ÃÂ
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: davidarayner <theblackprussian@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:52 AM
> > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ÃÂ
> > > I'm afraid its going to go much further than that; in the American version, anyway.
> > >
> > > Also, thanks to the dreaded creeping face fungus having claimed Henry CHEWDURR, Richard is evidently now the only man left in England who can be bothered to shave.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And I suppose in the context of this (and this alone) you could have sympathy with Richard falling for Elizabeth given his wife has been so ambitious and unstable? It's how far PG and the producers chose to push it. I could tolerate a chaste kiss. Hilary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 9:29
> > > > Subject: Re: PG and TWQ - was 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > >
> > > > Much as I think it's tripe and spend half my time shouting at the screen, I'd rather have people thinking Richard was a bloke who fell for his adult niece (who maybe he didn't know that well as a child) than being a child murderer.Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > It is indeed a shame for Anne though.Ã’â¬aàI suspect she was her father's daughter but I doubt very much if she and "gentle" Brackenbury would plot to kill the boys.Ã’â¬aàAlthough personally I don't think we are meant to know who did it - them or the MB/Stanley lot.
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Liz
> > > >
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 August 2013, 0:48
> > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > >
> > > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > Yes, caught up with it today. I must say I thought this week's episode worked dramatically much better than last week's (at least, until EW decided to side with Tudor again right at the end 'just like that', as Tommy Cooper would have said, despite what they'd done to Edward and despite the fact that younger son was still alive).
> > > > I think this particular episode was probably really positive, in that by dramatising MB and Buckingham facing the question of what THEY should do with regard to the Princes, who also stood in THEIR way, the programme makers have brought to life the full dynamic of the situation in late 1483 for people who would otherwise never have 'got' it.
> > > > To my mind the scenario with Anne was far weaker, because I can't see any way that Brackenbury would have obeyed the Queen's verbal directions like that without also being sure that it was the King's will - they didn't even have her stealing Richard's seal. Not to mention Richard's continued trust in Brackenbury.
> > > > Also, I was talking to someone last week (so before this latest episode) who had been following it with her family, including her 13-year-old daughter who has been lapping it up. Her own thoughts, as a grown-up, though, were: "Can this all possibly be true?". But she also said she really liked Richard and hoped they weren't about to turn him into a villain.
> > > > So something positive has come out so far, but the good work could all be undone next week as he lusts after comely niece. Hopefully this will be one of those bits that come across as far-fetched, or that audience will forgive Richard because Anne's turned into such a nasty piece of work. Shame for Anne.
> > > > Sorry about words in capital letters - I know some people dislike this, but for those of us who post directly on to the forum rather than through email it's the only way to show emphasis.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On the PG topic (sorry to digress) a couple of reviews today are coming down very sympathetically on the side of Richard, in fact they're saying that TWQ has picked up into something substantial. So in a very odd way perhaps Richard's reputation or interest in him could growÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàdespite all and PG has done him a favour to clear him of all implication in the death of the princes and in saying that he is 'trying to be a good king'.
> > > > > Life was ever odd and never more so than this. Poor old Anne though is having to pay the penalty.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàDid you see it?Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàHilaryÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, 12 August 2013, 21:37
> > > > > Subject: Re: Was the 1475 French campaign a sham?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > > >
> > > > > It is ingenious, but I feel that like PG's substitute Prince Richard, it lacks credibility. Put yourself in Louis' place: Edward IV is raising the largest English army ever to enter France, and you are going to trust him to be willing to accept a pay-off when he got there.
> > > > > What I do think there is some evidence for is Louis' offering Edward IV inducements not to invade after he'd announced his intention to do so - including the marriage of Princess Elizabeth to the Dauphin - and Edward showing some interest. It's sort of similar, but doesn't involve Louis assenting to being invaded.
> > > > > I don't think fighting a foreign war, or having to hold down a second kingdom, was what Edward really fancied doing, but he was finding it hard to wriggle out of.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To get away from Stillington (please!) one of Kate Sedley's ingenious mystery plots is that the whole French campaign was a set-up between Louis XI and Edward.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It goes something like this; Edward discovers that the coffers are beginning to empty and needs to do something drastic. He has a secret arrangement with Louis that he'll 'pretend' to embark on a French campaign and Louis will buy off peace for a number of years with a magnanimous pension. This will enable Edward to collect substantial taxes to fund the war, gain popularity as another Henry V and gain even more money and peace with honour through the pension. Louis will gain assured peace to concentrate on Burgundy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No-one but Edward and Louis will know - not Charles of Burgundy, not Richard, not George, not Margaret or Hastings. It will all be organised through the spy network.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possible truth or rubbish anyone? I think it rather ingenious and not beyond either Edward or Louis. And does it show another flaw in Edward in believing Louis, who would renage although it would be a few years' down the line.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any evidence for or against - or did another Morton burn the papers? Hilary
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>