Just a few more lines on this thread, then I really will try to shut up.

Should all "celebrity" historians/historical writers be shot, not just PG? Is self-promotion - either on the television or on Twitter - now more important than the actual study of history?

This latest BBC "Tudor feast" - with all its famous and/or glamorous participants - is unsettling me dreadfully. It's making me feel great sympathy for all the ordinary historians in our universities, those who plod away, day in, day out, trying to combine teaching with doing their own research, and with making the necessary effort to keep up-to-date with others' research. They must be pretty sick watching these programmes, seeing all the rich pickings - money and fame - going to those who are brilliant self-publicists rather than rigorous and dedicated academics.

Not David Starkey (or Diarmaid MacCulloch) though. Like Starkey or loathe him, he's the real thing (whatever the real thing is these days - I honestly don't think I know any more), and he was, by all accounts, an excellent tutor during his time teaching, especially when he was at the LSE.

And Mantel is in a class of her own.

But some of the others? Are they all scrambling onto a hugely lucrative bandwagon? The dithery Professor Bernard, for example - who made a brief, almost apologetic appearance during Thursday's programme - should be shot. His recent book on Anne Boleyn was dire, a great disappointment, not simply because he tried to persuade us all that the woman was guilty as charged (fair enough), but because his argument was just so weak and unconvincing. "Fatal Attractions" (dreadful, ssensational title - says it all) was nowhere good as his excellent (and scholarly) "The King's Reformation". Bernard seems to have churned out this latest offering in a mad rush without really believing himself what he was writing. The book was controversial all right, but contrived. Cashing in on the current mania for the Tudors? But it sold well, no doubt adding nicely to the good professor's pension pot.

Lacey Baldwin Smith (he who described the wretched Catherine Howard as "a juvenile delinquent") has got a new book on Anne Boleyn coming out soon; Lord, they're all at it. What a money-spinner our Tudors - and our Plantagenets (mentioning no names) - have become.

But I'm probably - if I'm honest - just jealous. In my next life I want to look like Suzannah Lipscomb, write like Hilary Mantel and be paid thousands for wittering about the Tudors on the tele.

Meles meles wrote:

You really do not know how fortunate you are with the BBC, for all its faults.

Bearing that in mind, I feel somewhat churlish pointing out this glaring error in the Last Days of Anne Boleyn program. But pointed out it must be.

The narrator referred to the events in question as taking place '6 centuries ago'. I was taken aback by this but then did a quick calculation to appreciate that Anne Boleyn lived in the 16th Century while we are in the 21st Century. So that's the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th & 21st - 6 centuries. Ah! I thought, they're referring to those sorts of centuries. Fair enough.

But then the narrator said that the events took place '600 years ago' and later said that we are 'nearly 600 years on' from then. Puzzled and beginning to doubt myself it was time for more mental arithmetic to be brought into play: 2013 - 1536 = 477.

That subtraction hurt my head because it meant suddenly using the exact opposite side of the brain to that which Philippa Gregory was making me use.

This is how Bernard finishes his Chapter 12 ("Was Anne Guilty?") of "Fatal Attractions":

"And so it remains my own hunch that Anne had indeed committed adultery with Norris, probably with Smeaton, possibly with Weston..."

A hunch? A hunch? I thought proper historians didn't do hunches, just evidence? Imagine what would have been said here, had Minette or myself written such a thing as part of an argument!

A hunch - so what? At least the guy is being honest.
Given just how ambiguous and unreliable all the purported 'evidence' seems to be (you don't need to point out that I'm talking from blissful ignorance but bear with me) aren't all the interpretations not much more than hunches?

Anyway, I think I'll boost my bank account with an oeuvre which proposes that Anne, being a loving and dutiful wife and a patriotic queen, aware that Henry may have fertility, even potency issues and, feeling somewhat vulnerable after the death of her son and aware that above all he wants a healthy male heir, turns to a version of AID. Using young, healthy and vigorous living donors she attempts to have a successful pregnancy and produce a male child to ensure the succession. Then everybody would be happy and she'd be secure. Sadly her desperate attempts do not come to fruition and Henry's looking elsewhere anyway so first she's shopped and then she's chopped.

Go on, prove me wrong!

"Fatal Atrractions"?

At least it wasn't "Anne Of A Thousand Splays".

Nothing like a sensational title when it comes to selling your books.

"The Stripping at the Altars" was originally suggested for Eamon Duffy's last offering. What a difference a preposition can make! But Duffy was uneasy, and plumped in the end for "of" rather than "at". But at least he agreed to the "stripping" bit - much better than his own suggestion for a title, a cheery little quotation taken from the old Mass for the Dead (in Latin).

Talking of Eamon Duffy, here's a snippet from 1988 - Duffy talking about anti-Catholic propaganda in 16th century England. How the TV presentation of history has changed!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00vnwnk

Nunc dimitus.
Yes!

Nunc dimittis, indeed. I think I'm going to shoot myself after reading this:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2334387/Youre-history-Dr-Starkey-TVs-new-telegenic-academic-tells-sexist-grey-haired-older-rivals-Genitalia-help-understand-html



There you go, Minette. Get yourself down to Bloomsbury and you may just land a job at the UK's "elite" university. Don't forget to wear a lovely frock and get your nails done! Bet teaching rich kiddiewinkles in Bloomsbury beats flogging yourself to death teaching history anywhere else!

Last September she took up her post as Head of History at the New College of the Humanities in Bloomsbury, London. The first elite UK university since the establishment of Oxford and Cambridge, students face fees of £18,000 a year – twice the standard British university cost.
It opened last year with its first 60 students and Suzannah says: ‘It’s the best decision I ever made. We’re creating a form of higher education that’s the best of the US liberal arts system with a real breadth and depth of learning.

Charles Clarke - the Labour Home Secretary who released 1,023 foreign prisoners without serving their full sentences and without being considered for deportation, including 5 child molesters, 7 rapists, 57 done for GBH, 2 manslaughterers, 41 burglars, 20 drug importers, 54 convicted of assault and 27 of indecent assault - found himself in the news in 2003 during his earlier stint as Secretary of State in the Department of Education:

Charles Clarke, the education secretary, has continued his assault on the great subjects of academe by revealing that he regards medieval history as "ornamental" and a waste of public money.
Not long after expressing the view that he didn't think much of classics and regarded the idea of education for its own sake as "a bit dodgy", Mr Clarke, who read maths and economics at King's College, Cambridge, went one further.

"I don't mind there being some medievalists around for ornamental purposes, but there is no reason for the state to pay for them," he said on a visit to University College, Worcester. He only wanted the state to pay for subjects of "clear usefulness", according to today's Times Higher Educational Supplement.
(as reported in The Guardian, May 2003)

Be careful what you wish for Charlie boy ....

nordmann wrote:

Be careful what you wish for Charlie boy ....

We should all be careful what we wish for.

Quote :

It's the best decision I ever made. We're creating a higher education that's the best of the US liberal arts system with a real breadth and depth of learning.

I certainly applaud that aim, but not just for 60 students at £18,000 a year.

This is not the right thread, but it might be worth posting something on the 60s discussion about the hopes many of us had for education in that decade and in the 70s. "Real breadth and depth of learning"? Oh yes, that's what we wanted all right, and not just for the elite: we intended it to be for all. Where did it and we all go wrong? Were we naïve fools? Possibly. But at least there was (I think) some kind of sincere vision back then. What pretty young academic in her right mind - especially one with an excellent degree from Oxford - would go into the State education system these days? A few do, I suppose, but they don't stay. And who can blame them?

I am unutterably depressed by it all.

PG was on "The One Show" last week. One of the women who appeared with her said that she loved Gregory's books because, besides losing yourself in them, you also knew you were being "educated".

Here's the link. You have been warned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b025h06w/The_One_Show_05_06_2013/

Let's stir things up even more;

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/476488/20130609/kings-deception-steve-berry-queen-elizabeth-controversy.htm

Why is Elizabeth as a man deemed a "shocking" and "new" theory, just because some American has recently decided to re-hash it? Some people have sworn by the "King Neville" theory for over three hundred years according to the written record, and probably even right back into her reign by the hearsay record, had it ever existed.

I think the Earl of Oxford was Elizabeth I when he wasn't being Shakespeare.

The reply box has gone funny while I've been away. Is it an improvement, I wonder, or a fault on my computer? Acutually, it's very nice and bright - much easier on the eyes. Thank you, Eternal Leader.

I have been in London these past few days and, as part of my peregrinations, I visited Kew Gardens (please see Parks and Gardens thread) and Kew Palace. I had a long discussion/argument in the dining room of the Palace with a very interesting and knowledgeable guide and with an American couple who were visitors from Chicago. We having talked about George III's harpsichord* (like you do), our conversation then turned (I'm not quite sure how) to you-know-who. The guide and I exclaimed, "Philippa Gregory - can't stand the woman!" - those exact words uttered by us simultaneously and with great fervour (made us both laugh actually). The American visitors were surprised. They were lovers of English history, and the girl confessed that she was a great PG fan. The Tudors (Showtime) and Downton Abbey were also favourites. These sources, she added, had taught her a great deal and had inspired her to find out more. Both she and her husband were clearly mystified by the hostility these innocent remarks elicited from the guide and myself (hostility not to our visitors, I hasten to add, but to the novels/programmes they mentioned). I think they both thought that we were a) rather snobby and b) wrong in our views.

Intellectual snobbery and history. Now there's a thought. Are some of us posting on this thread guilty? I tried to explain the difference between snobbery and rigour, but she wasn't convinced...


PS I was fascinated by the harpsichord. It's in the big room upstairs, not the dining room. It is almost certain that Handel played on it, and very possibly also a young Mozart.

It is not intellectual snobbery to detest when individuals wilfully distort, exaggerate or even invent historical "fact" and then present their handiwork as researched and valid data to an unsuspecting readership who are dependent on believing what they read as fact in order to begin to understand a theme in which they have recently gained an interest. It is intellectual honesty to point them out, in fact, and especially to those whose entry into the "secret garden of delights" that is historical research means they fondly appreciate the door - however shambolically built - which first granted them entrance into its wonders.

We all retain a sentimental fondness for whatever door we each used ourselves, but that does not mean we should fail to recognise sometimes that our point of ingress was more convoluted and complicated than it need have been, or that the aperture through which we crawled and which advertised itself as the "grand entrance" was, as it turned out, a gerry-built hole in the wall constructed by the historically academic equivalent of a building-trade cowboy whose main motivation was simply to collect a fee from us on the way in.

Indeed.  Intellectual snobbery is using one's knowledge (or supposed knowledge) to demonstrate one's superiority and put down the less well-informed.  There's a clear difference between that and an honest desire to educate.  It's quite possible to enjoy historical fiction whilst expecting a solid grounding in fact.  One of the reasons I enjoy Lindsey Davis's (mostly Roman-set) books, for example, is that she manages to write rollicking good novels whilst grounding them in rigorous research - and furthermore, unlike certain authors, is quite prepared to admit where she's taken a (usually minor) liberty, or made a genuine mistake.  (It perhaps helps that she has a background in classical history and is a friend of Mary Beard).

I have little time for the "it's just entertainment" argument.  Something like the events of the Wars of the Roses is hardly in need of twisting and warping - they're dramatic and gripping enough.  Meanwhile, if you set your piece of fiction against an event where you do feel the need to take massive liberties, surely it wasn't something worth dramatising in the first place!

In any case, as Shakespeare - that other paragon of historical rigour - once wrote, "Doomsday is near!  Die all, die merrily!"  I hope it won't come to that, but one can't escape the fact that The White Queen premiers tonight.  I am tempted to watch, since I like a good comedy.  However, to save you all the bother I offer a summary of the first episode:

Edward IV is driving along in his limo when he spots Boadicea (note correct spelling) lurking by the road.  They are instantly taken with each other, so have sex.  Edward decides that he'd like to marry Boadicea, but she is the illegitimate daughter of Emma Hamilton and the Duke of Wellington, therefore not Queen material.  To console themselves over this fact, they have sex.  Edward decides to marry Boadicea anyway, so they run away to Gretna Green.  Edward's mother, Marie Antoinette, is not pleased.  Edward is torn between loyalty to the UK and his love for Boadicea, so they have sex (Edward and Boadicea, that is, not Edward and the UK.)  As the plotting continues, the American Civil War of the Tulips threatens to break out once more when Robin Hood comes back from the Crusades...

I intend to give it a whirl tonight, largely so as I can better appreciate the howls of indignation that I assume will be recorded on here. Since I'm quite unequipped to comment on the historical accuracy, my responses may more tellingly reflect the reaction of the average viewer so we'll see how they match up.  
No matter how bad it is, at least I can catch up with 'Les Revenants' on 4+1 afterwards.

You've missed out the bit where Edward IV and Thomas Cromwell have a passionate gay relationship, much to the disgust of Oliver, Thomas's unreasonable and thoroughly unpleasant homophobic dad. Cromwell pere writes to the Pope (choose your own favourite Pope here*), begging his Holiness to intervene to try to talk some sense into Edward. The Holy Father understandably says he is reluctant to interfere in English affairs any more as he had a terrible time with an hysterical Joan of Arc who also had a brief affair with Edward when he (Edward, not the Pope) was in France. Joan is claiming that Edward married her in a thicket near Rouen, and that he then dumped her. Joan's little boy is in fact Richard III's Other Nephew.


EDIT: *You can choose any Pope you like, as long as he's vaguely 15th century, but he must be a proper Pope and not an antipope. Felix V isn't allowed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/event/article-2340362/BBCs-The-White-Queen-Battles-beddings-beheadings-Why-TV-event-summer.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlone
 





Good Lord, it *is* Thomas Cromwell, but he's the Earl of Warwick tonight. He's also been in "The Lone Ranger".


"But it is Frain, as scheming Warwick, who steals the show. Brooding and intense, the 45-year-old confesses he adored the ‘juiciness’ of the part, especially as he joined the six-month shoot straight from the U.S. set of The Lone Ranger.



 ‘I went from riding Western-style across the desert  with Johnny (Depp) to riding English-style wearing full armour.' "

"The character of Edward IV was inspired by Prince William"

Um... well, naturally.  Who else?

"The battle scenes are terrifyingly realistic
Frain says: ‘When you are wearing armour, if you fall off your horse you are done for. You can’t get up...'"

Let me guess - they had to be winched onto their horses, too.  Give me strength!

I've edited my message above, omitting the Venerable Bede entirely from the outline of the script. We don't want it to get too silly. Joan of Arc (plus baby) remains. I suggest we call this Res Historica/BBC production of the year "Richard III''s Other Nephew."

You're right. That character would only be introduced in the last chapter - the one where all the earlier antagonists suddenly realise that they've more in common than they have differences, and then unite as one to fight the Abominable Bede when it descends from the snowy wastes of the Northumberland Volcanic Ranges and threatens to engulf the whole kingdom in one giant Ecclesiastic Flow.

That sets up the scene nicely when the male heroes, having fought gallantly but to no avail and now lingering close to death on the Plains of Bosworth, suddenly see the Great White Queen swoop over them on her dragon-steed Henry as she single-handedly charges the Bede - leading to that immortal line uttered by the dying but no longer disgraced Richard of Lockwood "Dispute not with her, she's only f***ing wicked!" (whereupon the Red Queen, following close behind her relative on her own personal dragon "Neville" throws him a horse).

We don't get the BBC in our house ...

Any of our overseas members who will miss out on this programme, don't worry, it'll probably be on youtube within hours.

Personally I'm off to watch some Dr Who adventures about Silurians and Sea Devils, they'll be more accurate than PG's story.

Should Phillipa Gregory be shot?


Definitely not - that would be far too quick and painless. 


It's so frustrating to see so much cash and effort expended on such appalling, adolescent drivel.  It really doesn't merit extended discussion; sub 1960's TV serial material with a bit of houghmagandie thrown in to pretend it's for grown ups. 
I want that hour back.

Don't spoil it for me. I'm dying to know how the Doctor fares against the combined forces of both the Silurians and the Sea Devils - I'm guessing he confuses them with his over-acting ability and then gets them with the screwdriver thingy.

Or was that the Daleks?

Just watched it. It's medieval Downton Abbey, isn't it? Glossy crap for Sunday night.

Pity they didn't have Maggie Smith as the Dowager Duchess of York. I can just imagine her making some withering remark about never trusting a man who chats you up in an arboretum - "Even if he's my son."

Was it just me, or was there a definite Alice in Wonderland feel to it all? I kept expecting to see the Cheshire Cat grinning down from one of those trees - with Philippa Gregory's face.

Didn't the Daleks feature in it at all then?

'Fraid not.

Not really, apart from the D D of Y's headdress, that would imply some sort of intelligence in the writing. I thought more of a sexed up typical Disney princess offering complete with fairy (god)mother, handsome prince, wicked queen (well, duchess), transformation scene from homespun dress to ball gown and just missing out on a few cute talking animals. 
You're right about the Downton comparison though, just not as gritty.

Why does anything in quotes vanish when it's posted?

Some reactions posted on PG's facebook page. I liked the last one best:

I was so afraid that it wouldn't measure up to the book, but it was wonderful. Well done!!!!

Your writing makes history so easy to digest, thank you for bringing it to life for us. Loving the White Queen on BBC1 tonight!

The White Queen was absolutely brilliant! Can't wait for the second episode!

Is there an order to read these books in please?

ferval wrote:

Why does anything in quotes vanish when it's posted?

See "Technical Adjustments" thread.

Yes, I agree about sexed-up Disney princess, ferval. That comment says it all. A sign of the (our) times? Good review in the Guardian:

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

I like the "fifty shades of history" remark. Wish I'd thought of that.

I know we can all laugh about this crap - "female perspective" on history? - but it's not good, is it?

I can't go near PG's blog. In fact I don't think I can stomach any more of this Tudor/Plantagenet stuff. I'm going to have another crack at Oliver Cromwell and the 17th century. Even George III would be better than this.


PS Quoting has become really difficult. If you alter the quote from someone's post - delete a bit of it, for example - you get stuck in the quote box. Well, I do.

Crossed posts, ferval!

While the quote thingy is broken you can work around it by clicking on the last symbol (the text page picture). This switches the editor over to the BCC code version (from "what you see is what you get" version) where you can see the codes for quote, image etc etc. Then you can simply move the cursor to below the quoted bit and carry on.

The Dalek Red Queen exists ...

It must have been bad, nobody has bothered to youtube it yet.

.......................................................................................

The Earl of Warwick;

I didn't think it was that bad. It's not history. It's drama. I'm just enjoying it for what it is - an escapist romp - and set during a period of history which rarely gets covered. The Belgian locations, for example, are gorgeous.

That said - my missus and I did chuckle when Warwick the Kingmaker (James Frain) roared at Edward in the style of a coach just before a football match:

"Now get in there and make the announcement." 

Vizzer wrote:

...an escapist romp..

Well, I want an escape from escapist romps - I've had enough of them.

Yes, the trees were good - I give you the trees.

These trees?



Oostkerke, Flanders (doubling as Grafton Regis home of the Rivers family).

The Indie review's a goodie, I love the final sentence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/tv-review-the-white-queen-is-less-historically-plausible-than-game-of-thrones-despite-being-ostensibly-true-8661016.html

I tried to copy and paste some stuff but it appears as an unreadable dark grey, is there a way round this until the board gets fixed?

I just knew that the Game of Thrones excesses would influence someone's judgment. And here it begins folk. As for the settings - well - what a lovely herbacious border with such a neat edge and that finely mowed lawn - obviously could only be done by guiding sheep with good gnashers up and down it like wheelbarrows; this we should have seen too for impact - an enjoyment. Then there was her curvy well fitted woollen dress - was that a zip down her back, mm? And what a gracious sitting room in the manor, so well appointed with much furniture and what about  the  tapestries and elaborate four poster in the hunting lodge? All that and white magic too! I was made speechless - and that takes some doing! 
This surely was a  PG Tips V Yorkshire extra strong brew, production. And those lovely trees should  have been  saved for a better film. It was the first episode of 10? Surely not.

Historian Philippa Gregory has a new novel coming out around August. It is about Elizabeth of York and it is called "The White Princess". Here is a snippet (you can have a "look inside" on Amazon):

"If I think of him, riding alone against his enemies, riding with my glove tucked inside his breastplate against his heart, then I will start to cry..."

You'll never guess who the "he" is.

Time for another tune, I think...


PS 

Quote :

Then there was her curvy well fitted woollen dress - was that a zip down her back, mm?

Yes, she got it from Zara (£110). Sold out within the hour.

Temperance wrote:

Historian Philippa Gregory has a new novel coming out around August. It is about Elizabeth of York and it is called "The White Princess". Here is a snippet (you can have a "look inside" on Amazon)...

Well, at least Amazon have called it "a new novel" (ie fiction) and they didn't try to pass it off as "a new, definitive history" etc...

Of course the real proof of the pudding will be where they decide to put it on their shelves ... is it to be classified as fiction, history, new age, conspiracy theory, romantic fantasy .... children's/young adults' ... alternative ... feminist writings ... or indeed something else entirely? ....

... like "cheap bin"? Now that would say it all really

All Phillipa Gregory books are in "Fiction" in our libraries.

Oh goody - it's Sunday and the the White-spot-the TV production-anomaly-Queen, night. Temp can do the Historical facts check - or is that too painful? What with confused Earl and Warwick Lordships in this PG brew, for starters, I hope they got some of it right.

Priscilla wrote:

Oh goody - it's Sunday and the the White-spot-the TV production-anomaly-Queen, night. Temp can do the Historical facts check...

Oh, Priscilla, I am mortified. Have I really become such a bore? (Don't answer that. )

Dear God, they have actually got a countdown going here, so you can watch the seconds/minutes/hours ticking by until Episode Two starts...

http://www.pogdesign.co.uk/cat/The-White-Queen/Season-1/Episode-2


It was 9 hours, 38 minutes and 10 seconds just now...

It's now 9 hours, 37 minutes and 10 seconds...

Oh dear, I meant was it too painful for you to do, Temps! Its simply that you know the facts - and  you are never boring! Sensitive, though, yes. I used to have a tropical plant that curled up at the sligtest touch. It had a breakdown when the family discovered that, of course. 
Kind regards from Bigfoot of the Essex swamp land.