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.

Oh well, better a Mimosa Pudica (  even if it does sound rather rude), than a Symplocarpus Foetidus, I suppose. The one on the box looks a bit like a manic Little Weed.



0 days, 5 hours, 5 minutes and 25 seconds to go.

I know you are all secretly counting the minutes, even though you are pretending not to, so here's the link again:

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


0 days, 4 hours, 57 minutes and 59 seconds.

Temperance wrote:

Oh well, better a Mimosa Pudica (even if it does sound rather rude), than a Symplocarpus Foetidus, I suppose.

Although not as rude as Phallus impudicus, the common stinkhorn fungus:



But not having access to British TV I really am not "counting down the minutes".

Here we have simpler tastes ... It's the Fête de Saint Jean tonight and so I'll be going up to the village in an hour or so to welcome the boys home as they bring back our bit of the 'sacred flame' that they collected earlier today from the beacon that was lit on the summit of mount Canigou at sunrise this morning (it'll have been a full day's climb from here to the summit and back for the guys who have gone to collect 'our bit of fire'). From this flame, carried down the mountain in an old Tilley lamp, we'll light our own mid-summer beacon .... as will all the other villages around ... then we'll dance the traditional Sardane, throw last year's St Jean bouquets (with all the evil that have absorbed over the past year) into the fire, have a bbq, a free drink, and a chat etc ...

Quite frankly you can keep the rather dubious pleasures of "The White Queen". At least for tonight.

"Dubious" is a good word to describe it all, MM. I'd much rather be enjoying your Saint Jean festivities to be honest.

Mimosa Pudica is also called a TickleMe plant, which is a much nicer name. Easy for kids to grow for fun too:


http://www.wikihow.com/Grow-a-Sensitive-Plant-(Mimosa-pudica)

.... well in all honesty, Temp, the Fête de Saint Jean isn't entirely idyllic ... If it's anything like last year some lad is certain to get drunk and leery ... someone, perhaps the same leery lad, is bound to accidentally sit on the end of the long tressle table and so catapult piles of sausages and chops onto the ground. Then all the dogs will  think heaven has arrived and dive in ... Young children will get lost ... and then, after a frantic search be found hunkered down under a table sharing chocolate ice-cream with an appreciative stray cat, ... the boys from the orphanage will be found attempting to persuade the village girls to do things that both sides know they shouldn't do and wouldn't actually do anyway, even if given half a chance ... and someone usually manages to reverse their car into the ditch requiring a dozen or so 'helping hands' to get them out. And after these preliminaries general chaos ensues.

I usually leave after an hour!

As ferval said last week, it really isn't worth talking about is it (last night's programme, that is, not MM's Fete de Saint Jean)?

It's all just too dreadful - surely one of the worst drama series the BBC has ever done.  

The portrait of Margaret d'Anjou made me laugh, but not much.

I honestly don't think I'll be bothering next Sunday.

What baffles me is, who is the intended audience? Those who tune in looking for a medieval romp, swords, sorcery and some rumpy pumpy, must be left wondering who on earth many of these people are. I doubt that they're watching with a genealogical table and a brief guide to 15th c. to understand who is who and why they're so disgruntled/delighted with events whereas those who might know who, for instance, Margaret d'Anjou was and what is actually meant to be going on, will be throwing things at the screen. 
A disaster at every level I'm afraid; whatever it's intended to be, it's a real turkey.
A disaster at every level I think and I'm rgaret

For anyone who does not have access to the BBC, the first episode on youtube;

Sorry about the mess in my last post but the board has acquired a mind of its own and decides what you can or can't delete and then does very strange things when you try to edit it.

ferval wrote:

 
A disaster at every level I'm afraid; whatever it's intended to be, it's a real turkey.

"Turkey" is too generous. It's a Bernard Matthews turkey twizzler.

Or even a turkey dinosaur (you can buy these at Morrisons - I've just seen them).

I have just bought next week's Radio Times and I should like to share with you part of the beautifully restrained write-up for Sunday's "Pick of the Day." Alison Graham, obviously trying to keep a straight face, comments:

"You'd be well advised to leave a trail of breadcrumbs at the start of tonight's episode, because there's an awful lot going on as couples - wives and husbands, even ex-husbands - plot and scheme, often against each other, and the possibility of becoming lost is ever present.

Meanwhile, Edward, once he's king again (do keep up) has to deal with an insurrection, or, as he phrases it in ringingly authentic period language: 'I must put my neck on the line.'

Party on, dude."

There is also a nice photo of Edward IV with his parents, Sinead Cusack and Jeremy (Alexander VI) Irons.

I have seen the target audience described thus:
It looks like a cynical made-for-American-teen-tv product, horribly soft-focus and chick-tv

and someone else said, "Dressed-up soap opera" but that doesn't seem strong enough - you could say the same about Downton Abbey but it was at least highly enjoyable and this doesn't seem to be that, from the comments made.  I don't expect our television networks to get this, and I don't download or watch TV via the internet, so probably won't see it.

Caro wrote:

I have seen the target audience described thus:
It looks like a cynical made-for-American-teen-tv product, horribly soft-focus and chick-tv

Yes, that's just about it, Caro. The Sunday Times said it all. Their reviewer simply commented: "utter tosh".

And tosh served up after weeks of hype, trailers, interviews and guest appearances here, there and everywhere by La Gregotty.

But life goes on...

But thank goodness we have been spared too much sex. Apparently it is the Americans who will be getting the very rude indeed version:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10123456/The-White-Queen-Cameras-kept-rolling-in-sex-scenes-for-US-audience.html




Lead actor Max Irons has now disclosed the differences between the two shows, hinting: “There’s the BBC cut and the Starz cut.

He told Metro's Life&Style supplement: “You get a lot more a--- in the Starz version – the cameras kept rolling after the BBC stopped the scene.

“The other funny thing with Starz was that you had to do extra lines. For the BBC, I’d say to my brother: ‘Come here, George.’ But for Starz it would be: ‘Come here George, Duke of Clarence,’ so they’d know what I was on about.”

That sort of thing will make for some rather stilted dialogue during the sex scenes, I should think: I'm trying to imagine Isabel Neville referring to her husband as George, Duke of Clarence, every time he's got his bottom towards the camera.

Also from another Telegraph article:

"At her Bristol school, where she has described herself as having been a bit of a rebel, she only managed an E in her History A-level, but puts that down in part to the way the subject is usually taught."


The rather thick bit of the rebel then ...




Philippa redefines "rebel"

Quote :

Also from another Telegraph article:

"At her Bristol school, where she has described herself as having been a bit of a rebel, she only managed an E in her History A-level, but puts that down in part to the way the subject is usually taught."

Her Geography teacher was also obviously rather poor: PG only achieved an E in that subject too. She got a B in Eng. Lit. If Wiki is correct, she "managed" to get into the University of Sussex - eventually.

Not that her academic record really matters. She is what she is - a very canny, successful ex-journalist who, like Julian Fellowes, has tapped into an extremely lucrative market. I just wish she would be honest about what she is and what she's doing - as Gerald Ratner was about the stuff he was flogging. Ratner's judgement of what his firm was churning out? "It's total crap."

Mind you, he wiped £500 million off the value of his business with that one candid comment. It's unlikely that PG (or Julian Fellowes) will ever be so honest - or so stupid.


EDIT: I've edited this message *four* times now, and I am still uneasy. I wish I understood my own angry, bitter feelings about this woman: she's coming to represent everything I loathe about the world we live in, which really is a rather melodramatic thing to say. She's the history equivalent of a winner on "Britain's Got Talent" - all the hype and flashing lights and wild applause from the crowd. But so what, you ask? It's all harmless fun. Mmm. I'd better heed my own advice to Minette over on the PITT thread and go and read (and inwardly digest) a bit of Marcus Aurelius. Lord, that sounds pretentious, but I mean it. Better than trying to digest Philippa Gregory at any rate.

And we still have Hilary Mantel's new book to look forward to, so it's not all doom 'n' gloom.

I'll probably edit this at 9.30am.

Gran wrote:

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

Quite so.

This is why it's surprising that people should be surprised by the television series The White Queen. It's not a documentary and neither is it a docudrama. And neither does it claim to be. It's a historical drama based on a novel. Furthermore it's based on a novel by Philippa Gregory whose various works of fiction have been the subject of discussion (on this thread alone) since January 2012.

Okay so some of the costumes and the buildings may not be 'exactly' as things were in the 15th Century but then neither is the dialogue. And neither would the dialogue be in a docudrama unless, of course, the docudrama came with subtitles. There is no doubt that Philippa has romanticised and even fantasised part of the story - but then isn't that the essence of all drama? What she hasn't done, however, is to attempt to deliberately misrepresent the basic historical events. And there are very many other 'historical' dramas and films one could mention which can not claim the same.

Vizzer wrote:

It's a historical drama based on a novel.

But it is bad historical drama based on a bad novel, Vizzer. Yet it has been presented to us as something special, profound, significant. That is what bugs.

The empress is naked, whatever the BBC - or the lady herself - would have us all believe.

Vizzer wrote:

There is no doubt that Philippa has romanticised and even fantasised part of the story - but then isn't that the essence of all drama?

That is by no means the essence of all drama, and in the case of historical drama it is more likely to be the description of drama poorly written and cheaply contrived.

If an event contains drama in its own right which requires only to be narrated with a modicum of skill to be amply conveyed, then it takes a special kind of nincompoop to rob it of that drama in their own attempt to narrate it, and substitute it with childish melodrama. Given the contempt with which the "general public" is regarded these days by producers of visual media such nincompoops can occasionally become quite rich nincompoops as the witless fodder they create is spread like pigshit over the widest possible acreage in the hope of a ready return. However for the spreader, or indeed the pig, to claim that they have created a lasting thing of integrity, beauty, skill or worth while engaged in this activity is ludicrous.

This is not simply my opinion - this is basic logic and common sense. A brain surgeon might, with minimum training, make a perfectly adequate butcher. However the inverse is not so likely and the product of the latter's efforts would not (it is hoped) be held up as exemplars of the brain surgery trade. However in effect this is precisely what we are being expected to believe, based not on the evidence before us but on the confident, if erroneous, claims of the butcher and the agencies who stand to benefit from the successful prosecution of these claims.

If I require brain surgery myself I would hope to deal with a brain surgeon, not one who pretends to the role. If I require to learn history I will turn to one skilled in the craft to relate it to me. If I require to be entertained through the dramatisation of history I will turn to someone who is skilled in that particular profession (and there are several, even today).

If I require - for some unfathomable reason - to learn incorrect history presented as poor drama from a product that parodies both genres while mendaciously pretending to be a quality instance of both then I will turn to Philippa Gregory and the TV producers responsible for the latest incident of porcine excrement currently being spread in the hope of removing some hard-earned money from my bank account and precious hours from my remaining tenure on this earth. I have better things to be doing than assist them in their deceit.

Nordmann and Temp ... hear, hear!

And not only is it "badly written fiction" and indeed "utter tosh" etc. it also represents such a missed opportunity for something great.

The Wars of The Roses (or whatever you want to call them) do not lack for drama ... action, intrigue, romance, greed for wealth, lust for power, betrayal, humility, forgiveness ... it's all there and it's all true too. This ain't fiction but part of the reason why Britain is the way it is today. It's history!

I just wonder what, say Robert Graves might have made out of it. If he could craft "I Claudius" and "Claudius the God" from Suetonius' and others' often highly biased, sycophantic, gossipy annals ... and yet still come up with something that was dramatic but not overly contradictory to history, what, I wonder could he have made of 15th century England if he'd put his mind to it. Graves was the first to admit that "I Claudius" was a fiction based on (vague, conflicting) historical facts, and he was always very careful to point out areas where he took too much dramatic licence. But then he was a scholar of classics ... HE never claimed to be an historian.

No wonder people like Starkey (love him or loathe him) are foaming at the mouth when a failed history scholar like PG gets billed as an acknowledged expert in such-an-such historical field and whose word carries as much weight, if not more, than that of himself and his academic colleagues. It's like referring to Barbara Cartland as an expert on the politics of the French Revolution from reading a couple of her bodice-rippers set in regency England.

Ah (as has already been mentioned above I think) Barbara to give her her due, never pretended to be  other than what she was, a writer of bodice-rippers. PG on the other hand..................

Meles meles wrote:

And not only is it "badly written fiction" and indeed "utter tosh" etc. it also represents such a missed opportunity for something great.

The Wars of The Roses (or whatever you want to call them) do not lack for drama ... action, intrigue, romance, humility, greed for wealth, lust for power, betrayal, humility, forgiveness ... it's all there and it's all true too. This ain't fiction but part of the reason why Britain is the way it is today. It's history!

Exactly, MM, exactly.

Interesting too what you say about Robert Graves.

PS Nordmann - that's what I meant to write, but couldn't find the words.

Well quite, ID, and in Dame Barbara's romances the bodices are never ripped open .. but demurely untied with the candles out!

Edit - I tried to quote the 'romanticisation and fantasy' bit but it disappeared.

For me, that isn't really the issue, after all oor Willie did that rather well with Macbeth and produced something that had impact, integrity and significance and, importantly, didn't require any knowledge of the historical background to engage and enthral. It's that the drama itself doesn't stand up on its own account; it seems to me to use its general adherence to the events to give it an undeserved gloss of 'authenticity', to allow those who can think, Oh, I know who that is and where they fit in, a warm glow of satisfaction and it pretends a significance that disguises it being bad fiction as well as dubious history. It's just a muddle and I just couldn't care less about who does what and to whom.
Tonight Rich Hall's on BBC4 and that's what I'll be watching.

Meles meles wrote:

Well quite, ID, and in Dame Barbara's romances the bodices are never ripped open .. but demurely untied with the candles out!

Have you read her books MM? I must admit that I never have, am not a fan of romance but I quite liked Barbara. Mainly for daring to be herself and nothing else, even admist all the ridicule she received for the hair, makeup and silly pink dresses. That takes courage.

Although perhaps embarrassing to have to admit it ....  But, no I have never read any Barbara Cartland.

I didn't watch *it* last night - should I have? I saw this comment on the Points of view board * .........totally engrossed......... I sit with my copies of  The Royal Line of Succession and Britain's Kings and Queens ..... helps me sort out all the Henrys.* 

Good lord, is there an exam at the end or is it just so badly structured that a reference guide is required?

Of course I watched it...

Lots of hubble bubble down by the riverside last night *and* in a Palace somewhere with a bowl of water and a ring with weird, witchy whistling from mum, daughter and granddaughter (little Elizabeth of York!). See sailor's* line below.

Poor Isabel Neville - Duchess of Clarence, daughter of Warwick the Kingmaker, sister-in-law of Richard of Gloucester etc. etc. -  had a really gruesome time struggling to give birth during a very bad storm at sea (on the way to Calais). The baby got stuck and her sister Anne - soon to be Princess of Wales, daughter-in-law of Margaret of Anjou (who's in France) and Henry VI (who's bonkers somewhere as usual, I think in the Tower, but he might have been rescued and gone to Scotland; I've lost track) etc. etc. - had to act as midwife ("You've got the smallest hands...") Lots of blood, no hot water and a very nasty shot of the Neville girls' mother (another Anne Neville, the horrid Countess of Warwick) doing something unspeakable with a pair of scissors. Just hope the Duchess of Cambridge wasn't watching.

* Panicking, drunken sailor: This be a Witches' Wind, Jim lad.

I'm starting to agree with one reviewer who has given the programme a one star *and* a five star rating. One star because it's awful, and five stars because it's so awful it's great.



PS Isabel really did go through the  hell of giving birth at sea during a terrible storm. The child was born alive, but the little girl (not a boy as last night) survived only a few hours. The Duchess went on to have three more children; one died young and the other two, Edward, Earl of Warwick and Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, were destined to be the victims of Tudor judicial murder (Edward in 1499, Margaret in 1541).

PPS. I've been thinking more and more about MM's comment about what a good writer could have done with all this. To be fair, ten episodes aren't enough to develop the characters and to make sense of everything that's happening. Six seasons, a la Sopranos, would do it. As in that series (and I, Claudius) lots of scope for some serious black humour too.

PPPS Third set now!

Oh, what the hell, I'll watch it later. Not being able to talk about it just too frustrating.

I did watch Rich Hall though and it was superb. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036lqsz

Temperance wrote:

Yet it has been presented to us as something special, profound, significant.

We need to compare like with like.

I don’t think that The White Queen has been billed as high culture to be compared with say The Hollow Crown broadcast by the BBC this time last year. Neither can it be compared to I, Claudius from 1976. Both The Hollow Crown and I, Claudius were broadcast on BBC2. The White Queen on the other hand is being broadcast on BBC1. This in itself should tell us something. It’s targeting a different audience and is more in the tradition of series such as By the Sword Divided from 1983 which also went out on BBC1. But I agree with Meles regarding the missed opportunity element to all this.

That said – I’m thoroughly enjoying the series. And that’s probably precisely because I’m not expecting Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle in Pride and Prejudice (1995). I have, however, already had to set up a mental blackboard to chalk up minuses for Philippa on the history front. So far I had given her the benefit of the doubt but last nite we had the ‘Richard Welles’ character and incident which seemingly saw the historical Richard Welles and his son Robert Welles morphed into one person. The manner of that character's death was also seriously at odds with that of either of the historical Welleses.

And the less said about peaches being available anywhere in Europe (let alone in England) on May Day the better...

Comparing like with like in the case of Gregory is to bring Barbara Cartland fully into the equation. And even then she fails on both the honesty and the drama fronts.

If Gregory hadn't maintained at every opportunity (and continues to do so too) that she be reckoned as an historian then much of her output could be forgiven, if not enjoyed (though on what basis you are enjoying the series is something you will have to explain - I see no grounds whatsoever).

It's a scam. And not even a clever one. That it deflects attention from worthy writers and dramatic representations worth watching (or even worse, now never likely to be made) is the real crime of which she is chief perpetrator.

ferval wrote:

Good lord, is there an exam at the end or is it just so badly structured that a reference guide is required?

The White Queen version of the Welles Rebellion was terribly confusing. I have resorted this morning to some frantic googling in an attempt to sort out who was actually who, or rather, who wasn't who. For anyone out there remotely interested  , or for those of you who are hoping to take the Res Historica White Queen module end-of-term examination (please note this cannot be offered with the PITT module), you can swot up the details here. Seems a fairly reliable site:

http://warsoftheroses.devhub.com/blog/3205-welles-uprising-1470/

So Vizzer was quite right: that unfortunate lad who died behind a stripey (stripy?) tent on Sunday night was actually a morphed character. He was Richard and Robert Welles. These two were related to Margaret Beaufort; Richard was her step-brother and Robert her step-nephew. The mother of our Red Queen, Margaret Beauchamp of Bletsoe (where on earth is Bletsoe?), married three times. Mental Margaret - as she is now being called on mumsnet - was the issue of her second marriage to John Beaufort, the rather disastrous Duke of Somerset. Her third husband, Lionel de Welles, had also been married before, and he had children by his first wife. One of these, his son, Richard, together with his grandson, Robert, *were* involved in an uprising against Edward IV. Both Richard and Robert Welles were indeed executed by Edward IV, but they were beheaded in front of the king's army, not degutted by Edward himself in the middle of the night.

No evidence (that I can find) that MM (Mental Margaret, not our Meles meles) was involved.

All terribly confusing, as are the various mini-rebellions and mini-battles led by Warwick and Clarence, but apparently it was this chaotic in real life (see Michael Hicks in the Guardian - he, like Vizzer, seems to be thoroughly enjoying it all). The 15th century English peasants, without Google to check the details, must have given up trying to work out what was going on. They probably lost track around 1468, if the truth be known (if not years before).

Always thought Michael Hicks was a bit suspect:

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

Temperance wrote:

All terribly confusing, as are the various mini-rebellions and mini-battles led by Warwick and Clarence, but apparently it was this chaotic in real life

Confusing indeed and following Episode Three there are another couple of marks to be put on the blackboard under Philippa's name. This episode saw the brief appearance of 'Black' William Herbert, the minor Welsh noble who was over-promoted by Edward IV and paid the price when Warwick rebelled in 1469. Herbert was subsequent executed but there is no historical evidence that he was personally dispatched by Warwick himself as was depicted.

To add to the confusion, the character of 'Richard Welles' from Episode Two (i.e. both Richard and Robert Welles) would still have been alive after William Herbert (from Episode Three) was already dead. It was the following year in 1470 that the Welles Rebellion occurred.

I have got the most terrible confession to make: I have just watched Episode 4, and I quite enjoyed it.    

Apparently a different script-writer took over for this episode, but it could just be that the heat has addled my brain.

I suspect I could be cast into the outer darkness for this.

Agreed SST - it's a much tighter and more focussed drama now. The number of characters has stabilised and even contracted. As I watched it this time I was able to do so without having to bother too much about the historical chronology etc - which is as it should be. Amanda Hale as Margaret Beaufort, for example, is a complete revelation as an actress and simply steals the show in my book.


Addendum:

nordmann wrote:

If Gregory hadn't maintained at every opportunity (and continues to do so too) that she be reckoned as an historian

I have to agree that this is a bugbear. Although, to be fair, I have only seen her referred to as being a historian (not by herself) but on one particular section of the BBC website. The BBC has now seemingly again overstepped the mark by allowing Philippa to present a supplementary series of programs entitled The Real White Queen and Her Rivals. This would lead one to suggest that Philippa Gregory was presenting a historical documentary to back up the current drama series and so further embellishing her 'historian' credentials.

There are 2 ways of looking at this though. One way is that it just lets Philippa have her cake and eat it - and also be indulged in this by the BBC. The other is that it further emphasises the fact that The White Queen series is just drama based on a novel and not to be taken as history. Judge for oneself:

Last Sunday's episode was poor - especially that bit with Proud Cis clinging to Edward's leg. It was very badly done - as was MB and the baby miracle.

Is it just me - but where is Lord Hastings? Have I missed him? Perhaps he will show up this week.

Still haven't got round to watching PG's history programme. I've been told she is introduced as Dr Philippa Gregory, which makes her sound a real expert. She does hold a doctorate, but it's an Eng. Lit. qualification, I believe - and an Eng. Lit. qualification most definitely does not an historian make! Dr Philippa - perhaps she could open a Botox clinic next, like that Dr Leah who won The Apprentice.

Just checked the Radio Times: Edward kicks the bucket - or rather vomits into it - tomorrow night and Uncle Richard and Aunty Anne (what a sly minx she is proving to be - a real chip off the old block, leading our Richard astray) take over. But no mention of Lord Hastings in the cast list. He has clearly been written out of history, which is jolly unfair I think.

Last night was utterly dreadful - worthy of a Showtime Historical production.

Liz sends for Richard (she didn't) - he's there at the bedside as Edward lies dying (he wasn't) - no mention of the Northampton/Stony Stratford coup (quite important) - Lord Rivers and Lord Hastings merge into one (baffling) - and where on earth was Bishop Stillington (who was also quite important)?

But swapping Richard of York for the mysterious, unknown, rapidly procured Geoffrey (??) took the biscuit, especially when he (Geoffrey) was handed over looking as though he'd just been playing Cowboys and Indians...

The bit with MM shrieking, "Get your filthy hands off my Bible - the Pope's touched it!" was good.

Nice brooding Richard though. I'm glad they didn't choose him (Aneurin Barnard) as the new Dr Who.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2384195/Aneurin-Barnard-Will-White-Queens-Richard-III-new-Doctor-Who.html

You may think that TWQ is rotten, and it is, but compared to this.............http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Reign-Trailer-Introduces-Us-Mary-Queen-Scots-CW-Drama-55746.html

Prince *Bash* of France! A tempestuous love triangle! A mysterious shrouded guide! You couldn't make it up - if they hadn't already.

Oh, thank you for that clip, ferval. It's made my day, just as I thought it couldn't get any worse...

Prince Bash - what an excellent name for a little Valois-Angouleme!

But hold on; this here Bash is illegitimate isn't he, so we should surely refer to him as Bash the Bastard? He's not a proper prince at all.

Good for you, Temp, you must have read the blurb more thoroughly than I did. So Bash is a wee bastard is he; given she had a penchant for those, he's probably well in there.

Gosh, Philippa's moved up the league table - more views now than the What is Art thread,  which she's just overtaken. Who are all these people reading our mutterings? Wish some of them would join in the various discussion(s)!

We don't bite here, you know.

Well, not always.

Caro wrote:

Well, not always.

And even then it's only ever a little nibble...

Well, it's a start..........

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/commissioning/the-white-queen-axed-by-bbc1/5059374.article

I have got so used to the critical comments here about Philippa Gregory that I forget millions of people read her and enjoy for a reason. The book reviewer on our national radio the other day was raving about The White Queen - she really enjoyed its interesting characters, its story, its picture of the historical period.  She couldn't praise it highly enough and felt the writing was very good too.  Then the arts editor said the television series (which we haven't seen on television here yet) was excellent.  Of course, in NZ we don't know Gregory as a proclaimed (self or otherwise) historian or her university qualifications; we just see her as a historical fiction writer.  There just isn't the same publicity given to writers and academics here; even our home-grown writers aren't often seen giving their opinions in the media or having columns to propound their views.

I am joining this thread somewhat late.  I watched 5 minutes of one episode of "The White Queen" and that was enough. TG for the "remote". I saw part but not all of the accompanying documentary programme and did think some of the things Ms Gregory said were not in accord with what I learned at school about the Wars of the Roses (which admittedly was half a century ago and not in great depth).  I did some searching on Google to try to ascertain whether Ms PG was accurate or not.  She seems to be someone that people either love or hate.  She seemed to make an assumption (about a slightly later period of history) that Joe or Josephine Public was blithely unaware of the existence of Mary Boleyn - well this average citizen had known about t'other Boleyn sister for over 40 years.  That assumption made me rather cross.  However, I must be honest and say I have never read any of Ms PG's books and don't think I'll bother after reading this thread (I did wonder if I should read one to make my own judgement, but then life is short and I don't want to waste time reading something  I would not like).  To be fair to Ms PG I read on her website that she runs a charity for people in the third world, so she does something good there.  I don't buy the argument that it's okay to pass fiction off as fact though - I mean if I started saying that 4 + 4 made 5 or that Iceland was in the Pacific Ocean people would soon jump on me (metaphorically) from a great height.  I will admit that I have a soft spot for certain historical "who-dunnits" but any writers I have come across in that genre do admit where they have diverged from historical fact for a good story.

Hi and welcome LiR!

I wasn't aware of the third world angle. This is serious - out of gratitude to their benefactor they might collectively decide to believe in extra nipples, reversed sibling ages etc. And there's loads of them! (Third world people I mean, not extra nipples).

But great to see you finally broke the ice. Be prepared now for a barrage (well two posts) of people heartily shaking your (metaphorical) hand in agreement!

Very welcome, LadyinRetirement!

I think that if PG said that 4+4 made 5 or that Iceland was in the Pacific Ocean, all her fans would agree. Have we been unfair to her on this thread, do you think? I hope we haven't - but if I'm honest, I don't care if we have. The woman's arrogance is beyond endurance. Hilary Mantel, on the other hand, who is a genius, is the most unassuming of people. Never claims to be Dr Mantel the Historian either - grrr.

And I hope you will post some more. Are you fond of Richard III? There's me, Minette and Gran who are; the rest of the mob around here don't believe he ever existed.

EDIT: I put a comma instead of a semi-colon.