Philippa’s answer to “Hi Ms. Gregory! I am a huge fan! I just finished The Kingmaker's Daughter and I interested in the r…” > Likes and Comments
8 likes · Like
Basically everything that the amazing cat says above is true. The fact that Richard himself denied the rumors in public speaks volumes on how he felt about the entire situation, the account itself comments on how disturbed he was during the event. The people would have never approved of such an incestuous marriage and like the amazing cat says above, it would have been a political suicide since he would have had to legitimize Elizabeth of York and the rest of her siblings including her brothers, therefore openly admitting that he was a usurper and the princes had been legitimate all along. Those two facts are some of the major reasons why such a union was impossible, also adding the fact that he intended to marry Joanna of Portugal and arranged a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel I, as well as it was not in his character to cheat on his wife and consider a marriage to his own niece, taking into account how pious Richard was in history. As for the Buck Letter, that is a very weak piece of evidence since it is only based on speculation and it consisted on nothing but “vague lines” as Buck described, not to mention that whatever remained of the document was completely edited. It’s okay if you want write and explore unusual possibilities, just don’t go around claiming its historically accurate, because it’s not. I also don’t understand the claim in the book/show that Richard is using Elizabeth as a way to put the York’s on their side, because in the end what truly mattered wasn’t who-was-sleeping–with-who, what mattered was who was going to win the final battle and once Henry won it didn’t matter if Elizabeth was “ruined” because she had sisters, he could have married anybody from Cecily to Bridget. Cecily’s marriage could have been annulled and as for the rest of the sisters well, marriages between children and adults were not unheard of, or did Richard claim that he slept with all of them as well? Yikes, I don’t think so, which makes that whole “using Elizabeth plot” of his pretty pointless and useless, and Richard wasn’t an idiot.
Very good point Charlotte unless Richard was sleeping with all the York girls it wouldn't have truly mattered that he and Elizabeth had an affair because there were a number of other choices for a bride.
That being said I doubt someone as pious as Elizabeth of York was would even consider an affair with a married man. It was a mortal sin and were talking about a time that took these beliefs very seriously
Exactly, I also don't understand Henry and Margarets plan in the White Princess to rape Elizabeth to prove if she's fertile ( which I found completely unfair to the real Henry Tudor) because even if she ended up pregnant there was the possibility that she could have miscarried the baby or the child could have been a girl after Henry married her, what was he to do if that happened? I think you didn't particularly intend to present Richard and Henry as intelligent people did you? That's another useless plan and it looked like it was only a device to present Henry as a monster. I think your works are very entertaining but you don't do these figures much justice and these plot holes are distracting.
Exactly. Portraying a real person as a Rapist, who by all accounts was at the least kind and respectful to his wife, is disgusting and offensive. You also don't seem to realize how important virginity was for a royal spouse back then. Henry wrote a letter to the pope requesting a dispensation where he praised Elizabeth's chastity. Oh was he being sarcastic? Bottom line, Henry could not have married her if she had been a royal mistress. Even Elizabeth Woodville was considered unsuitable partially as she was not a virgin. And she was still a virtuous woman-a widow. So really, Henry Would never have married the mistress of the former king. It is not realistic.
That's right, there's even records of other people praising Elizabeth's virtue and kindness, that didn't come across in TWP. Fact is, Henry and Elizabeth had a good loving marriage and nothing can prove it wrong.
Exactly, this is completely supported by facts. I don't know what Ms. Gregory has against them as a couple but she clearly hates Henry.
I don't think she did any favors to Richard, he literally cheats on his wife who is mourning the loss of there only son and is herself dying.
Historically this isn't the case at all, Richard too Anne to Nottingham after the death of there son and never parted from her. If he was longing to divorce Anne there is no record at all of this. Also Richard is still sleeping in Anne's bed till she became sick since rumors have spread he had to publicly tell the court that Anne was to ill for him to sleep in her bed. This at the very least indicates that Richard had no plans to divorce her.
Gregory gets the relationship all wrong, while they married for political reasons Richard seemed to really care for Anne calling her in his legal documents his "dearly most beloved consort" and appointed her regent of the north several times during there marriage. There's various reports of Richard crying openly after her death and the line from the denial that he "showed his grief" indicates he was crying before all of London while speaking about her.
Everything in the contemporary record indicates richard had a faithful and loving marriage to Anne. But I guess that's just not as interesting as made up incest tales
In short words, despite whatever liberty you want to take with history you have to know the facts before coming to a conclusion and saying it's accurate, because your reasoning for a marriage between Richard and his niece is very off, same as your treatment of Henry VII.
Yes I mean Mrs. Gregory can write whatever she wants but the problem is when she calls she's accurate and worse that she is a historian she is neither of these things. She purposely misleads her audience to make her books look more credible. It's sad that people take her work as facts when there clearly her own invention without any facts to back her up
I don't believe Richard III had an affair or contemplated marrying his own niece and as for Elizabeth dressing like Queen Anne, perhaps with the death of her father, the family had limited funds. There could be many explanations including that the Queen herself was simply being generous towards Elizabeth.
Richard loved his brother Edward and was loyal to his king from the first even to risking his own life and even disagreeing with some of his brother's decisions, he still remained loyal to the end.
And in the end he charged forward to face his foe while Henry Tudor skulked and hid behind his men. And when Henry did become king he backdated the event,. I think this shows what type of man Henry was....
So though I do not agree with Ms Gregory on this point, in the end it is her book and she is free to write what she wishes...It is up to the reader whether they wish to purchase her books or not. :)
Henry was not a military man as Richard was. And his army was trying to make him king, what would be the point if he was on the front line? You can't make a dead man king.
@Rebecca I agree with you, in terms that she is free to write what she wants. What we disagree with is Mrs. Gregory saying her books are accurate. That's all. She has said it in this very Q&A that she never deviates from the facts, that simply isn't true. These are her words.
It has nothing to do with her fiction, she's allowed to write what she wants. I don't see what people don't get about these statements. I really think you guys aren't reading our posts.
That is my problem as well. She has stated several times, here and in other places, that she NEVER deviates from the facts or ignores facts. Yet she states that Henry VII had a mistress, which there is no evidence for, and she ignores the fact that Richard III was planning a Portuguese marriage for himself and for one of his nieces, almost certainly Elizabeth of York as she was the only unmarried niece who was of marrying age in 1485. That is a huge omission in my opinion. She states as fact that Elizabeth of York was in love with and planning to marry Richard III when her feelings for him are complete speculation and the evidence is sketchy. She can write whatever she wants, just don't claim to be 100% historically accuatte, it is misleading to the readers and there is nothing wrong with admitting you take artistic liberties. I don't see why it is so hard for people to understand what Theamazingcat and I and a few others have been trying to say. I'm just going to stop commenting bc this is getting ridiculous.
@Amazingcat--I am reading your posts and understand what you are saying, but it is the way you are expressing yourself that I feel sad about.
There is an old fashioned saying- 'you can disagree without being disagreeable'.....For instance I stated above that I don't agree with Ms Gregory's interpretation of the relationship between Richard III and his niece Elizabeth which I believe was innocent. I hope I expressed my difference of opinion in a polite manner towards the author.
Now there seems to be a bone of contention between some commentators here and the way Ms Gregory interprets historical events, my response to this is simple, don't read her books if you find they distress you.
And perhaps avoid the author's Q&A if you find it distressing. It is that simple. :) Enjoy your week:)
It's not about her interpretations (there's nothing even to interpret when it comes to this), this has nothing to do with her fiction or her writing. It has to do with her statement that she is accurate. That is a flat-out lie. She's not even accurate on the little things, she messes things up all the time just one example is her saying that Cecily of York's godmother was Margaret Beaufort and that she was born when Margaret was married to Thomas Stanley. They got married 3 years after Cecily's birth.
She can write what she wants, that's fine but she shouldn't say she stays true to the facts because that is a lie.
@Theamazingcat-It is obvious you have read many of Ms Gregory's works which is odd as you state you dislike her writing and the fact that the author does take some liberties with the facts. It is the authors right to do so at her own discretion, there is no law which states otherwise when writing about historical events and the people who lived them.
Another thing I find odd is that there seems to be three ID's including yours who have shown up at the same time and seem to be responding to each other on the same day within minutes of one another's posts...it does seem very strange.
I have read the questions placed before the author and she has replied to each one in a polite manner, I find that commendable as I am sure Ms Gregory is a busy woman with a new novel about to be released. I think this Q&A was meant to be a pleasurable experience for those readers who enjoy the authors books. As I stated above, one can disagree without becoming disagreeable.
I don't agree with Ms Gregory's suggestion that Richard III was in love with his own niece and stated so, but I don't think the author will lose any sleep over it. But it is obvious such idea's leave you and others feeling distraught and upset which has me wondering why you are reading her books and visiting her Q&A page?
There are authors who I disagree with and am not a fan. One of these authors even wrote that Cromwell and Jane Boleyn had an affair, how ludicrous, but guess what I haven't bought anymore books from this author and neither will I visit her Q&A if she decided to hold one.
The one thing we all have in common is a love of books, so who is your favourite author and your favourite book?
My favourite author is Sharon Kay Penman-My favourite book will have to be her welsh trilogy(I know it's more than one lol ). I would really be interested in finding out your favourites. :) Take care.
How I am "Distraught" I've commented on like 3 questions here. I don't think I'm distraught. I'm just tired of trying to make my point.
I run a historical blog, and I love reading many different books on historical fiction. I sometimes review certain books. It's literally impossible not to read Gregory's work at this point because it's so diluted. I've come across so many people with different inaccurate opinions because of her books that I feel the need to read up on it so I can debunk them for people who literally believe her word is gospel. I know you might not believe it but there are lots of people who really truly believe her work is almost fact. It makes it very hard to blog about the medieval period/early renaissance.
I was told about the Q&A through someone on tumblr, I didn't find it on my own. I don't go searching for this stuff to be honest. I have many friends on tumblr who told me and others that this Q&A was happening. I don't follow everything this woman does.
I wanted her to answer the question as to why she the Portuguese marriages plans were false because of her own claim "Never diverting from the facts". That is what I wanted a response on. I critic Gregory in particular because she claims her books are "Accurate" I don't critic others as harshly because they make sure to tell there audience that yes they've taken creative license with I'm fine with. I don't care what mistakes are made in historical fiction as long as the author admits that "This is my speculation/this is not true" Gregory does neither, in fact she lies quite openly about historical figures.
And what makes you think I actually buy her books. I have an internet connection and the ability to download from media files. I rarely buy any books anymore. I only buy if I want to support the author.
Penman is a good start I guess, but her books are a bit too flowery for my taste. While I value the Sunne in Splendor at times it can be a bit too much of a Richard love fest and I really dislike her portrayal of Francis Lovell and Anne Neville.
I think the Seventh Son is probably the most realistic book on Richard III out there. Although I dislike some of it's harshness. I think if we just dabbed a bit of the TSIS Richard into the Seventh Son Richard we'd get a rather historically accurate Richard.
But my favorite historical fiction author has to be Ken Follett, he's the only one in my opinion who doesn't turn his historical fiction into cheap romance novels. He really adds heart and theme into his novels and you walk away with a sense of identity after reading them. His characters are three dimensionally which is hard to find in historical fiction in my opinion.
I thought the word had got around as to Philippa Gregory's Q&A on Goodreads and like a bushfire, it is raging on and perhaps it is time to simply let it go....
If people really think that Ms Gregory's books are historical biographies, then they understand the world of books or the difference between fact and fiction and it is up to them to find out.
When asked about why she had not included the Portuguese marriage, Ms Gregory responded by saying she thought it likely but decided not to include it which is her prerogative and this is an aspect you have to accept for in the end it is PG's choice in what she includes or excludes from her books. So your question was answered by the author.
I assumed you had read her books because you rated them. If you've rated them then you've read them. It doesn't matter what format you used, no-one is forcing you to read Ms Gregory's books.
There needs to be an understanding of why people choose to read her books. For instance I really loved The Other Boleyn Girl, does this mean I agree with PG's portrayal of Anne Boleyn? No. I enjoyed the book for what it was an entertaining read about a particular time in history and the world in which they lived. Personally I think Anne Boleyn had a deeply spiritual life and she was also conflicted because she was ambitious, this must have been quite a conundrum for her. But you can say that is because Philippa Gregory has written her badly, if so then you must add the Booker Prize winner Hilary Mantel to the queue. Hilary's interpretation of Anne is almost feral in its ferocity. But I enjoyed reading both Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies, in spite of the re-invention of Thomas Cromwell.
I think what you have misunderstood is the fine line between critiquing and a type of inquisition which borders on belligerence. Perhaps the best place to critique a book is on your book blog, which belongs to you and no-one can tell you what you can critique and what you cannot.
I think it is really great that you are obviously passionate about books and history and you share that with others on your blog.
I also enjoy Ken Follett and loved Pillars of the Earth, but I did not enjoy the sequel to the same extent-this does not mean I think he is wrong, it simply wasn't to my taste.
I would encourage you to read Sharon Penman's Welsh trilogy and also George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which has a medieval feel to it.
I've enjoyed this discussion and I wish you well:)
I would simply like to add that if anyone seriously believes that these women were doing real magic in the 15th century thanks to these works of fiction, it's hardly Ms. Gregory's fault.
@Malia-I think what is being misunderstood is the times that Ms Gregory writes in. In the 15th century the majority truly believed in magic, spells, curses and witches; they believed them to be real. And as PG is writing from their perspective; Jacquetta and Elizabeth truly believe that their contact with Melusina is real and the magic that is incorporated into the story is from these two ladies and Elizabeth of York.
Now this is not artistic licence because in that time frame magic was real to those ladies and so the author has written it as such.
I think that those who disagree with the way Ms Gregory writes fail to understand the times in which she writes and the fact that often it is from only ONE person's perspective, so you see how they perceive an action and another's perception of an event is often a case of smoke and mirrors.
When it comes to Ms Gregory's credentials as one person said she has a PHD but the what she chooses to include and exclude in her written works is entirely the authors choice.
Like you, I just don't understand the depth of grievance that some have shown towards an author who gave her time to do this Q&A and it is a real shame that for many it has been spoilt.
Philippa Gregory has her own style of writing, you and I appreciate that and I read her books because I enjoy them, some more than others but that goes with any author.
I do hope that those who dislike the author will hopefully take their discontent somewhere else and hopefully learn that even if you disagree with an authors viewpoint or where the author has failed that it needn't lead to this badgering and at times bullying behaviour.
Perhaps it is time that these young ladies let it go and move on....don't you think?
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Basically everything that the amazing cat says above is true. The fact that Richard himself denied the rumors in public speaks volumes on how he felt about the entire situation, the account itself comments on how disturbed he was during the event. The people would have never approved of such an incestuous marriage and like the amazing cat says above, it would have been a political suicide since he would have had to legitimize Elizabeth of York and the rest of her siblings including her brothers, therefore openly admitting that he was a usurper and the princes had been legitimate all along. Those two facts are some of the major reasons why such a union was impossible, also adding the fact that he intended to marry Joanna of Portugal and arranged a marriage between Elizabeth of York and Manuel I, as well as it was not in his character to cheat on his wife and consider a marriage to his own niece, taking into account how pious Richard was in history. As for the Buck Letter, that is a very weak piece of evidence since it is only based on speculation and it consisted on nothing but “vague lines” as Buck described, not to mention that whatever remained of the document was completely edited. It’s okay if you want write and explore unusual possibilities, just don’t go around claiming its historically accurate, because it’s not. I also don’t understand the claim in the book/show that Richard is using Elizabeth as a way to put the York’s on their side, because in the end what truly mattered wasn’t who-was-sleeping–with-who, what mattered was who was going to win the final battle and once Henry won it didn’t matter if Elizabeth was “ruined” because she had sisters, he could have married anybody from Cecily to Bridget. Cecily’s marriage could have been annulled and as for the rest of the sisters well, marriages between children and adults were not unheard of, or did Richard claim that he slept with all of them as well? Yikes, I don’t think so, which makes that whole “using Elizabeth plot” of his pretty pointless and useless, and Richard wasn’t an idiot.
Very good point Charlotte unless Richard was sleeping with all the York girls it wouldn't have truly mattered that he and Elizabeth had an affair because there were a number of other choices for a bride. That being said I doubt someone as pious as Elizabeth of York was would even consider an affair with a married man. It was a mortal sin and were talking about a time that took these beliefs very seriously
Exactly, I also don't understand Henry and Margarets plan in the White Princess to rape Elizabeth to prove if she's fertile ( which I found completely unfair to the real Henry Tudor) because even if she ended up pregnant there was the possibility that she could have miscarried the baby or the child could have been a girl after Henry married her, what was he to do if that happened? I think you didn't particularly intend to present Richard and Henry as intelligent people did you? That's another useless plan and it looked like it was only a device to present Henry as a monster. I think your works are very entertaining but you don't do these figures much justice and these plot holes are distracting.
Exactly. Portraying a real person as a Rapist, who by all accounts was at the least kind and respectful to his wife, is disgusting and offensive. You also don't seem to realize how important virginity was for a royal spouse back then. Henry wrote a letter to the pope requesting a dispensation where he praised Elizabeth's chastity. Oh was he being sarcastic? Bottom line, Henry could not have married her if she had been a royal mistress. Even Elizabeth Woodville was considered unsuitable partially as she was not a virgin. And she was still a virtuous woman-a widow. So really, Henry Would never have married the mistress of the former king. It is not realistic.
That's right, there's even records of other people praising Elizabeth's virtue and kindness, that didn't come across in TWP. Fact is, Henry and Elizabeth had a good loving marriage and nothing can prove it wrong.
Exactly, this is completely supported by facts. I don't know what Ms. Gregory has against them as a couple but she clearly hates Henry.
I don't think she did any favors to Richard, he literally cheats on his wife who is mourning the loss of there only son and is herself dying.Historically this isn't the case at all, Richard too Anne to Nottingham after the death of there son and never parted from her. If he was longing to divorce Anne there is no record at all of this. Also Richard is still sleeping in Anne's bed till she became sick since rumors have spread he had to publicly tell the court that Anne was to ill for him to sleep in her bed. This at the very least indicates that Richard had no plans to divorce her.
Gregory gets the relationship all wrong, while they married for political reasons Richard seemed to really care for Anne calling her in his legal documents his "dearly most beloved consort" and appointed her regent of the north several times during there marriage. There's various reports of Richard crying openly after her death and the line from the denial that he "showed his grief" indicates he was crying before all of London while speaking about her.
Everything in the contemporary record indicates richard had a faithful and loving marriage to Anne. But I guess that's just not as interesting as made up incest tales
In short words, despite whatever liberty you want to take with history you have to know the facts before coming to a conclusion and saying it's accurate, because your reasoning for a marriage between Richard and his niece is very off, same as your treatment of Henry VII.
Yes I mean Mrs. Gregory can write whatever she wants but the problem is when she calls she's accurate and worse that she is a historian she is neither of these things. She purposely misleads her audience to make her books look more credible. It's sad that people take her work as facts when there clearly her own invention without any facts to back her up
I don't believe Richard III had an affair or contemplated marrying his own niece and as for Elizabeth dressing like Queen Anne, perhaps with the death of her father, the family had limited funds. There could be many explanations including that the Queen herself was simply being generous towards Elizabeth.Richard loved his brother Edward and was loyal to his king from the first even to risking his own life and even disagreeing with some of his brother's decisions, he still remained loyal to the end.
And in the end he charged forward to face his foe while Henry Tudor skulked and hid behind his men. And when Henry did become king he backdated the event,. I think this shows what type of man Henry was....
So though I do not agree with Ms Gregory on this point, in the end it is her book and she is free to write what she wishes...It is up to the reader whether they wish to purchase her books or not. :)
Henry was not a military man as Richard was. And his army was trying to make him king, what would be the point if he was on the front line? You can't make a dead man king.
@Rebecca I agree with you, in terms that she is free to write what she wants. What we disagree with is Mrs. Gregory saying her books are accurate. That's all. She has said it in this very Q&A that she never deviates from the facts, that simply isn't true. These are her words. It has nothing to do with her fiction, she's allowed to write what she wants. I don't see what people don't get about these statements. I really think you guys aren't reading our posts.
That is my problem as well. She has stated several times, here and in other places, that she NEVER deviates from the facts or ignores facts. Yet she states that Henry VII had a mistress, which there is no evidence for, and she ignores the fact that Richard III was planning a Portuguese marriage for himself and for one of his nieces, almost certainly Elizabeth of York as she was the only unmarried niece who was of marrying age in 1485. That is a huge omission in my opinion. She states as fact that Elizabeth of York was in love with and planning to marry Richard III when her feelings for him are complete speculation and the evidence is sketchy. She can write whatever she wants, just don't claim to be 100% historically accuatte, it is misleading to the readers and there is nothing wrong with admitting you take artistic liberties. I don't see why it is so hard for people to understand what Theamazingcat and I and a few others have been trying to say. I'm just going to stop commenting bc this is getting ridiculous.
@Amazingcat--I am reading your posts and understand what you are saying, but it is the way you are expressing yourself that I feel sad about. There is an old fashioned saying- 'you can disagree without being disagreeable'.....For instance I stated above that I don't agree with Ms Gregory's interpretation of the relationship between Richard III and his niece Elizabeth which I believe was innocent. I hope I expressed my difference of opinion in a polite manner towards the author.
Now there seems to be a bone of contention between some commentators here and the way Ms Gregory interprets historical events, my response to this is simple, don't read her books if you find they distress you.
And perhaps avoid the author's Q&A if you find it distressing. It is that simple. :) Enjoy your week:)
It's not about her interpretations (there's nothing even to interpret when it comes to this), this has nothing to do with her fiction or her writing. It has to do with her statement that she is accurate. That is a flat-out lie. She's not even accurate on the little things, she messes things up all the time just one example is her saying that Cecily of York's godmother was Margaret Beaufort and that she was born when Margaret was married to Thomas Stanley. They got married 3 years after Cecily's birth. She can write what she wants, that's fine but she shouldn't say she stays true to the facts because that is a lie.
@Theamazingcat-It is obvious you have read many of Ms Gregory's works which is odd as you state you dislike her writing and the fact that the author does take some liberties with the facts. It is the authors right to do so at her own discretion, there is no law which states otherwise when writing about historical events and the people who lived them.Another thing I find odd is that there seems to be three ID's including yours who have shown up at the same time and seem to be responding to each other on the same day within minutes of one another's posts...it does seem very strange.
I have read the questions placed before the author and she has replied to each one in a polite manner, I find that commendable as I am sure Ms Gregory is a busy woman with a new novel about to be released. I think this Q&A was meant to be a pleasurable experience for those readers who enjoy the authors books. As I stated above, one can disagree without becoming disagreeable.
I don't agree with Ms Gregory's suggestion that Richard III was in love with his own niece and stated so, but I don't think the author will lose any sleep over it. But it is obvious such idea's leave you and others feeling distraught and upset which has me wondering why you are reading her books and visiting her Q&A page?
There are authors who I disagree with and am not a fan. One of these authors even wrote that Cromwell and Jane Boleyn had an affair, how ludicrous, but guess what I haven't bought anymore books from this author and neither will I visit her Q&A if she decided to hold one.
The one thing we all have in common is a love of books, so who is your favourite author and your favourite book?
My favourite author is Sharon Kay Penman-My favourite book will have to be her welsh trilogy(I know it's more than one lol ). I would really be interested in finding out your favourites. :) Take care.
How I am "Distraught" I've commented on like 3 questions here. I don't think I'm distraught. I'm just tired of trying to make my point. I run a historical blog, and I love reading many different books on historical fiction. I sometimes review certain books. It's literally impossible not to read Gregory's work at this point because it's so diluted. I've come across so many people with different inaccurate opinions because of her books that I feel the need to read up on it so I can debunk them for people who literally believe her word is gospel. I know you might not believe it but there are lots of people who really truly believe her work is almost fact. It makes it very hard to blog about the medieval period/early renaissance.
I was told about the Q&A through someone on tumblr, I didn't find it on my own. I don't go searching for this stuff to be honest. I have many friends on tumblr who told me and others that this Q&A was happening. I don't follow everything this woman does.
I wanted her to answer the question as to why she the Portuguese marriages plans were false because of her own claim "Never diverting from the facts". That is what I wanted a response on. I critic Gregory in particular because she claims her books are "Accurate" I don't critic others as harshly because they make sure to tell there audience that yes they've taken creative license with I'm fine with. I don't care what mistakes are made in historical fiction as long as the author admits that "This is my speculation/this is not true" Gregory does neither, in fact she lies quite openly about historical figures.
And what makes you think I actually buy her books. I have an internet connection and the ability to download from media files. I rarely buy any books anymore. I only buy if I want to support the author.
Penman is a good start I guess, but her books are a bit too flowery for my taste. While I value the Sunne in Splendor at times it can be a bit too much of a Richard love fest and I really dislike her portrayal of Francis Lovell and Anne Neville.
I think the Seventh Son is probably the most realistic book on Richard III out there. Although I dislike some of it's harshness. I think if we just dabbed a bit of the TSIS Richard into the Seventh Son Richard we'd get a rather historically accurate Richard.
But my favorite historical fiction author has to be Ken Follett, he's the only one in my opinion who doesn't turn his historical fiction into cheap romance novels. He really adds heart and theme into his novels and you walk away with a sense of identity after reading them. His characters are three dimensionally which is hard to find in historical fiction in my opinion.
I thought the word had got around as to Philippa Gregory's Q&A on Goodreads and like a bushfire, it is raging on and perhaps it is time to simply let it go....If people really think that Ms Gregory's books are historical biographies, then they understand the world of books or the difference between fact and fiction and it is up to them to find out.
When asked about why she had not included the Portuguese marriage, Ms Gregory responded by saying she thought it likely but decided not to include it which is her prerogative and this is an aspect you have to accept for in the end it is PG's choice in what she includes or excludes from her books. So your question was answered by the author.
I assumed you had read her books because you rated them. If you've rated them then you've read them. It doesn't matter what format you used, no-one is forcing you to read Ms Gregory's books.
There needs to be an understanding of why people choose to read her books. For instance I really loved The Other Boleyn Girl, does this mean I agree with PG's portrayal of Anne Boleyn? No. I enjoyed the book for what it was an entertaining read about a particular time in history and the world in which they lived. Personally I think Anne Boleyn had a deeply spiritual life and she was also conflicted because she was ambitious, this must have been quite a conundrum for her. But you can say that is because Philippa Gregory has written her badly, if so then you must add the Booker Prize winner Hilary Mantel to the queue. Hilary's interpretation of Anne is almost feral in its ferocity. But I enjoyed reading both Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies, in spite of the re-invention of Thomas Cromwell.
I think what you have misunderstood is the fine line between critiquing and a type of inquisition which borders on belligerence. Perhaps the best place to critique a book is on your book blog, which belongs to you and no-one can tell you what you can critique and what you cannot.
I think it is really great that you are obviously passionate about books and history and you share that with others on your blog.
I also enjoy Ken Follett and loved Pillars of the Earth, but I did not enjoy the sequel to the same extent-this does not mean I think he is wrong, it simply wasn't to my taste.
I would encourage you to read Sharon Penman's Welsh trilogy and also George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which has a medieval feel to it.
I've enjoyed this discussion and I wish you well:)
I would simply like to add that if anyone seriously believes that these women were doing real magic in the 15th century thanks to these works of fiction, it's hardly Ms. Gregory's fault.
@Malia-I think what is being misunderstood is the times that Ms Gregory writes in. In the 15th century the majority truly believed in magic, spells, curses and witches; they believed them to be real. And as PG is writing from their perspective; Jacquetta and Elizabeth truly believe that their contact with Melusina is real and the magic that is incorporated into the story is from these two ladies and Elizabeth of York.Now this is not artistic licence because in that time frame magic was real to those ladies and so the author has written it as such.
I think that those who disagree with the way Ms Gregory writes fail to understand the times in which she writes and the fact that often it is from only ONE person's perspective, so you see how they perceive an action and another's perception of an event is often a case of smoke and mirrors.
When it comes to Ms Gregory's credentials as one person said she has a PHD but the what she chooses to include and exclude in her written works is entirely the authors choice.
Like you, I just don't understand the depth of grievance that some have shown towards an author who gave her time to do this Q&A and it is a real shame that for many it has been spoilt.
Philippa Gregory has her own style of writing, you and I appreciate that and I read her books because I enjoy them, some more than others but that goes with any author.
I do hope that those who dislike the author will hopefully take their discontent somewhere else and hopefully learn that even if you disagree with an authors viewpoint or where the author has failed that it needn't lead to this badgering and at times bullying behaviour.
Perhaps it is time that these young ladies let it go and move on....don't you think?
First of all the idea that Neville family was the only reason Richard was loved in the North is a false one. Richard was loved in the North for his various campaigns against the Scots. He didn't really need the Neville connection by 1485.
Second the Croyland Chronicle (The evidence that is sited for this idea that Richard was forced into a denial) is not a contemporary source. It is written a full year after Richard's death and is done so by an anonymous author. Second it leaves out several this and should be taken with a grain of salt. Cause it seems right on some right on matters and seems wrong on others. In the account Richard was forced into a denial it conveniently leaves out two of the most influential people at court John Howard the Duke of Norfolk and Francis Lovell. Them being left out should make one raise an eyebrow. Howard was actually the only man who probably could speak to Richard on such a matter. Also it claims it gathered 10 theologians to prove to Richard it was immoral. The idea that 10 theologians could be gathered on the spot in 1485 is laughable. It's not a trustworthy source.
The idea that Richard was forced into this denial when he was already planning a marriage with Joanna of Portugal doesn't seem likely. He denied it because the rumors probably deeply disturbed him. There was no reason for him to deny it. During this denial Richard with cried or was near tears because of the line "He showed his grief" which indicates he was upset over this entire issue.
Also the idea that Joanna of Portugal would have accepted if she thought the idea even remotely true doesn't seem likely. If you don't know who Joanna of Portugal was I suggest you look her up. She was 33 year old Princess to Portugal, had true Lancastrian blood, had been regent for her father several different times and denied the King of France her hand in marriage. She longed for a pious life and probably wouldn't have liked the idea that she was playing second fiddle to someone. The idea that Joanna would have accepted Richard if she thought these rumors true seems unlikely.
That being said the idea he was openly flirting or having an affair with Elizabeth doesn't fit Richard's character. Richard openly spoke out against what he viewed as "Open Adultery" and wanted a "Moral Court". Richard doing this would have been highly hypocritical, and it would have been noted if he had ever cheated on his wife and never once even in Tudor propaganda is Richard listed a unfaithful husband. That says something.
George Buck's letter first of all was reportedly from Elizabeth to the Duke of Norfolk not Buckingham. The Letter was never seen by anyone other then Buck and all we have are few lines he remember. That isn't evidence I'm sorry. First of all it's highly possible the letter never existed and Buck made it up.
It's very possible Buck misinterpreted it and that it was really asking about the marriages to Portugal which would have been a topic in February/March of 1485. Buck wouldn't have known that these marriages were to take place.
There was no political motivation for Richard to marry her. In fact it would have been political suicide to marry her. Richard's claim to the throne was based on the idea that Elizabeth was a bastard. In order to marry her he would have to legitimize her, something Henry VII does in order to marry her as well, and therefore wouldn't have a true claim to the English throne.
Richard denied it before all of London, before any lords there, and swore he never had any intentions of doing so. He started planning a match to Joanna of Portugal probably as early as February given how soon the ships were sent out after Anne Neville's death.
Also Henry VII never would have married Elizabeth had she have had an affair, there were other Yorkist girls available for him to marry (Margaret of York) and at the very least it would have been mentioned in the Papal dispensations for them. Henry VII was obtained 3 so he could ensure there marriage was legitimate.
At the end of the day there is zero evidence for your claim that they were lovers nor does it fit with either of there historically known character.
The facts are that Elizabeth of York had a happy marriage with her husband Henry VII, it was one based on faithful love and mutual attraction. Richard III seems to have a happy marriage with Anne Neville and was planning to marry Joanna of Portugal at the time of his death. These are facts you leave out by choice and you should own up to them.
You go oh and oh about how accurate you are but a simply fact check proves how inaccurate your books truly are. There based on proven wrong gossip nothing more.