Philippa’s answer to “the marriage between Henry Tudor & Elizabeth of York is generally accepted as happy and respectful …” > Likes and Comments
7 likes · Like
I just don't think you did one bit of decent research on their marriage. David Starkey, Alison Weir, Amy License, Arlene Okerlund, Agnes Strickland, Thomas Penn, all say it was a faithful, happy and respectful marriage. Please show me your sources, I am dying to know.
and Margaret Beaufort a treasonous plotter? What? And Elizabeth of York in love with Richard III? You aaccept that as truth but ignore all evidence of happiness with Henry? I can't believe you.
the above comments are so true. Where, Ms. Gregory, do you get that his mother shared all his rooms with him? His rooms at Windsor for example, adjoined Elizabeth's. Are you thinking of Edward IV's mother in the Queen's apartments at Westminster? I believe you used that in your book. What on earth do you have against Henry and Margaret anyway? Did they do something personally to you?
Wow just wow. How can anyone claim to study this time period at all and come to the conclusion Henry VII wasn't in love with his wife is beyond me. I have the feeling you didn’t actually read the works you’ve claimed to because no biographer on Henry VII or Elizabeth of York says that the marriage was unhappy, without love, or that Elizabeth was in love with someone else. Nothing indicates this and you have made this up. And you should own up to it, your work is not accurate.
First let me begin by saying you are not "realistic" nothing about the book The White Princess is "realistic". Your version of Henry VII is extremely OCC what we know about him is he was calm man, who wasn’t prone to angry outbursts. Second we know rumors of his paranoia only start up after Elizabeth’s death. Indicating his attachment to her.
Lets first start with Elizabeth being a schemer. Sorry this is nothing to indicate she was a political schemer. The only time Elizabeth was active in politics was to get her son’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon through, other then that Elizabeth seemed to like to behind the scenes, being a loving mother and wife. Nothing is wrong with this, this was the model for a gracious woman of the time. The idea that every woman has to be a schemer doesn’t fit the time period. Elizabeth was a pious, loving, kind woman. Your Elizabeth is nothing like her historic counterpart.
Second nothing indicates at all that Henry valued Margaret Beaufort over Elizabeth. We have evidence to contradict this. In fact when it came down to a choice between the Pope and Margaret’s choice for a certain Bishop, and that of Elizabeth’s own confessor Henry took his wife side and appointed her confessor to the status of a Bishop.
That is just one example of the times Henry showed her favor.
Third the idea that Elizabeth was constantly out of money is an old one. First of all if you actually examine Elizabeth’s privy purse you’ll find she had a regular allowance for the time but chose to spend a lot of money on her Yorkist relativist, and she also gambled. And her debts were paid by Henry VII. Nothing at all indicates that Henry left her in poverty. The opposite is true Henry liked fashionable clothes and jewels and often gifted Elizabeth with such items.
Fourth this idea that Henry forced Elizabeth Woodville into a monastery cannot be proven. We do not have any indication why Elizabeth Woodville went into a nunnery. It could simply be she wanted to. Henry wanting her to marry the King of Scotland also indicates he still trusted her enough to send her to a neighboring, mostly enemy, country. In fact the true reason probably for why she left was because Henry could support the 3 incomes of his wife, his mother and his mother in law. England never had supported this many Queens and Kings Mother before.
Fifth there is nothing to indicate that Henry VII was ever unfaithful to Elizabeth of York. There is never one record mistress or acts of impropriety. You Mrs. Gregory need to read up on this time period more, everything King’s did they did in the full view of the public. If Henry VII ever had an affair it would have been noted. The fact is you made up that he cheated on his wife with no evidence from anywhere to support this fact. I would really be interested in what contemporary source or historian you’re citing on this one because this is a lie.
Sixth there is no credible evidence that Elizabeth of York was in love with Richard. Even if the Buck letter existed and was actually indicated her wanting a marriage to Richard (Most likely it was about the Portuguese marriages) that does not indicate that Elizabeth was in love with Richard.
Seventh Henry VII spent six days in isolation and became deathly ill after Elizabeth died, also the only person who could help Henry after the loss of Prince Arthur was Elizabeth. There tender words of love to each other in this moment are a recorded historical fact. But Henry actions immediately after her death is more then him being sad she was gone, that is utterly devastation at a loss.
Everything that real historians can gather from Henry VII’s court and his life indicate that he was in love with his wife, and everything we have on Elizabeth indicates that she felt the same way. While it was a marriage of politics it quickly became a love match. Both of them were suited to each other. Henry gave Elizabeth the security she had been without since her father’s death, and gave her status back, and Elizabeth gave Henry the family he was without.
You Mrs. Gregory needed to actually read about this time period or study it, because you clearly have never once opened a book on Henry VII or his life. You deem the word historian by choosing to call yourself one. You have done no research at all on this persons life. Or if you did you just ignored everything you found.
I leave on a quote from Thomas Penn’s biography on Henry VII, “The Winter King” one of the most credible biographies on Henry VII in my opinion.
“Though founded on pragmatism, Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage had nevertheless blossomed throughout the uncertainty and upheaval of the previous eighteen years. This was a marriage of ‘faithful love’, of mutual attraction, affection and respect, from which the king seems to have drawn great strength –indeed, it was the kind of marriage that their second son, Prince Henry, would spend his whole life trying to find. With Elizabeth’s burial, the lights went out all over Henry VII’s court.“
Well said. You can't change history Ms. Gregory.
VERY well said! You can't change history is right. Despite how much you want to. Again, I'd love to know-waht did Henry VII or Margaret Beaufort do to you?
She really can't Charlotte, no matter what we have the facts our side. She can go cry a river for all I care it doesn't make any of her BS fantasy true.
Me, as well as many others, including historians, have serious doubts whether Elizabeth was truly in love with her uncle and if these rumours were ever more then rumours. Richard himself publicly denied them, after which he actively sought to arrange a marriage with Joanna of Portugal and might have intended to marry his niece Elizabeth to the future Manuel I of Portugal. Even if there was serious consideration of a proposal between Elizabeth and Richard, this does not mean they were romantically involved.
There are many reasons to doubt if Elizabeth genuinely liked her uncle at this point. Let’s not forget he took the throne that rightfully belonged to her brother, embarked the prince in the Tower, which directly lead to his disappearance and declared her parents’ marriage invalid, meaning he publicly shamed her mother for being no more than a royal whore and making her and all of her siblings bastards, which was about the lowest rank anyone could legally be. Before he did all of this he ordered the execution of her uncle Anthony Woodville and her half-brother Richard Grey, from whom I assume she might have been close with, based on evidence that show both these men actively involved in the childhood of Edward IV’s children.
You say Elizabeth of York might have felt insulted at Henry’s early coronation excluding her from a possible ‘side by side coronation’. Don’t you think she might have felt a whole lot more insulted by her own uncle declaring her and all of her siblings bastards? Richard could not marry Elizabeth, a King marrying a bastard girl was unheard of and if he would re-legitimize her, he would lose his claim to the throne, since the only reason he was able to take the crown, was by bastardizing Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s children.
Elizabeth of York’s future did not lie by her uncle, she would always be a bastard under his reign. Henry Tudor on the other hand could make her Queen of England, meaning she’d regain her position as York Princess, and would be able to take care of herself and everyone she cared for. Which she did, she was a very generous person, one of the reason she was out of money from time to time.
There is indeed no record of Elizabeth of York’s true feelings in 1485, but after all of this, it seems likely to me that she’d be happy to see the man who could restore her, win rather than her uncle, despite sharing the ‘pure York blood.’
Henry’s motivations to be crowned without Elizabeth of York were most likely to clearly send the message that he was King in his own right, not through his marriage with Elizabeth of York. Like any other usurper his claim was not supported by everyone and I understand he wanted to send a signal to England and show that he could hold the throne on his own, not through his wife’s claim. It was a man’s world, sadly.
There is no denying Margaret Beaufort’s influence during her son’s reign, mainly politically, but does this necessarily mean Elizabeth of York resented her for it or felt like she was robbed from her rightful place as Queen? Not every Queen felt the need to actively participate in politics or preferred a more ‘behind the scenes’ role. Perhaps Elizabeth had witnessed what the consequences could be for a Queen that spoke out too much, like her own mother or Queen Margaret of Anjou and decided to approach matters more subtle, again this was a men’s world.
Elizabeth of York was very actively involved in her children’s upbringing, more so than usually in royal households and those less hostile towards the relationship between Elizabeth and Margaret have suggested that the three people might have actually worked well together.
Now there’s the whole matter of Elizabeth Woodville’s ‘house arrest’. Elizabeth Woodville had actually already sought to retire at Westminster months before the rebellion in 1487, but this was delayed probably due to the rebellion. This woman had struggled through the loss of her husband, brother, son, her two princes, her name and right as Dowager Queen and might have feared for her life at several occasions, in the course of a little more than 2 years! If anyone deserved peace and rest, than it was definitely her. Her retirement in Westminster might have really been her own choice. She also wasn’t abandoned from court, she actually stayed with her daughter during her confinement in 1489.
Sadly, there is indeed not much that survives about the marriage between Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, however the little we have suggest mutual love and respect. The two were reported to spent more time together than usual for arranged marriages, Henry VIII was conceived while they were away together, Henry often dedicated gifts to Elizabeth, among them a lion, no ordinary gift if you ask me. The poem ‘My heart is set upon a lusty pin’ is assumed to be written by Elizabeth of York for her husband. When Henry was away for a military campaign in France in 1492 Elizabeth wrote him many letters and I cite; ‘tender, frequent and loving’ lines’
There are no records of any mistresses or illegitimate children that Henry conceived during his marriage with Elizabeth, if there were any, most likely it would’ve been recorded as there was little to no shame for a King to take mistresses. He did buy dresses for Catherine Gordon, but he also did that for other ladies-in-waiting. He had every reason to treat this woman right, yes she was his enemy’s wife but she was noble man from Scotland and he had every reason to keep his relations with Scotland as good as possible.
When Elizabeth of York died, sources state that the King was so heartbroken that he locked himself in his chambers, and had to be nursed back to health by his mother. He had genuinely loved her, many sources state this, but it was a King’s duty to take a wife so he did indeed try to make proposals, however he never remarried.
Was this a ‘love at first sight’ story? Probably not? Was it always easy? Probably not. But it was a match that worked surprisingly well given that they were of ‘rival houses’ and that they were a arranged union. I think that’s beautiful and I’m very sorry you don’t see that.
“Then his Grace of true gentle and faithful love, in good hast came and relieved her..”-anonymous scribe regarding Prince’s Arthur’s death
“Adieu mine own dear spouse my worthy lord, The faithful love, that did us both combine, In marriage and peaceable concord”-Thomas More written on Elizabeth of York’s death, who as David Starkey said “knew her well”
“My heart is set upon a lusty pin I pray to Venus of good continuance, For I rejoice the case that I am in”-said to be written by Elizabeth of York during her marriage
“Many letters, filled with every expression of tenderness and love, were reaching him from the Queen, who was very sad at that time. Indeed, they were enticing him to return.” -Bernard Andre, Henry VII’s court poet
“Right trusty and right well-beloved cousin, we greet you well, and have tidings that our rebels landed the fifth day of this month in our land of Ireland. Wherefore, and forasmuch as we have sent for our dearest wife and for our dearest lady mother to come unto us, and that we would have your advice and counsel also in such matters as we have to do for the subduing of our said rebels, we pray you that, giving your due attendance upon our said dearest wife and lady mother, ye come with them unto us, not failing hereof as ye purpose to do us pleasure. Given under our signet, at our castle of Kenil worth, the 13th day of May, 1487. To our right trusty and right well-beloved cousin, the Earl of Ormond, chamberlain to our dearest wife the Queen.”-Letter written by Henry VII
“The beauty and chastity of this lady are indeed so great that neither Lucretia nor Diana herself were either more beautiful or more chaste. So great is her virtue and her character so fine, that she certainly seems to have been preserved by divine will from the time of her birth right up until today to be consort and queen. “-Henry VII letter to the Pope on EOY
From contemporary sources
This entire comment line is obscene. Ms. Gregory has generously decided to interact with her fans in this Q&A and the token of goodwill is being abused, rousing a virtual lynchmob.
I'm not saying that a conversation with an author has to consist of fawning over his or her work, but personal attacks and sadistic glee over making an author "cry" is definitely out of line and incredibly disconcerting. Would any of you act like this were Ms. Gregory in the room with you? This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your historical criticisms and everything to do with decorum. Frankly, I believe that some of the points outlined above to "gel" more with what I know about the period than Gregory's books, but were it otherwise - were I completely ignorant to this period aside from historical fiction - the construction of your argument would have immediately turned me off. You don't speak to people that way, period. You especially don't speak to people that way when they are doing us a favor - that is, interacting with their fanbase in a manner that just a decade ago would have been impossible.
I half-expect you all to turn on me now, so I just note that I will not respond nor read any retaliation.
Ms. Gregory, if you read this, I apologize for the behavior of the other commenters. Thanks for taking time out of your day to discuss your pieces.
We are trying to explain why her theories don't make sense and hoping (pointlessly) that she stops claiming that her works are mostly accurate, as that causes a lot of confusion. But whatever, I guess history will always remain the way it is no matter how someone tries to change it and convince others to believe their ideas.
Yes, i didn't mean to attack her personally, it's just clear that her viewpoint on this marriage is not based upon proper research and she cites things as fact that aren't even supported by the facts.she should just admit that she takes artistic liberties instead of claiming to be 100 percent historically accurate.
Bunny when a author is lying to you and ignoring facts of reliable contemporary sources that I have studied for well over 2 years now one should call her out.
Mrs. Gregory just posted that she is accurate, she calls herself a "historian" she says she never diverges from facts. Her calling herself a Historian is deeming to the work true Historians do. It is horrifying that people take her word as accurate. But she claims to be so you cannot blame her.
What she has said and wrote about Henry VII and Richard III is down right libelous if these men were alive today they would have the right to sue her on that charge. She accused Henry VII of rape, a vile and horrible crime, without any justification for it other then to fulfill her own fantasy.
If she was to claim her work was fiction and that half of this is just inspired or based off of people then that would be a different story. But she has said several times that her work is 100% accurate. None of which is true.
I am seriously appalled by the behaviour of many contributors to this comment string; and they should be as well. This is not something she has to do, read things readers post to her. And definitely not a bombardment of what is likely fact mixed with propaganda.
It doesn't matter if her books are historically accurate, are they? People obviously enjoy them and spend money on them. And being fictional? They don't need to be.
I agree with Bunny, were I wholly ignorant of the facts pertaining to this period in history, this infodump and catty, tittybaby behaviour (pardon the language) would put me right off.
Get outside and learn how to actually communicate with people rationally.
What matters is Mrs. Gregory claims she's accurate. That's the problem. She goes on and on about her accuracy. She even said a few comments above that she tries to stay completely accurate but her answers to most of these questions on the WOTR's prove she knows little to nothing about the time period.
She has every right to write FICTION, but she needs to stop making the claim her books are accurate cause they aren't.
I don't think anyone of you read the comments we originally posted, how we debunked everything she said up here. Everything she said in the above was either a lie or made up, or worse she just doesn't know.
I'm sure Henry VII wouldn't appreciate it being said he cheated on his wife. Gregory has alot of influence in people's opinions and the fact is she is lying up there. Their has never been one historian at all that has speculated (To my knowledge at the very least) that Henry VII cheated on his wife. She is making that up and deserves to be called out.
Bro, NONE of that is grounds to take on such an aggressive and frankly insulting tone with her. She's not going to do what you want.
And if the fact that the ladies in these books were literally doing magic can't get across the notion that they are fictional to the average reader.. idk. It's just out there. Of all the things to pick on, maybe you should latch onto that instead of a political marriage.
Sorry no it is. She claims she's accurate. She accused Henry VII of rape, a horrifying and disgusting crime. I think that's a little worse then what I wrote.
How did I insult her by fact checking her bullshit. Sorry that isn't being rude that being critical.
If she didn't want critics in her life she should have chosen another profession. Writers get criticized if she couldn't handle it she should not have chosen to become a writer.
How is my tone disrespectful. My first original post is just reading fine to me. It's fact checking everything she posted here.
I guess "Cry me a river" can be seen as harsh but that's a expression from where I'm from I use it alot. If you mistook it oh well.
Mrs. Gregory is a big girl she can handle criticism I'm sure.
I never said anything personally against her, only against her writing. How is that rude?
Being critical is a good thing, not a bad thing. If she said yea I made up 70% of what I wrote I'd be fine with her. But it's her claim that she doesn't make stuff up that is mind boggling. Worse is her claim that she's a historian. She's not one, she has zero degrees in history and she shouldn't be treated like a historian.
Obviously you're not going to listen to me, and tbh you should know the answers to every one of your questions. It's common sense and decency.
You could, idk, not read her novels. In fact all of you could do that. And tbh you have no right to mob on her like a herd of wildebeest no matter whether what she wrote is prize-worthy or on Stephenie Meyer's level.
Malia-it is insulting that she tells us all a bunch of lies and expects us to believe it when everyone who commented has done extensive research on the subject. There is no evidence that Elizabeth of York was in love with her uncle, that Henry VII cheated on her, or that he was going to marry her sister. The fact that he considered remarriage is completely typical and does not indicate a lack of personal feelings. It is just annoying that she chooses to ignore/make up/twist facts to suit her narrative rather than just saying "Well, just my interpretation, obviously others have taken a different one of their marriage, my books are fiction." I would have a lot more respect for her if she said that. I have actually never seen an author hate a historical pairing this much.
Nobody is trying to attack her personally, if you've seen our other threads you would notice that we have been correcting and explaining why many of her statements are flawed and baseless, while hoping to discuss it with her but nevertheless she goes and answers another question in the same way firmly believing her theories. I wouldn't have a problem if she just said that she takes artistic liberties and doesn't claim to be mostly accurate because as you know, Ms. Gregory has a wide fan base and many of those fans believe whatever is thrown in their face without bothering to do research, and when the author claims to believe most of what she writes well that can be even more confusing. Not to mention that portraying people that existed in real life the way she does and claiming that its true can be insulting to the memory of these people. I do acknowledge my harsh tone and apologize if Ms. Gregory finds any offense in our comments, our "attacks" are not directed at her personally but at her theories and we want her to take the facts that we've presented her with and explain why she doesn't belive them (which will never happen, as it seems that she probably doesn't want to acknowledge that some of her theories are made up).
@Malia you are missing the point entirely. It's not about her fiction. I understand fiction writers are allowed to write what they want. If she said, "My work is fiction and there are facts I don't want to use" I'd be fine with her work. Cause obviously one's allowed to write what they want. But when she says my work is based off of true facts and that Elizabeth of York was in love with her uncle, or that Henry VII cheated on his wife, those are lies. Those hold no facts. When she states these as facts that's the problem.
She isn't accurate and us calling her out is the right thing to do. It isn't personal at all. I've studied this time period (And the century in general) for a while now and countless times I've run across people who tell me "Oh I believe that Katherine of Aragon wasn't a virgin and lied because of Gregory's book" or "Elizabeth of York and Henry VII marriage was abusive because of Gregory's work" I've seen people actually cite her as a source.
And she encourages this behavior amongst her fans by calling herself a historian. That's a job title, one would be upset if someone was going around calling themselves a "doctor" without ever going to medical school. Mrs. Gregory is the same, she holds zero degrees in history and yet she goes around calling herself a "historian" it's an insult to true historians who have worked extremely hard to gain that title. She deems the word and the work they do.
Wait, so the bunch of (15? more?) of you are going through each of her questions and badgering her like this? Look, I'll be blunt and say it's no wonder why she doesn't bother to answer you. You don't approach her respectfully or calmly but rather "we're right and you're wrong, change everything about your books now". And to add, if all any of you want is an autobiographical account of this woman's life, there are plenty out there already (Alison Weir and Amy License each wrote one).
Guys, these female characters are predicting the future and casting generation-spanning death curses of doom on people. To me, that'd be more offensive than any depiction of a political marriage. Why haven't any of you mentioned the magic? Because that's what clearly makes these books fiction. Unless there's something about being related to Morgan Le Fay that somehow has been axed from her other biographies.
Bottom line: let it go. She's not going to answer you, and (obviously, lol) will keep writing about historical characters from the period from a fictional standpoint. I personally don't much care about the point you've been trying to make, because she's not listening to it. So making like Elsa is better and healthier for you lot at this point.
I want her to answer the questions. I asked her asked (She hasn't answered from what I can tell) but I did approach her respectfully. That comment above is respectful.
I want to know what evidence she has to make the claim her books are accurate. She claims this not me. The burden of proof is on her. She makes the claim she sticks to the facts but her books don't show it.
I want her to answer real questions. And yes I'm gonna keep asking till I get an answer. That's what a good critic does. That don't back down because "Oh well they won't answer" they push back.
So a bunch of people who clearly hate this author's guts still spend huge amount of time on trying to connect with this author and literally make her do whatever they wish her to do?! LOL. That's pathetic. Also if this author can't change history, why are you being so hysterical then? You contradict yourself. Also you act like downright crazies.
I really don't think my original response was "hysterical" your the ones who are getting hysterical. I fact checked everything she said up here and she's wrong about nearly everything she writers.
If she can't handle critics for her work she should have not become a writer. Every writer has critics.
Her problem is she claims she's accurate, she's not. She makes up facts. She made up right above here that Henry VII had an affair on his wife. Not one historian that I know of has every made this claim. She is lying to the public about well know historical figures.
I'm not saying she can't make up fiction, she can write whatever she wants. What I'm saying is she shouldn't say she's accurate or that her work is based off facts because they clearly aren't.
We know nothing can change history but we want to know on what she bases her theories to state them as fact. Ms. Gregory is free to do whatever she wants though claiming that her work is accurate is a bit far. I respect her as a writer but her claims are a bit too much and people who feel passionate about history (which I assume you don't ) feel the need to call her out on things that are incongruent with what truly happened as people get the wrong idea and its also a disrespect to these characters that actually lived (claiming that Anne Boleyn slept with her brother and was a murderer, that Henry VII was a rapist, that Richard III committed incest with his niece etc) We would be okay if she admitted that these are liberties that she takes for the sake of the story but to no avail she keeps claiming that she's accurate.Our original comments were actually pretty normal and we've already acknowledged whatever offenses she might have taken on this thread because what we're truly pointing at is her theories and what are her sources. Also, we are all free to express our opinion on her work so there's no need to butt in and call anyone names.
Just to clear things up I/we KNOW PG’s works are fiction. They are historical fiction though, so based upon actual events to which we do have information on. That being said, she can write whatever the heck she wants. She can write a book where Elizabeth and Richard have sex in front of Henry before killing him at Bosworth field and then go on to reign together and Richard XV rules centuries later. I’d prob think it’s ridiculous but I don’t care. I know it’s fake.
What bothers me is when she insults our intelligence by justifying her inaccuracies by stating them as fact. Stating Elizabeth of York didn’t want to marry Henry VII because she was in love with her uncle and he her. She’s not stating it as speculation. She’s stating it as fact. And the sketchy evidence she bases it on, she can’t even cite correctly. (It was a letter from the Duke of Buckingham she says, not Norfolk) As if she knows for sure. She states that Elizabeth Woodville was under house arrest as fact, when historians have been debating this for years. She states that Henry was unfaithful to Elizabeth as fact when we have absoltuely no proof of this. If he did cheat on her, then he was certainly discreet about it as we have no contemporary source stating this. She makes stuff up to promote her agenda. And at any rate, she uses her made up BS that Henry was “unfaithful” to show that they didn’t love each other, when in fact, Edward IV certainly loved or cared for his wife and he had affairs. And she adores that royal marriage. And to say that Henry looking around for another wife after a period of deep mourning means that he didn’t care about his wife. WTF.
I’m sorry, but she is completely full of it. I could care less if she just said “Well, that’s my take on it, I may be wrong, I encourage you to read the primary soruces yourself.” Or “Well, there is no evidence for this, it is my artistic license.” I have seen other authors say this. But she doesn’t. She flat out lies. And people repeat her “facts”. Someone even said on Facebook I saw that Elizabeth Woodville was a witch.
I’m sorry, but it just upsets me. I can’t help that. Yes, I have a life. But yes, I still let it get it to me. I can’t help it. I have spent a couple years studying this time period and her attitude is just insulting.
Theamazingcat, the whole behaviour of your lot here is pretty much hysterical by this point. It crosses the border of normal criticism, and you act like ordinary haters. It seems that you are just hanging out somewhere stewing in your own juice, rocking back and forth, repeating endlessly "PG bad, PG bad" and come here then to rant. The author won't re-write her books because of few of you whining here. She also won't apologize for whatever you want her to apologize for. If you actually want her to do that or think that you can make her then you are delusional.
She has no obligations to you actually at all, because she doesn't force anyone to buy and read her books. You do it out of your own choice. If you read it and didn't like it or had problems with that, there are other authors and other books out where to enjoy. If you spend so much time instead on hating this author in such way, then yes, you have problems cause it is not a normal behaviour. If you want purely strict factual history, there is non-fiction for that. Lots of fictional authors make up facts or use historical rumours in their fictional works. Lots. And not all of them say that it is artistic license, also by merely categorizing it as fiction it is already clear that since it is fiction it is not a pure history book. So it is your problems if you take it so seriously. Not to mention some historians actually do write non-conventional things in their own very much non-fictional books. So if you really want to hate somebody for not purely pure history go and hate the historian who actually wrote that Anne Boleyn may have done it with her brother since you used it as example. Cause that's more serious, then fiction authors writing their fictional versions. Elizabeth Woodville was described as witch on Facebook? Wow, I mean it is not even the first time when Elizabeth Woodville was described in fiction in relation to some real or semi-real witchcraft, there was such a fictional book about her already like in the 70s, but oh the horror somebody wrote it on Facebook! Let's go and hate on PG for that! Shish, ROFL.
@Lara, what they're doing is harassment and a sad attempt to bully a best-selling author into rewriting their books. It's never going to happen.
This entire comment section apart from our replies is filled with crazy. I don't think you'll get them to see how hilariously pathetic they're being. I think they need to go outside and make some friends and distance themselves healthily from people who died 500 years ago.
I think the only ones acting hysterical here is you guys to be honest.
My problem isn't her fiction. I don't understand how I can make this simpler for you guys. My problem is her own statements that she's accurate. That's all.
I don't want her to re-write her books. I want her to say "I know I'm not accurate, go read the sources yourself and decide." That is it. I don't get how I can get that through your narrow minded heads.
I'm sick and tired of this woman being treated like a historian, or someone who actually understands medieval or Tudor history, she doesn't. Her books prove she doesn't understand medieval society or how the Tudor courts were.
And I'm not saying she has to be an expert on this, what I'm saying is I want her to stop making the claim she is one, she isn't. It has nothing to do with her fiction for gods sake.
Do you any of you read what I write or do you just selectively read that I said at one point "cry me a river" cause literally that's the only thing I said on here which I feel anyone could find offensive.
Other then that all I did was fact check what she said above. Which was all 100% inaccurate statements from her.
She's allowed to take liberates as an author, but when she starts claiming those liberates are actually facts is my problem with her. I don't understand how I can get it through to you any other way.
Theamazingcat , there's people who simply don't care about history and how its portrayed, much less the influence it could have on people in general. They tell us to distance ourselves from historical figures but Ms. Gregory carries a great passion for these historical characters as well, even though a lot of her statements are flawed which is what we're arguing about here, so in a way they're making fun of her as well. In general, this discussion as well as the previous ones were directed at Ms. Gregory not any other random meddler and it was supposed to be over long ago so why bother, just let them be.
I don't even have a problem with how she portrayed them. I mean yea I do, but I understand it's her right to do what she wants.
What I'm upset over is her claim to accuarcy. And I don't get how wanting her to say "I know I'm not accurate, go look at the sources yourself" is "Hysterical" or "cruel"
The only ones being cruel or name call is the other people commenting here. And while they think there being high and mighty by saying were the ones being cruel there the ones actually being rude and not listening to any of our points.
I know I should just let them be, it's more this idea I don't like name calling too much. It's rude.
So, mobbing every Q&A of hers to jump on her in an accusatory and aggressive way isn't harassment? None of you are nice to her, at all. She doesn't owe you anything. I mean, are you fans? No? Then I have no idea what you're doing here. Read books by authors you enjoy more.
Lmao, I just can't. I won't respond further because I don't think any of you actually go outside at all, because this behaviour? Isn't normal. Or healthy. She's not going to rewrite her books. She's not going to answer you because frankly you're making a right arse of yourself.
All of you on that bandwagon, actually. You take this way too seriously for it to be healthy. It's sad.
Listen, I didn't even bother to read your comment because you don't seem to get it. Let it go already.
How is commenting on 3 questions pertaining to the subjects we enjoy "mobbing her Q&A" really do you hear yourself. You don't bother to listen.
And for the last time we weren't asking her to rewrite her books. Get off on that, you know what are problems are.
If anyone's making an ass of themselves it's you Malia. Nobody asked for your opinion here, you butted in.
Malia just doesn't get what we are trying to say at all. She'd rather just attack us for "not having lives". This is ridiculous. We only commented on the threads pertaining to this subject. That is not mobbing,
There is no excuse for rude behaviour. I am truly astonished at this level of vitriol which is very close to mob bullying.
I also do not agree with some of Ms Gregory's interpretations and have stated so with politeness.
There is a cure for all your anxieties; stop reading Ms Gregory's books. It is that simple.
@Malia, it is really a finest example of aggressive unhealthy harassment and bullying which they unsuccessfully try to pass for caring about history, pretending themselves to be all white and fluffy.
@Theamazingcat, you are so full of yourself that you honestly think you would make author tell whatever you want her to? LOL. No, she won't say it. She doesn't have to say anything at all to a bully and a hater. You think she does not understand medieval society or how the Tudor courts works? Ok. Then don't read her books anymore, don't read her new books and just read those authors you find to your liking and who understand all those things. You don't like that she doesn't shout I'm not accurate on every corner? Then don't read her books anymore, etc. Read only those authors you find 100% accurate. It is simple. But you are here obsessing over an author you clearly hate, that's not sane at all. I read what you wrote here that's why exactly I'm telling you all this.
The only one being a bully is you, you are the one that has consistently name called and bullied. You miss the point entirely and show how narrow minded you are and how you only selectively read.
I'm not at all obsessed. If anything you are. Why are you getting so angry over someone else criticism of an author.
Are comments weren't aimed at you and we never asked your opinion.
The comments defending the author are the rude ones-saying people need to go outside or get lives when you know nothing about us. This is so ridiculous, as someone who has read/paid good money for this author's books (and no, I no longer read/buy them after bad experiences with this series), we have the right to criticize them and we especially have the right to call her out when she tells us complete inaccuracies/lies to promote her agenda.
@Lara & Malia, are you both looking forward to the release of The Taming of the Queen? I have to admit Katherine Parr seems less interesting to me than say the more controversial Anne Boleyn, so it will be interesting to read PG's interpretation of this very intelligent woman who also came close to losing her own head!
My favourite book in the cousins series is the last one, The Kings Curse. I was gripped from page one by this fascinating woman, Margaret Pole and her family. What a tragedy to be born a Plantagenet once the Tudors came to the Throne, especially as Henry VII claim was dubious to begin with, I wonder if this was one of the reasons he married Elizabeth of York to cement his own tenuous credentials?
I also find it absolutely amazing that Bishop Fisher was Margaret Beauforts preferred confessor and yet under the rule of her grandson Henry VIII he lost his head along with Sir Thomas More.
This is one of the reasons why I love reading historical fiction it leads to further investigation into this hugely controversial figures who made such an impact in their own time which still has an affect in our time. Don't you both think?
Wishing you both well and good reading!
@Theamazingcat , I'm not the first one even to call you bully here, others did it before me already, because you are indeed and your band of friends as well. The most narrow-minded people are the ones who spend their time on mobbing the author they hate. That's not critisism, that's a clear and persistent unhealthy hate campaign. So that's why I and others confronted it. Technically speaking nobody has asked your opinion or opinion of your comrades as well, but you still all flooded it here with your vainglorious posts trying to make author say or do whatever you wanted her to. So don't be surprised somebody would comment your comments as well. It's funny though, you like playing in calling somebody out, but get all jumpy if people start to call out you.
L.C. no, reading and not liking somebody's books don't give you the right to be profound drama queen hater with them, trying to pass it for criticism or for something "noble".
@Rebecca, actually I think Katherine Parr is one of the most interesting ones of the wives, along with Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. So every new interpretation of her is interesting to me. Margaret Pole is a very tragic figure, I wish there were more fictional books about her and about some of Plantagenets
You are right about historical fiction I think, especially when you know how to view fiction for fiction.
One of the reasons why I like reading historical novels is that it opens the door to further investigation. I always found Katherine Parr the least interesting and that is because I didn't really read up on her. The fact is that she was a rather tragic figure; forced to marry a tyrant in the king and then finally being able to marry the man she loved, only to find he was not worthy of her.
I will look forward to reading PG's interpretation of this misunderstood queen and yes in full knowledge that I am reading a fictional account of her life and not a biography.
@Theamazingcat and LC: yes, you are obsessing. By your own admission, you've now badgered this author in no less than three different questions, two of which were not asked by you or one of your friends. This definitely constitutes harassment. Which is incredibly rude, unhealthy and downright insane.
This author has no obligation to you. She does not have to 'answer' for anything, and clearly if she's ignored you all this time: you're wasting a lot of hot air. Both of you.
Let it go, and read biographies by historians you believe to be more accurate. I tell you this right now: you will never, ever find 100% accuracy within the body of any work of fiction. Especially when said work is written in the first person and clearly a biased narrative point of view.
You're both better off reading the biographies (and academic articles, maybe?) than works of fiction. Or alternatively you should write your own. Why not? That would be a much more sensible and constructive use of the time you've otherwise wasted here.
@ Rebecca & Lara: I really enjoyed The King's Curse! I felt for Margaret Pole in PG's other works, but in this one she broke my heart and also made me so proud. She was incredibly strong for Katherine along with her own children after suffering heartbreak around every corner. And I knew little of her previously, so it prompted me to really look her up and find a new heroine, so to speak!
Katherine Parr's intelligence has always intrigued me, but I don't know much about her, either! I'm really looking forward to this book in order to see what PG thinks she was like.
back to top
I just don't think you did one bit of decent research on their marriage. David Starkey, Alison Weir, Amy License, Arlene Okerlund, Agnes Strickland, Thomas Penn, all say it was a faithful, happy and respectful marriage. Please show me your sources, I am dying to know.
and Margaret Beaufort a treasonous plotter? What? And Elizabeth of York in love with Richard III? You aaccept that as truth but ignore all evidence of happiness with Henry? I can't believe you.
the above comments are so true. Where, Ms. Gregory, do you get that his mother shared all his rooms with him? His rooms at Windsor for example, adjoined Elizabeth's. Are you thinking of Edward IV's mother in the Queen's apartments at Westminster? I believe you used that in your book. What on earth do you have against Henry and Margaret anyway? Did they do something personally to you?
Wow just wow. How can anyone claim to study this time period at all and come to the conclusion Henry VII wasn't in love with his wife is beyond me. I have the feeling you didn’t actually read the works you’ve claimed to because no biographer on Henry VII or Elizabeth of York says that the marriage was unhappy, without love, or that Elizabeth was in love with someone else. Nothing indicates this and you have made this up. And you should own up to it, your work is not accurate. First let me begin by saying you are not "realistic" nothing about the book The White Princess is "realistic". Your version of Henry VII is extremely OCC what we know about him is he was calm man, who wasn’t prone to angry outbursts. Second we know rumors of his paranoia only start up after Elizabeth’s death. Indicating his attachment to her.
Lets first start with Elizabeth being a schemer. Sorry this is nothing to indicate she was a political schemer. The only time Elizabeth was active in politics was to get her son’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon through, other then that Elizabeth seemed to like to behind the scenes, being a loving mother and wife. Nothing is wrong with this, this was the model for a gracious woman of the time. The idea that every woman has to be a schemer doesn’t fit the time period. Elizabeth was a pious, loving, kind woman. Your Elizabeth is nothing like her historic counterpart.
Second nothing indicates at all that Henry valued Margaret Beaufort over Elizabeth. We have evidence to contradict this. In fact when it came down to a choice between the Pope and Margaret’s choice for a certain Bishop, and that of Elizabeth’s own confessor Henry took his wife side and appointed her confessor to the status of a Bishop.
That is just one example of the times Henry showed her favor.
Third the idea that Elizabeth was constantly out of money is an old one. First of all if you actually examine Elizabeth’s privy purse you’ll find she had a regular allowance for the time but chose to spend a lot of money on her Yorkist relativist, and she also gambled. And her debts were paid by Henry VII. Nothing at all indicates that Henry left her in poverty. The opposite is true Henry liked fashionable clothes and jewels and often gifted Elizabeth with such items.
Fourth this idea that Henry forced Elizabeth Woodville into a monastery cannot be proven. We do not have any indication why Elizabeth Woodville went into a nunnery. It could simply be she wanted to. Henry wanting her to marry the King of Scotland also indicates he still trusted her enough to send her to a neighboring, mostly enemy, country. In fact the true reason probably for why she left was because Henry could support the 3 incomes of his wife, his mother and his mother in law. England never had supported this many Queens and Kings Mother before.
Fifth there is nothing to indicate that Henry VII was ever unfaithful to Elizabeth of York. There is never one record mistress or acts of impropriety. You Mrs. Gregory need to read up on this time period more, everything King’s did they did in the full view of the public. If Henry VII ever had an affair it would have been noted. The fact is you made up that he cheated on his wife with no evidence from anywhere to support this fact. I would really be interested in what contemporary source or historian you’re citing on this one because this is a lie.
Sixth there is no credible evidence that Elizabeth of York was in love with Richard. Even if the Buck letter existed and was actually indicated her wanting a marriage to Richard (Most likely it was about the Portuguese marriages) that does not indicate that Elizabeth was in love with Richard.
Seventh Henry VII spent six days in isolation and became deathly ill after Elizabeth died, also the only person who could help Henry after the loss of Prince Arthur was Elizabeth. There tender words of love to each other in this moment are a recorded historical fact. But Henry actions immediately after her death is more then him being sad she was gone, that is utterly devastation at a loss.
Everything that real historians can gather from Henry VII’s court and his life indicate that he was in love with his wife, and everything we have on Elizabeth indicates that she felt the same way. While it was a marriage of politics it quickly became a love match. Both of them were suited to each other. Henry gave Elizabeth the security she had been without since her father’s death, and gave her status back, and Elizabeth gave Henry the family he was without.
You Mrs. Gregory needed to actually read about this time period or study it, because you clearly have never once opened a book on Henry VII or his life. You deem the word historian by choosing to call yourself one. You have done no research at all on this persons life. Or if you did you just ignored everything you found.
I leave on a quote from Thomas Penn’s biography on Henry VII, “The Winter King” one of the most credible biographies on Henry VII in my opinion.
“Though founded on pragmatism, Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage had nevertheless blossomed throughout the uncertainty and upheaval of the previous eighteen years. This was a marriage of ‘faithful love’, of mutual attraction, affection and respect, from which the king seems to have drawn great strength –indeed, it was the kind of marriage that their second son, Prince Henry, would spend his whole life trying to find. With Elizabeth’s burial, the lights went out all over Henry VII’s court.“
Well said. You can't change history Ms. Gregory.
VERY well said! You can't change history is right. Despite how much you want to. Again, I'd love to know-waht did Henry VII or Margaret Beaufort do to you?
She really can't Charlotte, no matter what we have the facts our side. She can go cry a river for all I care it doesn't make any of her BS fantasy true.
Me, as well as many others, including historians, have serious doubts whether Elizabeth was truly in love with her uncle and if these rumours were ever more then rumours. Richard himself publicly denied them, after which he actively sought to arrange a marriage with Joanna of Portugal and might have intended to marry his niece Elizabeth to the future Manuel I of Portugal. Even if there was serious consideration of a proposal between Elizabeth and Richard, this does not mean they were romantically involved.There are many reasons to doubt if Elizabeth genuinely liked her uncle at this point. Let’s not forget he took the throne that rightfully belonged to her brother, embarked the prince in the Tower, which directly lead to his disappearance and declared her parents’ marriage invalid, meaning he publicly shamed her mother for being no more than a royal whore and making her and all of her siblings bastards, which was about the lowest rank anyone could legally be. Before he did all of this he ordered the execution of her uncle Anthony Woodville and her half-brother Richard Grey, from whom I assume she might have been close with, based on evidence that show both these men actively involved in the childhood of Edward IV’s children.
You say Elizabeth of York might have felt insulted at Henry’s early coronation excluding her from a possible ‘side by side coronation’. Don’t you think she might have felt a whole lot more insulted by her own uncle declaring her and all of her siblings bastards? Richard could not marry Elizabeth, a King marrying a bastard girl was unheard of and if he would re-legitimize her, he would lose his claim to the throne, since the only reason he was able to take the crown, was by bastardizing Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s children.
Elizabeth of York’s future did not lie by her uncle, she would always be a bastard under his reign. Henry Tudor on the other hand could make her Queen of England, meaning she’d regain her position as York Princess, and would be able to take care of herself and everyone she cared for. Which she did, she was a very generous person, one of the reason she was out of money from time to time.
There is indeed no record of Elizabeth of York’s true feelings in 1485, but after all of this, it seems likely to me that she’d be happy to see the man who could restore her, win rather than her uncle, despite sharing the ‘pure York blood.’
Henry’s motivations to be crowned without Elizabeth of York were most likely to clearly send the message that he was King in his own right, not through his marriage with Elizabeth of York. Like any other usurper his claim was not supported by everyone and I understand he wanted to send a signal to England and show that he could hold the throne on his own, not through his wife’s claim. It was a man’s world, sadly.
There is no denying Margaret Beaufort’s influence during her son’s reign, mainly politically, but does this necessarily mean Elizabeth of York resented her for it or felt like she was robbed from her rightful place as Queen? Not every Queen felt the need to actively participate in politics or preferred a more ‘behind the scenes’ role. Perhaps Elizabeth had witnessed what the consequences could be for a Queen that spoke out too much, like her own mother or Queen Margaret of Anjou and decided to approach matters more subtle, again this was a men’s world.
Elizabeth of York was very actively involved in her children’s upbringing, more so than usually in royal households and those less hostile towards the relationship between Elizabeth and Margaret have suggested that the three people might have actually worked well together.
Now there’s the whole matter of Elizabeth Woodville’s ‘house arrest’. Elizabeth Woodville had actually already sought to retire at Westminster months before the rebellion in 1487, but this was delayed probably due to the rebellion. This woman had struggled through the loss of her husband, brother, son, her two princes, her name and right as Dowager Queen and might have feared for her life at several occasions, in the course of a little more than 2 years! If anyone deserved peace and rest, than it was definitely her. Her retirement in Westminster might have really been her own choice. She also wasn’t abandoned from court, she actually stayed with her daughter during her confinement in 1489.
Sadly, there is indeed not much that survives about the marriage between Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, however the little we have suggest mutual love and respect. The two were reported to spent more time together than usual for arranged marriages, Henry VIII was conceived while they were away together, Henry often dedicated gifts to Elizabeth, among them a lion, no ordinary gift if you ask me. The poem ‘My heart is set upon a lusty pin’ is assumed to be written by Elizabeth of York for her husband. When Henry was away for a military campaign in France in 1492 Elizabeth wrote him many letters and I cite; ‘tender, frequent and loving’ lines’
There are no records of any mistresses or illegitimate children that Henry conceived during his marriage with Elizabeth, if there were any, most likely it would’ve been recorded as there was little to no shame for a King to take mistresses. He did buy dresses for Catherine Gordon, but he also did that for other ladies-in-waiting. He had every reason to treat this woman right, yes she was his enemy’s wife but she was noble man from Scotland and he had every reason to keep his relations with Scotland as good as possible.
When Elizabeth of York died, sources state that the King was so heartbroken that he locked himself in his chambers, and had to be nursed back to health by his mother. He had genuinely loved her, many sources state this, but it was a King’s duty to take a wife so he did indeed try to make proposals, however he never remarried.
Was this a ‘love at first sight’ story? Probably not? Was it always easy? Probably not. But it was a match that worked surprisingly well given that they were of ‘rival houses’ and that they were a arranged union. I think that’s beautiful and I’m very sorry you don’t see that.
“Then his Grace of true gentle and faithful love, in good hast came and relieved her..”-anonymous scribe regarding Prince’s Arthur’s death“Adieu mine own dear spouse my worthy lord, The faithful love, that did us both combine, In marriage and peaceable concord”-Thomas More written on Elizabeth of York’s death, who as David Starkey said “knew her well”
“My heart is set upon a lusty pin I pray to Venus of good continuance, For I rejoice the case that I am in”-said to be written by Elizabeth of York during her marriage
“Many letters, filled with every expression of tenderness and love, were reaching him from the Queen, who was very sad at that time. Indeed, they were enticing him to return.” -Bernard Andre, Henry VII’s court poet
“Right trusty and right well-beloved cousin, we greet you well, and have tidings that our rebels landed the fifth day of this month in our land of Ireland. Wherefore, and forasmuch as we have sent for our dearest wife and for our dearest lady mother to come unto us, and that we would have your advice and counsel also in such matters as we have to do for the subduing of our said rebels, we pray you that, giving your due attendance upon our said dearest wife and lady mother, ye come with them unto us, not failing hereof as ye purpose to do us pleasure. Given under our signet, at our castle of Kenil worth, the 13th day of May, 1487. To our right trusty and right well-beloved cousin, the Earl of Ormond, chamberlain to our dearest wife the Queen.”-Letter written by Henry VII
“The beauty and chastity of this lady are indeed so great that neither Lucretia nor Diana herself were either more beautiful or more chaste. So great is her virtue and her character so fine, that she certainly seems to have been preserved by divine will from the time of her birth right up until today to be consort and queen. “-Henry VII letter to the Pope on EOY
From contemporary sources
This entire comment line is obscene. Ms. Gregory has generously decided to interact with her fans in this Q&A and the token of goodwill is being abused, rousing a virtual lynchmob. I'm not saying that a conversation with an author has to consist of fawning over his or her work, but personal attacks and sadistic glee over making an author "cry" is definitely out of line and incredibly disconcerting. Would any of you act like this were Ms. Gregory in the room with you? This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with your historical criticisms and everything to do with decorum. Frankly, I believe that some of the points outlined above to "gel" more with what I know about the period than Gregory's books, but were it otherwise - were I completely ignorant to this period aside from historical fiction - the construction of your argument would have immediately turned me off. You don't speak to people that way, period. You especially don't speak to people that way when they are doing us a favor - that is, interacting with their fanbase in a manner that just a decade ago would have been impossible.
I half-expect you all to turn on me now, so I just note that I will not respond nor read any retaliation.
Ms. Gregory, if you read this, I apologize for the behavior of the other commenters. Thanks for taking time out of your day to discuss your pieces.
We are trying to explain why her theories don't make sense and hoping (pointlessly) that she stops claiming that her works are mostly accurate, as that causes a lot of confusion. But whatever, I guess history will always remain the way it is no matter how someone tries to change it and convince others to believe their ideas.
Yes, i didn't mean to attack her personally, it's just clear that her viewpoint on this marriage is not based upon proper research and she cites things as fact that aren't even supported by the facts.she should just admit that she takes artistic liberties instead of claiming to be 100 percent historically accurate.
Bunny when a author is lying to you and ignoring facts of reliable contemporary sources that I have studied for well over 2 years now one should call her out. Mrs. Gregory just posted that she is accurate, she calls herself a "historian" she says she never diverges from facts. Her calling herself a Historian is deeming to the work true Historians do. It is horrifying that people take her word as accurate. But she claims to be so you cannot blame her.
What she has said and wrote about Henry VII and Richard III is down right libelous if these men were alive today they would have the right to sue her on that charge. She accused Henry VII of rape, a vile and horrible crime, without any justification for it other then to fulfill her own fantasy.
If she was to claim her work was fiction and that half of this is just inspired or based off of people then that would be a different story. But she has said several times that her work is 100% accurate. None of which is true.
I am seriously appalled by the behaviour of many contributors to this comment string; and they should be as well. This is not something she has to do, read things readers post to her. And definitely not a bombardment of what is likely fact mixed with propaganda.It doesn't matter if her books are historically accurate, are they? People obviously enjoy them and spend money on them. And being fictional? They don't need to be.
I agree with Bunny, were I wholly ignorant of the facts pertaining to this period in history, this infodump and catty, tittybaby behaviour (pardon the language) would put me right off.
Get outside and learn how to actually communicate with people rationally.
What matters is Mrs. Gregory claims she's accurate. That's the problem. She goes on and on about her accuracy. She even said a few comments above that she tries to stay completely accurate but her answers to most of these questions on the WOTR's prove she knows little to nothing about the time period. She has every right to write FICTION, but she needs to stop making the claim her books are accurate cause they aren't.
I don't think anyone of you read the comments we originally posted, how we debunked everything she said up here. Everything she said in the above was either a lie or made up, or worse she just doesn't know. I'm sure Henry VII wouldn't appreciate it being said he cheated on his wife. Gregory has alot of influence in people's opinions and the fact is she is lying up there. Their has never been one historian at all that has speculated (To my knowledge at the very least) that Henry VII cheated on his wife. She is making that up and deserves to be called out.
Bro, NONE of that is grounds to take on such an aggressive and frankly insulting tone with her. She's not going to do what you want.And if the fact that the ladies in these books were literally doing magic can't get across the notion that they are fictional to the average reader.. idk. It's just out there. Of all the things to pick on, maybe you should latch onto that instead of a political marriage.
Sorry no it is. She claims she's accurate. She accused Henry VII of rape, a horrifying and disgusting crime. I think that's a little worse then what I wrote. How did I insult her by fact checking her bullshit. Sorry that isn't being rude that being critical.
If she didn't want critics in her life she should have chosen another profession. Writers get criticized if she couldn't handle it she should not have chosen to become a writer.
How is my tone disrespectful. My first original post is just reading fine to me. It's fact checking everything she posted here.
I guess "Cry me a river" can be seen as harsh but that's a expression from where I'm from I use it alot. If you mistook it oh well.
Mrs. Gregory is a big girl she can handle criticism I'm sure.
I never said anything personally against her, only against her writing. How is that rude?
Being critical is a good thing, not a bad thing. If she said yea I made up 70% of what I wrote I'd be fine with her. But it's her claim that she doesn't make stuff up that is mind boggling. Worse is her claim that she's a historian. She's not one, she has zero degrees in history and she shouldn't be treated like a historian.
Obviously you're not going to listen to me, and tbh you should know the answers to every one of your questions. It's common sense and decency.You could, idk, not read her novels. In fact all of you could do that. And tbh you have no right to mob on her like a herd of wildebeest no matter whether what she wrote is prize-worthy or on Stephenie Meyer's level.
Malia-it is insulting that she tells us all a bunch of lies and expects us to believe it when everyone who commented has done extensive research on the subject. There is no evidence that Elizabeth of York was in love with her uncle, that Henry VII cheated on her, or that he was going to marry her sister. The fact that he considered remarriage is completely typical and does not indicate a lack of personal feelings. It is just annoying that she chooses to ignore/make up/twist facts to suit her narrative rather than just saying "Well, just my interpretation, obviously others have taken a different one of their marriage, my books are fiction." I would have a lot more respect for her if she said that. I have actually never seen an author hate a historical pairing this much.
Nobody is trying to attack her personally, if you've seen our other threads you would notice that we have been correcting and explaining why many of her statements are flawed and baseless, while hoping to discuss it with her but nevertheless she goes and answers another question in the same way firmly believing her theories. I wouldn't have a problem if she just said that she takes artistic liberties and doesn't claim to be mostly accurate because as you know, Ms. Gregory has a wide fan base and many of those fans believe whatever is thrown in their face without bothering to do research, and when the author claims to believe most of what she writes well that can be even more confusing. Not to mention that portraying people that existed in real life the way she does and claiming that its true can be insulting to the memory of these people. I do acknowledge my harsh tone and apologize if Ms. Gregory finds any offense in our comments, our "attacks" are not directed at her personally but at her theories and we want her to take the facts that we've presented her with and explain why she doesn't belive them (which will never happen, as it seems that she probably doesn't want to acknowledge that some of her theories are made up).
@Malia you are missing the point entirely. It's not about her fiction. I understand fiction writers are allowed to write what they want. If she said, "My work is fiction and there are facts I don't want to use" I'd be fine with her work. Cause obviously one's allowed to write what they want. But when she says my work is based off of true facts and that Elizabeth of York was in love with her uncle, or that Henry VII cheated on his wife, those are lies. Those hold no facts. When she states these as facts that's the problem. She isn't accurate and us calling her out is the right thing to do. It isn't personal at all. I've studied this time period (And the century in general) for a while now and countless times I've run across people who tell me "Oh I believe that Katherine of Aragon wasn't a virgin and lied because of Gregory's book" or "Elizabeth of York and Henry VII marriage was abusive because of Gregory's work" I've seen people actually cite her as a source.
And she encourages this behavior amongst her fans by calling herself a historian. That's a job title, one would be upset if someone was going around calling themselves a "doctor" without ever going to medical school. Mrs. Gregory is the same, she holds zero degrees in history and yet she goes around calling herself a "historian" it's an insult to true historians who have worked extremely hard to gain that title. She deems the word and the work they do.
Wait, so the bunch of (15? more?) of you are going through each of her questions and badgering her like this? Look, I'll be blunt and say it's no wonder why she doesn't bother to answer you. You don't approach her respectfully or calmly but rather "we're right and you're wrong, change everything about your books now". And to add, if all any of you want is an autobiographical account of this woman's life, there are plenty out there already (Alison Weir and Amy License each wrote one).Guys, these female characters are predicting the future and casting generation-spanning death curses of doom on people. To me, that'd be more offensive than any depiction of a political marriage. Why haven't any of you mentioned the magic? Because that's what clearly makes these books fiction. Unless there's something about being related to Morgan Le Fay that somehow has been axed from her other biographies.
Bottom line: let it go. She's not going to answer you, and (obviously, lol) will keep writing about historical characters from the period from a fictional standpoint. I personally don't much care about the point you've been trying to make, because she's not listening to it. So making like Elsa is better and healthier for you lot at this point.
I want her to answer the questions. I asked her asked (She hasn't answered from what I can tell) but I did approach her respectfully. That comment above is respectful. I want to know what evidence she has to make the claim her books are accurate. She claims this not me. The burden of proof is on her. She makes the claim she sticks to the facts but her books don't show it.
I want her to answer real questions. And yes I'm gonna keep asking till I get an answer. That's what a good critic does. That don't back down because "Oh well they won't answer" they push back.
So a bunch of people who clearly hate this author's guts still spend huge amount of time on trying to connect with this author and literally make her do whatever they wish her to do?! LOL. That's pathetic. Also if this author can't change history, why are you being so hysterical then? You contradict yourself. Also you act like downright crazies.
I really don't think my original response was "hysterical" your the ones who are getting hysterical. I fact checked everything she said up here and she's wrong about nearly everything she writers. If she can't handle critics for her work she should have not become a writer. Every writer has critics.
Her problem is she claims she's accurate, she's not. She makes up facts. She made up right above here that Henry VII had an affair on his wife. Not one historian that I know of has every made this claim. She is lying to the public about well know historical figures.
I'm not saying she can't make up fiction, she can write whatever she wants. What I'm saying is she shouldn't say she's accurate or that her work is based off facts because they clearly aren't.
We know nothing can change history but we want to know on what she bases her theories to state them as fact. Ms. Gregory is free to do whatever she wants though claiming that her work is accurate is a bit far. I respect her as a writer but her claims are a bit too much and people who feel passionate about history (which I assume you don't ) feel the need to call her out on things that are incongruent with what truly happened as people get the wrong idea and its also a disrespect to these characters that actually lived (claiming that Anne Boleyn slept with her brother and was a murderer, that Henry VII was a rapist, that Richard III committed incest with his niece etc) We would be okay if she admitted that these are liberties that she takes for the sake of the story but to no avail she keeps claiming that she's accurate.Our original comments were actually pretty normal and we've already acknowledged whatever offenses she might have taken on this thread because what we're truly pointing at is her theories and what are her sources. Also, we are all free to express our opinion on her work so there's no need to butt in and call anyone names.
Just to clear things up I/we KNOW PG’s works are fiction. They are historical fiction though, so based upon actual events to which we do have information on. That being said, she can write whatever the heck she wants. She can write a book where Elizabeth and Richard have sex in front of Henry before killing him at Bosworth field and then go on to reign together and Richard XV rules centuries later. I’d prob think it’s ridiculous but I don’t care. I know it’s fake.What bothers me is when she insults our intelligence by justifying her inaccuracies by stating them as fact. Stating Elizabeth of York didn’t want to marry Henry VII because she was in love with her uncle and he her. She’s not stating it as speculation. She’s stating it as fact. And the sketchy evidence she bases it on, she can’t even cite correctly. (It was a letter from the Duke of Buckingham she says, not Norfolk) As if she knows for sure. She states that Elizabeth Woodville was under house arrest as fact, when historians have been debating this for years. She states that Henry was unfaithful to Elizabeth as fact when we have absoltuely no proof of this. If he did cheat on her, then he was certainly discreet about it as we have no contemporary source stating this. She makes stuff up to promote her agenda. And at any rate, she uses her made up BS that Henry was “unfaithful” to show that they didn’t love each other, when in fact, Edward IV certainly loved or cared for his wife and he had affairs. And she adores that royal marriage. And to say that Henry looking around for another wife after a period of deep mourning means that he didn’t care about his wife. WTF.
I’m sorry, but she is completely full of it. I could care less if she just said “Well, that’s my take on it, I may be wrong, I encourage you to read the primary soruces yourself.” Or “Well, there is no evidence for this, it is my artistic license.” I have seen other authors say this. But she doesn’t. She flat out lies. And people repeat her “facts”. Someone even said on Facebook I saw that Elizabeth Woodville was a witch.
I’m sorry, but it just upsets me. I can’t help that. Yes, I have a life. But yes, I still let it get it to me. I can’t help it. I have spent a couple years studying this time period and her attitude is just insulting.
Theamazingcat, the whole behaviour of your lot here is pretty much hysterical by this point. It crosses the border of normal criticism, and you act like ordinary haters. It seems that you are just hanging out somewhere stewing in your own juice, rocking back and forth, repeating endlessly "PG bad, PG bad" and come here then to rant. The author won't re-write her books because of few of you whining here. She also won't apologize for whatever you want her to apologize for. If you actually want her to do that or think that you can make her then you are delusional. She has no obligations to you actually at all, because she doesn't force anyone to buy and read her books. You do it out of your own choice. If you read it and didn't like it or had problems with that, there are other authors and other books out where to enjoy. If you spend so much time instead on hating this author in such way, then yes, you have problems cause it is not a normal behaviour. If you want purely strict factual history, there is non-fiction for that. Lots of fictional authors make up facts or use historical rumours in their fictional works. Lots. And not all of them say that it is artistic license, also by merely categorizing it as fiction it is already clear that since it is fiction it is not a pure history book. So it is your problems if you take it so seriously. Not to mention some historians actually do write non-conventional things in their own very much non-fictional books. So if you really want to hate somebody for not purely pure history go and hate the historian who actually wrote that Anne Boleyn may have done it with her brother since you used it as example. Cause that's more serious, then fiction authors writing their fictional versions. Elizabeth Woodville was described as witch on Facebook? Wow, I mean it is not even the first time when Elizabeth Woodville was described in fiction in relation to some real or semi-real witchcraft, there was such a fictional book about her already like in the 70s, but oh the horror somebody wrote it on Facebook! Let's go and hate on PG for that! Shish, ROFL.
@Lara, what they're doing is harassment and a sad attempt to bully a best-selling author into rewriting their books. It's never going to happen. This entire comment section apart from our replies is filled with crazy. I don't think you'll get them to see how hilariously pathetic they're being. I think they need to go outside and make some friends and distance themselves healthily from people who died 500 years ago.
I think the only ones acting hysterical here is you guys to be honest. My problem isn't her fiction. I don't understand how I can make this simpler for you guys. My problem is her own statements that she's accurate. That's all.
I don't want her to re-write her books. I want her to say "I know I'm not accurate, go read the sources yourself and decide." That is it. I don't get how I can get that through your narrow minded heads.
I'm sick and tired of this woman being treated like a historian, or someone who actually understands medieval or Tudor history, she doesn't. Her books prove she doesn't understand medieval society or how the Tudor courts were.
And I'm not saying she has to be an expert on this, what I'm saying is I want her to stop making the claim she is one, she isn't. It has nothing to do with her fiction for gods sake.
Do you any of you read what I write or do you just selectively read that I said at one point "cry me a river" cause literally that's the only thing I said on here which I feel anyone could find offensive.
Other then that all I did was fact check what she said above. Which was all 100% inaccurate statements from her.
She's allowed to take liberates as an author, but when she starts claiming those liberates are actually facts is my problem with her. I don't understand how I can get it through to you any other way.
Theamazingcat , there's people who simply don't care about history and how its portrayed, much less the influence it could have on people in general. They tell us to distance ourselves from historical figures but Ms. Gregory carries a great passion for these historical characters as well, even though a lot of her statements are flawed which is what we're arguing about here, so in a way they're making fun of her as well. In general, this discussion as well as the previous ones were directed at Ms. Gregory not any other random meddler and it was supposed to be over long ago so why bother, just let them be.
I don't even have a problem with how she portrayed them. I mean yea I do, but I understand it's her right to do what she wants. What I'm upset over is her claim to accuarcy. And I don't get how wanting her to say "I know I'm not accurate, go look at the sources yourself" is "Hysterical" or "cruel"
The only ones being cruel or name call is the other people commenting here. And while they think there being high and mighty by saying were the ones being cruel there the ones actually being rude and not listening to any of our points.
I know I should just let them be, it's more this idea I don't like name calling too much. It's rude.
So, mobbing every Q&A of hers to jump on her in an accusatory and aggressive way isn't harassment? None of you are nice to her, at all. She doesn't owe you anything. I mean, are you fans? No? Then I have no idea what you're doing here. Read books by authors you enjoy more.Lmao, I just can't. I won't respond further because I don't think any of you actually go outside at all, because this behaviour? Isn't normal. Or healthy. She's not going to rewrite her books. She's not going to answer you because frankly you're making a right arse of yourself.
All of you on that bandwagon, actually. You take this way too seriously for it to be healthy. It's sad.
Listen, I didn't even bother to read your comment because you don't seem to get it. Let it go already.
How is commenting on 3 questions pertaining to the subjects we enjoy "mobbing her Q&A" really do you hear yourself. You don't bother to listen. And for the last time we weren't asking her to rewrite her books. Get off on that, you know what are problems are.
If anyone's making an ass of themselves it's you Malia. Nobody asked for your opinion here, you butted in.
Malia just doesn't get what we are trying to say at all. She'd rather just attack us for "not having lives". This is ridiculous. We only commented on the threads pertaining to this subject. That is not mobbing,
There is no excuse for rude behaviour. I am truly astonished at this level of vitriol which is very close to mob bullying.I also do not agree with some of Ms Gregory's interpretations and have stated so with politeness.
There is a cure for all your anxieties; stop reading Ms Gregory's books. It is that simple.
@Malia, it is really a finest example of aggressive unhealthy harassment and bullying which they unsuccessfully try to pass for caring about history, pretending themselves to be all white and fluffy.
@Theamazingcat, you are so full of yourself that you honestly think you would make author tell whatever you want her to? LOL. No, she won't say it. She doesn't have to say anything at all to a bully and a hater. You think she does not understand medieval society or how the Tudor courts works? Ok. Then don't read her books anymore, don't read her new books and just read those authors you find to your liking and who understand all those things. You don't like that she doesn't shout I'm not accurate on every corner? Then don't read her books anymore, etc. Read only those authors you find 100% accurate. It is simple. But you are here obsessing over an author you clearly hate, that's not sane at all. I read what you wrote here that's why exactly I'm telling you all this.
The only one being a bully is you, you are the one that has consistently name called and bullied. You miss the point entirely and show how narrow minded you are and how you only selectively read. I'm not at all obsessed. If anything you are. Why are you getting so angry over someone else criticism of an author.
Are comments weren't aimed at you and we never asked your opinion.
The comments defending the author are the rude ones-saying people need to go outside or get lives when you know nothing about us. This is so ridiculous, as someone who has read/paid good money for this author's books (and no, I no longer read/buy them after bad experiences with this series), we have the right to criticize them and we especially have the right to call her out when she tells us complete inaccuracies/lies to promote her agenda.
@Lara & Malia, are you both looking forward to the release of The Taming of the Queen? I have to admit Katherine Parr seems less interesting to me than say the more controversial Anne Boleyn, so it will be interesting to read PG's interpretation of this very intelligent woman who also came close to losing her own head!My favourite book in the cousins series is the last one, The Kings Curse. I was gripped from page one by this fascinating woman, Margaret Pole and her family. What a tragedy to be born a Plantagenet once the Tudors came to the Throne, especially as Henry VII claim was dubious to begin with, I wonder if this was one of the reasons he married Elizabeth of York to cement his own tenuous credentials?
I also find it absolutely amazing that Bishop Fisher was Margaret Beauforts preferred confessor and yet under the rule of her grandson Henry VIII he lost his head along with Sir Thomas More.
This is one of the reasons why I love reading historical fiction it leads to further investigation into this hugely controversial figures who made such an impact in their own time which still has an affect in our time. Don't you both think?
Wishing you both well and good reading!
@Theamazingcat , I'm not the first one even to call you bully here, others did it before me already, because you are indeed and your band of friends as well. The most narrow-minded people are the ones who spend their time on mobbing the author they hate. That's not critisism, that's a clear and persistent unhealthy hate campaign. So that's why I and others confronted it. Technically speaking nobody has asked your opinion or opinion of your comrades as well, but you still all flooded it here with your vainglorious posts trying to make author say or do whatever you wanted her to. So don't be surprised somebody would comment your comments as well. It's funny though, you like playing in calling somebody out, but get all jumpy if people start to call out you.L.C. no, reading and not liking somebody's books don't give you the right to be profound drama queen hater with them, trying to pass it for criticism or for something "noble".
@Rebecca, actually I think Katherine Parr is one of the most interesting ones of the wives, along with Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn. So every new interpretation of her is interesting to me. Margaret Pole is a very tragic figure, I wish there were more fictional books about her and about some of PlantagenetsYou are right about historical fiction I think, especially when you know how to view fiction for fiction.
One of the reasons why I like reading historical novels is that it opens the door to further investigation. I always found Katherine Parr the least interesting and that is because I didn't really read up on her. The fact is that she was a rather tragic figure; forced to marry a tyrant in the king and then finally being able to marry the man she loved, only to find he was not worthy of her.I will look forward to reading PG's interpretation of this misunderstood queen and yes in full knowledge that I am reading a fictional account of her life and not a biography.
@Theamazingcat and LC: yes, you are obsessing. By your own admission, you've now badgered this author in no less than three different questions, two of which were not asked by you or one of your friends. This definitely constitutes harassment. Which is incredibly rude, unhealthy and downright insane.This author has no obligation to you. She does not have to 'answer' for anything, and clearly if she's ignored you all this time: you're wasting a lot of hot air. Both of you.
Let it go, and read biographies by historians you believe to be more accurate. I tell you this right now: you will never, ever find 100% accuracy within the body of any work of fiction. Especially when said work is written in the first person and clearly a biased narrative point of view.
You're both better off reading the biographies (and academic articles, maybe?) than works of fiction. Or alternatively you should write your own. Why not? That would be a much more sensible and constructive use of the time you've otherwise wasted here.
@ Rebecca & Lara: I really enjoyed The King's Curse! I felt for Margaret Pole in PG's other works, but in this one she broke my heart and also made me so proud. She was incredibly strong for Katherine along with her own children after suffering heartbreak around every corner. And I knew little of her previously, so it prompted me to really look her up and find a new heroine, so to speak!Katherine Parr's intelligence has always intrigued me, but I don't know much about her, either! I'm really looking forward to this book in order to see what PG thinks she was like.
How about the fact that they were rarely apart during their marriage? They traveled together, lived together when they did not have to. He gave her plenty of allowance, gifts and grants. She spent a lot, don't forget, she was kind and generous with her money and also loved fine things and gambling. Look at his privy purse expenses. You will see how generous he was with her. Look at her privy purse expenses. You will see gifts she made to him-gifts that show affection. And as I said before, I would love to know where you get your info that he was unfaithful to her. What-a source written years after Henry's death saying that he was possbily nice to Katherine Gordon bc she was pretty? So what? That is not unfaithful. You love the marriage of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV so much-guess what? He was notoriously unfaithful! I just can't believe how you come to the conculusions you do. Check out Henry's letter to the Pope requesting a dispensation-praising Elizabeth's chastity and beauty. Check out his letter to Elizabeth's chamberlain requesting that his "dearest wife" be sent to him bc he was worried abiut her.. Check out the payments he made to her Drs, generous ones reflecting his concern for her health. You don't know Elizabeth Woodville was under house arrest. That is debatable. Clearly, you hate Henry VII, you are in love with the idea of Elizabeth of York with Richard III and you ignored evidence to come to the conclusion you wanted to.