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.
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.
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.
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.
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:)
@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.
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 »
message 1:
by
Charlotte
(new)
Aug 05, 2015 11:02PM
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.
reply
|
flag
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.
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.
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.
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:)
@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.
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?