Philippa’s answer to “the marriage between Henry Tudor & Elizabeth of York is generally accepted as happy and respectful …” > Likes and Comments
8 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I think The Kings Curse is the best in the cousin's series. Philippa really brought this amazing lady alive and I appreciated the little touches, which shows that Margaret was often scared so much so she was almost paralysed with it and yet what a strong lady she was. To live to such a great age(in Tudor times) and die such a tragic death and at the hands of a tyrant. I don't think she feared death so much as being labelled a traitor due to her father's death....I think this haunted her throughout her life, the fact that her father died a traitor; it was a terrible stain on the family's name.
I think Margaret Pole is now a blessed in the Catholic Church and deservedly so.....But the person I was also angry at was her son, Reginald Pole, why would he write such a letter knowing it would incite the King and place his entire family in peril? I wonder if he died with an easy conscience?
I'm also looking forward to reading PG's interpretation of Katherine Parr....I think it is now a matter of days before the books release.....excellent lol
Margaret Pole was such a brave woman with such a hard life. I always admired her dignity, it is really easy to feel for her a lot.
You should totally read more on Katherine Parr - I'm sure you like her a lot. There recently have been some other fictional books about her and of course non-fiction. You can combine.
From the outside, without much context or detail, it looks to me as pretty self-serving on Reginald's behalf. I know that he hid out in Italy for a long while with some equivalent to diplomatic immunity, but not much more than that.
I hope he had a hard time living with himself after his cousin killed his mother. I'm glad she's since been blessed! Her marriage was perhaps the only truly happy time she knew, in an otherwise hard life. I don't envy her and hope she's at peace.
I really should also read up more on Katherine! She is always described as supremely intelligent, which invariably draws me. I'll see what e-books I can get my hands on!
Do either of you read much re: Cleopatra? She and Hatshepsut have fascinated me since I was little.
For some reason I simply ignored Katherine Parr and yet like Anne of Cleves she also survived marriage to that mad king Henry VIII, which is quite something!
As for Reginald Pole, he was either brave or foolish enough to speak to the King face to face and nearly paid for that with his life....which is why I cannot comprehend WHY he would write to Henry criticising his actions. It seem incomprehensible to have put his entire family in danger-did he do it to curry favour with the Pope? If so, his family certainly paid a high price for it. He did go on to serve Mary Tudor and I think he became Archbishop of Canterbury(if my memory is correct) and died peacefully, unlike his poor mother!
I loved the way Philippa was able to create this dark shadow and sense of paranoia that pervaded the Court of Henry VIII when it comes to anyone named, Plantagenet....There is such an air of suspense and terror surrounding Margaret and her family that the reader becomes immediately embroiled in the life of Margaret Pole and her family. I really loved that book!
When it comes to Cleopatra I haven't read that much on her, perhaps I should.
Puro ignorante defendiendo a la autora. Leí los comentarios y no veo insultos, solo correcciones históricas que la autora y todos sus seguidores deberían agradecer
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I think The Kings Curse is the best in the cousin's series. Philippa really brought this amazing lady alive and I appreciated the little touches, which shows that Margaret was often scared so much so she was almost paralysed with it and yet what a strong lady she was. To live to such a great age(in Tudor times) and die such a tragic death and at the hands of a tyrant. I don't think she feared death so much as being labelled a traitor due to her father's death....I think this haunted her throughout her life, the fact that her father died a traitor; it was a terrible stain on the family's name.I think Margaret Pole is now a blessed in the Catholic Church and deservedly so.....But the person I was also angry at was her son, Reginald Pole, why would he write such a letter knowing it would incite the King and place his entire family in peril? I wonder if he died with an easy conscience?
I'm also looking forward to reading PG's interpretation of Katherine Parr....I think it is now a matter of days before the books release.....excellent lol
Margaret Pole was such a brave woman with such a hard life. I always admired her dignity, it is really easy to feel for her a lot.You should totally read more on Katherine Parr - I'm sure you like her a lot. There recently have been some other fictional books about her and of course non-fiction. You can combine.
From the outside, without much context or detail, it looks to me as pretty self-serving on Reginald's behalf. I know that he hid out in Italy for a long while with some equivalent to diplomatic immunity, but not much more than that.I hope he had a hard time living with himself after his cousin killed his mother. I'm glad she's since been blessed! Her marriage was perhaps the only truly happy time she knew, in an otherwise hard life. I don't envy her and hope she's at peace.
I really should also read up more on Katherine! She is always described as supremely intelligent, which invariably draws me. I'll see what e-books I can get my hands on!
Do either of you read much re: Cleopatra? She and Hatshepsut have fascinated me since I was little.
For some reason I simply ignored Katherine Parr and yet like Anne of Cleves she also survived marriage to that mad king Henry VIII, which is quite something!As for Reginald Pole, he was either brave or foolish enough to speak to the King face to face and nearly paid for that with his life....which is why I cannot comprehend WHY he would write to Henry criticising his actions. It seem incomprehensible to have put his entire family in danger-did he do it to curry favour with the Pope? If so, his family certainly paid a high price for it. He did go on to serve Mary Tudor and I think he became Archbishop of Canterbury(if my memory is correct) and died peacefully, unlike his poor mother!
I loved the way Philippa was able to create this dark shadow and sense of paranoia that pervaded the Court of Henry VIII when it comes to anyone named, Plantagenet....There is such an air of suspense and terror surrounding Margaret and her family that the reader becomes immediately embroiled in the life of Margaret Pole and her family. I really loved that book!
When it comes to Cleopatra I haven't read that much on her, perhaps I should.
Puro ignorante defendiendo a la autora. Leí los comentarios y no veo insultos, solo correcciones históricas que la autora y todos sus seguidores deberían agradecer
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.