Basically Bill from what I understand, Sanctuary was throwing yourself on the mercy of God. No one would dare to do harm to you in a church through fear of bringing down God’s wrath upon themselves. Although it was meant to be a safe haven, it didn’t always work. E4’s soldiers I believe after the battle of Tewksbury broke into the Abbey there and slaughtered the lancastian Soldiers that had claimed sanctuary. It’s been said that the altar steps were awash with blood and so henious was that crime, that the whole abbey had to be re sanctified.
There were also other terms in which Sanctuary could be broken, and that was if the person was accused of Witchcraft or the black arts.
The reason for this I believe was that if it was proven that you were a witch (usually under false evidence) then you were excommunicated, and therefore were unworthy of God’s protection.
Sanctuary was not as easy as it seems to be in the series, as you had to rely on others to provide food, ale wood for your fire and clothing and this had to be smuggled in, as that person could be strung up for aiding and abetting a criminal, and there have been cases where a person in Sanctuary has starved/frozen to death. However the higher the standing of the person the more likely they were to survive.

I believe the bigger churches and abbey’s had Jasmine, but not little villiage churches. Generally I believe it was where a religious house was. There may have been several religious houses in an area, but I believe it went on age. If a Abbey was founded in 1170 and another was found in 1320, it stand to reason to me at least that the older religious house would be used as sanctuary.

Tewksbury did have a sanctuary chapel but as I said E4 broke that sanctuary and killed all the Lancastian soldiers who had thrown themselves on God for help.
One of the pitfall to Tewksbury abbey is flooding so theorecially it was wholely possible that the person in sanctuary if he hadn’t starved to death could have drowned instead. In a stell box mounted on the wall in the crypt is a wooden box said to contain the bones of George Duke of Clarence and Isabel Neville. The abbey also contains the remains of Prince Edward H6 and Margeret of Anjou son.

I didn’t know that Jasmine, I thought Edward just went ahead and broke sanctuary at Tewkesbury.

They were not actually in any sort of dungeon-type arrangement as depicted in the show when they were in sanctuary either Bill. They were in a house within Westminster Abbey, I am pretty sure it was the Abbot’s house. It is the same house EW was thinking of retiring to and she took a lease out on before she decided to go to Bermondsey.

Richard seemed to spend the entire series being tricked by one person or another. I know this depiction has been popular with Ricardians as it shows him as not responsible for killing the Princes, but I can’t really agree it showed him in a good light. I am being hyper-critical but you know, Richard sits down to dinner determined to support his nephew and by the end of dinner has been nagged into taking the throne by his mother and wife. Richard tales a stroll and a few minutes later is tricked into thinking Anthony Woodville has betrayed him and has him executed. Blergh. Between and idiot Richard and the sexist witch/bitch/wh*re portrayal of the women, and Elizabeth of York looking like she was sucking a lemon for three episodes…ok I will stop ranting.

I think some other historians have supported the “Cousins War” name Bill. Leanda de Lilse wrote an article denouncing it. I don’t think it is going to make one whit of difference anyway, no one is going to stop calling it Wars of the Roses.

The whole incest thing seems to be popular with various historical novelists Jasmine, who could forget Mantel’s charming “incest is easy” tagline from her horrible book? Mantel and Gregory both spout that crap that it was “not unusual for siblings who meet as adults to be attracted to each other”, I am sure both of them discussed it on the WQ documentary. Of course there is the genetic mutual attraction theory which I am sure most historical novelists using the notion like to fall back on. I’ve just seen someone discussing the Sunne in Splendour and how Elizabeth of York loved Richard. Can someone please find me a bucket to vomit in?

At least they spared us from incestuous sex on the show. Or did I miss something in the American version? The characters on the show were really not that similar to the book characters. I am passing most of the blame to Gregory here because she actually had more control over this one and writing and producing credits, and for someone who is not usually sexist in her books I am amazed how the women were portrayed. Margaret Beaufort was a zealot in the book but not completely insane and on the verge of tears all the time, Anne and Richard were perfectly happy and neither stupid nor shrewish. And Elizabeth of York didn’t spend all of her time shrieking and flapping.

By the way Starz wants a second season based on White Princess. I really hope they don’t make it.

I used to think they were not that damaging, after all I became interested in Tudor history after reading TOBG and I didn’t buy Gregory’s depiction of Anne Boleyn. But the more time I spend on the net the more I realise just how wrong I am.
I don’t think people realise how much research Gregory actually does. What she chooses to use is another matter.

Jasmine said

I have to confess that I stopped watching the BBC version after episode one. Someone lent me PG’s Anne Neville novel which I actually read (just in case she asked me detailed questions) but found it quite shallow. Whatever criticisms of Sunne in Splendour there may be, at least the writing was good and Sharen Penman had done a lot of research.

My concern, as ever, is about how such historical novels and TV series colour people’s perception of their own country’s history. I’m afraid it does more damage than it does good.

I will confess that I did and still do like SWMNBN books The Red Queen and The White Queen, but after reading the the 3rd one I came very close to doing the same as I did with the Virgin’s lover. (I.e lining the chipmunk cage with it) It seems to me as if she lost her way in writing it and the storyline was IMO a muddled mish mash of no sence.
I agree too that some of the historical T.V dramas, can go OTT you can allow a little poetic licence, but sometimes it goes too far. The gawd awful Reign series was a prime example, (I watched about 10 minutes and that was it for me).

Olga: Yep research is an apsolute must even if it is a purely fictional novel you are writing. I don’t doubt SWMNBN researches what she writes, but she infurates me with what she writes. It seems to me at least that when she does her research she only sees what she wants to see, and I think her 3rd novel The Kingmakers daughter was a mixture of what she had read during the research of the other 2 books in the series. In short she could have done better to have researched Anne Neville a little more throughly before she tapped away on the word processor.
A good book takes years to write sometimes. I know that Cynthia Harrod Eagles (Morland Series) takes at least 2 years to write one of her books.

Well, for example: GW Bernard’s curious sources & conclusions, and Retha Warnicke’s unusual ideas about the reasons for Anne’s fall.

I looked for that Cold Case book on Amazon; this direct quote from the blurb will tell you why I read no further.

QUOTE:

‘Was a challenging offered up in place of Richard, Duke of York…?’

I’m hoping she gave him a good old glove slap baby glove slap {Simpsons reference}

So headed off to a bigger town today to watch a movie and chose the place that had the good bookstore to see if I could track down any of the recommended books on The Wars Of The Roses. All I walked out with was Weir’s Mary Boleyn and Gregory’s The Kingmaker’s Daughter. Seemed a waste of time choosing that location LOL

No it wasn’t Mortimer, I would have recognised the name. I have Mortimer’s Henry IV book on my list actually.