Weir. | Movies and Books | Forum

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
Weir.
August 13, 2011
8:42 pm
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Forum Posts: 782
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
Offline

I know Alison Weir is a respected historian but doesn't she kind of remind you of a nicer Phillipa Gregory?

Granted, Alison Weir at least tries to slam Anne Boleyn in a more respectful way where PG didn't even care to. But Weir wrote books on Anne, Anne's daughter, & Henry 8's children and in those books she's supported many cruel myths about Anne yet could not stop writing about her. In 'The Children of Henry VIII' she says that Elizabeth inherited Anne's 'inordinate vanity' which i thought was kind of mean.

Any thoughts? Or am i taking things a little too seriously? (<-- Which i tend to do alot.)

• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
August 13, 2011
9:15 pm
TheAwesome-B-Necklace
Member
Forum Posts: 16
Member Since:
August 6, 2011
Offline

I totally agree! I was reading The Lady in the Tower, and I thought countless times "Do this lady dislike Anne - cause she being pretty mean!" And yeah, she is like a nicer version of Ms. Gregory, but unlike PG, Weir is somewhat respectful and is an actual historian while Gregory isn't, and as I am naive, Weir's conclusion's have to be drawn from good sources. Yet, she is a little bit mean. And about the "vanity" comment, just because Elizabeth and Anne were up-to-date with fashion/trendsetters and were concerned with their appearances and used makeup, etc, doesn't make them vain! And when it comes the vain being a personality trait for E and AB, they were Queens of England - being a little vain is human nature!

And I'm glad it isn't just me who thought Weir was a nicer version of PG who stilled criticized Anne!CoolLaughSmileCoolLaughSmile

"To be or not to be, that is the question."//////// "The Most Happy."

~ William Shakespeare, Hamlet./////             ~ Anne Boleyn's motto.

August 14, 2011
12:05 pm
DuchessofBrittany
Canada
Member
Forum Posts: 847
Member Since:
June 7, 2010
Offline

I am leering of Weir, her interpretation of sources, and her reliance on sources which have been discredited by trained historians. Her citations are impossible to follow and double check, which makes me concerned. I've noted in other threads that Weir suffers from one main problem: she publishes a new book (or two) every year. How can that be? Most historians and other writers need at least two years before a new book or novel is publsihed. There is no way she has the time to to accurate and dependable research, and her work suffers greatly.

I don't think she necessairly hates Anne, but has fallen victim to using source material on her that is questionable, and does nothing to strengthen her argument. When  I see writers cite Chapyus, Sander, etc. as legitimate source material, and does not challenge them, or position them within a context, I serioulsy question the legitimacy of their arguments.

I think Weir is a good fiction writer, but she is not a properly trained historian (at least to my knowledge). I am not an academic snob, but unlike Ives, Starkey, Lipscombe, Loades, and Bernard, she does not hold a PhD in history. These later historians have spent years studying the Tudor period, historical research methodology, theory, and writing techniques. Much of Weir's writing suffers when compared to these people.

I disliked The Lady in the Tower. It could have been so much, but it failed miserably. Her unnecessary comments about Anne (I.e that she was vain, a clothes horse) and it's attempts to defame her because of it. I could not connect the necessity of the comments with her overall argument. She makes assertions about Anne with no evidence, and gives her own opinion of the woman, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.

"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
August 14, 2011
2:02 pm
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
Offline

Ailison Weir isn't a respected historian. She's just a person who writes history and proves you can fool most of the people most of the time. She's no more an historian than Gregory, but she's just got slightly better researchers. I don't know of a single reputable historian who quotes her. I wrote a review of 'The Lady in the Tower' on this forum and I really stick by it, 'A vent about 'The Lady in the Tower'. 

I am really pleased you feel the same because it's high time this so called historian is ousted and people realise that what she says is not gospel. It is just the Tudor world according to Weir. And quite frankly, without a single reference supporting her position, her views are worth nothing.

August 14, 2011
6:39 pm
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Forum Posts: 2074
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
Offline

She has the references....she just .doesn't.footnote.them...which is why I find her a pain to read.I don't wanna read pages of notes at the end of the book to work out just who she is quoting .

 

I have no problem with her sources or her conclusions just the way she gets there..

It's always bunnies.
August 14, 2011
9:21 pm
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Forum Posts: 782
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
Offline

And here i was afraid to post this in fear of offending Weir fans. I'm so glad you all feel this way. I now know i'm not the only one. : )

• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
August 14, 2011
11:46 pm
Catalina
Scotland
Member
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
July 17, 2011
Offline

I have a couple of Weir books, but I didn't know she wasn't a repsected historian. I might avoid her in the future.

Speaking of PG, is she actually a historian? Because I often see her trotted out as a Tudor period expert on Time Team, which kinda makes me laugh.  Have they not read TOBG? Laugh

'If honour were profitable, everybody would be honourable'  Thomas More
August 15, 2011
12:11 am
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
Offline

Anyanka said:

She has the references....she just .doesn't.footnote.them...which is why I find her a pain to read.I don't wanna read pages of notes at the end of the book to work out just who she is quoting .

 

I have no problem with her sources or her conclusions just the way she gets there..


I do have a problem with her sources and her conclusions, and a lot of that is to do with her lack of referencing. She comes to a conclusion based on a supposed source but gives no proper reference for it and when I have made my own research I have often found the reference she says she is referring to either doesn't exist or has been misquoted. I think her lack of referencing is a deliberate ploy to pull the wool over our eyes. To me that's akin to cheating, which is why I think Weir is a disgrace to her profession.
August 15, 2011
5:52 am
DuchessofBrittany
Canada
Member
Forum Posts: 847
Member Since:
June 7, 2010
Offline

Catalina said:

. Speaking of PG, is she actually a historian? Because I often see her trotted out as a Tudor period expert on Time Team, which kinda makes me laugh.  Have they not read TOBG? Laugh


One word: NO. PG is not an historian in the proper sense. She has a PhD in 17th-century literature of University of Edinburgh. So, she's an educated, intelligent woman. On her website, she claims her dedication to historical accuracy in her novels. I choked on my tea! What historical accuracy?

You know, some of PG's books are not that bad. I really liked The Constant Princess and The Other Queen, but have not read a PG book since. TOBG is a real turn off, and, try as I might, I cannot get beyond it. For me, Weir is the same. I loved Innocent Traitor, but cannot stand her non-fiction work.

My theory about PG and Weir is they want a piece of Tudor-mania. There are so many poorly written books about Anne and the Tudor era recently that discredits good historical exploration. Everyone wants piece and they all want to make money selling books to the masses who will not challenge their assertions, or read anything beyond, say, TOBG. I can only imagine the number of people who've been fooled into thinking that the Anne Boleyn of TOBG is the Anne Boleyn of reality.

"By daily proof you shall find me to be to you both loving and kind" Anne Boleyn
August 15, 2011
11:28 am
SG
North Yorkshire UK
Member
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
December 12, 2010
Offline

Unfortunately many people out there think Weir really is a proper historian, and so take her as gospel.  People are more likely to take her seriously than PG.  This wouldn't be a problem if she didn't misquote and find 'evidence' to support her own theories.  What amazed me after reading 'The Lady in the Tower' was that she claims to find Anne Boleyn fascinating and really admires her.  To me it read as though she was incredibly biased against the Boleyns.  And now she's jumped on the Warnicke/PG bandwagon with the whole George Boleyn being gay, or at the very least sexually deviant, thing.  Grrr Yell

August 15, 2011
7:36 pm
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Forum Posts: 2074
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
Offline
11

Louise said:

Anyanka said:

She has the references....she just .doesn't.footnote.them...which is why I find her a pain to read.I don't wanna read pages of notes at the end of the book to work out just who she is quoting .

 

I have no problem with eta some of her sources or her conclusions just the way she gets there..

 

eta vital stuff......


I do have a problem with her sources and her conclusions, and a lot of that is to do with her lack of referencing. She comes to a conclusion based on a supposed source but gives no proper reference for it and when I have made my own research I have often found the reference she says she is referring to either doesn't exist or has been misquoted. I think her lack of referencing is a deliberate ploy to pull the wool over our eyes. To me that's akin to cheating, which is why I think Weir is a disgrace to her profession.
 

And this is why I should proof read before I ost. I left out a huge hunk of my arguement...

 

I don't agree witth all of her conclusions, one has made me think but the rest have made me go "meh!"...I find her a less accesible author since I like everything properly cited...

It's always bunnies.
August 24, 2011
2:02 pm
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
Offline
12

Weir's book on Mary Boleyn is due out in the UK in October but I think it's available in the USA prior to that. I will not be buying it because I would rather poke my own eyes out with a blunt knitting needle than read anything else by that woman. However, when someone does read it can they please give me the low down of her treatment of George, because if she continues to slander him as she did in The Lady in the Tower then I shall not be held responsible for my actions!

August 24, 2011
4:55 pm
Mya Elise
Ohio,US
Member
Forum Posts: 782
Member Since:
May 16, 2011
Offline
13

Oh my Goodness! Another Boleyn PG book? How can people even publish these lies?! Jesus Christ ! 

Yeah and watch this book will be all about making Mary a wh**e. She made Mary the saint in TOBG and in this new book it'll probably be about making Mary look bad. I don't trust publishers anymore!

• Grumble all you like, this is how it’s going to be.
August 25, 2011
3:18 am
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Forum Posts: 474
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
Offline

The new Mary book is by Alison Weir not Phillipa Gregory.

August 25, 2011
10:17 am
Catalina
Scotland
Member
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
July 17, 2011
Offline
15

I ordered a Weir book : Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy' . It hasn't arrived yet, but she surely can't go far wrong with that can she? Apparently she spent 22 years researching it...

'If honour were profitable, everybody would be honourable'  Thomas More
August 25, 2011
10:26 am
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 992
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
Offline
16

I think the problem is when people read a book and take it for "gospel" just because it is written by an historian. There are good historians, there are bad historians and, at the end of the day, history is often about how we interpret sources. I disagree with Alison Weir on lots of things - the latest being her new theory about Thomas Boleyn the Younger - and I think what we have to do with all history books is check what's based on fact versus supposition, check the author's references and sources ourselves and see what we glean from them. The world of history is a veritable minefield!

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
August 25, 2011
10:27 am
Claire
Admin
Forum Posts: 992
Member Since:
February 16, 2009
Offline
17

Also, what is an "historian"? It's rather a subjective term.

Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
August 25, 2011
11:55 am
Bella44
New Zealand
Member
Forum Posts: 934
Member Since:
January 9, 2010
Offline
18

I don't mind Alison Weir.  I think her books are a good place to start if a person wants to begin to learn about the Tudors before progressing onto someone like Starkey.  I don't always agree with her conclusions and interpretations, but I don't always expect an author to absolutely back up my own ideas and interpretations either.

I agree Claire that just because something is written by a historian that it doesn't mean it's the absolute truth.  I kind of think of them as saying 'well, these are my theories, now what do you think?"  It's like a challenge to find out more!

I got Alison Weirs book on Mary Boleyn the other day.  It may be a while before I get round to it though - my to-read-pile is not a small one  Laugh  

August 25, 2011
1:25 pm
WilesWales
Winter Haven, Florida
Member
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
August 22, 2011
Offline
19

Claire said:

Also, what is an "historian"? It's rather a subjective term.


An "historian" is generally referred to as a graduate MA or P.h.D. with expertise in a certain arena of history. Also "an" is supposed to be used before any noun beginning with an "h." Now, it is generally used with just history - such as "an historian, "an historical fact, etc."  In the King James Versions of "The Bible" the indefinite adjective "an is used before almost any word in it." But it is generally used only before history nowadays. Hope that helps. Smile
"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23
August 25, 2011
1:29 pm
WilesWales
Winter Haven, Florida
Member
Forum Posts: 98
Member Since:
August 22, 2011
Offline
20

I used to be a member of "Wiki Tudor", but cancelled my membership basically because of one of Claire's "Announcements" on "Posts." Weir on that group even debated and agreed that a lot, and I mean a lot, of her sources were incorrect. Hope this helps!Smile

"This is the Lord's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes." Psalms 118:23
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 300

Currently Online:
20 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Boleyn: 2078

Anyanka: 2074

Sharon: 1925

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 428654

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1528

Posts: 22540

Newest Members: LynneCH, Rowan C, Rowan, rosemaryhemswell, cullen, Diana Rubino

Administrators: Claire: 992