Books You Would Write If You Were A Historical Author | Movies and Books | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Books You Would Write If You Were A Historical Author
July 4, 2011
12:08 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Many of us here have expressed our wishes for books to be written about particular people from the Tudor Period, so I thought it might be fun to discuss and share our thoughts in this thread.

Now I will admit that I would have no idea where to start writing a historical book and to be honiest I probably wouldn't have the time (or patience) to research and write a book. So my hat goes off to all those historians who have laboured through a subject and wrote a book for us mere public mortals to read.

So I'll get the ball rolling. The book I would write would be called:

The Forgotten Men Of Tudor England: George, Thomas and Guilford

Not sure if I need to put their last names into the title and leave the dust jacket to clarify the men, cause while the Guilford is easy to work out, would I need to clarify that it was Boleyn and Culpepper I was discussing.

Or  should the title be the other way around with their names going first and then the title so it would read

George, Thomas and Guilford: The Forgotten Men Of Tudor England

So that's my idea for a wonderfully engaging, entertaining and informative book. What ideas do others have?

July 4, 2011
5:29 am
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 611
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hello Bill,

I tried to write a biography on the life of George Boleyn, but you're right that you need to be an historian as well as a good writer to succeed. I sent my book to two historians who I admire greatly and neither of them felt the book was worth proceeding with. Even Claire came to accept it was pants, and she loves everything, which tells you how bad it was!

Anyway, my writing days are over, and my book is consigned to the trash where it, and I, belong.

July 4, 2011
5:40 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

No wonder you have so much information about George Lousie. I take my hat off to you as well for even trying to write a book. One of my dreams in life is to write a book or a stageplay or a stage musical (would need to know how to write music for that). And while I've got plenty of ideas, I've never sat down to put them onto paper. Shame it didn't work out, but at least you can share your acquired knowledge here with us, so it wasn't a total waste of time.

July 4, 2011
2:08 pm
Avatar
Sophie1536
Lincolnshire UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 306
Member Since:
January 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I've been writing a book off and off for while now but it isn't about a historical figure, I wish it was but I just haven't the time to research anything as other hobbies and interests take my time too. I think historical writers are amazing as you have to research so much and the time involved is unbelievable. They deserve a pat on the back!
I would probably write about Anne Bronte if I did write about anyone as I am VERY loosely related to the Bronte family.
I think I'll plod on with my romantic/historical fiction book, lol!

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh144/nicksbabe28/Backstreet%20n%20Graffix/Image4-1.jpg

July 4, 2011
2:46 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't have the patience to write. I certainly couldn't write a non-fiction book and I'd be worried that a fictional account would end up heading down Mary-Sue Avenue and have me pitied as PG's less talented imitator….Surprised

It's always bunnies.

July 4, 2011
11:52 pm
Avatar
Sophie1536
Lincolnshire UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 306
Member Since:
January 17, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I find writing very relaxing, just wish I could sit and write all day but I can't, lol!

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh144/nicksbabe28/Backstreet%20n%20Graffix/Image4-1.jpg

July 6, 2011
6:08 am
Avatar
Nutmeg
Hemsbach, Germany
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
May 20, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

When I was still in school I loved to write little spoofs of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.  Now in university I have to write so many essays and stuff that I do not find enough time for casual writing.

If I would write a book about an historical issue, I think it would be about certain people of the Middle Ages, maybe something about Charlemagne and his conquest of the Saxons. Or Hildegard of Bingen….or Hilda of Whitby – two strong women in a world ruled by men. Such women always fascinate me!Laugh

July 6, 2011
10:20 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Both ladies would make excellent subjects for a book.

It's always bunnies.

July 13, 2011
11:12 am
Avatar
Anne fan
Leicestershire
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 123
Member Since:
February 10, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Louise said:

Hello Bill,

I tried to write a biography on the life of George Boleyn, but you're right that you need to be an historian as well as a good writer to succeed. I sent my book to two historians who I admire greatly and neither of them felt the book was worth proceeding with. Even Claire came to accept it was pants, and she loves everything, which tells you how bad it was!

Anyway, my writing days are over, and my book is consigned to the trash where it, and I, belong.


Boo – we need a biography of George!

July 13, 2011
2:10 pm
Avatar
SG
North Yorkshire UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 29
Member Since:
December 12, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I totally agree with you Anne Fan, we do totally need a biography of George.  I'd love to know more about him, and find him a far more interesting character than Mary Boleyn.

July 14, 2011
4:54 am
Avatar
Bill1978
Australia
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
April 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think a solid biography on Jane Seymour is required. Out of all of Henry's wives that's probably the one I would write.

July 16, 2011
9:36 am
Avatar
Anne fan
Leicestershire
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 123
Member Since:
February 10, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill1978 said:

I think a solid biography on Jane Seymour is required. Out of all of Henry's wives that's probably the one I would write.


I agree Bill – the problem is she doesn't seem to appear much in the records.

July 16, 2011
9:55 am
Avatar
Anne fan
Leicestershire
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 123
Member Since:
February 10, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I've a list of novels I want to write but one with George Boleyn as the central character is quite high up the list. So as well as being interested in the man, I've a completely selfish interest as a biography would be handy as a way of getting all the original sources in one place and in modern English!

July 16, 2011
4:21 pm
Avatar
Boleynfan
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 503
Member Since:
August 2, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Well, I've been writing a novel about two Tudor women (finally out of the research stage! Whew!), but as for biographies, I would want to write one on Jane Rochford. The only one I know of is by Julia Fox, and the information seemed spotty to me. However, I can understand that the information on her, from primary sources and so on, was most likely pretty scant. I would also like to write one about Elizabeth I's childhood and pre-Queen years, as well as one about Mary Boleyn, focusing on her relationships with Henry VIII, Anne, and George. Although maybe that would make a better novel??

"Grumble all you like, this is how it's going to be"

July 16, 2011
8:39 pm
Avatar
Impish_Impulse
US Midwest
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 595
Member Since:
August 12, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleynfan said:

Well, I've been writing a novel about two Tudor women (finally out of the research stage! Whew!), but as for biographies, I would want to write one on Jane Rochford. The only one I know of is by Julia Fox, and the information seemed spotty to me. However, I can understand that the information on her, from primary sources and so on, was most likely pretty scant. I would also like to write one about Elizabeth I's childhood and pre-Queen years, as well as one about Mary Boleyn, focusing on her relationships with Henry VIII, Anne, and George. Although maybe that would make a better novel??

 



It might have to be a novel, as original sources for those subjects are rather sparce on the ground. But it sounds like it would make

                        survivor ribbon                             

               "Don't knock at death's door. 

          Ring the bell and run. He hates that."    

January 31, 2013
8:06 pm
Avatar
Alison
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 30
Member Since:
January 29, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’ve always wanted to write about Perkin Warbeck and Edward Earl of Warwick and their friendship in the tower and their deaths and how Margaret Pole felt seeing her brother Edward dead as he had mild mental retardation bless him. Also I’d love to write about St Robert Southwell, Jesuit and poet, he was described as handsome, short, grey eyed and with red hair and so beautiful as a child that a Gypsy kidnapped him, Robert’s family had links to the Boleyn family and also to the Shelleys, he fascinates me. Last of all Chidioch Tichborne of the Babbington conspiracy and also authour of an amazing poem the night before his death and a beautiful love letter to his wife Agnes and as for his death speech even Benjamin Disraeli writes of it in an article. I wrote a short story about Bab Tichborne, Chidioch’s little sister who he mentions in his death speech as having gravely let her down by his folly .

February 10, 2013
8:16 pm
Avatar
black_mamba
Texas, USA
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
January 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’ve always been a little obsessed with Mary, Queen of Scots, and I hate how her story is always lost behind Elizabeth. Many historians view Elizabeth as the successful ruler and they view Mary as someone who covets the English throne more than her own. Mary was an extraordinary woman who was courageous, smart, and extremely kind hearted. If you read about Scottish history with all the blood feuds and ambitious nobles Mary was surrounded by you start to realize how hard it must have been for her. I don’t think even a seasoned male ruler could have handled the situation! IIRC King James VI was imprisoned by two nobles in what became known as the Ruthven raid. It was only through sheer luck that he was able to escape and raise a force to take back his throne.
I’ve wanted to write a book about her and a documentary. She is so fascinating! Although Antonia Fraser’s bio was great and sympathetic, Alison Weir book, “Mary Queen of Scots and the murder of Lord Darnley” left much to be desired. Anyway, that’s my two cents…

At times I almost dream, I too have spent a life the sages' way,
And tread once more familiar paths. Perchance I perished in an arrogant self-reliance
Ages ago; and in that act, a prayer For one more chance went up so earnest, so
Instinct with better light let in by death, That life was blotted out—not so completely
But scattered wrecks enough of it remain Dim memories as now, when once more seems The goal in sight again. -- Robert Browning, Paracelsus

February 10, 2013
9:04 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

black_mamba said

I’ve always been a little obsessed with Mary, Queen of Scots, and I hate how her story is always lost behind Elizabeth. Many historians view Elizabeth as the successful ruler and they view Mary as someone who covets the English throne more than her own. Mary was an extraordinary woman who was courageous, smart, and extremely kind hearted. If you read about Scottish history with all the blood feuds and ambitious nobles Mary was surrounded by you start to realize how hard it must have been for her. I don’t think even a seasoned male ruler could have handled the situation! IIRC King James VI was imprisoned by two nobles in what became known as the Ruthven raid. It was only through sheer luck that he was able to escape and raise a force to take back his throne.
I’ve wanted to write a book about her and a documentary. She is so fascinating! Although Antonia Fraser’s bio was great and sympathetic, Alison Weir book, “Mary Queen of Scots and the murder of Lord Darnley” left much to be desired. Anyway, that’s my two cents…

I agree Mary was a kind hearted soul and unfortuately that’s what led to the trouble with her reign. She alwys saw stars for what of a better word… If she had allowed herself to see the true Darnley before she married him she wouldn’t have married him.. Everyone around her told her what he was like, but she was either blind and deaf or possibly both to their reasons.. Because of it Rizzio was murdered, Bothwell took advantage of her, as did Lord James, and that resulted in Darnley’s death. Lord James used the situation between Bothwell and Mary to get what he wanted ultimate power, through his nephew James V1.. In short she allowed her heart to rule her head. Elizabeth on the other hand was both male and female (Not literely) but in the sence she ruled England with an iron fist like a King but reigned as a Queen, make sence? Mary wasn’t brought up to be a ruler she was brought up to reign. Her religion also was a major headache for everyone too she simply wouldn’t show toleration to her prostestant subjects, and any advice they gave be it good or bad was instantly vetoed because of their religion..She believed she had a right to the English throne, because Elizabeth was in her eyes a bastard, if she had succeeded in tossing Elizabeth out in her petticoats I believe the same thing would happen to Mary as it did in Scotland and all out anarchy would have persisted. Did she deserve to die. well in the immortal words of Glenda Jackson in the film Mary Queen of Scots “it has always been her death or mine” Their relationship was much the same and A.B and C.O.A.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

February 10, 2013
10:44 pm
Avatar
josrex
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 12
Member Since:
January 31, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

black_mamba said

I’ve always been a little obsessed with Mary, Queen of Scots, and I hate how her story is always lost behind Elizabeth. Many historians view Elizabeth as the successful ruler and they view Mary as someone who covets the English throne more than her own. Mary was an extraordinary woman who was courageous, smart, and extremely kind hearted. If you read about Scottish history with all the blood feuds and ambitious nobles Mary was surrounded by you start to realize how hard it must have been for her. I don’t think even a seasoned male ruler could have handled the situation! IIRC King James VI was imprisoned by two nobles in what became known as the Ruthven raid. It was only through sheer luck that he was able to escape and raise a force to take back his throne.
I’ve wanted to write a book about her and a documentary. She is so fascinating! Although Antonia Fraser’s bio was great and sympathetic, Alison Weir book, “Mary Queen of Scots and the murder of Lord Darnley” left much to be desired. Anyway, that’s my two cents…

I agree Mary was a kind hearted soul and unfortuately that’s what led to the trouble with her reign. She alwys saw stars for what of a better word… If she had allowed herself to see the true Darnley before she married him she wouldn’t have married him.. Everyone around her told her what he was like, but she was either blind and deaf or possibly both to their reasons.. Because of it Rizzio was murdered, Bothwell took advantage of her, as did Lord James, and that resulted in Darnley’s death. Lord James used the situation between Bothwell and Mary to get what he wanted ultimate power, through his nephew James V1.. In short she allowed her heart to rule her head. Elizabeth on the other hand was both male and female (Not literely) but in the sence she ruled England with an iron fist like a King but reigned as a Queen, make sence? Mary wasn’t brought up to be a ruler she was brought up to reign. Her religion also was a major headache for everyone too she simply wouldn’t show toleration to her prostestant subjects, and any advice they gave be it good or bad was instantly vetoed because of their religion..She believed she had a right to the English throne, because Elizabeth was in her eyes a bastard, if she had succeeded in tossing Elizabeth out in her petticoats I believe the same thing would happen to Mary as it did in Scotland and all out anarchy would have persisted. Did she deserve to die. well in the immortal words of Glenda Jackson in the film Mary Queen of Scots “it has always been her death or mine” Their relationship was much the same and A.B and C.O.A.

The crucial difference between Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart was their men. Elizabeth had the good fortune to be coached by William Cecil and protected by Francis Walsingham, two of the greatest minds in the kingdom at that time, and both a force to be reckoned with. Elizabeth was just as vulnerable and reckless of the heart as Mary. Thanks to her adviser (amongst many other things), William Cecil, she herself narrowly escaped catastrophe concerning her relationship with Robert Dudley whom the people hated. Then there was the young and reckless Earl of Essex, a man more than half her age whom Elizabeth was besotted with. When you compare the brilliant men that protected Elizabeth to the reckless fools that graced Mary’s chambers the poor bonnie lass didn’t stand a chance.

February 10, 2013
11:31 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

josrex said

Boleyn said

black_mamba said

I’ve always been a little obsessed with Mary, Queen of Scots, and I hate how her story is always lost behind Elizabeth. Many historians view Elizabeth as the successful ruler and they view Mary as someone who covets the English throne more than her own. Mary was an extraordinary woman who was courageous, smart, and extremely kind hearted. If you read about Scottish history with all the blood feuds and ambitious nobles Mary was surrounded by you start to realize how hard it must have been for her. I don’t think even a seasoned male ruler could have handled the situation! IIRC King James VI was imprisoned by two nobles in what became known as the Ruthven raid. It was only through sheer luck that he was able to escape and raise a force to take back his throne.
I’ve wanted to write a book about her and a documentary. She is so fascinating! Although Antonia Fraser’s bio was great and sympathetic, Alison Weir book, “Mary Queen of Scots and the murder of Lord Darnley” left much to be desired. Anyway, that’s my two cents…

I agree Mary was a kind hearted soul and unfortuately that’s what led to the trouble with her reign. She alwys saw stars for what of a better word… If she had allowed herself to see the true Darnley before she married him she wouldn’t have married him.. Everyone around her told her what he was like, but she was either blind and deaf or possibly both to their reasons.. Because of it Rizzio was murdered, Bothwell took advantage of her, as did Lord James, and that resulted in Darnley’s death. Lord James used the situation between Bothwell and Mary to get what he wanted ultimate power, through his nephew James V1.. In short she allowed her heart to rule her head. Elizabeth on the other hand was both male and female (Not literely) but in the sence she ruled England with an iron fist like a King but reigned as a Queen, make sence? Mary wasn’t brought up to be a ruler she was brought up to reign. Her religion also was a major headache for everyone too she simply wouldn’t show toleration to her prostestant subjects, and any advice they gave be it good or bad was instantly vetoed because of their religion..She believed she had a right to the English throne, because Elizabeth was in her eyes a bastard, if she had succeeded in tossing Elizabeth out in her petticoats I believe the same thing would happen to Mary as it did in Scotland and all out anarchy would have persisted. Did she deserve to die. well in the immortal words of Glenda Jackson in the film Mary Queen of Scots “it has always been her death or mine” Their relationship was much the same and A.B and C.O.A.

The crucial difference between Elizabeth Tudor and Mary Stuart was their men. Elizabeth had the good fortune to be coached by William Cecil and protected by Francis Walsingham, two of the greatest minds in the kingdom at that time, and both a force to be reckoned with. Elizabeth was just as vulnerable and reckless of the heart as Mary. Thanks to her adviser (amongst many other things), William Cecil, she herself narrowly escaped catastrophe concerning her relationship with Robert Dudley whom the people hated. Then there was the young and reckless Earl of Essex, a man more than half her age whom Elizabeth was besotted with. When you compare the brilliant men that protected Elizabeth to the reckless fools that graced Mary’s chambers the poor bonnie lass didn’t stand a chance.

True but then to be honest, Mary didn’t have anyone to guide her, she was more or less on her own from day one. Was Rizzio a good advisor for her? Hmm maybe I certainly think the Guise Brothers were directing traffic somewhere behind the scenes where that was concerned and the advice they gave Rizzio to give Mary wasn’t perhaps the wisest course of action. James (her Half Brother) was perhaps the wisest councillor she had but she didn’t always listen if at all to him, after all he had more or less held Scotland together after Mary’s mother died, so he would have surely been the best person to help her, ease into the whole business of ruler/reignship. But she chose to go alone and that was her fault she knew next to nothing of Scotland, and the Scotland she knew for the first 4 years of her life was very different.
Elizabeth was made of different stuff, having never left England and grown up in a very mixed bag of religion/marriage and turmoil, she used all those mess ups to make sure that she wouldn’t do the same. Cecil was her voice of reason, or the good kick up her arse she needed now again, she made mistakes, but due to Cecil they weren’t great big whoppers with loads of bells whistles and bows on. Mary’s were. I not sure but I think it was Dr Dave who said that England’s and Scotland’s problems could have been easily solved if Mary and Elizabeth could have married each other.. Yeah I know it’s a daft thing to say, but in actual fact I think it may be right.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 214

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2337

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 933

DuchessofBrittany: 846

Mya Elise: 781

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 427746

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1713

Posts: 23079

Newest Members:

albakl4, Michaelfen, RamonTuP, LonnieMef, FSUimance, Lefferttault

Administrators: Claire: 959