Does The White Queen novel have any accuracies | Page 3 | 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
Does The White Queen novel have any accuracies
September 9, 2013
4:38 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

Boleyn said …John died in October of 1216 and is buried in Worcester Catherdral, I know it well. his tomb is very beautiful and if you look at his effigy you can see a man who was a as tyranical as is believed.

drivel.

you cannot possibly derive charactor from appearence – John might be the ultimate shit (and was, in my view..), but his looks, or indeed the looks the stonemason decided to give him, have no place whatsoever in determining his actions.

you’re getting into the territory of that lunatic woman who’s in love with Richard III – ‘is this the face of a tyrant?’

i know Johns’ tomb well as well, it reveals nothing about him apart from him being dead.

You could be right there Bob, Perhaps I allowed my historical mind to give John’s Effigy poetic licence so to speak, in short I saw what I wanted to see, if that makes sence. (I really should stop my mind from wondering about, it’s too little to be out on it’s own)
I agree with you about John being a total shit though, a very unpleasent man. He comes across from what i’ve read about him as a very petulant bad tempered,arogrant brat. The strange thing is that he was always kind to beggers and never once turned to away without giving them a groat or 2.

I agree about the woman who fell in love with Richard the 3rd, she really was quite devestated to discover that Richard did have some form of spinal deformaty as was believed by those in the know. She had spent so long building up a mental image of a dark haired God that when she was faced with the reality of the situation it was simply all to much for her to bear. Her illusion of what she believed was Richard was shattered along with her chance to try and prove the expects wrong. She so wanted in my opinion to get oneupmanship on the boffins so to speak.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 9, 2013
7:21 pm
Avatar
Steve Callaghan
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 146
Member Since:
May 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You and I should cash in with a Historical Dating Service, Bo. We’ll have lots of customers from the Richard III Society, methinks.

September 9, 2013
8:23 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

SteveJ said

You and I should cash in with a Historical Dating Service, Bo. We’ll have lots of customers from the Richard III Society, methinks.

LOL, but I certainly wouldn’t want to play matchmaker to old lard arse.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 10, 2013
4:35 am
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2337
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

SteveJ said

You and I should cash in with a Historical Dating Service, Bo. We’ll have lots of customers from the Richard III Society, methinks.

LOL, but I certainly wouldn’t want to play matchmaker to old lard arse.

Never heard of Chubby Chasers???? Ye little innocent damsel…

There are ( apparently) several web-sites which seek to match corpulent males and females with the more slender opposite gender ( or not…OOh errr Missus!{Frankie Howard}) or the not so slender or not the opposite gender..admirers….or so I’m lead to believe..

It's always bunnies.

September 10, 2013
1:36 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

some people today will put up with infedelity, ugliness, and not a little stupidity if it means a particular lifestyle – i’m thinking of several footballers wives for example – so i fail to see that the shine of a crown wouldn’t blind some to bit of syphallys, genocide and religious extremism…

fixing up Henry VIII with some goldigging moron (err.. of course i mean worthy person who judges on personality and not looks..) would be pretty easy.

Wink

September 10, 2013
4:17 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

some people today will put up with infedelity, ugliness, and not a little stupidity if it means a particular lifestyle – i’m thinking of several footballers wives for example – so i fail to see that the shine of a crown wouldn’t blind some to bit of syphallys, genocide and religious extremism…

fixing up Henry VIII with some goldigging moron (err.. of course i mean worthy person who judges on personality and not looks..) would be pretty easy.

Wink

Actually Bob there is some truth in what you have said. Personal opinion is that the bimbos who knock boots with these footballers etc are really only with them for the money at the end of the day, and as you say they will put up with all the crap that their partners throw at them as long as they have spending money and can fritter their time away with their girl freinds in night clubs etc . Most of them are as common as muck and have no brains or very little brains. I guess that where I must seem very strange to most people, as I sooner be poor and be with a man who not only supports me phycially but stimulates and encourages me to improve myself. Part of the whole concept of love to me is a man who has intelligence and can have deep meaningful dicussions. For me going to fancy restruants etc does not appeal to me in the least, I enjoy walking barefoot across a sandy beach or watching the sunrise or sunset sat on a cliff. Having a meal at home be it just fish and chips from the local chippy or a kebab. To spend time with the person you truly love is much more important to me, that all the hearts, flowers and chocolates rubbish. The ultimate of course of the whole kit and caboddle is making love, knowing of course that the person you are with is not just there for the fun of it, or is just passing time etc.

As for Henry’s ideal woman? Pass. I think whoever was brave enough to try and fix him up with someone you can bet your last groat that they wouldn’t be good enough for him. He’s find something wrong somewhere with them.. Actaully the only thing that would be Henry’s ideal match would be a mirror. That way he can worship himself.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 10, 2013
10:13 pm
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said …As for Henry’s ideal woman? Pass. I think whoever was brave enough to try and fix him up with someone you can bet your last groat that they wouldn’t be good enough for him. He’s find something wrong somewhere with them.. Actaully the only thing that would be Henry’s ideal match would be a mirror. That way he can worship himself.

i think his mother, Elizabeth of York, would be a good candidate. dead of course, so she wouldn’t have opinions, or actions, but fertile, silent, and submissive. even then i think that if he’d had to deal with her as King, rather than as a stylised memory, he’d have gone off her – she was, after all, much more Royal than him…

i know that its the fashion to slag him off as a wife killing psychopath (which he probably was..) but its important to put his actions in context – he is the last male alive of the Tudors, his family history of the last 60+ years has seen three Kings of England (Grandfather, Edward IV, Great-Uncle, Richard III, and half-Great Uncle(?) Henry VI) go to their graves without being succeeded by their sons and that being the end of their Royal houses – in that circumstance, his obsession with having legitimate sons who, upon his own death, would be old enough to claim the throne, is not that unreasonable.

Wink

September 10, 2013
11:41 pm
Avatar
Steve Callaghan
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 146
Member Since:
May 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’d venture that even the having of a son & heir – so crucially important, on the face of it – was actually secondary to Henry having everything he ever desired (and without delay, if at all possible). This ‘entitlement’ was virtually all he’d ever known. In short, I wonder if modern commentators place too much emphasis on context (for example: the need for an heir, the frightening memory of civil war etc etc) and not enough on Henry as an incredibly selfish egotist. Regarding heirs: I’d say the only posterity & continuity that truly interested Henry was his everlasting, posthumous fame; we are, after all, talking about a ‘Romantic’ who had wives who displeased him executed…and a ‘loving Father’ who might have executed his own children had they not shown sufficient servility. Let’s face it, one only has to recall the famous painting (featuring Henry VIII, Henry VII, Elizabeth of York and Jane Seymour) in which Hal attempted to put his father’s achievements firmly in the shade & his own achievements front-and-centre to realise that nobody else mattered in Henry’s personal universe.

September 11, 2013
4:50 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Henry’s whole reign was really one farsicle soap opera. I agree that Henry was a desperate man (securing the Tudor line) and desperate men do desperate things. Chopping up or changing them when he felt like it was the least of his worries.
At the centre of it all was Henry’s massive ego, and yes Steve you are right about the portrait, to me it speaks volumes of just how over inflated Henry’s ego actually was. (well the whole of him was over inflated but that’s beside the point)
H7 victory at Bosworth far outstripped any acheivements Henry made, and I suspect that Henry was perhaps a little jealous of that. Even KOA outstripped Henry’s poncing about France tour in 1513, when the army defeated the Scots at Flodden, he simply didn’t like the idea of anyone upstaging him, be it animal, vegetable or mineral. There was one sun, and one moon in Henry’s world…..Himself.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 11, 2013
9:08 am
Avatar
Bob the Builder
Ludlow
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 99
Member Since:
June 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

SteveJ said …and not enough on Henry as an incredibly selfish egotist….

oh i’d agree that the mans ego and sense of entitlement was spectacular – and i’d put forward the defacing of his own Brothers Tomb as part of his religious see-sawing as evidence of that – but i just cannot believe that the issue of lawful male heirs and the succession was not at the front and centre of his ego clouded and pleasure seeking mind.

the Lancastrian claim ended because Henry VI had but one son who was killed in battle – merely 55 years before Henry decided he wanted his marriage to KOA annulled. his Grandfather, Edward IV’s, line ended a mere 40 years before because his sons were not old enough to enforce the succession – and they both died because of it, and of course they were ever present ghosts at the Tudor feast, his mothers murdered Brothers, but without their deaths the Tudors would still be nobodys living in exile. the whole Yorkist claim – with which Henry VIII identified in his early years – ended 38 years before because when Richard III was killed at Bosworth he had no legitimate sons who could even be used as Yorkist figureheads, let alone who could fight for York against Henry Tudor.

i think Henry VIII was one of the worst Kings England has ever had – easily giving company to John, Henry III, Henry VI and Richard I – he achieved little and destroyed much, but i think that to believe that his racing through wives was only caused by his gigantic ego and self-image is to seriously underestimate the pressures he would have felt requiring him to have an heir and a spare, and in good time (remembering of course that if Henry VII had only had one Son, the Tudor dynasty would have ended in 1509..). he was a thorough-going shit, he was filled with greed, pride, pettyness, averice, cruelty and jealosy, but to think that those were his only motivators is, in my view, to fail to understand him.

September 11, 2013
11:56 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bob the Builder said

SteveJ said …and not enough on Henry as an incredibly selfish egotist….

oh i’d agree that the mans ego and sense of entitlement was spectacular – and i’d put forward the defacing of his own Brothers Tomb as part of his religious see-sawing as evidence of that – but i just cannot believe that the issue of lawful male heirs and the succession was not at the front and centre of his ego clouded and pleasure seeking mind.

the Lancastrian claim ended because Henry VI had but one son who was killed in battle – merely 55 years before Henry decided he wanted his marriage to KOA annulled. his Grandfather, Edward IV’s, line ended a mere 40 years before because his sons were not old enough to enforce the succession – and they both died because of it, and of course they were ever present ghosts at the Tudor feast, his mothers murdered Brothers, but without their deaths the Tudors would still be nobodys living in exile. the whole Yorkist claim – with which Henry VIII identified in his early years – ended 38 years before because when Richard III was killed at Bosworth he had no legitimate sons who could even be used as Yorkist figureheads, let alone who could fight for York against Henry Tudor.

i think Henry VIII was one of the worst Kings England has ever had – easily giving company to John, Henry III, Henry VI and Richard I – he achieved little and destroyed much, but i think that to believe that his racing through wives was only caused by his gigantic ego and self-image is to seriously underestimate the pressures he would have felt requiring him to have an heir and a spare, and in good time (remembering of course that if Henry VII had only had one Son, the Tudor dynasty would have ended in 1509..). he was a thorough-going shit, he was filled with greed, pride, pettyness, averice, cruelty and jealosy, but to think that those were his only motivators is, in my view, to fail to understand him.

Totally agree with you there Bob. Henry was all bluster and ballast at the end of the day. He was in effect like a giant carbarcle on the arse of sociaty. He wanted it all and yet lacked the courage and intelligence to follow through with his grandoise schemes for glory. When he was ponching about in France he hoped that he could brag to all and sundry about how brilliant he was taking on the French Blah Blah Blah. KOA showed him up good and proper there. That must have been a real passion killer for Henry to be outstripped by a woman.
He was a bigot, and was jealous of everyone and everything. He chopped up all those who he felt were laughing at him behind his back (not that I blame them for laughing at him I would be doing the same).

Put simply he was a useless waste of space, he as you rightly said acheived very little in his reign. Henry V for instance did at least gain some success in France, and was within a inch of taking the French throne, and I believe he would have done, had it not been for his untimely death.
Henry ultimetely blamed everyone else for his short commings, he simply refused to except any critisism, and use it to better himself. Anyone who questioned his actions on taking a certain course of actions, soon found themselves locked up or woke up with their head not where where is should be. He bullied woman basically to make him feel better about himself, if that makes sence and I have no doubt that he would have killed Mary (daughter) if she had continued to hold out against him. He divided the country and started a war, in what can only be described in my opinion the wars of religion. Yet he still blamed other people for it, Anne B being one of them and also becomming a victim of it too. Anne did nothing to start the war, Henry was determined to conquer Anne and it was his actions alone that tore the country apart. He bullied the clergy into excepting that he was a higher authority to the Pope, he bullied his people into excepting his religion, and destroyed anyone who stood in his way.
He was a coward and a bully, certainly not a God like ruler who was the saviour of the world, although that is how he saw himself.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

September 11, 2013
12:26 pm
Avatar
Steve Callaghan
UK
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 146
Member Since:
May 3, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Admittedly, I’m approaching this subject from a biased perspective (rarely a good thing) but I can’t help feeling that even a desperately-needed heir would have been viewed by Henry as merely a reflection of himself (like those modern-day American men who name their sons Michael James II, Michael James III, for example, thus immediately lessening the sons’ chances of being seen as individual personalities with their own merits). In my opinion many things were done with a view to securing the eternal glory that was Henry & his reputation as the priority.

Of course, we’re unlikely to ever know the truth of the matter – Henry’s innermost thoughts about this – but I do find it hard to consider him as being overly concerned about the fame of others or the greater good of his country. Given his poor record as a ‘family man’, it’s difficult to imagine him as someone who genuinely cares for the welfare of others, be they family or subjects.

April 4, 2015
11:16 pm
Avatar
Alexandria
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
March 26, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bill1978 said

I can’t believe I am about to type this next part but here I go. i actually admire what PG did with her Cousins War series. I feel that by presenting the whole magical/mythical aspect as a major player in the plot she is telling her audience that what she is writing is a whole bunch of fiction. I know this is giving her too much credit, but perhaps it is her subtle way of saying her Tudor series is also a bunch of fiction. I remember when The White Queen was released in hardcover thinking, oh goodness now a whole bunch of peopel are going to start thinking wrong things about the War Of The Roses, but when I read the blurb and everything else and discoverd how much magic and mythology played a role in shaping these women I began to think perhaps she won’t be destroying the York/Lancaster legacy like she did the Tudor legacy. She has come out and said THIS IS FICTION!!!!! without actually using those words. If people want to believe the books are factual, then they are complete idiots.

And of course we do have to take account of the fact that people at the time believed that magic was real and worked. It was all too common for people to fall back on magical explanations like Edward IV’s marriage to and obvious afection for Elizabeth Woodville, an apparently enemy widow of no influence.

April 7, 2015
9:07 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said Elizabeth wasn’t prepared to be used and cast off by Edward, so simply told him that if he wanted her he would have to marry her.

Did not Elizabeth say that she was not good enough to become his Queen, but too good to become his mistress? A woman could not speak directly at that time.

April 7, 2015
9:30 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Boleyn said Elizabeth wasn’t prepared to be used and cast off by Edward, so simply told him that if he wanted her he would have to marry her.

Did not Elizabeth say that she was not good enough to become his Queen, but too good to become his mistress? A woman could not speak directly at that time.

It’s very likely she did say that, but either way whatever she said it must have done the trick as not only did Edward marry her, but have her crowned as Queen too. A woman’s lot back then wasn’t particulary brilliant, as they were mainly told what they could and couldn’t do, so to have a woman speak out in such a way was a rare thing. Elizabeth W must have been a remarkable woman.

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: 427592

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1712

Posts: 23076

Newest Members:

DennisDorie, vitushatault, oghmaniusVom, Urocchxae, Puimignog, Emma3456

Administrators: Claire: 959