I agree with you Olga. I think the characterisation of George in The Other Boleyn Girl is the highlight of the book. Yes the facts of the real person aren’t presented accurately in the book, but I think the character of George is the most well rounded and developed. Anne is a very one dimensional villain in the book until the very end, Mary is hopelessly clueless through out the book, but there is just so much extra depth given to George. I’ve mentioned it before (in the George thread I think) that I find the presentation of public George and private George to be be a fascinating exploration of the way people would have acted in the Tudor court. One face for court, another face for home. I also loved all the tender moments he shared with each sister. It’s just a pity that PG had to use false information to develop this fascinating fictional character. I would go on record and say that George is the best developed character of any of her books (that I’ve read)

One of the worse ones PG has written is Jane Parker. She is a one note sour puss in TOBG and I felt she only existed in The Boleyn Inheritance so PG could write that the portrayal of Anne in TOBG was seen through the eyes of a jealous woman and thus removing PG of any frustration sent her way in her portrayal of Anne. I don’t believe what I wrote, I was showing you what this crazy woman thought

I didn’t like the portrayal of Katherine Howard in The Tudors. Nothing against the actress but the writing of her was terrible. Instead of this naive girl, I got the impression that Michael Hirst thought she was a calculating little sl*t who cared for no one but her v*gina. And only played the dimwitted fool to get her way sexually. I had every little sympathy for her death, even though I really do feel sorry for the real Katherine Howard.

I also loved Kirsten Dunst’s portrayal of Marie-Antoinette. I honstely have no idea how accurate it was but I felt a lot of sympathy for the saga of Marie-Antoinette while watching her story unfold, and I give a lot of that to the work of Dunst. I knew little of the French Revolution before watching the movie (and have subsequently learnt that Marie’s story has nothing to do with the time period of Les Mis LOL), but I did walk away believing Marie-Antoinette and her husband didn’t deserve to lose their heads.

I would really love to have the talent AND the money to produce a movie about George & Jane. Shwo them as something other than a marriage between a gay sex maniac and his nosy parker bitchy beard.

On a slightly different tangent I do love the comedic interpretation of Queen Victoria in The Pirates! Band Of Misfits movie. Such a left field representation of her (or is it right field?). I couldn’t help but chortle at her alternate persona on display.

Gosh, i’d forgotten how truly terrible the Carolly Erickson book on Catherine Parr was – thanks for reminding me Anyanka
One of the worst pieces of historical fiction I’ve read. I know she’s written other novels about the wives but I’ll be giving them a wide berth. I’d hate to see what she’d do with Katherine Howard’s and Jane Seymour’s characters.

I rather think that George was a happy go lucky affiable sort of guy. Certainly not has been portrayed as his charater. I think he did love Jane Parker but perhaps loved court life more, which perhaps was the reason to why Jane turned on him so viciously. I don’t know why but this has niggled my brain for a few months now. Is it possible that Cromwell offered her a bribe to say that seen George and Anne in a compromising position?
The bribe consisting of George and her being exiled to Hever (which would be most likely) whilst Anne went to the scaffold? Anne was doomed from the time Henry said to Cromwell “get rid of her” but George was one of Henry’s freinds as were the others who died with Anne.
If that was the case which again is debateable Jane was sorely betrayed by Cromwell. However her relationship with Cromwell was cordial if not exactly freindly.
I can really only think of 2 reasons to why Jane could have possibly said what she allegely said about George and Anne.

1. She was so unhappy in her marriage she wanted out, and if she asked George for a divorce and it was granted, she would be left with nothin, Her family would most likely disown her and she’d be left to fend for herself. At least as George’s Widow she would have her dower rights, and could live as a respectible woman with the possiblity of becoming a companion or a governess in a gentlewoman’s household, which as we know she did, namely the dowager Duchess of Norfolk. We all know what happened next so I need not waffle on.

2. She wanted a life away from court to live as a nobel lady and have children living in country household with George who she did love.
The rest being as decribed as above.

I wonder if there will come a time when Jane Boleyn is not the scapegoat. She is always the villian, even though there is no evidence to support those suppositions. I concur with Louise about George and Jane’s marriage. There is no indication about what the state of their marriage was, and certainly the idea of it being unhappy and hostile is the stuff of myth. Jane was, until Anne’s downfall, an important memeber of Anne’s household and the Boleyn faction, but the relationship with one’s sister-in-law can be contentious, just ask my mother (she has 6 of them!). Simply because George and Jane’s marriage was arranged, they did not have children, and she survived the purge, does not mean she went against George in the end. Jane’s life, after his death, was a hard one. She was destitute. Her life only improved when she was invited back to court.

In fact, if I remember correctly, it was Elizabeth, Countess of Worcester, who was the main informant against Anne, not Jane. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am going from memory, and it is not always reliable!

Boleyn said

1. She was so unhappy in her marriage she wanted out, and if she asked George for a divorce and it was granted, she would be left with nothin, Her family would most likely disown her and she’d be left to fend for herself. At least as George’s Widow she would have her dower rights, and could live as a respectible woman with the possiblity of becoming a companion or a governess in a gentlewoman’s household, which as we know she did, namely the dowager Duchess of Norfolk. We all know what happened next so I need not waffle on.

Do you have a cite for Jane being part of the Dowager Dutchess household? Jane was possibly back at court when Henry and Jane met Mary in July 1536 ( Fox Jane Boleyn page 214). Plus she served jane and Anne of Cleves during their reigns as queen. Jane was as much a courtier as George was. She served all of Henry’s first 5 wives. Had she not been a part of KH’s downfall, it’s more than likely Viscountess Rochford would have served KP.

See what happens when authors write fiction? Apparently, every story has to have its villains and it is always going to be the innocent.
Jane was back at court and serving Jane shortly after George’s death. Thomas gave her 100 marks a year. She wrote a letter to Cromwell asking for his help getting her jointure from Thomas Boleyn. Cromwell helped her. Thomas gave her 100 marks a year. I guess he thought that was enough. I must be in a bad mood, but it seems to me these men were damn selfish when it came to their womenfolk. Thomas did the same thing to Mary. After her money and property were settled, Jane was left pretty well off.

Hi Boleyn,
Jane Rochford was never in the dowager duchesses household. She served Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard, but there’s no record I have ever read to suggest she was in the duchesses household. Jane was lady to Anne when she divorced from Henry and his affections turned to Catherine. She naturally stayed at court to serve Catherine. I think it had little, if anything to do with the Duke of Norfolk. Jane was a courtier and had been all her adult life.
When I talk of Jane being a scapegoat I mean in connection to the allegation that she gave evidence against Anne and George, nothing to do with Catherine Howard. We do know that there’s no evidence to suggest Jane caused the fall of her husband by being the person who raised the incest allegation.