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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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…

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…

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.