11:58 pm
February 24, 2010
12:25 am
January 3, 2012
SWMNBN had the credentials to call herself a historian, certainly, but I think it’s a hysterical fantasical historian. No I’m being unfair think is the wrong word, she is a hysterical fantastical historian.
I still haven’t got over her certainly/maybe guilty but I like her really I do verdict yet..Don’t know why but whenever I think of that, my brain (wherever it is, doing the time warp again I expect) conjures up an image of Dick Emery’s Mandi as in “Ooh you are awful, but I like you” before pushing the person over or into a hedge or something and walking off.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
If I was being mean I would have said I treat him like Hilary Mantel Sharon I don’t mind PG. With that said I am not fond of Shakespeare’s kings, I prefer his purely fictional plays – and I am a big fan of those.
As far as I know he actually researched his plays though. I was going to start buying some of the Globe Theatre plays through the Digital Theatre app as I was curious about seeing Henry VIII but Neil told me I would die of boredom
Bo you have lost me in that second paragraph, seriously. What verdict???
5:28 pm
February 24, 2010
Ha! Ha! You are just pushing that envelope, Olga! Don’t get me started on Mantel.
Shakespeare did research his kings. Much of what he wrote about them came directly from the history books. Except Richard’s shape. That was purely Shakespeare. I figure people of that time really disliked Richard and found it amusing that Shakespeare would deal with Richard as he did. And if he did base the character on Cecil, I think that audience would get it.
9:54 pm
January 3, 2012
LOL Olga it was to do with a radio interview that SWMNBN did. I believe it was Maggie who posted the interview, in it she said that Anne was certainly maybe guilty or some such twaddle.
I am forced to somewhat reluctantly agree that her hysterical historical novels are readable if you haven’t got anything more substantial to read. Save for the Virgin Lover which of course the chipmunks made good use of. I’m reading the Boleyn Inheritence at the moment and the White Princess is all ready lined up. Well I’ve got to give my brain a little rest as I’ve been giving it a good old bashing these last few months, it’s the only way I can stop the little bugger from escaping.. When it does bugger off completely, be afraid be VERY afraid. Lock all your doors and windows, block up any keyholes and cracks and hide. And whatever you do, don’t for Gawd’s sake feed it.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
10:49 pm
June 3, 2013
if anyone is interested, the BBC have said that they will be filming Hollow Crown II, the sequel to the 2012 series of Shakespeares Richard II, Henry IV pt 1&2, and Henry V – HCII is due out (ish) in 2016 and it will be the three parts of Henry VI, and Richard III.
Benedict Cumberbatch is to play bad Dick III – honestly, playing Smaug, Sauron and now Richard III, that boy will get typecast…
if you’ve not seen Hollow Crown i really recommend it – i thought the Richard II and Henry IV films were brilliant, though i’ll admit to being underwhelmed by the Henry V film, i like Tom Hiddleston, but the film didn’t have the energy of the Ken Branagh’s 1989 film, and it looked a bit threadbare in places. battles with perhaps 30,000 participants take lots of extras to do convincingly, and its clear the budget had been spent by that point.
looking forward to HCII though, its not history, but its very entertaining.
12:29 am
October 28, 2011
I thought Richard II was magnificent Bob. I actually have the Henry V to watch as well but haven’t gotten around to it yet.
Oh that verdict Bo. Yes PG has convinced herself. But she tries to remain slightly ambiguous in the books, Mary’s daughter Catherine does say Anne was not guilty in the next book. The main difference between Mantel and PG is that PG has at least tried to give Anne a motive for doing it, even if it is completely dodgy.
Sharon I am convinced he based it on Cecil. Everyone would have known Richard didn’t have a hunchback, although I agree perhaps they thought it was just a good joke.
10:24 am
June 3, 2013
Olga said …although I agree perhaps they thought it was just a good joke.
i think one of the reasons Richard III was so demonised by later historians and playrights was because he, unlike the others, was a safe target – you could pour all your disatisfaction about whichever monarch happened to be on the throne onto Richards head and while the audience might get the references with a nod and a wink, you could happily stand in from of the judge and say ‘oh no, its all about that devil Richard III’.
in the Tudor period it would be difficult to be overly rude about Edward IV because he’s Henry VIII’s Grandfather, and Elizabeth I’s great-Grandfather, and Henry VII’s (dead) father in law, and by the time of the Stuarts living memory is long gone, and all thats left is what was written by people who weren’t stupid enough to say what a nice bloke RIII was..
4:30 pm
February 24, 2010
Bob the Builder said
Olga said …although I agree perhaps they thought it was just a good joke.
i think one of the reasons Richard III was so demonised by later historians and playrights was because he, unlike the others, was a safe target – you could pour all your disatisfaction about whichever monarch happened to be on the throne onto Richards head and while the audience might get the references with a nod and a wink, you could happily stand in from of the judge and say ‘oh no, its all about that devil Richard III’.
in the Tudor period it would be difficult to be overly rude about Edward IV because he’s Henry VIII’s Grandfather, and Elizabeth I’s great-Grandfather, and Henry VII’s (dead) father in law, and by the time of the Stuarts living memory is long gone, and all thats left is what was written by people who weren’t stupid enough to say what a nice bloke RIII was..
Exactly. In the Tudor period these plays were censored. Nothing got on the stage without having been checked out by the Lord Chamberlain’s office. Dissing the king or queen directly was not allowed. Richard was a safe and easy target.
12:21 pm
October 28, 2011
Yes last I checked it was at least $100, I want one too. It was in Alison Weir’s book on EoY that she mentioned Kincaid was the culprit in reconstructing the famous letter again.
From what I have been told Kincaid managed to track all but two or three of his sources. But John of Gloucester is still up in the air.
1:23 pm
January 3, 2012
Jasmine are you talking about, George 1V son John? If it is, it is perhaps one of the saddest stories I’ve even read. There was a television serial called the Lost Prince. It made me bawl my eyes out at the end, as it seemed to me as if both Queen Mary and King George just forgot he even existed. He was simply buried away in a forgotten churchyard, and never mentioned again. In fact I’m of the impression if it wasn’t for his nurse/governess, and her devoted attention to him even after he had died, he would have been simply unknown in the first place.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:34 pm
December 30, 2009
No, Boleyn – I was talking about Richard III’s illegitimate son, John of Gloucester.
With regard to Prince John, the youngest son of George V and Queen Mary, the Lost Prince was a fictional account of his life. If you research him, you will find that he suffered from illnesses which meant he needed a settled, quiet environment and not the busy Buckingham Palace as a home. So it was decided to have him live at Sandringham. After The Lost Prince was broadcast, an elderly woman wrote to the papers saying she was the daughter of one of the estate workers and played with Prince John as a child. She said he was not forgotten – his parents and brothers and sisters visited him frequently and he was a very happy child. I have a book of early royal family photographs and there are quite a few of Prince John with his siblings.
This is a quote from Wiki, but is sourced:
“As John’s seizures intensified (Bill later wrote) “we [dared] not let him be with his brothers and sister, because it upsets them so much, with the attacks getting so bad and coming so often.”[11] Biographer Denis Judd believes that “[John]’s seclusion and ‘abnormality’ must have been disturbing to his brothers and sister”, as he had been “a friendly, outgoing little boy, much loved by his brothers and sister, a sort of mascot for the family”.[18] He spent Christmas Day 1918 with his family at Sandringham House but was driven back to Wood Farm at night.
On 18 January 1919, after a severe seizure, John died in his sleep at Wood Farm at 5:30 p.m.[21] Queen Mary wrote in her diary that the news was “a great shock, tho’ for the poor little boy’s restless soul, death came as a great relief. [She] broke the news to George and [they] motored down to Wood Farm. Found poor Lala very resigned but heartbroken. Little Johnnie looked very peaceful lying there.”[18]
Mary later wrote to Emily Alcock, an old friend, that “for [John] it is a great relief, as his malady was becoming worse as he grew older, & he has thus been spared much suffering. I cannot say how grateful we feel to God for having taken him in such a peaceful way, he just slept quietly into his heavenly home, no pain no struggle, just peace for the poor little troubled spirit which had been a great anxiety to us for many years, ever since he was four years old.” She went on to add that “the first break in the family circle is hard to bear, but people have been so kind & sympathetic & this has helped us much.”[22][23] George described his son’s death simply as “the greatest mercy possible”.[11]”
So you see – he was not abandoned by his family – they cared for him very much and tried to find the best living emvironment for him.
I think that film (The Lost Prince) has done a great disservice to historical truth – but we are used to that, aren’t we?
4:13 pm
January 3, 2012
Thank you Jasmine.
From what little there seems to be on Wiki(not always a reliable source of information) It appears that Richard 3rd made him the captain of Calais in March of 1485. His mother it also appears to be unknown, but it is believed it was a lady by the name of Alice Burgh, there is also mention of a daughter called Katherine whose mother was Katherine Haute, who married the Earl of Pembroke William Herbert. It’s entirely possible that Katherine Haute was also the mother of John too.
John was removed from his post by H7 in 1485 shortly after Bosworth and was given £20 a year, by H7. Little is known of him after that date but it’s believed that he became involved in Perkin Warbeck’s rebellion and was executed in 1499 along with the hapless Earl of Warwick and Perkin Warbeck.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
4:21 pm
December 30, 2009
Yes, the Wiki stuff is broadly accurate. The identities of the mother(s) of Richard’s illegitimate children is unknown. The idea that one of them was Alice Burgh is based on the fact that Richard paid her an annuity. Yet it is more than possible that she was his legitimate son’s nurse, rather than his mistress.
All the stuff about the pension is correct, but then John just vanishes. If he had been involved in the PW affair, then one might expect a record of his trial, conviction and execution – but there is nothing. It is as if he just fell off the edge of the world.