I know, really you wouldn't want to be having sex or sleeping with someone on there death bed :rolleyes: And being King and Queen nothing is private.
I was confused when PG stated that this was Anne Neville's down fall why?
It made no sense at all. I'd love to know where Gregory got her source that Richard III stood up and made a speech saying he wasn't sleeping with his wife anymore as she was diseased, unable to provide him with a son and that he wanted nothing more to do with her.
It made no sense at all. I'd love to know where Gregory got her source that Richard III stood up and made a speech saying he wasn't sleeping with his wife anymore as she was diseased, unable to provide him with a son and that he wanted nothing more to do with her.
No idea. What I know is that doctors advised him to stop sharing her bed because of the illness which is understandable. But this caused quite a stir at the time for reasons stated in an earlier post.
To be fair PG did often say "It is my believe...." rather than stating everything as fact. She did also state that there are many gaps in the records, to me it was quite clear she was filling in gaps with her own conjecture.
However i didnt watch it purely to be able to have a go at PG like many (not saying you) did/do.
I honestly don't know anything about Philippa Gregory other than she writes romantic novels. It's only really since The Other Boleyn Girl (on TV recently) and The White Queen brought her into the spotlight (AFAIK) that I've taken any notice, and i'm not very impressed with either of them. The trouble is that by giving her this documentary for example she seems to be being treated as more a real historian than just a novelist, which means the fact and fiction lines run the risk of getting blurred. There are a lot of amateur historians and/or novelists who could give her a run for her money and be a lot more objective.
I honestly don't know anything about Philippa Gregory other than she writes romantic novels. It's only really since The Other Boleyn Girl (on TV recently) and The White Queen brought her into the spotlight (AFAIK) that I've taken any notice, and i'm not very impressed with either of them. The trouble is that by giving her this documentary for example she seems to be being treated as more a real historian than just a novelist, which means the fact and fiction lines run the risk of getting blurred. There are a lot of amateur historians and/or novelists who could give her a run for her money and be a lot more objective.
Reading though all these various threads I think lines are quite blurred enough already!
Whatever you think of PG - and I think her books are OKish, nothing amazing - their popularity can lead readers / viewers into doing their own research and forming their own opinions on the period - no bad thing surely? There is so much conjecture about that era and that will never end I think it is safe to say!
Exactly what sort of hold does this woman have on the BBC?? She gets wheeled out for the Anne Boleyn documentary (her ridiculous views shot down in flames by genuine historians), and now she's getting another bite of the cherry in a two-part documentary.
Note to the BBC, believe it or not there are many perfectly accomplished and qualified genuine historians who could write and present the programme.
I don't know what hold she has, like you say, over the BBC but this 'documentary' was nothing but her own opinions which should not have been allowed to look like an historical documentary. Embarrassing for the BBC, I think. I don't even want to go into what she said, because it would give her deluded opinions, some more publicity which they do not deserve.
I don't mind her painting up the role of the women at all, I believe they were fine, but is it right that she can claim Margaret Beaufort killed the princes? Total tosh, but it keeps her profile and her books' profiles up, I suppose -which is what I don't want to do. She said Richard III had an unmarked grave and that is not true; he was buried decently beneath the choir of a holy place. Not the fault of the centuries that passed that his grave was not known. Bad tv.
It was better than the TV drama, that's for sure. But Gregory has this disconcerting manner of projecting 21st century mind-sets onto late 15th century women! The men are presented as medieval but the women, we're led to believe, are some sort of proto-feminists. I also have the suspicion that she was stating rumour, hearsay and supposition as fact.
Also, I found the lack of dates and the lack of locations rather annoying.
7/10 for effort but nowhere near as good as Bragg's documentary on Tyndale.
Bragg's documentary on Tyndale was very opinionated too. These are not good programmes by the BBC. I do agree with you that Phillipa Gregory was allowed to state "rumour, hearsay and supposition as fact" (her own rumour, hearsay, and supposition as fact) and it was clearly wrong. She said the words 'Tudor propaganda' and when i hear that amongst her other opinions, not facts, I know I am seeing a bad programme dressed up as a documentary. shame on the BBC. Present it as it was - her opinions - not as historical fact.
Comments
It made no sense at all. I'd love to know where Gregory got her source that Richard III stood up and made a speech saying he wasn't sleeping with his wife anymore as she was diseased, unable to provide him with a son and that he wanted nothing more to do with her.
No idea. What I know is that doctors advised him to stop sharing her bed because of the illness which is understandable. But this caused quite a stir at the time for reasons stated in an earlier post.
John Ashdown-Hill was one of my sources.
I honestly don't know anything about Philippa Gregory other than she writes romantic novels. It's only really since The Other Boleyn Girl (on TV recently) and The White Queen brought her into the spotlight (AFAIK) that I've taken any notice, and i'm not very impressed with either of them. The trouble is that by giving her this documentary for example she seems to be being treated as more a real historian than just a novelist, which means the fact and fiction lines run the risk of getting blurred. There are a lot of amateur historians and/or novelists who could give her a run for her money and be a lot more objective.
Reading though all these various threads I think lines are quite blurred enough already!
Whatever you think of PG - and I think her books are OKish, nothing amazing - their popularity can lead readers / viewers into doing their own research and forming their own opinions on the period - no bad thing surely? There is so much conjecture about that era and that will never end I think it is safe to say!
I don't mind her painting up the role of the women at all, I believe they were fine, but is it right that she can claim Margaret Beaufort killed the princes? Total tosh, but it keeps her profile and her books' profiles up, I suppose -which is what I don't want to do. She said Richard III had an unmarked grave and that is not true; he was buried decently beneath the choir of a holy place. Not the fault of the centuries that passed that his grave was not known. Bad tv. Bragg's documentary on Tyndale was very opinionated too. These are not good programmes by the BBC. I do agree with you that Phillipa Gregory was allowed to state "rumour, hearsay and supposition as fact" (her own rumour, hearsay, and supposition as fact) and it was clearly wrong. She said the words 'Tudor propaganda' and when i hear that amongst her other opinions, not facts, I know I am seeing a bad programme dressed up as a documentary. shame on the BBC. Present it as it was - her opinions - not as historical fact.