The White Queen

(1000 Posts)
ShadeofViolet Sun 16-Jun-13 17:06:32

Anyone else ridiculously excited?

I know Philippa Gregory's books tend to be a bit Barbara Cartland in places, and I hope the BBC havent increased it, but I still cannot wait to watch it.

LaQueen Fri 28-Jun-13 17:26:02

Yes, I'd agree with you on that one. I thought the Wideacre trilogy was incredibly rich, and detailed...as were her Tudor books.

But, since then I think her books have gone light, I feel like her publishers are pushing her to churn one out every 12 months, and the content is really suffering. There's not the layering anymore, or the richness.

And, I really like her use of different narrators, so you get to see someone from other POV, than their own.

TunipTheVegedude Fri 28-Jun-13 17:34:24

Yes, exactly - the layering and the richness isn't there any more.
She should slow down.

LaQueen Fri 28-Jun-13 17:38:51

I was over the moom, when I heard she was writing about the Plantagents because I've been obsessed liked them for 25 years, since I did The Wars of the Roses for A level History.

But, although I enjoyed them, I found them...tepid. None of the passion, or the pathos of her earlier books.

TunipTheVegedude Fri 28-Jun-13 18:13:17

Just did some googling.
Surprisingly:

'Brooklyn, N.Y.: Good Morning,
Who are your favorite historical fiction authors? Did you ever read any of Norah Lofts's work?
Philippa Gregory: I hardly ever read historical fiction now, but when I was young I used to adore the novels of Georgette Heyer and Anya Seton.'

from here

MummyMastodon Sun 30-Jun-13 21:08:34

Here we go. As they neglected to make Little Henry vii grow up at all in four 4 years, I'm rather hoping that he will be slaying Richard iii in the last episode, and that he will still be five years old ;)

courgetteDOTcom Mon 01-Jul-13 01:14:39

I've read three of the four books but was totally lost tonight!

TunipTheVegedude Mon 01-Jul-13 08:45:25

LOL MummyMastodon. I like that idea.
Alternatively they'll suddenly switch him to someone in his 50s and it'll be like when the actresses for Lucy kept changing in Neighbours.

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik Mon 01-Jul-13 09:07:06

I quite enjoyed last night's episode, anyone else?

Gracelo Mon 01-Jul-13 09:10:50

I liked last night's better than last week but who was the boy Margaret talked into fighting against Edward? I didn't do much English history at school.

TunipTheVegedude Mon 01-Jul-13 09:16:03

No, because 1. the ship was so implausible and 2. Philippa has just got SUCH a down on poor Margaret Beaufort.
She presents her as so totally self-deceiving as well as devious. And she was in church without a headcovering. <disapproving>

(and btw I only watched because dh was.)

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik Mon 01-Jul-13 09:19:28

I get from the narrative that it was Margaret's brother John, but I admit, I've no clue who he is in the history.

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik Mon 01-Jul-13 09:22:41

The ship was implausible. I thought the birth was too - in general, all the shock and squeamishness about !) seeing people about to have sex and !!) childbirth seemed a bit unlikey, you'd have seen it by then.

But yeah ... she does have a down on MB but I found her more likeable in this episode.

I've given up on the headcoverings but could they not FFS find a church for her to pray in that isn't full of post-medieval stuff? It's not like it's that difficult, there are quite a lot of fifteenth-century churches kicking around.

MB would totes have prayed the Lord's Prayer in English, too. Cos mumbling a bit of Latin would have been, what, too difficult for us to cope with? confused

limitedperiodonly Mon 01-Jul-13 11:55:09

"Do not fret, my little muff".

How did James Frain say that with a straight face?

TunipTheVegedude Mon 01-Jul-13 12:56:45

LOL. Professionalism.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Mon 01-Jul-13 13:04:35

I quite enjoyed it. I didn't find it implausible at all. I don't think a high born lady like Anne Neville would have necessarily been exposed to sex, or childbirth, and I think the horror at the birth had to do with having to put her hands into her sister!

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik Mon 01-Jul-13 13:12:55

Honestly, she would, though.

There just wasn't that level of privacy. I agree with you she might well have been horrified by having to do that during childbirth, but the idea she'd have been shrinking away a bit of sex and nudity feels unlikely to me.

LaQueen Mon 01-Jul-13 13:13:53

Actually, I think IRL that Isabella did give birth on board ship? The Calais garrison stayed loyal to Edward, despite Warwick being Captain of Calais, and the garrison refused Warwick's ship entry into the harbour.

LaQueen Mon 01-Jul-13 13:18:32

In the books I quite liked the way that Elizabeth and Jacquetta do witchcraft - insofar that they do it very diffidently, almost as though pretending they're not really doing anything wrong, oh no not us, we're just playing at being witches (but, all the while they know damn well what they're doing)...that made it quite eerie IMO.

In the series though, it seems more deliberate.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss Mon 01-Jul-13 13:24:52

A young, high born, unmarried girl allowed access to a delivery room? I'm not so sure.
And I think the deal with the sex was the way they flaunted it in her face. Anne was singled out to remain in the room, and they tossed their clothes in her face.

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik Mon 01-Jul-13 13:30:52

Mmm. I think so.

I also think the issue with the sex is, given privacy wasn't so big a deal, their flaunting it in her face isn't that likely and her being so overtly disgusted isn't that likely either.

It is partly that I find that actress quite wooden, TBF.

courgetteDOTcom Mon 01-Jul-13 13:32:06

I was thinking that LaQ, especially if you read Rivers too, Jaquetta always seemed to be a little cautious of it, her I can't remember if it was mother or grandmother was the real witch.

courgetteDOTcom Mon 01-Jul-13 13:33:46

Didn't women used to have all their ladies around them during birth?

LaQueen Mon 01-Jul-13 13:33:56

I would hesitate to think that a young noble woman would ever have been an observer at a birth, until after she'd been married, and had children of her own (and then at least, would have some minor knowledge/experience to offer)

As a young, unmarried woman of noble birth there would just be no need for her to be there, in the first place. A noble family could easily afford to pay for very experienced midwives, wet nurses...and, there would have been plenty of other servants on hand, too, to heat water, fetch and carry.

LaQueen Mon 01-Jul-13 13:36:17

But, I do agree with you about the sex Mal - I think it would have been virtually impossible to completely protect a young noble woman from having any knowledge of sex and stuff. Not at that time. People lived in far closer proximity.

And, it was seen as a very natural activity...it was only the Victorians who made us all prudish.

And, yes I find the actress playing Anne very wooden, and bland.

MalenkyRusskyDrakonchik Mon 01-Jul-13 13:37:27

Yeah, women had ladies in waiting around them at birth.

I think it was one of the normal ways women learned about how birth worked. I could be totally wrong, of course, but my impression was that it was fairly normal - whether you'd be allowed to see a birth if you were unmarried or not, I don't know, but sex wouldn't have been all that private.

As I say, not 100% sure but I think it's really only much later - like Victorian times - that there's this paranoia about unmarried women being shielded from all knowledge of sex and childbirth.

This thread is not accepting new messages.