Wolf Hall discussion continuation thread

[AKnickerfulOfMenace]

Continuing the thread from Telly Addicts, just in time for episode 4

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/2288038-Damian-Lewis-fans-line-up-for-Wolf-Hall-tonight?msgid=52500336#52500336

The AB necklace is in a portrait thought to be of her, so I guess real?

There's no evidence Cromwell set up AB's suitors because of a play. I don't think even in the books/TV it's imply that's why he did it exactly - more that they were arrogant and thoughtlessly cruel, and those moments flashed back to him when he was at that stage? But not sure.

marie - I couldn't get into that either. Oddly, given WH is Cromwell, I found it too much 'man history'.

The AB necklace only crops up in paintings done long long after events though, so if it isn't known to exist in a royal jewel collection somewhere, I'd say it could quite likely be an invented piece to 'label' the painting, iyswim?

It reminds me a lot of those kitsch name necklaces that Carrie Bradshaw brought back into fashion with Sex And The City. Or those rings you see in Argos that say "Mum"...I think a few people may be the delighted recipients of maternally-themed Elizabeth Duke pieces this weekend

Makes sense.

And at Elizabeth Duke in Tudor England.

Thank you for the replies, am loving WH and Mark Rylance in particular .

I am resolved to try A Place of Greater Safety again (it was me talking about not knowing much French History). I've had a copy for many years & tried it once, ages ago & didn't get on with it but I will give it another go.

It's funny about spoilering history. In BUTB they called Elizabeth the ginger pig and ferret face and in WH TC said he's never seen a baby so ready to take offence (great line - shall use it on people I don't intend to stay friends with ). But we all know what Elizabeth would become. They will eat their words, they will.

Hmm, I think the play was emphasised a fair bit in BUTB. But it's quite possible that those were genuinely among the nobles most scornful of the base-born (which was both Wolsey and TC, of course)

That bit was very good - Mantel does it with her usual dry wit and panache.
Mostly I get a bit sick of historical irony around Elizabeth though - it's become rather a cliche, I think.

Does anyone know - did the Tudors talk about ginger hair in the same way people do today, ie as something that gets the piss taken a bit? Was it regarded as attractive or unattractive?

Not in the same way, but in iconography, Jewish characters have red hair (and are left-handed/'sinister'). So it does have tricky implications.

Yes, but a LOT of the English monarchs before Elizabeth, including Henry, obviously, are described in contemporaneous accounts as red-haired, and generally in glowing terms. So I don't think it was seen as a negative in itself.

No, I don't think it was either. And the Jewish thing is relatively recent at this point, too.

magimedi Re APOGS, there is a potted history of the French Revolution told though its art, on iPlayer ATM that you might like. I really enjoyed APOGS, might read it again now!

You can listen to Mark Steel on the French Revolution here. Love him

Re APOGS

I've said this before I know- but do give it a chance

It is STUFFED with female characters. I found having no grounding in the history was an advantage- I didn't have any preconceptions/pictures in my head already. Apart from a French film with Depardieu as Danton which a friend made me sit through years ago and Carry On Don't Lose Your Head

I got quite obsessed afterwards. Go on, read it, everyone-and then we can have a thread like this one and I can get obsessed again

Ooooh, I'm intrigued now...

No, I can't afford APOGS AND all the ancillary books it'll trigger!

By the thrice beshitted etc...

Thanks for that

'ancillary books'

Can I interest anyone in a half read paper copy of Citizens, by Simon Schama? It's quite a read. Oh yes.

Ok, I may give it a second chance,although I do think reading almost half is a serious effort.
I have dug out my old copy, it has a price sticker of 56F on it

Just read a summary of the letter from Cardinal Reginald Pole to H8 about the divorce. Bold!

Broadly speaking.. "How dare you try and divorce K for possibly shagging your brother when you are trying to marry A, whose sister you certainly shagged? Hmm?"

It seemed that in those times both women and men did sleep around? Was there a double standard (in court? In geneal?) As long as you don't pass your offspring off as the king's offspring, ie hands off the queen?

I think definite double standard for men versus women.

Yup

@ that letter. He might as well have put, 'Dear King, Please chop my head off.'