The White Queen

[ShadeofViolet]

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.

I thought it was silly how trusting Elizabeth woodville was of Margaret when she was hiding. They had lots of meetings and she trusted what she said in reguards to Richard. Surely she would have figures Margaret had her own interests in trying to turn her against Richard. I found that too convenient.

Plus, I missed who Thomas was who Elizabeth kept referring to. Was that her brother like Antony?

But Elizabeth would not necessarily have believed that sending her younger son would have put him in danger. She did not like Richard, but at the time there was no reason for anyone to think he would be a danger to the boys. He was known to be loyal to Edward III. Also the Tower, which to us conjures up images of blood and executions, was to them a royal palace and the appropriate case for the new king and his heir.

The Princes vanished during the reign of Richard III and when rumours circulated about their deaths he did not produce them to show they were still alive, despite the rumours making him unpopular. So it seems likely that they were dead and that he knew that they were dead.

I'm quite happy with Peter Capaldi as the 12th Dr after a bit of thinking it over. Aneurin Banard (how is that pronounced, I pronounce it like aneurism in my head) would spend a lot of time glowering at daleks (which could be quite sexy, I admit).

My idea of the people involved is currently entirely based upon the Penman novel and she is very much a Ricardian. I think I must read a few other versions for balance.

Thomas was Thomas Grey, Elizabeth's son by her first husband.
Aneurin is pronounced ah-nye-rin, often shortened to Nye, like dye.

In terms of backing Richard over the Princes...
Richard is a grown man with a proven war record who appears to be reasonably sane and rational.
The princes are minors, governed by their hated mother and her family, who are totally unproven. Look at Henry V. A child monarch who caused no end of problems and ended up being mentally unsound and married to a power crazed french woman!
Harsh as it is, after years and years of war, and a country divided, Richard is by FAR the best option. The Princes would have condemned the country to years more unrest, warring factions, and people plotting to overthrow the Woodvilles.

Think you mean Henry VI, Saggy. And Asheth means Edward IV. Which just shows how confusing it is having so few royal names...

Oops! Yes I did! I actually deleted the extra I too!

i wondered last night what would have happened had elizabeth gone to richard and asked that her marriage to edward be declared void due to his earlier marriage and her children illegitimate. i know that would have been giving richard the throne, but she could have walked away with her children all alive, and cared for financially included in the bargain.

have got into this more as the story has developed, although last weeks when edward had what looked like a cushion shoved up his tunic to make him look like he'd put on weight made me snigger!

those drooling over richard, have you seen him in 'we'll take manhattan' playing david bailey?

It seems to me that had Richard decided to murder the boys he would have had it carried out away from the tower, and probably England. Send them to Margaret in Burgandy and have it that they are intercepted by enemies of York. Bring them home for a tragic Royal funeral.

better that than a couple of whiffy corpses dumped in the stairwell in the summer of 1485? (sorry)

It does make sense that Anne and nasty granny Cicielly wouldn't want Edward crowned, as while Richard (and both of htem) would be safe while King Edward was a boy, he wasn't far off being an adult, at which point they saw him listening much more to his mother and uncle on his Mum's side, so they would be sidelined at best, possibly at physical risk if Elizabeth W/Uncle Anthony convinced Edward they were a threat.

I can't see Richard killing the boys though, as others have said, much better ways to do it, or at very least, actually having the bodies to show to everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if it was crazy Margaret B.

I've been away so haven't watched the last few, but I did get chance to read Lady of the Rivers. I don't know how she ever managed to be at court, she seemed to be almost permanently in confinement!

Aw, I was fairly disappointed at this episode and how it painted poor Ann as a pushy, nasty piece of work. She's been my favourite thus far, and I like the chemistry between her and Richard to the point where I actually read The Kingmaker's Daughter. Which was nonsense, plot-wise, but for the most part, it's Richard making the decisions and her being in love with and supporting him. None of this evil-mother/bitching-over-a-corpse business, not sure why they've introduced it - to make us more sympathetic to Elizabeth's daughter in the long-term (had been hoping they'd leave that particular plot-point from the books out)? Boo, anyway.

I wanted to slap Anne's smug face at their coronation .

I have to have the York/Lancaster family tree open on a tab when I'm watching it otherwise I'm completely lost!

I was on Amazon last night and managed to get the kindle versions of The Sunne in Splendour, both volumes of We Speak No Treason, Crown in Candlelight and The King's Grey Mare all for just over a tenner.

Thanks to those who recommended the Rosemary Hawley Jarman books, they look great.

Have been rereading The Princes in the Tower by Alison Weir and she is pretty adamant and presents a lot of circumstantial evidence that Richard did order their murders. A lot to do with access to keys and that he never acknowledged or denied their deaths.

There was a documentary in the history channel ( I think) recentlyish about the princes and PG was adamant that MB did it. Surely that would have given Richard a chance to get rid of MB though if that had been the case?

I have been disappointed with this series but do think it's got better. I think someone upthread said it did not feel real compared to Game of Thrones which, although fantasy, totally does. I think that is the nub really. Some of the characters, especially in my opinion Edward and Elizabeth, just seem really one dimensional, flat characters. I actually prefer how Margaret Beaufort and Anne are portrayed as they seem to have more going on. I find Elizabeth totally unconvincing and fail to see now she would inspire the devotion of a notorious philanderer over all those years.

I am an episode behind so not quite up to speed yet.

I guess who killed the princes in the tower may remain a mystery. So many with motives and yet so much to lose.

I have read RW and WQ but not yet Kingmaker's Daughter. Enjoyed them but like most others think PG has better books and other better books on the period. I remember reading Jean Plaidy's book about Anne Neville many years ago, haven't read a JP book for years, would quite like to revisit some of them.

Kingmaker's Daughter (by PG) was 99p for Kindle version on Amazon the other day, for those that are interested.

I think it's harder to make a historical drama realistic, because people know the story and have certain expectations - they know the time period, they know what to expect, the storylines, the buildings. Whereas with fantasy, you have a bit of leeway IMO.

I also think Margaret Beaufort has been acted very well. It must be very difficult for the actress playing Elizabeth, because she needs to show the power she wields without losing the sympathy for the character IYSWIM. I think the real Elizabeth was probably an interesting character, but probably had the ability to be quite ruthless and manipulative, which in today's society would make her the "bad guy" - and in this drama, she is firmly placed in the "heroine" category. Ties her hands a bit.

Yes, the princes in the tower is one of those mysteries that I truly wish could be solved without a doubt, and it just isn't going to happen. I have my doubts about Richard III being directly involved, as there are far easier ways for him to get them out of the line of succession, whereas it was vital for Margaret Beaufort and Buckingham to have those boys dead, with the added bonus for them of Richard taking the blame. I think it's telling that Henry VII (?) when he married Elizabeth's daughter (Elizabeth as well) rescinded the act that made Edward IV's children illegitimate. I don't think he would have done that if there was any question at all that those boys were still alive, as that would have put him in a precarious position. Therefore, I think he was certain they were dead, which IMO means he had that info straight from Margaret Beaufort. I honestly think it was them, but obviously there is no proof, so it's all speculation.

So, Elizabeth of York's mother in law is responsible for the murder of her 2 brothers ? And I thought my mil was difficult!

I agree, ginger, but while Elizabeth and Edward are one dimensional, at least there is a modicum of consistency in their characters. In both the book, and now even more so in the programme, Anne's character makes fairly inexplicable character turnarounds throughout (distrusting George, to going to believing he's a devoted husband, being reasonable about the Queen/poisoning to suddenly completely believing it, etc)

It is fairly disappointing - the script is pretty appalling - "Now the queen will try and rule through him, just as she did with her husband!" Thank you for that honking bit of signposting, but it would have been nice if I could have understood that implicitly from the drama itself.

Lack of character comprehensibility/consistency is my biggest issue.

So, Elizabeth of York's mother in law is responsible for the murder of her 2 brothers ? And I thought my mil was difficult!

Kind of puts all the MIL threads on MN into perspective, doesn't it?

In both the book, and now even more so in the programme, Anne's character makes fairly inexplicable character turnarounds throughout (distrusting George, to going to believing he's a devoted husband, being reasonable about the Queen/poisoning to suddenly completely believing it, etc)

Yes, I have to agree with that. Very inconsistent. It'd be different if she felt one way, then changed her mind due to circumstances, but it does seem as if she is flipping back and forth constantly. I find it hard to believe with the upbringing she had that she would be so wishy-washy. I rather think she was pretty firm in her beliefs. Although I also don't think she would have been above a bit of "playing one against the other to get her own way" either. Again, based on her upbringing and seeing how her father switched sides.

I may be mistaken, but, Im just reading the White Princess. Elizabeths Daughter Cecily has just been married to MBs half brother Lord John Wells. Didn't he get killed off early on in the TV series?

I think that, much like with The Tudors series, they've taken a few liberties with the stories.