A history don (and no stranger to the actual Eagle and Child) once remarked that teachers of history everywhere owed the boy Shakespeare a huge debt, not because he popularised the subject with his historical themes but because he has kept countless people in gainful employment ever since correcting the misapprehensions his plays have instilled in us all, from grandfather clocks in Caesar's Rome to strange protuberances on royal backs and with a whole range of other sillinesses in between.

Now, while I am by no means implying that she is the first since Willie to fall into the category of "bad history propagation", it appears that Ms Gregory has devoted the latter years of her writing career to emulating the "Beard of Avon" (thanks, Mssrs Sellar and Yeatman) but with a particular emphasis on that Welsh family of note and notoriety, the Tudors. Why she has singled out this particular disfunctional family is not clear, however her dedication to her cause is such that it is now nigh on impossible to find a single person unfortunate enough to be have been known to a Tudor at any level who is not now doubly unfortunate enough to have been included in a Gregorian fable growing extra nipples and nuptials, engaging in incest and abscess, and generally behaving in a manner which even the producers of that great TV comedy "The Tudors" might have thought twice about at a scriptwriters' meeting (before deciding it was worth including anyway, as long as Henry got to do it).

Given that the teaching of history in schools today is fast approaching what even some politicians have noticed is a crisis point in terms of low numbers (those who engage in it, and brain cells applied to it) then it could well be that - horror of tudors - Ms Gregory's version of events will enter the canon as true. After all, she does claim to prepare her books so thoroughly that they take much longer to research than to write (a claim with which I must regretfully concur, having read her prose). Would the easiest solution at this belated stage therefore be simply a swift execution of the source of the problem? Or maybe, in keeping with some of her more delectable prose excursions, a botched beheading?

I've just picked up my first ever Phillipa Gregory in a second hand book shop in Athens, The Other Boleyn Girl! Thought I should see what all the fuss is about but it is currently sitting in the "to read" pile so can't comment yet.

Rather like the "Beard of Avon", has she really got one? lol Just looked in the book for a photograph of PG, but unfortunately there isn't one included. So maybe she has?

Philippa Gregory - should she be shot?

Yes.

Whereas poor Alison Weir (and I'm talking of *her* non-fiction work) should be given an honourable discharge.

Gregory is probably Weir's intellectual superior, but there is a genuine passion about Weir that commands respect (I know Minette would disagree - she'd have the pair of them hung, drawn and quartered, probably after intensive racking). Gregory - rather like Julian Fellowes and his *dreadful* Downton Abbey - has found a winning formula, and gosh, the money's pouring in, little effort required. Fellowes and Gregory, I suspect, rather despise their audiences, whereas AW desperately wants the approval - and validation - of hers. Gregory and Fellowes couldn't give a hoot.

I've met Alison Weir and I rather took to her (sorry M.).

This from Ms Weir when discussing historical accuracy in fictional history bios:

Today, I’m afraid, the bar has gone way down. That’s why you have so many dumbed-down historical novels. There are one or two honourable exceptions, but not many.

She goes on in the interview to heap great praise on Noral Lofts to illustrate her point. Not a mention of the Gregory Girl (there's a film, right there!).

Gotta like Alison, alright.

I'd love to see what kind of fate Andy Hamilton's Satan could think up for her - shooting is both too humane, and too final.

Thanks for the warnings.
I have occasionally glanced at the name,PG, in the library and discarded the notion in favour of Wodehouse.
glen

I read a couple of her Tradescant books quite a number of years ago, and five or six years ago The Other Boleyn Girl, which I enjoyed immensely for the romance, though I don't think there was much verified history in it. Probably gave me the wrong impression of Mary Boleyn; I'll just accept her as a fictional character really.

Well I'm now half way through The Other Boleyn Girl, it is quite well written and am finding that it isn't too bad as far as it goes. But then, I'm not expecting a great deal out of it nor any degree of historical accuracy.

One thing I can say in favour of PG is that she has bought home in this book how very powerless and utterly controlled by the men of the family women actually were, something which many writers fail to do, or simply gloss over. Mary Boleyn, like countless other women, forced into marriage when still a child and later into the bed of Henry VIII (when still a child) was sacrificed on the alter of family advancement.

"I laughed at that, looking down from my horse at their brown weather beaten faces. "I have no money".

You're a great lady at court" one of them protested. His gaze took in the neat tassels on my leather boots, the inlaid saddle, the richness of my dress and the golden brooch in my hat. "There's more on your back today that I earn in a year".

"I know, I said.

"But your father must give you money, or your husband, the other man said persuasively. "Better to gamble it on your own fields than on a turn of card."

"I'm a lady. It's none of it mine. Look at you. You're doing well enough, is you're wife a rich woman?".

He chuckled sheepishly at that. "She's my wife. She does as well as I do. But she doesn't have anything of her own.

"It's the same for me, I said. "I do as my father does, as my husband does. I dress as is proper for their wife or their daughter. But I don't own anything on my own account. In that sense I am as poor as your wife."

I'm mulling this over, ID. Were women *really* quite so oppressed during the 16th century as the likes of Gregory would have us believe?

It's an interesting topic.

The property laws - undisputed - but women were perhaps not *entirely* helpless and hopeless?

I find it interesting too, and would the question be deserving of a topic of it's own? What do you think?

I hate to bring this to your attention but....... http://www.indielondon.co.uk/TV-Review/bbc-to-adapt-philippa-gregory-s-war-of-the-roses-novels

Deleted.

Ok, let's be a bit more honest this time.

Thank you for the info, ferval.

Bloody Philippa Gregory - I hate her.

The following lifted wholesale from an excellent blog defending Anne Boleyn against Gregory's character assassination. Worth a read:

Fact, Fiction and Philippa



Concocted fictions:

Anne deliberately “steals” Henry from Mary (Henry’s affair with Mary was over before he began to pursue Anne.)

Anne forces Mary to give up her son to be raised at court.

Anne says she wants Wolsey dead.

Anne behaves viciously to her sister on many occasions.

Anne induces a miscarriage (third pregnancy) when she thinks the fetus is dead.

Anne has sex with her brother in order to conceive a child.

No Evidence or Contrary Evidence:

Intense rivalry between Anne and Mary (no evidence).

Mary Boleyn has two children by Henry, one of whom is a son (Elizabeth Blount, Henry’s former mistress, had Henry’s son. Whether or not Mary had any children by Henry is not known.).

Anne has sex with Henry Percy (no evidence.)

Brother George has an affair with Francis Weston. (This comes from Retha Warnicke’s theory of a “homosexual ring” at Henry’s court. It’s possible, of course, but no evidence.)

Mary was a virgin before her first marriage. (There are many reports of sexual activity in Francis’s court.)

Anne’s mother hides evidence of Anne’s miscarriage (second pregnancy) by burning the miscarried fetus. (It’s possible that Anne hid a miscarriage, but it’s speculation. No evidence at all that her mother burned a fetus.)

Anne gives birth to a “horridly malformed” baby (This is Retha Warnicke’s theory, but there is no evidence for it. In contemporary accounts, the fetus is referred to only as “a shapeless mass”)

Added in the Hollywood movie (screenplay by Peter Morgan):

Henry was attracted to Anne first, but got turned off when she humiliated him horseback riding. (In fact, Henry had an affair with Mary before he became interested in Anne.)

In disgrace, Anne was exiled to France after marrying Henry Percy (Anne did not marry Percy, and she was sent to the Burgundian court of Margaret of Austria, and then France, when she was 12, to be educated and “finished”)

After Mary has just given birth to Henry’s son, Anne (worried that this will foil her own designs on Henry) orders Henry never to talk to Mary again if he wants to have Anne. Henry agrees and walks out of the room, indifferent to his infant son.

Henry becomes hostile and indifferent to Anne sexually even before the marriage. (Henry pursued Anne for six years before they married—a prolonged courtship missing from the movie—and there is no evidence that he became hostile to her until very late in the marriage.

Henry VIII rapes Anne Boleyn.

Mary intercedes on Anne’s behalf and tries to get Henry to pardon her sister.

Mary Boleyn walks into court after Anne’s execution, and takes Elizabeth with her.

Can't see your point ID. The two concocted fictions you cite and then dispute seem to be at odds with your own interpolation of events - ie. they are fictions and concocted, just like the blog said.

I was particularly interested to read about the website dedicated to finding ways of planting snipers in her audiences at "events" which she attends. It is reassuring to hear that there are others dedicated to historical veracity out there, even if they do sound like the militant wing.

The concocted fictions are supposedly from Phillipa Gregory are they not? Or have I misunderstood? Which is always possible.

If they are condemning PG for the two I have quoted above then the bloggers are concocting their own nonsense as well as PG. In the Other Boleyn Girl PG describes the two events quoted as I've explained above and not as written in the blog. I found it ironic that a site taking swipes at someone for being inaccurate would also be inaccurate in their condemnation.

Sorry - I'm lost completely now.

Ok - can we just agree that Gregory's Girl AND American history aficianados are suspect?

Oh yes please! That is what I was saying and thank god this day is nearly over. Phew.

Phew from me too -- two Jaegermeister's and I'm anybody's.

Bit like what Anne Boleyn said to HT in Gregory's version.

Huh, two Jaegerthingies and you start swearing too.

Thank heavens for the edit button.

What's so annoying is that Gregory often takes something that has some basis in fact, but she then twists it out of all recognition. She has a lot in common with the scriptwriters of "The Tudors" (and Shakespeare ).

Take the "adoption" of Henry Carey by his aunt, for instance. What really happened - as far as we know?

William Carey died in June 1528 and his lands (which had been valued the year before at around £33.6.8d or about £107,500) became the property of his heir, the three-year-old Henry Carey. Following his father's death, little Henry became a ward of the Crown. This was quite usual and had nothing whatsoever to do with Anne Boleyn or her influence with the King.

Making provision for fatherless heirs to estates was the responsibility of the sovereign. A "grant of wardship" would usually be made which gave the appointed guardian custody of the lands of his or her ward during the child's minority, until he reached the age of twenty-one, and the right to use the income from them. Putative guardians usually paid a hefty fee for the privilege of acquiring wardship, which obviously usually proved to be a highly lucrative investment. But in return the guardian *was* obliged to maintain the estates of the child, and to ensure that he or she was properly cared for.

According to David Loades ("The Boleyns" 2011), "at some time before December 1529 his (little Henry's) wardship was granted to his aunt Anne, who would consequently have enjoyed the profits of the estate." What - if any - provision she made for her sister from this income is not known.

*But* - and I wonder whether Gregory mentions this? - on December 10th 1528, just a few months after Mary Boleyn was left a widow, "at Anne's behest", "Henry assigned Mary a substantial annuity of £100 that had formerly been paid to her late husband. This was a generous gesture, since £100 in present-day values would be the equivalent of at least £32,000."

Henry also made Thomas Boleyn face up to his responsibilities as a father. Having obviously discussed Mary's problems with Anne, the king wrote to her:" As touching your sister's matter, I have caused Walter Walshe to write to my Lord (Rochford) mine mind therein...for surely whatsoever is said, it cannot so stand with his honour, but that he must needs take her, his natural daughter, now in her extreme necessity."

A reluctant Thomas Boleyn had no choice but to take Mary under his roof and maintain her there - it seems she returned to the Boleyn family home at Hever.

The evidence then surely suggests that Anne actually did all she could to help her sister, but goodness what an awkward situation it was. The relationship between the two women can hardly have been an easy one, particularly now that Anne was so high in favour. The historical novelist certainly could speculate as to the jealousy, resentment and pain Mary suffered at this time - dependent as she was on the good-will of her much more successful younger sister. Mary later referred to this period of her life as being "in bondage". Alison Weir ( in her 2011 biography of Mary) describes life at Hever Castle thus:

"Thomas Boleyn was often away at court, leaving behind him a household of women: his burdensome daughter Mary; his possibly estranged wife, who may have resented Mary's presence at Hever; his insane and ageing mother; and his four-year-old fatherless granddaughter*. It cannot have been the happiest of households."

Incidentally, Anne Boleyn made sure that her nephew received an excellent education. He was taught at Syon Abbey - one of the wealthiest abbeys in England which was renowned for its magnificent library of over fourteen hundred books.

In 1535 she found him a distinguished tutor, the celebrated French humanist and poet, Nicholas Bourbon. Bourbon taught Henry with the sons of important courtiers - including Thomas, the son of Sir Nicholas Harvey; Henry Norris, the eldest son of the Norris who was to be accused of adultery with Anne; and Henry Dudley, the son of the future Duke of Northumberland. Bourbon wrote of his task:

"You, Oh queen, gave me the boys to educate,

I try to keep each one faithful to his duty.

May Christ grant that I may be equal to the task,

Shaping vessels worthy of a heavenly house."



* A granddaughter who was possibly the king's child? Another possible explanation for the king's generosity.

Not sure anyone else here has ever been to this site but it's new to me so I'll pass it on as a "discovery".

The Anne Boleyn Files

It's run by historian Clair Ridgway and it's contributors seem united on two fronts - a) accurate Tudor research is rewarding if difficult, and b) Philippa Gregory sucks.

A place I could spend a few happy hours myself. Ridgway is great at teasing out author's references to check their accuracy and relevance. Gregory of course doesn't even merit checking, but Temp, your Miss Weir I'm afraid is caught with her kirtles down rather often too! All great fun though.

Just watching some more re-runs of Time Team. In an episode on Bosworth am quite astounded that Tony Robinson wheeled out Phillipa Gregory (with a rather odd 19C looking ringletted hairstyle) as an expert on the battle and its significance to British history. Of all the proper historians that the programme could have spoken to, it chooses a pseudo expert?

PS and edit, PG has banged on at length about the chivarly of Tricky Dicky and his final charge. Mmm, who does that sould like?

Oh, Alison, look to your kirtle, girl. You're wrong and the good Professor from Wales is right.

The entry from the Treasurer of the Chamber's accounts for December, 1531 reads:

"Mrs. Mary Carye, widow (by the hands of Tirpyn, learned man) upon a warrant dated 10 Dec, in satisfaction of 100/. detained by Sir Will Paulet, master of the wards, of an annuity granted by the king to her late husband, Will.Cary, out of the earl of Derby's lands, 100/."

*Unless* the original warrant was made in December 1528 and this is the record of the *fourth* annual payment? Didn't look in the *Treasurer of the Chamber's Accounts* for 1528, just the ordinary L&P. Ah - I wonder - back in a minute.

PS I'm sure no one else is the least bit interested, but I'm having enormous fun - so much interesting stuff in these records!

The mystery deepens. It's very confusing. (1528) appears at the top of the actual entries, but the heading at the very top of the page describes the publication from which the information is taken as "Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic Henry VIII Vol. V 1531-1535." *But*, in the section for December, details from which I've quoted above referring to the Carey annuity, the following would indicate that the year we are reading about is indeed 1528. Among the many payments made that December was this one:

"...for conveying the legate Campegius by water to Bridewell 17s 10d."

That's a payment to Cardinal Campeggio, who was definitely in England (for the divorce proceedings) in 1528. He left the country the next year, and was officially dismissed as Papal Legate by Henry in May 1531. So there's no way Henry would be forking out for the Cardinal's water taxi in December *1531*!

Alison must be right! Hurrah!

Could the difference in year cited above be accounted for by the two accounts using different conventions to refer to the period Jan 1 - Mar 25, one using "new" New Year of Jan 1 and the other using the then current New Year of March 25?

I'm pretty certain it is 1528, Gilgamesh.

Staggering if Loades has got it wrong though - and Weir is right.

Oh, sorry - stupid of me. Maybe! But Loades is wrong about Catherine Carey being the younger sibling.

Here's the tricky British History Online page - Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic Henry VIII Vol. V:

http:www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=77473&strquery=treasurerfthechamber1528

If you scroll down to (1529) Rewards given on Wednesday, New Year's Day and then go *up* fifteen lines, the reference to Mary's annuity is there - December 1528.

The Campeggio reference I mentioned is a few lines above it.