the white queen philippa gregory

[eleanor2]

hi does anyone fancy joining me on a book review.i have never read a philippa gregory book and am looking forward to it.will be hopefully tucking up in bed with it later tonight .....

[Crocus]

I quite like her books Eleanor and read a few, can't remember if The White Queen was one of them though. x

[souter girl]

I have not read it, but I heard an interview with her recently and she really researches her books. Let us know what you think, I'd like to give it a try.

[Crocus]

I can agree with that SG, she does a lot of research on her books. She's a historical novelist. x

[jazzactivist]

I haven't read that one, eleanor, but have read quite a few of her books. I really enjoyed them, as the historical research is great and her woman characters are powerful women. There are always one or two squeamish moments too. I will look out for The White Queen when I am next in a bookshop though, and hope that you enjoy it.

I'm struggling my way through A Widow for One Year by John Irving for our book group. I loved some of his other books like The World According to Garp, The Cider House Rules, and A Prayer for Owen Meany, but I just can't get into this one. A touch of Philippa Gregory would be most welcome.

[dragonfly]

I've met her at a book reading and she said she does a lot of historical research. I have read the White Queen and found it interesting. Phillippa puts a human touch to the story we all know about the Princes in the Tower and their family life. The White Queen is their mother and it's all about how her life might have been.

[eleanor2]

i think the white queen is her newest novel.d.f got it when she went to a book opening.i think it is signed.i am hoping for a really good read.

[souter girl]

I have had the same problem as you Jazz. Widow for one Year has been in and out of the charity shop bag like a yoyo. I think it's going untimately!

[eleanor2]

i am surprised how many modern modern aurhoresses are incorporating witchcraft into thier books.it is a modern trend i think to jazz up the story with the unknown.i have read sharon penmans book on richard the third......the wife of Edward in this book was not liked or accepted.she was seen more as a seductress than a witch.it does make you wonder if being able to seduce a handsome king would be seen as witchcraft more than the natural womanly wiles...............
just into the first chapters.good reading but i am not as into the scene as i am when i read a sharon penman.we will see.this young widow with 2 sons.who has had her lands taken away from her by her mother inlaw due to her husband dying.sets out to woo the king into getting her lands back.not knowing she would fall instantly in love with this dashing young king.she is obviously very beautiful because he falls instantly for her too.they secretly marry and i think this secret marraige causes much trouble in the future.now i have to think this is the only women who denies him sex....he is dashing and used to all women being his conquest.she refuses he his bitten by the love bug.he is off to battle.may not come back.so marries her the next day so he can have sex with her.because he cant eat or sleep thinking about her.he has to have her.................mmmmm

[eleanor2]

i dont find phillippa gregory as descriptive as sharon penman.sharon gets me so in the story i have cried at sad points.i do think phillippa is teaching me a lot about the evolving of British royalty which i am finding interesting.i certainly wouldnt have wanted to be royallty.as well as being a greedy lot.their lives were never safe.................
Elizabeth a commoner of a good family is ow married to a man who has taken by force the crown of England.at first it seems she seduces the king.but i get the feeling the young handsome king is captivated by her beauty and sexual desire.he is as in lov with her as she him.there throne is not safe and neither are their lives.or the lives of their families.i really cant understand people determined to wealth and power.as i am some-one contented with peace and obscurity.yet this story unfolds to show the desire of so many to be in the camp of the royals.bowing and scraping to be part of the wealth and fame of it. elizabeth and Edward have 2 girls and are desperate for a boy heir.how horrifying that all the women are married off in arranged marraiges.children married from very early ages.so much all for the desire of money.whole lives miserable and unloving just for a title and a few pounds.yet i suppose we have to try to imagine the absolute poverty and servitude of the poor.to understand the determination and manipulation of the rich to always get richer at whatever the cost.

[dragonfly]

I think the King did love Elizabeth but he also had many mistresses and children with them but think she liked the power and wealth that came with being Queen. I agree with you that it was not a happy life for them, the princesses had a horrible life. There was always someone after the power and wealth. I never felt sorry for any of them,except the girls, as they bought it all on themselves.

[jazzactivist]

Do we think it just wasn't happy based on comparing it with modern society though? In those days a love-match was virtually unheard of and "love" itself wasn't really all that much of a concept. Satisfaction probably came from making the most advantageous marriage for yourself and your children. It was accepted between people of all backgrounds that matches were made for what the couple could bring together in the way of wealth and power. I have read both Phillipa Gregory and Sharon Penman, and think Sharon Penman is better for the detailed historical facts, while Phillipa Gregory's writing is better for bringing the characters and historical story to life. I didn't learn much about British history as a child, since I attended school in a different country, so I've found their books really useful for learning about it. They are novels though, so a lot of the detail is embellished for the narrative and a modern writer can't help but construct the plot based on modern understandings of love and loss.

I think in those pre-Enlightenment days there was a genuine belief in evil witchcraft and it was ruthlessly used to imprison and murder women of all backgrounds. Even Anne Boleyn was accused of witchcraft in seducing the King when Henry 8th no longer wanted her as a wife. Funnily enough, women weren't allowed to say the same about men.

[souter girl]

You only have to look at Prncess Diana and Prince Charles to see that arrranged royal marriages are not exactly a thing exclusively of the past!

[eleanor2]

oh dear another forced marraige.a young girl married to a vile young man.just for the sake of parents getting closer to the throne.i am just at the point where elizabeth is going to have another child.she has used witchcraft so hopes to be having an heir.her husband edward is off to yet another battle.this time not just a best friend wanting to stab him in the back.but his brother also.i really do not think wealth and prestige bring you happiness.

[jazzactivist]

I agree, eleanor, the less you have the less other people want it, or want to destroy it. It sounds like you are really enjoying that book.

[eleanor2]

oh dear Edward is off to fight another battle.he is way outnumbered .but is very tactical.they are just starting a battle now.i feel sorry for all the ordinary men and women that got caught in the crossfire of these wars for the throne.i think oliver cromwell did a good thing when he insisted on the power of a parliament over just a royal ruling body.

[eleanor2]

this book is showing clearly the greed and uselessness of all these royal wars.it makes me feel we have to be thankfull for parliament even if we think they have many failings.at least a war isnt started at the drop of an hat.so one man and his family can be rich and powerful.till the next man fancies te throne.thousands of ordnary men dragged to the fighting for no benefit to themselves.slaughtered like animals...........there really is not any romance in this story at all.all the girls are just pawns in the game .i do like a bit of romance in a story.there are some people who have romance in life.or is it all just work and no play.even tho king edward loves his wife and his very attracted to her.he is forever off with his whores.....i think we think things are bad today.but could you imagine the outcry if it was found the queens husband had a string of regular whores he visited.

[eleanor2]

well the queen elizabeth is continually having babies.whilst king edward has not just whores but a new permanent lady he has set up in a house.this is seen as acceptable .but i think it is absolutely terrible.wow didnt kings take things for granted back then.none of his family love him.his mother has her favorite son and she will do anything to protect him.even tho george has plotted to kill edward.there doesnt seem to be much real love about,and i know from history things are only going to get worse.i feel philippa writes a bit to clinical.i am thoroughly enjoying reading the book.but i am seeing it more has a history book than a entertaining novel i can really get into.not one character has taken my liking.the closest person in the whole lot of them that i am taking too.is the queens brother anthony.because he seems genuine.cares more about honour than wealth or fame.is fast turning from the ways of a soldier to the ways of honouring God.

[dragonfly]

They might have been rich and powerful but they were never really happy or even at peace. They had to constantly fight for everything, so don't think it was worth it.

[jazzactivist]

I think Phillippa Gregory is a very realistic writer, eleanor, and brings the story to life. I'm sure that the characters were very much like that in those days, as everything then hung on the patronage of the King and Queen. Even very ordinary people's lives were affected by the Royal chain of events and none of the Royal family and their Court ever paid their bills. To become a supplier to one of the Royal households was good in name as it meant that other people were impressed by it and would order the same and pay well for it, but the Royals never paid their bills. I like the way that she is honest about the effect of a royal visit on lesser Court members as well and how the King / Queen use that to manipulate their subjects. To put up the whole Court on one of their tours, plus all their servants et al cost a fortune and many were bankrupted by it and were then forced to ask the King / Queen for money and favours. The Royals targeted courtiers for vists whom they thought were becoming too independent of them, which is the origin of the Civil List.

I don't think much has changed at all, and the Royal Family still live life as they did back then. I buy a few things from businesses that have a Royal Charter and all of the business owners say that they couldn't survive on the business they do with the Royal family as they sometimes have to wait one or two years to get paid! As for having other women / men on the side, that still goes on and the stories leak out every now and again, but a lot is covered up. Inevitably, when people don't have a free choice of partner, but have the most power in the country, they can do anything they want with anyone. The women that the Royal enclave refered to as the "Kings whores" were all women who were members of lesser aristocratic households - very much like Camilla Parker-Bowles was when Prince Charles had a long-term affair with her whilst married to the most suitable partner. We are all legally Royal subjects in the UK and it is still the law that defying an order from a member of the Royal Family is treason. Not that it is used much anymore, but who knows what threats go on behind closed doors and how people are manipulated. They don't wage wars in their name now, but they don't exactly object to them either and the phrase "fighting for Queen and country" is still used. I think one of the most fascinating things about Phillippa Gregory's historical novels is the light that the story throws on our current Royal Family.

[eleanor2]

i tell you what jazz i rather live under these royals than the royals of yesteryear.i dont feel the royals today are any threat to us whatsoever.they are in a way puppets to parliament.i do like the royals.not much for the younger ones fiascos.but i think queen elizabeth has lived upto a very good reputation.the thought of living under edward and elizabeth of this story is horrific.

[Crocus]

I went to the library today, could find "The Other Queen" by Phillipa Gregory, but not The White Queen, so will start on it asap. x

[dragonfly]

I don't think there is much comparison with the ancient Kings & Queens and ours today. The fighting, killing, murder of relatives and total rule thankfully doesn't go on now. The older royals are quite discreet in their misdemeanours and we only know about them because of the media. They might not be quick at paying their bills but at least they do pay eventually. Old kings would have people killed so they could possess their property or women.

[jazzactivist]

Our Royal family are descendents of those previous Kings and Queens and inherited the Royal culture that they created. They are still above the law and can do anything they like with any of their subjects. They aren't puppets of Parliament, as Parliament is ultimately responsible to the Monarch. The Queen could intervene to veto any law that she likes, including decisions to go to war, and can disolve Parliament at any time if she wants to. Do you really not think that the same things go on today within the Royal circle? What about the death of Princess Diana - there are still open questions as to how much the Royal family were involved or knew about that one, and remember years ago the 'accident' that killed Princess Grace and her daughter?

I am no Royalist and think they are just a throwback and cost the country too much money, but I think it is very interesting how history repeats itself. Phillippa Gregory's novels give us an insight into the motivations and manipulations within that inner circle that we don't know about except for the bits and pieces that are leaked to the press. The Royal family is a very closed enclave, the same as it always has been. I think if you transpose the modern Royal and political names over the ones in her books it could easily tell the story of our current times. That's what makes her novels so intriguing.

[eleanor2]

jazz you cant put blame on our royal family for her ancestors behaviour.....in all the queens reign theres never been any time she has tried to over throw parliament or demean it in any way at all.i really do think parliament has the ruling hand in our country.i have never had to adhere to any rulings of the queen. yet parliament is forever making new by laws or whatever they are called.i think the queen has shown exemplory behaviour in all her reign.i do admit i am not sure if the next reigning monarchs will gain my respect.........

[jazzactivist]

In law the Queen does rule us, eleanor. Whatever we experience may feel different, but at the end of the day by the flick of her pen we could have no government and be totaly ruled by the monarchy again. Queen Elizabeth may not have been a dictatorial monarch towards her subjects, but she also doesn't do very much else either. There are always plenty of rumours that she isn't the nice lady that she presents either. look how she traeted her sister Princess Margaret. Also, she is married to Prince Phillip who makes horrible racist comments everywhere he goes and seems to still live in the days of the British Empire! I don't think much of any of them, but if we have to have a monarch I would prefer Prince Charles as at least he has some understanding of environmental issues, whereas you don't get the picture that any of the other Royals give modern life much of a thought. They spend loads of our tax-payers' money on just enjoying themselves. I love Phillipa Gregory's books, as she exposes the Royal Court for what it was. I think she could write a cracking novel about the current Royal family and their hangers-on, but I expect that she would be sued if she did. Maybe far into the future a new novelist will write one that will be just as gripping and sordid about the past as hers are now.

[eleanor2]

if the queen really has this power( which i think might be more on paper than actuality).it makes me think more of her that she doesnt interfere with parliament.i too think charles is great in his environmental issues .but i dont know if he is one to gain respect.i like will and harry.but not sure how they will set examples.will and harry seem lovely lads.i just hope they can live honourable lifes with them being so in the limelight.
as for philippa gregory yes i agree she in her writing has made things clearer for me how bad things were in the royal families of those times.she doesnt romantasize it.i do like a bit of romantasizing when i read a novel tho.

[jazzactivist]

At the end of the day it's the law that counts rather than how it is put into practice at any one time. Do you really think that people today respect the Royal Family, eleanor - genuinely? I think most people think of them as useless chinless wonders who soak up public money without giving much in return. It must be because I lived in Scotland for so many years, as there isn't much support for the Royal family there given that the real heir to the throne was Mary Queen of Scots, so there is a belief that this Royal Family is bogus and doesn't deserve respect. That they should put right what their ancestor, Elizabeth 1, did wrong and abdicate. There is also a religious connection to the history there, and supporting MQoS is Catholic and the small support for the current Royal Family is Protestant. I don't know if this is the case in England, what do you think?

We have no way of knowing whether William or Harry would make decent monarchs as we only know what the Royal publicity machine wants us to know but, so far, they haven't done anything of much significance that really benefits people. I once walked right past Prince William in the street in St Andrews when he was a student there. I glanced at this lad walking past me and vaguely thought "He looks just like Prince William" and then I noticed three men walking around in a peculiar way near him. They all went into a sandwich bar just behind me and everyone in there was asked to leave while he made his selection. I hate to see that type of thing, and it only goes to show that the priviledge of Royals over their subjects is still alive. I am sure that if anyone had refused to leave they would have either been rough-handled out by the bodyguards or the police called and the people suspected of terrorism. As it was they were all tourists, so were excited to see him.

I am hoping to get a copy of The White Queen in the bookshop where I am going to a craft fair tomorrow, if I can ask another stall holder to look after my stall while I slip out at lunch time. I had a quick glance at it once and my immediate thought was that PG's style of writing seemed plainer in this book that in her others. Are you finding that, eleanor?

[souter girl]

Just got it out of the library - so don't anyone spoil it by telling me the end. I am assuming the King and Anne Boleyn live happily ever after...............?:D

[eleanor2]

jazz you watch a royal wedding,coronation or whatever.thousands upon thousands sleeping on the streets to be there next morning.not just from Britain too.
s.g .it is king edward of the war of the roses.he is yorkist and elizabeth his wife from a normal lowly family .it is a time of total unrest,deception,greed and infamous acts.

[souter girl]

Oops wrong king ! I take it THEY live happily ever after though?

[eleanor2]

your joking.i cant actually remember adzactly there demise.do remember her sons are the princes in the tower.the mysterious deaths of the young boys.

[eleanor2]

well the king has died of a mysterious illness.the quen has ran to sancturay.richard the younger brother of the king is upto more murderous plans.not one of the queens family or children are safe.she really would have been better off staying a poor widow woman.or marrying a local landowner.i dread to think what will happen to her and all her children.her brother,eldest son and other relatives are slowly being put to death for one reason or another.they enjoyed the prosperity and fame for a while then now all they have to look forward to his being hounded and put to death on pretentious accusations.

[jazzactivist]

Such is the lot of the Royals! I'm surprised that anyone still wants to be one after all that, eleanor. I'm glad that I'm not one - whoops! where's that family tree...

[eleanor2]

jazz even tho i like todays royals.as they are absolutely nothing like the royals of old.i would hate to be a royal.i wouldnt even like to be rich.give me a quiet peace loving life any day.i think to be a royal.takes over your whole life.you are just taken along in the current of royal affairs.i wonder if any of them wish they had been born normal people.

[dragonfly]

I thought the White Queen was interesting but didn't like Phillippa's slant on a novel. I like to like at least one or two characters and I didn't in this book. Although it is probably true to life it was depressing.

[eleanor2]

funny you should say that d.f thats how i feel.there is elzabeths eldest daughter who you cant help but like.she keeps urging her mother to accept defeat and go back to Grafton her birth home and live a normal life.but no the queen keeps fighting on for the throne.destroying everyone in her persistance.

[dragonfly]

I felt sorry for the daughters E.. but that isn't liking them and they weren't very interesting. I think if your husband is out waring and whoreing all the time then you have to do something with your time and Elizabeth seemed to spend hers getting power for her and her family. She never seemed happy except when she was in bed with the King.

The Kings family were a right load of bad apples. Together the brothers killed the former king (who I think was their uncle) then they killed each other until the last one standing was killed. I wonder why the kings mother hated him so much and why she prefered her younger son.

[eleanor2]

mmm the youngest is the one that stays closer to mum often. probably George was the spoilt one.the elder boys would have been expected to go off being paiges and squires etc.
well richard is pleading innocence of anything to do with the disapearance of the 2 young princes in the tower.they never did find out who killed them.i know i heard shakespear had richard as the killer in his play.but a lot of people dont think it was him.........i wouldnt have a clue.they all seem like glory comes before honour. this Elizabeth the white queen.philippa Gregory is having her has a witch.weaving spells and enchantments by the score.but calling on God when she feels like it.this shows peoples lack of understanding of a true christian.

[dragonfly]

I know it can't be proved but I think Richard did kill the boys in the tower, or had them killed. He killed an uncle and brother so don't think he would stop at a couple of nephews.

[eleanor2]

mmm d.f i am now nearing the end.phillippa is making you suspicious of both henry tudors mother and richard.they are both equally capable of wanting the murder of the princes.i am just not sure which one i think did it.

[eleanor2]

well the book is finished.it was a very good read.i enjoyed the historical facts very much.phillippa left us hanging on what happened at the end.we all know richard 3 got killed at bosworth .i have been to the battlefield.then came the Tudors......no-one knows who killed the boys or where their bodies are, how very sad.they really do think the queen managed to smuggle one son away and replace him with a page boy.poor soul he got killed for the part he played.obviously her son never came back to try to claim the throne.i am imagining the queens eldest daughter married Henry tudor so the next heir would be from their family anyway.it is all very sad.

[jazzactivist]

It's all quite a disgusting history when you think about it, isn't it eleanor? Money and power, death and manipulation and for what at the end of the day - so that our Royal Family can still live a life of priviledge today? They were all at it too, so there is never a likeable charcater - substituting a 'lowly' page for your own son so that he will be killed instead - how horrid! The book sounds good though, and I do agree with you that Phillipa Gregory can really bring an historical story to life as a thriller, so that you want to read on and find out what happened, even if you already know the ending.

[dragonfly]

Eleanor, in history a guy did turn up claiming to be the lost prince, who had been reared with a lowly family, but he was not believed and was executed. It is well documented but I can't remember his name.

[eleanor2]

oh d.f thats terrible.what if he really was the lost prince.sob sob

[jazzactivist]

Well, Mary Queen of Scots was actually the real heir to the throne, but no-one seems to feel all that sorry that Elizabeth had her killed so that she could claim succession, so in fact none of the Royal Family are legitimate even if he did return to claim the throne! I think one of the Princes in the tower was Gloucester, as I vaguely remember that it was quite a big thing in the history of that area when I was a child. Am I right, e?

[souter girl]

I recedntly heard an Australian (I think) on the radio claiming that he is the true monarch - can't remember how, but it hinged on somebody's (il)legitimacy.
King Kevin or whatever doesn't have the same ring as George VIII !!

[dragonfly]

I heard that too SG, it was on a Tony Robinson program although not Time Team. The Austalian guy hales from Ashby Castle, which is a few miles down the road from me, so made me interested in it. It is because they proved that one of the Kings couldn't possibly be the son of the previous King (sorry can't remember names) as he was away for years on a crusade hence the Australian decends from the rightful heir. They think the father of the wrong King was an archer and not even a noble man.

[jazzactivist]

Goodness, I have a half-brother in Australia whose name is Kevin... I expect there are loads of people who are descended from the rightful heirs to the British throne, and it is just the case that the current Royal Family's ancestors had more spite and power than the others when it mattered. Off with all their heads, I say!

[souter girl]

I wonder was it Dan Archer, Phil Archer or maybe Kenton Archer??;)

[eleanor2]

richard the 3 was duke of gloucester before he came king jazz.

[jazzactivist]

Ooh er, that says a lot for the area, doesn't it? I think the current Duke of Gloucester does a lot of stand-in work for the Queen. Not that he looks like her, just that he is next in line to the throne in this dynasty, after Prince Harry.