Philippa Gregory

I notice on the home page that a lot of us have The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory listed in our libraries. I've read several of her books now:

The Other Boleyn Girl
The Virgin's Lover
The Queen's Fool
The Constant Princess
The Boleyn Inheritance
The Wise Woman

I enjoyed them all (with the exception of The Wise Woman, which I didn't think was up to Gregory's usual high standard).

I'm about to start reading Wideacre (the first in a trilogy) and wondered how many folks here have read it (along with her other books too) and what you thought...

(I also have A Respectable Trade waiting on Mount To-Be-Read.)

I have The Boleyn Inheritance in my TBR pile - a birthday gift from a friend. Are the "Boleyn" books in a series? I don't want to read something out of order. Thanks for your insight!

#2 mrstreme - Not a series as such, but it would help to read The Other Boleyn Girl before reading The Boleyn Inheritance. The others can really be read in any order. All are stand-alone books (of the ones I've read):

The Constant Princess is the story of Katherine of Aragon, first wife of Henry VIII.
The Other Boleyn Girl is told from the point of view of Mary Boleyn and covers both her and Anne's time in the court of Henry VIII.
The Boleyn inheritance is told by Jane (the wife of Anne and Mary's Brother, George), as well as Anne of Cleves and Anne's cousin, Katherine Howard, after Anne has been executed.
The Queen's Fool focuses on a fictional character, Hannah, a Jewish girl, who finds herself in the court of Queen Mary, then Queen Elizabeth I.
The Virgin's Lover focuses on Queen Elizabeth I and her affair with Robert Dudley.
The Wise Woman is also set during the reign of Henry VIII, but is set apart from the others as it is not set at court.

Philippa Gregory's website gives the opening chapters of each book so you can get a taste of what is in store: www.philippagregory.com

Kell, this is EXTREMELY helpful - I appreciate your time writing this out. I can't wait to get started! I'm off to half.com to see if I can pick up The Other Boleyn Girl at a low cost!

Thanks again!
Jill

I'm sort of divided on Philippa Gregory. I remember reading The Other Boleyn Girl a few years ago and really enjoying it, but recently I read The Virgin's Lover and despised it because of her totally inaccurate portrayal of Elizabeth I. I've read quite a lot on Elizabeth and her account jarred with everything uncomfortably. I know that it's fiction, but I prefer historical fiction to fill in the gaps of history, not perpetuate historical myths and discredit prominent historical figures that don't deserve it. So that was my problem with that.

I just found The Constant Princess for £1 on Saturday, though, and I'm going to give that a try and see if Gregory redeems herself to any extent in my eyes.

Hey guys! I'm quite a fan of the tudor court series. I agree with Kell that all stand alone, but I would certainly recommend the order she suggests, especially as the chronolgy makes a lot more sense, and The Virgin's Lover does contain references to Hannah from The Queen's Fool. I've just finished The Boleyn Inheritance which was great, but I think my favourite was The Other Boleyn Girl.

I have Fallen Skies and The Wise Woman on my TBR pile. For some reason I've not been tempted by the Wideacre series, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on them.

By the way, littlegeek, let me know what you think of The Constant Princess. I'm interested to hear other opinion's on it...

> 5

Oh, good! I'm not the only one that feels that way. Everyone I've talked to seems to adore Philippa Gregory, but I just can't take her. I've read both The Other Boleyn Girl and The Virgin's Lover, and both of them contained such inaccuracies that it really spoiled the story for me (the incest angle in TOBG).
The whole "Elizabeth as a weak clingy brat who can do nothing without a man" was really jarring to me. I have no problem with historical characters being imagined with flaws... but I need the flaws to make sense in terms of the actual history, otherwise it's just a made-up story with the names of historical characters - and that's not what I look for.

#8 - I honestly don't remember much of what happened in The Other Boleyn Girl. I didn't really know much about English history at that time so I wouldn't have picked up on the inaccuracies. Now that I'm remembering it though, does she portray Anne Boleyn as a similarly horrid woman who actually has all those affairs?

If so, I may just give away The Constant Princess, after reading it to tear it apart perhaps. I really just want to confirm that I'm not a fan.

I'm about 100 pages into Wideacre and am quite enjoying it. The lead female character is kind of feisty and slightly malicious and calculating, which makes things interesting. I'm wondering just how far she's willing to go to get what she wants!

#5 and 8

Although a lover of Tudor history, non-fictional and fictional, I have steered clear of Philippa Gregory largely for the same reasons. I was similarly irritated by The Secret Diary of Ann Boleyn by Robin Maxwell which had Elizabeth and Dudley at it like hammer and tongs and it jars horribly.

Also must admit the covers tend to put me off as a male, since they look like romance novels rather than straight historical fiction.

#11 - Robin Maxwell put me off as well with The Wild Irish for similar reasons - describing an older Elizabeth going at it with Essex, no thanks. I'm actually glad to hear you say that more of her work is the same, because now I definitely know to stay away.

I didn't care for The Other Boleyn Girl or The Virgin's Lover, partly because of the historical liberties taken and partly because I found the characters unlikable, particularly in the latter book. On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoyed The Boleyn Inheritance.

I've only read one Robin Maxwell book, To the Tower Born. It was readable, but the many implausibilities and the modern mindsets of its sympathetic characters put me off any more Maxwell.

The main character in Wideacre turned me off. At first, I thought she was feisty and interesting, but then she just became intolerably evil. Plus, there's some hanky panky with her brother, which just grossed me out. There are more in the series, but I just couldn't deal.

I did enjoy The Other Boleyn Girl, but I'm not that familiar with the time period of Henry VIII, so I didn't notice any historical inaccuracies that would make me cringe.

Hi
Just joined LT and am very keen on Historical Fiction and Gardening.
I've enjoyed a few of Philippa Gregory's novels including
The Other Boleyn Girl
The Constant Princess and
The Boleyn Inheritance
I found that this was the best order to read them in.
The Philippa Gregory novel I enjoyed the most was one of her early ones Earthly Joys. The next one of hers I am hoping to read is the one that continues this families journey Virgin Earth.

Happy reading.

>15 KimB: If you liked Earthly Joys you will absolutely love Virgin Earth. It is wonderful in so many ways and such an interesting time in English History.

I also loved the way it interfaced with American History of the time.

Everytime I visit an English Heritage garden I look out for a plants that are there thanks to the Tradescant men.

Yes Virgin Earth is my second favourite novel by Phillipa Gregory, you should be able to guess which is my first.

The Constant Princess is the only thing I've read by her, but I was not a big fan. I'm afraid I like my historical fiction, to you know, seem historical.

I am reading The Constant Princess now - and it's my first Philippa Gregory story. I have The Other Boleyn Girl and The Bolelyn Inheritance waiting in the wings.

I am not terribly knowledgeable with this era of British history, so I am not stumbling over any historical inaccuracies (or creative licenses) Gregory takes with her story. But so far, I will say The Constant Princess reads more like a "historical romance" rather than "historical fiction." Thankfully, it's a fast read, and I am looking forward to the Boleyn books as I understand they're better stories.

I really enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl because it gave me such a fresh perspective on the period. I am by no means an expert on the Tudor period, but I wonder if this novel was really inaccurate, or if it simply wove the historical facts about Anne Boleyn into a very different type of story than the vast majority of other novelists have done.

Most novelists who have written about Anne Boleyn take a sympathetic approach, assuming the accusations made against her were untrue, trumped up (consciously or unconsciously) by King Henry after she failed to give him a son and he tired of her as a sexual companion. That is, of course, possible. But it seems perfectly fair for a novelist to craft a story around the premise that the charges made against Anne, or some of them, did have a basis in fact.

Most of the scholarly histories I've read don't really lend themselves to a warm and fuzzy approach to Anne Boleyn. She did scheme to make herself Queen of England -- while Henry was still in a marriage of many years' standing to a wife who legitimately expected to stay married to him as long as they both lived, i.e., to be not his "first" wife, but rather his only wife, at least throughout her lifetime.

I thought The Other Boleyn Girl was her best by far.

going to have to chime in and agree that The Other Boleyn Girl was by far PG's best effort. although i read the other non-series books Constant Princess, Queen's Fool, Virgin's Lover, & Boleyn Inheritance, none of them came close to TOBG, in my opinion.

Virgin's Lover in particular bordered on trashy romance, i thought. of the rest, i enjoyed Boleyn Inheritance the most.

just my $.02. :)

>19 margad: nice post, margad. my own thoughts on Anne are that she was something of a hybrid of the two camps' stories... the ultimate charges against her were likely trumped up, but she certainly didn't put herself in a very favorable position or light for many years running.

Littlebookworm, I'm afraid you'll be very disappointed in The Constant Princess. IMO, it's the worst of Gregory's novels as far as taking extreme liberties with history. Second worst: Earthly Joys. Sorry, but there is no way that King James's lover, the Duke of Buckingham, would have risked all and stooped to an affair with a gardener.

I read it and was disappointed, Cariola. It was laughably inaccurate. The book was only £1 anyway, so no big loss. I definitely know to stay away. :)

#19 - Margad, in my view I think scheming to gain a throne is quite a different thing from committing adultery with five men, one of whom was Anne's brother. If she'd gone that far to gain the throne, why would she risk it like that? She probably was not a warm and fuzzy woman, but it's extremely unlikely that she was a witch, had a sixth finger, or committed incest. The Tudor historians are not known for accuracy; they are known to have twisted the facts as they pleased in order to satisfy the current monarch. I don't mind negative perspectives, but I think encouraging historical falsehoods is unacceptable in what I'm reading, unless it's addressed by the author and used for some kind of plot necessity.

A recent U.S. President risked all by stooping to a laughable affair with a young intern. People don't always behave rationally, especially when sex is involved. Also, Anne Boleyn probably did have a sixth finger. It does happen from time to time that people are born with a rudimentary sixth finger, and I understand it happened more frequently in previous centuries. I'm not saying Anne Boleyn did, as a proven historical fact, commit adultery with five men including her brother. That's debatable, since it's clear Henry wanted to get rid of her and he and the people around him were motivated to trump up false charges against her. I'm just saying that is one possible interpretation of the historical record, and therefore Gregory's novel shouldn't be condemned out of hand for inaccuracy.

There are several reasons why I think that she probably did not commit adultery. You don't have to agree with me, obviously, but I might as well say them or it's going to irritate me that I didn't. This is basically what I've gleaned from my reading.

For one, Anne was by all accounts well-educated. She was intelligent and she had new ideas for the government. I have heard it said that she was one of the smartest queens of England - I don't know if that's true, but there it is. She probably knew that dire consequences awaited her if she committed adultery, because they awaited every woman in that time, especially noble ones. It was very important for women to be faithful to their husbands, particularly queens. With a husband as powerful as Henry, who has already gotten rid of one queen and beheaded numerous people, Anne could not have missed the fact that she was putting herself in danger. She could have been stupid enough to do so, but for me that contrasts too much with her established intelligence.

You can see on the other hand, Catherine Howard, who did probably commit adultery, but Catherine was younger and much less educated, had engaged in this kind of behavior before, and some proof actually existed, including her own confession and an extant love letter. No proof that I can find exists for Anne's affairs after her marriage, except the testimony of George's wife, who disliked him from the beginning. Maybe Anne was too clever to leave proof, but I think it's more likely that she did not have affairs.

As for the sixth finger, I can't find any contemporary evidence for it, though I understand it's still debated. It's just my personal view that she probably didn't have one and was accused of it in order to make her more witch-like in the years after her death. If you do know of evidence for this, or anything against that I've said, please point me in the right direction, I'd love to learn more.

I hope you've not taken any offense from this, I do enjoy arguing these things a little too much, and I hope you don't mind. =)

No offense whatsoever, littlebookworm. I enjoy arguing these things too. I think your point about Anne's intelligence is strengthened by the well-supported historical fact that she was able to resist the pressure from King Henry to become his mistress. By itself, though, I don't think her intelligence would be enough to make an open-and-shut case against the adultery charges. Very intelligent people sometimes do very stupid things.

My main point is that, while Gregory's interpretation of the historical facts is wide open for debate, I don't think it's fair to slam her for inaccuracy as though she had neglected to do the basic and necessary research for her book. The Other Boleyn Girl tells a story that is psychologically plausible and fits the known historical facts, although it goes against the interpretation that most novelists have made. That's what made the novel especially interesting to me.

It's been quite a few years since I read any serious history about Anne Boleyn, so I'm afraid I can't back up the sixth-finger claim with a specific source. I recall something about her arranging her sleeve when her portrait was painted so that it would obscure the side of her hand. That's not proof, of course, just another piece of evidence to weigh in the balance.

Personally my main problem with Gregory's novels is that I find them completely implausible, especially psychologically. It's been a long time since I've read Gregory, but I seem to remember several smaller inaccuracies especially in The Virgin's Lover that really put me off. I can't remember exactly what they were, though...

Sometimes small inaccuracies can completely spoil one's trust in an author. And the small inaccuracies, oftentimes, are easier to pin down as inaccuracies than things that loom particularly large in fiction, like character motivation and psychology, but are impossible to prove or disprove by looking at the historical record.

After making my last post, I remembered that I had criticized T.R. Fehrenbach for making some inaccurate statements in a chapter of Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans. When someone asked me what they were, I couldn't precisely recall, except that they were in the section about the German immigration to Texas in the 1850s. What I do remember is being shocked to find them, because I had not expected to find errors in the work of a historian of his stature.

Of course, in fiction, it's essential to tell a story that hangs together in terms of plot and doesn't introduce so many tangential plot threads and/or minor characters that readers can't keep track of them. That often means a novelist has to make choices about where to maintain strict accuracy and where to combine characters, fudge the time-line a bit, etc. Edith Pargeter's Brothers of Gwynedd Quartet is a particularly well-researched set of novels (as far as I can tell from my limited knowledge of Welsh history), and I love her writing -- but certain sections made for extremely tedious reading.

Of course, it's always fair to criticize an author for psychological implausibility. I've only read two of Gregory's novels, so far. The Other Boleyn Girl did not strike me as implausible, given the time and place. The Queen's Fool did strain my imagination a bit from time to time, I have to admit, because the heroine's attitudes sometimes seemed too modern.

I find, though, that modern readers quite often criticize novels for being inaccurate just when they are most accurately presenting the customs and attitudes of a place and time quite different from our own. For example, I'm told by someone who has done the research that upper-class women in a certain period of Russian history used to dye their teeth black - hard for us to believe in that today as a standard of beauty!

margad - That is one of the problems I had with The Constant Princess, the psychological implausibility. Mostly because when Arthur and Catherine are planning for the future, she occasionally throws out ideas regarding laws that I can recognize from other periods in history and other women. I even recognized some of her "new ideas" as laws having been implemented by Richard III already. Maybe Henry VII discontinued these practices, I haven't read much about him, but some of them were definitely not revolutionary as I know quite a bit about Richard's ideas. As for the rest, I believe only a person with hindsight could have come up with them, from various other readings, although I guess it's possible Catherine could have been way ahead of her time, but the comparison to Richard III really bugged me. The sort of justice she describes was in practice in the 15th century and should definitely have not been proposed as if shocking by a teenage girl.

Unfortunately, I don't have my book with me, it's an ocean away, so I can't tell you exactly what these ideas of Catherine's were, but that definitely bothered me as I was reading.

Reading a novel where Queen Elizabeth I was at it hammer and tongs with Robert Dudley was also irritating in that it's a distortion of what we almost certainly know to be the case about the nature of their relationship. Alright, I accept that we can never know beyond any doubt at all, but the balance of informed opinion is that they did not have sexual intercourse. So that put me off reading any more of Robin Maxwell's books after The Secret Diary of Anne Boleyn.

You're right, littlebookwork, that's a pretty significant anachronism. Same with QEI having sex with Dudley. It seems to me just barely possible that Elizabeth may have had sex before her father's death, though unlikely. She was the daughter of Henry VIII, her mother was Anne Boleyn, and she almost had her own head on the block before she became queen. It would be amazing if she wasn't terrified of sex. And she knew quite well what a threat a husband or a man who felt entitled to the rights of a husband would be to her sovereignty, which I'm convinced she was determined to protect at all costs.

I actually read a book once where Elizabeth and Dudley got married. That was probably one of the craziest things I've ever read, and I was exceedingly sorry I picked that book up. It was I, Elizabeth, by Rosalind Miles. Haven't read anything by that author since, no matter how interesting it looks. I find the idea that she married even crazier than the idea that she had a child, particularly given that Robert Dudley was married again before his death. She may have had sex, but I don't think she'd ever risk her sovereignty in that extreme way, as you said, margad.

I can't tell you how glad I am that I did NOT buy those Robert Maxwell books I had been looking at on bookcloseouts.com!

I was put off Rosalind Miles forever when I read her "bio" of Ben Jonson while doing dissertation research. My goodness, wasn't Elizabeth interesting enough without making up all this impossible drivel?

Rosalind Miles is a fantasy author who has written fiction based on the King Arthur stories and on the Tristan and Isolde legend. I wouldn't expect historical accuracy from her! I even found her fantasy implausible. In her Guinevere books she introduces a lot of pagan attitudes, rituals, etc., suitable to the sixth-century period in which the King Arthur legends originated, but puts it in a setting of castles, royal protocol, etc., that better fits the medieval period in which the legends were put into written form. I would have found time-travel more believable than lumping the two historical periods together as if they occurred simultaneously. But then I'm not a huge fan of fantasy fiction, although I enjoyed Mary Stewart's Merlin series.

I didn't know that Miles wrote fantasy (of which I'm not a big fan either), but I certainly realized that her "biographies" fall into the pop pulp realm. In the case of the Jonson bio, it was not only the inaccuracies, it was also that Miles's style was just too precious. A lot of plain silliness and over romaniticizing. Jonson would have been appalled.

I am a big fan of fantasy, but I prefer it to be in imaginary worlds rather than our own, and I really, really hate when people put castles in the Arthurian period. Castles weren't introduced in England until William the Conqueror showed up in the 11th century; wooden hill forts, yes, but not castles! Unfortunately I took a class on Arthurian legend and it happens a lot, as it seems medieval authors had little idea when their castles actually were built, much less the authors that came later. So her error is understandable in that she followed up on centuries of (incorrect) Arthurian tradition. Not really excusable, though, considering now we do have the research and the knowledge, possibly lacking in the medieval period, regarding when Arthur could have existed and what conditions were like.

I didn't know that author wrote about legends when I bought the Elizabeth book, or I probably would have stayed away. Seems to signal a tenuous link to actual history.

Are Miles's "biographies" sold as serious history? Or as biographical novels?

I do think it's fair to write Arthurian novels in a medieval setting (when writing fantasy fiction or fiction with fantasy elements, like White's The Once and Future King), because the legends were set down in that period, and there is so much medieval detail in the Morte d'Arthur, etc. The medieval setting is suited to a different kind of story, though, than the Dark Age setting is. And now that we have so much good archaeological research on hill forts, etc., and so much good scholarship on late and post-Roman Britain, it seems an awful shame not to use it. That period was so extraordinarily interesting. I suppose Miles didn't want to have to choose between the two periods. But novelists have to make those tough choices in order to make their stories hang together.

My theory on Arthur is to pick a setting and stick to it, and I won't care which one. (Except for The Once and Future King, which I forgive for behaving as if all of English history happened on the same afternoon.)

If it is fantasy, it can be placed whenever in time the author pleases because it is definitely not attempting to portray a true event. If it is historical fiction, it should try to stay as close to the real setting as possible, imho. So, if I were to write an Arthurian fantasy, making it clear it was fantasy, I could set it in the medieval period. If I were to write historical fiction based on Arthur, attempting say to try and show how he really might have lived, then I would have to set it around 500 AD, when Arthur would have lived if he actually existed, which is still unknown.

Other opinions may differ, particularly because King Arthur is a literary legend and most of the common characters and themes in any Arthurian tale are later impositions on the very early poems which may have some small basis in fact. That Arthurian literature class has served me well on this score. =)

It's also fair to write fiction that borrows a plot-line and group of characters from a King Arthur tale (for example) but sets it in a different but realistically portrayed time period. This is done quite often with Shakespeare. For example, Jane Smiley's wonderful literary novel A Thousand Acres is essentially a retelling of the King Lear story set in a midwestern farming community in a recent decade.

In a sense, that's exactly what the medieval writers who borrowed the King Arthur characters did - they used the characters and themes that had come down to them from legend but set the stories in more-or-less their own time period.

The heart of the King Arthur story is timeless: the central thread deals with an idealistic leader who succeeds in uniting feuding groups to work together for a common purpose, but then discovers that his wife is sleeping with his best friend and most important ally. It could be set among gangsters in 1920s Chicago, in contemporary Iraq (well, maybe a few years in the future, if we're lucky) or among a political family in the U.S. at any number of historical or contemporary periods. Wouldn't it qualify as historical fiction, as long as all of the period details, the attitudes of the characters, and any references to actual historical characters accurately reflect the place and time period in which the novel is set?

A novel of that sort wouldn't be an attempt to show how a historical Arthur might have lived, but rather to show how certain character traits and thematic elements would play out in a particular historical period.

I really enjoyed the Tradescant novels - but the Other Boleyn Girl seemed rather laboured! I have the Constant Princess on my TBR shelf.

Philippa Gregory has another book out soon called, I think, The Other Queen, its about Mary Queen of Scots.
I really enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl, and most of the others so I am looking forward to reading another of her books.

As a history graduate (and being British too) I am so pleased to hear about many of Librarything users being so fanatical about historical accuracy. But come on, guys, this is supposed to be FUN!! I did three years of slogging away at hardcore history, and trust me, it was wonderful, but I don't read historical fiction to pick out inaccuracies, or to test my knowledge. I read historical fiction so that I can feel the world these historical characters lived in and to expand my brain on the potential stories there could be. To put pictures in my brain of who these people could be. Try to put a face on the historical genericism that so often resides in real history books. There is never one "right way" of telling history, so I think Phillipa is fine in writing in the way she does - for entertainment's sake. I heard similar comments about "Rome" on HBO - "too raunchy"..."too much swearing!"...but isn't that one perspective of how it very well may be?......

#43: I take your point about needing to tell a story, but I think there is a difference between an author using their imagination to fill in the gaps and expand on the historical record, and including deliberate anachronisms or distorting established history too much (unless it's clearly an alternate reality story, of course).

>43 Elsieb: Elsieb

Most definitely, I think historical fiction should be fun as well. And I certainly don't read in order to pick out inaccuracies. What bothers me far more than a fudged timeline or (mild) anachronism are what I consider historical Implausibilities. If I simply can't imagine that the characters behaved in that way, it defeats the purpose of historical fiction.

As for Ms. Gregory, I think it is fine that she writes for entertainment...I just think the way she chooses to have her characters behave (particularly Elizabeth, but others too) doesn't work in the historical context. Elizabeth as a whiny brat who can't do anything without Dudley's support? I simply can't reconcile that with the woman riding in front of her troops in armor proclaiming that she may have the body of a woman, but the heart of a lion...

As for Rome, I'm pretty sure (given the graffiti found on the walls of Pompeii and the contemporary writers and such) that it was in fact at least that raunchy... :-).

True, true....but saying that, Phillipa writes in her editorial notes in the books that the books are not intended to be pure history...that she has embellished, so to that end, it makes it easier for me to "switch off" the history part of my brain and take the book for what it is.....perhaps it's not as easy for others to. Alison Weir is very accurate, historically, but, I don't think her books tend to be quite as entertaining (!).....so I think the trick is to just read around the subject.....don't use Gregory as the main source....read as much as you can about the period and the characters and form your own opinion as she has....of course that means more books but .....heigh-ho!...it's a hard life....:)

By the way, I'm new to Librarything - absolutely love it! I am jealous of those of you who've known about this for so long!!

>43 Elsieb: Elsieb -I am with you 100%

#45 - good point....fudged timelines do muddle things somewhat. Trust me, I can be as anal as the rest of them on detail....:) Just wondering....did you prefer Helen Mirren's Elizabeth?...I know it's film, but something that I struggle with is that we always see Elizabeth as a woman (young or old), not so much as a child. She was, apparently, very precocious and I am sure, a whiny child (I suppose I would have been too if I'd been bastardized and abandoned by my father after he'd chopped my mum's head off) but I'm with you that it's unlikely she was a Whiny Woman:))

#46 welcome to LT. We have a great time kicking around ideas and sometimes jokes, too. Glad to have you join us.

Hi Elsieb, nice to meet you!

I agree. I love finding out the accepted facts of history, but my fictional reading is much more for entertainment. With historical fiction I find it fun to play the "what if" game. OK, one has to at times suspend ones disbelief, but since I wasn't there the first time around, I find this quite easy :-)

ive read many of her books including the wideacre trilogy and have loved them-

the only two i havent read are the wise woman and a respectable trade

I have read and enjoyed all of the Tudor books by Phillipa Gregory. Some I think were better than others but neverless I did enjoy reading all of them. I've also read the Wideacre Trilogy but didn't enjoy them as much as the tudor books. The plot seemed to meander a bit too much or it was a bit weak? I'm not sure. I tried to read Earthly Joys but couldn't get into it and I have also tried to read A Respectable Trade but the subject matter, slavery, put me off reading it about halfway through. I can't wait for Phillipa Gregory's next book! (whenever that will be)

An extraordinarily good historical novel about Elizabeth I is Legacy by Susan Kay. It opens during Elizabeth's imprisonment in the Tower during her sister Mary's reign, and covers her childhood up to, if I remember correctly, the time she became queen. It's well researched and pscyhologically astute.

Reading this novel made me realize how much Elizabeth must have been affected by her awareness that her mother had been put to death by her father. Many factual history books mention the way Elizabeth dithered over signing the order to have Mary executed (though she was hardly squeamish about using torture in other cases). It wasn't until I read Kay's novel that I felt I understood this. And just aside from the psychological insights, Legacy is full of suspense and a great read!

Thanks for the recommendation margad. I'll certainly look out for that one.

The one who really irks me is Carrolly Erickson. I can't stand her florid style and overblown characterizations.

ElsieB, you may want to check out "Bertie and Elizabeth" starring Juliet Stevenson. It was on PBS's "Masterpiece Theater" (US) a few years ago. A young Elizabeth (played by two different actresses) appears periodically in the second half.

I just finished The Boleyn Inheritance, and it was intense. I was literally scared out my wits. Even though I what would happen to Anne and Catherine--I was still in suspense and wondering if they would be executed or saved. Henry was a crazed and horrifying monster. My heart was pounding with terror like each of the women in the book. I think Gregory did an excellent job with this book. I have read just about all the others in the Tudor series; still need to read The Constant Princess though which I've heard is good. So a brief recap of my opinions on the others in the series:

The Queen's Fool: Not so good. I found it rather boring and the heroine, Hannah, rather whiny.
The Other Boleyn Girl: I think Gregory improved on this one. I didn't even know about Mary Boleyn and her relationship with Henry VIII until this book. I still found Mary, like Hannah, rather whiny, and I admit I had to put the book down once and leave it alone for a while then come back to it.
The Virgin's Lover I'm still indecisive as to whether or not I liked it. I've read that her portrayal of Elizabeth was not quite so accurate. It was definitely a shock and a rather jarring characterization of her. I found the book nonetheless intriguing, especially with Amy Dudley thrown in the picture. Elizabeth just seemed so weak and scared and foolish at the same time. I agree with some people here that I didn't like the way she was shown as being dependent of a man for everything. I think though, Gregory was trying to show her as a scared girl at the beginning of her life as a figure of major responsibility and power. I think she was coming to grips with the fact that she had to "step up to the plate" towards the end. I don't think the book was too bad though.

I will definitely have to read The Boleyn Inheritance! Thanks for the recommendation, Lady Pamina, which gains credibility from your astute comments about the other novels.

I am in the middle of The Boleyn Inheritance right now and loving it, I've already read The Other Boleyn Girl and thought it was wonderful. So far, so good!

I loved The Other Boleyn Girl too, and now I'm about to start The Virgin's Lover, I know it's got mixed reviews, but I'm willing to give it a try. I haven't read anything on Elizabeth I, so I don't think it will as jarring for me, since I'm unfamiliar with any detailed history on her in the first place. After I read the book, then I can read what really happened.

I don't know if this has been mentioned - but there seems to be a movie coming out entitled The Other Boleyn Girl - is it based on Philippa Gregory's novel? Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johanson are in it.

I just finished The Virgin's Lover and it wasn't bad, but I liked The Other Boleyn Girl much more. I agree with many reviewers, Elizabeth was just so whiny and spineless throughout this book. I had no sympathy for any of the characters, I didn't even really like any of them, with the exception of William Cecil. Amy was so cloying and pathetic, I did feel sorry for her at the end, though. My Review

#61 dhiba - I've been following the release of this movie ever since I finished the book last year, I'm looking forward to seeing it very much! I think it opens the end of February in the US, but I'm not positive. I've loved all the publicity shots that they've shown so far! My first impression when I heard about the casting was that the leading actresses roles should be reversed, but I'm used to the idea of Scarlett as Mary now, I hope Eric Bana makes a worthy Henry! *grin*

I am absolutely gripped by Fallen Skies at the moment. For the first couple of introductory chapters, I thought it was going to be just another light romance, but it's so incredibly realistic and well-paced, and all the characters are well-drawn, for better or worse. I love Lily's defiance, which I would probably roll my eyes at in any other story, and I feel strangely protective of secondary characters like Rory and Coventry; Stephen I wish had drowned in the mud back in Ypres! (I don't believe there is a solitary redemptive or sympathetic side to him - he's a spoiled egomaniac; a weak, sad little man.) Anybody else read this?

Hi Caramellunacy

I like Philippa Gregory's books, however, you certainly are correct in noting that her books contain inaccuracies. I use them as a springboard actually..I check what I read from her and then research to find the fabrications.

The problem with historical fiction is that some people may read it and forget the "novel/fiction" part of it.

Hi Whisper1,

I see you're a new member: Welcome to LT, I hope you have a great time around here!

I certainly agree that people expecting novels to be 100% accurate historically is too much. The whole purpose of novels is to make the history accessible and to reimagine people and places - which sometimes certainly requires fudging the facts a bit. Usually unless there are glaring inaccuracies (that I notice), I don't mind terribly.

In Gregory's case, I find myself being less forgiving of inaccuracies and different theories than I usually am because the way she interprets her characters is often completely opposite of how I tend to view them. The most jarring to me (as I think I've said) was Elizabeth's portrayal in The Virgin's Lover. I don't think I've forgiven Gregory for that...

Using her novels as a springboard is an excellent idea, and one I try to follow when reading other authors (ones that don't rub me the wrong way). :-)
I especially like authors who include some of their background research material in a bibliography.

Anyway, welcome again, and I hope to see you in more of our discussions!

I finished The Other Boleyn Girl today, the first of Philippa Gregory's books that I have read, and while the book was good, I kept saying to myself as I was reading it 'But that's not the way it actually happened.' I have to try to remember while I am in the genre that it is called Historical FICTION for a reason.

I am half way into The Other Boleyn Girl and am enjoying it so far. It is a very quick read, I hope to be finished tomorrow night! Any recommendations on which book to read next?

#67 You can read them chronologically or in order of publication. Chronologically, The Constant Princess would come before The Other Boleyn Girl, The Boleyn Inheritance next, then The Queen's Fool and The Virgin Queen. Earthly Joys and Virgin Earth are set later, in the Stuart period, and deal with the John Tradescants, gardeners to the king.

I read Gregory's novels out of historical sequence. I'm very familiar with the period as I teach Early Modern English lit, so mixing it up a bit really didn't matter to me, and Gregory jumps all around the period in terms of composition/publication dates. I read The Queen's Fool after The Other Boleyn Girl and thought it was quite good. In fact, I liked it better than many of the others because the main character is fictional; Elizabeth and Mary Tudor are important secondary characters. My favorite, however, is her latest, The Boleyn Inheritance. In it, she gives a voice to three women we don't hear much of in either history or literature: Jane Boleyn, the sister-in-law of Anne, whose husband was executed along with her; Anne of Cleves; and Katherine Howard.

Thank you! I was given The Other Boleyn Girl to read first by a friend.

#69 It's definitely her most popular novel--and it has been made into a movie that should be released soon.

I have read the first 2 books in the Wideacre series (Wideacre) and The Favored Child - both are very good and hard to put down!

Only just discovered this thread and so delighted to find I'm not the only person who cant bear the woman! Admittedly, the only book of hers I've read was The Other Boleyn Girl and I was immediately put off by the lazy research (#5, 8, 13 etc), which is the very reason I haven't been tempted to read any of her others. The other thing that really annoys me now that the film is out (and it's not necessarily PGs fault) is that, every time I see or hear interviewers, journalist etc comment on it, they talk as if PG was the first person every to realise that Anne had a sister at all. Every book (fiction and non-fiction) I have read about Anne since I was 12 years old (and there have been quite a lot as she fascinates me) has gone into considerable detail about Mary and her affair with Henry. She was never a secret.

I'm new to LT and have just recently begun reading some here. I've been a little hesitant about posting, but....here goes....
Looks like I'm in the minority, but I've enjoyed all her books. I read to escape and to be entertained, which is why I read fiction. I especially enjoy fantasy. I do realize that if I were doing research and if historical accuracy was necessary, then I would need to search elsewhere.

Philippa Gregory is a very popular author so, no, laketa, you're not in the minority!

I always think it's worthwhile for authors of historical fiction to include an afterword that discusses where the novel sticks to historical fact and where the author has "fudged" some dates in the interest of the story line, made up characters to interact with the historical characters, departed from the historical record entirely, etc.

Authors of historical fiction do vary widely in the amount of research they do and the degree to which they stick to known facts or embroider a story. Readers are wise, I think, to keep in mind that any novel is fiction and represents, at best, one author's guess about what might have happened. When a novel piques our interest in a particular historical period or person from history, we can and often do follow up by reading a straight history book - and even some of those should be taken with a grain of salt, as fashions in historical interpretation change!

Hi I too am divided on Philippa Gregory. I recently finished Earthy Joys and was quite disappointed.

Thanks for the welcome!

Funny, Im a little divided on Philippa Gregory's books but I really enjoyed Earthly joys. Not so much for the relationship between the Duke and the gardener, more for the gardening bits! This was the man who introduced Tulips to England! Unless her research is really off-beam there to.....off to Wikipedia again to check. :-)

Oh, and I've found most of the Tudor books very entertaining. Read in the order of
The other boleyn girl
The constant princess- this is out of historical sequence, but I found it more interesting reading about a young Katherine (from Gregorys perspective)
after reading TOBG.
the boleyn inheritance
Any of the others were not really memorable.

i would classify most of philippa's novels as somewhat smart beach reading. i believe she does take a lot of liberties with actual historical facts which can be a bit annoying if you actually *know* the history. it can also make you sound like a bit of a fool if you quote her books as fact...

two of her modern stories were quite fun - "zelda's cut" and "the little house". great endings in both stories.

the wideacre series was a bit, um, much. the first and last books were relatively good reads; the 2nd book was a rehash of the first. the first does have a lot of questionable sexual elements - as does the 2nd. i can't recall if the 3rd went down the same path or not. it seems like philippa read anne rice's "beauty" series and decided to do something similar. i only made it through the first beauty book and was bored with the repetition so at least philippa's had enough to it that i read the whole series, but then maybe that just says something about myself? hehehe

bottom line - philippa is enjoyable, but she treats historical facts with a loose type of flexibility that can be annoying to the historically educated...

I can't believe I'm saying this, but... I just finished The Other Boleyn Girl and I really enjoyed it. I am a history major and I was really prepared to hate the book for its loose historical accuracy... but Philippa Gregory won me over.

While I know that none of us can possibly know exactly what went through the minds of those involved in this story, or what their personalities were like especially in private moments, Gregory came up with a really engaging, intriguing "what if." The characters, Mary and Anne most of all, were so well-written (IMHO) that they drew me into the story despite my misgivings.

I would say, read it as an example of what a claustrophobic court life might be like, and then as was mentioned previously, use it as a springboard toward other, truer histories. I myself am starting with Alison Weir's The Six Wives of Henry VIII; I also have Antonia Fraser's The wives of Henry VIII to tackle and may hunt down some others.

I plan to read The Boleyn Inheritance at some point, and maybe The Constant Princess. Hopefully I will enjoy those as much as TOBG.

I read an article a week or two ago about the new HBO Henry VIII presentation, and it seems they've taken liberties way beyond what the typical novelist (even the typical sloppy novelist) would dream of. They decided it would be too confusing for viewers if two different characters (Henry's sister and Henry's daughter) were both named Mary, so they substituted his sister Margaret for Mary in an episode about her marriage. That wasn't all. They also felt it would be confusing, for some reason, for her to marry King Louis of France (whom Mary actually did marry), so they had Margaret (who actually married King James IV of Scotland) marry the King of Spain instead. Heaven help anyone who learns their history from HBO productions!

I first read the Queen's Fool, and I liked it. I don't know that much about English history so I wouldn't have picked up on the inaccuracies in the book but I liked it for the story. I have also read The Other Boleyn Girl a couple times and I liked that one two. I listened to an interview that phillippa did and she said that some historians don't believe there was the gay/incest/lesbian thing going on that there were no facts to prove that, she said that she thought there could be all that going on so she put it in the book. I want to read books with true historical facts can you guys recommend any. I like Phillippa Gregory's books the one's I've read but I want more authors to read.

margad, are you thinking about The Tudors on Showtime? (If not, I wasn't aware that HBO is doing a series.) It is horribly inaccurate, but delicious fun nonetheless.

Oh, and Margaret not only marries the King of Portugal, she smothers him!

The Tudors was deliciously showbiz, but great fun if you're not worried about facts. I have great trouble believing that Henry looked anything like Johnny Rhys Meyers! I'm sure there would have been more than six wives if he had!

I'm definitely in the ditch it as history, but isn't it FUN camp on The Tudors. And it's not just Henry that's cute - personally I've been a huge fan of Charles Brandon. (And I've always been madly in love with Jeremy Northam).

The new guy is also cute--not sure what the character name is, but the one who had the meadow romp with Queen Katherine's lady-in-waiting on the last episode.

Fun camp is definitely the way to describe it! Where in the UK we've had one series so far. Are there more?

>87 LadyN:
Season 2 has just started (Mar 30). I can't wait for it to hit DVD - I don't get Showtime :-(

Just think: they are still between wives number 1 and 2. Four more plus three heirs to go. This could be a long-running series!

I'm not sure what channel the series is on - we don't get either HBO or Showtime, so we'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD.

It's true, I understand, that Henry was quite an attractive hunk as a young man, before he got fat and developed an ulcer on his leg (or vice-versa).

#90 - but he always had a beard, even as a young man.

I watched the first series in the UK and enjoyed it at one level (esp. all the scenes with Ann Boleyn ;)), but the inaccuracies grated on me also, esp. those around Henry's amalgamated sister marrying and then murdering the King of Portugal and Wolsey committing suicide, which is surely inconceivable in an age where a suicide's soul would have been deemed lost for ever for such a deed.

I'm not sure what channel the series is on - we don't get either HBO or Showtime, so we'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD.
-----------
Do you live near the Canadian border? CBC has been showing it, although they aren't at this time. Either way, the first season has already been released on DVD, so you should be able to rent or buy it. I'm not sure how widely it's distributed, but I know my neighbourhood video store has several copies.

I found more information on distribution of The Tudors the Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors

There's also information about when the second season will be shown (depends where you watch it).

I thought I would chime in on this thread. I've read The Other Boylen Girl Queen's Fool and parts of Constant Princess and the Wideacre series. I enjoyed TOBG and QF, but knew them to be "light" historical fiction. I'm a big fan of this time period (just finished David Starkey history Six Wives: the Queens of Henry VIII. I usually feel that Gregory takes a few too many liberties, but she is a fun read. I tend to like Fiona Buckley's Elizabeth I mystery series too. I must say that I wasn't a huge fan of Constant Princess. It just didn't hold my attention and I ended up just taking it back to the library. I HATED the Wideacre series. I only got through most of the first and it just really grossed me out (the incest between brother and sister) and I was totally unsympathetic to the main character.

#88 - Thanks! I'll look out for it here.

#94 - I agree about The Constant Princess. I found it dull by comparison. Plus I find Katherine of Aragon far more interesting later on, so was very frustrated with where it finished.

I'd have to agree with most. I adore Philippa Gregory, but she certainly does not follow true historic fact, which is why it is perfectly categorized as fiction. I loved TOBG, and TCP was only alright. I bought The Boleyn Inheritance and plan on getting to it after I've finished a few others on my list.

As an avid fan of Showtime's Tudor series, I feel the want to chime in a bit on this. Yes, the accuracy of the show is absolutely awful. However, it is definitely a sexy show. Johnathan Ryhs-Meyers and Henry Caville (he's Charles Brandon) are definitely worth watching. If you want entertainment, it's worth the watch. But if you're one who is going to be upset with historical inaccuracy, steer clear!

I feel the same way about Gregory's books as I do about the Tudors series. It's just good fun, and I'm not expecting them to be hugely accurate. It's fun to go online afterward and research some of what really happened and compare it to the portrayal. I haven't read any of her books outside of the Tudor series, but I enjoyed all of them with the exception of The Virgin's Lover. The only character that generated any interest in that book was Amy Dudley. The rest were one-dimensional and flat, IMO.

I just finished The Constant Princess and really enjoyed it. I could barely put it down. Based on the mixed reviews I'd read about it, I didn't think I'd like it all that much - but surprisingly I liked it alot! I developed a newfound admiration for Katherine and she was very much her mother's daughter in this book. The historical innacuracies didn't bother me, since I knew nothing about her before this book, and I read a lot of romances, so I was right at home with this book. I've only read The Other Boleyn Girl and The Virgin's Lover besides these books, and I liked this much more than The Virgin's Lover. Even though much of this book was fiction, it was still fascinating to read about her early life and her love for Arthur (although it got a big morbid after a while after he dies and her deathbed promise to him).

Still working on my Tudor books and just finished The Boleyn Inheritance - what a disappointment! I barely liked it. I could not get into the characters, hated the choppiness of the chapters and the changing viewpoints of the three women, and I found it repulsive imagining big fat gross Henry and young 15 year old Katherine in bed together - yick! TMI! I had such high hopes for this book, but I still like Gregory as an author, this one is my least favorite of the books I've read of hers. The only one I haven't read yet of the Tudor novels is The Queen's Fool which I'll read soon after a break from this period.

Philippa Gregory is one of the authors speaking in the literary section of the Edinburgh Festival this summer. Alison Weir is speaking on the same day. I can't wait!

I just got an ARC of The Other Queen. Will post my review as soon as I'm done!

#101 - I'm so jealous that you have that already! Looking forward to what you think of it.

99: Interesting. I've been working my way through the series as well and recently finished The Boleyn Inheritance which was my favorite so far. I really enjoyed the short chapter (partly because it was my lunch reading, so I was always able to finish a chapter) and getting the different perspectives. I found it particularly refreshing right after The Constant Princess where the long chapters and switching from 3rd person to 1st person grated on me. I'm a little over 100 pages into The Queen's Fool right now and I'm enjoying it so far, but attempting to reserve judgement until I get a little further in.

The beauty of books, to each his own, right?!

100. "Philippa Gregory is one of the authors speaking in the literary section of the Edinburgh Festival this summer. Alison Weir is speaking on the same day."

That should be interesting. One is the real deal and the other (Gregory) not so much. I also would put Gregory's books more in historical romance - they are anything but historically accurate or even close. I suppose if you don't have much of a grasp on English history you might find them more enjoyable but I, like several others on this post, found them to be quite "jarring".

104 - I agree in that it will be an interesting comparison. I enjoy Gregory's fiction, and Weir's history :-)

As has already been said regarding Gregory, I can understand that some don't like the license she takes, but I'm quite happy acknowledging that she is not claiming her work to be fact. For me, she creates the world she writes about beautifully, and I get great enjoyment from her stories.

Again, to each his own. :-)

105 - Very true! I guess what I'm really trying to say is this: I don't mind when an author takes literary licence "around" the things actually known - to fill in the blanks as it were with what could've been - but don't change or get wrong the stuff we do know. Do you know what I mean? I think the other thing that impacts this is when you really love a particular historical figure - Elizabeth I is my favourite historical female. But as you say - each to his own. :)

#106 - absolutely! I completely understand where you're coming from. I'd be the same about other figures. (Double standard??!!) ;-)

#106 - I'm a big fan of Elizabeth I myself - I don't agree with ALL her choices, but I love reading about her and hate when she's treated as whiny or overly male-dependant. The Lady Elizabeth did all right with her, though (**spoiler**) I tend to hope that she and Thomas Seymour had a flirtatious relationship at most.

I've watched The Tudors on Showtime with a grain of salt - you have to remind yourself that this is meant for entertainment, not a history lesson. That's how I feel about historical fiction - if I like the story I tend to research non-fiction to be sure of what really happened (if history knows).

108 - I do the same, ladygata. That's part of what I love about historical fiction - it inspires me to learn. I'm usually not motivated to pick up non-fiction otherwise.

>107 LadyN:

That's exactly how I feel too. It's definitely a double standard (I have no problem at all with The Tudors TV show, but have huge issues with Gregory's stuff), but about certain historical figures I'm just pickier about what seems plausible to me based on my (biased) ideas of what those figures would have been like.

And that's ok with me. Of course, if other people like Philipa Gregory, that's fine by me too!

108 -
I just finished Lady Elizabeth and I definitely agree about Seymour. And (MORE SPOILERS) I think it's sad that it's set up that she remains chaste after that - I'm such a sucker for dashing Robin Dudley...
I'm looking forward to her next book, which is supposed to be about Anne Boleyn.

Okay, I finished The Other Queen. I also wrote a review, though I might make some changes to it. I think I liked it more than most of the other reviewers, though I agree that it was repetitive.

I read Wideacre a few months ago, and thought that it was improbable (sp?) not very interesting, and seriously I was ready to strangle Beatrice. I had just read The Other Boylen Girl and thoroughly enjoyed it, and thinking that Wideacre would be somewhat like it, I purchased it and found it incredibly dull.
I don't know if anyone else shares my opinion, but honestly it was one of the worse books I have read in a while. I did enjoy The Other Boylen Girl though.

As a look at the life of Catherine of Aragon, The Constant Princess, is absolutely awful. But then again, Philippa Gregory disregards every shred of fact in most of her books. I just really enjoyed The Constant Princess as a novel in it's own right and tried to complete forget the fact that it was based off real history, just like I did with The Other Boleyn Girl and The Boleyn Inheritance.

I've only read The Other Boleyn Girl and am about half way through The Constant Princess. To be honest, I am not impressed with TCP at all so far, Catherine just does not appeal to me as a character. I enjoyed TOBG quite a lot, it birthed an interest in historical fiction once again.

I really enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl because I read it as a novel more than a historical novel. It was a juicy read. However, last week I saw the movie, and I could not BELIEVE how awful it was. I mean it was scandalously awful. So bad that for two days I wondered how they could have botched it so badly. If Gregory butchered the history, the film managed to butcher the book and everything in it that made the story compelling.

Quite surprising given the quality of the actresses in the movie. I like Scarlett Johanssen, Natalie Portman and Kristin Scott Thomas. Dreadful. All those involved should be embarrassed. Probably the worst movie I've seen in years.

Every comment I've heard for the film version of The Other Boleyn Girl has been not just negative, but very negative. I really like all those actresses, so I can't imagine how it can be so bad. Almost makes me want to see it. Nah, I'll just go rent The Tudors.

Absolutely rent The Tudors, which is excellent. And who cares whether it is historically accurate when Henry is so hot!! :-) Seriously though, they've done a very good job with that series besides the fact that many of the actors are easy on the eyes. Even as a train wreck, I wouldn't recommend the movie. It's that bad.

Totally agree with #115. Truly, truly dreadful. "Simply putrid," as Leonard Pinth Garnell used to say on the old SNL.

I haven't seen The Other Boleyn Girl yet, so can't compare it to the movie, but a friend of mine just saw it and was really not liking it. The Tudors was really inaccurate in its first year, but got a little closer to history in its second.

For anyone who is interesting in factual information from the Elizabethan period, go to this extensive website:

http://elizabethan.org/

oh how i lovelovelove her books!

honestly, she is on my top 10 list of authors.

119 I don't mind the liberties taken with The Tudors or The Other Boleyn Girl, since both are works of fiction and not really history. And for me, the more raucously fictionalized, the better, since no one should then mistake it for truth. But while The Tudors is a lush, fun extravaganza with a pretty good script and good acting, the movie of The Other Boleyn Girl fell short on every count. Dull, awkward, stilted script, actors who often seemed embarrassed by it, and a very odd, uneven pacing. The costumes were the only thing it had going for it.

For anyone interested Philippa Gregory will be giving a talk on her new book 'The Other Queen' at Penshurst Place on 14th Sept at 6pm. Tickets can be bought at Penshurst's gift shop or at the Sevenoaks Bookshop in Sevenoaks, Kent.

I didn't care for (The Wise Woman or Meridon) by ((Philippa Gregory)) but enjoyed the others you have listed. I have recommended them to co-workers and they also enjoyed them.

I too didn't much care for The Wise Woman. I'm looking forward to reading The Other Queen, but its gotten lukewarm reviews so far.

#125 Kasthu

I've read most of Philippa Gregory's books but have to say I believe that the quality has been slowly going down.

The Other Boleyn Girl remains my favourite and I would agree that my reaction to The Other Queen was lukewarm....it didn't particularly engage me, I didn't find it captivating me at all and just finished it for the sake of finishing it. However....it is still a reasonable historical fiction book and made me want to read more about Bess of Hardwick who came out as the most interesting person in the book.

She has started churning these out way too quickly. Any historical fiction writer worth her salt needs a minimum of two years to conduct research and get a first draft underway. So I'd guess she is slacking on the research, not planning out the plot and exploring the characters as carefully as before, and probably not doing much revision.

All of which, unfortunately, shows.

I recently finished The Other Queen, and I must say that I'm disappointed. You're right, she's churning things out way too quickly just to make a quick buck. The thing is that Gregory knows the Tudors and Stuarts like the back of her hand, so that writing a new novel I imagine is quite easy for her. I heard a rumor somewhere that she was thinking about writing about the Plantagents next--say it isn't so!

Well, one problem may be, then, that the Tudors and Stuarts have gotten a bit stale, even for her.

I just finished The Queen's Fool which I really enjoyed. I didn't think I'd like it as much as I did, and I put off reading it for almost a year, reading all the other books in the series first. I'm glad I finally read it. Not as good - or as bad - as some of her other books, this was somewhere in the middle, but as usual I loved feeling like I was experiencing life at Court firsthand, albeit the historical innacuracies - it was still a good story and a satisfying ending.

After The Virgin's Lover and The Other Queen, and to a lesser extent The Queen's Fool, I want to know what it is that Ms. Gregory has against Elizabeth I. She really seems not to like her.

#132 Devourer - I agree, she's always written in a sort of dazzling, stealing the show kind of way, but at the same time, as a scheming, plotting, promiscuous temptress. I also feel like she must have had Kate Blanchett in mind when writing Elizabeth, at least that's who I always picture when reading in her books, it's hard not to.

And so weak and insecure at the same time! In The Virgin's Lover she can't seem to make a decision without a man's opinion.

I started Wideacre and did not enjoy it at all, I don't know why, it just did not grab me at all. I think the incest story line put me off. I really enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl and The Boleyn Inheritance, enjoying the latter more. I have A Wise Woman on my TBR pile, am looking forward to it :-)

I started Wideacre and did not enjoy it at all, I don't know why, it just did not grab me at all. I think the incest story line put me off. I really enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl and The Boleyn Inheritance, enjoying the latter more. I have The Wise Woman on my TBR pile, am looking forward to it :-)

I could never get into Wideacre or her non 'Tudor court' novels as much as I love the ones about the court life. Somehow, the characters never gripped me as much. Perhaps now I am older I should try them again, but I expect I would find the same thing.

It often seems to me that Gregory needs 'Real' characters to embellish and elaborate on, as opposed to being able to make up her own characters and storylines completely from scratch. I would argue that The Other Boleyn Girl is probably her most popular, and perhaps best book, but all she had to do was fill the Tudor world with detail, and follow the pattern that had already been set out by history. She didn't have to come up with very much original material from scratch.

What are other people's thoughts?

I've enjoyed the majority of the Philippa Gregory's books, but have to concur that she's been churning them out lately. My favourites are A Respectable Trade and Meridon. I hated The Wise Woman and quickly donated it to a charity shop.

As for her Tudor fiction - well I'm of the opinion that it is 'fiction' so therefore the author will take their own view of it. It doesn't mean it's correct, it's just their version of padding out what historical facts survive. I don't read historical fiction looking for 100% accuracy - that's what history books and original sources are for.

With Anne Boleyn, she was accused of incest and adultery. We will never know if she was truly guilty of this or not, we can only speculate. A fiction writer just gives a plausible explanation. That's the fun of the genre - every book you read is slightly different and will argue their case for their viewpoint.

Hi Kell

I've read many of her books as well and have Wideacre next in line after I finish reading World Without End. I wanted to wait until I got all three books in her trilogy before I started it, book # 2 Favoured Child is on the way and I already have book# 3 Meridian by Philippa Gregory.

I'll let you know once I start the series.

And she's got another one coming out in December. Guess she's going for two per year now. This one is set in World War II.

Somebody make her stop--please!

140: Fallen Skies, which actually takes place in the 1920s, is actually a reprint of a book she wrote a long time ago, before her Tudor novels became popular.

#140 - Somebody make her stop--please!
---------------

Giggle.

Lol..........maybe if we just stopped buying/reading them then she would!! Then again, since when did many popular authors stop writing for money when they could write for quality instead ;)

@#115--I agree with you, jhedlund, that they started with quality acting talent, and should have turned out good performances. I also think the screen writer, Peter Morgan, has a solid body of work behind him. What specifically did you dislike about it? Any ideas for what (or who?) ruined it for you? I noticed that the director has only done tv work before.....do you think he got overwhelmed by his first cinematic production?

Anyone else here like it, or think it is worth a view for some reason?

I gave my reasons above:

"The Other Boleyn Girl fell short on every count. Dull, awkward, stilted script, actors who often seemed embarrassed by it, and a very odd, uneven pacing. The costumes were the only thing it had going for it."

Clubcurate - where to begin? First of all, there was ZERO chemistry between Portman and Bana. In fact, unless you'd read the book or knew the history intimately, you'd end up wondering why Henry fell for her so hard in the first place. She was depicted as a nimwit milktoast in the first half, followed by a heartless, conniving bitch in the second. There was ONE sex scene between Henry and Anne, and it was essentially a rape.

Seriously? Never mind the book. THIS is how you are going to depict one of the most historically significant love affairs ever? Also, I couldn't stand how they made her (Anne's) mother a sympathetic character. Her parents were basically prostituting both of their daughters for the sake of the family fame and fortune. It's too much of a stretch there.

Again, with the talent level of the actors, I have to assume that it was just the script that was hopeless, otherwise they would have been able to do SOMETHING to salvage it. Nevertheless, the dialog was leaden and forced. I didn't care about anybody in the movie.

I'd make an analogy to going out to breakfast and having a terrible meal. I mean, how hard is it to cook scrambled eggs? Same thing here. It's some of the most captivating historical material you could lay your hands on and somehow they managed to utterly, royally (sorry for the pun) screw it up.

But that's just my opinion... :-)

>146 jhedlund:

And let's not forget the screwy camera angles that were meant to be artsy and cool and turned out to be hopelessly distracting and pretentious.

I couldn't bring myself to watch it, and judging by the comments here I think I made the right decision!

Oy. It's in my queue on Netflix, but now I'm going to remove it if it's as bad as you all say.

Speaking of Tudors, has anyone here seen the HBO ?) miniseries with Jonathan Rhys Myers? Not the most historically accurate rendering of Henry VIII, but other than that I enjoyed the first two seasons.

#150 - I have seen the first season of The Tudors. It's a Showtime original series. They wrapped up season two with Anne's execution. Next season focuses on his marriages to Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves.

It really isn't accurate at all. But it's a great fictional series. I love it. And as long as you go into watching it with the mindset that it is fiction and not a documentary, then you'll enjoy it. Do not, I repeat, do not expect everything to be perfectly historically accurate. Which the same can be said for some of Philippa Gregory's work... not all of it completely true, but that's why it's classified as historical fiction.

I'm taking a poll right now on my blog to see which of Henry's queens is the favorite of today's hisotry buffs. Feel free to stop by and cast a vote!

http://misshollyslibrary.blogspot.com

The Tudors series is great. Very well acted, gorgeous sets and costumes (and actors - hello Johnny!). I liked the first season better than the second, but I think that's just because the first was so juicy. Plus, I miss Sam Neill as Wolsey. Nothing wrong with fiction as long as it's well done!

I really enjoyed The Tudors, but only if I told myself it was about a fictional family of roughly that period. Great fun. I felt the second series was a lot stronger, but that's just personal preference. :-)

I've only seen the first season of the Tudors (the second's out on DVD in January! I'm so excited). I just love how lush everything is, and I'm in love with Charles Brandon on that show. And I second the eyelash-batting at Johnny.

I really enjoy these big historical dramas lately (Rome, Tudors, etc.) and I hope it's a trend that continues.

I loved the Tudors too, I thought Season 2 was better, although I think I felt that way because I think they all looked better (the men). I fell for Charles Brandon (swoon!). Yes, it's fiction, but entertaining, my one gripe, I didn't think Rhys Davies was a believable Henry, it should be interesting to see how they portray him in his later years.

Has anyone seen the OTHER version of The Other Boleyn Girl, the one produced for British telly? It's in my queue.

The Tudors (Showtime, not HBO) is rip-roaring fun. Can't wait for the new season to begin.

Considering reading The Other Boelyn Girl, are there any objections or recommendations on reading or not reading this one before any of the others? I hate to admit that I watched the movie first, but I did. The whole time watching I kept thinking what a great book it would make and...VOILA!

If you want a background first on Henry's first wife, read The Constant Princess by her first. It follows the story in chronological order and allows you to get an idea of how Gregory sees the characters. Then read TOBG after this one perhaps.

And the book version of TOBG is way better than the movie, so you're in for a treat if you like the movie at all.

Grand, I can't wait to start! Thanks for the recommendation. I always appreciate someone else's opinions.

The Constant Princess was very intresting backround on Catherine. It shows all of her struggles and all. It makes feel sorry for her during her marrige to Henry. A very good book overall.

i have read a lot of Phillipa Gregory's novels, such as

The Other Boleyn Girl
The Virgin's Lover
The Queen's Fool
The Boleyn Inheritance

I enjoyed them all however i did not appreciate the role of Hannah the fool in "The Queen's Fool". I feel the story could have been told without the use of fictional characters in the novel.

I rather enjoyed "The Virgin's Lover" however having read the above thread i am a little disappointed that the historical depiction is rather inaccurate. i have not read much more on Elisabeth 1st but having read the above books I am more interested in reading about Jane Boleyn (Ann Boleyn's sister in Law) and Amy Robsart (Robert Dudley's first wife) and have taken books out of the library on these two characters. I will now widen my reading of Elisabeth 1st also following the above comments.

Hi, I have read almost every one of them and have loved them. Just my kind of genre. I always find myself doing tons of research on the time period afterward.

Just as an aside...I'm also a huge fan of Anita Diamant's historical fiction works...she has a new one coming up in September 2009. I just had the chance to interview her. Feel free to check it out on my blog at http://laurareviews.blogspot.com. Any questions, I'm always reachable at laurareviews@gmail.com.

Thanks all!

Hi, I have read all of the Tudor series and other works of Phillipa Gregory, I feel that in the Tudor series Philippa Gregory kept changing her style of writing. For Instance in the Tudor series the first two books she wrote were in some ones views (The Other Boleyn Girl-Mary, The Queens Fool-Hannah) and in all the other's they were wrote in third person. So I feel that she should've just stayed in First person. But other then that Philippa Gregory is always worth the read and will always give you the toe curling read you need.

Hi, I have read all of the Tudor series and other works of Phillipa Gregory, I feel that in the Tudor series Philippa Gregory kept changing her style of writing. For Instance in the Tudor series the first two books she wrote were in some ones views (The Other Boleyn Girl-Mary, The Queens Fool-Hannah) and in all the other's they were wrote in third person. So I feel that she should've just stayed in First person. But other then that Philippa Gregory is always worth the read and will always give you the toe curling read you need.

I quite enjoy Gregory's writing. I received an advance copy of'The White Queen' for review today - it comes out August 18th so get ready for it, Gregory fans! She's leaving the Tudor court behind and moving to the Plantagenets and Elizabeth Woodville for the new book.
I'll be back when I've read it :D

That's really...nice, Andy, but what does that have to do with Philippa Gregory?

re 166> Hmmm, no library, no groups, no favorite authors, no profile to speak of, and no record for this book . . . sounds like a spammer for a self-published novel.

I have read :
The Virgin's Lover
The Queen's Fool
The Boleyn Inheritance
The Other Boleyn Girl
The Constant Princess
A Respectable Trade

I loved them all though I must agree that she isn't always historically accurate. They all make for a good read however. I think my favorite so far has been The Constant Princess.

Elizabeth I has to be my favorite character in both fiction and non-fiction and unfortunately I do not care for the way Gregory portrays her. As a recommendation you should try Legacy by Susan Kay.

I saw the film adaptation of "The Other Boleyn Girl" when it was in theaters, and am just finishing "The Boleyn Inheritance" (for an Historical fiction discussion group). I'm finding "The Boleyn Inheritance" interesting, since it presents the story from three different women's points of view. I'm keeping my nonfiction "The Six Wives of Henry VIII' close by for reference, including the portraits of the wives, of Henry VIII, and other promintent people of that time).
Some time ago, I read "The Autobiography of Henry VIII: A Novel" by Margaret George... a very interesting read that protrays Henry VIII in a more sympathetic way.

I would recommend beginning with The Constant Princess...it is sort first in Chronology I feel

I`ve read a few of her books, The Boleyn Inheritance is the best, definitely. And I liked The other Queen`s Bess of Hardwick.