So as many of you already know, I had been looking forward to last night’s Philippa Gregory event since I first found out about it back in July. And “the Queen of Royal Fiction” did not disappoint!!! As part of her promotional tour for The White Queen, she stopped by my local Barnes & Noble to give a speech on Elizabeth Woodville and The Wars of the Roses, followed by questions from the audience, and a meet and greet book signing afterward. She was really friendly and seemed very outgoing; she even giggled when I told her the name of my blog!
Me getting my books signed by Philippa Gregory!
I told her I would be hosting a Giveaway and that all
my lovely readers would be so excited!
One of you lucky readers will get to reap the benefit of my having attended such an event: Tomorrow, as a grand finale closing to my part in the Historical Fiction Bloggers Round Table event, I will open a giveaway of one *autographed* paperback copy of The Constant Princess, which I had autographed in person by Philippa last night.
I was even lucky enough to be one of the audience members to ask Ms. Gregory a question! My question to Philippa was: “While researching for The White Queen, was there anything you learned about Elizabeth Woodville that, perhaps, you did not know before, or anything that surprised you?”
She answered that (I’m paraphrasing) she really knew very little about Elizabeth Woodville prior to researching for The White Queen, and what surprised her most were the abundant accusations of witchcraft against Elizabeth that were so rampant in the Middle Ages. She said that many people actually believed that the only reason Elizabeth’s husband, Edward IV, was able to win so many wars was because Elizabeth was able to control the weather with her magic! Apparently, the majority of Edward’s wars were fought during inclement weather conditions, and the people blamed his wife for this!
During her speech, Philippa also shared with us her belief that Richard III did not in fact kill his nephews, famously known as “The Princes in the Tower.” Her logic for this is that there was no way that Elizabeth of York would have became his lover had she truly suspected him of murdering her brothers. There is also no historical evidence of a conversation having taken place between Elizabeth Woodville and Richard where she accused him of killing her sons, nor are there any documents from the time which incriminate Richard as their murderer. Interestingly, Philippa says that in her opinion, the most likely culprit was in fact Henry Tudor, later Henry VII. She says that history has wrongly given Richard III a bad name, and for that she blames the Tudors and the Tudor historical chroniclers such as Thomas Moore (yes, Sir Thomas Moore, the saint!). According to Philippa, Henry VII really did not have any actual real right to the crown of England; he won it through battle and literally picked up his crown off the muddy field at Bosworth, and what better way to justify his own right to the throne than by vilifying his predecessor? To wrap everything up, she ended the conversation by saying that the mystery of The Lost Princes remains exactly that, a mystery. Nobody knows what really happened; whether they were murdered, died from disease, escaped to Flanders…nobody knows! She says that as an historian, she is able to outright say, “nobody knows.” But as an author of historical fiction, such a mystery cannot be left blank within the pages, and she must come up with an imaginary solution. To find out how Philippa handled the death of the lost princes through fiction, check out her latest novel, The White Queen!
Wow, you're so lucky to have attended this event and had your question answered! I would love to meet PG! Her latest book and research as been under such scrutiny lately on various social networks and blogs. I'm glad to see she is still talking about fact vs. fiction to clear up these accusations. People get so wound up about Richard III and his era. Robin Maxwell also used the Tudors as the real villains in her novel on the princes. It's a good theory… as for Thomas More, well, just read Portrait of an Unknown Woman by Vanora Bennett. It's very interesting and the artwork by Hans Holbein hold REAL clues. There's a website dedicated to the research.
Hi Arleigh
It was a really great event and I was really glad to hear her bring up the fact that her work is fiction, as so many people get their knickers all up in a bunch over the fact that her work is often historically inaccurate. Personally, I was more upset with The Other Boleyn Girl, the movie, than the book. I really can't stand the fact that Henry VIII rapes Anne Boleyn in one of the scenes. So unnecessary! And yes, it is an interesting theory that the Tudors are responsible, one that I had not considered before because I've not read any hist-fic OR non-fic on the topic, only hearsay. I am eager to read Robin Maxwell's take on this controversy, and I've heard great things about Vanora Bennett's books.
How exciting! I look forward to your contest!
I went on Tuesday to her talk in Princeton. It was really interesting as I am especially interested in the Princes in the Tower and I liked how she explained some of her theories. Sadly I got no pictures though I did get 2 books signed, The Constant Princess and The White Queen. I hope to see her again in the future.
Okay … I wish I'd popped across town to hear her!However, I DO think that Richard had his nephews murdered. If you read about all the things he did to the rest of the members of his extended family, imprisoning his nephews was par for the course.Yes, it's true that the Tudors' chroniclers propagandized many things that have come down to us as fact, and that Henry VII was indeed a usurper. But as to why Elizabeth of York would have become involved with Richard had he been responsible, even indirectly for her brothers' murder — try fear. Oh how I wish you could read my chapter in NOTORIOUS ROYAL MARRIAGES on Elizabeth Woodville's marriage to Edward IV and what occurred after his death to her and to their children.But one cannot deny Ms. Gregory's success in historical fiction, and she is correct that writing fiction gives one the freedom to reimagine what some people may regard as facts, and others see as revisionist history.
I am terribly jealous – but very happy for you! I wanted to go but both Boston and NYC are a little far to go for an event. That is so exciting you got to ask your question – that is awesome!
Very good points from both side. You know I am obsessed with the princes mystery. You saw my post on the report of the bones found in the box. Maybe if they were allowed to do modern testing on the bones we might find out when they were killed. That might be the question to really ask that would lead to who did it. Congrats I am glad you had fun!
I forgot to mention, while the subject of Tudor propaganda is on the table, vis-a-vis Henry VII's needing to sanitize and recast his role, because he was really a usurper. Two points: (1)that's often how crowns were won and lost during that era — on the field of battle.and (2) that's how Edward IV got HIS crown! And lost it to, and won it again, from Henry VI. One cannot scream "Tudor propaganda" while ignoring the Wars of the Roses, where the Lancastrians and the Yorks each considered the other House to have a false claim to the throne.The Ricardians love to claim that Richard III was really a great guy and his story was rewritten by the Tudor chroniclers. And that's possibly true. But it is equally possible, if you look at the rest of the picture, that he was indeed just as dastardly as the non-Ricardians believe him to be.Boy, it's certainly more fun to enjoy a spirited debate about history's mysteries with a bunch of articulate and passionate history buffs than yakking about pneumatic starlets or reality TV wannabes!
Jenny – So glad your excited about this giveaway! It's posted now, good luck!
Jasmine – That's so cool that you got to attend this event in your neighborhood too! I love getting my books signed by the author, it adds a sort of personalization to the book. It was nice getting to chat with her for a couple of minutes and it was especially great to ask her a question after her speech.Dolleygurl – If you ever do come to NYC for an event, or otherwise, be sure to let me know if you'd like to get together! I'd love to meet up with you and talk about hist-fic over some Starbucks 
Lizzy – I remember when you wrote that post, I was frustrated to hear that they did not allow any DNA testing. Do you have any idea why the might be? Wouldn't they want to have the mystery, potentially, solved?Leslie – I am so glad to have your perspective on this as well. I am really quite clueless in terms of the Lost Princes mystery…Haven't even ever read any historical fiction on the topic before, none the less any non-fiction. But the same thought occurred to me when Philippa said the bit about Elizabeth of York becoming Richard III's lover and how that gives us reason to believe he did not kill her brothers – If he was indeed capable of killing so many of his family members, which is undoubtedly fact, wouldn't he also have been capable of forcing Elizabeth to become his mistress? Indeed it seems (to me) even more likely that Elizabeth of York should become his lover if he did in fact murder her brothers, because what would stop him from inflicting a similar fate on Elizabeth, should she not comply with his request to bed her?! I had never before considered the idea that the Tudors propagandized Richard III, though I found it to be an interesting notion brought up by Philippa. But I see what you mean; how this idea in and of itself cannot take away from the fact that Richard III did do some pretty brutal things to his family members, lost princes aside.
Very interesting line that Richard and Elizabeth were lovers.. that popped out at me! (I never had considered that as fact).After reading some books on this Princes in the tower mystery, I think I am still flip-floppy on the issue of whodun~it. Hence the ongoing mystery. I think the DNA evidence would not have been reliable as "EVIDENCE" since many many people in those days married cousins, nieces etc so it would not really have proven anything learning what DNA they had. Do they have a source to compare it to? Doubtful.I DO agree that a little more 'digging' could be done to answer our questions, but I think those higher up do not have the resources or need to prove anything substantial.I had once believed that Henry Tudor was responsible. But historians argue about his capabilities and whereabouts at that time. Richard and his cronies were the ones with the access so I think the assumption of the three paid conspirators is as accurate as we are going to get. Please no one shoot me.Congrats to meeting Philippa Gregory, that is awesome. She looked a tad tired in that picture, I hope her book tour doesn't have too much longer to go or she is going to fall over!! =)
Even though I haven't really enjoyed the last couple of books that I read by PG I would still go to see her in a heartbeat! Not sure what that tells you about me.I too am intrigued by the princes in the tower mystery. My thing is I don't want it to have been Richard III that did, or at least ordered the deed to be done. I really don't. I certainly don't think that the Tudors wouldn't have done it. It is hard to imagine that after all this time we will actually ever know what really happened to those poor boys.I do think that Richard III's name was much maligned by the Tudors, simply because it is hard to imagine how a man can go from being the most trusted general to his brother, to suddenly becoming such a bad person as he is portrayed. There are certain events though that make you question – like the execution of Hastings.Part of the thing which makes history so fascinating is the differences between our time and the times of the past. There are numerous examples throughout all royal history of rivals being killed off on the merest pretense, of usurpation of thrones and of treachery and double crossing. As nice as it would be to live in the lap of luxury, you really wouldn't want to have been a noble – too many chances of being executed just because of which family you belonged to. Fascinating stuff.
Her logic for this is that there was no way that Elizabeth of York would have became his loverLover? What?!! There is no evidence for this at all! The most is a 17C reference by George Buck, claiming to have seen a letter at Arundel that no-one else has ever seen, from Elizabeth, claiming she wanted to marry him. After his wife's death, Richard was negotiating Portuguese marriages for himself (with the King's sister Princess Joana) and Elizabeth (with Joana's cousin, Duke, later King, Manoel).Charles Ross is sensible on the subject of the princes. Deposed kings don't tend to live long: they're a liability. After minorities, newly adult kings sometimes kill their former regents. I'm fond of Richard, but I think he probably ordered it, and even if not, it's on his watch, so he must take some responsibility. Henry (whom I also quite like) killed more rival claimants. I don't think either of them enjoyed it, but they were trying to stay alive and king. Neither of them comes across as personally psychopathic in the way someone like James II of Scots does. (My former tutor, who has written major works on the early Stewarts, didn't hesitate to call him a psychopath.) If anyone should have been offed during his minority, it was James…For me, the real tragedy is that Richard and Henry – 2 intelligent and interesting boys, with a lot of shared interests in things like music and literature – should have ended up as mortal enemies because of the dynastic politics of the time. In a better world, they might have been friends.
An interesting subject for the fact that everyone seems so sensitive even to this day about Richard. Controversy even in this century still lingers from the past. Everyone has there point of view granted you do not have to scream it at the top of your lungs to get your point across. PG always strikes a nerve, either you love it or hate it. Allie this would have been so much fun to go to. I would have been all over it like white on rice.
PG, unfortunately, tends to convince herself that things she has invented for her novels are true. Disturbingly, she gets trotted out on TV popular history programmes as a "historical expert", and has begun interviews with the words "As a historian". She's no historian, just a romance-novelist with pretensions. She studied 18C literature, not history, and certainly not mediæval or 16C (and it shows!).
Leslie,re: Henry's claim:The difference was the mainstream Yorkist and Lancastrian contenders had legitimate claims to the throne by descent, as well as by arms. Henry Tudor's problem was that he didn't. The Beauforts had been legitimised, but with a clause that excluded them from claiming the throne. He actually had a far better claim to the French throne, as grandson of Catherine de Valois.He was well aware he was on shaky ground, hence back-dating his reign to the day before Bosworth (thus making surviving Richard-supporters traitors who could be attainted). And he had to re-legitimise Elizabeth (repealing the Titulus Regius Act) in order to bolster his claim by marrying her, otherwise it would have been worthless. (One illegitimate line marrying into a legitimised-with-qualifications line isn't solid.) As it was, he still spent years worrying about other claimants and having to get rid of them. He was far less secure legally than any of his predecessors had been, despite his conquest.Allie – what other family members do you think Richard killed? I can only recall an ex-brother-in-law (Sir Thomas St Leger, the widower of one of his sisters, executed for participating in Buckingham's rebellion) and Buckingham, who was a fairly distant cousin.
I love reading my comment from September. And here in March after reading another book or two mentioning the subject.. I still believe it was Richard III. No, perhaps he was not the typical Shakepearean monster but yes, in the circumstances that occurred that brought Richard to the point of being so close to the throne, I definitely believe he was responsible. Otherwise he would have allowed Elizabeth Woodville and her sons to be together in their final days. But he kept people from seeing the boys. By his dishonest actions at that time, I can totally see how Richard did it.Elizabeth and Richard being lovers may not have occurred but there was something there that made people talk about the relationship between the uncle and the niece otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it today.