|
Post by Auroranorth on Jun 29, 2010 13:24:59 GMT -4
All of Penman's books are good. She's got a trilogy dealing with Empress Matilda and Eleanor of Aquitaine which is great.
Alison Weir's fiction is- iffy. She did a good job with Lady Jane Grey in Innocent Traitor, but I hated Lady Elizabeth with a hatey hate. She's got a new one coming out soon on Eleanor of Aquitaine- I'll report back since I got an advance copy.
|
|
ennui
Guest
Dec 1, 2024 22:19:00 GMT -4
|
Post by ennui on Jun 29, 2010 19:05:20 GMT -4
All of Penman's books are good. She's got a trilogy dealing with Empress Matilda and Eleanor of Aquitaine which is great. Those are next on my list, so thank you for the endorsement! When I'm wandering around the bookstores, I can't always tell the difference between historical fiction (which I like) and historical romance (which I don't care for). I liked Sunne because it seemed to be well-researched.
|
|
|
Post by Auroranorth on Jun 30, 2010 9:10:16 GMT -4
All of Penman's books are good. She's got a trilogy dealing with Empress Matilda and Eleanor of Aquitaine which is great. Those are next on my list, so thank you for the endorsement! When I'm wandering around the bookstores, I can't always tell the difference between historical fiction (which I like) and historical romance (which I don't care for). I liked Sunne because it seemed to be well-researched. Any of Penman's are worth the read. She's also got a mystery series going during Richard the Lionhearted's era, with Eleanor as a lead character. If I think of any other historical fiction I like, I'll PM you so we don't derail the thread.
|
|
jcoop13
Valet
Posts: 32
Aug 8, 2009 22:25:15 GMT -4
|
Post by jcoop13 on Jan 11, 2011 22:04:16 GMT -4
Penman's Sunne is a very well-written book, although I think she idealizes RIII to the point where's he's virtually a Saint. The guy in Penman's novel so unselfish and pure of heart that he couldn't have become head of a monastery, let alone successfully get through the Wars of the Roses unscathed and become King of England.
|
|
Karen
Blueblood
Posts: 1,122
Mar 10, 2005 10:32:09 GMT -4
|
Post by Karen on Jan 12, 2011 3:35:04 GMT -4
Penman's Sunne is a very well-written book, although I think she idealizes RIII to the point where's he's virtually a Saint. The guy in Penman's novel so unselfish and pure of heart that he couldn't have become head of a monastery, let alone successfully get through the Wars of the Roses unscathed and become King of England. I'm curious - how do the extreme RIII apologists explain away the fact that the princes in the tower were not seen for two years and manage to pin their deaths on Henry Tudor? It's possible that Richard himself wasn't as extreme a villain as Shakespeare's play makes him out to be, but it also stretches credibility to suggest that he had nothing to do with their disappearance. Throughout history kings have been busy imprisoning or executing members of rival royal lines on flimsy charges and due to the slightest of conceivable future threats to the throne. Yet Richard, who went far enough to have his brother's sons declared illegitimate and imprisoned, was a virtuous man who kept them alive, despite the absence of any sightings, long enough for Henry VII to have them killed? I am deeply sceptical of that theory.
|
|
ennui
Guest
Dec 1, 2024 22:19:00 GMT -4
|
Post by ennui on Feb 10, 2011 16:27:45 GMT -4
Penman's Sunne is a very well-written book, although I think she idealizes RIII to the point where's he's virtually a Saint. The guy in Penman's novel so unselfish and pure of heart that he couldn't have become head of a monastery, let alone successfully get through the Wars of the Roses unscathed and become King of England. I'm curious - how do the extreme RIII apologists explain away the fact that the princes in the tower were not seen for two years and manage to pin their deaths on Henry Tudor? ...Richard, who went far enough to have his brother's sons declared illegitimate and imprisoned, was a virtuous man who kept them alive, despite the absence of any sightings, long enough for Henry VII to have them killed? I am deeply sceptical of that theory. Because Richard III had the boys declared illegitimate, he didn't have a reason to kill them. However, Henry VII had such a tenuous claim to the throne, it was in his best interest to eliminate the boys and anyone else, really, who might be a challenge. However, another popular theory blames the ambitious Duke of Buckingham, and not Henry VII. I was impressed with the film, The King's Speech. I really enjoyed the portrayal of Elizabeth and Bertie as a couple. Behind every successful man, there's a woman propping him up. I liked the attention to detail, too -- the young princesses on the balcony had that royal wave down pat. But I suspect that anyone who didn't know the history wouldn't really understand the significance of certain events.
|
|
|
Post by MrsCatHead on Oct 28, 2011 23:58:19 GMT -4
has anyone seen Monarchy, the UK television series? I'm loving it. Not really liking the narrating style of Mr. Starkey, but I love all the information.
ETA: YES! He didn't even MENTION Eleanor of Aquitane except to say she was "beautiful." Huh?
|
|
boxofrocks
Blueblood
Posts: 1,769
Aug 25, 2007 11:01:39 GMT -4
|
Post by boxofrocks on Oct 29, 2011 0:20:44 GMT -4
has anyone seen Monarchy, the UK television series? I'm loving it. Not really liking the narrating style of Mr. Starkey, but I love all the information. Yes! Love the info although I agree with you about Starkey's narration. I like his historical documentaries, although I find his views on race relations (see: his comments on the summer's UK riots) and the modern viewpoints on studying the effect women had on history (he doesn't like it) distasteful.
|
|
|
Post by Auroranorth on Oct 31, 2011 8:54:17 GMT -4
has anyone seen Monarchy, the UK television series? I'm loving it. Not really liking the narrating style of Mr. Starkey, but I love all the information. Yes! Love the info although I agree with you about Starkey's narration. I like his historical documentaries, although I find his views on race relations (see: his comments on the summer's UK riots) and the modern viewpoints on studying the effect women had on history (he doesn't like it) distasteful. I hated his book on Elizabeth, so I'd probably have bailed on anything he does.
|
|
boxofrocks
Blueblood
Posts: 1,769
Aug 25, 2007 11:01:39 GMT -4
|
Post by boxofrocks on Oct 31, 2011 21:55:04 GMT -4
What did you not like about the book?
|
|