View Single Post
Old 04-15-2019, 07:02 PM   #23
Bookpossum
Snoozing in the sun
Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Bookpossum ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Bookpossum's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,772
Karma: 99190983
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: iPad Mini, Kobo Touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady View Post
This is one of the greatest mysteries ever? No, I don't think so.

Despite the high praise for it, I didn't have especially high expectations, but I was still disappointed. I simply don't see much that's truly special here.

It was thankfully short, and mostly held my attention, though with my limited knowledge of English history, it was hard for me to follow who was who and their tangled relationships. I didn't especially dislike Grant, but the way he put such stock in faces was ridiculous. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I also didn't see the impossibility of the mother of the princes continuing to seem to maintain a good relationship with Richard. Why not? Is it impossible to imagine that (1) she acted one way for her own survival and thought another, or (2) she did not care about her children?

The "tonypandy" was interesting (I'm going to have to find an opportunity to use that word on Facebook!), but it's hardly surprising that history is written by the winners.

I was annoyed that Grant didn't know Sir Thomas More belonged to the time of Henry VIII--even I knew that. Of course, it's possible I know that only because of A Man for All Seasons, which certainly influenced my view of Sir Thomas, and made me annoyed by the ad nauseam use of the phrase "the sainted Sir Thomas."

My intention is (was?) to read Alison Weir's The Princes in the Tower as a follow-up--since the prosecution always gets the last word--but I don't think the defense made much of a case here for that book to refute.
Yes, it’s hard to project ourselves back to the time of the book, to understand what a sensation it would have been at the time.

Also of course a time before the information we have so much more readily available to us now, plus memories of Paul Schofield as Sir Thomas More. Try reading Hilary Mantel for a much less flattering portrait of him!

Tey had also made the point that we tend to link people with one particular reign, but that it is perfectly possible for them to live through several. So More was a child at the time Richard was king, and his document, on which much else hangs, including Shakespeare’s play, was someone else’s version of events. In Tudor times it was the only version.
Bookpossum is offline   Reply With Quote