The Captive Queen by Alison Weir

[Ash]

Oh my, that should be posted on Amazon!

Its a pity, because so many know her for her non fiction. They'll buy this book unthinking, and then either wonder what happened, or accept it all as gospel.

[Misfit]

Originally Posted by Ash

Oh my, that should be posted on Amazon!

Its a pity, because so many know her for her non fiction. They'll buy this book unthinking, and then either wonder what happened, or accept it all as gospel.

Ash, she usually does. It might be caught in the censors or she hasn't done it yet. Not as much fun without the visuals though. I had a gas at Goodreads with the reading progress updates - I was adding train wrecks, car crashes and an exploding volcano.

[Lucy Pick]

If anyone is interested, I have written the first of what are going to be two posts about the evidence surrounding the accusation that Eleanor had an affair with her uncle while she was on the Second Crusade. It's in my blog whose link is in my sig.

And apologies if is it not appropriate to mention my blog here (and mods, please remove). I'm new here and just getting used to the norms on this board. But I thought that given the lively discussion on this thread some of you might be interested in reading some of the evidence.

[boswellbaxter]

Originally Posted by Lucy Pick

If anyone is interested, I have written the first of what are going to be two posts about the evidence surrounding the accusation that Eleanor had an affair with her uncle while she was on the Second Crusade. It's in my blog whose link is in my sig.

And apologies if is it not appropriate to mention my blog here (and mods, please remove). I'm new here and just getting used to the norms on this board. But I thought that given the lively discussion on this thread some of you might be interested in reading some of the evidence.

Enjoyed the post! Mentioning blog posts that are relevant to a topic is fine.

[EC2]

very interesting piece Lucy, and I look forward to the next installment!

Re your Sex Sells piece, I would also say that it's very important that researchers read contemporary sources within the mindset of the time, otherwise outlandish conclusions can often be reached. Such as historian Nesta Pain thinking that the Empress and Brian FitzCount had an affair because she misinterpreted the medieval useage of the word 'amor' to describe the benevolence of a sovereign to a vassal in the Gesta Stephani and gave it more salacious connotations. Or the belief by the 'yes Richard was gay' historians who took the mention that Richard I and Philip shared a bed as proof of a homosexual relationship. Or that Stephen and Henry I were father and son because of some quote that was meant in general terms, but wound up being taken literally by certain novelists despite the fact that the timing was impossible. In my own studies into the Marshals, I've seen how the reputation of John Marshal has suffered because readers with modern mindsets have not stopped to think in medieval terms when reading the sources.

[Lucy Pick]

Thank you very much, both of you. Elizabeth, what you say about medieval mindsets is completely true, with the caveat that historians are still discovering just exactly what those mindsets are. We've learned a lot in the past few decades about issues like homosexuality and about the place of women that have challenged old stereotypes about the Middle Ages

[cw gortner]

Great post, Lucy. I thoroughly enjoyed it, even if Eleanor's sexual antics or lack thereof are not my particular brand of obsession. But I love how you point out the differences in attitude and how evidence is construed.

Fascinating stuff.

[Misfit]

Thanks for reminding me - I haven't had a chance to read Lucy's post. Will do that today. Another review up, this time from Tanzanite.

[Lucy Pick]

It's funny how we get these different obsessions and Really Care that everyone else gets it right, and then about other stories we can be quite casual. Just as well, I suppose or no one else's historical fiction would ever be good enough for us!

[cw gortner]

I get obsessed, sure, but to be honest, I don't "Really Care" if someone else doesn't share my particular viewpoint, especially when it comes to a historical figure. I actually enjoy it when a writer turns the tables on a subject I feel passionate about; if done well, it gives me something to ponder, another perspective to consider. For example, I didn't mind so much the depiction of Anne Boleyn in a certain well-known novel - I do feel passionate about her - so much as I felt it was done without much complexity. Rather than appearing ruthless, she just seemed nasty. In contrast, despite its overall salacious factor, in The Tudors I felt Natalie Dormer nailed Anne's ambition, pathos, and bravura. The scriptwriter understood the character and did not shy away from giving her the nuance she deserved.

But maybe I'm not the norm in this respect. As far as this book goes, the common thread seems to be that it's not written well. Or at least that is how I'm interpreting it.