A scholarly approach keeps novelist Philippa Gregory from veering off track

[30 September 2008]

By John Mark Eberhart

McClatchy Newspapers (MCT)

LOS ANGELES—Gruesome it may be to ponder, but it is a matter of fact that Mary, Queen of Scots, lost her head on Feb. 8, 1587.

When Philippa Gregory is writing one of her historical novels, she can’t afford to do so.

“The history always comes first,” Gregory said in an interview during a recent visit to America to promote “The Other Queen.” “The story is set for me by the historical record.”

Make no mistake: The author of “The Other Boleyn Girl” and “The Constant Princess” loves being a storyteller. But Gregory, who lives in Yorkshire, England, also holds a doctorate in literature from the University of Edinburgh and takes a scholarly approach to researching her novels.

The latest, “The Other Queen,” focuses on the social, political and religious turmoil surrounding Elizabeth I and Mary. The latter was a Catholic when it was not exactly good to be a Catholic on English soil. Mary also was accused, perhaps falsely, of being involved in assassination plots against Elizabeth.

So how does a clear-eyed writer, faithful to history, find her way into the fiction side of the equation?

“One of the things about the Tudors is that they didn’t (engage in) self-reflection,” Gregory said. “You never get a diary which tells you about someone’s inner life or thoughts or feelings; you only ever get a diary which tells you about events. So in a sense I have to analyze these people. I look at what they do, their published letters, and sometimes if I’m lucky I get their prayers; if they’ve written a prayer book, I know what they prayed. From that, I create a fictional character who I think is as close as I can get to the person from the past.”

It must work: In the United States alone, Gregory has 6 million readers. I asked her, though, if her fans’ enthusiasm ever intimidates or stymies her as a writer.

“No. I make a very clear distinction in my mind between the marketing of the object which is for sale, the book, and my job when I’m alone in my study, which is to create a work of art. When I’m at my work, a spinner at the loom, I don’t think about anybody else—the market, the editors, the fans or anybody. I’ve got enough to worry about. It has to be absolutely accurate historically, beautifully written enough to satisfy me, the best book I’ve ever written. That’s plenty. I can’t be worrying about how it’s going to go down.”

Gregory’s work has considerable range; some of her novels have focused on the 18th century. Of late, though, she has concerned herself with the Tudors—the fractious royal bloodline that lasted more than a century, from 1485 to 1603, and included Henry VIII, the oft-married monarch who broke with Catholicism and established the Church of England.

Elizabeth I was daughter to Henry and one of his wives, Anne Boleyn. Mary was of a different line, the Stuarts, and was cousin to Elizabeth. Yet at one time under English law, Mary had a strong claim to the English throne. Henry’s will, though, declared that no Stuart could ascend.

Add the religious tension of the Catholic/Protestant schism and the usual machinations surrounding the English monarchy before it became largely symbolic, and you get the tumultuous stage on which Gregory’s “The Other Queen” takes place.

“The Tudor period is really interesting. From Henry VII right up to Elizabeth I, you really have the formation of England—we come out of being an island off medieval Europe and start to be a country with various satellite countries around us. It’s the period when empire starts, when global trade starts. That all happens during the time of the Tudors—the increase in prosperity as a country that in time will lead to the Industrial Revolution.

“And the birth of Protestantism in England changes people’s consciousness of themselves in the world, in relation to God and each other, forever. It’s a revolutionary time. A lot of what happened then made us.”

At 54, with more than two dozen books to her credit when one includes her works for children, Gregory radiates energy and confidence in her work. Fans will be happy to know she’s already plotting her next move. If all goes well, “The White Queen” will see print in 2010.

“I’m starting on the Plantagenets now, so I’m looking at the Wars of the Roses. That’s a period which is not nearly as well known as the Tudors, so it’s going to be interesting to see if the readers will step back (further) in time with me. At the moment, I think the Plantagenets were everything the Tudors were—only more violent, more amoral, more dangerous. I think it’s going to be a great book.”

While she was in the Golden State, Gregory got herself a great souvenir.

“When I got to California, I didn’t have a hat. So I went into a store, and I wanted a red hat. I don’t know any of the sports teams in America. I’m an Englishwoman; what would I know? So I found a really lovely red hat, and I put it on. I came out of the store and went for a training run with a personal trainer, and he said, ‘So, are you a Chiefs supporter?’”

Gregory laughs and adds that she also visited an “incredibly upmarket spa, and they called me ‘Kansas’ all week!”

I didn’t have the heart to tell her the Chiefs play in Missouri.

 
Bookmark and Share
Share

Comments

“A scholarly approach”? Is Ms Gregory kidding me?  Please.  Her approach is anything but that of an historian.

I read “The Other Boleyn Girl” a while ago and, as someone passionately interested in Tudor history, was extremely disturbed by its apparent misogyny and complete disregard for the actual history.  Oh well, I thought, it’s historical fiction - an author can deviate from accepted record for dramatic purposes.  No doubt it’ll all be clarified in a disclaimer that this is pure fiction - I mightn’t like it, but I can live with it.  Imagine my surprise to find that Ms Gregory not only claims that her version of Anne Boleyn’s story is correct, but that she is a “feminist historian” who prides herself on “meticulous research.”  Her bibliography, as cited in “The Other Boleyn Girl” is sketchy at best - no evidence of consulting primary sources, nor were the better secondary sources cited, the most astonishing omission being Eric Ives’ biography, first published in 1986 (a revised ed. came out in 2004). 

TOBG is not the only instance. It is interesting that in an interview published in “Scotland on Sunday”, Ms Gregory claims that not only did the Earl of Shrewsbury fall in love with Mary, it caused a scandal akin to Charles and Camilla today. However, a review from the Times Online of “The Other Queen,” by Jenny Womald, a biographer of Mary Queen of Scots, states that this was nothing more “than an entirely romantic invention.”  If this “scandal” that Ms Gregory refers to was so palpable that it “rankles” even today, wouldn’t Dr Womald know about it?

I’ve got no problem with historical fiction - in fact I absolutely adore it.  Inaccuracies and liberties go with the territory, and it’s always interesting to see an author explore “what if?” All I ask is that authors be upfront about it; while I’m no great fan of Ms Gregory’s writing based on TOBG, I’d have no problem with her if she didn’t purport to be an historical scholar. This woman’s dishonest misrepresentation of herself is getting beyond a joke - it’s not quite up there with the likes of Norma Khouri or Helen Demidenko/Darville in terms of misleading thepublic, but it’s getting there.

Comment by Rachel from Melbourne — October 2, 2008 @ 5:21 am

“The story is set for me by the historical record.”

“So how does a clear-eyed writer, faithful to history, find her way into the fiction side of the equation?”

“It has to be absolutely accurate historically, beautifully written enough to satisfy me, the best book I’ve ever written.”

Another journalist duped by Philippa Gregory, perhaps?

I find it astonishing how this commercial author, with no grasp of either the delicate art of writing or history, has perpetuated such a fraud on an unsuspecting public. My preference in reading is for modern and classical literature, but I read “The Other Boleyn Girl” on a whim, being an expert on the subject. Frankly appalling: poorly written, rife with historical errors, and an exercise in misogyny.

The book, tedious to read, was poorly written junk - black and white characterizations, simplistically written, without depth or development, clunky writing, appalling grammar, often incomprehensible sentences, change of voice from first person (Mary Boleyn) to third person omniscient. No sense whatsoever of court life, the sixteenth century mind, no sense of history. No character development: all the principles had the depth of a puddle; entirely black and white, without nuanced complexity.

A homosexual man, in love with another man, sexually attracted to his sister since childhood, willing to commit incest with her? Psychologically not feasible.

Mary Boleyn, a feminist icon? As much as a Stepford wife.

This belaboured insistence on historical accuracy disturbs me as a historian specializing in this period: Gregory’s “bibliography” - apparently skimmed, not read - is hopelessly inadequate. Mary Louise Bruce? Outdated. Dr. Retha Warnicke? Legitimate revisionist history, now fallen into disfavour. Alison Weir? A biased, error prone amateur with faulty historical methodologies (Weir has an teaching certificate, and no university degree in any subject, let alone history). Only general and anachronistic sources.

Nothing in the book even vaguely resembles historical reality/accuracy. Everything is incorrect. Mary Boleyn never bore Henry VIII any children; no contemporary evidence supports a deformed foetus; not even Retha Warnicke even hints at incest; Anne Boleyn did not ‘take’ Mary’s son by William Carey, only arranged a good education for him; Anne Boleyn knew full well she was extremely vulnerable should Katherine of Aragon die; she did not poison the Bishop of Rochester (whom she sometimes calls the Archbishop of Canterbury); Mary Boleyn chose to be the mistress of Francis I, his courtiers, and Henry VIII without family approval; we have a good idea of the birth dates of the sisters (Mary c. 1499-1500, Anne c. 1501), which Gregory denies; documentation supports Anne and Mary Boleyn being in France; William Carey, a minor noble, was not a brilliant match and would not have refused Mary. Mary was a tremendous disappointment to her family.

Worse yet, she does not understand Anne Boleyn’s fall and execution: the struggle between her and Cromwell over the distribution of Church revenues and foreign policy. Adultery and incest, conspiring to kill Henry VIII were mere pretexts; giving the accusations gravitas is the most shallow reading of this powerful and astute queen’s demise.

Francis I described Mary as: “una grandissima ribalda, infame sopra tutti” (a great prostitute, infamous above all). What does Gregory know that Francis I did not? What proof does she have that Francis I was wrong about his own affair? Was she there? I’ve seen her become incensed at the mention of Mary Boleyn being the mistress of François and his courtiers.

Gregory did a little research, and only skimmed her sources. Alison Weir’s history is usually inaccurate and unsupported by evidence; Dr. Retha Warnicke wrote a controversial example of revisionist history, not a biography of Anne Boleyn. But her theories (Warnicke does not present them as facts) have fallen into disfavour - Dr. Warnicke publicly distanced herself from Gregory.

Where is Dr. Eric Ives (1986)? Where is Hugh Paget’s watershed article on Anne Boleyn research? What of primary sources?

Frankly, I am appalled; Gregory consistently muddies the historical waters by insisting her “version” of these momentous events even bears a vague resemblance to reality.

Comment by Irene R. from Montréal, Canada — October 4, 2008 @ 6:19 pm

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?