75 thoughts on “The Spanish Princess Continues to Confuse

  1. Another Philippa Gregory travesty to miss.
    You know there’s a lot more faithful historical novel on COA by Alison Weir and it’s on point regarding Catherine’s religiosity and virginity. Why didn’t they make this one?

    1. Why doesn’t some cable channel make miniseries of Alison Weir’s bios? Her books are so good! She has some speculation about the juicy ‘behind closed doors’ stuff, but she’s not inventing nonsense, & it would be totally amazing.

      1. Yeah. She has a great biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine, and it deserves to be made into a tv show.

        1. I too love her biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine AND the historical novel she wrote as well.

  2. Philippa fucking Gregory who I distinctly heard saying in one of my favorite History podcast (brace yourself): “It’s nice to research the history, but, as a writer, learn to put it aside not to interfere with THE STORY.” Heavily implying her drivel was MUCH more interesting than what actually happened. I remember that distinctly because I was ironing and almost ironed my own hand in shock.

      1. Maybe a SNARK week on authors/characters to feed to Drogon or the White Walkers of GOT?

            1. When I picked up her first book in a bookshop thinking “yay! new Tudor fiction”, it nearly ended up being thrown across the store. I had to resist the urge to sweep my arm across the display of her books and knock them all across the floor.

        1. I LIKE that idea! More opportunity to bitch and moan and cast aspersions. (Could it include “The Tudors”?)

          1. Especially John Rhys Meyers. Natalie Dormer was a good choice for Anne Boleyn (she and Ms Bujold are my favourite Anne Boleyns).

  3. I would fully wear that blue dress or put it on my main character in my fantasy NaNoWriMo project, but the key word there is FANTASY. I started out trying to make it historically derivative, but then I was like “never mind,” because I wanted to add people of color and not just copy-paste Europe.
    I bet not-bowl-cut dude is either a) Henry, suggesting he and Catherine had some frisson that she would not indulge in because she was constant and true to Arthur, or b) some rando fictional Spanish lordling who’s going to be all “Catherine, run away with me,” and she’ll be all “nooooo, mah duteh!”

    1. I’m with you on the Henry frisson theory, @Sam. And I’m with everyone on PFG. The snark abides!

    2. I’m sorry, but don’t refer to anyone that isn’t white as “people of color”. That’s actually quite offensive since it’s basiclaly the word “colored”.

        1. ^^^
          Like Sara said, I’m American, that’s the term I’ve been taught is the most acceptable, as well as being faster than listing off various ethnicities and skin tones. I find it especially applicable for fantasy, which so often is based on ideas of white, European cultures that it’s kind of the default.

          1. In the US, “Colored” was an unwanted epithet of the mid-20th century, and many find it quite offensive. “Person of color” is the term my friends and acquaintances prefer. So you should ask before using “colored”, and abide by what people want to be called, no matter what you have previously learned.

  4. When it comes to riding aside versus astride, it’s not actually all that straightforward. Here’s a good blog that includes historical sources: https://susannaforrest.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/a-not-so-short-history-of-women-riding-astride/

    It largely depended on who you were and what you were doing (though I like the quote that points out if you’re thrown, do you want to be wearing breeches so no one can see your business or skirts so everyone can?) And it actually became much more common after the 1830s because the design we’re familiar with (the double-pommel) wasn’t invented until then. The leaping horn gives you more security, and means it’s safe (a lot of people who ride aside argue safer and steadier) to do things like jump while aside. It’s not really as easy as it looks and it requires if anything being a bit more conscious of your seat since it’s easy to kind of slouch onto your left hip instead of sit evenly-ideally while in a ‘modern’ (ie post-early-19th-century) side saddle your ‘seat bones’ are in basically the same position as they are when astride. Saddle fit is really important and one thing that makes it harder to learn nowdays is not only finding a sidesaddle but finding a fitter who makes sure it’s right for your horse’s back!

    I would think that astride, if she’s riding for pleasure rather than on progress (where it’s more about being seen) would be fine and not especially remarkable here.

    1. Pretty much everything I was going to say. Catherine had a reputation as an enthusiastic hunter and doing so in the chair like side saddles of the day seems both dangerous and unlikely

    2. True about side saddle. However, she seems to be riding forward seat which wasn’t created by Caprilli until the late 1800s. Before that people rode with long stirrups and sat back in the saddle.

    3. Thank you, Jennifer! I knew some of this, but not all of it. I appreciate the link, too.

  5. I once heard Philippa Gregory at a writer’s conference and all she did was bitch about Hilary Mantel and why was she more respected because they wrote in the same period, and did the same amount of research yada, yada, yada.

    1. Ooh…jealous much, PFG?

      (Although to be fair, Mantel has issues with her approach to HF as well)

    2. Oh, did she indeed? One may not always agree with Mantel’s interpretations, but that’s pretty delusional of Gregory.

      (“The Constant Princess” was the last PFG I could bear to read, apart from abandoning the one about Anne Neville after 40 pages because it was so boring. I especially dislike her habit of mistaking titles and status for character development: “But I was a Princess of Spain…” “As an Infanta of Spain, I could never…” “A Spanish Princess does not…” Really! The great Isabella’s daughter had to keep reminding herself of the fact?)

      And if Mantel doesn’t get that damned third Cromwell novel out next year, I’ll do something desperate.

      1. Yup, The Constant Princess was my last attempt. What kills me is how she constantly has her characters use some contraction, can’t remember exactly, but something like “y’know.” KEEELED ME.

      2. Oh goodness. I think I would such an arrogant character who kept saying that. I can’t believe the real Catherine of Aragon would say it unless she really HAD to. She knew precisely who she was and would never have been so utterly boorish, arrogant and rude as to keep saying it. Why can’t someone create a series/film which shows these people truthfully (and costumes, environment etc). Its such bad storytelling.

    3. Hilary Mantel hates her back, so it gives me some comfort to know two Tudor novelists I don’t like (PG for obvious reasons, HM for being so damn stuck on herself / pretentious) are engaged in a rather public cat-fight.

      1. HM has a lot of issues around her vendetta against the Catholic Church, which PFG also shares along with what I’ve always considered to be english nationalist euroskeptic agenda running through both works. Both frequently get praised as “feminist” but given how poorly women are portrayed in both their works, sorry don’t see it.

        1. I honestly don’t like either one of them. HM brags about how historically accurate her works are, when her portrayal of Sir Thomas More was little more than a hit piece. (In fairness, I suspect there’s a huge anti-Catholic sentiment in English writers in general, because they almost universally in Tudor novels and films depict all the Catholics horribly, in favor of glamorizing Anne Boleyn — although HM didn’t make “that mistake” and made her awful too. Anne Boleyn was no saint, but she was not near as bitchy as the one in HM’s books.) And yes, how anyone can call PG a feminist writer when her heroines are all stabbing each other in the back and there’s not a single strong female friendship in any of her novels is beyond me!!

        2. Yeah, but PFG can write characters that are Catholic and sympathetic; see “The Last Tudor.” (Yes, I’ve read the books. What can I say….) Whereas HM CANNOT and is just all insane with rage and it makes her characters just crappy.

    4. I just snorted my tea. Gregory had the temerity to compare herself to Mantel and wonder why Mantel is more respected??? snerfle

  6. I wonder if this author has google alerts on her own name. There must be a lot of historians and historical costumers with beefs with her work.

    1. Oh, and what’s with the weird pre-1700 split in terms of costume accuracy? Whack-a-doo stuff is all over the place in earlier times, but put it Victorian or Georgian times and most the time it is closer to accurate than anything else, if it’s “history.”

      1. Probably because things that are more recent in the public consciousness are easier to get right, and we have more surviving evidence from more recent times.

  7. Love your rant! Yes! The actual historical truth is effin fascinating on its own, so don’t effin tinker with it! I get so ticked off when authors play fast and loose. And the costumes…Upholstery trim is the first thing I noticed on that horrible dress. Do keep up the snark…

  8. Would like to make two points:

    1) Having out of what can only be described as self loathing and an uncontrollable masochistic urge, I have in the past made an effort to read Philipa Fucking Gregory’s (hencewith refered to as PFG) books. From a historical POV they are bad. Really bad. BUT, from a pure fiction perspective the PFG formula ‘works’ for what it is meant to be i.e. romantic escapist fluff. The pacing is consultant and characters work within. The context of the genre. If PFG stuck to purely fictional characters like Georgette Heyer for example than I would not find her so offensive. But it is the fact she claims to be making some historiographical point about real people and real events is where i draw the line.

    2) As for the PFG vs Hillary Mantel thang – aside from the fact that in most regards Mantel is the superior author and PFG is commercial to the point of embarrassment – the fact that the PFG books are so unashamedly female focused and based around relationships is part of what makes them count for less by critical standards. Mantel, by contrast, has mostly male protaginsits, and her main interest is power (political and social) along with ideas. Without wanting to give PFG anymore ammunition or making her look better than she should, she may have a point about critical priorities and perceptions of subject matter and approach.

    1. I think these are two excellent points. Romantic fiction in general is always dismissed by literary folks. In PFG’s case, I think the dismissal may be warranted but certainly not always. I like how you framed this here.

      I really struggle with historical fiction that centres on real people. Creating characters and putting them into historical timelines is fine but if I am going to read about actual people who once lived and breathed on this planet I prefer non-fiction. And even that has its limitations and interpretations.

    2. Can I just comment here and say that this critique only works for SOME of her books? I will agree that it’s definitely the case for The Other Boleyn Girl. Putting aside my contempt for the whole incest / ‘Anne being a horrible person and all the lies about her are true’ plot angle, I thought that was a great book. Fast paced. Engaging. It moved me emotionally. It made me almost forget my indignation.

      But I did not find this formula carried over into her later books, especially the ones about Lady Pole and Margaret Beaufort, where her limited POV meant we spent chapters and chapters away from all the action, shut up in castles with nothing to do except count coins. When PG is good, she’s very good; but when she’s stuck inside a boring narrative, she’s mediocre.

      1. Agree – she doesn’t have the skill as an author to carry off interior scenes, which it needs be remarked, are pretty hard to pull off. For what’s its worth PFG is really just Jean Plaidy with worse dialogue and her attempts to be “psychological” don’t work.

      2. “When PG is good, she’s very good; but when she’s stuck inside a boring narrative, she’s mediocre.” — exactly. She has the makings of an excellent historical romance / fiction writer, but she needs a MUCH stronger editor to reign her in & help her focus.

        Tho there are still entire books of hers I’ve tried to read & just thrown straight in the trash. (Wildacre? DO NOT ATTEMPT)

        1. So, you noticed PFG’s incest fixation too? God, it’s creepy. She’s also got the same Yaoi obsession Diana Galbadon has as well and its frankly exploitative and disturbing – objectification is never cool.

        2. Ha, ha. I’ve heard of that one. Mostly on Goodreads where there was a lot of WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK???? responses. Enough for me to stay away. Far far away.

  9. Philippa Fucking Gregory is a millionaire or some shit, and when I write a shitty book, I get sad trombones. What am I missing? Sex? Zippers? A blowjob given to a STARZ producer?

  10. I hate PFG and her novels with the rage of a thousand burning suns, but Starz actually made me Give a Damn with The White Queen. And although I was irritated by the depiction of the almighty badass Margaret Beaufort as a freaking headcase, she also gave a standout, unforgettable neurotic performance. I just don’t understand how The White Queen was actually decent, when the sequel was god-awful (after loathing it the first time, I decided to give it another watch once my anger cooled and find out if I was wrong — and nope, it’s still badly acted, badly-written, badly-costumed crap) and this looks just as bad?

    My feelings were torn on this, because honestly, I’d die for a proper KoA on screen. Young. Beautiful. Desirable. Tiny (since she WAS short). Redheaded. I banged my head on various walls hearing it had to be THAT WOMAN’S novel that brought her to the screen. But then I thought — hey, maybe it will not insult and piss me off as much as the book did, because Starz has a habit of Changing Things. Maybe it will be better than TWP. Maybe… and then I saw the trailer and deflated, right after screaming, “WHY?”

    As for the infamous bowl cut missing, five bucks says she’s sparring with Prince Henry. And that is part of them falling in lurve after Arthur dies. Though if she spends 4 hours moping like she did for, what, 500 pages of the novel, I may just grind my teeth.

    Did you also notice who they cast as Queen Isabella? GUESS WHAT. SHE IS DARK-HAIRED. So you got a redheaded KoA but gave her a traditional dark Spaniard mother?!? (Still, it in no way can be worse than her 4 minute scene in TWP. I was honestly offended and I’m not even Spanish. What a load of stereotypical rubbish.)

    Rant over. Thanks for the opportunity to publicly bitch. Much appreciated. Also, all the rage in this comment section gives me life. ;)

    1. White queen was a BBC series that STARZ got the rights for in the US. TWQ tanked in the UK but did well enough in the USA to warrant a sequel series STARZ did themselves. That mostly explains the difference in production values

    2. I have a personal grudge against them for making me look dumb in front of my dad. He and I are both Wars of the Roses/Tudors buffs. I also enjoyed the White Queen in spite of its inaccuracies (and uncle sex). So I decided to put on The White Princess and it was really damned embarrassing.

      1. It was truly god-awful. Did you make it as far as Henry 7 losing his chill and dragging his mother, Margaret Beaufort, through the halls BY HER ANKLES? That’s when I wanted to really punch someone. :P

  11. I think the lady with the scimitar isn’t meant to be Catherine, it’s more likely to be her mother Isabel as it looks like a different actress and the hair is up, possibly during the conquest of Grenada around when Catherine was born.

    1. Ohhhhhh! Okay then, props for casting two actresses that looks a lot like each other. Although, I still doubt Isabella of Castile wielded any scimitars.

      1. Agree. Very unlikely. Isabel would have wielded a good Christian broadsword or somthing to that effect.

  12. It always bums me out when productions that insist on leaving the actresses’ hair loose and uncovered just pin the front sections back and call it a day – at least go for a mad Botticelli fever dream, add in some accessories, something! So, I guess the beaded cap is a plus in that regard? I’m betting the curly haired guy is Henry, btw, so I’m curious to see what that’s all about..

  13. I’m wondering if the padded crown thing is their interpretation of a rollo? You do see that in late 15th C Spain, although it uh. Doesn’t really look like that, and I’m probably giving them waaaay too much credit. Same thing with the blue contraption trying (at least from the back, ughhhh that trim) as a gonete, which is VERY Hispano-Flemish

  14. The show is also very creatively named. So we have a princess… from Spain…. I know! Let’s call it “The Spanish Princess!” Very original…

  15. The cast for this one does not seem to include an Anne Boleyn…yet it does have Catherine’s funeral. I get this is not a movie about Anne but how is she NOT in it?? I am (the one and only?) non-fan of Catherine of A…so I will likely skip this one. I see her as letting her personal pride prevent from giving in later on when people were being burned over the divorce…she let others be martyrs for her cause. If she had gone into a convent (which she wanted to do during her widowhood) Mary would have kept her place in succession. So to me it was all about her being called Queen. She schemed all thru her marriage wit Spain, according to many sources. She lied to her father about miscarriages etc…I think the first marriage was consumated…have an heir was their only function in life at that time! Arthur had that drilled into his head since he could hear. I think Catherine would bave happliy burne heretics in Spain if she had stayed…her parents were fanatics as was she. Henry was well rid of her, monster that he was.

  16. So relieved to see this post. Anyone read the Garret Manningly Catherine of Aragon ? It’s a fantastically interesting historical chronology of her story, starting with Isabella and Ferdinand and carrying on through Catherine’s death. Just a note to your ‘badass’ sword wielding comment, according to Manningly, Catherine actually was trained in military combat, etc. I don’t imagine Isabella rode side-saddle in the battles she participated in , either.

    How are they showing so much hair on females? I thought Catherine was really modest when it came to keeping her hair covered. She wouldn’t adopt the French style of showing lots of hair as she found it immodest.

  17. I’m sorry, I know this is going to get a ton of hate from the PC crowd….but a Muslim servant? SERIOUSLY? So while Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon conquered Granada and booted the Muslims out (for the most part), they decided to hire one as a servant and NOT insist on his conversion. YEAH RIGHT. I can stomach some of the other things as being pure fiction, but this just goes too far. And yes, Isabella of Spain was also light skinned and auburn haired. She was a fierce, warrior queen, but never rode into battle with armor. She was known to ride into towns and force them to swear allegiance, but she didn’t actually pick up a sword. That was Ferdinand’s job.
    It also drives me crazy that Margaret Beaufort is made into this cartoon characteresque figure. So one dimensional, as was Elizabeth of York before she died in childbirth. And don’t get me started on Arthur’s haircut.

  18. Catherine of Aragon is more historically accurate than Constant Princess/Spanish Princess. COA captured more of Catherine’s personality than CP. Also, would it kill them to make the outfits historically accurate?

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Frock Flicks

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue Reading