The Pale and the Purple Rose

Reader mode
eliamartin65

eliamartin65

Kellan Sullivan said:
figure the accusation of witchcraft could probably be levelled at both stock brokers and psychologists nowadays as well. Not sure why Philippa Gregory has such an obsession with Jacquetta's powers and "Great-Grandma Water Goddess" when Jacquetta- having been at three different courts- Burgundian, Dutch and French- before she married Bedford and survived another two- Lancastrian and York- probably had a decent grasp of the political reality/situation. IMO the reliance on the "witchcraft" trope like Gregory does is simply lazy storytelling, because it diminishes that the woman might've genuinely been a savvy political player in her own right.

After all, look at another woman charged with witchcraft by her political enemies: Anne Boleyn. She was cultured, intelligent, talented, politically savvy (or at least, knew how to play the game on her own terms), but no series of books suggesting that she was genuinely a witch. Because, after all, to do that would be to undermine the great-grandmommy of feminist icons- Gloriana herself- by suggesting that her birth was "more foul than fair".

I'll admit that I'm hazy on the history, but a "contemporary" of Jacquetta's also accused of witchcraft was Fernando el Catolico's mother. I'm not sure why they accused her of this when her Jewish blood would've been enough to make her a target. But again, a woman who was beautiful and obviously intelligent enough to not allow herself to become a king's mistress (not sure about her political or cultural talents). The only difference between Juana and Jacquetta is that Juana may have genuinely had a hand in poisoning her stepson (others point the finger of Carlos IV's death at Louis XI or Juan II). I've never heard that there's a fascination with Juana being a witch in literature
Click to expand...
100% agreed!
 

isabella

Kellan Sullivan said:
figure the accusation of witchcraft could probably be levelled at both stock brokers and psychologists nowadays as well. Not sure why Philippa Gregory has such an obsession with Jacquetta's powers and "Great-Grandma Water Goddess" when Jacquetta- having been at three different courts- Burgundian, Dutch and French- before she married Bedford and survived another two- Lancastrian and York- probably had a decent grasp of the political reality/situation. IMO the reliance on the "witchcraft" trope like Gregory does is simply lazy storytelling, because it diminishes that the woman might've genuinely been a savvy political player in her own right.

After all, look at another woman charged with witchcraft by her political enemies: Anne Boleyn. She was cultured, intelligent, talented, politically savvy (or at least, knew how to play the game on her own terms), but no series of books suggesting that she was genuinely a witch. Because, after all, to do that would be to undermine the great-grandmommy of feminist icons- Gloriana herself- by suggesting that her birth was "more foul than fair".

I'll admit that I'm hazy on the history, but a "contemporary" of Jacquetta's also accused of witchcraft was Fernando el Catolico's mother. I'm not sure why they accused her of this when her Jewish blood would've been enough to make her a target. But again, a woman who was beautiful and obviously intelligent enough to not allow herself to become a king's mistress (not sure about her political or cultural talents). The only difference between Juana and Jacquetta is that Juana may have genuinely had a hand in poisoning her stepson (others point the finger of Carlos IV's death at Louis XI or Juan II). I've never heard that there's a fascination with Juana being a witch in literature.
Click to expand...
Too true…
 

Kellan Sullivan

eliamartin65 said:
Why, though?
Click to expand...
because we're already at February/March 1472, Margaret is born in April 1472, and if Liz was in sanctuary, that meant no sleepovers. Even if Edward was her husband. Plus, the conception of OTL Maggie would be in the second week of July 1471 (assuming she was full-term) when Edward IV was up north (near York) fighting at the time, with no time to slip down to London for a quickie. Ergo, no Maggie.

Also, if I let her live, I need to find a husband for her. And I'm already struggling for grooms for Edward IV's surviving daughters.

Lastly, it's to cut down on the amount of people named Margaret (Margaret d'Anjou, Margaret Beaufort, the other Margaret of York in Burgundy, Margaret Nevill, etc etc etc)
 
eliamartin65

eliamartin65

Kellan Sullivan said:
because we're already at February/March 1472, Margaret is born in April 1472, and if Liz was in sanctuary, that meant no sleepovers. Even if Edward was her husband. Plus, the conception of OTL Maggie would be in the second week of July 1471 (assuming she was full-term) when Edward IV was up north (near York) fighting at the time, with no time to slip down to London for a quickie. Ergo, no Maggie.

Also, if I let her live, I need to find a husband for her. And I'm already struggling for grooms for Edward IV's surviving daughters.

Lastly, it's to cut down on the amount of people named Margaret (Margaret d'Anjou, Margaret Beaufort, the other Margaret of York in Burgundy, Margaret Nevill, etc etc etc)
Click to expand...
Noted XD
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top