Tudor times again

You'd think, wouldn't you, that sooner or later a girl would tire of Tudor era gossip? And yet, recently, I spent my leisure hours during a conference trip devouring "The Queen's Governess" by Karen Harper and starting on "The Virgin's Lover" by Philippa Gregory (well honestly - I couldn't weigh down my luggage with Les Mis, now could I?). Earlier this year I read "The Final Act of Mr Shakespeare" (though strictly speaking that was set in Jacobean times), and last week I watched a second adaptation of "The Other Boleyn Girl", having of course already seen the film - twice. Wanting to see different adaptations of, say, "Oliver Twist" is not very strange, but "The Other Boleyn Girl"? What is all this?

I'm not the only one, it seems, who is hooked on Tudor gossip, seeing as Philippa Gregory's novels have clearly started a trend. "The Queen's Governess" has quite shamelessly been fashioned by Karen Harper's publishers to look as much like a Gregory novel as possible. (I wouldn't be surprised if they suggested the title, too.) It must be a little galling for her as her interest in Tudor times is obviously genuine and un-Gregory-related, but at least the sales tactic is a sound one - the standard woman-in-a-brocaded-dress-cover certainly drew me.

The question remains, though, why? We all know pretty much what happens by now. Henry's six wives - "divorced, beheaded and died, divorced, beheaded, survived" as "Horrible Histories" succintly puts it. (If Harper is to be believed, this is a variation of a real Tudor witticism.) Edward VI dying young. Lady Jane Grey being beheaded. Mary Tudor burning Protestants and pining for the cold-hearted Philip of Spain. And then, finally, Elizabeth, who provides a Golden Age but who never marries: not Dudley, not the eligible Frenchman, certainly not Philip (well, what did he expect?), not our own fine-looking Swedish king Erik XIV (all right, he was a bit erratic, but still - wouldn't it have been wonderful?), no one. And as a consequence, the Tudor line becoming extinct and the Stuarts - the tiresome Mary Queen of Scots' heirs - taking over.

I suppose the answer is right there. It's all the incident that attracts us. You can say what you like about the Tudors, who had little business being on England's throne at all, but things are seldom dull when they're around, executing enemies, friends, wives and erstwhile favourites left and right. What was it like? To be king or queen of the room one minute, and to face the chopping block the next? Or to be someone close to all these notable casualties, or their royal executioners? There's enough human drama there to fill a number of woman-in-brocade-dress-books.

There is one thing the Tudor era lacks, though, which most successful stories tend to have: likeable characters. As I've already mentioned, Cardinal Wolsey, especially as described in Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall", charmed me, but otherwise, what is there? Henry VIII is more or less a monster. Cromwell is clever enough but not exactly sparkling: there's no denying the French do the shady-politician-sidekick-of-famous-monarch-thing rather better. Various earls and dukes are in it for what they can get, which is no bad thing in itself, but they are annoyingly hamfisted about it. The excellent TV series "Elizabeth R" depicted Bloody Mary's unrequited love for Philip of Spain so harrowingly (and besides he was played by Peter Jeffrey: girlfriend, I get you!) I tend to cut her more slack than she deserves, but the fact remains that, apart from being devoid of GSOH, she did burn those Protestants. Not even Elizabeth - much the best of the Tudor monarchs - comes out of the court intrigues altogether well. "The Queen's Governess" was about her governess, Kat Ashley, and is very much pro-Elizabeth, but Ashley's "dear girl" did seem on the calculating side, and with an eye on the throne pretty much all the time. When Mary finally cops it and Elizabeth becomes queen, there is a jubilant, "ding-dong the witch is dead" feeling in the air. Yup, girl, you're queen all right, but only because first your brother and then your sister died prematurely. How about a minute of silence or something?

Things look up a bit likeable-character-wise once Elizabeth is queen: there is the intelligent and loyal (rare combination, that) Cecil for one, and unsurprisingly I have a fondness for spy master Walsingham. But Dudley? Not even Robert Hardy in "Elizabeth R" (those were the days when Tudor crumpet was played by the finest of English character-actordom) could make me understand what she saw in this preening peacock. I doubt Gregory's "The Queen's Lover" will make me see things differently. It's still fun to read, though.