Don't get your history from Hollywood or Pinehurst Studios. Watch a Documentary instead. I'm not an expert on the War of the Roses; but the politics was fairly complex with a cast of thousands, It seemed like the series reflected the actual history of that complex war.
What really is the important takeaway from this series: the history is from the viewpoint of the females involved in the history. The Female figures of the era were strong and powerful in their own right, married to strong and powerful men. The second thing to note is how the females engaged in power politics even as the men did: they were all scheming and opportunistic, without exception. And that would seem to be the major theme of the production and that theme is established in the very first episode.
So what are we looking for in an historical drama? We want some accurate reflection of the history; this does. We want some accurate reflection of the psychology of the people involved, this does. Just look at Queen Elizabeth the Great. While she never overtly participated in any schemes against her sister, Queen Mary, neither did she discourage such schemes. She had the good fortune of being only 25 years old ascending the throne, when her sister died. and Elizabeth was no slouch in the scheming.
The Tudors were not the only claimants to the Throne; the Poles were also legitimate claimants; Henry VIII saw fit to execute all of them who dared to raise a challenge. Thomas Moore's portrait of Richard III, generally regarded as accurate, was none-the-less a piece of propaganda in defense of the Tudor right to rule. And even in the days of Richard III, most citizens regarded him as an usurper and instigator for the murder of the two "princes in the Tower", even if he had no direct involvement. The murder of the two "princes in the Tower" served his interests.
This Production presents Richard as asserting that he had nothing to do with the murder of the two princes; the fictional attempt is ingenuous at best and at worst a piece of revisionist history. Richard, as Lord Protector, was crowned Richard III, knowing full well the two princess were dead/murdered; otherwise he could not be crowned King.
With a cast of thousands and an intricate plot line, it would have been helpful to have labels when the major players appeared on screen. While that might make it appear to be a docudrama, it would have been helpful for the viewer to work their way through this historical era. It would also dispel the notion that this is all fiction; while the dialogue is a moment of creative projection, the story line is no less true for that.
I fount the program interesting, even though some people saw anachronisms. I thought it presented an accurate portrayal of the scheming that dominated the royal house.
What really is the important takeaway from this series: the history is from the viewpoint of the females involved in the history. The Female figures of the era were strong and powerful in their own right, married to strong and powerful men. The second thing to note is how the females engaged in power politics even as the men did: they were all scheming and opportunistic, without exception. And that would seem to be the major theme of the production and that theme is established in the very first episode.
So what are we looking for in an historical drama? We want some accurate reflection of the history; this does. We want some accurate reflection of the psychology of the people involved, this does. Just look at Queen Elizabeth the Great. While she never overtly participated in any schemes against her sister, Queen Mary, neither did she discourage such schemes. She had the good fortune of being only 25 years old ascending the throne, when her sister died. and Elizabeth was no slouch in the scheming.
The Tudors were not the only claimants to the Throne; the Poles were also legitimate claimants; Henry VIII saw fit to execute all of them who dared to raise a challenge. Thomas Moore's portrait of Richard III, generally regarded as accurate, was none-the-less a piece of propaganda in defense of the Tudor right to rule. And even in the days of Richard III, most citizens regarded him as an usurper and instigator for the murder of the two "princes in the Tower", even if he had no direct involvement. The murder of the two "princes in the Tower" served his interests.
This Production presents Richard as asserting that he had nothing to do with the murder of the two princes; the fictional attempt is ingenuous at best and at worst a piece of revisionist history. Richard, as Lord Protector, was crowned Richard III, knowing full well the two princess were dead/murdered; otherwise he could not be crowned King.
With a cast of thousands and an intricate plot line, it would have been helpful to have labels when the major players appeared on screen. While that might make it appear to be a docudrama, it would have been helpful for the viewer to work their way through this historical era. It would also dispel the notion that this is all fiction; while the dialogue is a moment of creative projection, the story line is no less true for that.
I fount the program interesting, even though some people saw anachronisms. I thought it presented an accurate portrayal of the scheming that dominated the royal house.