Since HBO has been promo’ing this miniseries (the conclusion is on Monday I think), I’d been wanting to catch it, so watched the beginning tonight (Saturday).
First off, I love Elizabethan-era stuff - so much going on then! Costumes were gorgeous as was the scenery; I don’t know how hard it is to re-create 16th century England, but they seemed to do a pretty good job of it. Helen Mirren was fantastic as ER I, I thought; when I’m inclined to go and read up more about the Tudor reigns, the actors have done a great job. I’m pretty fuzzy on the historical background (it’s been years since I’ve read any historical books on that era, unfortunately), so I’ll definitely be looking for good bio stuff on Elizabeth I.
Have to admit, I closed and covered my eyes to the more graphic violence - and it was indeed graphic (well, I did peep a bit through my fingers, I confess). Tortures on the rack (ye gods!), beheadings (that took two chops for Mary!), and other assorted nasty stuff. Maybe I’m a bit confused here, but wasn’t Mary Queen of Scots actually Elizabeth’s half-sister? She kept calling her a cousin, the daughter of her father’s sister. Didn’t Katherine of Aragon (Henry’s first wife) have a daughter named Mary? Or am I that historically challenged? laughs Not something I’m happy to admit, mind you!
At any rate, I thought it was quite an enjoyable work, and plan on tuning in on Monday for the conclusion.
Mary, Queen of Scots was Elizabeth’s cousin. She was the daughter of King James V of Scotland, who was himself the son of James IV and Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII’s sister). Henry VIII and Katherine of Aragon’s daughter was Queen Mary I of England, Elizabeth’s half-sister and a seperate person entirely from Mary of Scotland.
Here’s a link to his Wiki bio. He didn’t have designs on the throne for himself, but he was accused and tried for treason–including trying to put the Scottish king, James VI, on the throne. Fascinating stuff.
I have never, ever cursed not having HBO more than now. Does anyone know if it’ll come out on DVD?
Thanks for the info, Mississippienne; as I figured, it was confuzzlement on my part.
If anyone can suggest any historical bios or even (semi)historical novels about Elizabeth (and company!), it would be greatly appreciated. I love historical works, fact or fiction (try “The Quality of Mercy,” by Faye Kellerman - I’ve read that novel more than once, I liked it so much). Am going to try to catch another showing of part I before tomorrow night. BTW, the poem that Elizabeth sent the Duke of Anjou off with was an authentic Elizabeth poem, neat!
Philippa Gregory writes some (IMHO) good fiction about Elizabeth I and her era. The Constant Princess is about Katherine of Aragon; The Other Boleyn Girl is about Anne Boleyn and her sister, Mary; The Queen’s Fool is about a heroine who is caught between Queen Mary I and Elizabeth; The Virgin’s Lover is about Elizabeth, her lover Robert Dudley, and Dudley’s wife Amy.
They admittedly have their weak points, but they are good fiction overall and well worth a look.
I can’t recommend these books for anyone seeking facts about Elizabeth. Gregory portrays her as a wishy-wasy hand-wringing girl who’s more interested than her pleasures than ruling and would fall apart if Cecil wasn’t around to tell her what to do.
They are entertaining reads, I’ll grant that. The Constant Princess is spot-on in its portrayal of Katherine of Aragon as a woman of utterly unshakable conviction in her destiny, though a purist will object to the notion that she and Arthur had a passionate sexual relationship.*
Gregory’s portrayal of Mary I as a heatbroken, desperate woman with nearl-fanatical religious faith is also very good, but Gregory seems to deeply dislike Elizabeth, and portrays her as a nasty character indeed. She robs Elizabeth of her brilliant political mind, and attributes her clever stalling to true indecisiveness, and posits that Elizabeth cultivated a relationship with Phillip of Spain (her sister’s husband) simply to make her sister miserable and boost her own ego.
For those looking for more factual fictional portrayals of Elizabeth, I would suggest I, Elizabeth by Rosalind Miles, or even **Queen of this Realm ** by Jean Plaidy.
Almost all authors of historical fiction about Elizabeth give her sexual relationships with this courtier or that. Ignore it, or chalk it up to wishful-thinking. (Everyone wants poor Elizabeth to have had some joy in her barren life.)
*Not that it’s impossible that their marriage was consummated. Certainly no one at the time of the wedding doubted it. The issue only came into question when Henry VIII wanted to annul their marriage.
I would most recommend the 1970s BBC miniseries The Six Wives of Henry VIII and its sequel Elizabeth R. (I call it a sequel because in addition to E1 being H8’s daughter some of the same actors appear as the same characters in both [Catherine Parr, Abp. Cranmer, etc.].) They’re very low budget but the acting throughout is superb (Keith Michell portrays Henry from a sexy young teenager to the obese impotent tyrant of his last years, Glenda Jackson takes Elizabeth from mischievous horny 14 year old to the arrogant clownfaced icon of her last years) and the history is astonishingly good and detailed for a TV miniseries.
Mary I is one of the few characters to appear in both miniseries played by a different actress, but both actresses are great. The first plays her as the pitiful teenager she was, daughter of a mother she worshipped who she was forbidden to see and all because of “the whore” the father who once adored her had married; this Mary never knew from one day to the next whether she was in favor or out of favor or next in line to the throne or should fear for her life (because Henry was actually advised upon occasion to execute her). The actress in the ER plays her as the bitter middle aged woman who credits her faith for sustaining her and placing her on the throne against great odds, who (as we all probably would) uses her crown to take revenge on the people who mistreated her mother, who tries to see Elizabeth as an innocent pawn but can’t help seeing “the whore” who gave birth to her, and whose desperate attempt for domestic happiness and a child make you feel sorry for her even while she’s burning ‘heretics’ and torturing people from Dover to York.
As mentioned, Alison Weir’s book on Elizabeth is fantastic, though I do wish she’d be consistent in referring to people by title or name. It can get confusing to tell who’s who.
David Starkey also has an excellent biography of Elizabeth in her younger years.
I have to agree that Philippa Gregory does not give the best portrayal of Elizabeth (or her mother Anne Boleyn). She seems to have great sympathy for Mary I and Katherine of Aragon and transfers that to painting Elizabeth (and Anne) in the worst light possible.
It’s probably true that Elizabeth could be petty, vain, and suseptible to flattery. However, she did have a brilliant political mind and, as mentioned, her “indecisiveness” was usually a savvy strategy that kept one faction playing against another (rather than uniting against her) and left all her options open.
I haven’t seen the film, but virginity could be checked by midwives. (They would look for evidence of a hymen.) Joan of Arc was twice examined in such a fashion.
They would base that supposition off of several factors:
Regular, uncomplicated menstruation. Before Mary I married Phillip of Spain, there were doubts as to whether she could bear children because her periods were extremely painful. (She may have had endometriosis, and later, uterine cancer.)
Fertility of the parents. Henry VIII impregnated his wives easily-- they just had trouble carrying to term. Katherine of Aragon was pregnant at least six times, bearing two live children (one of them died shortly after birth) and had at least four miscarriages. Anne Boleyn was pregnant at least twice, possibly three times in the three years of her marriage, so Elizabeth was ostensibly fertile.
General health. Elizabeth had health problems when she was younger, but these were probably psychosomatic in nature. (She got sick during times of stress or danger.) After she became queen, she was as healthy as a horse. She ate a spare diet and exercized regularly. She had no physical deformites.
This miniseries seems to be in a slightly different cast than other HBO period dramas (Deadwood, Rome, etc.), but I can’t quite put my finger on it. My wife, usually a sucker for period pieces, gave up on the show after 30 minutes. I enjoyed it immensely, but it did seem to be more dialog-driven than most HBO dramas. That is, things happened, or we found things out, based on great chunks of dialog (and wonderful acting), such as Elizabeth’s tirade when she found out that Mary had been executed (I *assume *that’s not a spoiler).
I’m sure someone who’s much more articulate will come along to say what I really meant. Or to tell my why I’m wrong
