# Most incredible historical inaccuracies in movies.

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [December 15, 2009, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348 "2009-12-15T13:27:31Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 58

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)
#### Post date: [December 16, 2009, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348/58 "2009-12-16T02:38:53Z")

</div>

> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> _A Man for All Seasons_ had a much larger inaccuracy. It left out the fact that More was genuinely guilty. Henry’s laws may have been unjust but they were laws and More repeatedly and knowingly broke them. The movie however makes him look like a wronged innocent.

As you posted a while back in another thread:

> [@"A Man for All Seasons" (1966)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-man-for-all-seasons-1966/480255/9):
>
> Another major inaccuracy is that they make such a major point that More never said that Henry was wrong. This is true but only in the narrow legalistic sense

If it’s true, it CAN’T BE an inaccuracy. But what other sense would you prefer? Would you have prosecuted him simply because you knew what he meant? That was a major point of the play. Should we be doing that today?

> [@](#):
>
> what the script never mentions is that More wrote several books in which he denounced Henry’s actions (albeit without mentioning the King specifically by name).

If he didn’t mention the King, that was not treason and he did NOT break the law. And I’d be interested in the books and relevant cites.

> [@](#):
>
> The script ignores this in order to make More look completely innocent and undeserving of his fate. The reality is that while the law was unjust, More was guilty of knowingly and repeatedly breaking it.

He DID refuse to swear to the Act of Succession. The script does NOT ignore this. In the movie he even explains to Norfolk that imprisoning him for this was legal. But the reality was that he did NOT deny the King’s title in the legal sense required for treason. He was innocent of this and he was convicted and executed unjustly. If, as you contend, he broke the law, it’s up to you to explain why they didn’t prosecute him sooner AND had to rely on one person’s testimony AFTER he was sent to the Tower.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-incredible-historical-inaccuracies-in-movies/521348)._