Die Thronfolgerin

This is what happens when a film studio and a novelist places history on the big screen. Historical accuracy and truth takes second place when it comes to spinning a yarn. I just hope when kids watch this film, they do not rely on it as facts for their education. The real story itself was intriguing enough without having to bend the truth. So, why did they?

Anyway, in the film, Elizabeth (I) was madly in love with Thomas Seymour. From historical records, Thomas was supposedly the person who made advances on Elizabeth (I) but was unsuccessful. In the film, Edward Seymour was seen as a callous power hungry puppeteer in the royal court. In history, he was a successful military man when he battled oppositions at Pinkie, Scotland (1547). Edward was also responsible for religious reforms and in relaxing heresy and treason laws. In the film, he sent his brother Thomas to the scaffold because of his paranoia over power struggle threats. In history, the execution of Thomas by the council in 1549 was a significant blow to Edward and it weakened his power in England. The eventual arrest and execution of Edward in 1552 was conspired by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick and Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton to remove Seymour's protectorate power over his nephew, King Edward VI. Edward VI died at the age of 15 in 1553. Dudley induced the council to proclaim his daughter-in-law, Lady Jane Grey, as queen after Edward VI's death. Dudley was executed in 1554 by Mary (I) for treason.

Of course, there's no way of knowing precisely what really happened in history. But in rationale, a person should not be defamed or condemned (as in the case of Edward Seymour) based on hearsay, idle gossip, a romantic novel or a chick flick, even if they are dead over a few centuries. In theory, anyhow.

Anyway, I did enjoy this film as pure entertainment. Walter Plunkett's costume design was magnificent and the whole cast was superb. Miklos Rozsa's emotional music score was an incredible soul wrenching delight.

Is it worth seeing? Yes, definitely! It's entertaining, well acted and beautifully produced.

This is an entertaining movie and not a documentary. So, why not show "how it could have happened". This is what makes history interesting and exciting. The story is very well written, the actors are superb. And there is this sparkling chemistry between Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr I miss so much in modern movies. This is GOOD OLD HOLLYWOOD (even it is mostly a british movie). I hope that in the near future somebody produces a good DVD!! This movie is one of my all time favorites!!

I don't expect or even want precise historicity in a costume drama, so I love this beautifully-filmed production. Did anybody else find Rex Thompson's portrayal of Edward, the little king, as remarkable as I did? Rex was only 11 at the time, and no matter how visionary the director, how plausible the writing or how facile the film editor, it takes real brilliance for a person that young to perform so believably. He perfectly reproduced Laughton's characterizations of Henry VIII in miniature, and was as matter-of-dactyl bloodthirsty as Henry ("I wish he'd die," he remarks about his "Oncle Ned," seeing nothing untoward about it). He worked again with Deborah Kerr playing Louis in "The King and I." He was "The Page" in the Hallmark Hall of Fame production of the same name in 1966, but there are no later entries about him on this site. Also, no death date, which I'm glad to see...was he one of those unfortunate child actors who was robbed blind by unscrupulous relatives/agents/investors? Did he just get sick of the grind and chuck it all? Or did he change his name and vocation? I would have liked to have seen him as an adult. He was such an appealing child!

How many films have been made about Alfred the Great, the only English monarch with the nickname "the Great". Only one, made in the 1960s I believe. There is, to my knowledge no film about William the Conqueror and the Battle of Hastings, although there are at least six versions of Shakespeare's MACBETH (who was William's contemporary monarch in Scotland!).

There is one film about the Normans of William's time - THE WARLORD (1965) with Charleton Heston and Richard Boone. It's a very good film, but it never shows William. No films about St. Edward the Confessor, Ethelred the Unready, William Rufus, or Hardecanute (remember the Danish Viking ruler of England who whipped the disobedient waves of the Channel).

The first major English monarch who is made the subject of a big film is Henry II, the role played (both times) by Peter O'Toole in BECKET and THE LION IN WINTER. Significantly his two roles stem from two major plays of the 1950s and 1960s. His son Richard I ("the Lion-Hearted") appears in THE LION IN WINTER, but earlier films included THE CRUSADES, ROBIN HOOD, IVANHOE, KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS, and ROBIN AND MARION. Richard is really the first English monarch to appear in more than just a couple of films - but notice, even though he is a central figure the films tend to deal with the Third Crusade he helped to lead, or the machinations of his brother "Prince John", or the possibly fictional figure of Robin, Earl of Locksley (known as "Robin Hood"). While THE CRUSADES and KING RICHARD AND THE CRUSADERS deal with him and Berengaria (his wife), and try to build a romantic and chivalric triangle between them and Saladin, the actual sexual interests of Richard seem to be closer to the performance of Anthony Hopkins in THE LION IN WINTER.

Oddly there is no film about King John and his failure to control his nobles (not even a film version of Shakespeare's historic play, although a television movie version was made starring Leonard Rossiter as John in the 1980s - but the BBC were filming the entire series of the plays). Nor of the fights led by Simon De Montford against Henry III that led to the creation of the House of Commons. Occasional films pick up on a few monarchs - BRAVEHEART giving a look at Edward I and his witless son; Christopher Marlowe's EDWARD II showing what happened to the witless son; CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT being Orson Welles's take on Henry IV and Prince Hal (but concentrating on Sir John Falstaff); and both Olivier and Branagh dealing with HENRY V in two startling great and different interpretations. Then there is another biggie: Old Crookback - RICHARD III in Olivier's production set in the 1470s and 1480s, or the version by Sir Ian McKellan set in the 1930s, or TOWER OF London with Rathbone (a distinctive Richard) abetted by Karloff, and then a version with Vincent Price (who was Clarence in TOWER OF London).

This brings us to the champs of British Royals in film - the Tudors. Henry VII always pops up in the Richard films (he has to - he wins at Bosworth Field). Yet no film specifically about Henry VII has been made. Not so Henry VIII, Edward VI, Jane Gray, and Elizabeth (not much for "Bloody Mary") though. THE PRIVATE LIFE OF HENRY VIII, THE SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, ANNE OF A THOUSAND DAYS, THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER (at least 3 versions, including one called CROSSED SWORDS), YOUNG BESS, SIX DAY QUEEN, ELIZABETH, MARY OF Scotland (Mary, Queen of Scots, was Henry VIII's niece), MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS, THE VIRGIN QUEEN, THE SEA HAWK, FIRE OVER ENGLAND, THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX / ELIZABETH THE QUEEN, Shakespeare IN LOVE. No other British Royal Family has been as chronicled in films as the Tudors. Think of it. Charles I was the center of so much turmoil that he eventually was executed after a trial following a series of Civil Wars he lost to Oliver Cromwell. Only one film about him was made - and a bad one - CROMWELL (emphasizing the victor of those wars). But the Tudors generate more interest - there is more skulduggery and treason in their reigns than most, and England becomes a great nation (and a cultural fountainhead) at the end of it all.

YOUNG BESS is a small joy - it deals with the forgotten career of Admiral Thomas Seymour, uncle of King Edward VI, and would-be romantic wooer of Princess Elizabeth. He also was the last of Katherine Parr's three husbands (Henry VIII being the second). It is the second time that Laughton plays the great monarch, and the terrible fury of the man is shown in two shots showing his hand caressing the neck of Elizabeth's doomed mother Anne Boleyn, and later caressing the neck of the doomed Catherine Howard in the same way. Most interesting is the casting of Jean Simmons and Steward Granger as Princess Elizabeth and Admiral Tom Seymour. They were married at the time, so their scenes together have an extra-something to them (like the Burtons some ten years later). YOUNG BESS is not accurate history, but it is good film making. You will view this film with satisfaction.

This is a splendidly-mounted production by anyone's standards; arguably it is the best realization of the pre-Elizabethan, the late Marian period ever realized on film.   But despite its modest beginnings as a fictionalized biography of Elizabeth Tudor by popular author Margaret Irwin, the screenplay by Jan Lustig and Arthur Wimperis also adds another dramatic dimension to a well-told story.  The subject in this work is the dangerous, difficult and famous youth of the future Elizabeth Ist of England, taking her from childhood to her accession to the throne after the death of her sister Bloody Mary, who reigned following the death both of King Henry VII and his frail son and heir Arthur, who died at 12 years of age.  George Sidney directed this dignified and powerful story;  and the assembled cast he presented were well-chosen as speakers of the English language:  Jean Simmons playing the young Elizabeth with unusual intelligence and verve; Cecil Kellaway as the loyal warder who looks after her modest household as a princess out of favor;  Charles Laughton reveling in his bravura role as the irascible and fascinating Henry VIII;  Stewart Granger and Guy Rolfe playing the rival brothers who wrestle for control of England's political direction; Deborah Kerr as the King's last wife, gentle an d lovely Catherine Parr; also prominently featured were Kathleen Byron, Kay Walsh, young Rex Thompson as Edward, Elaine Stewart, Dawn Addams, Ivan Triesault, Lumsden Hare, Leo G. Carroll, Doris Lloyd, Norma Varden, Alan Napier, Robert Arthur and Lester Mathews. The plot-line concerns Elizabeth's attempts to survive the shifting fortunes of the English court; powerless, except for the loyalty of a few noblemen, her greatest danger comes from the handsome and ambitious Thomas Seymour (Granger); the script treats his regard for Elizabeth as political, which is not historical; by attaching himself to the queen of the late King Henry, he becomes so dangerous his unpleasantly Establishment and puritanical brother Edward must move against him. from this loss, Elizabeth is fortunate to emerge alive and, at last, queen of England; but this is a moving film that touches on her relative poverty, fears, learning, arguments with her father, disappointment when Edward who loves her dies, and her last danger in the Seymour's quarrel. The emotionally rich film is superbly served in my estimation by Miklos Rozsa's memorable score. With bright cinematography by Charles Rosher, brilliant art direction by Cedric Gibbons and Urie McCleary, set decorations by Jack D, Moore and Edwin Willis and gorgeous costumes by Walter Punkett, the film is very attractive to watch in every scene. Sydney Guilaroff's hairstylings, William Tuttle's makeup and Douglas Shearer's sound work are all first-rate as well. The best scene in the film to many minds is the argument aboard a ship between the volatile Henry Tudor and his equally spirited daughter; but this is a very good film, on the verge of being a great one, thanks to director Sidney's solid presentation of every scene of the material. I recommend it highly, if not as literal history then as a colorful, thoughtful and satisfying entertainment.