La princesa de España

In the end it is the material you are working with and the skill of screenwriters that allow actors and directors to turn a story into a compelling screen piece. Unfortunately, whether it is the book or the screenwriting, this story has slipped in Starz's Tudor trilogy. Laura Carmichael and Harriet Walter give excellent performances and should receive their credit. Frankly, they carry the show. This third installment is more a romantic then historical fiction.

As others have pointed out Henry was 11 when Catherine came to court, not some love sick 16 year old. If you want the Catherine/Henry/Boleyn story, which I expect Season 2 to be, watch WolfHall for first rate historical fiction and acting.

If you know absolutely nothing of this era, this is your show. If you do, you must ignore the very obvious historical inconsistencies.

Honestly, why? They have the money. The history is very interesting on its own. I am so disappointed, Catherine of Aragon deserved better.

Lavishly produced, very well acted and generally quite entertaining, but I did think the Spanish Princess drifted into soap opera a little too often. Massive liberties taken with history, but we should all know by now that any show "based on historical events" is just that - most of the people existed, some of the things happened, but most of it is pure fiction. Still, I often find these kinds of shows interesting because they lure me into checking the historical facts, which is educational. I was surprised to find, for instance, that Catherine actually did have a black woman as one of her retinue of 'ladies'.

The White Queen was very lurid but it was entertaining.

The White Princess was very lurid and it was NOT entertaining.

The Spanish Princess, well . . . . At least Catharine has red hair.

This review comes after only the first 3 episodes. I was excited at the prospect of seeing the story of Catherine of Aragon, which usually is only a sideline to the story of Henry VIII and his six wives. Now, I'm aware that historical dramas cannot be totally factual in every way for good reason, but I find it disconcerting to twist what is known to be true in a massive way. In just 3 episodes I have witnessed countless discrepancies that are just too glaring to be ignored. Most egregious is portraying Henry, Arthur's much younger brother, as being the same age as he and Catherine. I think I understand their reasoning, but it cuts down my star rating (among other glaring mistakes) by quite a bit. I watch historical pieces for the history as much as the drama. And really, this story has plenty of real-life drama which doesn't need made up stuff to be interesting. Hopefully the rest of this series won't be as big a disappointment, since I intend to keep watching anyway.