Royal Bastards: Rise of the Tudors

I was surprised that the secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was left out as that played a pivotal role on why Warwick fell out with Edward, plus Elizabeth's large family's constant power grab played a part also. Was disappointed with that but overall really well done.

The Tudors came into Britain's royal history in 1485 when Henry VII was crowned, but the backstory isn't well known.

This short series provides a really worthwhil,e and well-explained look at what happened, centring on Henry's mother, Margaret Beaufort, and her determined struggle to get him into the throne.

The format, using three 3 top-flight actors as on-camera narrators, and very well-produced dramatic re-enactments, was very engaging - I watched all 3 episodes on Sky catch-up in one session.

The language and the action in the re-enactments is rough and tough, and maybe shocking, but reflects real life in that era, when anyone else's life other than your own, was unimportant.

I enjoyed every minute. The only caveat I have is that some minor characters are a little difficult to follow- a couple of mentions and they are gone!

This is a really enjoyable retelling of key elements in the rise of Henry Tudor through the critical influence of Margaret Beaufort. However, what really detracts from this is how heavily biased this is to the Tudor narrative, and doesn't explain that bias at any point.

The most ridiculous element has to be how they present the mystery of the princes in the tower. As far as this telling goes, Richard had them murdered in cold blood. No conjecture, no mystery - "Richard did it". Nothing about what Beaufort gained with them being out of the way (i.e. Tudor's claim to the throne).

There's also no mention of the Woodville influence in the mix. The timeline is fast and loose, they don't explain the mood of court....the list of critical omissions is endless. But nevertheless it'd enjoyable historical fiction.

A great story and a good idea of how to tell it. Feels historically accurate if a little graphic. The main problem I have is the swearing. It's almost constant and quite frankly unnecessary. Did they actually speak like it? I think not and there is no need ever to use the c word in what purports to be a documentary. Should have guessed by the title.

Before we begin. I have a degree in British History... The synth music is a little unnecessary, but the acting good and history from specialists is welcome. It makes the war of the Roses saga seem fresh and interesting, its a great introduction to the material. But... I have a few bugbears; the Princes in the Tower is still a mystery, we do not know if their murder was ordered, or who by, and yet it is stated as fact and Richard the 3rd is the culprit. We do not know. Ergo, this is historically inaccurate; it's likely, but not fact - and this should have been stated. Also, a lot of court intrigue is also packaged as gospel, when it is not fact, there are no records of tittle-tattle and heresay. We interpolate based on actual known outcomes, a lot of conclusions are presented as absolutes and not possibilities - which they in fact are. It is almost certain that this is not 100% accurate, probably a lot less. Some of the commentary is not well scripted.. for example "They were in fear of their lives". No, people are in fear "FOR their lives", not OF them. Pedantic yes, but things like this happen too often to be ignored, with a budget like they have - you can't have slack writing, it doesn't cost a lot to send a script to a decent editor... So yes, a great series, decent acting and some good insight - but marred by suggesting the view which is presented is actual historic fact, and not interpolation; however, the view presented is generally of the more "likely" academic consensus, but people should be told this is what is being presented - and they don't. And what is with that bloody synthesizer music during a 1400's documentary?? But I'm generally quite anal - so its basically very good and I do recommend, but remember the pinch of salt - all facts here are not accurate.