1066: A Year to Conquer England

Rather like a scientist (rarely) or a politician (commonly) who cannot articulate the word "nuclear"- often in a programme ABOUT nuclear power or weapons -the BBC have a habit of destroying this viewers confidence in the factuality of their "factual" productions by their ridiculous casting.

Would they cast a man to play Queen Elizabeth 1st?

Or a white actor to play Dr. Martin Luther King jnr?

In a supposedly factual drama?

Can you imagine the backlash?

I think and hope they would not, but it's fine to cast a black actor (in their wokish PC minds) for a well documented white european historical figure!

Misleading at best, partcularly to younger viewers who may not be aware of the FACTS of the societal and social structure of Europe in the 11th century.

Personally l have no issue whatsoever with any actor of any colour or gender playing any part in contemporary fiction, but attach the word "FACT" to it and l expect a little more.

On the whole I found it an interesting look at 1066, I was a bit surprised they spoke about the battlefield as being where it is as recent theories suggest it might have actually been somewhere else , but the most irritating thing about it was the casting of a black actor as one of Williams closest confidants and later as an envoy sent to parley with Harold. I understand from other reviews that this historical figure was definitely white and the program makers must have knowingly changed his ethnicity to make the program more inclusive to black people. Some will say what is the harm of this? - firstly Its highly patronising to black people, there are plenty of factual stories about black peoples contributing to the history of Great Britain without inventing things secondly this is a history series and history should always be rooted in fact , you can't change bits because it suits your agenda no matter how well intentioned your motives, because if an obvious fact like this can be changed then what other facts are changed to fit in with the history tellers political biases - it just undermines the whole programme and turns it into fiction. One of the joys of true stories is that these things really happened, normal people really did these things, when the BBC fiddles with history like this it just ruins it.

When a "documentary" trying to be factual inserts a black actor as the right hand man to William, it completely undermines the entire credibility of what they are presenting and turns it into a joke. There were no Africans in England or Normandy at that time, and not for another 500 years at least. Why not use a talking pig? Or a little green man from outer space?

I stumbled upon this on BBC Iplayer and thought it sounded decent. What it is, is 3 episodes of a host giving information on said subject and actors acting it out.

The information was decent but came across cringy as he tried to inject some excitement ininto it.

Then we had 3 people stood at a computer pretending to be the combatants of this battle giving their reasons on why they were invading.

Give it a miss

The year 1066 was a fascinating year, but this doc was very dull and bland. I have never thought that Dan Snow was that good a presenter or historian and consider his success mainly due to his father's influence. I saw one of his docs on the Battle of Britain and he clearly did not have any detailed, or even superficial, knowledge of the event. Compared to Michael Wood (say) he lacks charisma and the ability to inspire his audience.

This drama/doc contained many omissions and the tension /dialogue/drama between the three decent historians enacting the motives, thoughts and actions of the three main characters did not really work because it was all a bit insipid and wooden. Some good shots of armour, ships and the landscapes though.

Being a BBC production it had to be politically correct and make some characters black, which was not only irritating but undermined any credibility concerning the facts presented.

Give it a miss.