The White Queen

The very first episode was rather underwhelming however it was still interesting enough for me to continue to watch. By the third episode I was hooked and the series has continued to deliver very strongly.

I've just watched the seventh episode and in this my main gripe, which had been the performance of King Edward by Max Irons seems to be so much more convincing than that of the early episodes. Oddly enough Max Irons does the fatter older and extremely morally compromised Edward better than the younger version. Or maybe in the earlier episodes the fault was mine, I simply was not accepting Max Irons in the role of Edward.

The performance I have been enjoying the most is that of Amanda Hale as Lady Margaret Beaufort. There is so much to Margaret Beaufort, that she is a religious fanatic who is continuously scheming and plotting and obsessed with putting her son on the throne. Amanda portrays it all excellently and with Margaret I found myself strangely sympathetic to her cause, even though I realised that if I had encountered her in real life I would have loathed her.

One reviewer has complained that the characters are telling each other things that they know about themselves, but this is an important device in a drama such as this to simply remind the audience just who is who and how they all relate to each other.

I think the script often has many excellent moments, such as at the end of the seventh episode when Henry Stafford, played by Michael Maloney says to Margaret Beaufort "you realise that for your son to become king he has to walk past five coffins". In that scene we know that Margaret understands this and it is communicated that she is capable of doing all that is necessary to get her son on the throne.

Some people complain about historical inaccuracies. There are concrete steps in some scenes, and there are handrails etc. However I think the truth is that the cost of covering all these things up would have been huge. I don't think it is possible for a television series to be totally accurate. Some have complained that the whites in the costumes are too white. However lighting and cameras will often produce a "whiter than white" impression with white clothing. Maybe this should have been countered in some way, however once again, I think that in a television series that is too much to expect.

This series is extremely compelling. The hugely difficult situation for each character is portrayed extremely well. I really feel for the people unfortunate enough to be caught up in this deeply unpleasant world. Even if you know roughly what happens, it remains really rather exciting.

The underlying theme, that the women in the Wars of the Roses were just as significant as the men, is an important point, and by focusing on them it does make for excellent drama as their lives are so interesting.

Interesting story line for those of you who have the slightest clue of history. Other reviewers talk about "supernatural" plot lines. I had to chuckle. This series is based on a scandalous time in history. It is pretty factual with some added creative license. Historical events of this family and time involve accusations of witchcraft. This is not a Hollywood conjured up plot line with supernatural concoctions to make a series more interesting as other reviewers suggest. After this first episode, I would say it rates mountains above most garbage you see on US television. Elizabeth Grey reigned as queen for 19 years. I recommend a Google search for some of you to get a taste of the juicy storyline this series will bring.

One night early there was a preview showing of this new series from the Brits. It looks promising if a bit unorthodox in its approach to history and slips in the settings and costumes. The series is based on Philippa Gregory's novel, 'The Cousins' War' and roughly the story line promises to follow these lines: Set against the backdrop of the Wars of the Roses, the series is the story of the women caught up in the long-drawn-out conflict for the throne of England. It starts in 1464--the nation has been at war for nine years fighting over who is the rightful King of England, as two sides of the same family, the House of York and the House of Lancaster, are in violent conflict over the throne. The story focuses on three women in their quest for power, as they manipulate behind the scenes of history--Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beaufort and Anne Neville.

In the first episode we don't see much more than King Edward's bedding and wedding of Elizabeth, a lot of bickering, some fighting, and some castle intrigue. Rebecca Ferguson plays Queen Elizabeth, Amanda Hale plays Lady Margaret Beaufort, Faye Marsay is Anne Neville, and the remarkable actors are Janet McTeer as Jacquetta Woodville (Elizabeth's magical mum) and Max Irons (handsome son of Jeremy Irons) as King Edward. James Frain is an unusually grumpy and sour Lord Warwick and Caroline Goodall is splendid as the evil Duchess Cicely. It is difficult to tell from an isolated episode, but the series has enough interest in the poorly understood realm of the War of the Roses for American audience that it will probably have staying power. Stay tuned...

Grady Harp

Having had the pleasure of finishing the series on BBC iPlayer today I would like to say I thoroughly enjoyed it as did most people who saw it with me.

Now I did not watch this because I wanted a historical documentary. I watched it for the same reason I watched The Tudors, for an entertaining period drama about the intrigue surrounding the War of the Roses. There are many inaccuracies in both shows but I found them easy to overlook. It concerns mainly Elizabeth Woodville and her time as Queen of England whilst others plotted her demise and some even sought to overthrow King Edward. The acting was, on the whole, very good for TV and the sets and costumes were all fantastic and suited the characters portrayed in them. There clearly was not a high budget here and it shows, particularly in the battle scenes. However, I did was able to overlook this as the story did enough to draw me in.

The reason many people did not enjoy this show as much, in my opinion, is due to the first couple of episodes. They are considerably weaker than the rest of the show and I was tempted to give up after episode 2, it just seemed too much like a soap opera. However, once the main story lines picked up it was highly enjoyable.

If you can overlook the flaws in this show and, like me, you actually read books for your historical knowledge rather than TV dramas then you should be able to enjoy this show and I highly recommend it.

I've seen a few period series, and almost all of them stand out for the same reasons and fall into the same traps. I remember, in particular, the famous and successful series "The Tudors" and another, less well-known, "The Borgias", but there are others. And after seeing these series, I feel that they are similar to each other, although they address different times, contexts, figures and geographies. Some even say, and I understand why, that this miniseries (one season, ten episodes) is a prequel to "The Tudors". It's not, the cast or crew are different, but it could be.

The historical period covered, of about thirty years, begins with the accession to the throne of the House of York by the hand of Edward IV, after the deposition of the unstable King Henry VI and the first phase of the Wars of the Roses. Much of the series will focus on the figure of this willful and charismatic monarch and his military chief, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. However, the main dish of the series is the women and their ability to influence: the king makes a debatable marriage with Isabel Rivers, harming Warwick's interests and creating a rivalry between the Neville and Rivers clans. The "kingmaker" will then go to France, kneeling before another powerful woman: Margaret of Anjou, wife of the deposed king, who used her connections to French royalty to raise money, supporters and troops for the House of Lancaster.

At a time when nobles had the power and money to arm troops for themselves, the support of the high nobility dictated the tide of events. The series shows this through the Stanleys (two brothers who, by strategy, place themselves on both sides of the conflict) and the Nevilles, who give Henry VI the means for a brief restoration that ends in his death, in the Tower of London, and in the death of Richard Neville at the Battle of Barnet. This neutralized this family power, with their daughters marrying York princes, who divided the family heritage and put it in the Crown assets. However, and staying true to the material of novelist Philippa Gregory, the series gives relevance to these ladies, particularly Anne Neville, who marries the Lancastrian heir and, after being widowed, the future Richard III. Personally, I have a lot of doubts here: everything indicates that Anne, far from being the strong and influential woman shown, was just a pawn in a game where she had little to say. The series ends with the defeat and death of Richard III at the hands of Henry Tudor's troops.

I apologize if I exaggerated the analysis of the historical facts, but being a historian, I thought it was pertinent to talk a little about it. On the other hand, I feel that I am not saying anything that cannot be learned from the Internet or from a good English history book. The series is good and interesting, although I have noticed some mistakes that are not understandable: women with their heads uncovered, nobles fighting on foot and without helmets, breeds of dogs that did not exist at the time, etc. It is in these details that we observe the ability of a series to be faithful to historical truth. Even so, the series fared somewhat better at this point than "Tudors".

The cast is good, although sometimes the performances are anachronistic (the characters sound and behave like people of our time) and dialogues are cheesy. Rebecca Ferguson deserves applause for a job well done and convincing, as do Max Irons, Aneurin Barnard, David Oakes, Tom Mckay, Rupert Graves and James Frain. The actors gave themselves to the characters and tried to be authentic, although they may not have always received the best material. On the negative side, Amanda Hale exaggerates and makes her character a fanatic on the verge of madness and Faye Marsay does what she can with her character, but takes on increasingly contemporary attitudes and gestures. I liked Janet McTeer's work, but I preferred a French-speaking actress in the role, because the character featured was French by origin.

Technically, the series is quite elegant and makes the best use of the Belgian settings where it was filmed, between Ghent, Bruges and Ypres. Equally well-made, the costumes seem appropriate for the time, except for the glaring absence of hats and head coverings or veils, an essential part of fashion at the time, as the painting so expressively reveals to us. The photography and filming work was very well done, the effects work well, the opening credits design is very well done, and the soundtrack is reasonably good.