Aristocrats

As another reviewer noted, there are so many children that it is very difficult to keep up with who is who, and this problem increases as the series moves on... Also, although every series that purports to show time passing has to deal with making the actors age, in this one, the oldest daughter looks exactly the same after about 20 years!

The costumes and settings are certainly BBC-worthy, although as a Yank I could not tell if they are accurate or not.

The plots are also confusing, but that is party because the English history of that era was pretty complicated, with the factions, and uprisings, etc.

Based on a true story, Aristocrats follows an English aristocratic family, who claims royal blood and status via Charles II bastard lineage. The convoluted time-line in fits and starts, takes place prior to the American Revolution on through to the Irish uprising in 1798.

The story starts out interestingly enough, but at about part 3 of 6 you begin to wonder if there is a point to the story. The last 3 parts are simply depressing. More than anything, the time-line begins to rapidly fly by without any specific storyline accountability nor historical grounding. The casting is odd in general. In particular, as the characters age, the casting changes are really horrible choices that offer no consistency or context of character and plot.

If you've nothing else, you may find this a mild diversion. But all in all, this doesn't measure up to the BBC's standards.

Super series for anyone interested in the history of the period of enlightenment. Read the book for a better insight.

The Second Duke of Richmond is played by Julian Fellows. The format and the music seem so redolent of Downton Abbey. Anyone else see it as a forerunner of Fellow"s Downton?

I'm surprised Fellows didn't tack a raft of mini series onto The Aristocrats. The Lennox offspring, legitimate and otherwise, weave through much of British and overseas history, which now, sadly, has abruptly ended with Brexit and the demise of an entire nation.

Sarah describes her sisters.

Caroline is clever, Emily is like a mother to me, Louisa is an angel and Cecilia is a child. I am a disappointment.

This is based on a true story and is actually very good viewing. It has six parts, showing the sisters as children and finally as old ladies.

Apart from Cecilia, all the sisters stories are based around their loves and family.

Emily is the narrator of the story as it proceeds.

The costumes and wigs are wonderful and the music is good too. All the sisters give great performances.

No mini-series has made me want to read the book more. The source material seems absolutely fascinating, and so many allusions and sometimes confusing references were made in the series that one realizes only a book can flesh out the intricacies of the complete story.

This was a compelling series up to the end disc, when previously minor flaws became too great to ignore. The writer can't seem to decide if the story is about 4 sisters and their relationship to each other; their interactions with social norms & how they abided by, flaunted, or bent them; the plight of the aristocracy itself during a time of social turmoil; or how great a stand one should take on great political/moral issues and what consequences that may have.

This is obviously far too much for any 6-part series to take on, even by so venerable an institution as the BBC. Casting, acting, direction, sets, and costumes are outstanding, as always. But the story...the story raises little questions here and there that don't get resolved. One's willing to overlook that because everything else is so compelling. But the final disc (2 episodes), where the timeline has progressed into the sisters' later years, really starts to fall apart. Characters we barely know suddenly take up the bulk of screen time and the 4- pronged story arc starts to fray.

It was such a disappointing end to an otherwise wonderful period piece. I can't wait to read the book.