Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The White Queen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kendoka Girl
    replied
    I love the characters, drama, and intrigue, but I was so disappointed in the episode with Barnet and Tewkesbury. I was all set for a grand battle scene with longbowmen and knights in gothic armor and I got a few guys in chainmail and half plate running across the stream in the fog and a total of two arrows fired into some poor groom. The costuming for the armor just didn't do it for me. They should have contracted Graham Turner for the scenes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Legate View Post
    It can be argued that both houses won in the end. Henry VII did marry a daughter of Edward IV. The Tudors are basically a merger of both the Lancasters andYorks. Iirc, Henry's wife, Elizabeth of York, had a better claim to the throne.
    Henry made a point of crowning himself and coronating himself before he married to make the point that he was king in his own own right and wasn't dependant on his wife. He was king first and foremost by right of conquest.
    He married Elizabeth to eliminate a Yorkist threat. If he had not married Elizabeth then any children she or her sisters had would be a threat to himself and his heirs.
    You are correct in that under male preference primogeniture Elizabeth had a better claim than Henry, assuming she wasn't illegitimate....This was the same for all the Yorkists as they were descended from the second son of Edward iii, the Duke of Clarence, whereas all the Lancastrians including Henry VII were descended from he third son, the Duke of Lancaster.

    Henry VII and his son Henry viii went on to exterminate anyone who had a even a slight Yorkist claim. They even executed women for dynastic reasons, something which the Yorkists had shirked from, to their cost.
    Last edited by Surrey; 28 Aug 13, 17:55.

    Leave a comment:


  • Legate
    replied
    It can be argued that both houses won in the end. Henry VII did marry a daughter of Edward IV. The Tudors are basically a merger of both the Lancasters andYorks. Iirc, Henry's wife, Elizabeth of York, had a better claim to the throne.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Are you sure?
    Henry Vii's father was Edmund Tudor, the half brother of Henry VI. They shared the same mother, Catherine of Valois. Thus his loyalty was to Lancaster. However this in itself did not give him a claim.

    His claim to the throne, apart from that of by conquest, was through his mother, Margaret Beaufort's descent from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the third son of King Edward III. The Beaufort's were descended from the children of John of Gaunt's mistress (later wife) Katherine Swynford. They were born illegitimate but were later legitimized by Act of Parliament. The Act that legitimized Katherine's children stipulated that they could never claim the throne but after every other Lancaster heir was dead this became just a technicality.

    Of course Edward iv, Richard III and the Kingmaker were also all descended from Beauforts. It gets complicated....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Beaufort
    Last edited by Surrey; 28 Aug 13, 13:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zhang Xun
    replied
    Eh, not a bad movie for starters but not so great either. Around 7.5-8.5 stars.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    The Lancastians won. Henry VII was the Lancastrian heir, he was the nephew of Henry vi. He killed the last Yorkist king, Richard iii at Bosworth.

    Though the Yorkists had the best claim to the throne, being descended from Edward iii's second, third and fourth sons, whereas the Lancastrians were descedned from his third son.
    Are you sure?

    After Lancastrian revolts in the north were suppressed in 1464 and Henry was captured once again, Edward fell out with his chief supporter and advisor, the Earl of Warwick (known as the "Kingmaker"), and also alienated many friends and even family members by favouring the family of his queen, Elizabeth Woodville, whom he had married in secret. Warwick tried first to supplant Edward with his younger brother George, Duke of Clarence, and then to restore Henry VI to the throne. This resulted in two years of rapid changes of fortune, before Edward IV once again won complete victories at Barnet (April 1471), where Warwick was killed, and Tewkesbury (May 1471) where the Lancastrian heir, Edward, Prince of Wales, was executed after the battle. Henry was murdered in the Tower of London several days later, ending the direct Lancastrian line of succession.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pirateship1982
    replied
    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
    The first couple of episodes are not man food.

    However, once forced to watch this costume drama that has substance, you realise it is very good indeed.

    As important, by focusing on the female characters, the War of the Roses becomes far more crystal.
    Caught it on dvr and have watched episode 1. I agree. Soap operaish. But I'm sticking with it to give it a fair hearing. I liked the credits. I kind of collect credit themes. Pillars of the Earth remains my favorite credit score but this is good too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kendoka Girl
    replied
    I've only seen two episodes, but I agree with the lack of battle scenes. It's the story from the Queen's perspective, but I did want to see more action. I was hoping that they would open with the Battle or Towton and see Edward's rise.

    My other issue was that some of the plot seemed rushed in ep 2 and I wanted to see more of the good relationship between Warwick and the King to show more of how tragic it was with their falling out. As such, it didn't seem particularly gripping. The Tudors has some of the same issues, but I liked how they were able to let a lot of plot points mature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Probably because the Lancastrians lost, if memories serves me correctly.
    The Lancastians won. Henry VII was the Lancastrian heir, he was the nephew of Henry vi. He killed the last Yorkist king, Richard iii at Bosworth.

    Though the Yorkists had the best claim to the throne, being descended from Edward iii's second, third and fourth sons, whereas the Lancastrians were descedned from his third son.

    Leave a comment:


  • TJAdams
    replied
    I've only seen the first episode and from what I've seen,
    and my great lack of English history, my wife knows more,
    I really enjoyed the show. I look forward to more episodes as
    I like to watch a program without having to grade it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Probably because the Lancastrians lost, if memories serves me correctly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Overall good, favours the Yorkists and is sympathetic to Richard. Actually I have never read or heard of a book written since 1950 that favours the Lancastrians.

    They have scimped on the battle scenes a bit. Using about ten actors in a wood to represent battles involving 20,000 in a field. Armour and weapons look about 100 years earlier than that used in the period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kendoka Girl
    replied
    I played Anne Neville in a HS production of Richard III so this show has a lot of meaning for me. Plus, I love the time period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick the Noodle
    replied
    The first couple of episodes are not man food.

    However, once forced to watch this costume drama that has substance, you realise it is very good indeed.

    As important, by focusing on the female characters, the War of the Roses becomes far more crystal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Captain General
    replied
    They're showing the first episode again tonight several times.

    I know there was one playing at 21:05 and 22:10 CST tonight.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X