Jump to content

The White Queen


  • Please log in to reply

221 replies to this topic

#31

Spotted Reptile

Spotted Reptile

    Video Archivist

Posted Jun 18, 2013 @ 3:26 AM

I liked it quite a bit, enough to want to make it a regular viewing. The palace intrigue will hopefully be the cornerstone of the series.

 

It felt as though it was trying very hard to capture GOT viewers on hiatus. That initial scene in the snow was straight out of Episode One, Winter is Coming. Not sure if GoT viewers are going to be enraptured with this, I thought it didn't stand up quite as well in comparison considering the lavishness of HBO's production values. 

 

Rebecca Anderson was very sweet in the titular role but showed her claws at the end. Max Irons is not as engaging as she is. The old queens and dowagers are fun. More of them please.


  • 0

#32

brothertonbanks

brothertonbanks

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 20, 2013 @ 2:06 PM

I enjoyed the first episode.  I like the whole cast.   I liked the sets and the locations.   It looked like they were already trying to justify Richard Crookback's later claim that Edward IV's children were illegitimate.   I guess they'll introduce Edward's brothers later.   It's something to watch in the summer.  The BBC seems to broadcast a lot of history programs in the summer.  There is one discussing time travel to the Elizabethan era.  Three is another about the Tudors, with an episode about Henry VII and Henry VIII which was not very detailed.  I thought the best one so far this year was the one about William Tyndale, The Most Dangerous Man in Tudor England.


  • 1

#33

Constantinople

Constantinople

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 21, 2013 @ 12:29 PM

Given this is based on Philipa Gregory's work and is airing on Starz, I'm confident it will be crap.

The only question is whether it will be good crap, and thus worth watching, or bad crap.
 

Despite being the "winning" grandmother I think Margaret Beaufort will be the trickiest character to play sympathetically.


Hey!

Spoilers!

(just kidding)
 

It felt as though it was trying very hard to capture GOT viewers on hiatus. That initial scene in the snow was straight out of Episode One, Winter is Coming.


White Walkers?

That would explain why those lazy ass Walkers still haven't made it to the Wall yet, if they've been transported to another show.


  • 1

#34

Featherhat

Featherhat

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 21, 2013 @ 7:20 PM


Despite being the "winning" grandmother I think Margaret Beaufort will be the trickiest character to play sympathetically.

 

In Tudor history I admire her, despite being the proverbial mother in law from hell etc, who went from a 13 year old "even by medieval standards much too young" mother to being the founding force behind her son as king, but I hated her in The Red Queen, always whining that she knew she was God's extra special little girl who was destined to be the most holiest, pious person ever. In fact I found myself yelling in my head "I GLAD your grandson destroys the church you hold so dear!!" because I couldn't stand it any longer. Not that I thought a lot of the characterisation of Jacquetta  Rivers or Elizabeth Woodville either, despite PD exclusively telling the female sides of the stories.

 


That would explain why those lazy ass Walkers still haven't made it to the Wall yet, if they've been transported to another show.

 

Not quite but close enough. The Independent's reviewer also brought up the comparison and is probably the critic I most closely agree with even if I didn't actually hate it as such.

 

TV review: The White Queen is less historically plausible than Game of Thrones (despite being ostensibly true) - Reviews - TV & Radio - The Independent


Edited by Featherhat, Jun 21, 2013 @ 7:24 PM.

  • 0

#35

Amtosbm

Amtosbm

    Video Archivist

Posted Jun 22, 2013 @ 6:58 PM

I read all the books so I am interested in the series. I watched a few clips online and it sounds extremely superficial but my main complaint was Elizabeth was not beautiful enough. I mean this was a woman whose beauty convinced Edward to marry her, even though he knew it was going to piss off many people. Especially his mother.  The actress is pretty but she was'nt even charismatic enough to have me overlook the fact that she is not a head turner.  That being said I will probably still check out the whole thing. Did'nt know that Jeremy's son was in it. Has he acted in anything else?


  • 0

#36

notwisconsin

notwisconsin

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 22, 2013 @ 8:27 PM

Of the three women, Margaret Beaufort is the most difficult to sympathize with. 

On the one hand, she was the most put upon. She was a pregnant widow at age TWELVE for heaven sakes. Edmond Tudor fucked a little girl and died at 14 or something. Her son stole her claim to the throne. On the other hand she was the mother-in-law from Hell, or so they say.

 

As this is a semi-prequel to the Tudors, it would have been fun to follow the dynasty from Owen Tudor as the Forest Gump of 15th century England. I wonder who's going to play Jasper Tudor and Henry VII?


Edited by notwisconsin, Jun 22, 2013 @ 8:28 PM.

  • 0

#37

jcoop13

jcoop13

    Video Archivist

Posted Jun 22, 2013 @ 8:38 PM

Edmond Tudor fucked a little girl and died at 14 or something.

 

Actually, Edmund Tudor would be considered a child molester today-he was 25 when he impregnated Margaret and then died of the plague when she was seven months pregnant.  Margaret nearly died giving birth to Henry, and her reproductive system was so damaged that she never conceived again.
 


Edited by jcoop13, Jun 22, 2013 @ 8:39 PM.

  • 0

#38

jerseydevil

jerseydevil

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 23, 2013 @ 10:37 AM

I wasn't overly impressed with the first episode.  Not very much in the way of action and the acting of the two principals could be better.  Max is not his father (IMO) and it seems to be more romance-novel than historical drama (again, IMO).  I won't go out of my way to watch this.


  • 0

#39

Glade

Glade

    Video Archivist

Posted Jun 23, 2013 @ 2:20 PM

I thought this was quite good, thankfullu much less violent and lurid then the Tudors.  I don't want to watch battle scenes or the violent depravity of the men and women (who yes, are 100% responsible for their crimes) of that era.  I enjoyed the witchcraft/clairvoyant plotline. 


  • 0

#40

Slade2

Slade2

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 23, 2013 @ 6:26 PM

I just watched the first episode and liked it enough to hope it continues to be posted online. (I suspect it will come down once it begins airing on Starz, which I don't have.)

 

I read all the books so I am interested in the series. I watched a few clips online and it sounds extremely superficial but my main complaint was Elizabeth was not beautiful enough. I mean this was a woman whose beauty convinced Edward to marry her, even though he knew it was going to piss off many people. Especially his mother.  The actress is pretty but she was'nt even charismatic enough to have me overlook the fact that she is not a head turner.  That being said I will probably still check out the whole thing. Did'nt know that Jeremy's son was in it. Has he acted in anything else?

 

I don't know anything about Elizabeth Woodville and King Edward, but I was stumped by this. I thought Elizabeth (as played by Rebecca Ferguson) was unremarkable, therefore

Spoiler


Edited by Slade2, Jun 23, 2013 @ 6:30 PM.

  • 0

#41

politikgirl

politikgirl

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 23, 2013 @ 9:55 PM

The second episode seemed incredibly rushed, even more so than the first episode.  I'm not sure why the show feels the need to cover so much territory in each episode.  Character and plot development are completely lost in this mad rush to cover several years in one episode.  For example, there was absolutely no explanation for why George warned Edward and Elizabeth about Warwick one minute, and then seemingly "for no reason" three years later, teamed up with Warwick against Edward.  I feel like a much more normally paced show would have covered everything that happened this episode in at least 6 or 7 episodes.  The pace of this show really kills the potential for any good political intrigue, machinations, etc. to be played out.  I was really hoping that this show would be at the very least as entertaining as The Tudors, even though I knew it would be just as historically inaccurate and soap-ish as The Tudors, but The White Queen doesn't even hit the low threshold that was The Tudors.


  • 2

#42

Check Sanity

Check Sanity

    Channel Surfer

Posted Jun 24, 2013 @ 11:39 AM

 

For example, there was absolutely no explanation for why George warned Edward and Elizabeth about Warwick one minute, and then seemingly "for no reason" three years later, teamed up with Warwick against Edward.

Despite the fast pace and therefore lack of deeper character development, there *are* hints of foreshadowing. 

 

It was Anthony, Elizabeth's brother, that warned Edward about Warwick, not George. There was in fact hints to George and Warwick's partnering during the hunting scene when Edward gives him the title 'Earl of Richmond'. George comes back with "And I was hoping for your crown", which would normally be seen only as a joke to the audience if Warwick hadn't just been talking to George earlier. 


Edited by Check Sanity, Jun 24, 2013 @ 11:40 AM.

  • 0

#43

Slade2

Slade2

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 24, 2013 @ 3:14 PM

Just watched the second episode and I agree it was rushed. I read a little about Elizabeth Woodville and King Edward before I watched, so I was hoping for more detail. Now I understand why so many feel this story deserves a more detailed series. It's all so fascinating. I now wish I had enough knowledge about the time to form an opinion about Richard III vs. Elizabeth Woodville, etc. I hope as the series progresses there will be more discussion on this board about why some are pro-Ricahrd III.


  • 0

#44

corvus13

corvus13

    Stalker

Posted Jun 24, 2013 @ 7:09 PM

I hope as the series progresses there will be more discussion on this board about why some are pro-Ricahrd III.

 

I can start.  Because Henry VII was a thug who had no claim to the throne.  He got his right by marrying Elizabeth Plantagenent.  But in order to claim the throne through his wife, he had to have her brothers murdered.  Richard III had no reason to kill the boys, they had already been declared illegitimate.


  • 1

#45

trudyj

trudyj

    Video Archivist

Posted Jun 24, 2013 @ 8:23 PM

I've mildly enjoyed the first two episodes. I enjoy the Wars of the Roses so much, and think the whole period is such great fodder for a TV series, that they'd have to do it really, really badly to put me off. So far I think it's at least as good as the Tudors. Of course, my all-time favourite "historical" TV series was Rome, so I'm not that hung up on whether they get all the characters and events completely accurate. I'm another Ricardian by way of Sharon Kay Penman's Sunne in Splendour, so I'm predisposed to sympathize with Richard, but I have always found Elizabeth Woodville fascinating though not likeable. (In fact, I wrote a short story about her years ago which won an award but was never published ... perhaps it would be timely to try to peddle it right now that she's a hot property? Favourite Elizabeth Woodville fun fact: apparently at her coronation dinner, rather than the happy lounging-around feast depicted in episode 2, Elizabeth required all her ladies in waiting, including her own mother, to remain on their knees throughout the dinner, which lasted something like four hours. Now that's the kind of historical detail I'd like to see on TV).

 

I've read all the Philippa Gregory books and I find her writing very uneven -- I love that she focuses on the women's stories because there are so many great, strong women characters in this era, but sometimes I find she takes strong women (both in the Cousins' War series and her Tudor books) and makes them weaker than they are. Certainly I think that in trying to make Elizabeth Woodville more likable, she also made her weaker, and that flaw is present in the TV series too. In both these first two episodes Elizabeth seemed to be constantly looking for support or bursting into tears, rather than being the steely manipulator I've always pictured her as being.

 

The Red Queen is by far my favourite of the Cousins' War series because I admired how, in that novel, Gregory seemed able to take a completely unlikable, hardass character and make her utterly believable and someone the reader could sympathize with to a degree -- but without softening her one bit. And so far, Margaret Beaufort is coming off as the strongest and most interesting female character in the TV series for me too.


  • 0

#46

politikgirl

politikgirl

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 24, 2013 @ 9:30 PM

Despite the fast pace and therefore lack of deeper character development, there *are* hints of foreshadowing. 

 

It was Anthony, Elizabeth's brother, that warned Edward about Warwick, not George. There was in fact hints to George and Warwick's partnering during the hunting scene when Edward gives him the title 'Earl of Richmond'. George comes back with "And I was hoping for your crown", which would normally be seen only as a joke to the audience if Warwick hadn't just been talking to George earlier. 

 

My mistake!  I don't know why, but I can't always seem to tell Anthony and George apart, apparently.

 

That said, despite my mistake, I still think there is very little character development and the plot seems to move along with very little build-up.  It would have been better to see the Edward/George relationship develop over at least a few episodes before George betrays Edward.  Instead, we barely met Edward in the first episode, so we really only got our first introduction in the second episode, and twenty minutes later, he was already betraying his brother.


  • 0

#47

blarney

blarney

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 8:45 AM

I can start.  Because Henry VII was a thug who had no claim to the throne.  He got his right by marrying Elizabeth Plantagenent.  But in order to claim the throne through his wife, he had to have her brothers murdered.  Richard III had no reason to kill the boys, they had already been declared illegitimate.

 

 

But, if the princes were declared illegitimate, wouldn't Elizabeth P. have been also? And if Henry Tudor could still use her to make his claim for the throne, couldn't some new kingmaker come along at some point and do the same with the princes and challenge Richard's rule? Admittedly, I don't know anything about the time period other than what I've read on wikipedia, so maybe I'm missing something.

 

Also, I agree with everone who's saying the show is too rushed. I need some character development to flesh these people out because all I'm seeing right now is a bunch of entitled aristo-trash running around screaming, "ME, ME, ME! I'm the rightful king! Let me kill my cousin/brother/best pal to get the throne that's totally supposed to belong to ME!". Of course, it's possible that's the way it actually was, so character development won't help.


  • 1

#48

trudyj

trudyj

    Video Archivist

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 11:05 AM

I think -- and I've done a lot of reading on this, but it's been awhile ago and I'm a bit vague -- I think the point was that it was under Richard that the boys were declared illegitimate -- that was the basis of his claim to the throne (that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had never been legal, so all their children were illegitimate). I don't recall if Henry Tudor ever formally stated that wasn't the case, but his whole premise in marrying Edward & Elizabeth's daughter, Elizabeth, was that they WERE legally married and all the kids WERE legitimate (because of course he wouldn't gain anything by marrying an illegitimate princess). But then her brothers would have a better claim to the throne than Henry would. So the pro-Ricardian thinking is that the person who stood the most to gain by having the boys murdered was Henry Tudor or some supporter of his, who by having them quietly killed could dispose of them as rival claimants to the throne and also pin their deaths on Richard, making him out to be a child-murderer.

 

And I agree with the shallowness of the characterization so far, which I think is due partly to the pacing of the story, and partly to the fact that none of the acting or writing is really brilliant. There haven't been any stand-out moments in either of the two episodes so far (for me).

 

I'm also a bit puzzled by what they're doing with Cecily Neville (although here I think they're following Gregory's books). Is there any historical evidence whatever that she allowed the Blaybourne rumour to have any credence, thus discrediting Edward? I thought in Episode 1 they established pretty clearly that there was no way Cecily could question Edward's right to the throne without branding herself as an adulteress (although I didn't buy for one second that she and Jacquetta would have had that conversation openly in public, nor that Jacquetta would get the better of Cecily like that). Yet in Episode 2 they seem to suggest that she does allow the rumour to stand ... could she possibly have done that?


  • 0

#49

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 11:43 AM

Ah, I see the BBC is airing this too.  It's a shame we have to have two separate threads for this show, countries need to learn to coordinate their broadcasts.


Edited by bulldawgtownie, Jun 25, 2013 @ 11:44 AM.

  • 1

#50

Slade2

Slade2

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 3:28 PM

Favourite Elizabeth Woodville fun fact: apparently at her coronation dinner, rather than the happy lounging-around feast depicted in episode 2, Elizabeth required all her ladies in waiting, including her own mother, to remain on their knees throughout the dinner, which lasted something like four hours. Now that's the kind of historical detail I'd like to see on TV

 

See, that's the kind of stuff I'd like to see on the screen also! I wonder why creators of these shows assume viewers need the stories tweaked. I think the real stuff is so much more interesting. Of course, The White Queen could be rushing through everything because they don't have the budget to go into too much detail.


  • 1

#51

Patsy Stoned

Patsy Stoned

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:06 PM

 

Ah, I see the BBC is airing this too. It's a shame we have to have two separate threads for this show, countries need to learn to coordinate their broadcasts.

 

 

 

Is this available on BBC America?


Edited by Patsy Stoned, Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:06 PM.

  • 0

#52

Danny Franks

Danny Franks

    Stalker

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:06 PM

 

I think -- and I've done a lot of reading on this, but it's been awhile ago and I'm a bit vague -- I think the point was that it was under Richard that the boys were declared illegitimate -- that was the basis of his claim to the throne (that Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville had never been legal, so all their children were illegitimate). I don't recall if Henry Tudor ever formally stated that wasn't the case, but his whole premise in marrying Edward & Elizabeth's daughter, Elizabeth, was that they WERE legally married and all the kids WERE legitimate (because of course he wouldn't gain anything by marrying an illegitimate princess). But then her brothers would have a better claim to the throne than Henry would. So the pro-Ricardian thinking is that the person who stood the most to gain by having the boys murdered was Henry Tudor or some supporter of his, who by having them quietly killed could dispose of them as rival claimants to the throne and also pin their deaths on Richard, making him out to be a child-murderer.

 

 

 
It was definitely Henry who needed the boys out of the way, permanently. Richard had secured the throne, declared them illegitimate, had them safely in the Tower, and their power base was pretty much non-existent. I think Henry did revoke the Act of Attainder against Edward's heirs, because otherwise he would have had no advantage in marrying Elizabeth of York. So for him to do that, he surely had to be confident that those boys were dead.
 
And, as far as I'm aware, despite all the things done to sully Richard's name after his death, I don't think Henry ever accused him of murdering the princes. It's certainly possible that he did it, but it would have been a relatively needless act of brutality, I think. And regardless of what Shakespeare and other Tudor propagandists might have written, no contemporary sources ever accused Richard of being cruel or evil.
 
But in many of the theories I've read, it's the Duke of Buckingham who seems to be the most likely suspect. One of Richard's loyal supporters, he later betrayed Richard and joined a plot to have Henry Tudor crowned, as the only remaining Lancastrian heir (for want of a better term). It has been put forward that Buckingham did it to curry favour with Richard, or that he did it to help the Lancastrian rebellion, or that he wanted to press his own claim to be king, and needed to start whittling down the claimants.
 
It's sad that, for many people, this series will perhaps be the story of the Wars of the Roses, because it's a far more complex, detailed and interesting tale than can be told in a series of romance novels masquerading as history.

  • 1

#53

Patsy Stoned

Patsy Stoned

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:16 PM

I have read that Richard never had masses said for the boys souls but that his usurper, H7 did. {You can tell on which side I am}.  Why would Richard had masses said for children who are alive?

 

And there was a rumour going aound around the time Richard's wife died that he would marry Eliabeth {Edward's daughter}.  Richard and his adherents scotched that rumor pretty fast saying she was not a true princess as Edward had married in his early years Eleanor Butler {I believe that was her last name} and subsequent children from the Woodville woman were ilegitimate.  I believe Eleanor Butler spent her days in a convent.


Edited by Patsy Stoned, Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:17 PM.

  • 0

#54

brothertonbanks

brothertonbanks

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:21 PM

Margaret Beaufort should only be about 18 if her son is only 5 years old.  She's very religious and probably very crazy.   I like the details of the show, like the little kids marrying.  I'm not familiar with the books, but it looks to me like they're trying to make Richard Gloucester sympathetic.   Elizabeth W and her family are being portrayed as incredibly ambitious, which they were.   Warwick looks like the villain to me.   I hope they do more with Henry VI.  The Tudors were trying to have him canonized until Henry  VIII broke with Rome.   I don't know if Margaret of Anjou will be in the show at all.   I liked the Neville sisters' story about her in this episode.   I think the show is worthwhile. 

Henry VII was a thug who had no claim to the throne.

 

 

I respectfully disagree.  He represented the Lancastrian line, which was more aristocratic and royal than the Yorkist line, descended through the Mortimers.   His marriage united the two houses, but the Tudors were considered Lancastrians.   His opponents were still Yorkists.   Marriages were sometimes dissolved in this  period, but children were declared to be legitimate if they were needed for the succession to property ownership or title.   A child who owned property became someone else's ward, and that person could do what they wanted with that child's assets until they came of age. 

 

I would compare this show to The Borgias, especially since David Oakes is in  it playing the less sympathetic brother again. 

 

I don't get how it's that unhistorical.   That article in The Independant linked above didn't have much detail, so I would say they are more unhistorical. 

 

So the pro-Ricardian thinking is that the person who stood the most to gain by having the boys murdered was Henry Tudor or some supporter of his, who by having them quietly killed could dispose of them as rival claimants to the throne and also pin their deaths on Richard, making him out to be a child-murderer.

 

 

This would make more sense if two pretenders didn't turn up in Henry VII's time claiming the throne, one widely recognized on the continent and in Scotland as well. 


Edited by brothertonbanks, Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:57 PM.

  • 3

#55

Patsy Stoned

Patsy Stoned

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 4:28 PM

  Elizabeth W and her familiar are being portrayed as incredibly ambitious.

From all I have read, they deserve this adjective.  She came from a large family {9-10 children} and was determined to align them with the noble houses in England by marrying her brothers and sisters with them.This led to a lot of resentment and dislike among the nobility for the perceived avarice.

 

Her brother, Anthony Woodville was a scholar a well as a soldier.


  • 1

#56

Pache

Pache

    Fanatic

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 5:01 PM

And, as far as I'm aware, despite all the things done to sully Richard's name after his death, I don't think Henry ever accused him of murdering the princes. It's certainly possible that he did it, but it would have been a relatively needless act of brutality, I think. And regardless of what Shakespeare and other Tudor propagandists might have written, no contemporary sources ever accused Richard of being cruel or evil.

 

Henry accused Richard of many things, but the only possible reference was when he said that Richard shed the blood of infants (unnamed).  When Henry won the Battle of Bosworth, which made him king, he cleverly declared that he had ACTUALLY been king from the night before the battle so he could charge anyone who supported Richard with treason, execute them and take their lands and money.  Parliament did stop that. Henry took possession of the Tower of London when he became king and never mentioned that the Princes were not there, nor did he start an investigation into them being missing. Eighteen years, one of Henry's former supporters, James Tyrell, plotted against him and was executed. After he was dead Henry released the statement that Tyrell had confessed to murdering the princes on Richard's orders 20 years before. He also announced that there was no written confession and no one came forward who had witnessed it, although they did witness Tryell being tortured.  As evidence it leaves a lot to be desired.  Henry also found legal reasons to execute every other possible claimant to the throne.

 

As to Elizabeth Woodville, she had a sad ending. Henry married her daughter they had a child and then he stripped Elizabeth Woodville of all her possessions and ordered her to a nunnery where she stayed until she died. It should be noted that during Richard's reign,  Elizabeth Woodville came out of retirement was friendly with Richard and attended some of his parties.  This all happened after the time that Richard would have murdered her sons, so either she cared more about parties than her kids, or she had some reason to believe Richard didn't kill them.

 

It was an interesting time and it has real potential to make a great mini-series and they wouldn't have to make up history. I doubt that this mini-series is the one to do that. 


  • 0

#57

Emily Thrace

Emily Thrace

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 5:47 PM

One thing you should note in regards to historical accuracy is that Phillipa Gregory is an actual historian and did enough research before she started her novels to create a non fiction book about the war as well. For example the scene where Edward announces his marriage is highly accurate and based on an accounts from both court records and writings of nobles who were there.

 

The show does seem low budget though the idea that around two dozen people are the English court is almost laughable. Plus little things like noble woman of that era would never have left the house with their hair uncovered and most wore headresses like Jaquetta wore when she came to court. Or Elizabeth wouldn't have been wearing pink when she met Henry as a widow in mourning she would have worn mourning colors. Its a little disappointing I was actually looking foward to seeing these head dresses recreated since this was actually the era of the tall conical hats that are a still part  every non-disney princess costume. Half the fun of any period peice is the costumes and these are a little plain.

 

Another disappointment so far is the characterization of Elizabeths father, Baron Rivers was the commander of English forces throughout much of the Hundreds Years war and most of the Cousins war as well he certainly wasn't a blustering idiot led by his wife. He along with his son Arthur were said to have inspired Cantebury's Tales. Arthur Woodville is actually a fascinating figure as well, not only was he his sisters right hand he spoke several laungages, sponsorsed several artists including Geoffrey Chaucer and brought the printing  press to England.


  • 0

#58

atomationage

atomationage

    Video Archivist

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 6:20 PM

The Canterbury Tales was written by Chaucer almost a century before this period, in Richard the Second and Henry the Fourth's time.


Edited by atomationage, Jun 25, 2013 @ 6:21 PM.

  • 0

#59

Emily Thrace

Emily Thrace

    Couch Potato

Posted Jun 25, 2013 @ 8:19 PM

Ah I was remembering wrong that was another Arthur English history would be so much simpler if there were more names.


  • 0

#60

bulldawgtownie

bulldawgtownie

    Stalker

Posted Jun 26, 2013 @ 10:41 AM

Is this available on BBC America?

 

No, Starz bought the rights to air The White Queen in the US.  The premiere is Saturday, August 10th at 8pm est.


  • 0