Tudor Historian Reacts and Explains My Lady Jane Episodes 1 & 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2024
- Hi everyone,
This is my reactions, thoughts, and discussion about the real history of Lady Jane Grey, after watching the first two episodes.
I can't wait to hear your thoughts in the comments.
I watched the first episode and to my surprise... I liked it. Yes, it's not even close to being historically accurate, it's historical fiction, with a heavy emphasis on fiction, but it has an unexpected charm. It's more like fan fiction, but meant to be a tribute to the real historical person. I normally want history to be respected, for everything to be accurate, but this is an exception. I could see that the creators put heart in it and I appreciate that.
I love it. The show tells you it is not historically accurate. It's for entertainment, and the characters of Jane and Guilford have great chemistry!
Did they? I got a Wendy/ Peter Pan or Beauty and the Beast vibe. Not so female empowerment n all ya''ll.
I doubt anyone, not the least the show runners, ever tried to make this show out to be accurate history. It's FICTION. It doesn't pretend to be accurate. It makes that crystal clear in the prologue. It literally tells you that this is a alternative version of what-if Queen-Jane-didn't-get beheaded. It literally says that. Jeez. Just relax and enjoy the witty banter and fun storytelling.
i don't think people would have been that disappointed if they marketed it as a fantasy
They did though. At least as not accurate.
I just can’t sit through this. I thought it looked dumb just from the trailer, and I didn’t even know about the turning into a horse ridiculousness. I’ll just watch the gorgeous film with Helena Bonham-Carter and Cary Elwes. That’s not completely historically accurate either, but at least everyone looks relatively similar to the paintings of these real people and no one turns into a bloody 🐴!
What is the name of this movie?
@@fannyknoll8242Lady Jane 1986
Agreed, I think Lady Jane (1986) is the best one we have so far....especially how Mary Tudor is portrayed.
@@lesliea.6440 Yes, I loved Jane Lapotaire's version of Mary. She even resembled the paintings of her. Same with Warren Saire as Edward VI.
I watched the first two episodes yesterday because I was sick in bed and had nothing better to do. I was entertained enough to want to continue with the other episodes, but for the same reasons you have discussed, the villainous portrayal of Mary I rubbed me off the wrong way 😤 This show is so hyped on Twitter right now so I think I'll watch the rest of it to see if it lives up to the hype
P.S: Loved the Becoming Elizabeth Edward VI portrayal shout out!! This is one of my favourite performances of all time and I'm still sad BE was cancelled and we never got to see more of him
Thanks for another wonderful video 💛
The author could have written a fantasy story without using historical figures as the characters. For this reason, it just go too weird for me and too many liberties were taken. I finished it only because I wanted to know how Jane survived or if she did, but the ending was quite ridiculous, especially with regard to Edward. Emily Bader, however, gave a stellar performance. I really want to know how she got the role since she is American.
I’m struggling with this series. While I do like the portrayal of the main character, I think Becoming Elizabeth (2022) is the superior series (with Bella Ramsey as Jane) and Lady Jane (1986) the superior (and more accurate) film with a very young Helena Bonham-Carter in the title role.
I agree with you that the portrayal of Mary as a villain is obnoxious, especially as she is trying to off her half sibling (which never happened)! Yes, it’s a fantasy, but there’s already so much drama with historical Jane Grey.
i clicked out the minute that woman turned into a hawk. Part of the appeal was that these people were real, LOL. Kudos to you for finishing the two episodes
I wish we could get a proper portrayal of Queen Mary 1st. And not as a villain, or crazy woman.
So agree with you, Dr. Paranque. I couldn’t get through the first episode and I don’t think that I’ll continue. I know that it’s unpopular to say, but historical fiction shouldn’t be 80% fiction. As you say, the myths still continue. Why did the excellent Becoming Elizabeth show get cancelled when it was trying to show those historical figures differently?
I think it depends on who you think was portrayed more accurately and who wasn't. While I agree the portrayal of Mary wasn't very good Jane got a more empowering depiction here. She was feisty, brave and smart I loved to see that. Also John Dudley and Frances Grey were depicted more sympathetically as parents who genuinely loved their children. Also accurate. The highlight on the other Grey sisters was also lovely. Katherine Grey and young Edward Seymour's romance. Edward VI's friendship with Barnaby Fitzpatrick was also a nice touch.
Listening to your comment helped me deciding if I should actually give this series a try and I fear I won't like it. Of course it cannot be a 100% accurate, but I did hope for something as good as Becoming Elizabeth instead of this =[. Thank you for giving such a detailed review.
Its a fantasy so You need to see if You like This genre
@@gdlb2520 I love fantasy, especially like Narnia and Harry Potter. But I also love it when historical costume dramas are accurate, but I shall give it a try!
I respect that they're not aiming to be historically accurate and that historical accuracy is harder and harder to maintain the further we go back in history. However, it always irritates me that people think we need to 'spice up' history to make it interesting and relevant, because history itself is, without embellishment, intriguing. I would've liked to have seen a more faithful showing of history and the characters. Bring Jane into the light and get people to appreciate her and her character without adding in the weird fantasy elementd and extra steamy romance. Jane was 15 - 17. And I really think Jane was NOT focused on romance at all. I don't think she wanted to marry Guilford and I know we don't know for sure, but there probably wasn't any romance there between them at all. Sources mention that they either never or didn't immediately consumate their marriage, and it seems like Jane was so miserable w Guilford's family she got her parents to let her move back in. She was ultimately forced to go back to him, though. It seemed to me, from primary sources, like she was really coerced and bullied by her family to get married, to take on the crown, etc. I think she knew she was a pawn but didn't have any means to escape the way she was being played.
She was bright and devout and I imagine she would've grown up to be an author, too. I think she would've followed in the footsteps of women like Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, and Catherine Parr in tryingnto educate the poor, reform the church, etc. Probably would've made every man's life difficult with her fierce intellect and strong opinions and maybe gotten herself in trouble for it given her passion for Protestantism.
While I get wanting to honor her and her memory, the real way to do that would've been to tell the true story, or something closer to it. Instead this just feels like a fantasy story with names borrowed from history for the sake of calling it historical fiction.
My question in regards to actual history is this: many times, royalty were given the option to officially sign away their rights to any sort of crown or throne. Why couldnt Mary do that for Jane?
Jane would have done it,I think.But unfortunately the people associated with her , especially her father continued to rebel and try to use her as their figurehead.
@@minsalbooks One of the problems Mary faced was rebellion from Protestants. She was Catholic and having Jane convert would have done much to quiet the rebels but Jane refused to convert and I believe Mary had no choice then but to execute her cousin.
Why would Mary have done that? She had the better claim to the throne, and obviously the love of the people. Why on earth would she have given the throne to Jane? Do you know the actual history behind this?
@@agroves76 i think you misread my question. I might not have been clear, either. Im not saying why not Mary give Jane the throne, im saying why not give Jane the option to just sign her rights away instead of beheading her?
@@Rhaenarys Gotcha. Historically that is because Jane would not convert to Catholicism, and when Mary wanted to marry Philip it became an issue that a "rival claimant" was still alive (Elizabeth was also an issue, but had not rebelled openly). Then Wyatt's rebellion happened and that just raised the stakes further. It did not help that Jane's asinine father involved himself in plots against the Queen, including said rebellion. He was also executed, like Jane and Guildford. I personally don't think Mary wanted to kill Jane and would not have done so but for subsequent events and the need for the Spanish marriage.
Couldn't make it past the fist episode it was too much. I am so glad this channel exists to seperate the fact and from the fiction. I wish this could extend to others like the Borgias and "The great." Both annoy me greatly, since it just reinforces misogynist myths around Lucrezia and Catherine the Great. Similar to those about the Tudor women. If anything it goes to show how narratives matter and are hard to change, especially if they were women. I am curious if there are any courses on this topic? Merci Professeure Paranque pour votre travail de "démystification" de la fiction.
I liked the costumes and that’s about it !! Your right not true history fabricated but more like a fairy tale with a wicked fairy her mom .
I couldn't get past the first episode
I did not last more than 10minites in the first episode. I was really looking forward to it but I thought it was horrible. Maybe I am too old but saying F%@ck every other minute was too much to bear for this history buff.
Twas meant to be fanasmagorical "wish" history, sure. However, the msg of "female empowerment" was super eclipsed as "the patience of a good woman healed an addicted & surly man". Uh....m k??
So I stopped watching shortly into the 2nd episode. I believe that the history of Royalty during that timeframe needs no embellishments, it was intriguing on its own. I don't mind the people changing into animals, or things along that line. However, I wish they would stick to the accurate portrayal of personalities. I think Jane was probably portrayed somewhat accurately, but Mary absolutely not. I love your European history. Thank you for always giving your thoughtful analysis.
I enjoyed the first episode. But I must admit that the 4 last episodes lost me. It just became too wide from a storytelling point of view.
You're obviously stronger than me for suffering through 2 episodes. even background of this show which is neither accurate or charming so I can at least excuse it
A black Edward in a wheelchair? Oh dear, I thought I might enjoy this show, but now I am not sure.
More like a fairy tale . 🎉
we really shouldn't insult fairy tales in this way if you ask me
Is this type of 'show' a strain of plagiarism, Dr Paranque? As a trained historian (B.A.{Hon}@L.S.E), I respect & honour the truth not a ridiculous fantasy...as I respect you as a true historian & not a fantasy-monger.
Having heard your assessment I will stick to the books not the 'shows'.
(I used to have a girlfriend who was a sweetheart during the day but turned into a fiery dragon at night. I was badly burned in all the wrong places...being a boar myself!).
Keep up the great videos...& that very entertaining delivery.
Why would it be plagiarism? I think people are too harsh on inaccurate historical fiction.
1. They're not documentaries, nor do they claim to be, so they're subject to some artistic licence. Their purpose is first and foremost to entertain.
2. A lot of inaccuracies are owed to historians. I'm thinking here of The Tudors or Shakespeare. The Tudors was criticised for its depiction of Catherine Howard. Let's remember the long line of historians who used terms like "juvenile delinquent" to describe her... and this is one of the nice descriptions. Much harsher words were used by others over time. So can a show creator really be criticised for depicting her in a negative light considering that's the sort of language used by many past historians to describe her? As a non-historian, I'd defer to the books, but then opening a lot of books that's how she's described. Or Shakespeare being blamed by Ricardians for depicting Richard III in a negative light... I'm sorry, but that was the information available to him in historical accounts. This was how people like Thomas More described Richard. Or was Shakespeare supposed to also do the work historians were supposed to do?
What? This is in no way plagiarism. If you don't like fantasy, this is not for you. I don't like insufferable prats, which is why I typically avoid the comments section.
Didn't see this particular show. In general I like shows that takes place during historical times (the Tudors, the Borgias, Rome, Shogun etc.), but... I really don't like when the creators put the centre of the plot on romance. Dialogues in those shows make my eyes roll, especially when the relations between people are so "modern". For example - I just couldn't finish The White Queen show, because of the out-of-place romance realtions, dialogues, even though I heard it was very popular. And - very very very sad is that, many people after watching historical drama - tend to percive these historical figures through the series and think it was the truth, instead of reading a book about him/her. Comments under those shows on YT are always so funny xD