The White Queen (TV Mini Series 2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
126 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Good For What It Is
LadyCeara10 August 2013
Having read all of Phillipa Gregory's books on the Lancasters, Yorks and Tudors and having seen other adaptations of her work, I knew that this would be good entertainment even though it is rife with historical inaccuracies.

Being Gregory is a historian, I find her penchant for deviating from history as well as just making things up extremely distressing and annoying. The actual history is compelling enough and in no need of elaboration. People will read her books and watch her movies thinking them to be accurate.

So if you want good entertainment this is a good show. The casting is excellent, the costuming is fabulous and in general this is a very well made show. Just realize that it is not history but very loosely based on history.
96 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Getting better and better with each episode.
patrick-james-uk29 July 2013
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.
86 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Better than many reviews say
alexdelliott21 August 2013
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.
35 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good show if you know a smidgen of history
westos44418 June 2013
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.
108 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An excellent melodrama that improves with each installment
phantom_fan8911 July 2013
If you are of the disposition to enjoy extravagant production values, a handsome cast and plots compromised of devious political maneuvering, then it will be easy to appreciate BBC One's epic saga The White Queen for the rollicking good drama that it is. If, however, you are a narc for period accuracy, it's probably best to stick to the history channel.

Adapted from the best selling novel series The Cousins' War by Philippa Gregory, the show is set during the War Of The Roses, a conflict between the House of York and The House of Lancaster for the throne of England.

The subtext of the series revolves around the plight of medieval women, a fate fraught with perils equal to anything that their male counterparts faced on the battlefield. It's an oppressive, violent and often soul destroying existence from which not even the nobles from which the series draws it's focus are spared. In this way the The White Queen surprisingly possesses quite an insular focus despite the scope of the events that play out around the main characters. Interpersonal dynamics and the quest for personal power are the main factors that propel the narrative.

The pilot episode has actually been the weakest thus far, mainly serving the purpose of character introductions and setting the foundation of the central romance between Elizabeth Woodville and King Edward IV. This is not say that it is without merit, as the episode acts as an intriguing appetizer of promised delights to come. Initial patience is soon rewarded as the subsequent installments have upped the anti ten fold. Admittedly creative license has been taken in regards to a number of events, but there is no denying that The White Queen is thrilling melodrama nevertheless.

http://infilmandtvland.wordpress.com/
33 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Historic TV show, reasonably accurate, very good.
ian100015 July 2013
I'm a huge fan, there's my position at the start. I love quality historic TV productions, and as such am a big fan of The Borgias and its European cousin Borgia, of Rome, of I Claudius, and I tried very hard to like The Tudors.

I'm not sure how a viewer with no historic background knowledge of the Wars of The Roses (as we know them) and the dynastic struggle that eventually resulted in The Windsors, but I find the tale, which includes some of the present Queen's ancestors, completely gripping.

Unfortunately I know what's about to happen during most scenes (apart from the silly stuff with Elizabeth and Lady Rivers, which does not detract from the story), so my advice is not to visit Wikipedia if you don't want your fun spoiled. Enjoy this tragic and dramatic story of one of England's earlier civil wars.
47 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Women caught up in the conflict for the throne of England
gradyharp10 August 2013
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
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lazy production Warning: Spoilers
I was so looking forward to this - beautiful Bruges, my favourite period in history and a chance to see Richard lll in action......not to mention the millions allegedly spent on it. To say I am disappointed is an understatement - Richard was only 5 years older than Henry Tudor yet HT is a small boy and R a young man, same with Anne Neville - she should only be about 8. I think concentrating so much on Jaquetta's witchcraft is making it look slightly ridiculous .Unfortunately it doesn't look 'English' the buildings are of a different style, Edward IV looks nothing like he is described. I couldn't believe the zip in EW's dress, her father's corduroy jacket, white plastic window frames and guttering, a Victorian hall stand, net curtains in Ambois Castle and concrete steps and metal handrails not to mention the ridiculous soldiers - all 6 of them in the army - with their Norman helmets. At least they were wearing helmets, unlike Warwick and Edward who went into 'battle' with no helmets at all...... It is irritating to be shown how Jaquetta is ruling the court and I doubt very much that she would speak to Cecily Neville in such a disparaging way, Cecily was a very clever and proud woman who wouldn't have stood for that. No, I am sorry, but this is a great disappointment after all the hype. Blackadder is on another channel after this and that is far more authentic. Philippa Gregory writes 'history' for the masses and glosses over many facts so please don't believe all you see. It was a pivotal time in history and deserves better - why oh why couldn't they have used Sharon K Penman's 'The Sunne in Splendour' and interpreted it for the screen in a knowledgeable way. I only continue to watch as there is nothing on about 'The Wars of the Roses' so this is better than nothing......
34 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining but don't expect a lot else....
s327616921 June 2017
The White Queen like so many, many drama's with an historical bent is good entertainment but little else.

As someone with a background in history I often smile at this kind of drama which, in my opinion, has more in common with Cinderella than historical fact.

The bones of history are present but the overlay is pure 21st century. The nobles and the locals are all well scrubbed, healthy types, who live in spick and span, charming rustic dwellings and walk down more or less immaculate streets.

The reality was not so romantic. Disease was rife not helped by human waste and garbage dumped in streets, rats were endemic and houses were unsafe, dirty places with layers of rotten straw on floors and dodgy fireplaces that often burnt the dwellings down. Not surprisingly the people of this world riven with diseases and nutritional issues that extended to the largely carnivorous, nobility.Suffice to say it was a stinky, less than glamorous world.

Casting these considerations aside, The White Queen, whilst occasionally high brow and a bit corny, is mostly quite watchable. It does in its own chocolate box way follow the historical script and its well acted with a good cast.

An enjoyable romp. Seven out of ten from me.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I enjoyed it!
steven_torrey9 April 2020
Don't get your history from Hollywood or Pinehurst Studios. Watch a Documentary instead. I'm not an expert on the War of the Roses; but the politics was fairly complex with a cast of thousands, It seemed like the series reflected the actual history of that complex war.

What really is the important takeaway from this series: the history is from the viewpoint of the females involved in the history. The Female figures of the era were strong and powerful in their own right, married to strong and powerful men. The second thing to note is how the females engaged in power politics even as the men did: they were all scheming and opportunistic, without exception. And that would seem to be the major theme of the production and that theme is established in the very first episode.

So what are we looking for in an historical drama? We want some accurate reflection of the history; this does. We want some accurate reflection of the psychology of the people involved, this does. Just look at Queen Elizabeth the Great. While she never overtly participated in any schemes against her sister, Queen Mary, neither did she discourage such schemes. She had the good fortune of being only 25 years old ascending the throne, when her sister died. and Elizabeth was no slouch in the scheming.

The Tudors were not the only claimants to the Throne; the Poles were also legitimate claimants; Henry VIII saw fit to execute all of them who dared to raise a challenge. Thomas Moore's portrait of Richard III, generally regarded as accurate, was none-the-less a piece of propaganda in defense of the Tudor right to rule. And even in the days of Richard III, most citizens regarded him as an usurper and instigator for the murder of the two "princes in the Tower", even if he had no direct involvement. The murder of the two "princes in the Tower" served his interests.

This Production presents Richard as asserting that he had nothing to do with the murder of the two princes; the fictional attempt is ingenuous at best and at worst a piece of revisionist history. Richard, as Lord Protector, was crowned Richard III, knowing full well the two princess were dead/murdered; otherwise he could not be crowned King.

With a cast of thousands and an intricate plot line, it would have been helpful to have labels when the major players appeared on screen. While that might make it appear to be a docudrama, it would have been helpful for the viewer to work their way through this historical era. It would also dispel the notion that this is all fiction; while the dialogue is a moment of creative projection, the story line is no less true for that.

I fount the program interesting, even though some people saw anachronisms. I thought it presented an accurate portrayal of the scheming that dominated the royal house.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Adequate First Episode - Nothing Great
cB39117 June 2013
Just watched the first episode of the show. It was somewhat enjoyable, as it had some supernatural elements to help build future plot-lines and will be used to connect episodes for sure.

The first episode was fairly dull. The music was well done and the imagery used was the same.

The acting did not appeal to me, with the exception of Janet McTeer. She seemed to be the main character, able to control the story and play a puppet-master's role over the new queen. Other than that, the actors seemed to be average at best, not really drawing me into the story.

It seems like it will be an average-good show, and will draw fans of this particular genre, but with little to no action, comedy or tragedy in the first episode, there is only one way to go for the show. If it can deliver something outside of conversation, it will be a show to watch. If not, it most likely will be cancelled for lack of a wider audience.

While not being able to comment on the historical accuracy of the show, the boards here have noticed issues with it - to what degree is up to the viewer's prior knowledge.

6/10 - Wait till a few episodes come out before making up your mind on the show, as the first episode is quite dull.
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wonderful storyline for sure
lani7028 August 2013
This is such a wonderful story and great cast, I am captivated by this all aspects. I waited for a few episodes before watching, as I new I'd love this show and it would be in great pain for me to wait each week for the next episode to show. It is the much watch series of the year for sure! I do like how it is realistically portrayed and that it speaks in a secret way that sexuality had a great deal to do with how history is affected by it and how love/lust can change decisions that affect the aristocracy. Women have many powers for sure, but of all else it's those who know how to use their sexuality, denying the needs of those spoiled and use to getting their ways, become the main way one can aspire to a higher status. Grey is smart in her rise to the throne, though it is her mother who is the smartest of all. In a time of deception, chaos and death, love can exist, though it also seems to show that it can not last and in a time of war, Love is Never enough. Power is the ultimate gain and the end game is to be the ruler.
30 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Interesting historical story but locations let it down.
lennydixie18 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As a keen follower of anything historical I was looking forward to watching this series and as far as the factual content, it was as near as you'll get (allowing for a certain amount of artistic licence). I found it enjoyable watching the dramatization of our yesteryear instead of reading academic history books, which at times, no-matter how interested you are in the subject matter it can be a heavy reading. The core storyline was very interesting and shows the influence the women had, and the conventions that was followed in this period of our history. I thought the acting was very good and to counter one other review I thought the dialogue was in keeping with that period. What unfortunately let it down big style, was the location settings. The castle grounds/courtyard where so much of the action happened, was not authentic looking at all and when I checked up where the 'The White Queen' was filmed it was in Belgium !! What a let down,- when you think of all the magnificent location's in England e.g.. castles etc. or even anywhere in the UK it could've been filmed. I can only imagine it must have been cheaper to film in Belgium than the UK. To me this was a major flaw in the series. . I thought the storyline and subplots were absolutely riveting watching and you really had to sit glued to the TV encase you missed something.

Next time employ the location manager of Downtown abbey and you will then have a 10 out of 10 review
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The White Queen (BBC1) - Review
mail-479-24112310 July 2013
So, some woman called Elizabeth Woodville (Rebecca Ferguson) goes and stands underneath a big oak tree in a forest. Edward IV rides past, take one look, and instantly falls in love with her.

This man is Elizabeth's sworn enemy, and the murderer of several members of her family, but despite this fact she also falls instantly in love with him. For some reason.

I Googled this historical event to see if it really took place under a tree in a forest and it seems it didn't. In real life, they met in a room. But wherever Liz and Eddie ("Leddie"?) first bumped into each other, had this meeting not occurred there would have been no Henry VIII. Because Elizabeth Woodville was fat old King Harry's grandmother. Such, my children, is the role of sex in history.

Set in 1464, during the Wars of the Roses, The White Queen (BBC1) is quite simply rubbish. The writing is woeful, the performances are wooden, and there are more historical errors than you could shake a polystyrene broadsword at.

Max Irons as Edward IV looks more Eton First XI than majestic, and James Frain as Lord Warwick appears to be an evil reincarnation of Gareth Hunt from The New Avengers. This is dark, curly perm acting at its most inscrutable.

Here we have another highly anticipated Sunday night costume drama crashing and burning because the BBC once again stubbornly refuses to spend our hard earned license money on decent scriptwriters. As usual the characters spend the whole time telling each other things they already know. "But he is your five year old son". "But I am this boy's mother." "But Edward, you are the King of England!". "But Sire, she is your twice married sister ." The Beeb still haven't noticed, but people in the real world don't speak like that. There is no sense of reality in this series, no feeling of actually being there. Only an endless, cringe-making string of crass backstory pick-ups, thinly researched historical facts and figures, and the occasional erect nipple to keep us watching.

Scriptwriting for Dummies: Day One: Lesson One: NEVER HAVE YOUR CHARACTERS TELL EACH OTHER THINGS THEY ALREADY KNOW! If you want to see good historical drama writing, I suggest you watch re-runs of I Claudius. The make-up may have been terrible, the sets might have been made out of cardboard, but every script was lovingly crafted by a real, card-carrying author. Not by a dreary, lazy hack writer who would clearly be more at home writing a Wiki page about minor English kings and their mistresses.

Where have all the real writers gone? I'll tell you. They're sitting at home on their own writing novels, because they are sick to the back teeth of having to deal with the new generation of pimply, useless, Excel-driven BBC Drama executives who wouldn't recognise a great script if it jumped out of a jiffy bag on their desk and clamped itself to their face like a newly birthed Alien on the good ship Nostromo.

The person who commissioned The White Queen should go and stand underneath an oak tree and wait for a proper writer to go past.
205 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Gripping battle for the English throne
The White Queen is a dramatisation of England's Wars of the Roses, the era that inspired George RR Martin's Game of Thrones novels. Told from the perspective of 3 ambitious women, all vying for the English throne, The White Queen has power plays and backstabbing, House loyalties and shifting allegiances, battles, and a little witchcraft for good measure. Loved this series!

Viewers should be aware though, that there are 2 different cuts of this show - the BBC UK PAL version and the Starz USA/AUS NTSC version. The UK cut is 590 minutes, whereas the USA/AUS cut is 580 minutes. 10 minutes doesn't sound like much, but some of the changes are significant. In the USA version they've ramped up the sex scenes, by trimming dialogue and side story scenes. eg.1 UK - a main female character gives a male ally tips on how to get her husband to change his mind. USA - she speaks to her ally, but ineffectually tells him nothing. eg.2 UK - The guardian of the Lancastrian heir comes in after the heir and a girl have had sex. USA - The heir and the girl are shown having sex, before the guardian arrives. Definitely tit-illating, but adds nothing to the story. eg.3 UK - a character is surprised and captured, but his companion is shown making his escape. USA - The companion's escape isn't shown, but only mentioned later. And a quite major change - eg.4 UK - A female lets another woman know she is in a position of control. Later when the final battle rages, she is shown contemplating the outcome. USA - After showing her strength, the female is suddenly full of doubt. She confronts her man, and they make love the night before the decisive battle. Too improbable - as by doing so she jeopardises both her options, and her man would surely be focused on the next day's crucial battle.

To my mind, the UK version is infinitely superior to the USA version. The UK version makes the story much clearer, is more believable, and the less graphic sex scenes allow it to appeal to a wider audience, too. If you're able to, watch this version.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The White Rose
dragonswizardz2 April 2015
"The White Queen", based on Philippa Gregory's superb books, is excellent. It is the story of the turbulent 30 years of almost continuous war between two rival families: the House of York (the white rose) and the House of Lancaster (the red rose) ~ the English War of the Roses. And it is the story of three queens: Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beaufort and Anne Neville. Their actions, thoughts, and desires are the foundation on which this excellent story lies.

The historical personalities shine in this superb production: King Edward IV, King Richard III, the Earl of Warwick, the Nevilles, and the Woodvilles ~~ all are superbly cast. The adaptation of the books, the locations, and the feel of this critical period in English history are equally outstanding.

A footnote: "The White Queen" is especially fascinating because King Richard III, whose death at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 ended the War of the Roses and whose grave was lost to history, has been found and re-buried in Leicester Cathedral.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the best show
pixie80827 September 2013
I am absolutely obsessed with this show! I love it and can not get enough! I was ify about it at first even though I always find historic shows and movies very interesting, then watched it on demand and was in amazement how fantastic it was. I am going to be upset when the season ends. Will definitely be watching the entire season again thanks to starz on demand. Max Irons is an amazing actor as is his father. I have a new celebrity crush. The entire cast are great actors. I keep telling everyone I know to watch the show. It is definitely my favorite show. Thank you to Starz for another entertaining show. I just hope that they continue the show with many more seasons and episodes. It is by far the best show on television right now. It is historic, entertaining, intriguing, and makes me never want to stop watching. I am not yappy when the episode is over.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent watch, highly recommended!
nut_t_tart1 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I was utterly drawn in by the series from episode 1. I'll give nothing regarding plot away to those of you who have yet to watch it, however I will say this; the historical context of 'The White Queen' is compromised primarily by the fact that it is a BBC drama, and therefore it's goal is ultimately to entertain an audience. It is not, therefore, a history book or derived verbatim from the depths of historical archives and contemporary texts/literature, thus it achieves exactly what it ought to. It is interesting, moving, riddled with angst, violence, love, sex, betrayal etc. It encompasses many of the things that a good drama should, whilst following the theme of a book by Philippa Gregory and recreating an actual time line of events, albeit loosely in some areas. This is no easy task, and in my opinion the actors and actresses do a wonderful job in both depicting character and storytelling.

I am a qualified historian, and specifically in social history, so I really love playing with the idea of what it was like to be a member of society at a given time or era. What this show does is fabricate a version of a primarily female perspective on combating rank and power within the Royal household, Court and higher social spheres during the War of the Roses. I did not expect to be 'taught' anything, and so the odd ropey historical misrepresentation was never an issue, my viewing pleasure was well and truly seen to and my expectations for 'The White Queen' were met. I only hope the series follows with "The White Princess".
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Seems reasonably true to actual events
rob_sawyer15 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Such hate for an enjoyable series. Last time I checked, Philippa Gregory has never claimed she was Doris Kearns Goodwin. She writes historical fiction. Did anyone really tune in to The White Queen expecting a historical documentary describing the latter years of the War of the Roses? Admittedly, I am not an expert on English history but I have watched the documentary series "History of Britain" and did check the biographies of many of the main characters in TWQ in Wikipedia. I watched the first 8 e4pisodes as they were broadcast in August and September and the last two on DVD this week. While I may have forgotten some points, as near as I can see, TWQ does more or less follow the general course of historical events of the period. Gregory didn't invent any key characters that had a significant impact on events and she didn't make major changes in history such as having someone win a major battle that they actually lost in real life.

There was an Edward IV, he did marry Elizabeth Woodville, a widow with children, and have a bunch of kids with her, one of whom, Elizabeth, does go on to marry Henry VII as well as two sons who were imprisoned in the Tower during the reign of Richard III and who, after a while, were never seen again. Given that there is no conclusive evidence of who was responsible for their disappearance is it really such a crime to write the story with Richard III being innocent? And is having Edward meet Elizabeth under an oak tree rather than in a room that big a deal? And Edward did die in his bed, probably of pneumonia, and there was a Richard who was Edward's brother and who succeeded him and who lost his crown and died at the Battle of Bosworth. And there really was a Lord Warwick who was referred to as the kingmaker and who originally supported Edward and ultimately turned on him whose daughter Anne did marry Richard.

And there really was a Henry Tudor, son of Margaret Beaufort, whose first attempt to return from France was prevented by a storm and who defeated Richard to become Henry VII and who did marry Elizabeth, daughter of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville. And the real Lord Stanley did sit on the sidelines until it became clear Henry was going to win.

Now, one can quibble about the prominent place witchcraft has in the story, but the reality was that "witches" were commonly blamed for anything bad that happened and an accusation of witchcraft was often used to discredit an enemy, particularly a woman. And Jacquetta Woodville and Elizabeth were, in fact, accused of witchcraft.

And you can quibble about Princess Elizabeth canoodling with Richard before his last battle. Not because it couldn't have happened, but because it would have been very stupid of her. Recall the conversation with Margaret in the last episode, roughly, "This is the last time you will sit in my presence. Whatever happens I will be Queen of England." She is already engaged (in the series and in real life) to Henry and with Anne dead (also in the series and in real life) if she believes Richard will marry her, she wins no matter the outcome of the battle. So why risk the Henry part of the deal by sleeping with Richard before the battle. Assuming it was consummated and given the extreme importance of virginity, she probably would fail the "blood on the sheets" test which would then quite possibly lead to an annulment.

So enjoy TWQ to get a sense of the story, albeit with handsome actors with perfect teeth. If you want a documentary, get the DVD series "History of Britain."
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Better than I thought at first
beltezam193911 April 2017
I guess I was not impressed the first time I watched it because it was written by Phillips Gregory, who has played rather fast and loose with some of my favorite historical figures. On second watching, it's not too bad. I wish they had spent a little extra on peroxide. Elizabeth was famous for her "silver gilt" hair, which must have been platinum blonde.

Another excellent book about Elizabeth Woodbille is by Rosemary Hanley Jarman, "The King's Grey Mare" the first in a whole series about Elizabeth and her descendants. They run a bit closer to actual history than Phillips Gregory's version.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Highly Entertaining
sherapchogyal3 July 2017
Being a fan of English history (particularly Tudor history) I am very glad for this glimpse into the generation that laid the groundwork for that most infamous dynasty! As I'm not a bonafide historian I viewed this series without the hindrance of "aw jeez! That didn't happen like that! Come on, Philippa Gregory!" -style outrage or annoyance. (I did cringe over The Other Boleyn Girl.) For me The White Queen was a thrilling story which introduced me to many key historic figures. A wonderful series which has done the most a series can do, IMHO - it fed the flame of interest sending me back again and again to Wikipedia and on to explore further resources! Bravo!
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good adaptation of books by Philippa Gregory
hnpjzvrx24 December 2021
I've read and enjoyed the books. The Tudors and Plantagenet series by Philippa Gregory is a series that is worth reading if you're into historical dramas, but it's very long and detailed. There are a few diversions and omissions from the source material, but it is overall well done.

Most of the books focus on only a single character's point of view, and there are many books that cover the same time period from different characters' viewpoints. White Queen, the adaptation, selects chapters and plot events from multiple books in the series, doing a fantastic job weaving together the story of political intrigue in the royal courts of Edward IV and Richard III of England from the viewpoints of their Queens, advisors, and adversaries.

Recommended for people who enjoy historical dramas but don't mind some historical inaccuracies. Recommended for people who enjoyed the books, but don't mind some departures from the source.

Good Soundtrack Great set and costumes Good casting, script and acting.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A well-made miniseries about women and their political role at a troubled time in history.
filipemanuelneto30 August 2022
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.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Doesn't reign queen or is quite an English rose, but blossoms after a wilted start
TheLittleSongbird17 March 2018
Love historical period dramas, the cast seemed promising and Philippa Gregory's books do entertain and intrigue even with the creative licenses. This particular period of history is a fascinating one (am not an expert on it, when younger the period that most sparked my interest was the Tudors, but there is a lot to be fascinated by) and has enough to it to deserve a series based upon it.

'The White Queen' is an uneven series with some fairly big things that work against it. It is not hard to see why it won't click, and hasn't clicked, with some, and no the historical inaccuracies (a great many and some do pose a detriment to some of the drama and characterisation where it doesn't always ring true) does play a factor but is only part of why it's polarising. 'The White Queen' however for me was a well-made and interesting series with a good deal of good qualities, so can definitely see both sides of the argument.

It doesn't start off particularly promisingly. The first two episodes do have good points but were also pretty ropy, being dull and soap-operatic. It was in these episodes where characterisation could be particularly sketchy and one-sided, there was a sense early on where it felt there were too many characters and it was not always easy to tell who was who at first, and where the writing was most stilted and anachronistic.

The writing throughout did have a tendency to be rather too melodramatic and soapy, but the first two episodes in particular where it would feel more in place in a modern soap opera but felt odd here. Some parts felt awkward and gimmicky and not all the acting works. Didn't think that much of David Oakes and James Frain, whose characters came over as overdone, hammy caricatures rather than compellingly real. Amanda Hale fares worst, her over-acting is enough to make one's jaw drop to the floor in shock and unintentional amusement.

However, 'The White Queen' does look great. It's beautifully shot throughout, the scenery and production design take the breath away and the costumes, regardless of questions of authenticity in details, are suitably sumptuous. The music is beautifully haunting and has a character and presence while being subtle enough to not be intrusive. The main theme is memorable.

Although the writing is far from perfect, there are entertaining and intriguing moments as well as thought-provoking and poignant ones. After a patchy start, 'The White Queen's' storytelling becomes richer, layered and clearer and the same goes for enough of the writing of the characters and the deeper relationships between them. Things get better paced too where it feels more eventful and goes at a relentless but not rushed pace.

With a few obvious exceptions, the acting is good. Faye Marsay and Rebecca Ferguson are very touching, while Anneurin Barnard and Max Irons are good fits for their characters. In support, Caroline Goodall, Michael Maloney and particularly Janet McTeer are the standouts.

Concluding, uneven but interesting and gets better if stuck with. 7/10 Bethany Cox
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A wasted chance
PearlSmash23 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The Wars of the Roses is one of the most intriguing periods in British history with enough material to even make several seasons of a well written series, so I had great hopes for this one. What we get is a boring history lesson. Faction A fights faction B and then someone changes sides, they have couple of battles and then they switch sides again. Never we get a proper explanation as to why things happen. Where's the politics, where's the machinations? The whole script lacks depth and is devoid of intrigue. The characters are underdeveloped and feel like cardboard figures. The viewer has to make do with some badly written, phony dialog and a unnecessarily high emphasis on witchcraft. Did they really think this mumbo jumbo can make up for the lack of actual storytelling? It does get a little bit better after seven episodes, just a little. I know many people in England don't believe that Richard III killed the princes in the tower, but the writers go out of their way to place the blame with either Margaret Beaufort or Anne Neville. The whole thing reeks of a Richard III apology.

You can be critical of other series like "The Tudors" for their lack of historical accuracy, but at least that was an entertaining show. "The White Queen" makes "The (flawed) Tudors" look like a masterpiece. Whatever happened to James Frain? He was great playing Thomas Cromwell but makes Richard Neville (Warwick the Kingmaker) look like a pussycat. His death-scene is preposterous. It looks like the exam of a flunked drama-student in acting school. This brings me to the battle-scenes. We hardly get to see any, do we? And the ones that are shown seem to be skirmishes of about eight men getting involved in badly choreographed sword fighting. If they don't have the budget to show a proper battle, why even bother making a series set in one of the most violent periods in British history? The series ends with the battle of Bosworth FIELD, which happened in a august. What we get to see is a skirmish in a Flemish forest in the snow. Ridiculous.

If you thought Frain was bad check out Amanda Hale! Her portrayal of Margaret Beaufort is hysterical. I wished one of her spineless husbands would smack her in the face every time she starts whining about her son's destiny. And David Oakes is even worse as George of Clarence than as Juan Borgia. That about says it all.

I could go on and on about the anachronisms. At a certain point they didn't even bother to take off the iron bars that are put in castles for the tourists. The whole scenery feels wrong, too. Not for a moment you feel like you're in the middle ages. The landscapes and buildings of Flanders and England are just too different. But even a proper setting and less anachronisms wouldn't have saved the series. How much good would it do when the script is that empty and the acting is that bad? How could they have made such an interesting period in British history so boring? What a wasted chance!
42 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed