Six Richmonds must have come out in the field: I killed five, not him! Recently, feeling a kind of “hunger” for the films about Richard III, I remembered about this “documentary” creation and decided to finally watch it (previous to it the eponymous series reviewed once twice). By and large, this film is, as one site put it, a “brief retelling of Philippa Gregory’s fantasies on the topic,” namely, the fates of Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beaufort and Anne Neville. What can I say? I didn't like it at all. I mean, I certainly didn't expect it to be a serious science movie, but... I will not analyze the film from cover to cover, I will touch on just a few points.
For example, there is a stereotyped idea that Margaret Beaufort was forced to perform marital duty at the age of 12, and she gave birth at 13, whereas, if I am not mistaken, today researchers doubt the accuracy of the generally accepted date of her birth, and suggest that she was born 2 years earlier, and therefore gave birth at 15, which, although it was very early, but quite acceptable for that era. But in the biography of Henry Tudor’s mother, the writer in this film has no reservations about Margaret’s age, but it is a pity.
But most of all, of course, was upset by all that they veiled (not to say otherwise) about Richard and Anne. For completely incomprehensible reasons, the film completely does not mention the reason for the removal of the sons of Edward IV from the throne. Not a word about Eleanor Butler or Stillington, who allegedly married her to the late king. It seems that Richard seized the throne simply by force, without motivating his actions at all (except for his natural thirst for power). Like it's so easy... Considering that after all, there was no absolutism in England, there was a parliament, without the support of which nothing would have been achieved by the new Lord Protector.
Then the next ones. Did Richard make any statement on Christmas Day 1484 that he would no longer share a bed with Anne? As far as I remember from what I read, it was the doctors who advised him to avoid intimacy with the ailing queen, but it is unlikely that such a delicate matter was discussed in public, much less from the mouth of the king himself. I think it's a pretty twisted historical fact.
And, alas, not the only one.
The hypothesis that Henry Tudor waited six months before marrying Elizabeth of York to see if she was pregnant with his predecessor is too bold to take him seriously. It is obvious that the respected Philippa Gregory twisted the facts in favor of her version of the love (and even intimate connection) of an uncle with a niece, but such an incredible (and, 99.9% do not know anything to do with reality) idea is suitable only for love novels with roses, but alas, not for a documentary plot. As far as I understand, Henry was in no hurry to marry Elizabeth simply because it was vital for him to show and prove to everyone his right to the throne of England: by right of conquest, and as the heir to the house of Lascasters, and not as the husband of the heiress of York. That is why he was crowned himself and delayed the wedding. Most likely, there were no romanticized “pitfalls” in this situation.
On the other hand, if you really wanted to bring your theory under the historical basis, it would be better to remember the letter, which, in particular, mentions in his book “Richard III and the Battle of Bosworth” Peter Hammond, where Elizabeth allegedly confesses her love for King Richard (although, as Hammond himself points out, she could have meant her fiancé, the Portuguese heir to the throne Manuel). This mysterious letter also has no evidence, but if you stutter about the relationship between Elizabeth and Uncle Richard, it is better to start from it, not from empty speculation.
The suggestion of Anne as “Lady Macbeth” who incited her husband to seize power is not even worth commenting on. Moreover, it is expressed "i" no doubts "/i" and out of the blue, without any reference to sources or evidence of contemporaries, even indirect. I honestly admit that I don’t know much about Anna Neville (unfortunately, I don’t speak languages to read the works of British scientists), but if the film were to say where such conclusions came from, it would be curious, and so... another fantasy in favor of the popular thesis in our time that women ruled the world. This includes the assertion that the coronation with Richard was a broad gesture on his part to his wife for ... helping in the coup. In fact, it is quite logical that if the king comes to the throne already married, the wife will be crowned with him. It’s like a hunch that Edward Middleham’s own grandmother, Anne de Beauchamp (Mother Anne Neville), was behind his death, for which she was so favored by Henry VII. For an adventurous novel interesting, but as a historical fact ... hardly.
And the last thing that upset me. At the end of Philip Gregory's film, commenting on Richard's famous Shakespearean quote "The Horse!" Horse! Half a kingdom for a horse! says that, they say, his hero wanted to escape. But, I'm sorry, this is already a slap on Shakespeare himself, or rather a phrase taken out of context, because Richard responds to Catsby's proposal to carry off?
"Away, slave!" I'm putting my life at stake,
I will wait until the game ends!
And a little earlier there is a remark by Catsby addressed to the Duke of Norfolk:
"The king performs a miracle in the battle for a miracle"
He is in danger, he is in danger.
Underneath him the horse was killed: without a horse
He's chopped down in the throat of death itself.
He wants to find Richmond.
Where the writer saw the message "I wanted to run away", I do not understand. He was a little mad, maybe, but he needed a horse to fight and kill the Sixth. Richmond, whom he was obsessed with.
In short, I don’t know who this film is designed for – for those who are not in the subject, it turns out? Because those who watched the “White Queen”, her brief retelling of “gallops through Europe” is unlikely to find informative, and those who are more or less aware of those events – even more so. However, I can not call it completely useless - at least for repeating what was passed and for searching for such "blunders" it is quite suitable.