#(they're supposed to give me it... in October. yeah it's BS)

[holopossums]

it's a little sad that atm the only way that i could possibly go back to being as active and productive of an artist as i once was is to become unemployed...

[fideidefenswhore]

What was the worst inaccuracy in BS and R, do you think?

I mean, the whole thing is purposefully anachronistic, so to make an actual loglist of the anachronisms in the dramatized scenes would be tedious? But on the educational side of the 'edutainment', what probably bothered me most was this:

I mean...this is just, simply, not true. Charity had existed as a component/tradition of the monarchy for a long time. And I find it very frustrating when this happens, because it means the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. There are a lot of things she could have said here that are true, or at least, subject to scholarly debate, some more or less at scholarly consensus: charity was important to Anne, she emphasized the role of charity, she fought for it to be implemented to a greater degree/from a different source (the Dissolution), her charity was remarkable/exceptional, or, at the level that it reached (not simply, its existence as a concept), unprecedented, etc. 

And if I had to choose bugbears among the dramatized scenes, hm... I mean, I feel strange even doing that, because even with those there were elements of historic record there...so like, while I did not really care for the last scene between Anne, Henry, and Elizabeth, I get that the inspiration was drawn from the account of Anne standing outside a window with her by Ales. I did not really care for the selective grab-bag of authenticity in the depiction of H&A prior to Catherine's death-- both joyous, both garbed in yellow (if we choose to take both Chapuys and Hall at face value, that is), Henry himself holding Elizabeth in his arms during mass and showing her off to everyone, but I do understand why those omissions (they depicted him as hateful and resentful towards Elizabeth, and that wouldn't really add up).

You have to make narrative choices, and, frankly...I mean, I haven't timed it, but assuming it's about half and half (historians/academics in the talking heads vs the drama part), we have three 45-minute episodes, so that's like... the story of Anne Boleyn's life, beginning in 1520 (so, 16 years) told in an hour. That's a tall order, so of course omissions had to be made, of course we don't see figures that we probably should in this sociopolitical miasma (Elizabeth Boleyn, Thomas More, Princess Mary...both of them, honestly, barely the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of Richmond, Eustace Chapuys, they made the choice to really only include Marguerite and Elizabeth Somerset, but Anne did have other friends that were women, Bridget Wingfield, Margaret Wyatt, Anne Gainsford-- who would have tied in nicely to their arc with Wolsey!-- among others...I suppose I should be grateful any were included, they're often not)

So, that being said... well, for one, Elizabeth would have been in a nursery with a tricked-out staff in attendance, so the scene at the opening of Ep 3 would simply not have happened? I’m guessing the intent of the scene was either to make it relatable to modern viewers (although, like...if your husband has a hissy fit because your baby crying is killing his sex drive, you should probably like ...divorce him, and I’m fr about that), or demonstrate he’s disappointed to have (another) daughter. 

But again! There are elements of accuracy to it, so I have to give credit where credit is due. Her to-the-camera says it’s been “six weeks since”, and that was around the time-frame after a Queen was churched after giving birth. And October 1533 was the month where “a lady close to [Anne]” said she had “several times heard the king say that before abandoning the Lady he would beg alms from door to door”, and by December it seems Anne was already pregnant, so...yeah, they were probably going at it in October 1533, which is like, ASAP by the standards of the time.