User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

England, 1464. After nine years of the War of the Roses between the Houses of York and Lancaster, the Yorkist Edward IV has defeated the Lancastrian Henry VI to claim the throne of England. Lady Elizabeth Woodville has lost her lands due to her husband being a Lancastrian and aims to have them restored to her by meeting the new king. This meeting will have consequences that will shape the future of England and its monarchy.

A good historical drama, based on historical characters and events, some of which are incredibly significant in England's history.

It starts pretty tamely though and initially is a conventional romantic drama. However, it quickly develops into something far more intriguing as the political machinations the England court come to the fore. From dullish it is now overly complex, to the point of confusion and disengagement. So many characters, all self-interested, all vying for personal power. It is often hard to keep track of who was who and what their current position and agenda are.

As things go on things start to head in a familiar direction, especially for those who have read or watched film adaptations of Shakespeare's Richard III. Here this series is more accurate than Richard III though still does take some liberties with history. There's also an interesting, decent stab at one of the greatest mysteries of the time.

Ultimately it's an interesting, edifying dramatisation of the history of England for the period 1464-1485.