Tags
16th century Europe, 16th century France, Adelaide Kane, Bad Clothing, Catherine de Medici, Kings and Queens, Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Stuart, Reign, The CW
So I was on Netflix the other night and it suggested that I watch Reign, the CW show about Mary Queen of Scots. And I thought, “Ok. Let’s give it a try. How bad can it be?” The answer is, it can be pretty darn bad.
The Historical Queen Mary of Scotland
Marie Stuart (which is the French spelling of her name) was born in December of 1542, the only surviving child of King James V of Scotland and his French wife Mary of Guise. The Scots and the French had for centuries maintained a traditional political alliance based on mutual hostility to England. Starting in the 14th century, it had been very convenient for France to be allied with Scotland, because whenever the English invaded France during the Hundred Years’ War, the French could count on the Scots invading England. For that reason, the two countries maintained what the Scots termed ‘the Auld Alliance’.
Marie’s father died of a fever less than a week after Marie was born, and as his only legitimate child, she then became queen. Henry VIII of England, seeing an opportunity to break the Auld Alliance, proposed that Marie wed his son Edward when she turned six. The Scottish regent initially accepted the offer, but by July of 1543, the deal had broken down and the Scots renewed the Auld Alliance. In response, Henry’s forces invaded Scotland, hoping to seize the young queen. This invasion, which was nicknamed the ‘Rough Wooing’, failed, but made clear to the Scots that it was quite risky for them to keep Mary where the English might grab her.
Eventually, after moving Marie further northward for several years, in 1548, the Scots accepted a French proposal, quite literally. King Henry II suggested that Marie should wed his three year old son, Francis. As a result, Marie was sent to live at the French royal court; it was typical of such arranged royal marriages that the young bride would be raised along her future husband, and the French royal court would be a much safer place for her. She was accompanied by her two illegitimate half-brothers and four Scottish ladies-in-waiting, the ‘Four Marys’ (since all four of them were named Mary).
In April of 1558, when she was 16, Marie signed a treaty making the French king her heir if she died without heirs. Less than a month later, she married Francis. In November of 1558, when Mary I of England died and was succeeded by Elizabeth I, Marie became the heir to the English throne, since she and Elizabeth were cousins. In July of 1559, when Henry II died, Francis became King Francis II and Marie became his queen. Unfortunately for her, however, Francis died less than 18 months later from some sort of ailment centered on his ear. His 10 year old brother became King Charles IX, and Henry II’s widow, Catherine de Medici, became regent. Catherine disliked Marie and since there was nothing to keep her in France and she had a kingdom in Scotland, she soon returned back to Scotland.
Marie’s Scottish subjects greeted her with some suspicion. She had been raised in France and spoke French as her main language, speaking English only with a heavy French accent. She also chose to spell her first and last name in the French fashion (which is why I’ve chosen to use that spelling here, as well as to keep her separate from the various other Marys of the period). More seriously, having been raised in Catholic France, Marie was a devout Catholic, whereas Scotland was by 1560 torn between Catholics and Protestants. Her reign in Scotland proved to be extremely turbulent. But I’m going to break off her story here and turn instead to Reign.
Are You Mary Queen of Scots?
Reign opens in 1557, with Mary Stuart (Adelaide Kane) 15 years old and living at a French convent. She and the young nuns play soccer until it’s time to have lunch outdoors. One of the nuns begins bleeding out of her mouth and ears and drops dead in her porridge; it’s revealed that she was Mary’s food taster, and so clearly there is a plot afoot to poison Mary. The Mother Superior decides that it’s time to send Mary back to the French royal court because the convent is unsafe.
None of that actually happened. Mary was raised at the French court. However, the idea that a young Catholic noblewoman could have been raised in a convent is entirely reasonable, and the opening gives the series a chance to show her return to court as a way to introduce the cast and the setting to the audience, so I suppose we can forgive this particular historical liberty.
However, once Mary leaves the convent, the show also substantially leaves the realm of history and quickly finds itself in the realm not of France but of the contemporary teen romance. The pilot offers Mary three potential boyfriends, Prince Francis (Toby Regbo); Sebastian, Francis’ illegitimate half-brother (Torrance Coombs), and Colin (Ashley Charles), a Scottish boy she evidently knew from back home who has come to France to serve her because he’s obviously into her even though he’s technically the boyfriend of one of her ladies in waiting. Suffice to say, of the three, only Francis actually existed.
Mary also learns that the Franco-Scottish alliance is not a guaranteed thing, for reasons that aren’t actually explained (at least not in the episodes I managed to get through). The political arrangements in the series are very simple. The English are bad, and because they’re bad, they want to assassinate Mary. They’re Protestant, whatever that means, while the French and apparently the Scots are Catholic, which means they occasionally carry a rosary. The Auld Alliance, France’s powerful position in 16th century Europe, and the historic reasons that the French want Mary aren’t relevant, because what matters is that the uncertainty about the alliance means that Mary and Francis can be on-again, off-again as the network’s need to generate suspense requires. And when they’re off again, Mary can be interested in Sebastian, who even gets a cute nickname, Bash, or courted by whatever nobleman happens to be visiting the French court in that particular episode.
Oh, and Francis’ mother, Catherine (Megan Follows) hates Mary, which is accurate, but the series has Nostradamus predict that Mary will be the death of Francis, so Catherine naturally wants to stop the marriage. In the pilot, Catherine either bribes or pressures Colin into attempting to drug Mary so he can rape her and thus render her not a virgin and therefore not a fit wife for the king. Unfortunately it all goes wrong because a mysterious girl who hides somewhere in the palace and wears a bag over her head warns Mary not to drink the wine and so she avoids being raped. Colin gets arrested and has his head chopped off, only it turns out that the executioners accidentally executed the wrong guy and Bag Girl helps Colin escape, which causes Catherine no end of worry.
As the series goes on, it occasionally brushes up against actual events. Mary’s status as a potential heir to the English throne is introduced, although she refuses to claim the throne because that would be political, I guess. At the end of the season, King Henry dies as a result of a jousting injury, which happened (but not while jousting his own son) and Francis becomes king.
But the series wouldn’t be complete without Mary’s cadre of high school frenemies ladies in waiting, who are all lovely young Scottish women without the faintest trace of Scottishness among them (but in all fairness, both the Scots and the French are played as Americans, so at least the series is consistent). Their names are Amy, Greer, Kenna, and Lola, which the scriptwriters presumably got out of a recent high school year book. At least Greer gets a Scottish loconym, ‘of Kinross’.

Mary and her besties. Note the distinct lack of sleeves or anything else to suggest the 16th century
In other words, the series is interested in historical accuracy about as much as 300 2: Rise of an Empire is. The faintest outline of the historical Mary Stuart can be seen through the rather tawdry clothing they’ve put on her.
Speaking of clothing…
Look at All the Prom Dresses!
The costuming in this series is ghastly, about as historically accurate as the typical high school play. The young women in the series all generally wear 21st century fashions (except for Bag Girl, unless there’s a hot new trend in burlap that I’m not aware of). While many of the dresses are moderately full-length, that’s about as close as they get to period clothing. They are variously off-the-shoulder, sleeveless, low-cut, short skirted, gauzy, glittery, lacey, feathery, and so on. More or less, the young women at the French court dress like they’re going to a 21st century prom. And they wear high heels. Catherine de Medici gets a more mature, reserved, and slightly more accurate take on those fashions, as befits a queen of France. (Tyranny of Style offer a short, but intelligent discussion of the show’s fashions.)
The men spend most of their time running around in fitted leather or velvet pants with dark-colored, often unlaced doublets, with the occasional slashed-and-puffed sleeve here and there. In the first regular episode, Simon, the evil English ambassador, wears an 18th century frock coat because apparently after this he’s going to the Caribbean to hunt Johnny Depp and the rest of the crew of the Black Pearl. The men generally artfully muss their hair, except for King Henry, who has opted for the shaved-head and beard scruff that was so popular a few days ago.
The French court is based in what appears to be an early 20th century estate somewhere, with lots of furniture and drapery and rugs and nothing that looks particularly 16th century.
In the pilot, the court gathers to marry off some unnamed somebody-or-others, which gives the cast a chance to do some dancing. The adults briefly do a little vaguely medievalish-looking dancing, and then Mary and the girls decide to take over and run into the center of the room and start twirling around to symbolize that they’re free spirits. Apparently the rest of the women of the court are also free spirits in waiting, because they run onto the floor, the band obligingly breaks into some vaguely Celtic folk-rock and everyone joins hands and does a circle dance. In 16th century Europe, the technical term for this is a branle, and for about two seconds the show accidentally gets something almost historically accurate. But then confetti begins raining down on the dancers and they’re saved from having to pretend to be 16th century.
The Real Problem with Reign
The real problem with the series is the characters are consistently written as 21st century millennials, rather than as anyone who might have lived in the 16th century. They spend lots of time emoting and very little time acting like actual nobles who’ve been taught their whole lives that their marriages are a matter of politics and not personal desire. Despite the plot detail that turns on Mary’s virginity, the rest of Mary’s cohort seem eager to lose theirs, with one of the girls doing the nasty with King Henry in the main stairwell and another slutting it up with Francis. At one point Colin sneaks into Mary’s bathroom, where she’s bathing (in a beautiful 19th century claw-foot tub), and no one seems particularly perturbed that he was able to get in there.
The show does at least have the good sense to recognize that 16th century princes were expected to have have sexual conquests before and during marriage, but in Francis’ case, he’s treated as a jerk for doing it. So rather than trying to understand the 16th century, the show simply embraces the sexual ethos of contemporary upper-class New Yorkers.
Francis, in between bouts of being interested in Mary, moans that “Every man, even a king, should have some kind of skill…One that I didn’t inherit.” So he’s decided to take up sword-smithing, in the palace attic. That sound you’re hearing is my forehead hitting the table.
Perhaps the most telling moment in the series comes immediately after that, when Francis comments that his parents are so afraid of anything happening to him that they’re afraid to let him live, unlike his bastard half-brother Sebastian. The line is clearly intended as a critique of modern helicopter parents. In contrast, Mary is a free spirit because she knows how to milk a goat and likes the feeling of mud between her toes.
Rather than seriously exploring how 16th century teen royals might actually have felt about their lives, the series is content to project modern teen sentiments back on the 16th century as a way to encourage viewer identification with the main characters. Our heroine is plucky, free-spirited, unpretentious, determined to stand up for herself despite having not real support, and wants to experience real love, just like the intended audience. The good characters aren’t interested in social class, while Catherine is clearly bad because she cares about things like that.
Now, I suppose you might be thinking, “Well, duh! It’s not like the CW is seriously going to attempt an accurate period drama.” Ok. Fair point. But here’s the thing about being a historian watching these sorts of things: I can’t help but think about how much better the series could have been if they had made more of an effort to be accurate. The 16th century is one of the most fascinating periods in all of history. The political and religious conflicts and the intellectual currents of the period produced an enormously complex set of events that dramatically changed Western culture. And there’s no reason a good scriptwriter couldn’t use that setting to tell stories that modern teens would find compelling while still being a little more true to the period than this series is. The problem isn’t that Reign is targeting a millennial audience; the problem is the Reign is lazily written. It has no ambitions beyond being a 16th century Gossip Girl, and modern audiences tend to accept it because they’ve been trained to accept bland mediocrity as the best they can get.
Remember, Shakespeare’s plays were 16th century popular entertainment, not the high-brow fare we think of them as today. Titus Andronicus is a trashy revenge drama that would be right at home on the CW. Sure, it’s unfair to compare modern network tv to Shakespeare, but when you think of the comparison, it’s clear that Reign isn’t even trying to be good. It’s just trying to be watched. The first clue is casting a brunette in the role of a woman who was famous for her red hair.
Oh, and Another Thing
There are pagans living in the woods right outside the royal palace, practicing human sacrifice, because why not?
Want to Know More?
There are a lot of not very good biographies of Mary Stuart. John Guy’s biography on Queen of Scots: The True Life of Mary Stuartis probably definitive for scholarly works. But if you’re not up for 600+ pages, try Rosalind K. Marshall’s much shorter Mary Queen of Scots: Truth or Lies
(Kindle edition), which focuses on answering the key questions about this famous but somewhat misunderstood woman.
I don’t know of any books on Francis II; his short reign hasn’t attracted a lot of English-language scholarship, so far as I know. But you could read Catherine de’Medici by R.J. Knecht. Her time in power in France began before Francis was king and continued long after he had died.
Wait… are you telling me that pagans weren’t all over 16th C Europe doing human sacrificing? Is nothing I learned in High School true?!
LikeLike
Hey! I love your blog! I started watching Reign this weekend and then became obsessed about 16 century queens. Put Reign to sleep and watched every BBC doc avaliable on youtube on: Marie, Queen of Scots; Elizabeth; Catherine de Medice and Queen Margot.
I have lots of questions (lol) and would love to chat further.
Though, I think you misunderstand something on Reigns first episode, (i imagine u don’t care). Colin finds Lola in the tub, not Marie.
Best wishes from Brazil.
LikeLike
I’m glad you like my blog! I’m always wiling to chat with my readers, if I have the time (sometimes my work keeps me too busy to do a good job of it). So if you have questions, I’ll try to answer them.
As far as the pilot is concerned, I would have to go back and re-watch it to see if you’re right, but you may well be.
LikeLike
We chat here? Ok!
Do you work as history researcher?
Well I was wondering:
Why Elizabeth and Mary were considered as heiress for the crown? When did woman started to have that position?
Why is Queen Margot not mentioned in the plot of Reign? Was she away from french courtship at that time? Bet she’d be great to the “teen” plot.
also, why were Henry II and Catherine de Medice not living in Paris at that time?
Are you planning to watch The Tudors? I Think it could be very enlightening, I plan to watch it.
Bye bye…
LikeLike
I am a professional historian. You can find a bit about me and my research on the About Me page.
Medieval monarch (outside of France) said that daughters could inherit in the absence of male heirs, so when Edward VI died, his older sister Mary was his heir. When Mary died, her younger sister Elizabeth was the heir. Likewise, James V of Scotland died with only a daughter, Mary Stuart, as his heir. Crowns passing to daughters was uncommon in Europe, but not unheard of. It had happened once before in England, when Henry I died in 1135, passing the crown to his only surviving legitimate children, Matilda.
Margot was Francis II’s younger sister (7th out of 10 kids). So my guess is that the series just decided to omit her because they couldn’t think of anything interesting to do with her character and because they had too many characters already. That’s my best guess.Henry and Catherine were generally residing at Paris, so far as I know, although 16th century monarchs traveled around their kingdom a lot for political reasons. So I think the series is just being a bit silly on this point. There’s a lot of silliness in the show.
I probably will get around to watching the Tudors at some point. It’s on my list, along with quite a lot of other things.
LikeLike
Pingback: VIkings: The Physical Culture of the Series | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Marco Polo: West Meets East | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Dragon Knight: It’s Got Pretty Scenery | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Salem: Where to Start? | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Daredevil: Putting the Hell Back in Hell’s Kitchen | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Why There’s No Such Thing as an Historically-Accurate Movie, part 2 | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Why There’s No Such Thing as an Historically Accurate Movie, part 3 | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Amadeus: Strange but True | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Queen Margot: Like Reign But with More Corpses | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Out of Africa: Wonderful Movie, Fuzzy History | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Hah! I love this post. I actually said almost all of these things about this show just this morning. My biggest problem with it really, same as one of yours, their lives and the political climate were already fascinating! If it’s going to be about Mary, friggin use the real story, why not? But another problem I have is, with so much horrible, awful misinformation mixed in with a tiny bit of fact, how much are people going to takeaway as being correct? It’s frustrating because there’s such easy access to information, but why do research when you can just mix your learning with entertainment? So people are going to be walking away from this show FEELING wiser and smarter, when really they just exposed themselves to the same regurgitated modern ideas they’re already so used to. I’ve been grimacing inside as I watch this wondering how many poor history teachers and professors out there have had to sigh heavily and tell their students, “That program should be regarded as fiction, nothing more, please stop asking/writing about it…” Haha!
But, sad to admit, I find it’s fun to watch but only if you have a massive crane to suspend your disbelief and are able to regard it as the fiction that it is. However, in that mindset I think it’d actually be more fun if they’d changed all the names of people and places and threw in some elves and dragons and faeries and such. Why use actual people’s names if there is so little fact attributed to the story? Five hundred years from now perhaps a baudy tale of US presidential conquests will be presented. I mean, it’s not as if no 16th century records survive to tell the tale, and it’s not as if that info is copyrighted, so it wouldn’t be terribly difficult to tell that story relatively accurately. 26th century people might not care so much about accuracy either. :p It can feature some scary Christians hiding in the woods outside the White House, dragging people off and killing them for saying Darwin. So, if that offends anyone, particularly the writers of Reign, good! Because surely all of these people the characters are based on are frantically and angrily spinning in their graves and tombs.
By the way, The Tudors is actually not bad. Some issues, but overall not actually terrible. The reason I started watching this show was because I thought it might be like The Tudors. Sadly, it’s so very much not.
LikeLike
My big complaint with shows like this is that they do shape how people understand the past. Take a look at my post “Why There’s No Such Thing as ‘Just a Movie'”
LikeLike
Hrm, I couldn’t find your “Just a Movie” post, but the title alone tells me I definitely agree. Once upon a time I was a mental health therapist and have always taken issue with the portrayal of all things mental health in film, because tv and movies change the way people view pretty much anything presented to them. Yes, everyone knows that movies are make believe, but somehow they still don’t realize the liberties that producers and screenwriters take, that everything is distorted for a purpose. It’s entertainment, and it’s made specifically to manipulate: to be exciting or scary or tug at the heartstrings, to be flashy or shiny and hold the audience’s attention for roughly two hours, to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, etc. So, whether it’s a tale about the supposed goings on of 16th century French court, or if it’s presenting equally non-factual information about mental health treatment, it’s made to look believable to the nondiscerning eye. Whenever I get upset about mental health movies people tell me to calm down because it’s “just” a movie. I tell them there’s no such thing, because all the people leaving the theater right now believe what they’ve seen, and they could do a tiny bit of research but they won’t. They think they’ve already learned something tonight. As far as movies about mental illness and mental health treatment go this can be downright dangerous. Stereotypes are perpetuated, of both the patient and the therapist, so that people continue to fear and misunderstand both sides of this issue, and they can’t be bothered with actual facts or truths because they believe they already know.
With people’s view on history, if all they know they learned from film, we’re in serious trouble. Nevermind all the ridiculous steteoptypes perpetuated in film, no one will ever gain a sense of perspective on struggles that have been near constant throughout humanity, struggles that have been overcome, issues that still must be tackled head on and that could actually be changed if we all made the slightest bit of effort in understanding how we got to where we are now.
Additionally, movies don’t have to be “just movies”. If people are able to learn so much inaccurate information, what’s to stop people from using entertainment as a means to educate and enlighten? It’s not as if it’s never been done. Television in the 70’s shined a light on many relevant social issues that just weren’t discussed in polite company. Racism, Women’s Lib, sex, menopause, abortion, all manner of issues that were taboo, brought directly into people’s living rooms, right into their comfort zones. Entertainment doesn’t have to be mindless and mindnumbing, it can be anything we want it to be. Rod Serling used the platform of popular tv shows to make people actually think, and in his way put many social issues under the microscope under the guise of fantasy and science fiction, much the same way Gene Rodenberry did some years later. Prior to that, television wasn’t daring or informative, it was a method to make people watch commercials, and sponsors purposefully avoided social issues because they didn’t want controversy, they wanted happy people happily watching commercials and buying their products. We’ve taken such a terrible backslide. It’s extremely disheartening.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s the post: https://aelarsen.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-just-a-movie/
LikeLike
Pingback: I Am Henry: Just What I Needed | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Don’t really care about the accuracy of the show. I love the romance of Mary and Francis. The backstabbing and double dealing that goes on in court. And the ladies in waiting are Alee(not Amy), Kenna, Greer and Lola. I have read that all three of Marie ladies in waiting were named Mary. I get that you are a histroian, but some of us don’t want a history lesson, just to be entertain for a hour or so. Take a step back and just watch the show for the fun of it.
LikeLike
If you don’t want a history lesson, why are you reading this blog?
And as I’ve said many times, there’s no such thing as “just a tv show”. Everything has meaning, even if you don’t want to see it
LikeLike
Saundra, Prof. Larsen has also said many times that he is not critiquing these movies and shows based on how entertaining they are, but solely how historically accurate they are. Not sure why so many people don’t seem to grasp the concept of this blog. But please feel free to enjoy “Reign” all you want, just know that the real history is quite different (and in my opinion at least, much more interesting in most cases).
LikeLike
Pingback: The Last Kingdom: The Plot | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Turn: Washington’s Spies: The Americans | An Historian Goes to the Movies
Pingback: Versailles: The Queen’s Baby | An Historian Goes to the Movies