Anne Boleyn as a black woman

[Frustratedbeyondbelief]

Am anyone explain why ? I know this question raises the issue of race which is highly controversial. It is not meant to be goady.. just perplexed by what they are trying to achieve. To me like playing GHandi and Martin Luther King as while men..

For context I hope my non racial credentials as a mother of mixed race children assist in not seeing this as an 'anti black' thread ... I genuinely would like to be educated as to why this is thought to be a 'good thing' when simply factually incorrect . ? Her home at Hever is less than a mile away, I have never had any idea she was black or mixed race. Just seems a bit 'trendy' ...

@StColumbofNavron

Well because race is key to story with Martin Luther King, Mohammed Ali etc. In this case it’s just an actor playing the role where her race is not pivotal to the story.

Of course it's pivotal to the story - a Tudor universe where the King of England has married a black woman would have repercussions through every single other aspect of that universe and would heavily feature.

It didn't matter in Bridgerton because although it was set in a historically real time, all of the actors and storylines were completely fictional, and so more racial diversity could be applies and be part of those storylines and characters.

I haven't watched this program, is the fact that Anne Boleyn is black part of a storyline, or is it just totally 'colour blind'?

I was a bit unsure about this when I first heard, but then I watched Hamilton and yes it was slightly odd for about 5 seconds, but after that initial "oh" moment it didn't bother me at all. I think it's just because we're not used to it?

I shall reserve judgement until I've watched it, but I've heard she is a very good actress.

Don't see the need to differentiate between tv and theatre. And of course this production is going for a stylised interpretation! There's no expectation or requirement for a dramatisation to be historically accurate, and the vast majority play fast and loose with small and large detail. Because it's fictionalised!

@AssassinatedBeauty

Don't see the need to differentiate between tv and theatre. And of course this production is going for a stylised interpretation! There's no expectation or requirement for a dramatisation to be historically accurate, and the vast majority play fast and loose with small and large detail. Because it's fictionalised!

Unless it's a fantastical interpretation like 'Orlando', there usually is some expectation of at least broad historical accuracy from period dramas. Otherwise, why make it about real people and not just invent fictional characters?

To believe that a king could marry a black woman in Tudor England and nobody would think anything of it is a major departure from historical reality, however much some here are trying to deny that. So unless this is a production done with no regard for historical reality - which I doubt as historian Dan Jones is a producer - then this is basically an attempt at contoversy for its own sake.

I expect and hope she was cast because she's a good actress and conveys something in her portrayal that touches on how the particular production team want to present Anne - because even with historical figures it's an interpretation - feelings, emotions etc - they're all being conveyed by the portrayal, not just what the actor looks like.

Or perhaps it's casting an actor that the director felt was a great actor who could do a good job. Who would never be able to play a part in any historical production about British history ever if people value documentary accuracy over talent.

medium.com/history-of-women/no-anne-boleyn-was-not-black-4e4d8a325773

Anne Boleyn wasn't black. She didn't have black ancestry. I've no idea where the poster claiming that got that idea from, but if they have primary evidence that supports it they need to publish it.

Whether or not you agree with casting choice or not let's at least acknowledge the primary sources peg Anne as bog standard white woman.

Well anyway there are stacks of versions out there where AB is white so I guess it's not too much of a hardship to explore this idea. Some won't like it and others will.

As with Orlando and his version of Elizabeth I, it's how someone/something makes you feel and you see them through those eyes - rather than purely what someone actually looks like. Interpretation and exploring - fine by me.

@StColumbofNavron is Black Tudors really going to hit the screen? That would be great - I've been fascinated by John Blanke for ages. There was a photo in yesterdays Times of a tapestry of the Field of the Cloth of Gold which was going on display at Hampton Court which has a black trumpeter in it - with fleur de lys arms. I wondered if it was another black trumpeter - this time at the French Court - or if Henry draped his trumpets with French arms as a compliment to Louis - in which case it would be another contemporary picture of Blanke.

@Frustratedbeyondbelief

My issue is that it simply isn't true .. wanting it to be so .. doesn't make it so... just strange and for me , beyond wioke. Literally re-writing history .

I hate to break it to you but most historical dramas are more untrue than true.

• Most timelines are altered to fit an engaging narrative.
• Things will be added that never happened just to make another plot point work, to simplify a very complicated situation or simply because it tells a better story.
• People will be removed and their roles in history given to others so that there are not too many characters.
• We have no idea what the people actual said or though or did. Only hearsay.
• We look at portrait for their appearance. Most of these are pure flattery or are not even pained in the persons lifetime.
• Most of the costumes will be historically incorrect because it will not look nice to our modern fashion taste.
• Ages and body shapes are also often altered to fit modern sensibility fashions.

So why is skin colour so important? Hair colours, eye colours the languages they spoke. All this gets changed al the time and people don't care.

If it’s “just acting,” why then were white women removed from voicing cartoon characters of colour. They’re not seen, and the characters aren’t real!

Either we can be colour-blind or not, surely? It doesn’t just work one way.

I’m not sure it’s the casting of a black woman (who has no doubt done a sterling job in her role), it’s the hypocrisy of the situation. It’s creating more racial tension to continue this division by being hypocritical.

I'd hazard a guess at - black actors are under represented, whether that's voice work or physical acting etc. Yes, lots of actors are out of work all of the time, but there are fewer roles for black actors. So that seems reasonable to me.

You say that it doesn't matter, but would any one play queen Elizabeth 1 without red hair? No, because that's a highly recognisable feature.

It was also a wig for most of her life. Which actors have access to.

Physical resemblance isn't necessary to me - the acting is the golden part so if the hair/skin/eyes/shoes aren't the colour of the person they're portraying it doesn't matter at all to me. It's almost worse when they look very alike because you end up noticing the differences more.

I am assuming that it is not pretending to be at all historically accurate then?

@AledsiPad

If it’s “just acting,” why then were white women removed from voicing cartoon characters of colour. They’re not seen, and the characters aren’t real!

Either we can be colour-blind or not, surely? It doesn’t just work one way.

I’m not sure it’s the casting of a black woman (who has no doubt done a sterling job in her role), it’s the hypocrisy of the situation. It’s creating more racial tension to continue this division by being hypocritical.

Wasn't that Kristen Bell? I think if a very famous and successful white actor wants to say 'actually, I am taking a job away from a black actor because I'm white and I'm going to stop doing that' then that's fine, as long as it's their choice. Sometimes stepping up means stepping down. First jobber straight out of RADA stepping down so Viola Davis can get a shot, maybe not so much.

@Marmaladeagain

I'd hazard a guess at - black actors are under represented, whether that's voice work or physical acting etc. Yes, lots of actors are out of work all of the time, but there are fewer roles for black actors. So that seems reasonable to me.

So let's make and watch dramatisations about actual historical black figures instead of yet another programme/film about the fucking Tudors.

I don't know if anyone has seen the recent Mary Queen of Scots where they did the same thing. Bess of Hardwick was portrayed by a woman of Chinese heritage, for example (but hey, It's possible she might have been in real life as we only have portraits to go on 🙄). Of course, the casting in that was the least of its problems regarding historical inaccuracies.

Yes, I would love to see more historical dramas about real-life black people.

She was white, no doubt about it but I think they used this actress to cause a stir. To get publicity and it worked

Anyway, I will not watch it. I know about Anne Boleyn and her life, This will not be at all historically accurate if they get the casting so wrong. So it will simply annoy me.

@GrumpyHoonMain

She is widely believed to be mixed race. Her skin, as described by her physician, was ‘mulatto’ and ‘sallow’ was used a lot too - both of those words were used for mixed race people in those days.

Black people were in the UK in Elizabethan times and had jobs and businesses since the Middle Ages. St George is also another mixed race person which is totally ironic considering how many English racists fly his flag.

No, she is not widely believed to be mixed race. Where did you get that from?

The contemporary accounts of Anne Boleyn are virtually all biased one way or another. The people who supported her wrote flatteringly; the people who opposed her wrote unflatteringly. And words like "mulatto" and "sallow" were used by people hostile towards her to discredit her (given that the racial ideal was a fair-skinned white person.)

Yes, there were definitely black people in the UK in the 16th century and that deserves more attention but AB wasn't one of them. I think this rewriting of history helps no-one.

@GrumpyHoonMain

She is widely believed to be mixed race. Her skin, as described by her physician, was ‘mulatto’ and ‘sallow’ was used a lot too - both of those words were used for mixed race people in those days.

Black people were in the UK in Elizabethan times and had jobs and businesses since the Middle Ages. St George is also another mixed race person which is totally ironic considering how many English racists fly his flag.

What?! Where have you got this from?! And, St George was Palestinian, so an Arab/Middle Eastern person. Not mixed race 😏

You should try watching Sophie Okonedo as Margaret of Anjou in the most recent BBC production of the Wars of the Roses. Absolutely superb performance, the colour of her skin is a total irrelevance.

@Londonmummy66 I am sure I recall Miranda Kauffmann tweet about it. DS and I went to the Golden Hinde to hear her talk about the book. Was fantastic.

The story isn’t about Henry marrying a black woman is it though so race won’t be integral to the story. It will be the usual sexed up drama 🎭