King and Conquorer - from 24 August BBC and iPlayer

[IwantToRetire]

I had heard about this and sort of didn't listen as I thought it was Netflix.

But it isn't. Its the BBC!

"A clash that defined a country, and a continent, for a thousand years. The epic story of 1066 and the brutal battle for a kingdom. Starring James Norton and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024pyz

Supposedly based on verified historical facts.

I am imagining a mash up of Game of Throne and Vikings.

(Haven't seen another thread but am nominating this as a binge watch thread, rather than tv pace. If available on iPlayer.)

I'm watching on catch up and I've been trying to work out too lazy to look it up his name. I kept thinking they were saying Wayne. Wayne!

😁

I paid better attention tonight and put the subtitles on, which helped. Presumably Mr. Panks is being Edward the Confessor, who confessed to everything.
I, too, once read 'The Conqueror' by Georgette Heyer and on a little holiday I sat in a tourist coach in Falaise eating a packed dinner provided by the hotel.
I'll probably watch Ep 1 again on I Player, and get the people straight in my brain.

I’m with you Gloriia I’m up to episode 4. It’s all starting to hot up

Really interesting BBC4 programme by Peter and Dan Snow. Lots of battle reenactments and interesting factoids - eg William was stocky, clean-shaven and red haired, Harold tall, long haired and moustached.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0078rp6

It's filmed in Iceland, so no other horses would be available. They're very strict about not importing any others.

I was on the brink of falling asleep tonight, it really didn't hold my interest. It's always a bad sign when I can predict the dialogue - "Well?" "Well, what?". Jean-Marc Barr is still dishy though, too bad he doesn't have a bigger part.

I’m 2 episodes in but not going to bother with the rest. Main complaint is having to have the subtitles on as I can’t hear what is being said. Dislike the random accents, surely 3 brothers living in the same place would have the same accent? Not too bothered what that accent is but a bit of consistency would help. Settlements would be near a water source, people would definitely wash their faces/hands and not look like they hadn’t done so for 6 months. The script is weak, all the characters are unlikeable/forgettable.

I’m in episode 4 and quite enjoying it. It’s not very accurate but a good yarn nonetheless. Difficult to get over Jamie Lannister as William, and the fella that plays Harold’s Dad is just playing the role he always plays (see Mobland etc) in a different costume.
Its not quite the stunning period piece I’d hoped for and pp are right-another month and the nights drawn in would have helped it I think.

I totally agree.

But then I very quickly lost interest in it, so didn’t care.
What a dud!

same here, up to episode 3,

Just finished Episode 1. It's ok, but as much as I love the dishy James Norton, he is way too posh to play a rough Anglo-Saxon warrior 😅 His accent gives him away

I have never watched GoT so quite capable of not seeing William as Jamie Lannister. Therefore, I see nothing. What an extraordinarily bland, immobile faced actor!

Settlements would be near a water source, people would definitely wash their faces/hands and not look like they hadn’t done so for 6 months.

Weren't the Vikings noted for washing themselves - which was a contrast with the Saxons?

@FightingFish The three brothers haven’t even been to the same barber, as Tostig has a heinous medieval bowl cut whereas Harold and Sweyn have lucked out with the sexy tousled look.

The non-washing is all a bit Monty Python: “Must be a king, he hasn’t got shit all over him”

Bit I can’t get my head around and through me over whole of episode 1, is the ages shown of William and Harold.

edward confessor ruled for a full 24 years. William was 38 when crowned in 1066. Harold was 44 when he died in 1066.

so at time of Edward’s coronation, Edward was 39 ( younger than the actor ) and William would have been a precocious 14 year old, and Harold a youthful 20 years old.

not the old man Edward shown, nor the same aged adults of William and Harold. I just couldn’t get my head around what we were seeing, and fitting it in with history I knew, no wonder everyone is so confused at the cast - they’re all the same bloody age.

so we’re going to see a mashing of 24 years rule of Edward down to a passage of time seemingly over a mere few years. Which makes the whole piece around Edward’s lack of naming an heir leading to him being the last Anglo Saxon ruler, and opening the pathway to the feuding claims of Normans, Saxons, and Viking’s completely confusing and bemusing.

it wouldn’t have taken the BBC/ production company to get this bit right and bring in young actors for start of episodes. We’d be all the clearer why Harold and William were held in such high regard and carried so much power - they were bloody brutal teenagers that learnt war craft at such a young age.

im really struggling to watch it, as so much is just plain wrong. Costumes, appearance, buildings, horses, culture, language. Where’s all Williams Norman castles in Normandy? They weren’t using wooden fortresses or tents as shown, that was whole point of why they could and did conquer England.

they had a choice when commissioning this. An accurate piece around the ending of Anglo Saxon rule in England, and the run up to 1066 etc, or a complete fantasy GOT type programme loosely based on some medievally type power struggle. Either would have been good with cast like that. But no, they decided to sell it as historical and yet go down a lazy route of rewriting actual history because they felt need to dumb down for audience. Let’s just focus on bloody fighty stuff, and compress it all into short time frame, so we can just show fight after fight, but make it ok by showing some of them being lovey dovery to their “wives”.

Things do change as you get a few more episodes in
But I agree, think he would be better as William. He wanted to play William but Aparently as he’s also a director he wasn’t able to. No idea why that would make a difference tbh.
ex Jamie Lannister ( no idea if his real name ) would have been a better actor for Harold

Norman buildings/ castles only began to be built in stone after the Conquest
Before then it was all wood, wattle and daub and mud

'Let’s just focus on bloody fighty stuff, and compress it all into short time frame, so we can just show fight after fight'

Tbh I'm on ep 4 and I haven't found it's just fight after fight, there's plenty of dialogue which explores various characters. Obviously it's has to be compressed as most dramas based on history do as you've said Edward ruled for 24 yrs.

Imo the age inaccuracies don't really matter but I suppose we all notice different things.

It's a watchable drama with strong female characters, I like the scenery and the grit and tension. Also made me interested in Anglo saxon history and all the Earls etc. A very tense time!

I've only watched 1.5 episodes but I'm enjoying it. Its just a bit of fun.

I also enjoy reading about the historians tearing their hair out with the inaccuracies.

Marc Morris is worth reading if you are interested in the period.

@WhatsAWeekend When I first read about this series I assumed JN would be William and NC-W would be Harold. I didn't really get into Game of Thrones so to me James Norton is the bigger name and therefore the "hero" who ends up winning in the end. But the other guy has more mainstream Hollywood stuff behind him and GoT was obviously huge so he must be the bigger draw.

With regard to teeth , can you imagine the pitch .
'" Yes you will be rubbed about a bit in mud and filth , don't wash your hair for 3 months,,oh and we are going to knock your teeth about , maybe file a few down , break a couple and take out any fillings you may have "
Do you want to sign up now or get your people to look over the paperwork ? "

Nope. Not what I meant. We saw scenes of William jaunting around in Normandy but no Norman castles…. He’d have been staying in stone fortification and motte and Bailey castles by then.

sure, Edward, Harold et al were shown in timber buildings- no history of constructing stone fortifications at that time in Anglo Saxon England. (I will pass on fact these were shown by programme as half timber and shingle roofed …even that is likely wrong) .

normans developed the first stone built castles to defend the territory they took from the franks, in 10th century (they were Viking invaders). They started out as wood motte and Bailey, but by around 950 were building in stone. A good 100 years prior them bringing their new fangled technological advances to England.

this was whole point of how William was able to invade the whole of England, and why the Norman’s were feared. They had a massive innovative advantage in form of motte and Bailey castles. So, it’s pretty blimmin important to show that in a series about this if trying to be historical. It wasn’t down to who had bigger muscles, James Norton or the other bloke, it’s down to fact William could wack up massive numbers of stone defences quickly.

That is, historians believe, why Harold scarpered back to Kent when William invaded, despite having only just fought and won battle at Stamford bridge defending his territory against vikings and Tosvig. His army weren’t in prime fighting condition but he dare not delay and allow William to get a foot hold in Kent, once William started building those castles, it would have been impossible to retake land from William. William could get a basic motte and Bailey in timber bullet in 2-3 days, and then later start stone defences. Harold paid a price for that haste and panic , but he’d have lost the crown anyway if delayed, probably.

william wanted England for its civil advantage of the monarchy’s ability to raise revenue (taxes) though the Shire system. But Norman’s had the technological advantage in warfare (armoured mounted knights, cross bows, flat bottomed boats for heavy horses, spy networks, and a whole load of strategic thinking) and crucially used castles to consolidate their invaded territory, and then expand territory further from that base, putting up more castles as they went. Normans were masters of logistics!

Most stone buildings were religious though at that time.
Stone used in motte and Bailey castles was still relatively new by the 1050s. Most would have been wood still

It’s like assuming we all knock old buildings down just because there’s a new trend. We don’t.

So I wouldn’t expect most to be stone at all
of course that’s not to say new or replacement ones would be in stone