Dan Snow's History Hit - Mary, Queen of Scots on Film: The Historians’ Verdict

Episode Date: April 26, 2023

What do you get when you bring together five top historians to debate Mary, Queen of Scots on film? History with the gloves off - our second special episode of Not Just the Tudors Lates! This time, Professor Suzannah Lipscomb takes as her starting point the tragic life of the Scottish Queen and her relationship with her rival and cousin Queen Elizabeth I.Suzannah is joined once again by Dr Joanne Paul, Jessie Childs, Alex von Tunzelmann and Professor Sarah Churchwell to compare the various film versions of Mary’s story, where they have got it right - and often wildly wrong.This episode was produced by Rob Weinberg.Listen to the first Not Just the Tudors Lates about Elizabeth I on Screen, here.If you want to get in touch with the podcast, you can email us at [e-mail], we'd love to hear from you!If you'd like to learn more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad-free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe to History Hit today!Download the History Hit app from the Google Play store.Download the History Hit app from the Apple Store.

The life of Mary Queen of Scots and her relationship with her rival and cousin Elizabeth Queen of England has long been a source of inspiration for creatives. Even as far back as 1800 Frederick Steele had written a play about Mary Stewart. It was turned into an opera by Donald Seti and from the 1930s there have been films made about Mary. It's an irresistible romantic tale. In the 1960s, there was a trend for historical dramas and the team that had made Anne of a Thousand Days now made a new film about Mary, Queen of Scots

that came out in 1971 with Vanessa Redgrave in the title role and Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth I. More recently, in 2018, director Josie Rourke made a film with Saoirse Ronan as Mary and Margot Robbie as Elizabeth. Both of these films show the lives of the two queens. They are compared and contrasted and both films have the queens meeting, though they never met in reality. But what do they tell us about history and what do they tell us about our ideas about what we think should have happened? Before we get started, here's a very brief reminder of who we're talking about.

Mary Stuart, the Catholic Queen of Scotland. Before we get started, here's a very brief reminder of who we're talking about. Mary Stuart, the Catholic Queen of Scotland. Born in 1542, she was the wife of the heir to the French throne, the Dauphin, and Queen of France during his brief reign, only returning to Scotland after his death. After two disastrous Scottish marriages to Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, and James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, Mary was driven out of Scotland by rival factions and religious turmoil in 1568. She came to England for protection, where she was kept under house arrest by her unmarried Protestant cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. The two were never reconciled. Mary had a rival claim to the English throne, and she was eventually beheaded on February 8, 1587. For this special, informal, not-just-the-Tudors-lates on Mary, Queen of Scots, in life and on screen,

my guests are Dr. Joanne Paul, the author of The House of Dudley, A New History of Tudor England, Jesse Childs, who wrote God's Traitors, Terror and Faith in Elizabethan England, and also joining us are two historians who have thought about how to put history on screen, screenwriter Alex von Tunzelman and cultural historian Professor Sarah Churchwell. So I suppose perhaps the place to start is thinking about how Mary has been depicted and the kind of major differences, if there are any, or if actually this is a kind of blueprint of how you'd put Mary, Queen of Scots on film. Jo? I mean, I think, generally speaking, there is always a tendency to present her in opposition to Elizabeth I. I'm not sure we've ever really had a film

where Elizabeth isn't used as some sort of foil or reverse image of her. And the attempt usually is to show, obviously, two ways of being a female monarch, but also two ways of being a woman. This head versus the heart sort of presentation. So obviously two ways of being a female monarch, but also two ways of being a woman. This head versus the heart sort of presentation. Sarah? There was so much historical emphasis on her beauty that I think filmmakers feel licensed in a way they don't always. Certainly we can talk also about the different Elizabeths and their different levels of beauty in terms of, you know, the actresses who are cast and how they present and you know makeup and all of that but the mythologizing historical tendency to absolutely emphasize Mary Queen of Scots beauty is also I think a natural

pull and again helps build up that contrast with Elizabeth as antagonist she becomes more grotesque and Mary stays in her full flower of Scottish beauty forever. I think there is always this idea of you can't understand or you can't present Mary Queen of Scots unless you're also looking at Elizabeth I. Jessie, what do you think? They have to be the baddies. She is this icon. She's an icon of Scots nationalists, but also for Catholics, she's a martyr. And also she's just this doomed heroine. It's easy to see Mary and Elizabeth as two sides of the female ruler's experience in the 16th century. Mary married three times and, as the films show, had a surviving son.

But she was drawn into both religious and factional disputes, which led to her overthrow. Elizabeth, meanwhile, kept her throne but never married. The films emphasise the differences. her throne but never married. The films emphasise the differences. Elizabeth had no offspring and was the last of the Tudors, while it was Mary's son James who succeeded Elizabeth on the throne of England, as well as ruling Scotland too. The irony and the contrasts are irresistible to filmmakers. Should we have a think about the timelines of these films as well as what they cover because they make interesting choices about what they want to dramatize, what slice of life they want to take and I wonder what you think about those, why they've done that as well.

I think it's a real challenge to filmmakers to make a story that effectively covers about 30 years. I look at the Tudor experience. Yes, you always want to finish with her execution in 1587 and quite a lot of them start with her arriving in Scotland in 1561. To compress that into the runtime of most of these films for about two hours is definitely a challenge. Interestingly, the 1971 film starts even earlier. It starts in France. It starts in 1560 when she loses her mother and her first husband, Francois.

That, it seems to me, quite traumatic, quite dramatic, and is completely locked out of the 2018 film. Perhaps you've just got too much going on. You don't want to introduce too many themes. Yes, another character as well. Three husbands is a lot to fit into a film. And Francois was a bit of a drip. I mean, he was, literally he was a bit of

a drip. His mother, Catherine de' Medici wrote to his governor saying that he needs to blow his nose more. But he was very frail, his stutter, I think it was a hostile source, but said he had undescended testicles. So I think all that... Sounds like a hostile source.

Can we talk about the look of the thing? There's some very important decisions made with both these films about the sort of colour palette, the looks of the women, the costuming, the light. What strikes you about these? There's always an attempt to make Scotland look very bare, very rugged and the interiors are always very much of stone, whereas in England it's usually wood. There's a warmth to it, whereas there's sort of this barrenness, barbarian-ness about the way that Scotland is presented. It's also worth talking about, as you said, the costuming is really interesting in both of them. It's funny how what people think historically accurate costumes are and

what they are, and that I think the 1971 version feels very sort of authentic because it feels like that era of you know a very sort of high level masterpiece theatre kind of BBC historical drama but you watch it now and you're like actually this is very very inflected by 1971. It's very striking particularly the wedding you know she's in a white dress which obviously quite wrong. That's white wedding dresses of Queen Victoria onwards. That's what's at those. But of course, you always use white dresses because you're signalling to the audience now, this is a wedding. And he's in this amazing kind of white outfit, looking quite extraordinary. Timothy Dalton. He looks extraordinary full stop.

Coral wig. I mean, it's very over the top the top you know it's interesting watching that in tandem with of course the 2018 one which is super 2018 and kind of queen amidala comes out rather than mary you know this very kind of high concept costume you can say oh my goodness this looks completely of its time and not historical but actually you could say the same i think about the 71 i think so but i also think that the 2018 version is interesting because it's actually telling a story through hair in a way that I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie do in quite the same way. And so, you know, we're used to the story

of Elizabeth's transformation through makeup. But in this one with Circe Ronan and Margaret Robey, we have this extraordinary kind of contest about wigs and hair on these really elaborate hair pieces. The pure drama of Mary's story sets filmmakers an enormous challenge. Between the Reformation and political and dynastic schisms, Mary ruled a country that was in turmoil. Her second husband, Henry Darnley, was blown up and murdered,

and husband number three, James Bothwell, almost certainly raped her before she married him. All this before she crossed the border to England and threw herself on Elizabeth's mercy. It's a vast amount to cram into a movie. It's hard. I can imagine in development meetings, everyone going, this is a great story, there's tragic heroin, there's murder, there's explosions,

there's potential, possible alleged rape. There's all of it, there's tragic heroin, there's murder, there's explosions, there's potential possible alleged rape. There's all of it, there's an escape. And yet I can imagine them then sort of trying to write it and thinking, oh, hell, we've got to put that in and that battle, but that wasn't quite a battle and difficult. Alex? I think that's a real problem in it. I mean, I have to say, like, you know,

we've mentioned the two big films that we're talking about, the 1971 film, the 2018 film, and we could also, Sarah and I are also big fans of the 1936 John Ford film with Catherine Hepburn. I do not think there has been a great film about Mary, Queen of Scots, despite the fact it is an incredible story, absolutely extraordinary. And I think it is, there's just too much. What is her story, though? Because she can't just want the crown, she gets the crown very early on,

so that's sort of just solved at the beginning. She wants to rule, but then there's all this stuff about blokes and husbands and blowing up and all this, and this is actually a sort of sideline. Then you should really just focus on her and Elizabeth and not have all that other stuff because it's extraneous. In terms of characterisation though, and I think Saoirse Ronan comes closest, what they're missing is Mary's joie de vivre. I mean, everyone mentions it. There's utter charm and warmth and laughter and sort of childishness. But I find Vanessa Gregory very sort of simpering and wet.

Harry. It's become of your pain. Why are you here? Forgive me, Harry. Our child is still alive. It is not yet time. I have never betrayed you, but I have wronged you and I beg your forgiveness. Well, that's what Katharine Hepburn brings to the role. Katharine Hepburn has charm

and spades, right? And she uses it, you know, and I think that that is part of what makes it such an appealing version, even though the history of it, as I said, will drive you crazy, is her film. And it is a star vehicle for Katharine Hepburn. And it is absolutely about her charm and how everybody is drawn to her. It's clear that she's the star and there are these men around her who are having to get put in their various places in that kind of classic Hollywood way. And we're figuring out who is the strong man here who's going to be her equal. And she dispenses with the brother and she dispenses with Darnley. And each of them falls by the wayside until it's Frederick March left, standing

in a kilt, you know, face to face with her as her equal, right? A huge part of the problem is trying to force Mary's story into the template of a romance because it just doesn't work. And the really problematic part is trying to make Bothwell the romance. I think it's problematic for story and it's problematic in a host of other ways to do with feminism and historiography of course. So there are lots of historical novels that present Bothwell as the great lover of Mary Queen of Scots and so I had this kind of been a vague idea and then watching the 2018 I was like

he's definitely a rapist. One difference in the 2018 film is that he is shown to kind of rape her effectively on the wedding night whereas I think historically that's kind of pre-marriage, right? The idea is that he abducts her, probably rapes her, and then after that she feels forced to marry him. And he quickly divorces his wife. And he asked her to marry him before and she said no. And then he abducts, yes, with about 800 men, doesn't he? We lose as well that she is pregnant with his twins and has a miscarriage of the twins, and that is never represented.

And in the John Ford, the abduction is that he's saving her from everybody else so that he's abducting her for her own good. So, I mean, the degree to which it is actually apologising for all of this violence against women is really quite extraordinary when you look at how it presents him. Although you'll be happy to hear he does go mad at the end. We touched earlier on the fact that these films are mostly just as much about Elizabeth as Mary. I would like us to have a look at a clip. This is from the 2018 film, and it gives us a bit of an insight, I think,

into how that rivalry or relationship is framed. God would have a woman be a wife and a mother. So you defy his will? No. I choose to be a man. And marriage is dangerous. Such a man as I might marry. Finding himself disappointed. He would conspire. No prince's revenues be so great that they satisfy the insatiable ambition of men. This I understand.

Which is why you are the closest thing I shall ever have to a wife. There seems to be a common trope in the films, which is to compare a masculine Elizabeth with a feminine Mary. And there's very much this kind of question about gender conformity going on. And if you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't, you know, Elizabeth doesn't marry and is criticised for that. Mary marries and she gets it wrong. But people seem to come back to this again and again. What do you make of it? And what should we do with it in terms of the history? I think I agree with all that. But actually, I do think that they've feminised Elizabeth Margot Robbie a bit. The whole thing when she gets smallpox in 1562, and I think they're right to make a big deal of that. I mean, that was huge. She nearly died, and she was disfigured for life

after that. Actually, it's really interesting to look at the gender of it. And I think, you know, in that scene with Margot Robbie, where she talks about being a man, it's something quite interesting that they're sort of getting towards. But then you sort of end up with this sense, and the way that then cuts to sort of Mary getting married you do rather feel that Elizabeth is being punished that it's like oh now you're going to die childless Mary wins because she had a kid and it's like there's something very anti-feminist actually that sort of comes out of this theming and it becomes a bit uncomfortable tell me what to do we must make civil war in Scotland you would have me depose the sister. It is either civil war there or civil war here.

I want to know nothing of it. The arrangement shall be mine alone. What I like about that scene is it's very true to Elizabeth. Yeah, go ahead, but I don't want to know anything about it. You know, you take care of it, Cecil, and this sort of blocking out of what she is actually doing. One of the things that's missing, I think, from many of the presentations of Mary Queen of Scots is consistency on the fact that she was also very, very good at that. She's sometimes presented as a bit of sort of an innocent, but then they let her do the plotting

sometimes. But then also she doesn't really know what's going on because she's presented in that very sort of feminine, doesn't understand kind of way. I'd love to see one that's focused on these sort of political machinations and this game that's going on between the two of them and the way that they are using men to play that game. Let's think about the sexual politics. Let's have a look at a clip from the 1971 film. This is with Darnley.

You seem very rich, Davy. I am valued. No, you are hated. But not by you, sweet Harry. The commoner. The detested little foreigner. Ah, you're jealous of my influence. Remember this is made pretty soon after homosexuality has just become legal. You must speak for me, Davy. I will be king here. I have the right to be a king. All the Catholic nobles of England will support Mary's cause if I am king. You are vicious,

Harry. You have a taste for all the vices. I thought you loved me. I love the Queen better. And I think it a cruel act to help put you between her sheets. You want to keep me between yours? Oh, Edinburgh is full of pretty boys. And like you, I have a taste for a woman as well. I shall not lack comfort. We are outcasts in this court. No man is your friend save me, and no man is mine save you.

Like it or not, sweet Harry, we must hold to each other. The Queen! I do think Dalton's Darnley is very good. He's so good. So, so good. With the hair aside. The man could act, is the question. He's perfect.

Yeah, absolutely. So it is very bold in terms of sexual politics for the time in which it's perfect. Yeah, absolutely. So it is very bold in terms of sexual politics for the time in which it's made. I think it's surprising to see it in 1971. Maybe I don't know enough about 1971. It's quite an interesting historical question because there is dispute on it, as I understand it. Because for the 16th century, lots of people shared beds.

Right, yeah. Bed fellow. Where do we sit historically? We are following the evidence insofar as we've got Darnley as our great cock chick. So we know that about him, and we know that they shared a bed. And it's just adding two and two together, whether we're actually making four or not.

I don't think it's so wildly speculative that it could be untrue. No, I mean, there's so much rumour for a filmmaker, as long as you've got one rumour or one sort of hostile. Oh, yeah, that's fine. When the 2018 film came out we were told that this is a feminist film and I think we've already decided in ways it's not and review articles said things,

look, you've got menstruation on the screen. How refreshing. I mean, you sort of haven't. You've got an illusion to it. It's basically like an ad for a sanitary towel. Oral sex as well. My kids walked in on that movie. But if they're presenting him in this film,

I mean, because as you say, probably bisexual, presenting him as someone who is not intersex and won't have sex. It's a workaround. If you're disgusted by your penitent sex with a woman, why do you go down on her? Wow, okay. But that's fine. I think the way I read the scene was that what it was trying to do is to suggest that he's sophisticated enough to recognize that she doesn't know anything about sexual pleasure and that he's trying to seduce her and charm her into marriage

with him. And that as soon as the wedding's over, he doesn't care. He's got what he wants. And so that centering her pleasure in that sense is a way of, again, enacting that seduction in a way that is very unambiguous for 21st century viewers. I'm Matt Lewis. And I'm Dr. Alan Orjanaga. And in Gone Medieval, we get into the greatest mysteries. The gobsmacking details and latest groundbreaking research. From the greatest millennium in human history. We're talking Vikings. Normans. Kings and popes. Who were rarely the best of friends.

Murder. Rebellions. And crusades. Find out who we really were. By subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. What I want us to get to is their meeting, because this is something that filmmakers cannot resist. It hasn't been resisted since Schiller in 1800 making the two queens meet i am here to meet you as you so urgently demanded my business can only be discussed between us face to face i know you

to be the enemy of all rebels against their rightful prince indeed madam you are right the crime of my lords against their anointed queen is so great it buries all past differences between us. I'm confident of your help. I ask it as a right. I see that you have courage. And I see you are the great queen of whom all speak. And you are young. Not too young to ride at the head of an army. Mary wants English troops to help regain her Scottish crown, but the script reveals their rivalry through Elizabeth's subtle refusal. How else may I aid you? Be open with me, dear cousin, for be assured there is no waking hour in my day when you are far from my thoughts.

Your fate is linked with mine. We are princes both, we are joined by blood. What else have you to tell me or to ask of me? Nothing. Nothing? Why, what else could you to tell me or to ask of me? nothing. nothing? why what else could there be? some helpful word concerning the murder of Lord Darnley. yes of course. rest assured Elizabeth that I am innocent in the matter. that gives me great joy for when you are honorably acquitted of the crime of which you are accused then you shall have your army and your money. cousin put it out of your mind that i came to england merely

to save my life i came to recover my honor if you dare to doubt my word that i am innocent then i will go at once to france. you shall not. madam in the past you have sheltered those very traitors who now rule in scotland they entered entered freely into England just as freely they returned. Do you offer me less than my treacherous subjects? Am I your prisoner? If so, by what law? If you forbid me to go to France, what will you do with me? I shall take you deeper into England for your protection. Then I am your prisoner.

If you are innocent, what have you to fear? You have deceived me. You are in league with my brother. I will answer no accusations. Who is there who may try me? Who is my equal? Will you do it in public, before the eyes of the world? No. I mean, you just can't like her. I'm afraid she's conforming to that word. It's terrible.

No, she comes across as very silly. The filmmakers couldn't resist giving Mary a combative retort that her son would inherit Elizabeth's throne. It is not enough, madam, to speak one's mind in season and out as you do. That is not the conduct of a queen. It is the outpouring of a pampered woman demanding that all indulge her. It does not surprise me that you are here, helpless, and that your brother rules. You are not fit for the high office to which you were born.

And you, madam, who hate me and wish me dead and fear to kill me, you are my mortal enemy. Above all, it is clear that Elizabeth fears Mary. And whatever my fate, my son will rule here in time. Of course, in real fact, they didn't meet. I know they wrote each other letters, and that's quite boring to put on the screen. They nearly met in 1562, and Elizabeth called it off, and it was because of the massacre of Vassy,

perpetuated by the geezers, by Mary's uncles. And that was her excuse anyway, so she wrote and said, I'm not meeting you because of this. The 2018 film uses very deliberate design techniques to suggest an unreal quality to the fictionalised meeting between Mary and Elizabeth. To war with Scotland and betray my own clergy on a Catholic's behalf. No, I cannot. You know I cannot.

Did you come so far at such great risk only to refuse me? You know I cannot. Did you come so far at such great risk only to refuse me? I came because... If you refuse me an army, say it to my face. Do not force me to beg to your back. I will kneel before you if I must. It would make no difference. You are safe here in England That is all I can offer They have been abandoned by so many

I am utterly alone If you still seek my protection You would do well to watch your words I will not be scolded by my inferior Your inferior? I am a steward which gives me greater claim to england than you possess so they never met in reality they do in both these films and actually one clever line is given to elizabeth in there where she says that no one can know that we meet if you speak of it to anyone i will deny it which i like creating the possibility that it might have happened.

Possible deniability. Well, this is very Mel Gibson. He has at the beginning of Braveheart, historians from England will say I'm a liar. So, you know, he's covering himself. But actually, I find that quite offensive because it's like, then he is suggesting it's true, not fiction. Does it work to break with historical reality like this? What does it achieve? I have no problem with the idea of putting them together to cut through all that boring letter writing. Then the letters were very emotional and provoked a lot of

emotion. There's a story where Robert Dudley comes into Elizabeth's room and she's absolutely distraught over a letter that Mary has sent her from her imprisonment. So putting that in a film where they come together is not the problem. Some of the lines and some of the portrayals, I think, are more of a problem. But the fact of it doesn't bother me as a historian. Jessie, what do you think? Yeah, I think the scenes are underwhelming, especially in 1971.

Redgrave cannot hold her own against Jackson, can she? I think the Saoirse Ronan one is better, but again, it goes back to what we were saying. What is the film saying? Who's winning? Is that what's happening? Why is Elizabeth this sort of anti-feminist? It just doesn't quite gel. It's not the denouement you're hoping for. And if you're going to sort of corrupt the record to that degree, there has to be a reason for it. That's what I was going to say. It doesn't have enough dramatic impact. The problem is none of us objects to putting them together is that then

you should have fireworks. That's what you've been building up to. So now show us these two ways of being women in this world coming into direct conflict with each other. What's the confrontation? You don't know where to look because it's so distracting because they've decided to put them in this bizarre space where there are linens and veils and things hanging between them. But it's deeply distracting. Instead of actually focusing on the dramatic impact,

that is part of the filmmakers' kind of nervousness about approaching history is that they know they didn't meet. So there's like, okay, so we're going to kind of allude to that by having all these veils that we're just, you know, visually presenting to you that this is complicated, that there are levels of abstraction and removal here. But then I'm like, well, don't be coy about it. I mean, come on, if you're making this film, then grasp the damn nettle and have the two of them have a really banging scene. Why are we trying to pretend that we're kind of still on the right side of history? Because you're not. So just accept that.

Yeah, exactly. Do at least have a Scottish sounding queen in the first room, which is an improvement. I think it's great. And I think people always say, oh, she should be speaking French, she should be speaking Scottish. Truth is, she spoke impeccable French with a French accent and impeccable broad Scots with a Scottish accent.

Her problem was when she was sort of speaking, what accent would she be using then? Probably more French, but it's fine. Anything goes, really. The last set of clips I'd like to look at, and I want to talk about the ending of both films and the clips of the executions. Forgive me, madam.

I forgive you with all my heart. I thank you even. I hope this death shall put an end to all my troubles. For in my end is my beginning. Lord, into your hands I commend my spirit

That's horrid We'll move on to the next one Lord, into your hands I commend my spirit. That's horrid. We'll move on to the next one. This day, February 8th, the year of our Lord 1587. It's time. She thinks herself a martyr. I think it does have this wonderful ending, both of them, this wonderful sort of payback at the end when Mary's son, James, inherits the crown

and Elizabeth dies childless and her dynasty ends. So there's that, and I think in terms of a quest, it's that she wants the English crown, if not for herself herself then for her dynasty James my only son I pray that with your life you will succeed where I could not and for which I am about to give my life. In my end is my beginning. I shall be watching you from heaven. And we shall have peace. I love that. Can I just say, I love the way that ends. It picks up the very beginning

where she's seasick. And you think that very first scene when she's down like that is going to be her execution. I thought that was very clever. Well, that's something she says in her trial as well, is that she doesn't want to shipwreck her soul by her relationship to Elizabeth and she wouldn't plot against her. Can we talk about the ageing? Or lack thereof. Or lack thereof. Elizabeth ages. So Elizabeth ages. She's allowed to age. And Mary, Queen of Scots, is still the same age as she was when she was in prison 20 years earlier. It's obviously a deliberate decision. There's a suggestion in the voiceover as Elizabeth is thinking through what's happening that something like you know she would stay young forever that

it's supposed to represent the kind of mythologizing of Mary. I've seen an aged woman but a young resplendent queen. Exactly in her memory thank you and so that this is Elizabeth's reconstruction of it and that it's hinting toward the mythologization of Mary as eternally youthful. But it doesn't make enough of that. And it's just a kind of throwaway you have to be paying quite close attention to. And then you still have to think that that one phrase can do all of this work visually. That it can make sense of something that visually makes no sense. Or it also unlocks.

It's just not enough. It unlocks the whole story. It says that the entire story has been seen from Elizabeth's point of view. Yeah, yeah. So then we're suddenly, wait, so now we're playing with memory and perspective in the final scene. And that's another way of talking about the way in which this film, I think, is just trying to do too much all of the time.

I think the costuming is very interesting in both of these versions that you have. You know, we know that she was, I think, executed in red. She was. The colour of Marston. This is obviously very deliberate. But we've got some very sexed-up versions because it's such a great cinematic reveal, right? So, you know, you have Vanessa Redgrave in this

very sort of 1970s, that sort of Laura Ashley cut, the big hoofy sleeves, everything is going on, you know, tight bodice, sexy as hell. She's got it, she takes a coat off. Saoirse Ronan gets the full RuPaul's Drag Race reveal I mean you know was Velcro invented it was actually you know so there we go so there's a full like and there it is but it's fabulous though because it is such a dramatic choice to go and be executed in red it's like I mean that's pretty amazing right that the symbolism is so deliberate in

real life that I kind of think you can forgive filmmakers for just camping that up to the max. Totally. And the clean cut as well, to be a nerd. It took three strokes. It kind of took two strokes and then they had to sort of saw it off. In the third one.

I can see that's not really... It's not the daily one you watch. Well, seeing as we've killed her off, I suppose we've got to the end of our discussion. But thank you very much once again for a brilliantly insightful, interesting discussion about these films and about, I don't know, womanhood, femininity, filmmaking, storytelling, the historical record and all sorts of other things along the way. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thanks to my producer, Rob Weinberg, and my researcher, Esther Arnott. And thanks to you for listening to Not Just the Tudors from History Hit.

We're always eager to hear your suggestions for podcast subjects. So drop me a line at notjustthetudors at historyhit.com or on Twitter at notjusttudors. Also, if you're in need of an extra hit between podcasts, do sign up to our newsletter, Tudor Tuesday. Details of how to do that are in the notes below this podcast. Tudor Tuesday. Details of how to do that are in the notes below this podcast. And please rate, rank, bestow multiple stars and comment on this podcast wherever you listen, including on Spotify. It really helps more people find not just the Tudors. you