Media
King & Conqueror - 'never meant to be historically accurate' says costume designer
Sooo.... the costumes.
Why does it ALWAYS have to be like this.
In the words of costume designer Margrét Einarsdóttir:
'It's not historically accurate. It was never meant to be. We did not want to make a documentary of the era. This is fiction, and we want to tell it in our own way.'
A good response from the comment section below: If they want to 'tell it their own way', then why are they doing it exactly like every other costume designer of the past twenty years? They are simply following the same old unimaginative pattern with the same old flat excuses, afraid to stand out.
Another top comment I want to highlight: 'One would think the British Broadcasting Corp, emphasis on BRITISH, would want to make Britain's history more accurate.'
In my opinion, if you're not even going to make an effort, either don't take the job or don't base the show on history. Go design costumes for shows like GOT instead. Let people who actually care about history design the costumes for shows based on actual history.
It’s a horrible half way house between wanting to be game of thrones whilst simultaneously depicting one of the best researched and widely taught periods in British history. The depiction of three of the most interesting men in that period - Godwin, Edward and Harold hadraada as mere caricatures is infuriating. Let’s also forget the ahistorical nonsense, like Edward killing his mother or being married to a woman who was actually a nun in real life. I liked how it portrayed Harold, though, who’s usually portrayed as a bit useless/hapless in my opinion.
Yes. It’s batshit. The logic in the show is Emma is an overbearing mother and Edward is her hopeless, mentally son who hallucinates god talking directly to him who finally has enough of being told what to do.
So it isn't even about him (unfairly) blaming her for marrying Canute the Great and him suspecting her of having preferred her sons by Canute over him. ( No idea whether that ever was an issue between them historically, but it was the only somewhat believable reason I could think of to somehow find a motivation for Edward to do something as horrific as murdering his own mother.)
I'd wager a guess, that Canute the Great isn't even mentioned.
I mean that’s part of it (that Edward doesn’t live up to his brother). Canute is mentioned in passing as a great, wise king. But more as an abstract way rather than that’s how Godwin rose to such prominence.
Well, I guess that is something, somehow. The thing is killing your own mother, I can't think of a single monarch that ever did that. Nor really anyone, short of quite deranged individuals like serial killers. Estranged and bad relationship with mom, sure, putting them in an abbey out of sight, occasionally. Even Edward III. who had some very legitimate grievances with his mom did nothing to her except confiscating a lot of her land and a short stint of house arrest.
Bonkers. And actually quite disrespectful to Edward the Confessor, who was a real person navigating some pretty troubled times, not just a fantasy character out of the writers imagination. Anyway thanks for the explanation. Now I have some morbid curiosity regarding the show, but it might be better to just skip it.
Speaking from personal experience, and as friendly advise I think you might be better off skipping this show if that’s how you feel. I know I will, I haven’t seen a single episode but based on what I’ve read about it I just know it’s not for a pedantic history nerd such as myself. I invented the word ’actually’.
I made the mistake of getting into Vikings on Netflix a couple of years ago, and after a good first season they just butchered it so utterly it’s insane. I kept watching until the end of season 5 because of the sunk cost fallacy. I wish I hadn’t as it just kept getting worse and worse. Very frustrating it was. I don’t want a repeat of that so I won’t watch as much as a second of this new show.
But each to their own, some people genuinely loved Vikings. It all depends on your own expectations and mentality.
Thanks for the sage advise. You are in all likelyhood correct, considering that I am still boiling a bit about Gladiator 2.
Respect for making it all the way to season 5 of vikings. I dipped out sometime around season 3 and Count Eudes being whipped to death in an S & M session gone wrong. That is no way to treat a future king of France.
I hated how they portrayed Harold. The show depicted Edward clearly selecting william as his successor and Harold usurping the throne when there is no evidence to Edward did promise william the throne only Williams word.
Harold was selected by Edward and the witan to be the next king. I think it would have been far more interesting to show william as the ruthless leader he was and not as the man whose crown was usurped.
The whole show annoyed me when the real events are more interesting than what they portrayed.
I think it did a decent job of making it ambiguous, because on the one hand Edward selects William, on the other hand Harold makes it clear that he doesn't have the right to select the next king, the Earls at the Witan do that. It was trying to be relatively neutral between William and Harold, and did a fairly good job, not making one of them an outright antagonist
I don't agree. They could have done a better job of presenting the story. It didn't help they kept messing with the timeline and completely assassinated characters like Emma of normandy and Edward the Confessor.
This was a pivotal moment in british history with lots of politics at work, and they presented it as a story of two men's egos, vying for a crown for no clear reason. I would have had more respect for it had they shown william as the opportunist he was.
He didn't need to be. Once he beat Harold. England swore to him. He let Edgar go and tried ruiling as Edward successor. After repeated rebellions did William switched to the Conqueror and acted ruthlessly.
He had spent the previous 2 decades defending his title and lands as duke of normandy. He went for the english crown to protect his power and then spent his reign defending it. He was ruthless because he had to be, but ruthless he always was.
It looks like it’s trying to appeal to GOT fans, as if the lack of colour is what people liked. In fact it needed more colour. Everyone’s in black, I don’t know what side they’re on.
I think changing Edward's wife is fair enough because if they had 3 major characters named 'Edith' it would be very confusing, so swapping it to one of Harold's other sisters makes sense
This kind of lazy, sloppy story telling really irritates me. Mantel’s Wolf Hall was fiction, but it was historically as accurate as it possibly could be. To write historical fiction based of real life events and then say “yeh I couldn’t be bothered researching it so it probably isn’t accurate” is just so damn lazy. If it’s not historically accurate then why even bother claiming it’s based on William the Conqueror and Harold Godwinson.
What they say: "This is fiction, and we want to tell it in our own way."
What they mean: “yeh I couldn’t be bothered researching it so it probably isn’t accurate”.
I think a lot of the time they like to mask behind empty, hollow words when this is the true reason. It's a lot easier to make things up than to actually study a topic. That's just lazy, and if you're lazy the end result will be shit. It's just the way it is. They'd have learned that at school, but I guess they weren't paying attention then either.
What are some of the major narrative inaccuracies in your opinion? I thought it hit most of the major narrative points pretty well, some stuff was wrong but was sort of understandable, e.g. Emma of Normandy
(Costumes and sets etc absolutely wildly inaccurate of course)
My point was based around the historical inaccuracies of the costumes, as per the post. Basically what’s the point in writing/ filming historical fiction if you aren’t going to bother having a sound, accurate basis for clothing/ sets etc. it undermines the whole plot, imo.
I mean the glaring ones are William would have been 14 in 1042 when Edward the Confessor was crowned, not a middle aged man of the same age.
Edwin, Morcars brother and Earl of Northumbria, along with Gyrth, Harold’s brother and Earl of East Anglia, are totally absent. In fact, East Anglia is totally omitted as a region altogether despite being one of the major Earldoms, they specifically mention ‘The three Earldoms of Mercia, Wessex and Northumbria’ at some point, can’t remember who said it but I remember drying my salty tears at the time.
Baldwin is a weird caricature type villain as is King Henry I, who funnily enough wasn’t assassinated in the woods by Duke William.
The whole story takes place over a period of more than 20 years and no one ages, especially little Magnus, who is evidently a baby forever.
See, I would say that, while true, these are clearly minor issues, meant to make the viewing more digestable for an observer who is not so steeped in the history. It hardly ruins the show!
Overloading it with extra characters such as Edwin and East Anglia add little benefit but could be much more confusing when there are already a lot of characters to keep track of. (Plus more budget) I suppose verbally referencing EA would've been better though
The King of France being some random guy riding around on his own I did have major issue with, but it's really a side plot - William did fight with him across the 1050s, the manner of the death is different but it gets the point across. [And in the in-show history, Henry died naturally too so it is arguably consistent with history as-written]
And William being 14 is just for practicalities, theyre not gonna have a child actor then suddenly change them into Nicolaj, and the impact on the events would be negligible. (The same way none of the characters visibly age over the show's 24 year span - who cares it makes no difference!)
It's like how 2 of the 3 Ediths have their names changed, clearly a sensible decision despite it technically being untrue
Absolutely, don’t get me wrong. I don’t expect things to be perfect and I’ve made a habit of trying to look past inaccuracies in dramas and just try to enjoy them for what they are. I was simply listing a few things for the benefit of the chap that asked.
For what it’s worth, I thought the show was ok and actually enjoyed the final episode a lot. My main gripes were actually the scale. As in why the main characters, who are the most powerful and wealthy people of the time, travel around with one or two attendants instead of the dozens of guards and servants they’d have. As well as the panoramic view of ‘London’ that looked like a child’s matchstick model castle. Other than that, it was a fairly decent drama with good acting.
Yes! The scale was absolutely my biggest issue as well, but there's no money in conventional TV anymore so I can understand it unfortunately
Hastings was one of my favourite battles I've seen on screen in terms of how it shows the strategy and the formations of armies, rather than just a jumbled up melee. You can tell that's where the budget went
Aye, they definitely saved it all for the final episode. The complete omission of Fulford an apart from in passing reference. The removal of the bridge berserker that is considered the main part of oral tradition of Stamford Bridge, and the more or less omission of Cavalry from Hastings was a bit of a let down. I don’t think the word Knight actually makes an appearance in the show?!? They evidently didn’t have the budget for a lot of what they’d like to have done, which was a shame.
The issue with saving all your chips for the end however is how many people made it to the end before giving up on it.
Oh and Morcar turning up to Hastings with his army and having his Lord Stanley moment and not helping Harold was just weird. Was half expecting him lead a cavalry charge down the hill shouting ‘William’. Given more or less omission of Norman cavalry from the show.
They used to know how to do these things. The quality of the costume designers has gone to the dogs. Colours were not banned in the good old days. Ivanhoe wore chainmail too, as did the soldiers in the Bayeux Tapestry.
But not in K&C, where Einarsdóttir thought it would be better for the sake of the story if they wore bathrobes and lots of leather. God knows why.
I made a more accurate costume for my kid for a school trip than this production K&C) - fair enough the chainmail coif was loose knitted acrylic yarn and his tabbard was faux leather but I was on a school mam budget not BBC budget!
This is also what bugs me! A lot of people will no doubt feel that way, and think that history is excruciatingly boring. It doesn't help that it looks so awfully glum and depressing.
The showrunners really aren't doing themselves any favours.
I mean good thing it wasn’t intended as a documentary since outside of names the rest of it seems like pure fantasy.
The clothing is inaccurate.
The timeline is inaccurate.
The ages of the key characters involved are inaccurate.
The ethnicity of the Anglo-Saxons and Norman’s involved is inaccurate.
And all of this despite us having an incredibly detailed and well preserved visual representation of the entire sequence of events that was a primary source from that era.
I wish I could upvote this a thousand times. What unique spin has been put on this that we didn’t already see in Vikings 2013 or GOT in 2011? And practically every historical or fantasy thing has ripped off that look since. It was literally more eye catching of wolf hall to use colour. It made it unique in the current landscape.
The inaccurate costumes put me off watching. I've no interest in watching yet another series that depicts the Middle Ages in various shades of brown; apart from anything else it's not pleasant to look at. Give me A Knight's Tale any day:
And of course, when it comes to the Anglo-Saxon specifically we're talking about a people famous for their elaborate Opus Anglicanum embroidery. No, I'm sure the society that produced the cloth-of-gold vestments buried with St Cuthbert (one of the few Anglo-Saxon garments to survive intact) hated colour.
Exactly! I nearly fell asleep looking at that highly elaborate and quite beautiful piece of ancient art that has survived completely intact through the ages.
Well pointed out!! Though the writers on this probably didn't bother looking at even the Bayeux tapestry. Since they seem to know so little of the history they likely don't realise it was made in KENT England!
See this just proves they were lazy and didn't care. They have historical evidence that requires no more than a glance to identify COLOUR in the past. It looks either lazy or cheap. Cheap in that they couldn't be bothered with issues of continuity or styling because all they needed to do was call out "I need another brown fabric. Something brown please!" Job done.
You said it. If only they had even considered looking into such works as the Morgan picture bible they could have drawn inspiration from there (although it's made in the 1240's in Paris, but still). So much colour in this book! Even the skies are blue.... woooot?? :O
I'll say it again. People who have no interest in history should not have anything to do with scripts or costumes or any esthetics at all for history based shows.
So true. Maybe we should make a miniseries about the history of Iceland, and dress people as Romans, clowns and pharaohs? To spice it up a bit, for the sake of the story. I can't imagine anyone getting annoyed by that surely :)
For real though, I just don't get why they had to fuck up the costumes like that. There's no reason they couldn't have gone for authentic costumes and still 'tell the story their own way'. She just didn't have the competence to do a good job I feel.
I think there is something else at play here. When people think about the Middle Ages they generally think of it as dark and gloomy. The bright colours that they actually used would be a contrast with the viewers’ expectations. The costume and set designs are designed to look authentic to a casual audience and not distract.
I think that's a direct consequence of how the entertainment industry insists on portraying the Middle Ages.
However I don't think people are such complete idiots as the executives seem to think.
Just add colours and the occasional sunshine. If the story is good, people will still watch. And the people who value authenticity will be pleased too. I think people are generally speaking quite aware that sunshine existed back then as well.
A lot of people would love Hollywood to just snap out of this, it would be so refreshing but they are terrified to try something new.
The BBC in association with the OU has made documentaries about the medieval period and I’ve seen the presenter specifically mention how the general audience does not expect bright colours in this era.
Exactly. If you want to tell your own stories and not stick to any accurate historical depiction of clothing or events just do some fictional work and go mad with whatever your heart desires.
If you’re claiming you’re doing a series about the assassination of JFK and put everyone in a suit of armour, have Princess Anne as his wife and make Lee Harvey Oswald Japanese you’re not doing a series about JFKs assassination.
I turned this off after twenty minutes. The facial hair swapping and hair style inaccuracy of the three main characters distracted and confused me. William’s magnificent mustache belonged on Harold, Harold’s clean shaven face on William and Edward’s hair on William. The story was muddled from the start. It’s a shame because the actor for William is such a fantastic actor and eye candy to boot.
I never expect much historical accuracy from shows but at a certain point I wonder why they bothered using the names of real people who existed rather than just making a totally fictional story.
It really would be. I just don't get why they are so hell-bent on portraying the Medieval Era in this deeply flawed way.
And it's not the audience's fault. It's the producers fault. The audience doesn't want this and they should stop pretending we do!
Elsewhere, in the gaming community, 'Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2' has been a roaring success among fans and critics alike. It prides itself in being historically accurate and indeed it does include all kinds of weather as well as a lot of colours.
So no, dear BBC / Hollywood / network executives. It's not us. It's you.
Yes, KCD 2 is colorful, bright, and so, so, so great. I’m so happy to have a medieval setting that’s full of color! The buildings, the people, the hats! Women wearing headscarves, clothing and decor matching social status and wealth, and they did such a great job with accuracy while dealing with the limitations of video games.
So many producers just underestimate the audience, and feel that they need to appeal to everyone, or nothing. I never mind fantasy shows having inaccuracy, it’s fantasy! But so much is sacrificed in historical shows because it’s not what they expect, or it’s not attractive to modern standards, or dramatic or “cool” enough.
Of course, people have been referring to the period as the dark ages since Petrarch, and the reformation and enlightenment usage has literally colored the non scholarly view so much, so I get why the general public is confused. But there’s been so much more research in the last century and it’s a disservice to think medieval = mud, brown, leather.
Also, Edward the Confessor murdering Emma of Normandy!! What the actual fuck. So glad I decided to skip this show.
I personally didn’t think they even had a costume designer. I genuinely thought they probably lacked the budget and were told to trawl the warehouse of old props and costumes from The Last Kingdom, The Tudors and any of the other period drama the BBC had a hand in at some point. I thought the same for the set design as well as it seemed to be a right haphazard mix of lots of old shit but nothing particularly 11th century or Anglo-Saxon.
As I’m now on my soapbox about the drama as a whole, and being a good ol’ Norfolk boy, it really grinds my gears about how much East Anglia gets sidelined in this, and other historical dramas (yes I’m bitter about TLK as well). Honourable mention to Kent as well, and Gryff for that matter, who pointlessly absent from the whole thing.
I’m also miffed about the frequent omission of East Anglia, what’s that about.
Norwich is a grand old place and was once more populous than London, but never gets a mention.
I was hoping to get at least something in Vikings, seeing as the Vikings raided the area with some ferocity and killed the king. But nah, not a word about it. Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria were front and centre in the show. East Anglia was not mentioned once!
That was clear when they cast black actors as Anglo Saxons. It’s fine in a show like The Great which makes it explicitly clear it’s just a bit of fun, but in a series that’s purporting to show real events it completely removes any trust I have in it to show these events accurately. If the way the characters look doesn’t matter to the show, why would any of the history?
I don’t mind race swapping fictional characters for the most part either. Severus Snape in the upcoming Harry Potter TV series being played by a black actor isn’t the problem plenty of people seem to think it is, as his race has no bearing on the plot at any point. When you’re race swapping real people, or fictional characters in a period piece though it makes me loose all respect for the series immediately.
I don't mind race swapping if the writing and acting are compelling enough (a whole different story). But to have the Earl of Mercia dressed like he belongs to a desert tribe on a different planet is so jarring that I could not in any way take it seriously. And on top of that he is so unremarkable in any way as a character that it is just plain awful
I’m sick of the drab, dark costumes. What happened to color? Is it that hard to take one trip to a museum or even do a bit of google research? Eye-popping colorful costumes would have distracted from what sounds like a boring show anyway. Shame, I was looking forward to watching this but looks like I’ll stick to the history books.
A great one they had years ago was Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire. Back when the BBC was great, its a great docu drama that still stands up well I think. It had great castings too, like Michael Sheen as Emperor Nero, Sean Pertwee as Julius Caesar, David Threlfall as Constantine the Great and others
There's so much wrong with it in many places, I let myself get really hyped for it but the stark contrast with something like Wolfhall is glaring.
It might just be me but I was left wondering if their portrayal of Edward the Confessor was some kind of jab at his piety tbh. Didn't agree with it at all.
Also speaking of costumes, why did Henry I, King of France apparently never have a crown or anything vaguely close to royal robes or appearance. He looked more like a shifty black market trader in his fur coat than a monarch.
How his story pans out... don't get me started.
Just such a wasted opportunity.
Time to go watch 1066, a year to conquer England, or the 1066 mini series narrated by Ian Holm, that's good stuff
I don’t know why they always make religious characters seem unusual in some way. It was the Middle Ages, everyone was religious. Do they think the audience is too stupid to relate to characters with different beliefs?
I remember The White Princess depicted Palm Trees in Burgundy and Margaret The Duchess wore a Cossack Papakha . I thought that was bad .
This one aside from the historical inaccuracy is just drab with all the browns and dark colors . The battle of Stamford Bridge is just a waste of time .
I didn't think it was boring per se, I thought they crammed so much and felt they had to explain every character motivation in a way modern audiences could relate (e.g Emma wants to kill the Godwinson family because they killed her historically inaccurate son, Harold goes back to England bc Edith is left behind) but ultimately I don't feel like it "clicked"
I don't know either... but my guess would be just pure laziness. Time pressure. Not having enough time to do proper research. Or they just didn't care, which is probably the most likely reason. It didn't feel important to them.
Basically he means, "If we made it historically accurate, then that means we need to actually put some effort in and research it and we just couldn't be arsed"
I was so hyped for this series. I am super tolerant of historical inaccuracies but it was awful. I was a huge fan of the Last Kingdom which is historical fiction but very fun, Vikings and even Valhalla were entertaining despite ridiculous anachronisms.
This was dull, poorly written and shallow. It just kept getting worse. Edward was a dribbling idiot who kills Emma of Normandy.
Stamford bridge was an utter wash. Not only was there no giant viking on the bridge. There wasn't even a fucking bridge.
They ignored all the amazing drama of medieval chronicles and replaced it with made up nonsense. At least Ridley Scott makes shit up to make it a spectacle and add drama, this show actually does the opposite.
It's not like they don't know how to make something decent. The White Princess was a very slow burn but you really invest in the characters.
I genuinely think they used ChatGPT to write the script. I'm absolutely fuming ... 🤣🤣🤣
The top left painting doesn’t really make the case. They’re almost all wearing black or dark grey, some brown. It’s just the shields that are colourful. I’m sure it varied over the vast time and space of mediaeval Europe, too
I could be wrong, but the comparison picture showing medieval 'colors' look like they're from the fifteenth century, hundreds of years after the events they're being compared to. I agree with the general thrust of the criticism here, but some of this outrage is pretty anachronistic too.
110
u/richmeister6666 1d ago
It’s a horrible half way house between wanting to be game of thrones whilst simultaneously depicting one of the best researched and widely taught periods in British history. The depiction of three of the most interesting men in that period - Godwin, Edward and Harold hadraada as mere caricatures is infuriating. Let’s also forget the ahistorical nonsense, like Edward killing his mother or being married to a woman who was actually a nun in real life. I liked how it portrayed Harold, though, who’s usually portrayed as a bit useless/hapless in my opinion.