MovieChat Forums > The Devil's Whore (2008) Discussion > A man is shot for not standing up agains...

A man is shot for not standing up against the enemy or his wife?

posted 15 years ago by marktreut
11 replies | jump to latest

There is a scene in this series when a Royalist couple comes under siege by the Roundheads. The Roundheads tell them that if they simply leave then there will be no need to fight. The husband announces that he will fight and tells his wife to leave and join the King at Oxford. The wife refuses to leave unless he goes with her or else she will stay and fight as well. The husband finally gives in and they go to Oxford together.

In Oxford the King is told this story and tells the wife that she will not be welcome at court again. He then tells the husband that he should have stood up to her and he is taken out and shot.

Is this fiction or does it have a basis in reality?

[–] syntinen 15 years ago

Total fiction. There were ladies who had to defend their houses in the Civil war, but no such marital dispute as this is known to have taken place. Certainly the King never had any of his supporters shot for surrendering their houses, nor would he have dreamt of doing so.

[–] austendw 15 years ago

I suppose we can be grateful that Charles hasn't (yet) demonstrated his wickedness by torturing the spaniels, but this scene was a serviceable equivalent.

Call me Ishmael...

[–] andyg35 15 years ago

I think I've read about a couple of instances where Royalist landowners were ostracized after capitulating a little too easily, but nothing about Charles having them shot. Mind you, if he'd merely rebuked the lad and sent him packing we wouldn't be getting the "wronged female takes to the highways and becomes an unconvincing highwayperson" that tonight's show promises. What a Wicked Lady she is :)

AndyG

[–] persistenceofvision 15 years ago

They should've just shot him for being annoying.

[–] mezzogrl 11 years ago

For reals! He was super annoying!

Nobody likes a blonde in a hamster ball.

[–] davidwoodall 15 years ago

I think I've read about a couple of instances where Royalist landowners were ostracized after capitulating a little too easily

Prince Rupert for one - even though he didn't surrender Bristol easily at all. Charles could be a very unforgiving man.

[–] syntinen 15 years ago

As Charles himself might have put it: ostracism and a firing squad are clear different things!

[–] marktreut 15 years ago

Thank you for these answers. I always thought of Charles I as being a bit of an idiot but not necessarily cruel. Thank you again.

Marktreut

[–] davidwoodall 15 years ago

Well, Charles did make extensive use of the Court of Star Chamber, which was notorious for its use of torture and vicious punishments (flogging, branding, ear-cropping), so he was certainly no fluffy bunny! To what extend he can be held personally accountable for such cruelty is a matter for debate.

[–] k.m.bunting 11 years ago

Actually, this incident is loosely based on a real case. Col. Francis Windebank surrendered Bletchingdon House without a fight, apparently to protect his young wife and some of her visiting girl friends from violence. He was shot, but it was after being court-martialled, not on a whim of the King's.
Several incidents in this drama were similarly inspired by actual events, but with the details and people changed.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Interesting.