Accuracy?


Aside from the French Revolution, I haven't read much of France's history. Anyone know how accurate this is, historically?

reply

It;s dramatized a lot, like most history shows.




Humankind cannot bear very much reality. ~T.S. Eliot

reply

Apparently the kings brother in the series is played like a homosexual. Dunno whether thats true in real life cause he was a married man. But its considered cool and trendy now by the liberal media to put gays in everything.

reply

"Unabashedly effeminate and preferentially homosexual, he nonetheless fulfilled his dynastic duty by marrying twice and begetting several children" Admittedly, wiki's not always the most reliable but this same conclusion seems to be in most texts of Phillippe.

reply

E was definitely gay in real life

reply

he's more like bisexual in the show, since he willingly sleeps with women, too.

reply

Being forced to marry for dynastic procreation and to keep rumors that would have one killed/imprisoned for sodomy hardly counts as being bisexual. Bisexuality is being attracted to both genders, not simply being capable of performing sexually with both or marrying in an opposite gender relationship because it was required/expected.

Please stop inflicting bisexual interpretations on historic men who show every evidence of being homosexual/gay. Compulsory heterosexuality isn't bisexuality. And simply being able to 'get it up' enough to sire children isn't evidence either. Most gay men, even today, are not 'gold star' gay and have histories of sleeping with or attempting relationships with women.

reply

i know what bisexuality is, since i'm bisexual.

in the show he chooses to sleep with women, both henriette and the maid. in real life we would never know whether he was bisexual or gay.

Please stop inflicting bisexual interpretations on historic men who show every evidence of being homosexual/gay.


please stop the bisexual erasure.

reply

You can take your liberal-bashing somewhere else: "Monsieur" as we called at the court, was indeed homosexual. I guess even you can understand that in 17th century France, all aristocrats had to marry a decent lady just for the sake of image and reproduction. Him being homosexual (or bisexual) was "tolerated" because he was the King's brother.

______________________________________
The higher you fly, the faster you fall.

reply

A fair bit is based on unlikely rumours (like the black baby and Henriette's poisoning) and the Huguenot rebellion is a bit of an anachronistic what-if (the Rohans were Huguenot conspirators but there were none in court at this time).

A lot of it is true though, and the general premise and foreign situation are accurate enough.

And yes, Philippe d'Orleans and the Chevalier certainly were lovers. Homosexual affairs among the nobles and royals have been commonplace throughout history, although to suggest that they were 'gay' in the way that modern society views it would be a misunderstanding.

reply

"although to suggest that they were 'gay' in the way that modern society views it would be a misunderstanding."

I'm thinking his preference for having sex with men would make him gay in the modern sense also.

reply

Phillipe was definitely openly gay "in that way" though. Many historical accounts of him claim that he wore his sexuality in bold colours.

I was admittedly surprised at how openly gay he was but it's not historically inaccurate and it is *definitely not a gay propaganda by the media* or whatever bs one person commented in this thread..

reply

It is not very accurate at all according to many reviewers.

It's that man again!!

reply

Most reviewers aren't historians. It's definitely not a documentary. Some scenes are based on rumors rather than facts (the Queen's black baby in the first ep), some historical facts are condensed or left out. And there are some non-historical characters in the cast. But a lot that happens in the series is historically true.

A lot of actual historians are fans of the show including the two people Greg Jenner & Kate Williams who are talking about the real Versailles after the show.

My recommendation though is look at the show as a gateway to that period. If you really want to learn the whole truth there are many great books on the subject.

reply

It's quite lazily inaccurate. One of the courtiers complains about Versailles because there are no restaurants. The scene is set in 1667. The first proper restaurant didn't open until 1765.

reply

Apparently your research is off as well

https://www.thrillist.com/eat/paris/the-11-oldest-restaurants-in-paris

The first restaurant opening is 1765 has been disputed. There is no actual proof.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1353970/Origins-of-first-restaurant-challenged-after-200-years.html

reply

I was wondering when the "Accuracy Police" would show up...



Wearing my 'fro as high as it will go

reply

I believe it is only natural to be curious about what one is watching. Not everyone has books readily available to dig up info about world history.

reply

It's dramatized, embellished, romanticized and exaggerated.

Their mannerisms are a little off since aristocrats were taught and trained to talk, walk, and act a certain way. Many of the actors fail that. They could probably find ancient French etiquette book, something that show how to walk, talk and act like a gentleman/lady of high society.

can't outrun your own shadow

reply