The true story of Angelica Fanshawe, they say it is, but that is secondary to the real interest of this mini-series. Born close to the royal court of Charles I, married within that closed sanctuary, closed especially to what other people may think, and particularly repressive with all those that represented some kind of danger for the crown, she was confronted with a time when truth was the master word of everyone, love the premium of every one and yet the everyday reality was sectarianism and violence directed at all those who differed from you, no matter where you stood.
Her story could be reduced to a series of husbands or to a series of man friends or to a series of failures with a successful birth at the end. That's what makes this film striking if not shocking at times with the extreme confrontation of the audience to excessive violence and all other types of executions, corporeal punishments, absolute deprivation of everything, victimization and injustice. And there is not one camp in this full array of differences that is better than the others.
But I think this film goes a long way beyond these details and gritty small impressive elements. First of all it is rather clear on the "constitutional debate". The king is of divine nature and has no reason to share his power which is divine and absolute. Parliament, not clearly identified as the representative of the upcoming merchant bourgeoisie whose power was founded on the possession of the merchant fleet, of practically all ships in England, and the control over all sailors, is unable to get out of its small petty meaningless, except for them of course, effete and useless debate on some obtuse religious questions like predestination and the Eucharist, holy sacraments and contact with god, and eventually the right of the people (what people when parliament was elected by a few tens of thousands of propertied people?) to dismiss the king if his connection with the people (what people again.) got discontinued. They were no longer in touch, if they had ever been, with the needs and desires of simple people.
The film insists in fact a lot on the Levelers, those people who defended the idea that the land was the property of those who tilled it and that everyone was supposed to share equally with everyone else. They were hunted by the king's men because they were seen as the most dangerous anti-royal enemies since they wanted the end of monarchy and the shift to an equalitarian republic. On the other side they were equally hunted by Cromwell's supporters because Cromwell was not for a republic, was a direct representative of the mercantile bourgeoisie and was against equal sharing, and yet at the same time he was not for a republic and believed deep in himself this country could only be one-handedly governed by a single man, which he resigned to do himself when no compromise could be found with the king.
The film is absolutely silent, alas, on the various wars in their details: the two civil wars, and then the Irish war and then the Scottish war and then the war with Spain. The first two were against the king and ended with his bodily shortening. The next one was a bloody massacre based on the idea that Catholics had fallen down to lower than animals since they were able to let their own children starve, if not help them a little bit. The Scottish episode is not represented and the Spanish caper is not even mentioned because it confirmed a radical change that had started under Elizabeth I when she had to mobilize the country against Spain. In both cases the Parliament was the key to that demand because the owners of the ships and the employers of the sailors were all directly in parliament or represented in and by parliament. So Elizabeth gave some powers to parliament over taxation for example, in order to get what she wanted: ships and sailors. Cromwell went even further. He had to summon and convene a parliament he had violently disbanded.
Why forget these events that are just coming to the beginning of the end in Ireland, that was solved in Scotland with devolution, and that is the basis of the tremendous move England was able to initiate in the Christian world towards a democratic parliamentary elective system that will take fifty years after the Glorious Revolution (1660) to establish fundamental human rights like Habeas Corpus, the freedom of the press and of publication. That's a shortcoming of great size in the film but that does not prevent us from feeling the happy ending of the Commonwealth in the Glorious Revolution that was to bring a new batch of difficulties and this time the peaceful revocation of the king by parliament in a law that will establish the first constitutional monarchy in the world, a real first step towards the American Revolution and then the French Revolution.
After this period no one could say like Charles I: "Give me one instance of a king being dismissed by a parliament!" Charles I was the first in 1649. James II will be the second in 1688. That's really the end of feudalism and its theory of absolute kings by divine appointment.
But nevertheless the show is beautifully filmed and grandiosely performed.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Her story could be reduced to a series of husbands or to a series of man friends or to a series of failures with a successful birth at the end. That's what makes this film striking if not shocking at times with the extreme confrontation of the audience to excessive violence and all other types of executions, corporeal punishments, absolute deprivation of everything, victimization and injustice. And there is not one camp in this full array of differences that is better than the others.
But I think this film goes a long way beyond these details and gritty small impressive elements. First of all it is rather clear on the "constitutional debate". The king is of divine nature and has no reason to share his power which is divine and absolute. Parliament, not clearly identified as the representative of the upcoming merchant bourgeoisie whose power was founded on the possession of the merchant fleet, of practically all ships in England, and the control over all sailors, is unable to get out of its small petty meaningless, except for them of course, effete and useless debate on some obtuse religious questions like predestination and the Eucharist, holy sacraments and contact with god, and eventually the right of the people (what people when parliament was elected by a few tens of thousands of propertied people?) to dismiss the king if his connection with the people (what people again.) got discontinued. They were no longer in touch, if they had ever been, with the needs and desires of simple people.
The film insists in fact a lot on the Levelers, those people who defended the idea that the land was the property of those who tilled it and that everyone was supposed to share equally with everyone else. They were hunted by the king's men because they were seen as the most dangerous anti-royal enemies since they wanted the end of monarchy and the shift to an equalitarian republic. On the other side they were equally hunted by Cromwell's supporters because Cromwell was not for a republic, was a direct representative of the mercantile bourgeoisie and was against equal sharing, and yet at the same time he was not for a republic and believed deep in himself this country could only be one-handedly governed by a single man, which he resigned to do himself when no compromise could be found with the king.
The film is absolutely silent, alas, on the various wars in their details: the two civil wars, and then the Irish war and then the Scottish war and then the war with Spain. The first two were against the king and ended with his bodily shortening. The next one was a bloody massacre based on the idea that Catholics had fallen down to lower than animals since they were able to let their own children starve, if not help them a little bit. The Scottish episode is not represented and the Spanish caper is not even mentioned because it confirmed a radical change that had started under Elizabeth I when she had to mobilize the country against Spain. In both cases the Parliament was the key to that demand because the owners of the ships and the employers of the sailors were all directly in parliament or represented in and by parliament. So Elizabeth gave some powers to parliament over taxation for example, in order to get what she wanted: ships and sailors. Cromwell went even further. He had to summon and convene a parliament he had violently disbanded.
Why forget these events that are just coming to the beginning of the end in Ireland, that was solved in Scotland with devolution, and that is the basis of the tremendous move England was able to initiate in the Christian world towards a democratic parliamentary elective system that will take fifty years after the Glorious Revolution (1660) to establish fundamental human rights like Habeas Corpus, the freedom of the press and of publication. That's a shortcoming of great size in the film but that does not prevent us from feeling the happy ending of the Commonwealth in the Glorious Revolution that was to bring a new batch of difficulties and this time the peaceful revocation of the king by parliament in a law that will establish the first constitutional monarchy in the world, a real first step towards the American Revolution and then the French Revolution.
After this period no one could say like Charles I: "Give me one instance of a king being dismissed by a parliament!" Charles I was the first in 1649. James II will be the second in 1688. That's really the end of feudalism and its theory of absolute kings by divine appointment.
But nevertheless the show is beautifully filmed and grandiosely performed.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU