Roberta wrote:It's more likely that they take liberties because they assume that no one knows. It's my experience that many Americans have enough trouble with U.S. history let alone the history of long-dead British monarchs.
I think the ignorance of directors and producers plays a big part, too. They want a compelling soap opera. Frankly, the entire course of monarchical history in England from 1066 until Victoria's accession in 1837 is one long soap opera--for someone who actually knows the history, you just can't improve on the original story.
The Ken Burns'
The Civil War "documentary" on PBS was full of holes, and laced with a lot of silly claptrap which showed that Burns was either ignorant or lazy--he completely bought, hook, line and sinker, the Joshuah Chamberlain bullshit self-promotion version of Gettysburg, for example (don't get me started). There was also a documentary (also PBS) about the American Revolution. At one point, an historian was on screen commenting on the fact that Washington showed up at the Second Continental Congress in his Virginia Militia uniform from the French and Indian War, and commented rather condescendingly that he was advertising for the job of commander of the Continental Army. So, so what? That was what people did in such situations in the 18th century, and it was expected--and most people already had Washington in mind for the job; they'd have been surprised if he hadn't lobbied for the job.
She then commented that Washington's military experience did not qualify him for the post. I've seen this sort of thing all my life. Washington is genuinely a larger-than-life figure in history, and was truly unique; it seems that many historians, being inescapably "small" people who won't be remembered have some sort of compulsion to attempt to belittle someone who was truly great.
She commented that his early experience was building a fort in a bad position, surrendering the fort when he could have held it, signing a surrender document in French which he couldn't read and did not understand was an admission that he had conspired to murder a diplomat, and that he subsequently commanded a string of widely-separated garrisons which he found it difficult to maintain. All of this is true, but it was rather a stupid comment on her part. We should be glad that Washington got all of his mistakes out of the way in a war which was not lost because of them. He was not a man to make the same mistakes twice. In that war, when he was only a young man in his early 20s, he learned everything he needed to know to accomplish the almost hopeless task which faced him as commander of the Continental Army.
Almost hopeless, but not quite, because Washington knew how to deal with defeat (the army under the command of Braddock which the French defeated in 1755 was only saved because Washington kept his head and lead them back to Virginia and safety). He knew how to keep a force in the field on slim to no supplies and support from the government. He knew how to deal with subordinates and superiors whose only interest was their own vanity and venality. In short, in his service from 1753 to 1758 he learned every lesson he would need to do his job from 1775 to 1783.
We get crap historical "documentaries" both because producers and directors are ignorant of history, and have little interest in accuracy, and a lot of interest in drama and excitement. Genuine history has more drama and excitement than screen writers can dream up. We also get crap historical "documentaries" because academic historians are so eager to get their mugs in front of the camera, and to demonstrate their 20-20 hindsight.
No surprises here.
