The Countess of Buckingham molds her son to seduce King James I and become his all-powerful lover through intrigue; to become richer, more titled and influential than England has ever seen.The Countess of Buckingham molds her son to seduce King James I and become his all-powerful lover through intrigue; to become richer, more titled and influential than England has ever seen.The Countess of Buckingham molds her son to seduce King James I and become his all-powerful lover through intrigue; to become richer, more titled and influential than England has ever seen.
- Nominated for 1 Primetime Emmy
- 9 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
The first two episodes I loved. Cutting dialogue, smart humour, silly sexiness... it reminded me of why I used to love shows on Starz like Spartacus.
Escapism, basically.
The production values are top notch, through location shooting and costuming it felt realistic. But measured by that humour that I mentioned, I know not to take it too seriously as a documentary. Just go along for the ride.
In terms of casting I want to particularly note Julianne Moore is amazing and Nicola Walker as Lady Hatton proves she is one of our top talents.
But the weird thing is... it got boring, and serious. It did a bait and switch. It started off as a dark comedy then turned into a rather sober and serious take on history.
Julianne Moore - the initial anchor, so funny - just becomes an extra almost in the later episodes. And they create a plot for her that feels a step too far even within the silliness of the plot.
And the show stumbles on them goes out on a daft whimper.
I think the hardest thing for me is the change in tone. Witty dialogue/humour of the first few episodes gives way to melodrama. It's like they started with one show, and changed their minds halfway through. For a show of only six episodes is jarring. This isn't a show that has seasons to build motivations and change characters.
It's not a terrible show by any means. And as I said production value wise it's very good. It's just a shame it couldn't make out what it is in such a short span of episodes.
Escapism, basically.
The production values are top notch, through location shooting and costuming it felt realistic. But measured by that humour that I mentioned, I know not to take it too seriously as a documentary. Just go along for the ride.
In terms of casting I want to particularly note Julianne Moore is amazing and Nicola Walker as Lady Hatton proves she is one of our top talents.
But the weird thing is... it got boring, and serious. It did a bait and switch. It started off as a dark comedy then turned into a rather sober and serious take on history.
Julianne Moore - the initial anchor, so funny - just becomes an extra almost in the later episodes. And they create a plot for her that feels a step too far even within the silliness of the plot.
And the show stumbles on them goes out on a daft whimper.
I think the hardest thing for me is the change in tone. Witty dialogue/humour of the first few episodes gives way to melodrama. It's like they started with one show, and changed their minds halfway through. For a show of only six episodes is jarring. This isn't a show that has seasons to build motivations and change characters.
It's not a terrible show by any means. And as I said production value wise it's very good. It's just a shame it couldn't make out what it is in such a short span of episodes.
Practically concerned with George Villiers and his mother, Mary, as they traverse the wild post-Elizabeth 1 monarchy, and try to improve their standings in court by attaching George as the next-in-line male concubine of the King James, son of Mary Queen of Scott.
I think it was very well noted how George took advantage of the King James's and Charles I's affection. Unlike the show, it was unanimously seen unfavorably. A lot of his charms are pretty much publicized with the vast number of arts pieces centered around him. His mother was less written about, but the characterization was similar to the show - greedy and ambitious, deeply unpopular.
The writing is meant to show the messiness of it all, and it works for the most part since it is really salacious history. This was meant as a show of flesh and trashiness. It is a not that inspired if you think about it BUT its hits enough checkmark for fun tv viewing. I would say that it could have been less on the nose, with all the mother knows best storytelling AND could have made paced the storytelling for the first and last two episodes better but it is what it is.
Also, a lot of other reviews are really riled up by its historical inaccuracies BUT I think you watch this not for those reason. It was not meant to be this deep show anyhow.
Acting wise, I still find Galatzine not that good. He has his moment but I felt that he strays in moments of ineptitude. Its so glaring sometimes that he looks like he does not know what emotion should he show in a scene. He should thank god his pretty because I think that was the only prompt he stood well on. I think Moore and Curran faired better but pretty much was phoning it in with 'camp' aspect. They are in the end, somewhat of a caricature.
Overall, I think this is fair introduction to the Villiers. Reading about them a lot, and I think they are fascinating. If I would compare it to what I saw, there clearly is a huge real estate that the show jumped out off BUT this would be fun if your into this kind of material. Recommended.
I think it was very well noted how George took advantage of the King James's and Charles I's affection. Unlike the show, it was unanimously seen unfavorably. A lot of his charms are pretty much publicized with the vast number of arts pieces centered around him. His mother was less written about, but the characterization was similar to the show - greedy and ambitious, deeply unpopular.
The writing is meant to show the messiness of it all, and it works for the most part since it is really salacious history. This was meant as a show of flesh and trashiness. It is a not that inspired if you think about it BUT its hits enough checkmark for fun tv viewing. I would say that it could have been less on the nose, with all the mother knows best storytelling AND could have made paced the storytelling for the first and last two episodes better but it is what it is.
Also, a lot of other reviews are really riled up by its historical inaccuracies BUT I think you watch this not for those reason. It was not meant to be this deep show anyhow.
Acting wise, I still find Galatzine not that good. He has his moment but I felt that he strays in moments of ineptitude. Its so glaring sometimes that he looks like he does not know what emotion should he show in a scene. He should thank god his pretty because I think that was the only prompt he stood well on. I think Moore and Curran faired better but pretty much was phoning it in with 'camp' aspect. They are in the end, somewhat of a caricature.
Overall, I think this is fair introduction to the Villiers. Reading about them a lot, and I think they are fascinating. If I would compare it to what I saw, there clearly is a huge real estate that the show jumped out off BUT this would be fun if your into this kind of material. Recommended.
Sky & STARZ are good at making historical dramas, not the great ones, though. Especially when STARZ writes works based on what really happened in history, the storyline is linear and one-dimensional. It never challenges itself to be something great. There are some good sides. Thanks to the effort from STARZ, I actually researched actual historical materials to delve deeper and to know in detail what really happened (The White Princess, Becoming Elizabeth, Gaslit, and etc.). The funny thing is that research and reading books are way much more interesting and exciting than watching the series made by STARZ.
'Mary & George' is the trendiest of all (maybe because it's produced the latest). Editing is straightforward and fashionable. Scenes cut to unexpected but real moments rather than explaining everything in between. My favorite scene is the very first scene of the first episode. Mary, who is still connected to George by umbilical cord says "Before I cut you free, what should I call you?". It gives me chills and sums up the whole seven episodes of the relationship between Mary and George. She never lets him free till everything including George is ruined. Iconic scene.
'Mary & George' is the trendiest of all (maybe because it's produced the latest). Editing is straightforward and fashionable. Scenes cut to unexpected but real moments rather than explaining everything in between. My favorite scene is the very first scene of the first episode. Mary, who is still connected to George by umbilical cord says "Before I cut you free, what should I call you?". It gives me chills and sums up the whole seven episodes of the relationship between Mary and George. She never lets him free till everything including George is ruined. Iconic scene.
Julianne Moore is wickedly delicious as Mary Villiers, a somewhat noble mother of four who had her sights set on rising above the ranks of nobility with the help of her son, George (cheeky performance from Nicholas Galitzine, who at last sinks his teeth into a real role).
Together, mother and son plot and weave their way through the depraved King Charles' court (Tony Curran effective as the king). What unveils before ones very eyes will fascinate those who seek not to judge, but watch in a perverse sense of wonderment how this all took place in the 17th century.
Creator and writer, D. C. Moore, has crafted a telling tale of what could have occurred behind the King's golden secret doors, delivering treachery of the highest order and other wild shenanigans one has to endure in order to climb that royal social ladder.
Together, mother and son plot and weave their way through the depraved King Charles' court (Tony Curran effective as the king). What unveils before ones very eyes will fascinate those who seek not to judge, but watch in a perverse sense of wonderment how this all took place in the 17th century.
Creator and writer, D. C. Moore, has crafted a telling tale of what could have occurred behind the King's golden secret doors, delivering treachery of the highest order and other wild shenanigans one has to endure in order to climb that royal social ladder.
👑 Ignore ALL those reviewers that claim this 7 hour miniseries isn't excellent.. Because it most definitely IS. Those viewers are just "morality-entertainment police" who allow their moral judgment to paint their views on superb cinematic art. They obviously HATE the Fact that this historical miniseries is based on the King James who we know as the man behind the King James Version of the Bible that most modern Christians use as their most prized edition. Given that King James was historically a well known extreme homosexual who surrounded himself with handsome younger men to fulfill his sexual needs daily. This theatrical quality level 7 hour film shows what we already know, that royalty over the centuries is filled with Betrayal, Corruption, Cruelty, Murder, Ambition, Sex, Manipulations, and Lust For Power at Any Cost. But, what this movie has to offer is Superb Performances by a very professional cast led by Julianne Moore in a very juicy diabolical lead role. Also, a very enigmatic performance by Nicholas Galitzine as her son who is a pawn in his mother's chess game for power and wealth. The production is very detailed and wonderfully written. Locations, Sets, Costumes are historically accurate. You can't go wrong with this handsome production and its not an accident that it's been critically acclaimed around the world at every Film Festival it played in. Don't Miss It (and forget about those morality police)
Did you know
- TriviaEven given the taboos both of the historical period and of the next several centuries of research into and writing about history, there is a fair amount of historical documentation of contemporary rumors and reports that King James I (played in this series by Tony Curran) was gay, or perhaps bisexual, giving a historical basis to this aspect of his depiction in "Mary & George." His close relationships with a series of male courtiers were often remarked-upon in letters and other documents of the day. Two of the men whom many historians agree were likely his lovers are depicted in this series: Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset (Laurie Davidson) and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (Nicholas Galitzine); Sir John Oglander, a contemporary politician and diarist, wrote that James "is the chastest prince for women that ever was, for he would often swear that he never kissed any other woman than his own queen. I never yet saw any fond husband make so much or so great dalliance over his beautiful spouse as I have seen King James over his favourites, especially the Duke of Buckingham," and a Royal Navy officer, Edward Peyton, observed James "tumble and kiss [George] as a mistress" in view of the court. James I was the same King James who sponsored the translation of the Bible that is still known today as "the King James Bible," which is another reason that religious interests may have been eager to deny or expunge from history the possibility that James was gay or bisexual.
- GoofsLord and Lady Somerset have Scottish accents when in reality the real life couple and the actors that play them were and are English.
- ConnectionsFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 TV Shows of 2024 (So Far) (2024)
- How many seasons does Mary & George have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime
- 1h(60 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content