King & Conqueror

Why oh why would you take an already amazing historical story and completely change it to a work of fiction?? The writers and creators already had the REAL story before them so why change it so the programme becomes historically inaccurate? It renders the programme pointless. It infuriates me that we had the chance to have an incredible show about one of Englands greatest events yet some high up corporate big wig has decided to waste money, time and a chance at retelling this story. No surprise there with the BBC really. I really hope we get a proper retelling of William the Conqueror in the future where the writers, you know, actually just stick to the historical facts.

I love historic dramas and was looking forward to one set at the time of the Norman Conquest of England.

The story is in no way historically accurate, but I don't mind that, as long as it is well written and believable. The problem is it is not believable - the use of race inappropriate actors for the period totally breaks immersion. Why bother with period costumes if they are going to change the race of characters? Both are equally important for a believable period drama.

There is no evidence at all of Africans at the Battle of Hastings and none in the Norman or Saxon armies. In no way was England "diverse" in the 11th Century.

In the film Prey all Native Americans were played by actors of Native American heritage, in Shogun all Japanese characters were played by amazing Japanese actors. The same respect should be given to white European dramas. I am fed up with these double standards.

I wish this had been a reasonably historically accurate show. Sadly, it was not. The factual telling could be as dramatic and better told. Instead loads of people will think they know the history but they know only this. Some great actors. Like the costumes. A missed opportunity in my opinion. Maybe someone else will tell the real story of this place and time.

I so wanted this to be great but immediately you can tell its been knocked together on a budget.

The locations are unconvincing. Scenery is non existent. Journeys that would take days or weeks are made in what appears 10 minutes.

Heavy with exposition because its so poorly written nobody can tell who's who and what the plot is until episode 3 The acting is hammy and bordering on Horrible Histories. Juliet Stevenson thinks she's in Game of Thrones.

Tired old comical clichés like: "we ride out at dawn"

King Edward is a cartoon character and far from the real personality who was on the contrary a very astute , well respected and pious King who established Westminster Abbey and his tomb takes pride of place in it.

William has no charisma whatsoever and the Godwin's dialect is an anachronistic 2020's Estuary English.

This should have been the quality of Wolf Hall or the Hollow Crown.

Its more like Carry on in Normandy.

Sometimes a historical drama gets a few things wrong but is still absorbing and piques one's curiosity about the period. Not here. This is no Wolf Hall. This series is so ahistorical and melodramatic that it's just an insult to viewers. The on and off bromance between Harald and William is farfetched, and every encounter rings false. The known events of this period seem to be distorted or changed outright, when the truth would have been more interesting (see, e.g. Harald's brother Tostig). Then there is the inclusionary casting (the Mercians especially) and the scenes either exaggerating the role of women or voicing frustration with their political status. Of course there is a gay romance. The timeline is absurdly condensed and travel absurdly easy. This version of 1066 is happening in a different dimension. Worst of all is the contrived relationship between the two frenemies, Harald and William.

Why does this show pretend that it's historical? Why not change all the names (they did change at least one) and present it as fully fictional? Actual fiction by Bernard Cornwell or George R. R. Martin has more history in it than this soap opera and is more enjoyable.