This or "A Man for All Seasons"?
Somewhat similar historical dramas, came out in roughly the same time period. Both based on plays.
~ That's much too vulgar a display of power, Karras.
LiW every time.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Lion in Winter (1968) Discussion > This or "A Man for All Seasons"?
they're both good films, but I find The Lion in Winter more entertaining.
shareA Man for All Seasons. It is less showy, but is the stronger film for it. Plus, it has Orson Welles in it. ---It wants no straps. - Karlhttp://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000024/nest/158601447
shareBoth are absolutely fabulous films! The acting in both movies is breathtaking! In my opinion, Lion is Katherine Hepburn's finest performance!
shareFor me, "Seasons". "Lion" had good production values, as well as a solid cast, but the basic premise was historically inaccurate. In royal families, BIRTH ORDER determines who is in line for the throne, not the whims of the parents!
shareNot in the 12th century, it didn't; at that time it was still the king's prerogative to nominate his successor, and if he didn't do that before his death the council of the kingdom would do so. The eldest son had no automatically better claim. Nor did the king have to have one son succeed to everything: he could divide his various realms between them, as William the Conqueror did when he left Normandy to his eldest son and England to the second.
In fact Henry had chosen his eldest son, another Henry, as his successor, and to put that succession beyond dispute he had had Young Henry crowned king alongside him; this was a normal ploy at the time. But - as Richard mentions in this film - Young Henry died first, which left the succession up for grabs again. Henry favoured John, Eleanor favoured Richard, nobody seems to have considered Geoffrey. All that part of this film is perfectly true to history.
Good post, again, syntinen.
Vaguely connected, only found out this weekend that in the Channel Isles, our current Sovereign also has the title Duke of Normandy! (Wonder what the French think of that!)
I rather think they shrug and say 'Bof!'
By the end of 12th-century Europe the question of royal succession was quite a vexed one. Originally, in Northern Europe the system has been for the new king to be elected from among the adult males of the royal kin-group (the word king actually derives from kin); the idea being that you got the strongest, most capable man. The trouble with this theoretically admirable system was that the candidates routinely slaughtered each other in order to become the obvious choice, and things got very messy. So eventually it became obvious that some fixed rule of succession was the only way: but what rule? Straight primogeniture? Was closeness in blood to the previous king more important, in which case a brother might be preferred to a grandson? Salic Law, yes or no? Was a younger son of a king whose mother had been of royal blood trump an elder son whose mother had only been a count's daughter? Did being born after your father had inherited the crown, so that you had been a king's son all your life, make you more royal than an elder brother who had been born a mere king's grandson? (After his coronation, Henry the Young King actually claimed he was better than his father, because he was a king's son whereas Henry II was only a count's son. That went down like a lead balloon with Daddy, as you can imagine.)
… Especially as Daddy's mother, Queen Maude (who lived until 1167, so some of the children would have known her), had been, by her first marriage, an Empress.
"Active but Odd"