MovieChat Forums > Mary Queen of Scots (2018) Discussion > Where there actually blacks back then in...

Where there actually blacks back then in the 1500's...


that weren't in slavery/chained? I saw like 2-3 blacks in the trailer.

reply

I don't think slavery was big in UK, they had serfs. Imagine the protests, "they took our jobs!".

reply

Hmm, you could be right. I thought England, France, Spain were the main instigators of slavery with colonialism since they were the powerhouses back then and then brought it over to the new world (America). Strange stuff. I guess some lived somewhat decently well off there.

reply

probably not enslaved but certainly non existent or nowhere near any form of prominence, I don't think I've ever seen a single painting or engraving from the period depicting a black person.

reply

There are many paintings from Tudor England depicting blacks. I think the court was quite fascinated by them
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/29/tudor-english-black-not-slave-in-sight-miranda-kaufmann-history

reply

There's an article on Atlas Obscura about black people in Tudor England. There weren't a lot, but apparently there were a few, and there were a couple in the court of Henry VIII. The article cites the historical sources, and shows some contemporary pictures.

I'd post a link if I weren't on my phone, but if you Google "Atlas Obscura Tudor" or something, you'll find it without a link.

reply

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/29/tudor-english-black-not-slave-in-sight-miranda-kaufmann-history

reply

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/black-african-tudors-england

Back on my laptop.


And honestly, I don't see why people are all worked up about a few extras. There are people elsewhere going on and on and on about political correctness and historical inaccuracy, and who cant be arsed to check and see if there actually WERE people in Tudor England who weren't white. Dipshits, all of them.

reply

When something (or someone, as the case may be) sticks out, it distracts. That's why people get worked up about "a few extras". If extras were so insignificant, the movies wouldn't include them in the first place.

And sure, there were a handful of black people around, but these days there's a trend - and people are well aware of this trend - to be as inclusive as possible, for the sake of diversity. This inevitably gives one the impression that the message is diversity (which it kind of is, let's be honest), rather than the story itself. It becomes... preachy.

Let me also point out that there is a black person in virtually every shot in the trailer, in all sorts of social and/or political position. Courtiers, chamber maids, sergeants... Considering that Elizabeth was particularly prejudiced against them and wanted them out (as per the article you yourself linked to), and considering that black people were hardly ever even seen by the vast majority of her subjects (again, as per the article you yourself linked to), it is correct to call historical inaccuracy. And as they are in virtually every shot (especially in the trailer), it is all the more obvious that they are making a very deliberate point of including black people. In other words... preachy.

reply

Funny how in a film that features such historical inaccuracies as Elizabeth and Mary meeting in person, modern dentistry and cosmetics, Mary speaking in a Scottish accent instead of a French one (she's grown up in the French court), etc., some people are only bothered by skin color.


Of course, those are the only historical accuracies that really stick out of the one-minute trailer! I'm sure there are more in the finished film, and I'm also sure that they will pass uncommented-upon, while some people will continue to post paragraph after paragraph over weeks and months about how much the skin color issue bothers them. Funny about that.

reply

Who says I'm only bothered by skin colour? I've watched the trailer, and was utterly unimpressed. There was nothing in it I remotely liked. And I like Tudor history. Do you think I have NO criticisms of, say, the Tudors, the various movies on Elizabeth I, or other historical pieces? According to your logic, because there weren't any black people in them, I ought to LOVE those, right?

I'm sure there are more in the finished film, and I'm also sure that they will pass uncommented-upon,

Have a gander on the boards of any other historical piece of fiction. I don't think you have. Go to the Braveheart board, for instance.

It seems you are fine with any sort of criticism of other unhistorical aspects (you don't even seem to notice them), but if someone so much as *mentions* ethnicity, you throw a tantrum. You couldn't even argue the point, you had to invent a bunch of crazy shit.

reply

Oh, where is Ruth Goodman when we need her ??? First, she knows the era. Second, she's hilarious !

reply

The Portuguese were the first to engage in the Atlantic slave trade in the 16th century. In 1526, they completed the first transatlantic slave voyage to Brazil. Other European countries soon followed suite. Mary Stuart died by ax 1587, Spanish Armada was destroyed in 1588. The first English attempt at settlement in the New World was 1588; the first successful was Jamestown in 1606--Elizabeth died in 1606 and James Stuart became King of E&S. English ships entered China via Portuguese Macau in the 1620's. The 'diverse' actors, in the roles they were given, stood out like sore thumb--in what was supposedly a historical movie...seen through Mary's view. It's the same with set dressing and clothing--if something is wrong is sticks out--and as someone below mentions, those errors disrupt those in the audience who know that and generally lose focus of the rest of the move/play. If a person who didn't study history of that error, or overwhelm with the Holy PC, doesn't matter....

reply

Like the Portuguese say, bom deito!

reply

those errors disrupt those in the audience who know that and generally lose focus

That's their choice though. And if they know that then they must know that Mary and Elizabeth never met in spite of being monarchs of neighbouring countries and one being held captive by the other. So the entire movie must have disrupted you and you could not focus.

But maybe since it has been done not for historical reasons but for the good of the film, which is drama and not history, and it doesn't give you an excuse to invoke anti-PC agenda paranoia, you're happy to use a double standard.

reply

If you are addressing me your remarks are absurd and ad hominem. Learn how to discuss in a proper manner.

reply

You are the dipshit! You can’t be serious! The casting of negroes in this film is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen. Negro nobles in class conscience Elizabethan England? A black ambassador to Scotland? Where did they all go? I have never seen or heard of any black government officials in WW I or WW II. Then we have the gratuitous scene with the black noble kissing one of the ladies in waiting. All this was is a pathetic piece of pro-black propaganda and untruths.

reply

Pompous condescending white middle-class snobs continually feel the need to add an unrealistic scale of Sub-Saharan Africans as extras in historical dramas because they don’t seem to appreciate the history Africans had or just decree virtue signalling outweighs historical accuracy.

There were Sub-Saharan Africans in England at the time but never on the scale this film portrays.

reply

That's the thing I see in some movies. There could be 2-3 blacks in the whole of whatever and they'll add them in for the diverseness of it. They like to pick the rarest of the rarest minority among that time if they could. Sure, other things might not make sense but I didn't bother with them since we all of those minor inconsistencies. It's like adding a native American in and then you go err wut? Doesn't hurt to ask, heh.

reply

Yes. As servants in a rich household. Not a significant number.

My understanding is that they cast black actors to play Scottish Lords. That's just absurd and immediately takes away a lot of things from this movie.

reply

It's another movie where the two Queens meet (never happened), and Mary speaks in an Edinburgh high school girl's accent (a la Kelly McDonald in Trainspotting) but seeing black people in the trailer immediately takes away a lot of things from the movie?

reply

True enough. But aside from the glaring errors, when you have black actors cast as Scottish nobility in the 1500s, you are already putting off a lot of people that might not necessarily care about the historical errors. Although I'd like to see a factual movie about Mary. Elizabeth's movies are bad, but she's had some decent miniseries. All three movies about Mary Queen of Scots have been pretty awful.

reply

They're deliberate "errors".

I wouldn't be so confident to define which people are prepared to overlook wee "errors" but be put off by miscasting black actors.

The movies about Mary Stuart have been poor to quite good. Unless you are expecting them to be historically accurate. Only people expecting historical accuracy AND intolerant of dramas not casting based on skin colour are going to have "a lot of things" taken away from the movie before they see it.

Movies are either historically accurate or they are not. They almost always aren't. Take it or leave it. If you take it and still can't be entertained or stimulated then that's too bad.

reply

Oh it gets even better. They cast a CHINESE WOMAN to play Queen Mary's governess and best friend! Talk about an anachronism.

reply

Some day when I'm home sick and have absolutely nothing better to do, I'm going to look up the posting history of everyone who complains about non-white actors in historical films.

I'm going to see if they've also complained about white actors playing non-white characters in older films. If they're truly interested in accuracy and hate the sort of visual anachronisms that jar the viewer out of their willing suspension of disbelief, then there should be lots of such posts. Lots and lots.

reply

Don't waste your time. The race and skin colour of the actors is the primary concern... regarding another "historical" drama that relies on putting two people, who never actually met in real life, in the same room together and talking their problems with each other. You might as well have put Elizabeth I and Muhammad Ali in the ring and let them box it out.

reply

It's one thing if they outright say that it is fiction, and they are going to use color-blind casting to show off the acting abilities of the people they hired. I can go with that. They've done it with a number of films, including the "Rogers and Hammerstein's Cinderella" with Brandy and Whitney Houston.

It's another if they're trying to say "This is history and how it REALLY happened, not that white-washing stuff the real people actually lived with." And you look at that and feel like you're being lectured by a snotty teenager who believes they know more than you do, when they don't know jack shit about history and are trying to re-write it to make up for their own personal shortcomings.

reply

When do movies EVER tell the audience outright that this is fiction?

reply

That was a different era, in the early time of movies; the white actors were made-up to appear (somewhat) what race the role was. It wasn't until mid-20th centuray that actual American Indians actually played the roles of American Indians! I think there *are* plenty of complaints of visual anachronisms--the viewer is too much worried by the error that sticks out like a sore thumb to pay attention to the rest of the move/play.

reply

To do a complete research, don´t forget to check posting history of the ones who complains about white actors; include those who judge if an actor is "black enough" for a role.

reply

Yes, it is my understanding that the earliest blacks in Henry VIII court were brought there as the personal staff to Catherine of Aragon. They were considered "luxury servants."

reply

There weren't black Lords. It wasn't a color blind society by a long shot back then. They wanted to give some parts to non white actors, I think.

Are they really doing a service to "people of color" by revising history in this way, having a black character that high in society? Wouldn't it be better to be honest about peoples' attitudes back then?

reply

Take a look at the IMDb reviews, the first page are mostly low ratings for historic revisionism and SJW politics. Other reviewer complaints: they got the characters all wrong. Metascore 61: all the mixed reviews are similar. Look at the film genres, it says "history" and "biography", false advertising!

Regarding the blacks in England late 16th century. The British Empire was tiny, first possession in Africa was 1588. Spain and Portugal started the slave trade. The Asian is just absurd. Any blacks in Britain then must have been remnants of the Roman Empire. They didn't care about race, just loyalty. Update: Henry VIII had black servants, a gift.

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/mary-queen-of-scots/critic-reviews

reply

I think they were aiming for a fantastical PC version of the period, kind of like Branagh's 1996 Hamlet which had the odd black servant or soldier. In Denmark.

reply