Mary & George: ludicrous but entertaining.

The Stuart period is a personal obsession of mine, in my opinion the dynasty is far more interesting the Tudors but it has always failed to get the same attention, especially in film and TV. As such I was very excited when I started to see trailers for a series focused on the Jacobean court.

"Mary and George" offers a scandalous glimpse into the Jacobean court, yet it falters significantly in its portrayal of historical accuracy. While it's advertised as a factual drama, the series is riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations, and outright fabrications.

The show’s narrative, while rooted in historical events, takes substantial liberties. For instance, the depiction of George Villiers’ death following a fall during a quarrel with his wife, Mary, and the idea that Mary had lesbian affairs, have no historical basis. The portrayal of Mary and George as illegitimate is another wild stretch, used to justify Mary's supposed murderous actions. The claim that King James’s trip to Scotland in 1617 was to retrieve the embalmed heart of his first love, Esme Stewart, is particularly absurd.

The character portrayals in the series are mixed. George Villiers is presented as a passive, simplistic character, which is a stark contrast to the historical figure known for his cunning and political prowess.

Conversely, Mary Villiers dominates the screen, albeit with much of her story-line rooted in fiction. Julianne Moore’s performance is commendable, yet the script strays far from historical truths.

Tony Curran's depiction of King James VI and I is a highlight. His portrayal captures the emotional turmoil of James’s life, marked by childhood abuse and the loss of his early love, Esme Stewart. Curran’s performance stands out, providing a rare anchor of authenticity in a sea of dramatised events.

The series' pacing is problematic. The first four episodes delve into the years 1614–1617, but after Queen Anna’s death in 1619, the narrative rushes through the next decade, skimming over significant events like the Madrid venture and James’s decline. The dramatisation of George Villiers single-handedly swaying Parliament to declare war on Spain, while ignoring the historical role of Prince Charles, is another glaring inaccuracy.

The series culminates in a historically inaccurate portrayal of George's assassination by John Felton. The scene is devoid of dramatic impact, reducing a pivotal moment to a gratuitous encounter.

Despite its entertainment value, "Mary and George" is a missed opportunity to authentically revive interest in the Stuart era. The series could have been an unforgettable epic, reintroducing the rich history of the Stuarts to a modern audience. Nevertheless, it might still spark curiosity and encourage viewers to explore the true history behind the dramatisation. Let's hope this series at least opens the door for more accurate and in-depth portrayals of this fascinating period in future productions.