All these people in the comments crying about historical accuracy, this series is based on books by Philippa Gregory who does take liberties. If you want accurate history go watch a documentary 🙄
My problem is that people here seem to think it is based on facts. They even write that Catherine did take part of the battle and was wearing an armour. This simply isn't true. I find it important to distinguish facts from fiction.
@@juliajulie8500 did you even watch this trailer lol it literally says 43 seconds in that's it's based on the books by phillipa gregory and If you've ever watched the series, which I assume you haven't since you're getting so uptight about the show's historical accuracy when the whole series has been like this since the first series The White Queen, the titles do say based on the books by phillipa gregory.
@@nat0y I have watched The White Queen and The White Princess and have enjoyed both. I know it's after the books. You missed my point completely. I said that people here think it is based on true events and that she did take part in the battle riding in armour. Or that she is the reason why the battle was won. This is not true. I do think it's important for people to know the difference between fact and fiction. If you are not bothered by this good for you, i guess misinformation has become a thing these days.
@@juliajulie8500 half of what we learn in school about history is wrong or biased or both. TV is for entertainment so I think you're overreacting to people's perception of a tv show. A lot of people enjoyed The Tudors even though it was historically inaccurate and I don't see anyone so concerned about their watchers not understanding that it's historical fiction.
Well if your watching for historical accuracy, the author of the books makes up a lot of the stuff. Very much doubt queen catherine actually joined her men in battle and Henry allowed it.
Catherine was equipped for England Henry was not ready for her he wanted to play games and be all about a son but she was England like she said she was built for the role of a Queen he didn't want to a knowledge the greatness in her..NOBODY!! ELSE COULD NEVER!!!!!!
What I find weird is that the showrunners are claiming they're going to wrap up Katarina's entire story this season. How are they going to manage that when it took them an entire season to deal with just a few months??
If they wanted to show her entire story, they would need to show her sitting on her but during her regency, while others defend England, not gloriously riding into the battlefield. Her husband prepared almost everything before he left, then Surrey fought in a battle and Katherine couldn't do that 1% of work required from her-which was just to sent order to raise levies in the South. She did it eventually, but about a month too late! Those reinforcements never got to battle and Surrey went against Scots with many odds against him-including numbers of troops he had. ... You can bet they will make Katherine loose baby just because she fought. In reality, she was 150 miles south from Flodden. .. Her entire story would also have to include that after her father betrayed Henry and didn't give any of promised support he was supposed to give in their joint attack of France, she sided with her father! That was a big blow to the marriage. He was totally in love before but after that, it was as if his eyes were opened. He quickly cut her off from being his main advisor(frankly because she was advising him poorly and didn't really stand by his side, but on her family's side. Even when her family was in wrong!), the relationship grew quickly cold after that, except of arguments they had about foreign politics. .. They will also show Henry VIII as a totally heartless person who only cares about power, not about his wife nor his children. Which he wasn't yet at the time. It was deaths of his children which greatly contributed to him becoming tyrant we know. And he will cheat on her left and right, though in reality, we have evidence for just 3 mistresses total(those he didn't mary). In comparison to the French King, he was living as a celibate monk. He was no habitual fornicator.
@@janehaylay1152 I didn't know that her father betrayed Henry. I always thought Henry was just bad at war. I guess I will have to read up about it. Why do you think Katherine has decided to side with her father? He was in wrong.
@@maearcher4721 I don't get it much either. Maybe because the bible said you should honour your father and mother? Maybe she was told from an early age that she needs to always side with Spain and her family? I am just guessing.
This series has always taken liberties when it comes to historical accuracy but this is a whole new level, completely ridiculous. I hope they don't butcher Margret this way as well.
I agree it is getting ridiculous. Katherien was nowhere near any battle. She was 150 miles south of battlefield when Earl of Surrey fought on Flodden Field. He risked his life, she didn't risk hers nor her child's.
You had me till the pregnant armor. Nobody in their right mind would willingly let a pregnant woman get anywhere near a fight, let alone the front lines.
At last Catherine like her mother in Spain fought for England and went to the war in the series. we can not say the same for the rest of Henry´s wives....
Real Katherine didn't actually was nowhere near any battle. It's a fake plotline. A myth. Not true! (Admitably her mother was a warrior Queen, but it didn't seem to pass on or Katherine being pregnant didn't risk it.) She was near Buckingham when the battle occurred. We're not even sure if she gave any speech to reinforcement troops because a man who claims such speech occurred also claims it was her speech that boosted English moral and that is why they later defeated Scots. There is zero chance of her ever meeting the Northern army which won that actual battle or somehow contributing to battle strategy. So that dude clearly didn't have any details or reliable source. And his description is so vague, anybody could make it up. More worryingly, Katherine didn't think it important to sent order to raise levies in Midlands until 3rd of September-when month notice by Scots was up and they crossed the border. No surprise Earl of Surrey never got those reinforcements since he met Scots on 9th of September. One doesn't need to be expert in the military to realise that with King fighting in France some of the Northern troops would leave with him. So North didn't have as many men as they normally would. Henry VIII actually managed to sent artillery and some of the troops back from the continent which got to the battle, Katherine's reinforcement didn't and Earl of Surrey had much fewer numbers than he would wish for-seemingly outnumbered. However, being very shrewd, experienced commander he managed to win despite all odds being on side of Scots. And it was Henry VIII who put Surrey in command of an army in the North before he left. Him who prepared supplies, gold etc in case of Scots invading. Katherine had just one small tiny job-to send order to raise levies(which would be carried out by somebody else, she wouldn't be the one organizing it all) and she sent it a month too late. ... People think her regency was her finest moment, but it was on the contrary. I think it might have strengthened sexist views in Henry VIII regarding women unable to rule or deal with a crisis. Almost nothing was required of her and she blew it. If Surrey didn't manage to defeat Scots, she'd be screwed and her lack of action as Regent would be widely spoken about. But because she got saved by this 70-year-old man(who needed no guiding hand from her), her incompetence was swept under carpet. ... So she was actually worst of regarding this than any of his wives. She got the opportunity and wasted it. I can get why she didn't fight herself-being pregnant, but there is nothing that can justify her not sending that order to raise levies in Midlands. Nothing that excuses her lack of action.
@morgana le fay if i was anne boleyn fan i would be pointing it out from start that Surrey was Anne Boleyn's grandfather. There is so little records from close sources about Anne, i dont think one can like or dislike her, if wants to stay objective. However, there is plenty about Catherine and bad decisions she made and decisions that came too late. I dont get why fans of Katherine always think if somebody doesnt worship ground she walked upon it has to be Anne Boleyn fan. I think main focus of my interest usually is Henry VIII.
@morgana le fay important thing is that scottish invasion didnt get stopped because of her! I want to know who is your source that states that she did. Because i am not the one ignoring facts, you are! You dont know what the facts are.
@morgana le fay it is interpretation based on many hours of research about battle of Flodden Field, what happened in year 1513 and unwillingness to blindly believe everything google and youtube spats at me. I search for where original information comes from. Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, Luis Caroz, actual figures from that time. And when i get to their reports etc, i look if it is somhow changed from original then i value their credibility-how likely they were to be biased or close to that information and then i interpret. So i'll ask one last time-do you know who is original source of your information or not?
I'm so excited! I want this to gut punch me in all my emotions and drag me across the floor and make me ugly cry. Can't wait for the drama! I don't give a flying fuck if it's not 100% historically accurate, as long as it's good satisfying historical fiction and good TV!
0:59 I think thats Queen Margaret of Scotland prooobably crying out in grief and sobbing after learning of her beloved husband's death at the Battle of Flodden thanks to her brother and Katherine of Aragon...smh...So Happy Georgie Henley will be back !! Margaret Tudor was always on her side.....
The victory of Flodden was not in slightest thanks to Katherine of Aragon. She ignored only duty her husband left her as Regent-give order to raise levies in South. (With King fighting in France, North didn't have that many men as usually. They needed reinforcement from the south.) Scots sent letter month in advance that they will invade. Earl of Surrey rode immediately to North and raised army there. King prepared supplies before he left and sent futher support from continent-by his navy he sent troops and artilery which got to the the battle. But reinforcement from South didn't. One single reason for it. Katehrine gave order too late! After month was up and Scots crossed the border. On 3rd of September-battle was on 9th! .Not even her supposed speech to troops is sure thing. Only source for it is written by chronicler of her daddy. It is so vague anybody could write it. No details what so ever! ... So if you want to blame anybody for James IV!s death blame Earl of Surrey. He was the man who outsmarted him and came up with strategy that lead to 2/3 of Scottish army getting stuck in muddy trap-literally.
@@janehaylay1152 Okay, I blame the Earl of Surrey 🤷🏼♀️ But I was referring to when Katherine of Aragon sent Henry the 8th a piece of the dead King's bloody clothing in the book this is sorta-kind-ish based on (The Constant Princess and The King's Curse by Phillippa Gregory) That book is fiction, this miniseries is completely fiction (like ageing Harry from 10 years old when he met and escorted Catalina down the aisle when she married Arthur to...idk a young man and not 7 years younger than The Infanta) Looking forward to watching jt, fho!!! and thank you for explaining in actuality what happened at the Battle of Flodden. I'm being very sincere. Thank you ! What are your thoughts on Karathine and Arthur's unconsumated marriage? Do you think it so? Also..Earl of Surrey was one of Duke of Buckingham's...or his son ?
@@mediocremaiden8883 10-year-old Harry indeed escorted Cataline down the aisle. But I agree he wouldn't flirt with her. I found those scenes really weird, knowing how old he actually was. ... Well, one thing Spanish Princess got right. Arthur wasn't sick until a few days before he died. However, whatever he had Katherine also caught and nearly died too. That rules out possibilities of Arthur having such diseases as testicular cancer and many that circulate online. It also totally dismiss testimonies of Katherine's household-which later during Great Matter, testified he was sick ever since they arrived in England. Because clearly Katherine and Arthur caught it both around the same time and it was the same thing. We know Arthur was lead by his mates several times to Katherine's bedroom and he himself proclaimed that they consummated the marriage. It is also said that Katherine told Henry VII that there was no need to have her checked by midwives(wherever it was for possible pregnancy or virginity we don't know). But we know that later on, he let her eat her own words about being a virgin. Because to virgin and not his widowed daughter in law, he didn't have to pay a penny of jointure(dowager's payment which is decided upon with dowry). He also never returned any part of the dowry and Katherine's mother had her daughter painted prior to her death (1504) had her painted as Virgin Mary and as Mary Magdalene(who after christ was resurrected told the apostles and they at first didn't believe her at first, but she was proven correct later on.) We know English side insisted upon dispensation for consummated marriage and eventually, even Isabella did too. ...To be honest, I think it is very possible that they did it. Especially knowing that Katherine often might have not lied herself, but had no trouble of letting others lying for her, deceiving others-fiasco after her first pregnancy-they were deceiving entire court etc. ... Earl of Surrey was a son of John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk. John died at Bosworth in 1485 fighting on side of Richard III, he died and was stripped of his title. His son survived that battle and was imprisoned, but later was pardoned and restored to his own title Earl of Surrey(which was his father lesser title, but often when nobleman gained higher title he gave his lesser title to his eldest son and heir). It took Surrey 28 years to regain title his father lost. From 1485 to 1513, well actually he got it back in February 1514, but that was just formality-in 1514 it was a formal ceremony, but his victory in the battle of Flodden Field in 1513 was such big merit he had it ensured he would get that title. Confusing however is that after this Thomas Howard gained the title of Duke of Norfolk(2nd Duke) his eldest son also named Thomas(yes Thomas Becket was popular English saint) was proclaimed Earl of Surrey. This younger Thomas later became 3rd Duke of Norfolk and is best known for being an uncle to Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard. ... Duke of Buckingham was a different title and different family. Staffords held Duchy of Buckingham. When in 1521 3rd Duke was on trial for treason, 2nd Duke of Norfolk was among the jury and it is said he cried when he read the verdict. Maybe he felt Buckingham was innocent actually or maybe being 78 years old he was easily emotional(my grandpa around that age after he had some health issues. No matter what was going on, he would easily burst into tears. It passed eventually, but there was a period when he could get emotional really easily).
@@janehaylay1152 WOW! Thank you for your input ! You couldve just said "Um Google it" but Well, There were quite the succession of Dukes of Buckingham losing their heads, and the Peerage system in England (all of Europe sincs they are related through Queen V? Amyhow) it can be extremely confusing. I actually think they most likely consummated, too or at least attempted to and well who knows. Im very much looking forward to Sunday's Premiere. Every adaptation has the wrong coloring of Carathine of Aragon cough*TheTudors*cough and a much older, bitter-ish lady. But He married her for love, in the beginning. I believe he idolized as he was escorting her down the aisle. The Throne, The Illustrious Spanish Princess, everything his birthright and being the 2nd son denied him. I wonder what wouldve happened if Arthur had lived.
@@mediocremaiden8883 Google it is the worst possible option. First things that google spats at you are usually nonsense, and most people don't have the patience to search for the period source or author who stated from where that information came from. I am sort of obsessed fan with the reign of Henry VII and Henry VIII, and into historical portraits, etc. And I hate having just one side of the story, I like to wage if the source was biased, if the source could have meant it in a different way(like period source stating Katherine's hair was red-gold, which to modern reader means auburn, but it didn't need to person from that time). I like to have general overall knowledge about what was happening(context), and then dig deeper. Many people skip context entirely and then things are out of context and make no sense. ... Dynastic trees can be a bit hard to learn at first. ... Katherine lost youthful looks very early around 1515(one foreign ambassador was not kind to her looks at all), though her supporters claimed she was still most beautiful creature in the world. With her hair being much into golden colour, she must have seemed like a saint. Too bad character didn't match. ... I also think Arthur consummated the marriage. Testimonies of Katherine's household include clear lies-such as stating that Arthur was head shorter than Katherine and already sick when she met him. He was way taller than her and only because sick a few days before death. What he died from, Katherine caught too and nearly died from too. And she wasn't sick for months. ... She probably wouldn't fast so much had Arthur not died. But being a result of inbreeding herself, her bad physician advising her, her not trusting her midwives, those problems wouldn't disappear.
I wonder if they’re going to add the part with Henry’s sister Mary skipping of to marry Charlie? Last time I saw that , the vines were popping in his head 🤔☺️
I'm reading these comments.... haha everybody's upset about Catherines armor 🤣...Her mother she traveled with every campaign and was responsible for plotting strategy and tactics for her generals....where do you think she got the idea 💡 from...women of England didn't think that way but in Spain Her mother was a ruler in her own right...she spent most of lil Catherine life learning from her mother.... so would it have been such a shock if she wanted to follow in her mothers foots steps...this is the same woman......SPOILER ALERT....who told Henry when the King Of Scotland was killed she wanted to send his body to him as a trophy....they were Ruthless. She may not have actually fought...but she wanted 2.
@@silvermonkey2455 Thank you for setting me straight..... But upon further research she did she traveled with every campaign and was responsible for plotting strategy and tactics for her generals. Though she did not actually go into battle my point still stands that warfare was ingrained in Katherine of Aragon upbringing
Alexandria Armstrong you got me there but still Katherine was nowhere near Flodden. Even if she had a martial mindset, she wouldn’t of done any commanding, especially not in that armour...
@@silvermonkey2455 We can agree there but this is the closest we're going to get apparently to mentioning this battle of Flodden with Catherine being a commander though it be far away... I understand people's frustration with the armor but I find it funny that they are OK with hit with Henry VIII being depicted this handsome man all his life..when he wasn't but them depicting Catherine as Warrior is a problem... Henry VIII literally wasted his time in France while she was actually taking care of a real problem in England
It sorts of looks better than the first season which in my opinion was an extreme disappointment! Way to inaccurate! But I'm so thrilled to see Margaret Pole again and Margaret tudor as queen of scotland and Mary Henry's younger sister as well as Ursula Pole and Bessie Blount ! I'm so excited I can't wait to see their stories ! (Katherine's story was already ruined in the first season so I don't have hopes that they will make it better )
To all the folks shitting on this tv show because they showed heavily pregnant CoA in full armour in the battlefield (when the only inaccuracy is her actually being in the field). Guess what guys, nor did Elizabeth I. Remember all those ridiculous overglorifying portrayals? Just like she was not a Gloriana unlike what is told about her in soap opera-ish tv shows or overly romanticized & exagerated movies, she was a greedy slave trader with expensive extravaganzas... So yeah, don't get all consumed about the historical inaccuracies only when it overglorifies the ones the majority of the people aren't idolizing. It's always been done with sooo many people to this day, learn to deal with it. None of the Catherine's stuff here are more false, fantastical or overdone than any other Elizabeth focused productions. This is a tv show for god's sake and are you guys seriously think/argue that this is the "stepping a line" whilist Emma Frost made Jacquetta Luxemburg & Elizabeth Woodville into water-witches who performed ACTUAL CURSES? Do you really say this turned things into historical fantasy while argueing this show's predecessors which were filled with the involvement of supernatural powers just had little issues concerning historical accuracies/creative liberties? Just wow.
Are talking about me? You must have. By the way only innacuracy is not her being on the battlefield. there is not single record stating she ever wore armour...And I could do this all day. Well, for your information I was pointing out inaccuracies in TV shows such as White Princess, White Queen, The Tudors etc for a long time, mainly on Quora. Not just the witchcraft, but incest and other things. Just not as often as with The Spanish Princess-I have been seriously neglecting it. I will, however, correct my mistake and focus on nitpicking The Spanish Princess on Quora from now on. Because that TV show really winds me off with its inaccuracies, which are the next level.
Lol u said perfectly.... it’s a tv show - ppl need to calm down and don’t try to get your history facts from these shows just take it for what it for 1 hour every week
@@comet1227 A lot of people here say she did take part of the battle riding in armour and that is a problem because it creates the illusion that this story is based on facts. You can take creative liberties but this is just absurd.
I think its absolutely amazing that she kept and remained true to herself all the way until her death. A true queen no matter what. Its a shame her daughter Queen Mary l was not the extraordinary woman her mother was. At least Queen Anne Boleyn can say her daughter became one of the best Queens and rulers England will ever have.
Another fake plotline incoming! Katherine was never actually fighting in the battle of Flodden Field! She was more than 150 miles more south(actually more than 250 miles), near a town called Buckingham. Earl of Surrey won that battle, purely due to his own shrewdness and experience. He was not saved by the Spanish princess. This show is horribly inaccurate. Worse than The Tudors, Other Boleyn girl, and many other Tudor based shows that were already horribly inaccurate. This one tops them all in inaccuracies. They are not having a creative license with facts, they are rewriting the historical events almost completely. This is exactly what I feared they would do with Season 2 when I saw the sparing scene in season 1.
The most inaccurate thing in the show is just the question about Catherine virginity. Most of historians thinks that she was probably virgin when she married Henry VIII. Catherine was a very devout woman and swore that she was virgin , even to her own confessor. It´s very difficult to thing she was lying. And so, it´s possible understanding better what happened later. She refused the divorce with Henry VIII, because it would put both souls in a great danger of condemnation. So the last letters from Catherine to Henry got more sense "Dear Harry, your soul is in a big danger " It was a true calvary what suffered this extraordinay woman. She was realizing that, for saving both souls , Henry and herself, England was broking the union with the Pope. An anguished situation for her. Sorry my poor english.
![The Best Acting of All Time - Compilation Part IV [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jxm_sV70b1w/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the only one in the series to get a second season, I’d have liked two seasons of the White Queen or the White princess
the white queen with the war of the roses could have been easily 7 seasons. its a shame that the spanish princess got 2.
I would have loooved more episodes of the white queen !
All these people in the comments crying about historical accuracy, this series is based on books by Philippa Gregory who does take liberties. If you want accurate history go watch a documentary 🙄
My problem is that people here seem to think it is based on facts. They even write that Catherine did take part of the battle and was wearing an armour. This simply isn't true. I find it important to distinguish facts from fiction.
@@juliajulie8500 did you even watch this trailer lol it literally says 43 seconds in that's it's based on the books by phillipa gregory and If you've ever watched the series, which I assume you haven't since you're getting so uptight about the show's historical accuracy when the whole series has been like this since the first series The White Queen, the titles do say based on the books by phillipa gregory.
@@nat0y I have watched The White Queen and The White Princess and have enjoyed both. I know it's after the books. You missed my point completely. I said that people here think it is based on true events and that she did take part in the battle riding in armour. Or that she is the reason why the battle was won. This is not true. I do think it's important for people to know the difference between fact and fiction. If you are not bothered by this good for you, i guess misinformation has become a thing these days.
@@juliajulie8500 half of what we learn in school about history is wrong or biased or both. TV is for entertainment so I think you're overreacting to people's perception of a tv show. A lot of people enjoyed The Tudors even though it was historically inaccurate and I don't see anyone so concerned about their watchers not understanding that it's historical fiction.
@@nat0y You see what you choose to see, if you choose to ignore the problem and think misinformation is ok than that's on you.
History Schmistory...but great escapism and I'm so chuffed to see some regulars back!
Love both season 1 and season 2 of the spanish Princess💗 Love both white princess and White queen💗❤
I’m just looking forward to seeing queen Maggie
Right
Well if your watching for historical accuracy, the author of the books makes up a lot of the stuff. Very much doubt queen catherine actually joined her men in battle and Henry allowed it.
ann ok
Her wearing armour with her pregnant belly was amaaazzzinnggg
Jordan Bailie you do know that never happened
Catherine was equipped for England Henry was not ready for her he wanted to play games and be all about a son but she was England like she said she was built for the role of a Queen he didn't want to a knowledge the greatness in her..NOBODY!! ELSE COULD NEVER!!!!!!
What I find weird is that the showrunners are claiming they're going to wrap up Katarina's entire story this season. How are they going to manage that when it took them an entire season to deal with just a few months??
If they wanted to show her entire story, they would need to show her sitting on her but during her regency, while others defend England, not gloriously riding into the battlefield.
Her husband prepared almost everything before he left, then Surrey fought in a battle and Katherine couldn't do that 1% of work required from her-which was just to sent order to raise levies in the South. She did it eventually, but about a month too late! Those reinforcements never got to battle and Surrey went against Scots with many odds against him-including numbers of troops he had.
...
You can bet they will make Katherine loose baby just because she fought. In reality, she was 150 miles south from Flodden.
..
Her entire story would also have to include that after her father betrayed Henry and didn't give any of promised support he was supposed to give in their joint attack of France, she sided with her father! That was a big blow to the marriage. He was totally in love before but after that, it was as if his eyes were opened. He quickly cut her off from being his main advisor(frankly because she was advising him poorly and didn't really stand by his side, but on her family's side. Even when her family was in wrong!), the relationship grew quickly cold after that, except of arguments they had about foreign politics.
..
They will also show Henry VIII as a totally heartless person who only cares about power, not about his wife nor his children. Which he wasn't yet at the time. It was deaths of his children which greatly contributed to him becoming tyrant we know.
And he will cheat on her left and right, though in reality, we have evidence for just 3 mistresses total(those he didn't mary). In comparison to the French King, he was living as a celibate monk.
He was no habitual fornicator.
@@janehaylay1152 I didn't know that her father betrayed Henry. I always thought Henry was just bad at war. I guess I will have to read up about it.
Why do you think Katherine has decided to side with her father? He was in wrong.
@@maearcher4721 I don't get it much either. Maybe because the bible said you should honour your father and mother? Maybe she was told from an early age that she needs to always side with Spain and her family? I am just guessing.
@@janehaylay1152 I guess that kind of makes sense. Still, I don't think it was right for her to do that. I wouldn't forgive her that.
Exactly I always felt that this would end with floden and foreshadow Henry's future infidelities. For me this is a Tudor prequel.
I can’t wait I love love love this series is amazing
i cant wait to watch this
What kind of accent is that? Is it supposed to sound like a spaniard speaking english?
I don‘t know, we don‘t speak like that. Perrhaps in the 16th centurry..😆
exactly!!! so strange
Mawidge is wot bwings us togethaaa... today.
Jeongwon Lim just look at a rosalia interview and see how most of us Spaniards talk
A Spanish lady who learned English in from a French teacher? I just made that up but that is kinda what it sounds like lmaooo
me: sees the SPANISH Princess
*this better be in Spanish*
also me: sighs in disappointment
Que te esperabas de semejante bola de inútiles???????? 🥶😜😹🤣😂💩👹
Herman hair is so beautiful😍
Charlotte Hope 😍
Music?
I am waiting for Anne Boleyn!
She is the daughter of Isabelle of Castille, after all. That queen who led an army to fight the Muslims on the Moors.
This series has always taken liberties when it comes to historical accuracy but this is a whole new level, completely ridiculous. I hope they don't butcher Margret this way as well.
Yes, this is getting ridiculous. I enjoyed the White Queen and the White Princess though.
@@juliajulie8500 they were nonsensical rubbish as well
@@SG-pu3rx They were haha, i enjoyed them anyways. This one looks really bad though.
I think thats her sobbing at 0:59 after learning of her husband's death at the battle of Flodden. She was always on Katherine's side....
I agree it is getting ridiculous. Katherien was nowhere near any battle. She was 150 miles south of battlefield when Earl of Surrey fought on Flodden Field. He risked his life, she didn't risk hers nor her child's.
To historical inaccuracies, and beyond!
You had me till the pregnant armor.
Nobody in their right mind would willingly let a pregnant woman get anywhere near a fight, let alone the front lines.
Actually it happened sometimes...
@Chiara Zavaglia
Name one time.
@@mrmustash1672 Anita Garibaldi during Italian revolutions of 1848
@@mrmustash1672 Caterina Sforza
@Chiara Zavaglia
Alright I’ll give you that one, though Menotti was born with a skull deformation as a result.
At last Catherine like her mother in Spain fought for England and went to the war in the series.
we can not say the same for the rest of Henry´s wives....
Real Katherine didn't actually was nowhere near any battle. It's a fake plotline. A myth. Not true!
(Admitably her mother was a warrior Queen, but it didn't seem to pass on or Katherine being pregnant didn't risk it.)
She was near Buckingham when the battle occurred.
We're not even sure if she gave any speech to reinforcement troops because a man who claims such speech occurred also claims it was her speech that boosted English moral and that is why they later defeated Scots.
There is zero chance of her ever meeting the Northern army which won that actual battle or somehow contributing to battle strategy. So that dude clearly didn't have any details or reliable source. And his description is so vague, anybody could make it up.
More worryingly, Katherine didn't think it important to sent order to raise levies in Midlands until 3rd of September-when month notice by Scots was up and they crossed the border.
No surprise Earl of Surrey never got those reinforcements since he met Scots on 9th of September.
One doesn't need to be expert in the military to realise that with King fighting in France some of the Northern troops would leave with him. So North didn't have as many men as they normally would.
Henry VIII actually managed to sent artillery and some of the troops back from the continent which got to the battle, Katherine's reinforcement didn't and Earl of Surrey had much fewer numbers than he would wish for-seemingly outnumbered.
However, being very shrewd, experienced commander he managed to win despite all odds being on side of Scots. And it was Henry VIII who put Surrey in command of an army in the North before he left. Him who prepared supplies, gold etc in case of Scots invading.
Katherine had just one small tiny job-to send order to raise levies(which would be carried out by somebody else, she wouldn't be the one organizing it all) and she sent it a month too late.
...
People think her regency was her finest moment, but it was on the contrary. I think it might have strengthened sexist views in Henry VIII regarding women unable to rule or deal with a crisis.
Almost nothing was required of her and she blew it. If Surrey didn't manage to defeat Scots, she'd be screwed and her lack of action as Regent would be widely spoken about. But because she got saved by this 70-year-old man(who needed no guiding hand from her), her incompetence was swept under carpet.
...
So she was actually worst of regarding this than any of his wives. She got the opportunity and wasted it. I can get why she didn't fight herself-being pregnant, but there is nothing that can justify her not sending that order to raise levies in Midlands. Nothing that excuses her lack of action.
@morgana le fay I am not Anne Boleyn fan. I just dont like Catherine, especially this suger coated version of her that is universe away from reality.
@morgana le fay if i was anne boleyn fan i would be pointing it out from start that Surrey was Anne Boleyn's grandfather.
There is so little records from close sources about Anne, i dont think one can like or dislike her, if wants to stay objective.
However, there is plenty about Catherine and bad decisions she made and decisions that came too late.
I dont get why fans of Katherine always think if somebody doesnt worship ground she walked upon it has to be Anne Boleyn fan.
I think main focus of my interest usually is Henry VIII.
@morgana le fay important thing is that scottish invasion didnt get stopped because of her! I want to know who is your source that states that she did. Because i am not the one ignoring facts, you are! You dont know what the facts are.
@morgana le fay it is interpretation based on many hours of research about battle of Flodden Field, what happened in year 1513 and unwillingness to blindly believe everything google and youtube spats at me. I search for where original information comes from. Peter Martyr d'Anghiera, Luis Caroz, actual figures from that time.
And when i get to their reports etc, i look if it is somhow changed from original then i value their credibility-how likely they were to be biased or close to that information and then i interpret.
So i'll ask one last time-do you know who is original source of your information or not?
yessssssssssssssssssssssssss
I don’t think I can’t watch the show Any longer cause Henry will make suffer Catherine who give her all for England and who is such a great queen 😭
Margaret Tudor should have more screen time or I'm not watching
This is a trailer for an entire season. Did you really expect them to focus on secondary characters?
I feel that her story is very interconnected to theirs and after reading the book three queens three sisters I am not a fan of Catherine
Don't watch it. It is shit. 0.5% of historical accuracy, if not less. Katherine was a nowhere near battle of Flodden Field, let alone fighting in it!
I enjoyed the first season, and love Charlotte Hope, but this looks like complete Hollywood rubbish
I'm so excited! I want this to gut punch me in all my emotions and drag me across the floor and make me ugly cry. Can't wait for the drama! I don't give a flying fuck if it's not 100% historically accurate, as long as it's good satisfying historical fiction and good TV!
0:59 I think thats Queen Margaret of Scotland prooobably crying out in grief and sobbing after learning of her beloved husband's death at the Battle of Flodden thanks to her brother and Katherine of Aragon...smh...So Happy Georgie Henley will be back !! Margaret Tudor was always on her side.....
The victory of Flodden was not in slightest thanks to Katherine of Aragon.
She ignored only duty her husband left her as Regent-give order to raise levies in South.
(With King fighting in France, North didn't have that many men as usually. They needed reinforcement from the south.)
Scots sent letter month in advance that they will invade. Earl of Surrey rode immediately to North and raised army there. King prepared supplies before he left and sent futher support from continent-by his navy he sent troops and artilery which got to the the battle.
But reinforcement from South didn't. One single reason for it. Katehrine gave order too late! After month was up and Scots crossed the border. On 3rd of September-battle was on 9th!
.Not even her supposed speech to troops is sure thing. Only source for it is written by chronicler of her daddy. It is so vague anybody could write it. No details what so ever!
...
So if you want to blame anybody for James IV!s death blame Earl of Surrey. He was the man who outsmarted him and came up with strategy that lead to 2/3 of Scottish army getting stuck in muddy trap-literally.
@@janehaylay1152 Okay, I blame the Earl of Surrey 🤷🏼♀️ But I was referring to when Katherine of Aragon sent Henry the 8th a piece of the dead King's bloody clothing in the book this is sorta-kind-ish based on (The Constant Princess and The King's Curse by Phillippa Gregory) That book is fiction, this miniseries is completely fiction (like ageing Harry from 10 years old when he met and escorted Catalina down the aisle when she married Arthur to...idk a young man and not 7 years younger than The Infanta) Looking forward to watching jt, fho!!! and thank you for explaining in actuality what happened at the Battle of Flodden. I'm being very sincere. Thank you ! What are your thoughts on Karathine and Arthur's unconsumated marriage? Do you think it so? Also..Earl of Surrey was one of Duke of Buckingham's...or his son ?
@@mediocremaiden8883 10-year-old Harry indeed escorted Cataline down the aisle. But I agree he wouldn't flirt with her. I found those scenes really weird, knowing how old he actually was.
...
Well, one thing Spanish Princess got right. Arthur wasn't sick until a few days before he died. However, whatever he had Katherine also caught and nearly died too.
That rules out possibilities of Arthur having such diseases as testicular cancer and many that circulate online.
It also totally dismiss testimonies of Katherine's household-which later during Great Matter, testified he was sick ever since they arrived in England. Because clearly Katherine and Arthur caught it both around the same time and it was the same thing.
We know Arthur was lead by his mates several times to Katherine's bedroom and he himself proclaimed that they consummated the marriage.
It is also said that Katherine told Henry VII that there was no need to have her checked by midwives(wherever it was for possible pregnancy or virginity we don't know).
But we know that later on, he let her eat her own words about being a virgin. Because to virgin and not his widowed daughter in law, he didn't have to pay a penny of jointure(dowager's payment which is decided upon with dowry). He also never returned any part of the dowry and Katherine's mother had her daughter painted prior to her death (1504) had her painted as Virgin Mary and as Mary Magdalene(who after christ was resurrected told the apostles and they at first didn't believe her at first, but she was proven correct later on.)
We know English side insisted upon dispensation for consummated marriage and eventually, even Isabella did too.
...To be honest, I think it is very possible that they did it. Especially knowing that Katherine often might have not lied herself, but had no trouble of letting others lying for her, deceiving others-fiasco after her first pregnancy-they were deceiving entire court etc.
...
Earl of Surrey was a son of John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk. John died at Bosworth in 1485 fighting on side of Richard III, he died and was stripped of his title. His son survived that battle and was imprisoned, but later was pardoned and restored to his own title Earl of Surrey(which was his father lesser title, but often when nobleman gained higher title he gave his lesser title to his eldest son and heir).
It took Surrey 28 years to regain title his father lost. From 1485 to 1513, well actually he got it back in February 1514, but that was just formality-in 1514 it was a formal ceremony, but his victory in the battle of Flodden Field in 1513 was such big merit he had it ensured he would get that title. Confusing however is that after this Thomas Howard gained the title of Duke of Norfolk(2nd Duke) his eldest son also named Thomas(yes Thomas Becket was popular English saint) was proclaimed Earl of Surrey. This younger Thomas later became 3rd Duke of Norfolk and is best known for being an uncle to Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard.
...
Duke of Buckingham was a different title and different family. Staffords held Duchy of Buckingham. When in 1521 3rd Duke was on trial for treason, 2nd Duke of Norfolk was among the jury and it is said he cried when he read the verdict. Maybe he felt Buckingham was innocent actually or maybe being 78 years old he was easily emotional(my grandpa around that age after he had some health issues. No matter what was going on, he would easily burst into tears. It passed eventually, but there was a period when he could get emotional really easily).
@@janehaylay1152 WOW! Thank you for your input ! You couldve just said "Um Google it" but Well, There were quite the succession of Dukes of Buckingham losing their heads, and the Peerage system in England (all of Europe sincs they are related through Queen V? Amyhow) it can be extremely confusing. I actually think they most likely consummated, too or at least attempted to and well who knows. Im very much looking forward to Sunday's Premiere. Every adaptation has the wrong coloring of Carathine of Aragon cough*TheTudors*cough and a much older, bitter-ish lady. But He married her for love, in the beginning. I believe he idolized as he was escorting her down the aisle. The Throne, The Illustrious Spanish Princess, everything his birthright and being the 2nd son denied him. I wonder what wouldve happened if Arthur had lived.
@@mediocremaiden8883 Google it is the worst possible option. First things that google spats at you are usually nonsense, and most people don't have the patience to search for the period source or author who stated from where that information came from. I am sort of obsessed fan with the reign of Henry VII and Henry VIII, and into historical portraits, etc.
And I hate having just one side of the story, I like to wage if the source was biased, if the source could have meant it in a different way(like period source stating Katherine's hair was red-gold, which to modern reader means auburn, but it didn't need to person from that time). I like to have general overall knowledge about what was happening(context), and then dig deeper. Many people skip context entirely and then things are out of context and make no sense.
...
Dynastic trees can be a bit hard to learn at first.
...
Katherine lost youthful looks very early around 1515(one foreign ambassador was not kind to her looks at all), though her supporters claimed she was still most beautiful creature in the world. With her hair being much into golden colour, she must have seemed like a saint. Too bad character didn't match.
...
I also think Arthur consummated the marriage. Testimonies of Katherine's household include clear lies-such as stating that Arthur was head shorter than Katherine and already sick when she met him. He was way taller than her and only because sick a few days before death. What he died from, Katherine caught too and nearly died from too.
And she wasn't sick for months.
...
She probably wouldn't fast so much had Arthur not died. But being a result of inbreeding herself, her bad physician advising her, her not trusting her midwives, those problems wouldn't disappear.
Oui oui madame!
I wonder if they’re going to add the part with Henry’s sister Mary skipping of to marry Charlie? Last time I saw that , the vines were popping in his head 🤔☺️
I'm reading these comments.... haha everybody's upset about Catherines armor 🤣...Her mother she traveled with every campaign and was responsible for plotting strategy and tactics for her generals....where do you think she got the idea 💡 from...women of England didn't think that way but in Spain Her mother was a ruler in her own right...she spent most of lil Catherine life learning from her mother.... so would it have been such a shock if she wanted to follow in her mothers foots steps...this is the same woman......SPOILER ALERT....who told Henry when the King Of Scotland was killed she wanted to send his body to him as a trophy....they were Ruthless.
She may not have actually fought...but she wanted 2.
Isabella never fought in battle she may have been present at a few sieges or observed a battle or two but never actually fought get your facts right
@@silvermonkey2455 Thank you for setting me straight..... But upon further research she did she traveled with every campaign and was responsible for plotting strategy and tactics for her generals. Though she did not actually go into battle my point still stands that warfare was ingrained in Katherine of Aragon upbringing
@@silvermonkey2455 and I love history and I would like it if you would show me or put links to your information about Isbella
Alexandria Armstrong you got me there but still Katherine was nowhere near Flodden. Even if she had a martial mindset, she wouldn’t of done any commanding, especially not in that armour...
@@silvermonkey2455 We can agree there but this is the closest we're going to get apparently to mentioning this battle of Flodden with Catherine being a commander though it be far away... I understand people's frustration with the armor but I find it funny that they are OK with hit with Henry VIII being depicted this handsome man all his life..when he wasn't but them depicting Catherine as Warrior is a problem... Henry VIII literally wasted his time in France while she was actually taking care of a real problem in England
It sorts of looks better than the first season which in my opinion was an extreme disappointment! Way to inaccurate! But I'm so thrilled to see Margaret Pole again and Margaret tudor as queen of scotland and Mary Henry's younger sister as well as Ursula Pole and Bessie Blount ! I'm so excited I can't wait to see their stories ! (Katherine's story was already ruined in the first season so I don't have hopes that they will make it better )
Why wasn't it dubbed in italian?
Could this Tv show get more ridiculous? Wasn't she in the South Midlands when the battle of Branxton occurred? What the heck is their source? Wiki?!
1:24
A Spanish Princess who doesn't speak spanish.
To all the folks shitting on this tv show because they showed heavily pregnant CoA in full armour in the battlefield (when the only inaccuracy is her actually being in the field). Guess what guys, nor did Elizabeth I. Remember all those ridiculous overglorifying portrayals? Just like she was not a Gloriana unlike what is told about her in soap opera-ish tv shows or overly romanticized & exagerated movies, she was a greedy slave trader with expensive extravaganzas... So yeah, don't get all consumed about the historical inaccuracies only when it overglorifies the ones the majority of the people aren't idolizing. It's always been done with sooo many people to this day, learn to deal with it. None of the Catherine's stuff here are more false, fantastical or overdone than any other Elizabeth focused productions. This is a tv show for god's sake and are you guys seriously think/argue that this is the "stepping a line" whilist Emma Frost made Jacquetta Luxemburg & Elizabeth Woodville into water-witches who performed ACTUAL CURSES? Do you really say this turned things into historical fantasy while argueing this show's predecessors which were filled with the involvement of supernatural powers just had little issues concerning historical accuracies/creative liberties? Just wow.
Are talking about me? You must have.
By the way only innacuracy is not her being on the battlefield. there is not single record stating she ever wore armour...And I could do this all day.
Well, for your information I was pointing out inaccuracies in TV shows such as White Princess, White Queen, The Tudors etc for a long time, mainly on Quora. Not just the witchcraft, but incest and other things.
Just not as often as with The Spanish Princess-I have been seriously neglecting it. I will, however, correct my mistake and focus on nitpicking The Spanish Princess on Quora from now on.
Because that TV show really winds me off with its inaccuracies, which are the next level.
Innaccuracy sometimes is necessary.
for make a story stronger, more misterious & thrilling. I don´t see why ppl take this like a tragedy.
@@janehaylay1152 is anyone trying to portray these shows as facts? Philippa Gregory takes nothing but liberties in her "stories"
Lol u said perfectly.... it’s a tv show - ppl need to calm down and don’t try to get your history facts from these shows just take it for what it for 1 hour every week
@@comet1227 A lot of people here say she did take part of the battle riding in armour and that is a problem because it creates the illusion that this story is based on facts. You can take creative liberties but this is just absurd.
I think its absolutely amazing that she kept and remained true to herself all the way until her death. A true queen no matter what. Its a shame her daughter Queen Mary l was not the extraordinary woman her mother was. At least Queen Anne Boleyn can say her daughter became one of the best Queens and rulers England will ever have.
Another fake plotline incoming! Katherine was never actually fighting in the battle of Flodden Field!
She was more than 150 miles more south(actually more than 250 miles), near a town called Buckingham.
Earl of Surrey won that battle, purely due to his own shrewdness and experience. He was not saved by the Spanish princess.
This show is horribly inaccurate. Worse than The Tudors, Other Boleyn girl, and many other Tudor based shows that were already horribly inaccurate. This one tops them all in inaccuracies.
They are not having a creative license with facts, they are rewriting the historical events almost completely. This is exactly what I feared they would do with Season 2 when I saw the sparing scene in season 1.
Read the fiction book first
@@marco0936 Do you mean book by Philippa Gregory?
@@janehaylay1152 That is about right! Lol.
Philippa Gregory’s book is called “The Constant Princess”, why did they change the name?
The most inaccurate thing in the show is just the question about Catherine virginity. Most of historians thinks that she was probably virgin when she married Henry VIII. Catherine was a very devout woman and swore that she was virgin , even to her own confessor. It´s very difficult to thing she was lying. And so, it´s possible understanding better what happened later. She refused the divorce with Henry VIII, because it would put both souls in a great danger of condemnation. So the last letters from Catherine to Henry got more sense "Dear Harry, your soul is in a big danger "
It was a true calvary what suffered this extraordinay woman. She was realizing that, for saving both souls , Henry and herself, England was broking the union with the Pope. An anguished situation for her. Sorry my poor english.