Princess Mary Tudor, the younger sister of King Henry VIII, was briefly married to King Louis XII of France, who died only a few weeks after their marriage. After returning to England, she married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, in secret and without her brother's consent. Henry was initially angered by this, but was eventually reconciled with his sister and her husband.
"The Sword and the Rose" tells the story of Mary and Brandon, but does not always stick closely to historical truth. Most of the characters are played as considerably older than they would have been in 1514/5 when the action takes place, most notably Henry, played by James Robertson Justice as the corpulent, bearded, middle-aged man which he became later in his reign, although in 1514 he was still in his early twenties, slim, handsome and clean-shaven. Louis, although a lot older than his young bride Mary, was not the senile dotard portrayed here; he died in his early fifties. His successor Francis I was only twenty when he became King, but the character shown here is considerably older.
The inaccuracies are not confined to the characters' ages. Francis was not Louis's son but a distant cousin, so would not have been referred to as "the Dauphin". Francis never offered to divorce his wife Claude if Mary would marry him. (Claude was Duchess of Brittany in her own right, so such a divorce would have led to Brittany becoming an independent country). A villain is provided in the shape of the Duke of Buckingham, a disappointed rival for Mary's hand, but the real Buckingham was already married by this time and would not have been looking for a wife. The most bizarre departure from historical fact when Mary and Brandon attempt to elope on a ship to the New World, something which not only never happened but which could not have happened, as there were no English colonies in the Americas in the 1510s, and would not be for another few decades. (John Cabot had claimed Newfoundland for the English Crown in the 1490s, but this was for the sake of fishing rights, not because any English people of the period wanted to go and live there).
Despite its dubious grasp on history, however, "The Sword and the Rose" is a good-natured and enjoyable family adventure film. Glynis Johns makes an attractive and spirited heroine and Richard Todd a dashing hero. Justice seemed to specialise in playing characters who were outwardly autocratic and overbearing but inwardly decent, like the surgeon Sir Lancelot Spratt in the "Doctor" series, and his Henry is essentially Sir Lancelot sent back several centuries in time and promoted to Royal status. Never mind that the real Henry, a brutal, foul-minded tyrant responsible for the judicial murder of many of his subjects, including two of his wives, was not really like this. This is not English history as it was. This is English history as it should have been. 6/10
"The Sword and the Rose" tells the story of Mary and Brandon, but does not always stick closely to historical truth. Most of the characters are played as considerably older than they would have been in 1514/5 when the action takes place, most notably Henry, played by James Robertson Justice as the corpulent, bearded, middle-aged man which he became later in his reign, although in 1514 he was still in his early twenties, slim, handsome and clean-shaven. Louis, although a lot older than his young bride Mary, was not the senile dotard portrayed here; he died in his early fifties. His successor Francis I was only twenty when he became King, but the character shown here is considerably older.
The inaccuracies are not confined to the characters' ages. Francis was not Louis's son but a distant cousin, so would not have been referred to as "the Dauphin". Francis never offered to divorce his wife Claude if Mary would marry him. (Claude was Duchess of Brittany in her own right, so such a divorce would have led to Brittany becoming an independent country). A villain is provided in the shape of the Duke of Buckingham, a disappointed rival for Mary's hand, but the real Buckingham was already married by this time and would not have been looking for a wife. The most bizarre departure from historical fact when Mary and Brandon attempt to elope on a ship to the New World, something which not only never happened but which could not have happened, as there were no English colonies in the Americas in the 1510s, and would not be for another few decades. (John Cabot had claimed Newfoundland for the English Crown in the 1490s, but this was for the sake of fishing rights, not because any English people of the period wanted to go and live there).
Despite its dubious grasp on history, however, "The Sword and the Rose" is a good-natured and enjoyable family adventure film. Glynis Johns makes an attractive and spirited heroine and Richard Todd a dashing hero. Justice seemed to specialise in playing characters who were outwardly autocratic and overbearing but inwardly decent, like the surgeon Sir Lancelot Spratt in the "Doctor" series, and his Henry is essentially Sir Lancelot sent back several centuries in time and promoted to Royal status. Never mind that the real Henry, a brutal, foul-minded tyrant responsible for the judicial murder of many of his subjects, including two of his wives, was not really like this. This is not English history as it was. This is English history as it should have been. 6/10