I was meaning to watch the movie, Elizabeth: The Golden Age with my 8-year old daughter. I have this notion that since I have a big influence on her, I can convince her to watch a movie based on a historical figure. When I was 8, I already prefer watching movies and documentaries about historical events and figures. I was in Grade 2 when I was glued to the TV mini-series War and Peace, and closely followed the story of its main character, Pierre Bezukhov. I loved the story, even though I don’t really understand it at that time, primarily because Napoleon Bonaparte is my favorite historical character and I have the same name with the lead character. Instead, my daughter preferred to go window shopping for the latest model of Bratz. I’m not disappointed with my daughter at all, I just understood and respected that she’s a different person. But I’m glad that I didn’t watched it with her because I will end up giving a loooong history lesson trying to correct the inaccuracies portrayed in the movie.
Elizabeth: The Golden age is the sequel to the 1998 movie Elizabeth. The movie starts at a time when Spain is the most powerful country in Europe (If you remember your history lessons, in the 15th and 16th century, Spain have the audacity to divide any new discovered world outside Europe between them and Portugal through the treaty of Tordesillas and Zaragoza). Having just secured her English throne, the Protestant Elizabeth I have to contend with both internal and external threat posed by her Catholic cousin, Mary Queen of Scots and Philip II of Spain. The Spanish Inquizition is sweeping the continent and the Spanish regent and the Pope sees Elizabeth a heretic and it is their God given duty to bring her down and make all of England embrace catholicism. The movie also portrays the challenges of a female monarch, at a dangerous time when women have no role in politics, and how great leaders often have to sacrifice their personal happiness to address the demands and needs of their country (How I wish the Philippines have such leaders). The movie also have a subplot of Sir Walter Raleigh beguiling the English queen, whose biological clock is dangerously ticking, but ended up falling in love with and marrying one of the queen’s lady in waiting Elizabeth Thockmorton.
Here are some of the historical inaccuracies I’ve observed in the film.
1. The Babington Plot, one of the conspiracies to assassinate Elizabeth I was portrayed in the movie as having carried out with the shooter coming face to face with the queen and the plot only failed because the gun used for the assassination was unloaded. The real Babington Plot was discovered before it was executed and the conspirators sentenced to death.
2. In the movie, Elizabeth I mentioned about the Sultan of Turkey. Turkey as a name of a country, was only coined in the 20th Century with Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as its first president. In Elizabeth I’s time, Turkey was known as the Ottoman Empire.
3. There’s no Robert Reston, the Jesuit who was ordered by Philip II to do the duty God gave him, in history. He could be John Ballard, who’s also a Jesuit and a conspirator in the Babington Plot. I wonder why they have to change the name of the Jesuit priest.
4. Walter Raleigh played a big role in the English defense against the Spanish Armada. While watching the movie, I am shaking my head because the real historical hero was given a minute role. Francis Drake is the leader of the English fleet who went toe to toe against the Spanish forces and defeated them. England has so revered Francis Drake that there’s a legend surrounding the Drake’s Drum. It’s a drum once owned by the famed seaman and on his deathbed, he said that if England will be in danger, all someone must sound the drum and Francis Drake will come back to defend England. The drum was played several times throughout history including the 20th century. People claim that the Drake drum was heard playing when World War I began and when the English forces were routed in Dunkirk in World War II.
5. The English fleet was not severely outnumbered and outgunned by the Spanish Armada. In the main battle of Gravelines, the English ships outnumber the Spanish.
6. The use of fire-ships (ships purposedly set on fire) by the English fleet was not an act of desperation as portrayed in the film, but an act of brilliant naval tactics. The fire-ship attacks forced the Spanish fleet to cut their anchors (which troubled them at the later stage of their campaign) and break their formation and positioned themselves against the wind. This enabled the faster English ships to target the Spanish ships.
7. It is not the severe storm that battered the Spanish Armada and saved England. The English Navy used better naval tactics and strategy. The strategy of the Spanish navy is to come close to their enemies ship, clip the ship with grappling hooks and the Spanish marines and sailors will board their enemies’ ship for a hand to hand combat. This tactic was proven effective by the Spanish fleet, specially during the Battle of Lepanto wherein they routed the numerically superior Ottoman Turks’ fleet, but not in this battle. English ships, being lighter and more maneuverable, prefer distance fighting. They would unload broadsides of cannons then move out of harms way. ( In Robert Greene’s book The 33 Strategies of War, Rule No. 2 is Do not fight the last war. Meaning, change your tactics against every opponent. Perhaps the Spanish fleet is not aware of this strategy. Even in the Battle of Trafalgar, which is 250 years later, the Spanish fleet who are aiding the French are doing the same strategy against the British navy. The defeat of the French and Spanish navy prevented Napoleon Bonaparte from invading England).
8. The storm that wrecked the Spanish Armada came later when they are defeated by the English navy at the Battle of Gravelines. Since the English Channel is secured by the English fleet, the Spanish fleet have no recourse but to sail around Scotland and Ireland. That is where the storm battered them. With their anchors cut before the battle of Gravelines, Spanish ships are mercilessly hammered against the rocky coasts of Ireland.
But these historical inaccuracies, for me, are too small to give the viewers a confusing account of history. It’s a movie, not a documentary. Movies are meant to entertain, documentaries are meant to inform. Despite of the many dramatic license the director made, Elizabeth is a great movie worthy to be required as an assignment by every history teachers and professors to their students.
By the way, to those charmed by Clive Owen’s Walter Raleigh. Did I tell you that years later, Walter Raleigh was beheaded by James I (He’s the King James of the King’s James Version of the bible) ?
