• Network: BBC , Starz
  • Series Premiere Date: Jun 16, 2013
  • Season #: 1
Metascore
70

Generally favorable reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 14
  2. Negative: 0 out of 14
  1. Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    Aug 5, 2013
    100
    Queen delivers the basic goods (intrigue, sex) , but the only vivid character is Margaret Beaufort, mom of the future Henry VII. She's played by Amanda Hale with startling neuritic fervor. [12 Aug 2013]
  2. Reviewed by: Linda Stasi
    Aug 8, 2013
    88
    It’s a great tale and beautifully told with beautiful actors.
  3. Reviewed by: Nuzhat Naoreen
    Aug 2, 2013
    83
    Absurd but engrossing War of the Roses-era drama. [9 Aug 2013, p.73]
User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 33 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 6
  2. Negative: 0 out of 6
  1. Aug 6, 2013
    8
    Very pleasant history lesson about the cousins war. The series is far better than 'The Tudors' and doesn't rely on pretty faces and excessiveVery pleasant history lesson about the cousins war. The series is far better than 'The Tudors' and doesn't rely on pretty faces and excessive sex for its impact. Instead we have complex history made simple for mass consumption. It has everything from battles, witchcraft, romance and intrigue. The production looks great and performances are solid with Janet McTeer standing out. I have read the history of this period and it is good to see people like author Phillipa Gregory challenging the old myths about characters like Richard the third and the princes in the tower. This is solid and captivating high quality entertainment. Full Review »
  2. Nov 5, 2013
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. This overly and unnecessarily melodramatic treatment of the compelling history of the War of the Roses is watchable, but choppy. It forces acceleration through critical historical events with little or no consideration of their worth simply to drive the characters through the plot, and it frequently suggests facts as true that are in fact based on conjuncture and myth. For example, the ludicrous contention that Elizabeth Woodville's youngest son Richard was NOT in the tower with his brother ("The Princes in the Tower") is pure myth and widely regarded as scandalously bad history. Yet this anachronism is boldly pursued to set up a later claim that the younger Richard is the rightful king during a plot against Henry Tudor. Also, the unseemly forthcoming suggestion that Elizabeth of York is pregnant with Richard III's child (thus suggesting that King Henry VIII is Richard III's heir) is preposterous. So don't rely on this presentation as a substitute for your history class paper.

    It is also terribly over stylized. If you want a less melodramatic, literarily accomplished, equally liberal ahistorical treatment of the War of the Roses, get it from a better source: Henry VI, Parts 1, 2, & 3, and Richard III by William Shakespeare.
    Full Review »
  3. Oct 22, 2013
    10
    History portrayed in a wonderful way. Just as good as the Tudors and very enjoyable. The acting was great and you couldn't wait for the nextHistory portrayed in a wonderful way. Just as good as the Tudors and very enjoyable. The acting was great and you couldn't wait for the next episode to reveal its history. Full Review »