Jodie Turner Smith: Duchess Meghan wasn’t ‘allowed’ to modernize the monarchy

jodie turner smith anne

Jodie Turner-Smith plays Anne Boleyn in a new three-part miniseries called, obviously enough, Anne Boleyn. The series airs in the UK and I have no idea if America will get to see it. I’m including photos of Jodie in her Boleyn drag and I was struck by the fact that we always call her “Anne Boleyn,” when really she was Queen Anne. I mean, she and Henry VIII got married and she was queen. History still refers to her by her maiden name though. As does this miniseries. To promote the series, Jodie chatted with the Telegraph (these quotes via the Daily Mail) about royalty and the Duchess of Sussex.

Jodie Turner-Smith has revealed she feels Meghan Markle ‘could have modernised the royal family’ and said the monarchy is ‘limiting’ and ‘archaic’. The British actress, 34, who is the first black woman to take on the role of Anne Boleyn in the new Channel 5 series, said she is not a ‘monarchist’ in a new interview. Speaking about Meghan in an interview published in The Telegraph, Jodie said: ‘It was a terrible missed opportunity, the way in which it was not allowed to be something that really modernises that institution, and to change it to something for the better. I think that’s why there’s dysfunction there.’

Meanwhile the actress also revealed she ‘understood’ the choice to cast her as Henry VIII’s wife was ‘polarising’, saying: ‘It was an opportunity for me to bring my individual identity to this and distil it down to a human story, as opposed to a story that’s about whiteness or class.

Speaking about the monarchy, she said: ‘We have to look at things in a modern context. And only then we will recognise that certain things are archaic, and don’t really serve us as a community and are limiting us. I think we should keep those things in stories and move on to something else in reality.’

Meanwhile she said the backlash she received when it was announced that she would the first actress of colour to play the character of King Henry VIII’s second wife, was ‘to be expected’ because people are ‘attached’ to the way Anne Boleyn looks in their imagination. The mother-of-one revealed that she thinks Anne was ‘deeply feminist’ and ‘ahead of her time’ as she argued for women to have a voice in relation to politics and religion.

[From The Daily Mail]

“…The way in which it was not allowed to be something that really modernises that institution, and to change it to something for the better. I think that’s why there’s dysfunction there…” What came first, the chicken or the egg? Did dysfunction plague the current monarchy and that dysfunction wouldn’t allow Meghan to exist within it? Or did Meghan somehow leave dysfunction in her wake? It’s not actually either/or, now that I’ve said that. Both things are true – the monarchy was archaic, racist and dysfunctional to begin with, and when the Sussexes left, the dysfunction increased in their wake. As we can see. As for what Jodie says about monarchy in general… I’m assuming that she’s more of a small-r republican but she can’t very well say that plainly while she’s promoting a series where she plays a queen.

meghan vax live4

Photos courtesy of Channel 5, Vax Live.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

54 Responses to “Jodie Turner Smith: Duchess Meghan wasn’t ‘allowed’ to modernize the monarchy”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Renata says:

    Jodie is a bold queen. She knows they’ll come for her but she is ready for them.

  2. Chaine says:

    Oooo the series sounds so interesting. I hope it airs in the US, would love to see it.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      I do too! I am a lover of history, it has always been my favorite subject. But I think Jodie makes an excellent point here in that Meghan could have modernized the royal family, but they are too dysfunctional to see it. They are short sided. I see the royals like the GOP, all white and persons of absolute privilege. They don’t represent the true colors of Americans, but Democrats do.

  3. Maria says:

    Today is not only Harry and Meghan’s wedding day but the anniversary of Queen Anne Boleyn’s execution.
    I love Jodie and am so excited for her portrayal.

    I think part of the reason Anne is referred to that way is that she took definite and notable pride in her family. Hence the B necklace. Women who belonged to prominent families were proud of their lineage and the dash of royal blood they contained (all of Henry’s wives descended from Edward I in some way). But Henry’s other wives are not usually referred to as Queen so and so in any case in historiography. It’s Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and Katherine Parr.

    Actually I can’t think of any queens in historiography of the early modern period referred to as Queen anything and I have a UK degree in it.

    Anne Boleyn was different and Jodie is right. I believe she is the only Queen consort in English royal history that was crowned with the King’s crown, St. Edward’s Crown, instead of the Queen Consort’s crown at the time, St. Edith’s (Katherine of Aragon was crowned with this one). And there are parallels with Meghan. Anne was a reformer and her opinions created a great deal of friction at court. Cromwell’s faction was able to use this to frame her and bring about her downfall.

    Another pertinent point is that we don’t really know what Anne looked like. There are general points of consensus, dark eyes, possibly olive complexion. The rest is really up for debate (the six fingers and wart and moles myths obviously being untrue, the account of Catholic Nicholas Sander who was six when she was executed).

    And there is also the fact that the concepts of race were very different in Henry VIII’s time, so the idea of “inaccuracy” in her casting is an anachronism in itself. She probably wouldn’t necessarily have looked like Jodie, but that’s not the point, as Jodie herself said.

    Anyway, sorry for the thesis. I’m super excited for this!

    • BW says:

      I agree with you.

      The actor they cast as King Henry doesn’t look like Henry, either. And don’t get me started on Jonathan Rhys Meyers. The only good Henry casting was Keith Michell in the 1970’s series “The 6 Wives of Henry VIII.” I’d love to see Idris Elba as Henry.

      Also, there were so many Queen Annes. Referring to her an Anne Boleyn is the only way to know exactly which Queen Anne they’re referring to.

      • Maria says:

        Yes!! I’ve studied Henry VIII for so many years but ironically it was Keith Michell in that BBC series that made me understand him, even if he was a jerk in so many ways, lol.
        The Tudors was fun though, lol. And Natalie Dormer loved Anne Boleyn and had so much respect for her, so I appreciated that!

      • lucy2 says:

        I enjoyed Natalie Dormer’s turn in the role, and am looking forward to Jodie’s as well. I hope we get to see it here in the US.

      • BW says:

        Yes, I loved Natalie Dormer’s Anne Boleyn, too, but I’d love to see Jody’s version.

    • Esso says:

      Very interesting….have you written any articles or reports…link them if you can…I’d love to read more

      • Maria says:

        Not online, but thank you!! I could talk all day about this, haha!
        A good starter book is Antonia Fraser’s Six Wives of Henry VIII. She’s a popular historian but her things are well-researched and she is pretty fair and balanced, unlike a lot of authors writing on this subject. She’s also done wonderful books on Mary Queen of Scots, Louis XIV, and Marie Antoinette.
        Eric Ives’s work on Anne Boleyn is the gold standard in my opinion!

    • Agirlandherdog says:

      Thanks Maria! I love history, so I really enjoyed your comment! If you have any book recommendations, I’d love it if you would share them. I have A Brief History of British Kings & Queens by Mike AShley.

      • Maria says:

        Sure! Eric Ives’s work on Anne Boleyn is great. Gareth Russell’s Young and Damned and Fair is a great book about Katherine Howard. Alison Weir has shown some bias against Anne Boleyn in past books but her Lady in the Tower is good and her book about Henry VIII: The King and His Court is invaluable in describing day to day court life and other aspects. The Creation of Anne Boleyn by Susan Bordo is great to examine the myths and representations of Anne. The Six Wives of Henry VIII and also The Boleyns: The Rise and Fall of a Tudor Family, both by David Loades, are wonderful.

      • Agirlandherdog says:

        Thanks! I’ve added them to my reading list.

      • Becks1 says:

        I really enjoyed The King and His Court. So detailed and interesting, in its way, it has less drama than some other books, lol.

    • Becks1 says:

      You’re right, I can’t think of any queen in that time frame that was referred to as queen besides Queen Elizabeth I, and even then she’s often just Elizabeth I. Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was probably one of the most famous queens in british history in my opinion, is still known as Eleanor of Aquitaine, not Queen Eleanor.

      I love 15th and 16th century british history, I’m always trying to learn more. I’m going to look up Eric Ives, I find Anne Boleyn fascinating because of how much is false and how much is accurate. Even now, 500 years later, she’s still a fascinating creature.

      • Maria says:

        Most definitely! I think another fascinating thing about Eleanor is that her lineage and family were a good deal older and more powerful than Henry II’s. She also helped her first husband on Crusade while she was Queen of France. So her strong personality and the fact that she came from a territory that was far more powerful and wealthy than England was at the time may have influenced how she is referred to.
        The ups and downs of these eras are so fascinating!

    • Ann says:

      I think one reason Henry’s wives are always referred to be their full names (except Catherine of Aragon) is that he had so many of them and several shared the same first name…..two were Katherines (different spellings) and two were Annes, with the other Anne being Anne of Cleaves. Were there two Janes, or was there a third Katherine as well? I can’t remember the name of the final wife.

      • lanne says:

        1 jane, 3 katherines, and 2 annes

      • Becks1 says:

        There was one Jane (who is also referred to as Jane Seymour typically) and then you have Lady Jane Grey who was queen for 9 days (on her own, not as a wife, and that was after Henry VIII, but that may be why you are thinking of two Janes.)

      • FicklePickle says:

        It really doesn’t help that at that time if you took all the Katherines, Janes, Annes, and Marys, you’d have approximately 70-85 % of the entire female population of England.

    • pottymouth pup says:

      All of Henry VIII’s wives were referred to by their maiden name/title

      Catherine of Aragon
      Anne Boleyn (my fav & I agree with Turner Smith about her)
      Jane Seymour
      Anne of Cleves
      Catherine Howard
      Catherine Parr

      when people speak of Queen Anne they’re normally referring to the daughter of James II (the one the movie The Favourite was about) and/or the furniture style named after her

      • Maria says:

        Yes definitely – and Queen Anne was queen in her own right instead of a consort, so of course that’s why!

    • Christine says:

      I accidentally minored in English History in college, because I loved the topic so much I kept taking classes. Thank you for sharing your perspective, I agree!

  4. Smalltowngirl says:

    If we referred to Henry’s wives as Queen we would be trying to keep track of three Queen Katherines and two Queen Annes (not to be confused with the later solo ruler). Elizabeth of York is also known by her family name, so it’s not just limited to Henry’s queens and it is simply easier when talking about so many women with the same first name.

  5. Victoria says:

    I struggle with this to be honest. Anne was a real person, not just a character so I feel like why? There are plenty of Black Brits in history whose story should be told.

    Anne was white. You can’t really separate that. But I know I’ll probably be the outlier on this.

    I also find Jodie very annoying…but I digress.

    • Maria says:

      There are some truly excellent points about why this casting is great from historians of Anne Boleyn and specialists about her life:

      • Victoria says:

        And I don’t agree with those points.

        Indo not want white people playing Black real life characters and they will further use this to do just that.

        Bridgerton has made up characters in it and Queen Charlotte was of mixed race or purported to be. That is the difference.

        Hamilton was a great show but also problematic for so many reasons. I am sorry if I don’t cave to group think and I won’t be talked down to because my opinion different

        When Black people say we are not a monolith, we mean it.

      • Maria says:

        I was just posting a link in reply. I said the casting was great because I like it, but I never talked down to you. Nor did I say anything about anyone having a monolithic opinion, which of course as you say is not true.
        I respect your opinions.

    • lanne says:

      I suppose you’d better not go see Hamilton. Or watch Bridgerton.

      All throughout film and television history, stories have been whitewashed, filtered through the experiences of white people. Even in stories of POC, white characters and their struggles were often the central focus.

      No one is going to watch the show and come away thinking Anne Boleyn wasn’t white.

      What’s so important about whiteness that it can’t ever, ever, ever. ever not be the central focus of the story? Why do some white people get so upset at the thought of nonwhite people playing a white character, who, even if based on history, is still a fictional creation for that story? Plenty of white people have played nonwhite characters in film and TV, even going back to the blackface characters in DW Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation.” And we know that was done to denigrate and forment hatred.

      But back to Hamilton for a moment: LM Miranda said that he was telling a story of the past–a story of immigrants–through the lens of immigrants in a modern setting. This portrayal of Anne Boleyn allows us to see her character differently as well: a woman who “rose above her station” and paid the ultimate price for her ambition. Seeing her played by a black woman adds more nuance not only to how we might think about Anne, but creates a contemporary context that may lead us to ask how we treat ambitious women today.

      A story about the past is just that. A story. Stories about the past always reflect the culture/norms/values of the times in which they are told. There’s no such thing as “objective history” anyway–history is a narrative that always shows the biases of the tellers: that’s why so many people believe Anne was a witch and has 6 fingers, or even believe the slander that she committed incest with her own brother.

      • Maria says:

        I liked what Leanda de Lisle said “There are today many black Britons and I want their children to grow up feeling part of the history of the country in which they live. They inherit the baggage of the past, as we all do. Anne Boleyn wasn’t black, but nor was she a modern white woman educated at RADA.”

      • Victoria says:

        But Anne did not have to rise very far. She was the daughter of a prominent political house. We have no proof either way that she was or wasn’t incectious with her brother so I agree people need to chill with that but I wouldn’t discount it because that’s what people did for real for real in Europe. I’m not trying to be rude but like I look at how they did slavery over here in America and they were raping their own daughters, cousins, and sons AND enslaved them so…and they are still marrying cousins. Brits cared about the image, but behind closed doors…

        For me I really don’t want to see a Black woman portraying a white woman who did another woman, who did nothing to her and ruined her life and that of her daughter’s-for power and ambition. That falls into the whole Jezebel trope that we already have to deal with and how we use sex for power and stuff. Also, don’t really want to see a black woman get treated like s*** by a white man either and have her head chopped off. Don’t really want to see a white man lusting after a Black woman’s body and then when he has no use for her anymore discards her like a tissue used.

        I don’t think Meghan can relate to that at all. That goes against everything we believe Meghan to be about and what she said herself to be, which is a woman who is a champion for other women..

        While I’m not exactly a big fan of the Catholic Church I just hate that people think Henry and Anne did anything for any noble reason other than their own selfish pursuits. And that’s why karma got their ass in the end. I don’t really see anything redeemable about either of them. Team Katherine. Bottom line, he wanted to divorce his first wife and so he used religion to do it and didn’t even follow the religion that he instituted what with his whoring, killing, etc. So a lot of people died for nothing.

        Little Black girls and boys shouldn’t feel that in order to be validated should they become actresses or actors that they have to tell the stories of white people in their Black bodies. I think it’s disgusting that we push this narrative.

        Nor should we have to be subjected to playing out their stories just so they could possibly perhaps find the humanity in us. That’s a little rubbish because they won’t anyway. Racist don’t give a s*** about any of that. If you can’t find the humanity in other human beings because they aren’t white then that is messed up but pretty much par for the course.

      • Maria says:

        I respect your opinions and understand your disagreements. I like her casting but am absolutely not going to tell anyone how to feel about it unless they are white people being racist towards Jodie about it.

        I just wanted to address your third to last paragraph:
        The perception of Henry and Anne’s actions is a little skewed in modern culture because there are misconceptions (not necessarily yours, but popular cultural ones).
        Henry was the son of a man who had achieved the throne of England through right of conquest. It was just after the Wars of the Roses and his position was not necessarily stable. He needed, beyond anything a male heir. And it’s not really a question of whether he thought women were inferior (everybody did at that time) but a question of whether the powerful magnates with their own armies would follow his heir. And that heir, to be considered valid not just by the people of England but internationally, had to be male (and legitimate, opposed to his son Henry Fitzroy). This is the main crux of his divorce. Henry was in love with Anne, but it’s very doubtful to me he would have gone through with any of this if any of Katherine’s male children had lived.
        The political and religious difficulties arose because the political landscape influenced the ebbing and flowing religious opinions regarding his marriage. There were times the Pope, sensing the weakened power of Charles V, wavered towards tacitly approving Henry setting Katherine aside. Obviously, eventually he decided otherwise as the Emperor’s power grew. The dissolution of the monasteries and the resulting wealth was the brainchild of Thomas Cromwell even as Henry implemented it. Anne herself was sincerely interested in female scholarship and religious reform, and gave charity as liberally as Katherine did.
        Henry considered himself a Catholic till the day he died but he believed that the authority of the king superseded that of the Pope, which is a viewpoint that many kings before had held, but none had broken so dramatically with Rome and at a time when Lutheranism was gaining momentum.
        Katherine herself, while a brilliant, charitable, and strong woman, had her moments of self-interest and religious intolerance as well.
        I do not pick sides in this particular matter, the wives are all interesting and nuanced each in their own way. The main thing in common with all of it is that Henry was a jerk, really – he had moments of enlightenment but his paranoia and cruelty cannot be denied. But the context is very different to what is often portrayed in my opinion.
        The accusation of incest is implausible not just because Anne had essentially no privacy as queen but many of the dates were contrived and obviously false as during those times she was recovering from childbirth, or her brother was on diplomatic missions, etc.

      • Lyra says:

        Not to mention that Marie Antoinette was also accused of incest with her son. And we all know that, despite all her flaws, she didn’t commit it. Incest and witch were common accusations to assassinate the character of women. Idk what kind of person Anne Boleyn was. But considering how our contemporary English men is trying to do with Diana and Meghan making them see crazy and all other stuff, I wouldn’t be surprised that Anne was an alright normal person, with normal flaws, but not the witch or manipulative master that Henry and the courtiers painted her.

        I like Dormer but I don’t like her Anne Boleyn. Though the problem is more regarding the writitng of the Tudor shows than her acting.

    • June-O says:

      In truth, unless you use an actress of Anne Boleyn’s exact ethnic background, physical features, height and weight, most of which we don’t know with any accuracy, you’re taking artistic license.

    • IMARA219 says:

      Victoria you are exactly right. There are Black voices and stories they could harvest from the royal Tudor court but instead of telling it from those perspectives, they decide to be lazy and have a Black woman play Boylen so they can seem artistic while telling the same exact stories they always tell.

      • Evenstar says:

        That’s a good point, and you put what I was feeling into words! How many times have we seen Anne Boleyn (who was White) portrayed in film, TV, stage, literature, etc.? Even though she’s being played by a Black woman, it’s still reinforcing the idea that only the White stories are the ones worth telling. It’s just being obfuscated with diverse casting.

        I’m glad Jodie is getting work, she’s beautiful and helped make “Queen and Slim” watchable for me. But this feels like tokenism.

      • BnlurNforever says:

        The reason they tell the same stories in these areas is because they are proven popular and when new stories are told, they are less popular with audiences. It’s about creativity and opportunity to include POC in the popular narrative. For example, when the West Wing cast a black man as president of the US, many dared to imagine a black and president, possibly for the first time. Now obviously, we can’t rewrite who Anne B. was, but introducing a diverse cast in these popular narratives normalize diversity for the audience. It won’t solve all our issues, but it will help some people see other humans in a different more relatable light and that’s always a good thing.

      • IMARA219 says:

        BnlurNforever the “these stories are proven popular” theory never makes sense. For generations, those in the African disaspora have been begging for different stories and narratives. We were told no one would pay to watch a Black male and/or female lead on the scene, but that is grossly, obviously, and truly a lie. Then Black stories are made with white actors completely whitewashing our historical and cultural voices, and those stories are “popular” and moneymakers. So no, actually, that point is mote. Anne Boylen is a fascinating queen, but so were many of them, and there is a large group of people interested in other stories and other narratives. People like good storytelling, and the subject does not have to be “well-known” to the entire masses to be made into a form of pop-cultural text. Using your West Wing example, a Black man as president was in the lexicon well before West Wing did it. It was already an aspirational idea for Black Americans. That one piece of medium did not largely influence the tide; it was already in the American consciousness. Microscopically it was talked about within Black American communities for decades before that even happened on a tv show. Moreover, using tokenism isn’t new, and we should now know better. Introducing a diverse figure in a film does not make the story diverse. If the plot itself is still serving aspects of cultural alienation, it does not normalize diversity. All tokenism does is make others feel better about their internalized biases. On a personal note, as a Black woman, I don’t see the need for tokenism, especially in 2021. As a Black woman, I want to see the real deal. I want stories that center myself and my voice, and I want real progress. That’s equity in action. I don’t want a form of fakery.

    • BW says:

      Well, you better not watch any show with a white, blue-eye Jesus, then, because Jesus was middle eastern Jewish.

      • Imara219 says:

        Odd swerve, or pivot, and a huge logical fallacy. It’s a strawman argument to derail from the current conversation. Typically Biblical content is categorized as Religious text not historical fiction.

  6. Keira says:

    And many journos still refer to Kate as Kate Middleton and Meghan as Meghan Markle. What’s with that?!

    • Sofia says:

      People know them by their maiden names rather than their titles so that’s why their maiden names are used. If I went up to someone in the UK (or even elsewhere) and said “Do you know who the Duchess of Cambridge/Sussex is?”, most would say “who?” But if I said “do you know who Kate Middleton/Meghan Markle are?” most people would say “yes”

  7. Wiglet Watcher says:

    I disagree Meghan left dysfunction in her wake. She certainly put a spotlight on it.
    The firm/institution fumbled on its own because of that deep rooted dysfunction.
    Meghan came and left giving us a glimpse of a young, hardworking royal. And she and Harry may have never given the Oprah interview if the Firm just left her and her husband alone.
    Meanwhile the BRF trips all over themselves thinking their business as usual tactics will work fine.

    Harry, however, left the palace scrambling. He knows their secrets because they were his secrets too being BRF blood. And taking himself out of the spare role left the heir exposed.

    It’s nice to think of Meghan as the fully realized woman who came in, saw a mess and left WITH her prince for her own fairytale. But that puts a lot on Meghan when it was largely Harry’s choices that Meg is still getting the blame/credit for. Depending which side of the ocean you’re on.

    • Cisne says:

      You can see why it Charles and William who are most mad at Harry leaving. He Harry was the sole reason after William that Charles stayed and sacrifice those extra years with Diana. As soon as he was born Charles basically exited stage left. He did his function as per succession and providing heir and spare with the virgin girl Diane…he was done with her after that.

      And now Harry has left and left both Charles and William exposed?! God dammit!! What is he thinking?

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        Thinking he creates his own life and not what he was born into. Thank goodness he broke the cycle.

  8. IMARA219 says:

    “was ‘to be expected’ because people are ‘attached’ to the way Anne Boleyn looks in their imagination.” was a silly quote. We know what this historical figure looks like. We have documented it’s not about being upset because she’s an imaginary character and she’s not looking a set way. This quote would be better suited when discussing Queen Katherine of Aragon, who was a redhead with blue eyes, yet is always portrayed as having dark hair and dark eyes because she was Spanish. That aside, my issue with Jodie playing this role is because it’s still a white narrative now it’s a white narrative that will inflict violence towards a Black female body and that’s disconcerting. I said it before and I will say it again if this production wanted to be radical the whole cast should have been Black or POC.

  9. BlueToile says:

    My only real concern with a black woman playing Ann Boleyn is that with some lesser educated people it reinforces the whole BRF “is very much not racist” narrative. It is a disconnect, I agree, but there it is. I cannot tell you how many comments I have seen online completely dismissing the idea that Meghan was treated differently because “she is not the first black/mixed race member of the RF.” They watched Bridgerton, read there is a kernel of truth that Queen Charlotte MAY have had a black ancestor, and they run with it. The fact that Charlotte’s ancestor would have been generations before, but Meghan’s mother is obviously black is completely lost on them. On a side note, the actress is extremely striking in that green historical gown and headpiece. Like, WOW.

  10. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    And the fact they missed an opportunity to be modernized is why royalty will lose and die off. I think this crucial missed opportunity could have kept them alive.

  11. Nic919 says:

    I am sure the mini series will be interesting and I will likely watch it. My only quibble is in calling Anne Boleyn a feminist. She wasn’t. She simply used the rules of patriarchy in her favour to help bring her family up the social ladder, until the rules backfired on her. She is certainly a victim of patriarchy.

    • Victoria says:


    • Maria says:

      To be fair, strictly speaking nobody was really a feminist back then (outliers like the medieval Christine de Pizan and early modern Marguerite de Navarre always existed but they were not the norm even among educated and powerful women and even those examples are tempered by historical context).

      Even Elizabeth I did not approve of coeducational programs at Oxford believing that the women there would distract the male scholars and she was arguably the most educated woman in Europe at the time. This was not an uncommon view among powerful prominent women. The context of religious and at the time academic consensus of female inferiority was too great for anyone to really consistently believe in feminism.

      But Anne Boleyn, who was lady in waiting to Marguerite de Navarre during her formative years, did believe in education for women, she believed in implementing the same standards of sexual morality among the men and women who served her as queen, she confronted Henry with banned books she believed in, and she did have dialogues about religion and politics that were unusual for women. It is not feminism as we know it as that is a movement strictly confined to Enlightenment-forward eras, but her actions were not as superficial as are sometimes portrayed in culture.

  12. L4frimaire says:

    Turner Smith is pushing back a bit on how she thinks her words were misconstrued by the press.

  13. FicklePickle says:

    And here I sit, just annoyed beyond belief that they couldn’t be bothered to spend 10-15 dollars and maybe an hour at the MOST to give the LEAD ACTRESS appropriate UNDERGARMENTS that would MAKE HER LESS UNCOMFORTABLE and also PROTECT THE COSTUME FROM HUMAN JUICES.

    Those stiff-bodied gowns CHAFE, and a simple chemise is a tube with sleeves and four hems. It’s not hard, people. I can excuse the bonkers vestigial French Hood (because anything on a person’s head other than a wig is apparently SACRILEGE) but the chemise actually amounts to basic workplace health and safety measures.