Black actress as queen of England

[FentyGa 14,340]

4 minutes ago, Regina George said:

Her struggles and story weren’t shaped by race because she was white. 

This is not fair to POC imo because representing queen of England as black woman at this time period when black people were going through such a hard time in the same country is beyond tasteless. 

You are right, Anne’s story is not related to race but only because she was white. If she was black she would probably not be alive to witness anything that her story is rn and that is the only problem I have with this. 

of course, had she been black during that time, her story would’ve been different. but that’s the real world. this is a fictional show, telling the story of a woman who fell in love with a king, became his second wife, etc. it’s not central to her whiteness. it’s likely to be a semi-political romantic drama. and, if the cast was all completely accurate, everyone would most likely be white. but the story can be told without absolute visual accuracy.

i’d like to say that in this series, they aren’t casting a black woman to change the narrative and say “what if she had been black?”. that’s not what they’re doing. they’re creating an alternative universe with an integrated society, where a black woman could have been queen.

[GagaSine 7,464]

 

[FentyGa 14,340]

6 minutes ago, Bambino said:

That would've been true if there were POC in the royal family at that time, but this isn't the case. Her being a white person who happens to be a Queen in that specific period says a lot.

her whiteness is not central to her story. there are no struggles that she faced because she was white. her story is most likely being told as a dramatised love story, which can be told in any way, with any cast.

[Regina George 59,387]

2 minutes ago, FentyGa said:

of course, had she been black during that time, her story would’ve been different. but that’s the real world. this is a fictional show, telling the story of a woman who fell in love with a king, became his second wife, etc. it’s not central to her whiteness. it’s likely to be a semi-political romantic drama. and, if the cast was all completely accurate, everyone would most likely be white. but the story can be told without absolute visual accuracy.

i’d like to say that in this series, they aren’t casting a black woman to change the narrative and say “what if she had been black?”. that’s not what they’re doing. they’re creating an alternative universe with an integrated society, where a black woman could have been queen.

Okay I understand your point of view and even tho I don’t necessarily agree with it I respect it. Sorry if what I said came off as something ignorant or rude. I would honestly just like to see some real black stories being told to people instead of this. 

[Economy 47,492]

11 minutes ago, ShayCristoforo said:

As a black person, I don’t want to see that. Casting a black woman will distort the historic views and actually negate the impact of oppression. We need to be able to see a British monarch and say “those rich racist white b*tches.” Lmao. The wool is not gonna be pulled over my eyes.

Unless you switch up the whole cast like they did with Bridgerton, it’s just lame. 

Thats another very important point u make. White dominance is an important historical aspect to keep in context when connecting to dots to passed down racial impacts still felt today

 

I think its silly to make a double standard that white ppl cant play a black person but the reverse is ok as if escaping opression and promoting equality somehow justifies creating NEW double standards to replace old double standards like some kind of revenge. Personally i dont get why ppl keep pushing to justify new double standards as i think that defeats the point and purpose of true equality to begin with and doesnt help division (especially among petty white individuals who will just get annoyed with POC for it. They shouldnt use it as an excuse to draw away from tbe bigger issue but it doesnt mean we have to trigger those attitudes either unnecessairily imo)

 

But if one doesnt agree with my point in paragraph above fine, at least care about the accuracy and implications it has on racial history that are still felt to this day when you distort it, especially for young impressionable minds which is another thing to consider, young ppl who dont know the histories as well as adults do may also whatch this movie and it can be damaging to perception especially for them

 

Is it gonna have a huge impact for the vast majority of people? Realistically no, we know the Queen was white. But subconsciously our mind works in funny ways with visual stimuli. But thats just my 2 cents. Theres much worse things to do on television

[Wet Fire 6,711]

I personally don't mind it at all. Because her story doesn't really have a racial undertone in early 16th century England, so her appearance as a black woman isn't going to influence anything for a 21st century audience (it would have been different if Abraham Lincoln is shown as a black man, because his story does have a racial association with African-Americans and slavery).

Still, I feel like this type of casting basically draws the focus away from the actual racial inequality in the entertainment industry. I mean, casting a black woman in one major role in movies isn't going to change the fact of racism which affects the day-to-day lived experience of black actors and other black people working in the industry. More opportunities have to provided to black actors in films that do not have the theme of race and racism.

[GagaSine 7,464]

Just now, Economy said:

Thats another very important point u make. White dominance is an important historical aspect to keep in context when connecting to dots to passed down impacts still felt today

 

I think its silly to make a double standard that white ppl cant play a black person but the reverse is ok as if escaping opression and promoting equality somehow justifies NEW double standards. Personally i dont get why ppl keep pushing to justify new double standards as i think that defeats the point and purpose of true equality to begin with and doesnt help division (especially among petty white individuals who will just get annoyed with POC for it. They shouldnt use it as an excuse to draw away from tbe bigger issue but it doesnt mean we have to trigger those attitudes either unnecessairily imo)

 

But if one doesnt agree with my point in paragraph above fine, at least care about the accuracy and implications it has on racial history that are still felt to this day when you distort it, especially for young impressionable minds which is another thing to consider, young ppl who dont know the histories as well as adults do may also whatch this movie and it can be damaging to perception especially for them

Okay but what about the endless other historical inaccuracies that are portrayed constantly in every film made about the past? Why are those not relevant, only this is? Erasing contributions of powerful women or portraying them as simply eye candy, showing historical figures who had homosexual relationships as  straight only, changing fashions and beauty standards to titillate the modern eye instead of portraying what people actually looked like, almost always casting a thin person as a fat character and usually portraying them just as straight up not fat (see recent biographical film of author Shirley Jackson) or in a god damn fat suit etc All these things are actually damaging and reinforcing the status quo but suddenly this is the ultimate problem? 

I agree that there should be a larger focus on telling actual black stories but to imply this is harmful/dangerous is alarmist and honestly a bit simple minded. Art has already reinforced a lot of awful aspects of society over and over and over again without question, misleading generations. Movies are a product of the time, not historical documents. What about all the cowboy movies portraying native people as cruel and heartless animals deserving of slaughter? And John wayne as the brave white saviour? Are you out there up in arms about that or just a beautiful black woman portraying a white queen?

I’m very very confused by this.

[GagaSine 7,464]

What is the point of art if it is just a photocopy of reality? 

[Economy 47,492]

3 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

Okay but what about the endless other historical inaccuracies that are portrayed constantly in every film made about the past? Why are those not relevant, only this is? Erasing contributions of powerful women or portraying them as simply eye candy, showing historical figures who had homosexual relationships as  straight only, changing fashions and beauty standards to titillate the modern eye instead of portraying what people actually looked like, almost always casting a thin person as a fat character and usually portraying them just as straight up not fat (see recent biographical film of author Shirley Jackson) or in a god damn fat suit etc All these things are actually damaging and reinforcing the status quo but suddenly this is the ultimate problem? 

I agree that there should be a larger focus on telling actual black stories but to imply this is harmful/dangerous is alarmist and honestly a bit simple minded. Art has already reinforced a lot of awful aspects of society over and over and over again without question, misleading generations. Movies are a product of the time, not historical documents. What about all the cowboy movies portraying native people as cruel and heartless animals deserving of slaughter? And John wayne as the brave white saviour? Are you out there up in arms about that or just a beautiful black woman portraying a white queen?

I’m very very confused by this.

ALL of this i agree with as well and have pointed it out over and over. Its one thing i hate about hollywood how they distort everything

 

Ur entire reply + LMAO reactkon seems like an implication and suggestion that i only care about the issue on OP and care about nothing else

 

I assure u thats not the case

 

Edit: about ur art comment. Fictional stories are fine to be whatever. I have more of an issue when its on stuff very close to reality and u give off wrong impressions of what happened

[ShayCristoforo 10,527]

@Economy I don’t think white people should play black roles, because being black is political and meaningful, just by being black. It carries an irreplaceable spirit. And there really aren’t as many solid opportunities for black actors (or black people) anyway. 
Especially when studios continue to make a million movies about British royalty instead of black narratives. 

I do think black people should play white roles like certain superheroes, because whiteness isn’t an integral feature of those roles. But for British monarchs, let’s keep them white so that we don’t gloss over the historical impact, as mentioned. Whiteness is very much an integral feature of those roles.  

[GagaSine 7,464]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

ALL of this i agree with as well and have pointed it out over and over. Its one thing i hate about hollywood how they distort everything

 

Ur entire reply + LMAO reactkon seems like an implication and suggestion that i only care about the issue on OP and care about nothing else

 

I assure u thats not the case

Well because I just think it is absurd to imply this is harmful in the same way my other examples are. Those things reinforce white supremacy, sexism, homophobia. This does nothing of the sort, does not “erase” history because everyone knows the Tudors were white and Anne Boleyn + Henry’s other wives are very well studied and there are tons of historical sources. It’s literally just showing a black person as British royalty. I don’t see how that’s evil.

It’s not like a victory or anything overly positive, I honestly don’t think representation = liberation but I’ve also seen enough stories from black ppl about how seeing black roles in media has helped them feel proud of their heritage and skin colour, to know it does have some positive effect.

[Economy 47,492]

1 minute ago, ShayCristoforo said:

@Economy I don’t think white people should play black roles, because being black is political and meaningful, just by being black. It carries an irreplaceable spirit. And there really aren’t as many solid opportunities for black actors (or black people) anyway. 
Especially when studios continue to make a million movies about British royalty instead of black narratives. 

I do think black people should play white roles like certain superheroes, because whiteness isn’t an integral feature of those roles. But for British monarchs, let’s keep them white so that we don’t gloss over the historical impact, as mentioned. Whiteness is very much an integral feature of those roles.  

Superheroes or fictional characters isnt what i was refering to. Anyone can play a fictional character. Even when some ppl got upset at the idea of a black woman playing little mermaid i thought that was stupid. She is an immaginary character and u can display any features u want

 

I was talking about double standards with ACTUAL people that existed. Historical figures if u will

 

Some ppl make a deal if a role was traditionally white for some character and now a POC plays it. Thats not what i was refering to and if anything i think its great to push for more POC inclusion in such roles instead of painting the idea that they are "suppostu be white"

[Economy 47,492]

2 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

Well because I just think it is absurd to imply this is harmful in the same way my other examples are. Those things reinforce white supremacy, sexism, homophobia. This does nothing of the sort, does not “erase” history because everyone knows the Tudors were white and Anne Boleyn + Henry’s other wives are very well studied and there are tons of historical sources. It’s literally just showing a black person as British royalty. I don’t see how that’s evil.

It’s not like a victory or anything overly positive, I honestly don’t think representation = liberation but I’ve also seen enough stories from black ppl about how seeing black roles in media has helped them feel proud of their heritage and skin colour, to know it does have some positive effect.

I dont totally or strongly disagree with ur points u been making in our discussion so far but i dont totally agree with everything uve said so far either

 

Maybe ill just leave it at that that we have a slightly different opinion on some angles of it. I dont want to argue

[Wet Fire 6,711]

1 hour ago, FentyGa said:

the people disagreeing with this need to accept that they’re racist, and find a way to not be

this is a tv show. that means it’s fiction, even if it’s based on real events.

on-screen diversity is so important, the characters we see have to reflect today’s society! everyone wants to feel seen. of course, there aren’t many prominent black figures in distant european history, for several reasons (all of which we know), but if their society had been as integrated as ours is, maybe there would have been a black woman on the throne.

you picked bad examples for your point.

hitler’s race is a part of his story-he was a white man committing race based genocide.

nelson mandela’s race was a part of his story. he was the first black head of state in south africa, etc.

anne boleyn’s race doesn’t affect the story. it’s not a part of what makes her, her

Thank you for raising a very important point.

Although I do understand why people aren't going to agree with what you said. I think those who don't agree have this point to make: if we show Anne Boleyn as a black woman and do not show that she had to suffer due to her skin colour amid a white surrounding, this would be a historical erasure of racial tension which might have prevailed in early 16th century England. We cannot think of Othello's story without thinking about race. A non-white man must have drawn racial injustice. So, today, seeing Anne Boleyn as a black woman and not seeing her suffer due to her skin colour might feel wrong to many viewers.

Though, personally I don't mind the casting because it's going to normalize black actors playing 'white roles' in the eyes of a 21st century audience to an extent.

[Summerboi14 807]

Jesus was not white?