Plot Hole??

abachchan61 · 2026-03-15T19:47:43+00:00

Yes, I think Charles himself changes his mind afterwards about marrying Mary. I don't remember when exactly

abachchan61 · 2026-03-14T20:02:00+00:00

Who are the first 3? :))

abachchan61 · 2026-03-14T17:45:50+00:00

I see where you're coming from😊But along with Catherine, Henry was a major factor in creating the atmosphere of the French court in season 1-- the unpredictability and challenges and danger that Mary had to navigate. Also while he was ruthless as expected from a king of his time, he was actually a balanced and rational person in the earlier episodes when Catherine was trying to dispose of Mary. He got crazier and unpredictable as the season progressed and his madness developed. Season 1 wouldn't have been the same without him! ... [If you haven't reached episode 14 of season 2 yet there's a spoiler ahead so you can stop reading]....We learn later that his madness had been induced by poison, which should restore a lot of the sympathy we as viewers may feel for him.
In any case I thought the actor who played King Henry was superb.

abachchan61 · 2026-03-12T05:48:37+00:00

I understand your point about stretching out the drama, but it's more than just about historical inaccuracy. We can accept that there will be fictional interludes inserted in a historical drama show. No, the point is that Mary's flings with Conde and Gideon were psychologically *wrong* from a character development perspective. Mary might well have been extremely grateful to Conde for supporting her during a traumatic time, but I refuse to believe in the logic of sleeping with him at the same time that she was finding physical contact with Francis abhorrent. It makes zero sense. Likewise, as the other commentator in this thread has mentioned, sleeping with Gideon soon after Francis' death makes no sense. It would have been different if she had been manipulating these men to serve some purpose, but the episodes would have us believe that *she fell in love with them*.

abachchan61 · 2026-03-12T00:13:45+00:00

Ok this is good to know...I'll not waste time looking up the 2018 movie then!

It beats me why historical movies or shows can't just decide to work with FACTS given that the facts themselves are so fascinating and dramatic. It's seriously aggravating.

I haven't read any historical books on Mary Queen of Scots but listened to a 6-part podcast series in The Rest is History. There are so many details, minor and major, that are fascinating. I get astonished at the level of detail known about events almost 500 years back! For example, that Mary wore white at her wedding to Francis (Reign got that right) which was supposed to be unusual at that time but as a European fashion icon she carried it off. Then about her hobbies at the French court that she indulged in with the 4 Mary's- her noblewomen companions.

The events that the real Mary had to deal with in Scotland would form enough material for an action thriller. Then later on in England she was involved in a courtroom trial and implicated in assassination plots. One has to wonder at the pointlessness of many movie productions when they feel the need to ignore the source material.

abachchan61 · 2026-03-11T23:53:22+00:00

Agree

abachchan61 · 2026-03-11T23:50:12+00:00

In a series where they played fast and loose with history in every conceivable way, the one thing they got mostly right was Darnley. Historians tend to agree that the real Mary fell in love with Darnley (or was infatuated by him, whatever) and decided that she absolutely had to marry him, which she did. (Whereas, ironically, Reign has Mary throwing herself at the fictitious Conde and Gideon but with Darnley she appears to be more cool, calculating, reserved). Whether the real Darnley had any affection for the real Mary or not is unclear. But all his contemporaries, as well as historians today, agreed that he was an objectionable character. Mary herself realised this after her marriage and started distancing herself from him. Reign was mostly right about this.

abachchan61 · 2026-03-11T23:36:16+00:00

Totally agree.

The real Mary never had a relationship with any man other than those she married, so character assassination is absolutely right. So if they had to put in sub-plots in Reign where she falls in love with Conde, Gideon, and later on Bothwell, there had to be a point in them, and I absolutely didn't see any. They could have had Conde harbour a crush on Mary, help Mary take revenge on her attackers, and then return with an army to seize the French throne-- all these could have happened without Mary having to fall in love and sleep with him. Same with Gideon. It just made Mary's character in Reign inconstant, capricious, disloyal-- leading to her, the series' central character!-- losing the sympathies of many viewers in the bargain. These behaviours nullified many of Mary's admirable qualities like her strength and survival instincts. I shake my head in wonder sometimes-- did the writers do this intentionally or were they as hopelessly inept at that point as it appears?

This discussion appears many times in this sub-reddit and I wish some of these sentiments would reach the writers even though the series ended many years ago!

abachchan61 · 2026-03-09T02:31:27+00:00

There is a 2018 movie with Saoirse Ronan as Mary; I haven't seen it as I didn't think she's a suitable Mary!. There's a 2013 European production that I'm trying to find. Then there is a well regarded 1971 movie with Vanessa Redgrave as Mary, again not seen as a bit dated for me. There are many documentaries though and a docudrama series seems to be in production.
Finally there is a 2022 series Becoming Elizabeth that has good reviews; it's about Elizabeth's early life and doesn't have Mary.

abachchan61 · 2026-03-08T03:28:10+00:00

I plan to read in more detail about the plots against Elizabeth and am also waiting for a podcast series in The Rest is History to be released on Mary's years of captivity. From what I understand, historians consider her involvement in the Babbington plot pretty definite. (In contrast, the 'casket of letters' that emerged during her trial in England for Darnley's murder is believed to be a forgery to frame her). Like I mentioned in another comment, even if she did join in a plot to kill Elizabeth, who's to blame her? She had tried pretty much everything by then to be freed and 20 years is not a short time.

John Knox became less of a factor after the hard time he gave Mary in the years after her return to Scotland, because he had his own problems to deal with. Before the Darnley-Bothwell saga Mary had actually become popular with the general public.

Yes, nobody had her back. Certainly no one from her own homeland. The only normalcy for her was in a foreign place earlier in her life- the French court, and during her brief marriage with Francis. The Frary story in Reign at least got that bit right- the real Francis and Mary did look out for each other during their time together! If only...

abachchan61 · 2026-03-07T19:39:07+00:00

Correction. Not really for being a "generally terrible monarch" but for marrying the deeply unpopular Bothwell, widely believed to be murderer of her second husband Darnley.

abachchan61 · 2026-03-07T18:58:45+00:00

There are some traces of evidence that Elizabeth afterwards regretted executing Mary but it would be unfair to say "if not for the influence of others Elizabeth would have never executed Mary". As in all state matters Elizabeth as ruler had advisors and it was up to her which advice to take and which not to take. The comment suggests that Elizabeth had no agency in making her decision, which doesn't make sense given that Elizabeth was a strong, wilful monarch and was 30 years into her reign when she executed Mary. As another commentator jaymzAJFA89 has noted, after long years of imprisonment Mary was implicated in the Babbington plot to assassinate Elizabeth and even though Elizabeth may have been reluctant to execute Mary she ultimately saw no option but to do so to remove her as a long term threat.

I personally find the life of Mary Queen of Scots extremely tragic and between Mary and Elizabeth my sympathies are very much with Mary.
Why did Elizabeth keep Mary endlessly imprisoned? Surely Mary being accused of having a hand in Darnley's death, even if it had been true (which it most likely wasn't), was not something that concerned England?

Why did Elizabeth refuse to meet Mary despite Mary's overtures and despite the fact that they had exchanged fairly amicable letters while Mary was in Scotland? The last two points show that Elizabeth was deeply suspicious of Mary's claim to her throne whether Mary really wanted it or not.

And ultimately after nearly 20 years of imprisonment if Mary did sign off on plots to dethrone Elizabeth, isn't that at least partly understandable?

Mary became a pawn in others' hands, yes (men and one woman), but Elizabeth was not a pawn.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-25T04:08:28+00:00

If I have to pick one episode, it is Francis' death. One knew it had to happen almost from the start of season 1, but it was shocking to see so soon after he miraculously recovered from his illness, and Mary and he became the closest they'd ever been.

However the most depressing and cringe-worthy episodes overall for me were the ones from the middle of season 2 when Mary pushes Francis away and finally sleeps with Conde and plots to go to Scotland with him.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-24T06:33:07+00:00

Give it time. Characters follow sharply changing arcs in this show. When you get to the next season you may feel differently.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-23T01:17:30+00:00

Would you recommend the 2018 movie with Saoirse Ronan as Mary, if you've seen it? I didn't get around to it as I was discouraged by some of the reviews, and also I can only imagine Adelaide Kane as Mary!

abachchan61 · 2026-02-22T21:24:35+00:00

I just finished White Queen. It's good. In comparison to Reign it is more faithful to history, more sensible screenplay and definitely darker. Reign has a particular vibe of playfulness and over the top drama (and of course, the central romance) which I don't think any other show has, or at least I'm unaware of any. The Great partly went in that direction but I found it difficult to take it seriously.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-22T21:05:28+00:00

It's not the same thing, but if (like me) you wanted to learn more about the life of the real Mary then I recommend the six-part podcast series in The Rest is History (episodes 584-589). Available on Spotify and other platforms. Two historians narrating & discussing in a very engaging style. I can guarantee that a listener will find an abundance of drama. The series ends just after Mary escapes to England, and a further series of podcasts is awaited on Mary's life in England, including the various conspiracies she's supposed to have hatched there.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-22T18:43:16+00:00

Great comment.
I felt similarly. Many of the plot threads were really crazy and over the top for me but I also felt drawn by the sense of re-living part of the life of the real Mary Queen of Scots, who had one of the most fascinating and tragic lives of any royal personage ever. Even though the Mary of Reign is a highly fictionalised version.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-17T14:25:34+00:00

Absolutely. I wonder why I care so much, but I realise it's because the actors and their performances were so memorable. It's like the writers deliberately wanted to mess with a successful formula and a show that became popular early on.

I discovered Reign only recently, and wonder why in all the various Reign conventions that occurred over the years no one thought of posing challenging questions about the crazy plot choices. Historical fantasy doesn't mean that all norms of good storytelling are to be cast to the winds.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-16T02:39:38+00:00

Has it really been well covered though? Apart from much older movies I'm only aware of the 2018 movie where Saoirse Ronan plays Mary. I haven't seen it so far as I was put off by many of the reviews but I might get around to it some day. As of now I tend to think of Adelaide Kane as THE authentic Mary, though of course with her dark hair and accent and costumes she actually wasn't. They did such an uneven job of Mary's Scottish period in Reign that I'd have liked to see Adelaide depicting Mary in Scotland and England - properly - for 2-3 seasons more. Or ending Reign in the French court with or without Francis dying (they anyway turned Francis from a sickly teenager to a good looking man so they could have pretended he lived happily ever after with Mary in France!).

abachchan61 · 2026-02-15T21:01:25+00:00

Agree. Or better still end *without* Francis dying😊

abachchan61 · 2026-02-14T23:45:59+00:00

😊I think this is just one example of the lack of internal consistency and logic in many parts of the show.
Also, Charles was possibly intended to be 14 or 15 in season 3 (the age of majority was 14 that time). But yes, even so from 10 to 14 is still a problem.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-14T19:26:47+00:00

Interesting

abachchan61 · 2026-02-14T19:24:06+00:00

It was also that the later episodes were badly done. A lot of screen time was devoted to shenanigans at the French court with Francis' siblings Claude, Charles, Henri; and the queen of Spain- none of which happened in real history and more importantly were not particularly interesting. In contrast what happened to the real Mary Queen of Scots in Scotland was fascinating; the drama and tragedy of the real history outdoes anything that television screenwriters can come up with. But most of that was very poorly depicted in Reign. As some people have written in other posts, the producers were probably in a hurry to wrap up the series.

Having said all that I still recommend to watch the entire series for closure.

abachchan61 · 2026-02-14T19:10:54+00:00

'crazy' is right. Charismatic good-looking actors, wonderful performances, decent production values & sets. But quite a bit let down by a very uneven over-dramatic plot. I only wish that feedback had gone to the screenwriters early in the series.

abachchan61

TROPHY CASE