The BBC's ambitious new historical drama, 'King and Conqueror', has spectacularly backfired with its audience, provoking a storm of criticism and accusations of rewriting history for the sake of modern diversity quotas.
Viewers took to social media in droves after the first episode aired, expressing sheer disbelief at the casting choices. The series, which chronicles the fateful clash between King Harold II and William the Conqueror in 1066, features a number of black actors in prominent Anglo-Saxon and Norman noble roles.
A Wave of Viewer Discontent
The backlash was immediate and severe. Many long-time licence fee payers felt the production prioritised contemporary box-ticking over historical authenticity. One exasperated viewer captured the prevailing mood, questioning the creative direction: "Why not create a brilliant brand-new drama with a diverse cast rather than rewriting history? It makes no sense."
Another critic pointed out the glaring irony, stating, "The real history of this country is fascinating enough... it doesn't need to be rewritten." The consensus among critics was that the approach was not only inaccurate but also patronising, with one labelling it "patronising box-ticking nonsense."
Defending the Creative Decision
In response to the growing controversy, a spokesperson for the BBC issued a statement defending the production. They emphasised that 'King and Conqueror' is a "dramatisation of historical events" and not a documentary.
The statement further clarified the producers' intent: "The series features a diverse cast, reflecting the world we live in today. It was not intended to be a precise historical reenactment but a drama created for a modern audience." This justification, however, has done little to placate furious viewers who feel the integrity of a pivotal moment in British history has been compromised for political correctness.
The debate continues to rage online, highlighting the ongoing tension between creative interpretation and historical fidelity in television drama.
