Paltrow's character marked for death (contains spoiler!!)

Rating: Null/10 (12 February 2003)

Other commenters have pointed out this movie's rather fanciful relation to actual history. No problem - lots of fine movies, drama, and fiction take liberties with the facts to good imaginative result (and where would painters of historical subjects from Raphael to David be if they couldn't make up all kinds of preposterous scenes involving their characters?).
But I really must object to the way Tom Stoppard, who's been dramatizing historical subjects for decades, heartlessly marks Gwyneth Paltrow's character, Viola, for death or abduction in Shakespeare in Love. If you've seen the movie and are not sure what I mean, here are the facts:
The movie takes place during Elizabeth I's reign. Viola, at the end of the movie, (SPOILER!) decides to go off to "Virginia" with her new husband and have Shakespeare's baby there, rather than stay in England. Supposedly, this tells us something about the independent spirit of the English settlers in America and the source of America's particular "genius." But none of this adds up historically. Here's why:
1) No high-born, wealthy English lord like Viola's husband actually moved to America in those days - they often sponsored expeditions and settlements there, but they stayed in England while the impecunious settlers suffered through. 2) No permanent English settlement was established in North America during Elizabeth's reign. The "Virginia" colony established by Sir Walter Raleigh and others (which seems to be what the characters are referring to here) is better known today as Roanoke, because it was founded on Roanoke Island on the North Carolina coast. The Roanoke colony disappeared with barely a trace a few years after it was set up. The next ship from England found nothing but ruins of their fort and a puzzling message that said "Gone to Croatan." Not a single one of the colonists was ever found (it's one of the great unsolved historical mysteries). Poor Gwynnie!
Did Stoppard not know that the first permanent English colony in North America - today's Virginia - was not established until 1610, seven years after Elizabeth died? If not, didn't someone on this project know enough American history to tell him? With all that attention to "period detail," you'd think they would have got this bit right.
My guess is that Stoppard wanted to write the colorful Elizabeth (and her mouthful of bad teeth) into the story, rather than her successor James I, a much duller historical figure. So he fudged it and guessed the rest of us wouldn't realize. On the other hand, maybe he too found the whole project a bit cloying and cutesy and decided to create a grisly fate for one of his main characters. Anyone have his email address so I can find out?