Great actors wasted on a hopeless script

Rating: 4/10 (5 July 2019)

Other people have dealt with the multiple questions of historical inaccuracy, so I'll concentrate more on issues of storytelling.
It's a real shame to engage so many good actors and then make them say (repeatedly) lines like: "You are my sister!" "How can you do that to me?" "How dare you?" "Now you will give yourself to me!" , bits of life wisdom such as "Court life changes people, and not necessarily for the better", plus plenty of dialogue in which 16th century characters explicate and discuss their feelings in the best style of 20th century American soap operas. Kristin Scott Thomas is possibly the only person given anything remotely interesting to say. Mark Rylance manages to create a mildly engaging character despite the hopeless script, but then he's a genius. Most of the other characters have no depth or complexity: Mary is simple, trusting and affectionate; Anne ambitious and scheming.
Historical inaccuracy shows itself in more than a simple disregard for chronology and family relationships. There's a lack of feel for what was and wasn't possible at a 16th-century royal court. Anne could never have concealed a miscarriage; a queen's pregnancy was a public affair and she was closely attended and observed at all times. Ladies of high rank didn't routinely jump on horseback and gallop off on their own at the drop of a hat. Mary couldn't have just taken baby Elisabeth, a royal child, and made off with her. Anne as a young lady-in-waiting couldn't have entertained the whole court by ridiculing the King of France, beacuse all monarchs were seen as anointed by God. (All of Anne's supposedly witty banter with Henry is crude and, well, not witty.)
Neither the pretty costumes nor the palaces nor even the brilliant actors are enough to rescue this piece of abysmal writing.