Predictions on how Reign will end?

[Anonymous]

Bothwell was introduced last night, so it's safe to assume Darnely will be killed and Mary will get together with Bothwell. She will have Darnley's baby and hand him over to her brother when he's 10 months old.

Big question: will it end with her beheading, or will it simply end with her living in exile/captivity in England?

[Anonymous]

Since its popular, they will keep it on as long as possible. I predict beheading and either a new spin off or something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since its popular, they will keep it on as long as possible. I predict beheading and either a new spin off or something else.

No, it was canceled and this is the last season. Just wondering if they will end it with her beheading or if they will attempt a happy ending.

[Anonymous]

For Reign fans: Toby Regbo is now on The Last Kingdom, Season 2. It's currently airing in the UK and will air on Netflix later on. Season 1 is already on Netflix, and the lead character is super hot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since its popular, they will keep it on as long as possible. I predict beheading and either a new spin off or something else.

No, it was canceled and this is the last season. Just wondering if they will end it with her beheading or if they will attempt a happy ending.

I think it will end with an attempt at a happy life. Her beheading came so much later in life there is no way all of that can be rammed into the few episodes left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since its popular, they will keep it on as long as possible. I predict beheading and either a new spin off or something else.

No, it was canceled and this is the last season. Just wondering if they will end it with her beheading or if they will attempt a happy ending.

That sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since its popular, they will keep it on as long as possible. I predict beheading and either a new spin off or something else.

No, it was canceled and this is the last season. Just wondering if they will end it with her beheading or if they will attempt a happy ending.

I think it will end with an attempt at a happy life. Her beheading came so much later in life there is no way all of that can be rammed into the few episodes left.

I hope you are right. But Darnley dies (killed by Bothwell) before she has his baby. So perhaps a happy life with Bothwell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since its popular, they will keep it on as long as possible. I predict beheading and either a new spin off or something else.

No, it was canceled and this is the last season. Just wondering if they will end it with her beheading or if they will attempt a happy ending.

I didn't realize it was still going thought it had already been cancelled. They kept getting rid of regular characters.

[Anonymous]

?

They had to kill off the king and then Francis...that's history.

Torrance Coombs/Bash left on his own, but I read somewhere that he might make an appearance this season.

The Lola storyline had to end, and Kenna wasn't a main character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:?

They had to kill off the king and then Francis...that's history.

Torrance Coombs/Bash left on his own, but I read somewhere that he might make an appearance this season.

The Lola storyline had to end, and Kenna wasn't a main character.

Yeah, they were supporting characters. It's like Buffy without the Scoobies.

To compare any of this to "history" is laughable. It's a bodice ripping soap opera--Mary Teen of Scots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:?

They had to kill off the king and then Francis...that's history.

Torrance Coombs/Bash left on his own, but I read somewhere that he might make an appearance this season.

The Lola storyline had to end, and Kenna wasn't a main character.

Yeah, they were supporting characters. It's like Buffy without the Scoobies.

To compare any of this to "history" is laughable. It's a bodice ripping soap opera--Mary Teen of Scots.

?

King Henry and Francis were real people---they were a part of history.

The show is clearly historical fiction---there was no bastard stepbro named Bash, and Mary's actual ladies in waiting were all named Mary...not Greer, Lola and Kenna. But the show is loosely following history, and the majority of the main characters were actual historical figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:?

They had to kill off the king and then Francis...that's history.

Torrance Coombs/Bash left on his own, but I read somewhere that he might make an appearance this season.

The Lola storyline had to end, and Kenna wasn't a main character.

Yeah, they were supporting characters. It's like Buffy without the Scoobies.

To compare any of this to "history" is laughable. It's a bodice ripping soap opera--Mary Teen of Scots.

?

King Henry and Francis were real people---they were a part of history.

The show is clearly historical fiction---there was no bastard stepbro named Bash, and Mary's actual ladies in waiting were all named Mary...not Greer, Lola and Kenna. But the show is loosely following history, and the majority of the main characters were actual historical figures.

Yes, Mary and Francis were actual people and France and Scotland are real countries, but it's not historical fiction. It's a "period piece," and that's a stretch. It's inspired by historical events, but the actors and anyone connected with the show will tell you that you won't learn anything historical from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:?

They had to kill off the king and then Francis...that's history.

Torrance Coombs/Bash left on his own, but I read somewhere that he might make an appearance this season.

The Lola storyline had to end, and Kenna wasn't a main character.

Yeah, they were supporting characters. It's like Buffy without the Scoobies.

To compare any of this to "history" is laughable. It's a bodice ripping soap opera--Mary Teen of Scots.

?

King Henry and Francis were real people---they were a part of history.

The show is clearly historical fiction---there was no bastard stepbro named Bash, and Mary's actual ladies in waiting were all named Mary...not Greer, Lola and Kenna. But the show is loosely following history, and the majority of the main characters were actual historical figures.

Yes, Mary and Francis were actual people and France and Scotland are real countries, but it's not historical fiction. It's a "period piece," and that's a stretch. It's inspired by historical events, but the actors and anyone connected with the show will tell you that you won't learn anything historical from it.

Not sure why you're splitting hairs, but yes, Reign is viewed as historical fiction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_(TV_series)

[Anonymous]

Historical fiction presents a story set in the past, often during a significant time period. In historical fiction, the time period is an important part of the setting and often of the story itself. Historical fiction may include fictional characters, well-known historical figures or a mixture of the two. Historical fiction typically takes an imaginative approach to storytelling by adding fictitious characters and dramatic storylines that parallel historic events.

That's Reign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Historical fiction presents a story set in the past, often during a significant time period. In historical fiction, the time period is an important part of the setting and often of the story itself. Historical fiction may include fictional characters, well-known historical figures or a mixture of the two. Historical fiction typically takes an imaginative approach to storytelling by adding fictitious characters and dramatic storylines that parallel historic events.

That's Reign.

Well, for example, Bash, Narcisse, Francis' son, Clarissa, Prince Tomas never existed. Catherine didn't have affairs or murder anyone.

Megan Follows: "We are obviously not historically accurate..."

Anna Popplewell: "t’s like historical fan-fiction..."
http://hollywoodlife.com/2013/10/18/mary-queen-of-scots-historically-accurate-reign-cw/

Adelaide Kane “It’s entertainment – it’s not the History Channel.” And how cute is she that she thinks History Channel still is about history?
Bodice-ripper Reign takes enormous liberties with the 16th century history of Mary Queen of Scots. As told by CW, Mary arrives in France to marry the French king’s hot son, Prince Francis. In the real world, Francis was a sickly young teen who died after less than two years on the throne..."
http://deadline.com/2013/07/tca-cws-first-crunchy-gravel-drama-flirts-with-history-552425/

"If you think The CW’s period drama based on the life of young Mary, Queen of Scots is just an excuse to watch a bunch of pretty people prance around in corsets and codpieces, you’re not far off. Reign has been described as a cross between Gossip Girl and The Tudors, but unlike Showtime’s steamy take on Henry VIII, Reign doesn’t even pretend to be concerned with historical accuracy..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lelia-nebeker/cws-reign_b_4180845.html

"Reign" not only into the land of fiction, but the land of bad fiction...
http://www.indiewire.com/2015/04/historical-tv-should-stop-taking-liberties-but-not-for-the-reasons-you-think-63023/

It's as historical as a fairy tale.