Hmmm...

http://m.guardiannews.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/apr/16/da-vincis-demons-reinvents-leonardo

P.S. This is rather more interesting: http://m.guardiannews.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/apr/01/leonardo-da-vinci-genius

Also: http://m.guardiannews.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/nov/09/leonardo-da-vinci-drawings

Und http://m.guardiannews.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/nov/09/leonardo-da-vinci-drawings

Such is the way of literary license.

In the end it is less about facts and history than what the producers think will sell -- either tickets or advertising. Capitalism is a cruel mistress that takes few prisoners. To be fair it also dies by the sword, so to speak.

I've enjoyed the first two episodes. The producers deemed it advisable to alter Da Vinci's sexuality to heterosexual. From what I've read Da Vinci had little to do with women in his lifetime socially and sexually. However, in 2013 there is still reluctance to portray a gay man as an action hero. I did enjoy looking at Hugh Bonneville's bearish naked body. He's Lord Grantham in "Downton Abbey". Too bad he was killed off minutes into the episode. He was cute to see him kicking his twinkish boy out of bed while his wife and children were waiting for him at the Cathedral.

They are canceling my Merlin! I haven't seen it for ages except some short clips on YouTube from time to time.. Merlin's voice got changed and I didn't like that. Anyways, will straight people not watch if they put on Leonard's gay relationships??? Prejudice and bias are like double edged swords, they give some mental base for social stability but also makes a stabilized society too rigid.

Seems I recall hints somewhere in the historical record that Leonardo's tastes ran to early-teenage putti. Doubt that would raise the viewership (as it were) among enough of the demographic to be worth risking accurate portrayal.

I would watch!