June 30, 2008
The Tudors
So does anyone else watch this Showtime series besides me? I get it on Netflix, and I am loving it in terms of entertainment and because it’s reminding me of my studies. However, I feel like they are taking some historical liberties that might do more harm than good. For instance, I always was taught and believed that Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon because he did what he wanted and because he wanted more independence from the Pope – hence Protestantism (note – I could be very wrong about my understanding). The show, however, is making it seem like he asks for a divorce mostly because he is deeply in love with Ann Boleyn. What do you guys think about this? (One other note – I have not even finished the first season of the show, so it’s possible that these things will come to light – so please forgive me for being so excited that I could wait to post after I’d seen more of the show.)
Has anyone read The Other Boleyn Girl? What does it have to say about this idea, if anything?
The show – even if historically questionable – is gorgeous. The actors are beautiful, and the costuming is amazing. I wish, when I’m not thinking about the realities of showers and dirt during this time, that I lived there so I could look that amazing. Of course, this would depend on me being a of royal blood, and the rumors that my grandmother liked to spread about our family being descended from Charlemagne not withstanding, I probably would have been a commoner.
Anyway, the show is good fun (if a bit racy) and I really am learning a lot – or being reminded of what I did learn.
Please share your thoughts about this show, this time in history, or about the media’s responsibility to show accuracy vs give entertainment.
Catherine of Aragon – Given what’s happening to her in the show at the point where I’m watching, I felt she needed a little extra attention today. And isn’t she beautiful?
Filed by Andi at 7:18 am under Uncategorized
20 Comments
I love this show too, but I’m behind this season. And I Catherine is one of my favorite parts of the entire show – she’s just magnificent!
Here’s my 2-cents worth: I always thought Henry broke w/ the Pope b/c he wanted to be the absolute ruler. He didn’t like being told he couldn’t do what he wanted to do. Yes it had to do w/ Protestantism, but it also had to do with his desire to marry Anne. SOMETHING changed to take him from supporting the Pope and denouncing Martin Luther to deciding to break with the Pope and join Luther’s cause … I always thought that it was his desire to be in absolute control, which of course was supported by Anne and her family.
If I recall correctly, the book The Other Boleyn Girl says much of the same thing about this.
Your other question is about the media’s responsibility. In an ideal world I would expect some attention to historical detail, but in the real world I just don’t. If I watch a historical film/show, I take it with a “grain of salt”. If I’m curious as to what really happened, I’ll look it up and do some historical FACT reading.
But that’s just me – I’m curious to hear what other people think!
I haven’t watched this show, but it sounds really good. I was taught that the divorce had a lot to do with Catherine’s not being able to bear Henry a child, and if I remember correctly, The Other Boleyn Girl reinforced that too.
I caught snatches of this when it was on the BBC, and it doesn’t make any real claims of historical accuracy. As for picking apart the motives of dead rulers, it’s always a difficult one. No one can even work out for certain why William I ordered Domesday Book. Throw in a, usually reasonably turbulant, relationship with the papacy and this particular issue looks even more impossible.
I heartily agree that the show is marvelous and the creators are genius. Who would have thought that a 16th century “Sopranos” could generate seasonal TV excitement???
I’m a little disappointed at the depiction of Thomas More as a person of moral integrity. At best, he was a canny politician. At worst he was an ideological dupe — the W of the Tudor Age. I understand that his representation in the program was an important plot point, but I appreciate much more the very cunning performance of Peter O’Toole (and the very skillful efforts of the scriptwriters)depicting him as the Osama bin Laden of his era.
I just watched the final two episodes of Season Two, which offer a couple of interestingly suggestive scenes. The first, near the end of Episode 19, showed Charles Brandon (Earl of Suffolk) comforting Henry by placing his head in the King’s lap, while Henry (apparently crying) bobs up and down in his chair.
The second scene, which occurs in the final moment of Episode 20, shows Henry with viscous liquid (presumably some sort of sauce) dripping from his mouth down his chin.
Are we about to uncover one of the most interesting political cover-ups of Renaissance history? Is Henry’s famous “womanizing” a fabrication?
Meanwhile, like many others, I’m saddened by the departure of Natalie Dormer. She’s a fascinating actress, and her portrayal of Anne Boleyn, caught between her father’s ambitions, her love for Henry, and her concern for her child was, to the least “majestic.”
I’m happy to see that the writers are daring to suggest that Jane Seymour was someone gifted with strength and politically astuteness than many biographers have credited her with.
I love the show and I can’t wait for the third season, but some of the historical inaccuracies and shortcuts do bother me, like lumping Henry’s sisters together into one person. I guess it only becomes a problem if the show continues after Henry’s death, but Suffolk actually married Henry’s sister Mary, not Margaret, and produced the line that included Jane Grey. Margaret, on the other hand, married the king of Scotland and was an ancestress of King James the 1st, who inherited the English throne when Elizabeth died.
I will really miss Natalie Dormer and her robust interpretation of Anne. Jane Seymour strikes me as intensely boring by comparison, but Anne of Cleves ought to be a hoot. I’m curious to see how they’re going to deal with the older (and much more portly) Henry, though — it’s hard to imagine Jonathan Rhys-Meyers with gout.
Yeah…I kinda wondered how they were going to do the “fat” Henry, too. I thought they would make Ann’s reign much longer, so they wouldn’t have to right away. I’m surprised that they’re ending it already. Since they’ve taken such historical liberties already, I guess they’ll just pretend Henry DIDN’T get fat!
Anyhoo, I haven’t seen the final 2 episodes yet (I have 2 kids and I’m constantly busy)–unfortunately my DVR didn’t record the finale, so I’ll have to find it in Blockbuster or something.
Does anyone know when Season 3 begins? Please tell me they’re not going to wait until 2009!
I am so so in need of this show to begin again, I TOO am very upset of the loss of natalie dormer from the show..in my opinion she made it..what a complex character she played, and w such skill..I agree w a previos response..jane seymour has no oomph! to her like ann..Im not sure either when they will start up season 3, but it wont be soon enough!…hopefully Ann’s father will face some kind of horrible death or at the very least, be tortured for his evil ways!
One of the driving forces behind Henry’s divorce of Katherine was his wish for a son. His father Henry VII had claimed the crown after a civil war between different factions and much of what appeared to motivate him was the need for a son to keep England from having another unstable period, if a male successor was not to be had. At that time, queens were seen as highly undesirable, given prior history in England with a queen’s rule.
Of course, the real irony to this was that the son that he caused so much uproar to have had a very short reign while his second daughter had a long and very successful reign.
it’s really unfortunate the historical inaccuracies are being included as it would have been fairly simple to tell the real story (i.e, Mary marrying the king of France, not Portugal). But the spirit of the story has been magnificently portrayed!
I love the show, too. I am less concerned with the historical concerns relating to Henry’s split with Rome since it is entirely subjective 400+ years later. What kind of irks me is the historical license-taking for no apparent reason. Here’s what I mean:
1. Henry’s sister Margaret never married the Duke of Suffolk (Charles Brandon) – it was actually his younger sister Mary, who was not married to a king of Portugal, but rather a king of France (Louis XII). I guess they needed the timelines to overlap to account for Francis I being on the throne throughout these events in the show.
2. Henry Fitzroy (Henry’s illegitimate son by Lady Blount in Season 1) did not die as a boy. Indeed he was married to the Duke of Norfolk’s daughter in 1533. I am again asking myself why they needed him dead so young to fit the story here.
Those are the only two things I have disliked thus far, as stated before it is a lovely production with wonderful acting.
Another historical inaccuracy is that Cardinal Wolsey committed suicide. I have read that he had cancer and was a very sick man when he was arrested and died shortly after his arrest before he could be beheaded for treason.
I am disappointed that historical facts have been changed, but the show is beautiful and entertaining and well worth watching. I really like Maria Doyle Kennedy who is very beautiful and does a great job of portraying the character of Katherine of Aragon.
I have REALLY enjoyed this series so far – the last episode of series 2 ends tonight here in England. At first I did not warm to Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn (’she not very beautiful’ I thought – like that mattered!) Anne Boleyn, though the most attractive of all his wives, was no great beauty by our ideals of today but her portrayal of an politically ambitious & astute woman of 14th century England is incredible. Anne Boleyn was used,as middle class women were, as political currency by the men in their lives; they were merely chattels to be bargined. But Anne Boleyn was intelligent & recognised her talents & sexual allure & was able to turn these to her own advantage & empower herself rather then be completly controlled by her father & brother. Though a young girl when she met Henry, she was already clever enough to see she could become Queen if she did not give way to the king & her sexual desire. She was not merely ambitious, but clearly passionately in love with the king.
I am not a monarchist but have always had sympathy with Anne Boleyn since my school days & after watching this series, I have had my feelings re awoken that Anne Boleyn should be pardoned. She clearly was tried in a kangaroo court, Henry was not entirely convinced of all chrages against her so the charges of adultury were thrown in for good measure & of course under torture, they stuck. She needs to be recognised for the political & religious contribution she made to this country & her most significant contribution; that of giving England the greatest monarch we have ever seen – that of Queen Elizabeth 1.
Oh, & I now recognise that Natalie Dormer is INDEED beautiful!
I will sorely miss her acting & the steamy scenes between her & Johnathan Ryhs Meyers – I cannot imagine there will be such passionate scenes in any further series as Henry becomes older & his wives more reverand.
And the costumes in this series – to die for! (Well, not get your head cut off, ha ha). If I had to travel back in time, it would be to that era, for the costumes (of course I’d have be royal or titled at least). Just for a stint, not stuck in the era lest I come to a sticky end. I have always been interested in this era of English history – there was a big thing made of it in primary school in the late 60s – guess it was an easy start to get kids interested in history.
The Tudors has been good, that can’t be denied. I was impressed at the reading of Wyatt’s poem at the end of the penultimate episode as he did indeed write it as he watched the executions from the Bell Tower. But the historical inaccuracies are far too many to be ignored, and in some cases have been utterly ridiculous….
the attempted assassination of Anne Boleyn by a man with a gun (!) which seemed to be taken straight from events of Texas November 1963 rather than anything which happened in English history
Use of carriages
The amalgamation of Princesses Mary & Margaret, as has rightly been pointed out here the rest of English history turns on the Protestant reformation and Lady Jane Grey… grand daughter of Princess Mary and Charles Brandon.
The utterly ridiculous concept that Wolsey took his own life. Taking aside his known philandering and promiscuity, avarice and generally not very nice nature, he was a Catholic, and as most in those times, believed in purgatory. Taking one’s own life led to eternal damnation of the soul. It would have never, ever been done.
Jane Seymour… yes she was a pawn in the game that her father and brothers played, but she certainly wasn’t that pretty!
The portrayal of More: he wasn’t the Saint everyone would have us believe, and indeed had a highly inappropriate relationship with his’ favourite’ daughter. Henry was hunting when More was executed, he wanted to distance himself from the event
Sir George Boleyn did not have an affair with Mark Smeaton. Neither were gay. And why on earth was Smeaton dressed in the Elizabethan style throughout the series? A bit like making a film about 1860s and have everyone wearing 1960s clothes. Smeaton was the only one who confessed, the others all went to their graves protesting their innocence. Which of course, they all were.
Anne was not arrested by the Duke of Suffolk, but by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who also presided at her trail and that of the other ‘conspirators’.
Also, was quite shocked that they chose not to show Anne’s trial. It was at the trial that she defended herself so well, even her enemies declared that ‘she excused herself so well as if she had never been guilty of the same’
And please, please, please stop reading The Other Boleyn Girl. It too is made up history. If you want to know about Anne Boleyn, who was an amazing Renaissance woman, read her biog by Ives, or Tudor England by John Guy or The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir. Just visit the History section of your local bookshop, Please don’t read fiction, or you will never, ever realise what an amazing woman she was!!
I just wanted to clarify why Henry split with Rome. Henry died a catholic and actually took the last rites. He split with Rome because the Pope wouldn’t grant him a divorce – if the Pope had we may not have the church of england as we know it today. Henry made himself head of the church of england so he wouldn’t answer to the Pope – he did not as many believe stop being a catholic. Under later rulers, namely his son Edward and then Elizabeth England became protestant.
Can I also ask why the Producers thought it necessary to change Anne’s scaffold speech when she made a perfectly good one herself?!
I have actually done some research on Anne Boleyn and the Tudors and ‘The Tudors’ is more accurate than ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’. Anne influenced him to become Protestant and before that he was, in fact, a leader against the Protestant movement and friend of the pope. Just as the show suggests, she introduced him to that book and it is historically accepted that after reading it he was quoted as saying “This is a book for me and all other kings to read”. She and her family were advocates for the Reformation before thier plot for the throne came into play, it would seem. While on the throne (for three short years) she personally took on the issue of having the bible translated from Latin into other languages and even saved some individuals from execution for possessing and transporting then unauthorized translations of it. She was a devout Protestant and reformer and probably not so much the self-serving social climber that both aformentioned media portrayals make her out to be. P.S. I adore the show, the movie, and Phillipa Gregory’s other books, accurate or not. It sparks interest in history, just as it sparked yours and that, to me, is what’s important.
You should read basically everything Alison Weir has written, but especially Henry VIII: The King and His Court and The Six Wives of Henry VIII. They are NOT historical fiction like The Tudors and Philippa Gregory’s novels. They should give you a better historical understanding of Henry’s motivation. Since no historian can ever know his mind, it’s best to say that his motivations were a mix of each. My main theory is that his annulment (not divorce) resulted from Catherine’s inability to produce an heir, a fact that Anne Boleyn exploited to gain his affections and thereby gain influence in the court.
I have watched both seasons of The Tudors twice now and am ready to watch a third time….this year on Showtime, the 3rd season will start on Showtime in April….CAN’T WAIT!!! I am from United States so not sure of the history of Anne Boleyn, it seems lots of people are grateful to her for changing things in England. What I don’t see and I do wonder why, is why people don’t accredit Catherine of Aragon, his first wife…to me she seemed a very loyal wife to Henry and believed in God more than Anne I believe. What I mean is, you always seen Catherine praying to God, and not Anne….I am hoping season three will be even more exciting and will answer more questions.
I really love the show and I am very carious about when the 3rd season will start. I have been waiting for a long time. I don’t know a lot about henry or his wife’s. But this is giving me some idea bout the history of henry. I was surprise to find out how he did the women in his life. Now I really do need to find out if they will carry this story all the way though to his death. Well time will tell me all. But right now they do have me with season 1&2 So can anyone tell me when will season 3 will start.