The Tudors - arrggghhhhh!

Shadow Leader

Shadow Leader

At the Start
Joined
Nov 9, 2003
Messages
9,884
Having seen that the second series of the BBC's The Tudors is to continue tomorrow (missed the first episode whilst at Goodwood) I thought it was about time that I watched the first series that I was given on DVD ages ago (I failed to catch the first couple of episodes of the first series through work so wouldn't watch the rest).

Although the series is, on the whole, done pretty well, I have been very much disappointed with the several historical inaccuracies so far (I'm on episode 4). For starters, Anne Boleyn was renowned for her 'black' eyes, not bright blue eyes - surely she could at least have worn coloured contacts? I'm not convinced the actress fits the character anyway.

Then there is the King's sister, the "Princess Margaret" who Charles Brandon falls in love with. There was indeed a sister Margaret, the elder of the two girls - but by the time the series is set (c.1520) she had long been married to King James IV of Scotland [where she stayed].

The sister Charles Brandon fell in love with, and subseqently married, was the younger of the two sisters, Mary. She was married off at 18 to the elderly Louis XII of France who died not long afterwards, widowing her. Charles Brandon was sent to fetch her back to England after Louis died and the pair married secretly in France before coming back to English shores.

In this series however, they have Mary (presumably unmarried at the time, not least since she wears her hair loose in public) named Margaret, who, c.1520, travels to Portugal to marry their elderly King, and accompanied by Brandon on her journey. What is the point of making up such fiction? It is basic English history that Charles Brandon married Mary, not Margaret - it is damned annoying that the BBC should get such basics so wrong, then make up great swathes of history and present them as though they happened.

That's before you get to the smaller things like the French hoods that are abundant early doors in the series when they didn't come into fashion until Anne Boleyn came to court and introduced them - up until then the dowdy English hoods were worn.

But apart from that, and the odd other niggle - the series is ok!
 
It gets worse - now the storyline accuses Mary/Margaret of killing the elderly King Of Portugal after marrying him!!!!!
 
I could write a book about the historical accuracies in this programme, but the main one is the fact that the King is portrayed as a young, fit, handsome man while in truth, by the time he married Ann Boleyn, he was well into his forties and a fat, gout-riddled glutton.

I suspect that one of the reasons that Mary has morphed into Margaret is that Henry's daughter is also called Mary, and the producers thought that the average viewer would find too characters with the same name far too confusing.

Also, to be fair to the BBC, the programme really has nothing to do with them. It is a joint Irish/Canadian production which was initially made for the American market - hence the complete disregard for history.
 
Last edited:
Is it not made by an American company? Could explain some of the inaccuracies! I'm finding I have to watch just to see how bad the next episode will be!
 
Apart from the numerous historical inaccuracies, and that the lead man looks nothing like the character he is supposed to be portraying, it would be some consolation if he could act.
 
Cardinal Wolsey certainly wasn't Australian, Racey - not at all!!! :D He does a passable UK accent though.

I was thinking pretty much the same as you about Henry's physical appearance, HJ - but he wasn't well into his forties, he was only in his early/mid thirties, when he initially met Anne and started wooing her. He was no longer the young athlete he had been but he hadn't turned into the glutton in these early days either. He was still jousting regularly until around about the time that Anne miscarried a son late into her pregnancy in 1536 - thought to be down to the stress caused by a horrendous fall Henry took jousting in which he nearly died - which was not long before she was arrested and well after her star had begun to wane. I agree though that to portray him as young and handsome isn't correct either

I'm still watching the first series, mind you the start of the second series can only be around 6/7 years after the start of the first. The relationship between Henry and Anne went on for eight years before they married - and she held off from being his mistress until right until the end. It is thought she succumbed around about the time Henry & Anne went to Calais to meet with Francis, looking for support for this marriage to Anne - Anne was snubbed spectacularly when Francis' wife did not attend. The pair got married secretly on their way back to England afterwards, and Elizabeth was born the following September.

I watched another episode which strangely portrayed the marriage of Charles Brandon (another who is cast too young) and Mary as being a stormy one - they married for love, which was rare enough in those days, and were supposed to be happy. They produced three children, one of which, Frances Brandon, would marry Henry Grey and give birth to the future "Nine Day Queen", Lady Jane Grey, as well as two other daughters, Catherine and Mary.

The other point that bugged me surrounds Henry Fitzroy. According to the programme, he died as a young child. He actually lived into his late teens and was married shortly before he died. As a young child he was created Duke Of Richmond by Henry, if that was mentioned in the programme I missed that bit!

Something I meant to put in the opening post and forgot was concerning the scene at the famous masque of the castle imprisoning the maidens of virtue and their subsequent rescue. In the programme, the maidens all wore shoulderless dresses with straps no wider than around two inches - something which will very much have been frowned upon in such times!

I didn't realise the programme was made by an American company otherwise I would have expected no better really. I'm slightly disappointed that the BBC are lending their name to it though, riddled with inaccuracies such as it is.

Other than the constant stream of inaccuracies, the programme is enjoyable enough though!
 
Last edited:
In the programme, the maidens all wore shoulderless dresses with straps no wider than around two inches - something which will very much have been frowned upon in such times!
Click to expand...

I hope they didn't try to get into Royal Ascot.
 
Ah, so it was written by a Brit - he should hang his head in shame!!!! Cheers Gareth.

The thing is, if you are going to write a series (or a book) of historical "fiction" - it's all strictly speaking fiction once it is dramatised rather than a factual account of something - you'd at least try to make it as accurate as possible, wouldn't you? If you want to tell the story of the Tudors, you'd want to tell the story of the Tudors and not some made up version surely?

Apart from anything else, how many idiots out there do you think will take it as fact?!
 
Yeah, I think it's pretty lazy really. I'd much rather see them either at least try to be accurate (surely the story was already compelling enough?) or have a bit of imagination and do some kind of alternate history thing (a la Robert Harris' Fatherland).

I have a lot more sympathy for a screenwriter trying to fit a whole saga into a 3 hour film - you absolutely have to compress time and composite characters. But when you've got a whole series to play with?
 
Couldn't agree more, Gareth. How much more sex, betrayal, power struggles, murder, executions and so on and so forth do people want to see than is contained in the true story?

Besides which, the inaccuracies are daft ones - and they don't "sex" it up either! Well, I guess they might have thought that Mary/Margaret killing the King Of Portugal did that - but the true version, that she was married to the elderly King of France briefly before he died so becoming Queen of France (a title she held for the rest of her life) must hold more allure for the viewer than being Queen of Portugal, a tiny inconsequential country [at the time] for a very short space of time?!

I'm also surprised that they didn't want to stick to the true version of events surrounding Henry Fitzroy too - it is thought that Henry was on the verge of including him in the successsion and legitimising him at the time that the kid died - which created more angst, especially amongst Katherine of Aragon (wanting to protect her daughter's interests) and Anne Boleyn (ditto Katherine).

Grassy - only 300 million?!
 
I really hate it when people mess around with history! It's enough to be able to remember what really happened without all of this crap to confuse us. :eek:

Anyway, is it Shakespeare who said something about truth being infinitely stranger than fiction? I cannot understand why anyone would want to make things up when a much better story is already there.

I'm watching it but mostly out of being too lazy to find anything else to do.

At times I find it kind of camp, like a rock and roll version of the times. Some great boots and low cut dresses there!
 
Isinglass said:
I really hate it when people mess around with history! It's enough to be able to remember what really happened without all of this crap to confuse us. :eek:

Anyway, is it Shakespeare who said something about truth being infinitely stranger than fiction? I cannot understand why anyone would want to make things up when a much better story is already there.

QUOTE]


The truth is a riveting enough story without having to make things up, and worse the fiction is quoted back as fact by those that believe what they are watching to be true.

And as for Shakespeare: he made up a load of rubbish about Richard 111 for dramatic affect, or to keep on the right side of his Tudor monarch, or both, which then badly clouds the truth about him to the masses.
Click to expand...
 
Tudor propaganda would only have Richard III cast as a hunchback, murdering usurper. I doubt that Shakespeare would have possibly been able to cast him as anything but if he wanted to keep certainly his freedom, if not his head.

Much the same as Tudor propaganda would only have Anne Boleyn spoken of as a witch and an adulterer, both of which we know was not the case. True, Anne was considered as bit of a harpy as she refused to take on the traditional female role of the time as a cowed housewife who would do anything and everything for her lord and master without complaint.

Remember, these were the times in which to even speak about the possibility of your monarch dying was considered treason and an offence punishable by death.

So I reckon Shakespeare had excuse enough!
 
Last edited:
Shadow Leader said:
Remember, these were the times in which to even speak about the possibility of your monarch dying was considered treason and an offence punishable by death.

So I reckon Shakespeare had excuse enough!
Click to expand...

Can't apply that to modern television companies, more might be the shame.
I'm sure 'Enry would have something unholy to say about the latest incarnation of him!
 
Oh jeez - got round to watching the last in the first series of the Tudors.

Where to start????? The opening w*nking scene was a tad gratuitous, I thought!!

Then Wolsey topping himself by slitting his throat - wtf? For what seems like the hundredth time, if someone wants to televise historical happenings, then do it - don't bloody make it up! If you want to make it up then write a whole new story and call it something else!!!!

Obviously it's not documented but it is widely thought that the couple didn't consummate their relaionship until their diplomatic visit to Calais shortly before they got married - which happened after the romp in the woods as per the programme...
 
They've portrayed Anne Boleyn's character all wrong too - if she were the whiny teenage type they make her out to be then she wouldn't have lasted five minutes with Henry. She was very clever, granted, and more than a little scheming, but she wasn't the horrible little whiny spoilt cow the series has made her out to be ~ else she wouldn't have achieved what she did.
 
Shadow Leader said:
For what seems like the hundredth time, if someone wants to televise historical happenings, then do it - don't bloody make it up! If you want to make it up then write a whole new story and call it something else!!!!
quote]

Absolutely agree.

I saw the first 1/2 hour of the first episode and was so irritated by the seemingly deliberate inaccuracies that I couldn't stand watching the rest.

If they are going to carry the series right down to the death of Elizabeth, how the hell are they going to manage her relationship of cousin to Mary Queen of Scots, who was Margaret's granddaugher from her marriage to James IV of Scotland? It'll be interesting to see how they wriggle out of that! :D
Click to expand...
 
As a series, I've still watched it and found it enjoyable enough, but treating it as a fictional story, which it pretty much is now they've changed so much of it. Take Wolsey's death for example - they have him slitting his throat which really didn't happen. He was taken ill on the journey back down to the Tower after he had been arrested and died on that journey. Poison was strongly suspected but the source of it has never been confirmed - some theories have Wolsey poisoning himself but the more popular theory seems to be that Henry had him poisoned to save having to face his old friend and going through the trial and subsequent inevitable execution.

Nevermind carrying the series down to Elizabeth - prior to that, I'd like to see how they are going to handle the emergence of Lady Jane Grey after Edward's death since she was the grandaughter of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, and Mary [Margaret!!!!!] Tudor, being born to their daughter Frances Brandon ~ in the series they had Mary [Margaret!!] dying prematurely having had no children whereas herself and Brandon had three!
 
At the theatre last night had Lord Rochford, Nick Dunning, sitting next to us. Couldn't help the ' oh hello, loooved the Tudors' ;). Very nice man, happy to chat, but bemoaning the lack of information to be found on his character, especially he said as 'he lived on for years after the death of Anne and George and was an exceptionally strong man'. Curtain went up at that point.
 
Nick Dunning's great.

Yes, Lord Rochford (latterly created Earl of Wiltshire and Earl of Ormonde, so the title of Viscount Rochford passed onto his son, George) was a very clever man - albeit devious. He survived quite happily (and not necessarily in obscurity - still held decent posts in Henry's court) mainly due to his washing his hands of both children, Anne and George, as well as his daughter-in-law (the insufferable shrew Lady Jane Rochford).
 
Back
Top