Okay, English history geeks: watching "The Tudors" and NOT lovin it!

[pink-o]

I tried to get over that Jonathan Rhys Meyers has nothing in common w/Henry VIII other than being Welsh--Henry was a strawberry blond, so was Catharine of Aragon and Princess Mary, and all the actors are dark. The writing is essentially clumsy, throwing in non-sequitors like Henry commenting about Thomas More being an idealist and the book Utopia. The only reason for that line is to educate those who might not know. Too much of a nudge-nudge to the audience.

But all that might be forgiven: if they stuck to historical accuracy. I finally had to turn it off when Henry comments on Hampton Court, and Woolsey just hands it over to him!! WTF??? This was before Anne Boleyn was even in the king's periphery. According to my recollections, Anne despised Woolsey, and once she rose to power, Woolsey gave her Hampton Court to stop the hemmoraging of Henry's favour.

Am I wrong? I studied this stuff a long time ago, and it's still fascinating with all the right elements of epic stories--sex, intrigue, espionage, and impulses carried out that had repercussions centuries down the line! But I see no need to dumb it down or throw in historical inaccuracies to make it more accessible.

[NMDemDist2]

1. I, too, have been pretty unhappy with the historical inaccuracies

so I'm just watching it for entertainment and sadly, there's very little of value there too

[pink-o]

3. And this is the first period of English history anyone learns about

...no one studies anything more than the Tudors--Shakespeare gained reknown in Elizabethan times. The least the series can do is adhere to the facts!!

A much better series was Keith Michel's "Six Wives of Henry VIII" for BBC in the 70s. The actors looked just like the Holbein paintings in the National Portrait Gallery, and the history was perfect.

[tpsbmam]

6. Liked this version so much I bought the DVD

set a couple of years ago. Boy do the settings & filming look dated but it's still the best I've seen yet -- much better than the current Tudors.

[Darth_Kitten]

16. Yes, riddled with historical inaccuracies galore, plus the Tudors have been done to death.....

Thing is, some of the more glossed over or ignored characters, like Henry's elder sister Margaret, were really quite unique characters in real life.

I'm sick of the Anne Boleyn/Henry relationship. They didn't exactly make a cute couple. ;)

[Oeditpus Rex]

2. Try the Monty Python version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-KQkZnwis0

[pink-o]

9. Those guys ALWAYS got the history right!

Underneath the silliness and slapstick was far more historical accuracy than this "serious" stuff on Showtime!

[Oeditpus Rex]

14. They were particular about a lotta stuff, yup

I assume it's because they realized it's funnier to satirize fact than to make shit up.

It helped that Palin majored in history at Oxford. Jones and Idle both majored in English, at Oxford and Cambridge, respectively, which would account for the many MPFC bits that played with words.

[mondo joe]

4. I was disappointed that Steve Waddington, cast as te Duke of Buckingham, was not instead

cast as Henry. A much better fit, IMO.

[pink-o]

5. totally agree! n/t

[mondo joe]

7. Tidbit: Waddington played Edward II in a movie some years ago, the in Tudors played the

direct descendant of the same Edward II.

[pink-o]

8. wasn't Edward II the one who died so ignominiously at Pontrefact Castle?

...I'm really having to scrape the sides of the memory bowl for this! But I believe some of his ministers grabbed him and stuck a hot fire poker up his ass cuz his latest lover had too much power. They didn't mind him being gay half as much as they cared about their own power base being erroded...

Shows again that the more things change, the more they remain the same!

[mondo joe]

10. Correcto.

Here he is as Edward:


And as his descendant:


(Though in this adaptation of Edward II they spare him the historic ending.)

[tpsbmam]

11. My recollection of the sequence of events was rusty

so, geek that I am, I looked it up. Found the most detailed sequence in a Google book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nj8jAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=wolsey+%26+hampton+court&source=web&ots=zfnyN3q1BU&sig=c_atpFwIsKsh8AVUSN8W0vXO3rs&hl=en#PPA45,M1

What the book says actually (amazingly enough) coincides with my memory:

-Wolsey was beginning to be questioned by Henry, who was increasingly dissatisfied with him and, among other things, wanted to know why Wolsey had such a magnificent palace and Wolsey replied 'To show how noble a palace a subject may offer to his sovereign' and he gave it to Henry in June 1525. Wolsey wasn't any fool! He continued to live there though and refer to it as "his" and continued to host international VIPs there.
-He finally left Hampton court in July of 1529. Staff had been greatly reduced by then due to the "sweating sickness" and he was pretty isolated in his "retirement" there, in addition to pissing Henry & Anne off. That's when he was stripped of his titles, wealth, etc by Henry.
-Since Henry began trying to annul his marriage to Catherine in 1927, he was indeed given Hampton Court before Anne was fully on the scene. But according to most history, Anne came on the scene in 1522 and some historians think their relationship had already begun by 1523 (others disagree). Most agree that he was at least pursuing Anne by 1525. So "The Tudors" depiction is entirely possible.

[pink-o]

12. Thanx for the clarification. The timing was what I wasn't too sure of

However, I'm not about to give "The Tudors" a break cuz as you watch it, Woolsey was still in high favour with Henry when the scene I mentioned played out. There was no plot device that had the King questioning the Cardinal.

For those of us who know some English history, I just want to reiterate how disappointing this series is. On Comcast on-demand, one of the free movies is "A Man for all Seasons". I think I'll watch that instead to clear my palate!

[tpsbmam]

17. I think Wolsey and Henry's relationship at the time

that Wolsey "gave" Henry Hampton Court was still intact though there were beginning to be differences. I'd give that point to the series. It doesn't really sound like Wolsey really intended to "give" it to him at all -- he was just being politically astute and smarmy, which is pretty much what he was. What do you say when the guy who can lop off your head notices that you have a resplendent palace and he appears to envy it?

The thing I do like about this particular series is how raw it is compared to some others -- I like that part. It feels closer to the truth in that aspect.

[WinkyDink]

13. It's J R-M; that's all it needs for me to love it! (And I taught the subject!)

[supernova]

15. Same here.

:D

I long ago gave up looking for historical accuracy in dramatic presentations of historical events.

The most you can realistically hope for is that the fictionalized version will inspire enough curiosity for people to go look up the real story.

So, hell yeah I like The Tudors.

:D