Of all the inaccuracies... | Page 2 | The Tudors Show | Forum

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Of all the inaccuracies...
April 9, 2011
6:20 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kari said:

Wolsey's suicide may have been completely out of character for the real-life Wolsey, but I don't think it was out of character for the man whom they presented in the show.  The Wolsey on The Tudors was a clergyman only in name.  It was a position that was merely a means for him to exercise power, not a genuine vocation.

 


Lots of religous people were intreasrted in power only,,,see the Borgia/Medici popes for examples….

It's always bunnies.

April 9, 2011
6:22 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kari said:

 

And actually, now I think of it, it may not have even been out of character for the real-life Wolsey.  After all, being a Catholic clergyman didn't stop him from having a mistress and two illegitimate childrenll.


And many …many …popes and cardinals had those sorts of relationships…Errr…What was the point of this again???

It's always bunnies.

April 9, 2011
6:31 pm
Avatar
Kari
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
January 5, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Errr…What was the point of this again???


 

Please don't be rude.  I'm only explaining why I personally didn't have a problem with the show having Wolsey commit suicide.  There's no reason to be snotty just because I don't agree with you.

 

My point was that Wolsey, as he was presented on the show, wasn't a good man.  He may have been a Catholic clergyman, but I don't think he was particularly religious or spiritual.  He'd already done a lot of terrible things that went against his religion, so it's not hard for me to believe that he would commit suicide. 

 

I'm not saying anyone else has to agree with me.  I'm only explaining why I  feel the way I do about that scene.  If you have a problem with me doing that, well, that's exactly what it is:  YOUR problem.

April 9, 2011
6:38 pm
Avatar
La Belle Creole
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 109
Member Since:
March 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kari said:

Errr…What was the point of this again???


 

Please don't be rude.  I'm only explaining why I personally didn't have a problem with the show having Wolsey commit suicide.  There's no reason to be snotty just because I don't agree with you.

 

My point was that Wolsey, as he was presented on the show, wasn't a good man.  He may have been a Catholic clergyman, but I don't think he was particularly religious or spiritual.  He'd already done a lot of terrible things that went against his religion, so it's not hard for me to believe that he would commit suicide. 

 

I'm not saying anyone else has to agree with me.  I'm only explaining why I  feel the way I do about that scene.  If you have a problem with me doing that, well, that's exactly what it is:  YOUR problem.


I see your point.  For my part I really gritted my teeth through the Wolsey suicide not because I considered suicide beyond Wolsey, but because of its obvious inaccuracy with known historical fact. 

April 9, 2011
6:45 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kari said:

Errr…What was the point of this again???


 

Please don't be rude.  I'm only explaining why I personally didn't have a problem with the show having Wolsey commit suicide.  There's no reason to be snotty just because I don't agree with you.

 

My point was that Wolsey, as he was presented on the show, wasn't a good man.  He may have been a Catholic clergyman, but I don't think he was particularly religious or spiritual.  He'd already done a lot of terrible things that went against his religion, so it's not hard for me to believe that he would commit suicide. 

 

I'm not saying anyone else has to agree with me.  I'm only explaining why I  feel the way I do about that scene.  If you have a problem with me doing that, well, that's exactly what it is:  YOUR problem.


Please don't quote me out of context….

It's always bunnies.

April 9, 2011
6:53 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Anyanka said:

Kari said:

Errr…What was the point of this again???


 

Please don't be rude.  I'm only explaining why I personally didn't have a problem with the show having Wolsey commit suicide.  There's no reason to be snotty just because I don't agree with you.

 

My point was that Wolsey, as he was presented on the show, wasn't a good man.  He may have been a Catholic clergyman, but I don't think he was particularly religious or spiritual.  He'd already done a lot of terrible things that went against his religion, so it's not hard for me to believe that he would commit suicide. 

 

I'm not saying anyone else has to agree with me.  I'm only explaining why I  feel the way I do about that scene.  If you have a problem with me doing that, well, that's exactly what it is:  YOUR problem.


Please don't quote me out of context….
 


Lots of high Catholic clergy had lady-friends and if the rumours are to be bellieved …okay for many for them … even the popes had  children out of wedlock…

 

Given that the Borgia popes had a bad rep…but still none of them commited suicide…that was well beyond the pale for a churchman!

It's always bunnies.

April 9, 2011
6:56 pm
Avatar
Anyanka
La Belle Province
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2345
Member Since:
November 18, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

La Belle Creole said:

Kari said:

Errr…What was the point of this again???


 

Please don't be rude.  I'm only explaining why I personally didn't have a problem with the show having Wolsey commit suicide.  There's no reason to be snotty just because I don't agree with you.

 

My point was that Wolsey, as he was presented on the show, wasn't a good man.  He may have been a Catholic clergyman, but I don't think he was particularly religious or spiritual.  He'd already done a lot of terrible things that went against his religion, so it's not hard for me to believe that he would commit suicide. 

 

I'm not saying anyone else has to agree with me.  I'm only explaining why I  feel the way I do about that scene.  If you have a problem with me doing that, well, that's exactly what it is:  YOUR problem.


I see your point.  For my part I really gritted my teeth through the Wolsey suicide not because I considered suicide beyond Wolsey, but because of its obvious inaccuracy with known historical fact.
 


exactly….Wolsey putting his soul beyond God's intervention was not how people in those days acted…

It's always bunnies.

April 9, 2011
9:00 pm
Avatar
MegC
Georgia, US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 426
Member Since:
October 31, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kari said:

UNPOPULAR OPINION TIME:

 

Wolsey's suicide may have been completely out of character for the real-life Wolsey, but I don't think it was out of character for the man whom they presented in the show.  The Wolsey on The Tudors was a clergyman only in name.  It was a position that was merely a means for him to exercise power, not a genuine vocation.  He was not a religious, spiritual man; quite the opposite, in fact.  Wolsey himself acknowledged this at the very end as he prayed.  He said that he “knew himself for what he was,” and that he knew he would not be going to heaven, because for all that he had done “and all that he was about to do,” there could be no forgiveness.  What I saw in that scene was not a Catholic clergyman doing the unthinkable and going against his faith by committing suicide, but rather a man who had not lived a good life, who had lost the thing he held most dear (power), and who already believed himself damned and saw no other way out.  It worked for me.

 

And actually, now I think of it, it may not have even been out of character for the real-life Wolsey.  After all, being a Catholic clergyman didn't stop him from having a mistress and two illegitimate children, so it's not so unthinkable to me that he might have been willing to commit suicide.  (Not that I think that's what really happened to Wolsey, just that it's not entirely inconceivable to me.)

 

As for the inaccuracy that bothered me most, it was definitely the travesty of that storyline involving Princess Margaret/Mary.  It was so wrong on so many levels.  And I think the role was terribly miscast as well.  I've nothing against Gabrielle Anwar in general; she's a decent actress and seems like a perfectly lovely lady.  But she was not right for that part.  At all.


You know, I hadn't really thought about it that way…I also haven't seen season 1 of The Tudors in awhile so I can't remember all the actions/behaviors they had Wolsey doing.  I guess I can see what you're saying.  I don't know, in reality I don't know if suicide would ever have crossed his mind, despite whatever other sins he might have committed.  I guess, in my mind, a mistress and illegitimate children are one thing, suicide is…well…extreme.

I agree that I felt like Gabrielle Anwar was a bad casting decision.  I love her on Burn Notice, but I just wasn't convinced with her as Princess Mary/Margaret whoever she was supposed to be.  I was actually sort of relieved when her character died.  I wasn't so much bothered by the inaccuracy as I was just irritated.  Some of the inaccuracies I sort of understood from a creative or theatrical viewpoint, but I completely didn't understand the Mary/Margaret combo/historical re-imagining.

"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"

April 9, 2011
9:07 pm
Avatar
Chrystinamarie123
United States
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 62
Member Since:
February 8, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Though I see your point a lot of religious officials (of lower and higher ranks) did these things.

It was very common for men of the church to have bastard children and/or mistresses and it's shown throughout all of history the horrible acts done for power, especially in the name of God.

Of course, it was no biggie for the men to do these things but the moment it was discovered Eleanor Carey had children out of wedlock she was denied the position of Abbess. But that was just the times. 

So if you look at it that way, I personally think it was out of Wolsey's character to commit suicide. One could ask for God's forgiveness in life and be absolved but to commit suicide was a whole other ball game and was viewed as one of the greatest offenses one could commit against God.

Just because we see certain actions in history as brutal, cruel and sadistic today doesn't mean it was viewed that way when it occured. That is one thing that really annoys me about a lot of people who talk about history (please don't take this as a hit towards you, Kari. I just mean in general.) like people who desperately try to say Henry VIII had some kind of mental disorder. I mean yea, it's possible but usually these people are just trying to find some kind of excuse for his behavior instead of accepting that, that was just how things were done. 

April 9, 2011
9:16 pm
Avatar
MegC
Georgia, US
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 426
Member Since:
October 31, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Um…since I started this thread…I'm going to be the first to say…let's keep it civil.  Please and thank you.

I'd rather not have this thread dissolve into a debate on the finer points of 16th century Catholic dogma.

"We mustn't let our passions destroy our dreams…"

April 9, 2011
9:23 pm
Avatar
Chrystinamarie123
United States
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 62
Member Since:
February 8, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I thought I was perfectly civil. I wasn't trying to be mean or anything.

April 9, 2011
9:36 pm
Avatar
La Belle Creole
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 109
Member Since:
March 9, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Chrystinamarie123 said:

Though I see your point a lot of religious officials (of lower and higher ranks) did these things.

It was very common for men of the church to have bastard children and/or mistresses and it's shown throughout all of history the horrible acts done for power, especially in the name of God.

Of course, it was no biggie for the men to do these things but the moment it was discovered Eleanor Carey had children out of wedlock she was denied the position of Abbess. But that was just the times. 

So if you look at it that way, I personally think it was out of Wolsey's character to commit suicide. One could ask for God's forgiveness in life and be absolved but to commit suicide was a whole other ball game and was viewed as one of the greatest offenses one could commit against God.

Just because we see certain actions in history as brutal, cruel and sadistic today doesn't mean it was viewed that way when it occured. That is one thing that really annoys me about a lot of people who talk about history (please don't take this as a hit towards you, Kari. I just mean in general.) like people who desperately try to say Henry VIII had some kind of mental disorder. I mean yea, it's possible but usually these people are just trying to find some kind of excuse for his behavior instead of accepting that, that was just how things were done. 


*shrugs*  I think Henry VIII probably suffered a personality disorder.  My opinion is based upon an analysis of his known actions and attitudes.  However, no one can make an accurate analysis on a historical figure since the person isn't around to question and observe. 

That said … I don't believe Henry qualifies as a “regular person” following societal norms  common for his time.  It could be argued, for example, that men sometimes murder their wives or girlfriends during a breakup or immediately following a breakup.  This is common enough that police frequently seek ex-boyfriends and ex-spouses (or even current boyfriends/spouses) when a woman goes missing or turns up murdered.   But I think most people would not shrug off such an event as socially “normal” or decide nothing was wrong (in terms of social deviance) with the murderer. 

Records confirm Henry's peers were frequently shocked and disturbed by some of his behaviors, not accepting them as “normal” or “the way things are.”   Just as present day people are appalled by, say, Scott Peterson's murder of his wife and unborn child because he sought a new relationship with a nother woman and didn't want the “baggage.”

April 9, 2011
10:10 pm
Avatar
Chrystinamarie123
United States
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 62
Member Since:
February 8, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

La Belle Creole said:

Chrystinamarie123 said:

Though I see your point a lot of religious officials (of lower and higher ranks) did these things.

It was very common for men of the church to have bastard children and/or mistresses and it's shown throughout all of history the horrible acts done for power, especially in the name of God.

Of course, it was no biggie for the men to do these things but the moment it was discovered Eleanor Carey had children out of wedlock she was denied the position of Abbess. But that was just the times. 

So if you look at it that way, I personally think it was out of Wolsey's character to commit suicide. One could ask for God's forgiveness in life and be absolved but to commit suicide was a whole other ball game and was viewed as one of the greatest offenses one could commit against God.

Just because we see certain actions in history as brutal, cruel and sadistic today doesn't mean it was viewed that way when it occured. That is one thing that really annoys me about a lot of people who talk about history (please don't take this as a hit towards you, Kari. I just mean in general.) like people who desperately try to say Henry VIII had some kind of mental disorder. I mean yea, it's possible but usually these people are just trying to find some kind of excuse for his behavior instead of accepting that, that was just how things were done. 


*shrugs*  I think Henry VIII probably suffered a personality disorder.  My opinion is based upon an analysis of his known actions and attitudes.  However, no one can make an accurate analysis on a historical figure since the person isn't around to question and observe.
 

That said … I don't believe Henry qualifies as a “regular person” following societal norms  common for his time.  It could be argued, for example, that men sometimes murder their wives or girlfriends during a breakup or immediately following a breakup.  This is common enough that police frequently seek ex-boyfriends and ex-spouses (or even current boyfriends/spouses) when a woman goes missing or turns up murdered.   But I think most people would not shrug off such an event as socially “normal” or decide nothing was wrong (in terms of social deviance) with the murderer. 

Records confirm Henry's peers were frequently shocked and disturbed by some of his behaviors, not accepting them as “normal” or “the way things are.”   Just as present day people are appalled by, say, Scott Peterson's murder of his wife and unborn child because he sought a new relationship with a nother woman and didn't want the “baggage.”


I think a lot of Henry's problem was that he was extremely rash and had too big of an ego. While claiming to prove the Pope to be fallible I think he turned around and thought himself to be infallible. Any action a person might have done to hurt his pride was brutally dealt with (except for lucky Anne of Cleves if you believe that theory). I also didn't mean everything he did was seen as normal, it most certainly wasn't! lol. I simply meant a lot of things he did seem brutal to us but weren't to them. 

 

I'm not ruling out the possibility of a mental disorder, it would be interesting if he did I just think a lot of people try to write excuses for actions and behaviors recorded in the past. Not just for Henry either but I've seen several people try to do it for other people throughout history as well. Regardless though, whatever mental disorder he may or may not have had wouldn't make me look at his life and say, “Awh…it wasn't his fault he was so cruel to his wives.” you know? 

April 10, 2011
1:45 am
Avatar
Louise
Hampshire, England
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 612
Member Since:
December 5, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The problem is, as I've just said on a post regarding George Boleyn, is that fiction projects our morality on sixteenth cenury personalities, and that's never really going to work. We can accept the concept of Wolsey commiting suicide, because it's difficult to even begin to understand sixteenth century thinking and religious beliefs. The fictional Wolsey, as depicted by The Tudors, could have commited suicide, but Wolsey was a real man who actually existed. The real Wolsey would have genuinely believed that he would go to Hell.  

I wouldn't have a problem with a version of The Tudors which used completely fictional characters, so that Anne and George Boleyn became Doris and Fred Smith and Henry VIII became Sid the third. I could probably live with that (he he).

April 10, 2011
11:54 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Inaccurasies:  Margaret/Mary drove me nuts.  It's been a while since I've seen the show, but didn't they have her marry the King of Portugal? It was annoyting.

Wolsey's suicide. I didn't understand changing this historical fact either. 

However, I was not look at it in the same way Kari did.  She makes a valid point about the way Wolsey was portrayed in the show.  If the Wolsey in the show was out for only power and glory, and his religious vocation brought him that and nothing more, suicide could have been a choice.  (for the shows purpose)  So, thanks Kari for giving me another way of looking at the portrayal.

I am certainly not one to apologize for Henry's actions….but there was definitely something wrong with that guy…geeeesh.

August 27, 2011
2:25 pm
Avatar
Milady12
Sweet Home Chicago
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 41
Member Since:
August 27, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What I found so inaccurate a bout the show was that the people who were supposed to be so “unattractive” in real life history were casted by gorgeous actors and actresses. Then the people who were supposed to be notoriously beautiful were casted by people with no appeal whatsoever. I found that odd, I mean they went polar opposites in the casting in that regard.

 

Of course there were historical inaccuracies, such as Henry having 2 sisters not 1. His sister marrying the King of Scotland NOT Portugal. And of course the death of Wolsey. HOWEVER and this is a BIG however. As we were not present for the death of the King of France's death quickly following his marriage to Henry's sister so she could marry her true love Charles….we don't really know how he died…do we? Also in the case of Wolsey you will remember in that episode Henry states very clearly “NO ONE is to know how Wolsey died!” Again, there have been worse cover ups in history than this. So what I am saying is that in these 2 cases I would not call them so much blatant inaccuracies as the writers taking creative license with what they think “could” have happen. Mary Boleyn just faded off into the sunset without any babies from Henry. Kitty Howard met Henry as a Lady in waiting to Anne of Cleves, not just brought to a party to flirt with Henry. The Duke of Norfolk was instrumental throughout the reign of Henry VIII. He also faded into the sunset and Thomas Boleyn was portrayed as the architect of Anne's rise more so than Thomas Howard. He was a major player who ended up with a minor role.

As for casting Gabriel Anwar, I loved it! Of course the first time I saw her was as the princess of Austria who became the Queen of France in The Three Musketeers. So I always think of her that way! And I thought she and Henry Cavell had real chemistry. However, I thought the change in actresses for the role of Jane Seymour between seasons, without comment, was very strange. 

Oh and I'm sorry but I love George Boleyn and I thought the guy playing him was great and I had fun watching him! I did have trouble figuring out why they had a dwarf play the young Elizabeth. Not the baby or toddler or teenager. The in between child. I also could not figure out why they never took shampoo or a bloody comb to Thomas Tallis even after he had been at court for a while.

**I am sure there is more but that is all I have for now off the top of my head. But all in all I LOVED the series and I do own the entire thing!

Kimberly

September 5, 2011
9:44 am
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I started watching the show again.  Many of the inaccuracies have been mentioned above.  I have one that I don’t believe has been mentioned.  In Season 1, Episode 4, Marguerite of Navarre is at the Tudor court. Henry asks Wolsey who she is.  Wolsey says she is here without her husband and with a smirk on his face asks if Henry might like to meet her. Henry looked very intrigued.  Wolsey introduces her to Henry with another smirk.  Marguerite bows giving Henry a very good view of her charms.  At dinner, there was a good deal of sexual innuendo going on between the two from their positions across the room from each other.  The next scene shows the guards standing outside Henry’s room overhearing Henry having sex.  They do not show the two of them, thank God, but it is implied that he is with Marguerite. Ugh!

This happens in the very beginning of the episode, and needless to say, it ruined the rest of the show for me.  I’m not sure if I missed this the first time around or if I didn’t realize who the woman was, but I was rather sickened by the whole thing.  Marguerite ends up as just another of Henry’s conquests.  So many women at court and the writers pick Marguerite of Navarre?

September 5, 2011
11:40 am
Avatar
Elliemarianna
Corsham, Wiltshire
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 316
Member Since:
June 7, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Impish_Impulse said:

Chrystinamarie123 said:

Impish_Impulse said:
 

Chrystinamarie123 said:
 

It bugs the crap out of me too. I think they totally could have played off his ACTUAL death and had the same, “dramatic appeal”.
 

 
 

The suicide just grossed me out and I completely agree with you, it was entirely out of character.
 

 


Yeah, but his real cause of death was dysentery, or severe diarrhea. I really don't see the dramatic appeal of that, although they certainly could have changed it to 'consumption' or the sweating sickness, rather than have a Catholic Archbishop commit suicide, which was incredibly unbelievable to me.
 
 
 


Hear me out, have you ever seen the movie The Painted Veil? If you haven't it deals with Cholera and severe diarrhea was involved. As gross as it is in real life, they portrayed it in a way that didn't gross you out (or show it), got the point across and was dramatic. So it all just depends on how they would have portrayed the Dysentery. Though I do agree with you, I would have gladly accepted Sweating Sickness or Consumption as a substitute.
 
 


No, I haven't! I might have to go looking for that.
 
 

The unnecessary innacuracies for me would be
 

  • Wolsey's suicide,
  • Henry only having one sister (who married the king of Portugal instead of either France or Scotland, as his sisters did historically. And she murders him?!)
  • Making George Boleyn a wife-raping bisexual.
  • Making Thomas Tallis and William Compton have an awkward, unconvincing affair that had (for me) zero chemistry.
  • Making Kathryn Howard a prostitute. And then showing her wetting herself on the scaffold.
  • Brandon's French mistress.

 I'm sure I'll remember more later. Smile

 

I always thought Brandon's mistress would make a better Anne B, looks wise. As much as I like Natalie Dormer…

Image Enlarger

And she's French!

"It is however but Justice, & my Duty to declre that this amiable Woman was entirely innocent of the Crimes with which she was accused, of which her Beauty, her Elegance, & her Sprightliness were sufficient proofs..." Jane Austen.

March 7, 2012
9:44 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree that The Tudors was completely inaccurate, but at the same time was very addictive.

The first actress who played Jane seymour seemed very wooden in the way she walked, and didn’t seem to be relaxed at all in her acting style.

The actress who Played K.H, Yeah I wanted to put her over my knee at somepoint and give her a damn good hiding. K.H was a silly fool, but I think she did deport herself with a little more dignity than what was portrayed, and certainly flouncing about like she did, doesn’t seem to fit with the picture I have of K.H.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

March 15, 2012
10:41 am
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I’ve just refreshed my memory, (Changed the rabbits in my head that are working the controls), about this topic, and there are certainly some very interesting points of view..
Is it just possible perhaps that Wolsey did actually commit suicide in real life? as it seemed strange that when he was dismissed from his post etc, and then arrained of charges of Praemunire, and would have lost his life anyway, at least dying on his way back to London would have saved his families reputation, as his mistress and children could have at least have got something out of his death. If he had been burned or beheaded I think Henry would have just had him beheaded, his family would have lost everything. I’m not saying he slit his throat as that would have meant that whoever found his body would have recorded that his throat had been slit, and I don’t think for one minute that anyone one within the monastic grounds would have done it as the reformation hadn’t got into full swing and perhaps wouldn’t have done if Wolsey had lived. So therefore Wolsey would have damned his soul, by killing himself. But what if he poisoned himself? no one would be none the wiser, they simple would have put his death down to natural causes which of course it was recorded as. His death would have been mourned and the suitable masses would be said for his soul etc.
As for Henry I think that it is quite possible that the blow on Henry’s head from the Joulling accident did actully affect him mentally, I would say that’s he became perhaps borderline schizophrenic as he certainly wasn’t the same person he was before the accident. It also seems funny to me, that with perhaps the exception of Anne of Cleves, who they both attested they hadn’t consumated their marriage, neither K.H or K.P got pregnant. This is something that I read a few days ago. Henry contracted Smallpox at the age of 23, but made a remarkable recovery. Is it just possible that A) this disease was a possible cause of some of the deformed babies that were born to KOA? his last child by her I believe looked like a cylops with puffy lips, and B) affected his sperm count when he got older? Men are usually quite virile right up to the 80’s and sometimes beyond that too. I know that he was getting a little frustrated by his not getting Jane pregnant almost straight away, and even more so with K.H, who was a lot younger than his previous wives.
As for inaccurcies in The Tudors it did annoy me a bit at times but I did enjoy the series’s and i would have certainly liked to see how the producers of it would have made good Mary’s promise to Chaprus to drag England back to Rome and equally Elizabeth’s reign. The trouble is I rather think that people were hoping it would have stuck to the facts that we have in front of us, and not seen it as it really was, a Tudor Soap Opera.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
14 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Anyanka: 2345

Boleyn: 2285

Sharon: 2115

Bella44: 934

DuchessofBrittany: 847

Mya Elise: 782

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 426044

Moderators: 0

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 13

Topics: 1679

Posts: 23600

Newest Members:

darryluw16, jeannettefs16, HapunrU, levisthomas02, anntb60, normawe2

Administrators: Claire: 998