Of all the inaccuracies... | Page 5 | 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 7, 2015
8:55 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said Elizabeth appearing unconcerned in her final scene as her father says goodbye for the last time…

I thought that it showed well Elizabeth’s strength of character which made her such a great ruler. Besides, it evidently pleased Henry.

In that time, royal children did not live with their parents, and they were taught always behave without showing their true feelings.

April 7, 2015
9:13 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Boleyn said Elizabeth appearing unconcerned in her final scene as her father says goodbye for the last time…

I thought that it showed well Elizabeth’s strength of character which made her such a great ruler. Besides, it evidently pleased Henry.

In that time, royal children did not live with their parents, and they were taught always behave without showing their true feelings.

Yes I agree Hannele, that one scene actually summed up the real Elizabeth, or I should say how the real Elizabeth may well have been.
I do wish that Showtime would have continued on with the series, to cover the reigns of Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 7, 2015
9:22 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Boleyn said (Henry’s uncle who was murdered in Orbino in the very first episode) would have had a daughter or 2 and a couple of grandkids to boot as well, and that Darnley and Mary QoS were decended through this blood line.

Except Henry had only one paternal uncle, Jasper Tudor, who had no claim on the throne (his brother married Margaret Beaufort who bore the future Henry VII after his death) and who had no legitimate children. Henry’s maternal uncles were of course the Princes in Tower.

I was meaning that the Tudors series started with the mythological uncle being murdered in Orbino. If Showtime wanted to include, the Darnley/Mary QoS storylines in Elizabeth’s Series,(If they had continued the series on) they would probably write in that they were decended from Henry’s murdered Uncle.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 8, 2015
1:58 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Hannele said

Boleyn said (Henry’s uncle who was murdered in Orbino in the very first episode) would have had a daughter or 2 and a couple of grandkids to boot as well, and that Darnley and Mary QoS were decended through this blood line.

Except Henry had only one paternal uncle, Jasper Tudor, who had no claim on the throne (his brother married Margaret Beaufort who bore the future Henry VII after his death) and who had no legitimate children. Henry’s maternal uncles were of course the Princes in Tower.

I was meaning that the Tudors series started with the mythological uncle being murdered in Orbino. If Showtime wanted to include, the Darnley/Mary QoS storylines in Elizabeth’s Series,(If they had continued the series on) they would probably write in that they were decended from Henry’s murdered Uncle.

But there was no mention in the show that the King of Scots was in any way related with Henry. One cannot suddenly make a revelation about a relative – unless a character had himself has not known of him or her.

In any case, Margaret’s (i.e Mary duchess of Suffolk) all descendants would have been self-evident heirs after Elizabeth as she was the daughter of Henry VIII, whereas this imaginary uncle was only Henry VII’s brother.

April 8, 2015
3:42 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Boleyn said

Hannele said

Boleyn said (Henry’s uncle who was murdered in Orbino in the very first episode) would have had a daughter or 2 and a couple of grandkids to boot as well, and that Darnley and Mary QoS were decended through this blood line.

Except Henry had only one paternal uncle, Jasper Tudor, who had no claim on the throne (his brother married Margaret Beaufort who bore the future Henry VII after his death) and who had no legitimate children. Henry’s maternal uncles were of course the Princes in Tower.

I was meaning that the Tudors series started with the mythological uncle being murdered in Orbino. If Showtime wanted to include, the Darnley/Mary QoS storylines in Elizabeth’s Series,(If they had continued the series on) they would probably write in that they were decended from Henry’s murdered Uncle.

But there was no mention in the show that the King of Scots was in any way related with Henry. One cannot suddenly make a revelation about a relative – unless a character had himself has not known of him or her.

In any case, Margaret’s (i.e Mary duchess of Suffolk) all descendants would have been self-evident heirs after Elizabeth as she was the daughter of Henry VIII, whereas this imaginary uncle was only Henry VII’s brother.

Since the whole series was completely fictional I am sure that the writers would have found a way around this problem. After all fictional historical entertainment is always venturing into the realms of make believe where anything is possible. In short anything goes, that why historical fiction is so popular. And often infruiating too.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

April 8, 2015
9:03 pm
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said

Hannele said But there was no mention in the show that the King of Scots was in any way related with Henry. One cannot suddenly make a revelation about a relative – unless a character had himself has not known of him or her.

In any case, Margaret’s (i.e Mary duchess of Suffolk) all descendants would have been self-evident heirs after Elizabeth as she was the daughter of Henry VIII, whereas this imaginary uncle was only Henry VII’s brother.

Since the whole series was completely fictional I am sure that the writers would have found a way around this problem. After all fictional historical entertainment is always venturing into the realms of make believe where anything is possible. In short anything goes, that why historical fiction is so popular. And often infruiating too.

I once heard that in the beginning of the movie anything is possible, but in every genre there are rules and once the spectators knows which genre it represents and is familiar with them, one cannot break them any more.

Despite some alterations in minor points, The Tudors was no “alternative universum” or “what if” story. And despite its name, it was clearly Henry’s story. After all, Michael Hirsch had already made a screenplay to the movie Elizabeth.

April 12, 2015
9:08 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Boleyn said

Hannele said But there was no mention in the show that the King of Scots was in any way related with Henry. One cannot suddenly make a revelation about a relative – unless a character had himself has not known of him or her.

In any case, Margaret’s (i.e Mary duchess of Suffolk) all descendants would have been self-evident heirs after Elizabeth as she was the daughter of Henry VIII, whereas this imaginary uncle was only Henry VII’s brother.

Since the whole series was completely fictional I am sure that the writers would have found a way around this problem. After all fictional historical entertainment is always venturing into the realms of make believe where anything is possible. In short anything goes, that why historical fiction is so popular. And often infruiating too.

I once heard that in the beginning of the movie anything is possible, but in every genre there are rules and once the spectators knows which genre it represents and is familiar with them, one cannot break them any more.

Despite some alterations in minor points, The Tudors was no “alternative universum” or “what if” story. And despite its name, it was clearly Henry’s story. After all, Michael Hirsch had already made a screenplay to the movie Elizabeth.

April 12, 2015
9:20 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I must confess an error I made above claiming that there was mention of Henry being related with King of Scots.

In the part six of the third season there are lot of talk about Henry’s next marriage. Of the French princesses Henry favors madame de Longueville, but she is already promised to James. Hearing this Henry boasts than he can give much more than “my nephew”. No explanation is given how James can be his nephew, but probably this would have been enough, if the series had continued.

However, despite its title, The Tudors was Henry’s story. I do not think it would have so interesting without him. That is not to say that Mary’s story would not have interesting, but it would have demanded a different kind of series.

April 12, 2015
9:35 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I just noticed an inaccuracy that has nothing to do with altering history but shows only laziness on the part of the show.

In the second season Anne celebrates Katherine’s death and her pregnancy wearing a yellow dress in May Day. Although we know that Katherine died in January, one would forget or forgive this – but in the next part Anne, pregnant, gives alms to the poor and kneels to to wash their foots in Maundy Thursday. The chronology is impossible, but because the outdoor scene in May Day is so splendid and the scenes are in different parts, I did not notice it before.

May 24, 2015
4:37 pm
Avatar
mary the quene
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2
Member Since:
March 24, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele, the inaccuracies in The Tudors that rankle are so many in number – but the one you pointed out is indeed, the laziness of a continuity department not dotting its “I’s” nor crossing its “T’s.”

May 24, 2015
6:54 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Despite the glaring errors in the Tudors, the series was good, and I enjoyed it.
Although I do agree that the lack of Crossing T’s and Dotting I’s was not acceptable.
In real life Anne allegdely miscarried around about the 3 month mark, and it would be unlikely that a baby bump would start to show at that point. It’s possible to have a little bump I suppose depending on the situation I.e more than one baby.

Maybe the reason to why they put emphasis on Anne’s pregnancy, during the last episode or 2 with K.O.A being in the series, was to draw attention on just how important it was for her to have a healthy male child.
So the showtime people had to make it seem as if Anne was more pregnant that she actually was to give the impact of Katherine’s death and Anne’s miscarriage more dramatic than it was in real life.
It would be good if the Showtime people would continue on with the series. I would certainly like to see the way both Mary and Elizabeth’s reigns would be portrayed.
Fireworks is the closest word to what would happen there.

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

May 30, 2015
9:07 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
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.  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

I know that the suicide is regarded as a sin because it is a sign of an desperation and therefore lack of faith in God. Yet, I think that in The Tudors the crux of the matter was to show the shallowness of the religiosity of f.ex. More who was shown also praying and who believed that he was a good man and therefore deserved heaven. Wolsey, on the other hand, acknowledged that he was a sinner who did not deserve salvation. Now, according to Luther, it was Wolsey who was a real believer. Or, more importantly, he was like a publican in Jesus’ parable who says I am not worthy whereas More was like a pharisee who says that he has done everything right.

Also, the second season begins in scenes where Henry and Anne pray, Katherine prays and More prays – and as we know that Henry and Anne pray for the opposite matter than Katherine and More, that casts a doubt on religion in general. Is anybody of them praying “thy will may happen, not mine”?

May 30, 2015
1:43 pm
Avatar
Boleyn
Kent.
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2285
Member Since:
January 3, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I think the suicide storyline in the Tudors, was put in to add just a bit more spice. However in my opinion, it is possible that in real life Wolsey did commit suicide, by injesting poison. Remember he was on his way to London, and the Tower, which he knew would result in his death, no matter what. The wolves were after his blood, and if he had reached London alive they would make sure they got it. If Wolsey had ended his days on the block, people would forever remember him as a traitor to his King. Wolsey did admit to premuarie, but I don’t believe he was guilty for a moment. He did exactly what Henry had asked him to do, in fact he actually went beyond that.. Henry wanted a swift divorce, Wolsey worked tirelessly to give him his wish. When the Pope refused to even contemplate Henry’s wish, Wolsey continued to pressure the Pope and eventually managed to get the case heard in England not in Rome as would normally be the case.
The Pope natually sent his own proxy to make sure that Katherine was fairly treated and her side could be listened to. The Pope gave Wolsey and his proxy the power to dissolve the marriage if Henry could prove his case. The reason to why the divorce failed was not down to either either Wolsey or Campagio, it failed due to Henry’s shoddy evidence, to back up his case.. Evidence that was over 20 years old, and was suspect in the first place. Leviticus, states that a marriage between a man and a brother’s wife would be childless, Henry interpreted it to mean no son. But Henry and Katherine did have a son (in fact they had several sons) not either of their faults that they all died, the marriage was not childless, they had Mary. Henry stated that he had doubts abut his marriage as early as 1512/13 and yet he choose to say nothing because of the love he bore Katherine.. Hogwash, Henry had always stated he was a devout man if he had had these doubts in 1512/13 he would have acted on them end of.
In short the only thing Henry actually did during the whole divorce proceeding is made himself look very stupid.
Wolsey was blamed because he failed to get Henry his divorce, when in truth the real reason to why Wolsey failed was because of Henry. Henry looked a fool because of the evidence he produced, which was, just hear say and bedroom snickering and everyone was laughing at him, so he blamed Wolsey. If it hadn’t of been Wolsey it would have been someone else, because Henry could bear the thought he was at fault in anything

Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod

June 2, 2015
8:11 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Boleyn said Wolsey was blamed because he failed to get Henry his divorce, when in truth the real reason to why Wolsey failed was because of Henry.

Starkey disagrees in Six wives. When in France, Wolsey talked too much and did too little. Then, when Henry took the initiative without him, there was an opportunity to succeed, but Wolsey torpedoed it, because to him his own career came first and he did not want Henry to succeeded without his help.

There is also the essential question of Anne’s attitude. If we believe Cavendish and she all the time wanted to revenge on Wolsey, only pretending to be friendly in her letters, then it was not in Wolsey’s interests to help her marry the king but rather delay the matter and hope that Henry would tire of her. Even as a mistress she was a danger to Wolsey if Henry listened on her advice, no longer on his.

In addition, as as a man of the Church Wolsey could not present such a solution Cromwell later did.

July 24, 2015
4:36 am
Avatar
Mindy
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
July 23, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi!

New here and just joining in on the conversation.

The Wolsey suicide did bother me, but I got to thinking about how Sam Neill portrayed Wolsey and how I believe Anthony Quayle (I hope I remembered him correctly) portrayed him in “Anne of the Thousand Days”

Both were power/wealth hungry to be sure and both screwed up the divorce Henry so desperately wanted, however, the portrayal by Quayle led me to feel for Wolsey, whereas Neill’s portrayal made me want to off him, or have some horrible thing happen to him. Wolsey came off as just plain wicked in The Tudor’s and I couldn’t wait for his end. I feel that it was meant to deal us the viewer with drama and climax to his character. While I’m sure explosive diarrhea could have been interesting, I doubt it would have had the same appeal.

I also agree with Katherine Howard: I just can’t with her. Especially the way she treated Mary. Also the inconsistencies with Mary/Margaret.

The story of the Tudor family has enough without extras and twisting. They were relatively twisted themselves.

July 24, 2015
6:48 am
Avatar
Hannele
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 129
Member Since:
August 17, 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Reading just now The crown of thistles by Linda Porter, I think that making Mary and Margaret who then married the king of Portugal one person had even more damning effect than mere personalities: it made Scotland almost totally non-existent in the whole show. Yet, the relations with Scotland were of greatest importance to England as Scotland was generally France’s ally.

Also, Porter points out that before Mary was born, Margaret’s son was an heir to England’s throne which Henry did not took well. He seems already been annoyed as a young boy when his sister was elevated to a queen and he was “only” a duke.

July 29, 2015
7:18 pm
Avatar
Sharon
Binghamton, NY
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2115
Member Since:
February 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hannele said

Reading just now The crown of thistles by Linda Porter, I think that making Mary and Margaret who then married the king of Portugal one person had even more damning effect than mere personalities: it made Scotland almost totally non-existent in the whole show.

Until Henry goes north to meet his nephew. Nephew? Where’d he come from? Who doe he belong to? Honestly, leaving the history between Scotland and England out of the story was a huge mistake. That Margaret/Mary/Portugal thing was insane.

Also, Porter points out that before Mary was born, Margaret’s son was an heir to England’s throne which Henry did not took well. He seems already been annoyed as a young boy when his sister was elevated to a queen and he was “only” a duke.

Yes, the fact that Henry was jealous of his sister at such a young age due to the fact that she became a queen and he was only a duke, says a whole lot about his character. It does make me wonder how he would have honestly felt when his brother became a king.

Sorry, I couldn’t break this up properly.

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 70

Currently Online:
11 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