I am a massive fan of the Tudor era so I find myself getting irate and shouting at the telly when watching this so I gave up

There is nothing wrong with it at all bar the inaccuracy and I totally understand people watching for the fun and drama alone but it's not for me.

Also if the rumours are to be believed and an awful lot of accurate decriptions from Chapuys Henry was probably even more handsome than Jonathan in his youth. He was certainly far taller and strapping

Hello Twee
I love the Tudors and as Tudor History is one of my academic specialities I have a good laugh at the content from time to time.  I only hope no students use it as a short cut.

The men are all very pretty I agree and I do think Natalie Dormer caught the essence of Anne Boleyn....Not beautiful, but sexy and that permanent sneer the actress had, sort of smacked of arrogance and ambition.
Not one for the purists, although it's a laugh and Henry was a handsome young man and at over 6foot stood out among his peers. JRM is much to short and he's dark-haired, but hey......it's history,but not as we know it

I love it .... !!! The producers have never marketed it as historically accurate so the poetic licence doesn't bother me one bit ... I think the casting is great, the costumes are amazing and the sets are a feast for the eyes ...

And if it promotes interest in the Tudor era and encourages students to do their own research, then all the better ...

I am sorry you have given up on it AC.  I nearly did in the first episode when I found out that they had melded Henry's two sisters (Margaret and Mary) into one character, apparently so the viewers wouldn't get confused with too many Marys .. lol.  I thought, this can't be right.  But I persevered and I am so glad I did.  There is more historical accuracy than inaccuracy in the Tudors as the story has developed imo.  The settings are beautiful and the costumes are exquisite.  It is a feast for the eyes.

Of course, the expert on the Tudor period has to be David Starkey.  But David Starkey, with all his intellect and learning, cannot takes his words off a page and make me see these characters as once-living flesh and blood people.  The Tudors does this for me.  The plotting of the other characters behind the scenes has been brought to life for me, and the actors have been chosen to represent the characters of the Tudor period.  Sam Neill, for instance, was brilliant as Cardinal Wolsey.

To Twentyfirst Century eyes, the Holbein portraits of Henry do not depict him as a very handsome man.  In David Starkey's Virtuous Prince book there are portraits of Henry as a young man (18yrs) when he ascended the throne, when he was in his 20s, and then much later.  There is no doubting they are the same man.  He may have been considered handsome by 16th Century standards, and he was reputedly 6'0" tall and slender of physique.  But don't forget, there was a fair bit of buttering-up in those days, a sucking-up similar to what goes on today with the present Royal family.  Admittedly, Chapuys was a Spanish Ambassador and may well have been telling it like it was.  But his is one of the only independent accounts available to us about the truthfulness of Henry's appearance.

So AC, you are not 'The Most Happy'  when it comes to The Tudors?  Awwww, that's a shame, because it does improve as the story develops.

Anyone that knows a bit about the Tudor period would be aware that some of the history in The Tudors is inaccurate.  Henry's two sisters is a case in point.  I mean, that was taking artistic license a bit far!  

But setting aside the obvious inaccuracies, the programme has to be applauded for the sheer richness of the production, the costumes, the scenery, etc.  The cast is perfect and I agree, AB was portrayed just as I imagined her to be.  James Frain has managed to get Cromwell's character right, with just the right amount of creepy-up ambition to give a flavour of the man we read about in history books.  Apparently, Henry used to slap him about a bit too for being so creepy-up, but I don't know how historically accurate that is either  lol.  Henry was supposedly 6'0" and red-haired.  JRM is shorter and dark-haired.  But somehow he manages to convey Henry's wilful nature, his ego, and his control freakery without having to look like the Holbein portraits. 

I agree Shar.  For those that want the true facts, from someone who has done the research and walked the cobblestones to find out the facts, one only has to look to David Starkey.  But sometimes reading a book is not enough and we want to see some history on film.  The Tudors gives us that.   I love it and I can watch it quite merrily even though I know that Michael Hirst has not stuck with the facts and has made it into a kind of Tudor soap opera.  When I want to know the truth, I get out my David Starkey books.  Vive la difference.

Exactly ... even the storytellers of old realised that a little bit of exaggeration or enhancement made for a better tale ... what is history but a mish mash of different versions of the same story told from a particular viewpoint anyway ...? Ok ... it's a bit more complicated than that  ... I hold the same view about Phillipa Gregory's historical novels ... she knows her history, but she's never claimed that her books based on real historical figures are an accurate portrayal of history ... she's an author and she uses poetic licence .... The Tudors IS soap opera ... but it's sexy soap opera without shoulder pads ...

Shar, the only real historian on the Tudor period is David Starkey.  They all plagiarise from him and some have the good grace to credit him in their acknowledgements.  Some don't. 

He has had a right go in print at Michael Hirst about The Tudors.  He has criticised PG for her take on history.  DS is a prickly character to start with, but he does have a point.  It is better to learn chronicled history than soap opera sexed-up history.  But I want to make the choice for myself about what I watch and I wouldn't allow anyone to dictate to me what I should enjoy.  Tudor History Books = David Starkey;  Pure escapist well-produced Tudor soap opera = Michael Hirst.  I can handle both shar, and so can you by the sounds of it

Yes Twee .... I can handle the truth AND spiced up history too ...

It's the last episode of The Tudors tonight, boo hoo.  Normally there are 10 episodes but this series only has 8.  Thomas Cromwell loses his head tonight, according to the tv guide.  Henry did not like his choice of bride number four, so he had to blame someone .. Cromwell.  Head off unfortunately!  Not sure about Joss Stone playing Anne of Cleves but I will watch tonight and see if she can act.

I am so glad the last episode is tonight...I thought I was going to miss some, because I shall be away for the next two weeks.
I went to the British Library's Henry viii exhibition a while back and the commentary was by Starkey..it was excellent. I was privileged enough to attend one of his lectures....brilliant man, but as you say...'prickly'.

I really love The Tudors...it's a soap opera, but a bloody good one

BTW Twee.....have you bought Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall yet? Just got it yesterday and am really looking forward to reading it

She seemed competent enough in last week's episode. She also has an advantage in that as Anne of Cleves is foreign and not at ease in her relationship with Henry, any shortcomings in her acting would not necessarily be as noticeable.

I wonder if Joss Stone will feature in the next series. Although Anne of Cleves' marriage would be over, she remained in this country, financed by Henry, remained friends and at one stage she might have remarried him.

How lucky are you to have attended one of DSs lectures?  I bet he was brilliant.  You cannot help but admire him for his knowledge and deep research of his subject.  I can put up with his pricklyness, because he is the foremost purist Tudor historian alive today.  And I love his quirkly style of writing in his books where he turns the question round and asks 'us' to make our own mind up about what he tells us.  I love that. 

Although I wasn't fortunate enough to see the British Library exhibition on Henry VIII, I ordered the accompanying catalogue .. Man and Monarch.  It was quite expensive for just a catalogue but it was money well spent.  The illustrations and pictures are superb.  David Starkey wrote the Introduction and tells us that Henry's writing desk as exhibited is his actual writing desk where he most likely wrote his love letters to Anne Boleyn, some of which were loaned by the Vatican for this very exhibition.  I bet you seen all these things, and I wish I had been there.  I can just look at the lovely pictures of these things and wonder.  The catalogue is quite heavy and bulky but a brilliant source of information about the period, and I consider it to be money well spent. 

With regard to the Tudors tv programme, there is no comparison with Starkey's version and Hirst's version.  But I like them both and can accommodate differing versions of the same story, even though MH has tweaked in some very unusual ways and this has set off DS on a few rants because MH has dared to tweak the historical facts to fit into his sexed-up Tudor soap opera.  Just recently DS called the Queen a 'suburban housewife', so he does not mince his words with anyone.  My feeling is that the Queen should send him to the Tower to cool off for a bit.  If he had said Henry VIII was a 'suburban husband' back in the day, his head would now be on a spike on Tower Bridge ..

Hiya Twee.....I'm just going offline, so can't really reply to your post in the appropriate way.
Yes.....we thoroughly enjoyed the exhibition and there was some really wonderful stuff displayed....I loved Henry's love letter to Anne....little hearts and stuff on it...just like a lovesick teenager....nothing ever changes.
Starkey is my favourite historian...although I loved Schama's take on the French Revolution....written with a great deal of wit.

My daughter and I did an evening tour of the Tower last winter...it's very evocative in the dark...the ghosts walk in your memory if not in fact (lol)

I'm off for two weeks now....chat with you when I return...so bye bye

Wolf Hall came yesterday from Amazon.  I started it immediately and read a few chapters and it is beautifully themed.  Hilary Mantel sets the atmosphere, with the sights and sounds of the Tudor period.  She has taken it back to Thomas Cromwell's childhood and it will inevitably lead to the execution block and his recorded death.  I love her writing style so far.  I hope to get into it again tomorrow but I have been quite busy these past few days and cannot settle long enough to enjoy it.  I also want to savour it and make it last. 

Let me know what you think of it when you have got into it a bit.  I read yesterday it is up for the Man Booker prize.  With the bit I have read so far, her winning it might be warranted.

kaytee, have a great holiday and take Wolf Hall with you lol  xxxxxxxxxxx

Its on the same time as S Come Dancing

hi EL    I am slightly behind because I have episode 7 on tape and haven't watched it yet.  I usually tape it and watch it when I get time.  Likewise, I will tape episode 8 tonight and watch them together.  Hence the comment that I wasn't sure how Joss Stone would fare as Anne of Cleves!  The last time I seen her she was standing silent at the top of some stairs with a veil over her face, next to her sister, in episode 6 .. haha.

Anne of Cleves stayed in England even though Henry discarded her.  He gave her riches and a title and she was happy enough with that, bearing in mind she could have lost her head if she had kicked up a fuss.  Of all Henry's wives, she seems to have accepted him and she played the game very well, always in the background but being included in all his family gatherings .. a unique position for an ex-wife of Henry VIII .. lol.  I think she was hoping for a reconciliation after Katherine Howard was beheaded but Henry still didn't fancy her, unfortunately.  He was very picky by the sounds of it

I wonder if she will appear in the next series.  It seems that MH does not employ actors who stay in the background.  He got rid of Wiltshire and Norfolk after series 2, even though they were still quite powerful in the Court at the time.  The only constant seems to be Henry Cavill (Charles Brandon) and JRMs who have been in it all the way through, in each series.  I cannot see Joss being in after tonight's episode because her character is not important enough to feature in the Katherine Howard/Katherine Parr timescale that will be the focus of series 4.  What do you think?

Oh dear hyper, I will have to tape them both!  Not really .. I don't watch SCD, so no conflict of interest there then

I suspect you are right.

As you say series 4 will be based on Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr. But is it known if series 5 etc are intended to be made or will it end with Henry's death?

There is no word on whether the series will end after series 4.  I think it will end then EL.  Henry will die and that will be it.  Most people are watching it because of Henry VIII, so when he dies they may decide to stop watching it.  But The Tudors title encompasses his son Edward, and daughters Mary and Elizabeth.  Who knows what they will do with it but JRM has carried the series imo and it should end with Henry's death.  I don't think I would want to watch the reigns of Edward and Mary, but I might like to watch Elizabeth's.  They never seem to advertise these things to let us know what is in the pipeline, which is a bit naughty of them.

The actress who played the part of Catherine Howard in last night's final episode seems very young. There seems to a bit of a query over when Catherine Howard was born, somewhere between 1520 to 1524. She met Henry in 1540 so she was between 16 and 20 (in the narrative she was 17). Frankly, the way she came across she seemed a child so what were the BBC thinking of by her nude scenes?

hiya EL.  I have now watched all the episodes.  I agree, the actress playing CH did look very young and there was something not quite right about it, all the giggling and stupidity.  I know she was quite young and no one is certain about how young because of her birth year not being known.  She certainly came across as too young for Henry.  He was kicking 50 when he married her.  Eeeek!

OMG, the Cromwell execution was horrific.  Four blows of the axe to get his head off.  I was sitting cringing watching it.  But the acting is brilliant in this series.  Hats off to JRM for being able to carry it off, bearing in mind he is too short, too dark haired, and too young (for the later scenes).  He captures Henry's petulance and short temper, his need for control, and the total power he had at the time.  In a way I am sorry it has finished and I'm now looking forward to the fourth series.

I thought Katherine Howard was hardly more than a child when she married Henry ..?

I watched the last series a few months ago when it was shown over here ... the Cromwell execution was horrendous ...

Isn't the impression given that she was sexually active very young?

Also, wasn't she used as a pawn by the Howards, same as with the Boleyns, in their quest for power and favour with Henry ..?

I agree. My concern was not over the historical accuracy, but with the nature of some of the scenes. In particular the one where Catherine is swinging on the swings to show her childish nature, but is naked and then proceeds to stand up and walk over to Henry for presumably another round of sex. If the actress was of the same age as Catherine, I think that this would be not only improper but illegal. The actress is over 18, so there's no issue of legality, but I do question whether any depiction of sexual nudity of a character under 18 is necessary.

I see your point, but it is a huge part of the story ... She was a Tudor Lolita ....

Hi EL    Throughout the three series there have been some really unnecessary sexual scenes and blatant nudity.  But this is what sells nowadays and the producers seems to want to push this aspect of the Tudors in our faces.  Apart from that, the actual scenes and the atmosphere of the show is rather well depicted imo.  The actors are first class, so the need to push the nudity of CH in the last scene was overkill, but it was meant to show how far down the path Henry had slipped, and his expression said it all.  He had come to this .. a young flighty girl younger than his eldest daughter parading around giggling like a teenager, and there was him sitting with an old festering body and an ulcerated leg.  All those wives, all the killings and beheadings, and for what? 

Henry VIII has to be the most memorable monarch ever to sit on the throne.  He really was focused and he must have had great self-belief.  To change the religion away from the established Church must have taken some soul searching, and I think he was very brave to see it through.  After all, he did have the last say, even though he had many advisors.  I think this is what I admire about him the most, even though I am a lapsed RC myself.  I also really believe that he married for love in most of his marriages and he really did want a legitimate son most of all. 

Having said that though, I prefer Charles II as my favourite monarch of all of them.  But I will start another thread, another day, for that subject ..

If you replace 'love' with 'lust' there Twee I would agree ... I don't think he was capable of love myself ... except where it came to himself ...