Talk:The Tudors

Edit Request

The season summary for season 4 includes the eventual reign of henry's son and daughter. These events are not part of the tv show, and are only briefly mentioned at the end of the series finale as closing-text. A better season summary is needed.

Series 2

Hi just in regards to the second series shooting will commence in Ireland on June 4th. I don't have a citation on that. I am however an extra on the show and this is the date I ahve been given. The inforation didn't seem to fit neatly into any section of the artical so I have raised it here. If someone thinks it relevent feel free to add it to the main article. I have some additional information for which I can provide citations, I just need to gather them first and I will report back.

francophobia controversy

uh? nobody noticed? Cliché Online (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this refers to, but it's evidently not very controversial, whatever it is. - BilCat (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To continue, I assume the IP is referring to the rants by Henry and Anne Boleyn against France in Season 2 (IIRC). Remember, Henry and Anne are not being portrayed in a favorable light here (no surprise from a series produced in a Catholic country). The writers are going to put as much inflammatory material as they can in the characters' mouths. That doesn't mean any of the other characters, much less the actors, writers, or producers, believe any of it. Always remember to place what is said in the context of the series as a whole. - BilCat (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies Section

This section is fairly interesting, but seems quite trivial or extraneous. No offence intended to the individuals that took the time to find sources to prove that this show is not a historical documentary, but the fact that it is not advertised as historical non-fiction and is shown on Showtime along with Weeds, Dexter, and Nurse Jackie should make that self evident. It is a show that’s main purpose is to entertain people for about 60 minutes, not teach them about some medieval war and drama in Great Britain.

I do not see many other Wiki pages with such time and effort invested on this subject. It seems like a few people pick and choose which movies or shows they want to pick on and thumb through books or webpages that themselves are most assuredly filled with a certain extent of historical inaccuracies as well, and perceptions of the author.

The most obvious example (Meaning not the only) of this point, just begging to be mentioned, is Inglorious Basterds. The writer and director changed the outcome of WW2 and the death of the Nazi leadership, and it is but a blurb in the plot on the Wiki page.

I believe it should be shortened or toned down, because the section as a whole comes off to me, as an average and regular Wikipedia reader, as POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Im a hostory teacher and was disgusted at the historical inaccuraces in the show. Yes I am aware that it is a TV Drama but when based on historical people it should be kept as accurate as possible. Also there is the matter of the name of the series for me which is annoying.

The fact that the series is called the Tudors where are the follow ups for the reigns of Edward VI, Mary I and of course Englands Greatest Queen Elizabeth I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.171.220 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What, you aren't outranged that the series doesn't cover Owen, Edmund and Jasper Tudor as well? What about Maredudd ap Tudur? Where's his show?

More to the point, since it is historical fiction, and rather successful historical fiction, the historical innacuracies section is very appropriate. I don't agree that the innacuracies are trivial either. The conflation of Henry's two sisters is a pretty big departure, as are the liberties taken with Cardinal Woolsey's character and Anne Bolelyn's story. Just because you, 12.86.230.202, if that is your real name, haven't heard of or don't care about Woolsey and the Princesses Mary and Margaret Tudor doesn't mean they aren't significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.124.47 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This section of the article was actually a lot longer at one time and editors continually add trivial bits about accidental anachronisms! I don't think you can really compare WP articles to determine the appropriateness of this kind of info because as you suggest, some articles draw particular editor interest and others don't. I tend to agree that a lot of "inaccuracy" material can be very trivial and full of OR, but in the case of The Tudors there has been a lot of media attention surrounding its diverging from the historical record. Nearly every article I've ever read about the series notes that it is inaccurate at times. Most of the info in this section is attributed to such articles which discuss the inaccuracies specifically. There are probably some bits which could be removed, but as a whole I think the material mentioned is notable.— TAnthony^Talk 23:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference to Henry's illegitimate seems relevant to this section.Asta2500 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe this was touched on in an earlier discussion; the age discrepancy isn't especially notable in the context of the series.— TAnthony^Talk 22:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas More

[Moved from a posting on the Thomas More article by - Jarry1250 ^[Weasel? Discuss.] 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC). The timestamp below is mine rather than the user-in-question's.

I have never edited anything in Wikipedia...However in regards to Thomas More, there is no mention of the cable series "The Tudors" which richly explores Sir Thomas More's relationship to Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell. Somebody needs to add this reference to update this section of Thomas Moore in Wikipedia since this TV series probably is more complete than any previous movie or play on the subject. It would worthwhile to make reference to this series for people who wish to explore this lastest media interpretation of his life... Here is your own link to this series so you should add it here in the Thomas More link...At least link it to your own link!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors

-- User:RY25L (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

More on More

The final paragraph of the "Departures from history" seems to itself depart from its brief:

"At the trial of Sir Thomas More, there is also a serious distortion of the facts. In The Tudors, he is portrayed as hoodwinked by Richard Rich, who visits his cell and tricks him into denouncing the King's position as head of the church (a treasonable offense). Although Richard Rich did give evidence against Thomas More at his trial, there was no certain historical proof that their conversation had ever taken place. Thomas More stated at the time, "Can it therefore seem likely to your Lordships that I should, in so weighty an Affair as this, act so unadvisedly as to trust Mr Rich, a Man I had always so mean an Opinion of?" [17] The Tudors thus undermines the intelligence of Sir Thomas More by representing him as having fallen for a foolish ruse."

Problem with this:

• There's no secondary source given for this being an "issue" with the show (only for More's own statement);
• The tone is horribly editorialising;
• It doesn't accurately represent the subject work: if I recall correctly, the scene depicts only the two "competence" questions that aren't at issue.
• Even if completely true, it's not a "departure from history" as such, just a matter of interpretation and interpolation of the known facts.

Unless someone has a better fix, I propose to remove the paragraph entirely. 84.203.35.9 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)