Talk:The Tudors/Archive 1

Archive 1

Blu-Ray not only region 2

They're in stores in Canada (season 1 and 2 uncut) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.253.236.228 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DVD & Blu-ray

Sony said that it'll be on dvd & Blu-ray. don't how to accurate add it. Mark Gubarenko 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kate O'Toole

It looks like the actress (or an impersonator) is writing some auto-biographical entries. See Special:Contributions/Kate_O'Toole and User talk:Kate O'Toole. Someone who watches the show may want to create the article instead, and let her know it exists. -- Chuq 04:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone already has done just that: Kate O'Toole (actress). María: (habla conmigo) 13:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too. The additions made by her (or whomever) to the original Kate O'Toole (radio announcer) page were deleted. I recovered them and moved them to the recently created actress-article. J. Van Meter 13:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Theme song

Has anybody noticed yet that the theme song is modelled on the beginning of Haydn's Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser, which today serves as the melody of Germany's national anthem? Any idea how to include that in the article? --128.176.233.115 12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The theme song doesn't sound anything like the familiar part of that song, although perhaps I'm simply not aware of the part you're talking about. Do you have a source on this? john k 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a comment to that effect. I deleted it, as there's no resemblance between the theme to "The Tudors" and the Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser with which I'm familiar. Please provide a source on this. Scrutchfield 00:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies?

Is it worth start a section noting & citing some of the historical liberties this show takes? It's a frequent topic of discussion on at least one television forum I visit. It doesn't have to be detailed or nitpicky, just an overview of some of the big ones (such as the combining of Henry's sisters Mary and Margaret into one entity, and the timeline derivations made to bring Henry VIII's and Anne Boleyn's ages closer together). --Thessaly 07:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Tvoz |talk 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought Henry VIII, had reddish hair. Maybe that could be added aswell. GoodDay 18:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically all the main characters thus far are physically mis-cast (Katherine of Aragon, for example, had a fair complexion, and Anne Boleyn was known for her very dark eyes (unlike blue-eyed actress Natalie Dormer). But they've done some really confusing things (such as the timeline and the Mary/Margaret stuff noted above) that seem worthy of documenting. I have a list in my head, the problem is that the show is so godawful (and being a fan of Tudor history, I want to like it), I have a hard time putting in the effort. :)

Also, if the person who added the recent inaccuracies blurb (with ALL CAPS and whatnot) happens to read this, I hope you will take the time to check out the wiki editing guidelines. And the reason for the combining of Margaret and Mary (as per a NYT article I will link if I ever get around to writing this up), was that the showrunners were concerned the audience would be confused between Mary, Henry's sister, and Mary, Henry's daughter. Yes, it's stupid, but there you have it.--Thessaly 21:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can't just not link to Marygret. People reading about the show should at least be able to do their own research concerning historical accuracy. So I've attempted it with a footnote. Vagary 03:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to see more in the historical inaccuracies section as well. These historical dramas always take huge liberties with reality. It would be nice to know what was real and what they just made up for entertainment purposes. --Mizi 02:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. The series was full of historical inaccuracies. It was actually very shocking and disappointing to see how many liberties they took with this series. Obviously, whoever created the series never bothered to pick up and read a history book. There should be a section on those inaccuracies because anyone who does not know the history will be confused. I added a little bit myself to the section and will add more. Virgosky 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to restrict this to major inaccuracies, or we need to start a separate article. The inaccuracies should not be taking up more article space than facts about the show itself. And when inaccuracies are added, we need to be careful that they are not POV opinions. For example, what does the "series is male-oriented" mean and how is it an historical inaccuracy? I'd say the times were pretty male-oriented - after all, Henry discarded wives who didn't produce living sons, even though daughters could and did inherit the throne. And I wouldn't include any of that here. Also, the series did indicate that Mary Boleyn was a mistress of Henry. We have to expect that some liberties will be taken to present a complex story as a television show; the purpose of this section, I think, is to point out gross inaccuracies that affect our understanding of the history. I;m in favor of the section, as I indicated above, but I think it's getting out of hand. Wikipedia can't serve the fucntion that the message boards serve, where interesting debates take place about these things - they are better suited there.Tvoz |talk 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The series did not just take a few liberties it took several in sections where there should have been none. Anyone who does not know the history will see the series as fact and be confused. While it was a male-oriented time, that did not stop the women from playing important roles. These women were hardly sex toys. As for POV opinions, how can stating the inaccuracies be POV? They are historical fact. The series is not. The series is someone else's POV. Virgosky 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why we include this section - but it should stick to major points of departure from what we know of the history. I don't see that the women are portrayed as not having important historical roles - that's opinion. I don't think the section should argue one way or the other. Catherine and Anne are both portrayed quite powerfully in different ways. Other details that were added are extraneous - they may well be true, but are not relevant here. So for example, we are shown that Mary Boleyn was a mistress of Henry - we are not told one way or another if she is married and it's not really relevant. That Anne was described as having sex appeal is interesting but irrelevant to this section. I added an intro sentence to summarize areas of departure and also expressly indicate that time is conflated. Again, this is not the place for a detailed essay about the differences from history. Tvoz |talk 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Again - this section is about historical inaccuracies that appear in the series. I had added introductory wording to give context to the section - why was it removed without explanation? Here are other things I've reverted or changed again - please discuss here if you disagree rather than just reverting to old wording:

• saying that Henry is accurately portrayed as athletic and good-looking does not belong here - it's not an inaccuracy
• as of the most recent show aired (in the US) Wolsey has not yet fallen - we don't know exactly how it will be portrayed in the series so we can't say it is inaccurate at this time
• the description added to the article about how Anne's contemporaries viewed her is not relevant to historical inaccuracy section- whether the actress is beautiful or exotic and attractive is opinion, and the point doesn't even make any sense
• Elizabeth and Edward have not yet appeared in the series, so we don't know if they will have red hair or not - so not an historical inaccuracy at this time
• I kept in the paragrpah someone else added about the Palace of Whitehall, but I don't know if it is correct- would appreciate confirmation; don't know why it was removed

Tvoz |talk 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the section about Whitehall Palace after reading about it in one of Antonia Fraser's books. As far as I know it is completely correct as I have seen it mentioned in a couple of places now, I can find references if needed.

Brookeormian 14:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, I think references in this section in general woulkd be a good idea, so if you find any do add them. Tvoz |talk 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting beyond that Wolsey hasn't yet fallen, as far as I can gather Norfolk, Suffolk, and Rochford were deeply implicated in his fall, so the whole claim made no sense at all. john k 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right about that actually. Tvoz |talk 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncles of Henry VIII: I changed "In the first episode an English ambassador described as the 'uncle' of Henry VIII is murdered in Italy by Frenchmen; Henry VIII had no uncle" to read "no such uncle," since Henry VIII had at least seven maternal uncles (including two bastard sons of Edward IV) and at least seven uncles by marriage (including three men married to bastard daughters of Edward IV), but none was an ambassador murdered in Italy. WilliamBarrett 13:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"It was not immediately obvious what "plantagenet coloring" is? Er, there is a great deal of documented descriptions of the Plantagenets. They were known for their fair complextions, being very tall, and redish blond hair. It stemed from their ancient Viking descent. However, apparently from your comments, you sound exactly like the individuals I was talking about. The series is someone's point of view. It is not fact. To help you, I would suggest you read some books on the accruate history by real historians. I will also be happy when I get a chance to reference to end the confusion. Virgosky 21:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Virgosky, thanks ever so much for your reply to my shorthand edit summary, which, unfortunately, you did not understand. So let me spell it out for you. Ideally, the information in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be accessible to a general public who read an article - as well as notable. These readers may or may not be well-versed in what it means when you add "had the Plantagenet coloring" - without even a wikilink to "Plantagenet", and your addition being the only time "Plantagenet" appeared on the page. But oh, guess what, if a reader were to have gone to Plantagenet they'd find no reference to coloring, or to Catherine of Aragon. And further, if one were to go to Catherine of Aragon, they would again find no reference to Plantagenet, but they would find this: Although Catherine is often portrayed in film and on stage as having possessed the stereotypical Spanish traits of having dark hair and an olive complexion, Catherine was in fact a grey or blue eyed, fair-skinned woman with reddish-blonde hair, not too unusual for northern Spaniards such as those in her father's land of Aragon. Furthermore, Catherine herself was part English, having an English great-grandmother on her mother's side. Which is a longer version of what I added here. I don't need a history lesson from you, or advice on what I should read - try to keep in mind what the purpose of this section of the article is, as I indicated above. User: TAnthony is essentially correct (below) - and I also made a similar point here above - how notable is it that the actors cast have some physical differences with the actual historic personalities? And if it is felt that it is overwhelmingly important, then it should be explained in a manner that a reader - not me, but readers of this encyclopedia article - gets it immediately and doesn't have to research it, without even being given the tools to do so in this encyclopedia. Telling me, or them, to read books is singularly unhelpful to them and condescending to me.

Now back to the point of whether it is notable - I actually agree with the inclusion on the pageCatherine of Aragon of the sentences I quoted above, because indeed she is often portrayed as dark - e.g. Irene Pappas - probably because the casting directors think the public's expectation of a Spanish woman would be as such. Not the crime of the century for an historical drama, in my opinion, and of questionable notability in an article about this series. Probably I'd include it here too, in the short, limited way I did, but I don't think it's crucial and understand why TAnthony removed that material. I'd be interested in what other editors think on this point.

So to sum up: the issue was never whether the facts were correct that Catherine had fair coloring, Virgosky, the question was whether it was being clearly explained to readers and then if it is worthy of inclusion. I hope this is clearer to you than my edit summary "It was not immediately obvious what 'plantagenet coloring' is". Tvoz |talk 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If people are interested in the history because of the series they should go and read some books on the subject. The historical story is just as fascinating. Also, the material can be used as references. However, if I have offended you then my appologies, I did not realize that suggesting that someone should read some books on the subject was considered offensive and condescending. Virgosky 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On Masturbation: Something I saw mentioned in another forum...wouldn't masturbation have been a huge religious no-no at the time, even for a king? --Thessaly 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It has always been a religious no-no but that never has stopped Kings or people from doing it. So was divorce. Virgosky 19:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Physical discrepancies - Removal

I've removed the following "discrepancies" regarding the appearance of the characters. First of all, they're borderline OR, but really these kind of aesthetic differences are to be expected in any adaptation for practical casting reasons:

By all accounts, in his youth Henry VIII was extremely tall, fair and red-headed. By contrast, the actor Rhys Meyers is of middling height and rather dark. Catherine is believed to have had fair coloring and light eyes, not dark features as this series portrays. Mary Tudor (Henry's daughter) had red hair like her father and not brown hair as shown in the series. Anne Boleyn, as played by Natalie Dormer, is portrayed in the series with a fair complexion and blue eyes when it is taken as fact that Anne Boleyn had brown eyes, black hair, and a somewhat dark coloring.

And are they really notable? I mean, Anne Boleyn's complexion?! If they'd cast Henry as African-American and Anne as a man, that's notable. TAnthony 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See above ("Historical inaccuracies"), TAnthony - I tend to agree with you, but let's see what others think. I do think a short rendition is not the worst. Tvoz |talk 15:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I knew this would be a touchy edit, which is why I preserved the text here rather than delete it altogether. But the only thing that I think could be possible notable in this case in Henry's red hair, but even that is pushing it. Perhaps, as I think you suggest, a sentence simply noting that regarding physical appearances there are some minor deviations from the historical record, like Henry's red hair.

By the way, I do agree that the film representations of Catherine of Aragon's coloring are notable in that article if, as you say, there has been a trend to present her as uncharacteristically dark, but it would be somewhat out of place here. And, you know, Natalie Dormer having blue eyes and Anne Boleyn having brown isn't notable anywhere. ;) TAnthony 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough!

Okay, this historical inaccuracies section has gone way over the top. I've never seen The Tudors (don't have cable), but I know it's a popular series and I was hoping to learn a little about it. But the article has 116 words about the actual show, followed by nearly TEN TIME that much (1049 words!) on historic nitpicking! This is absurd. People who want to read all about the true facts of Henry VIII's reign can read the article about him. (I see that article doesn't include Henry's height or hair color, so why is it important to include it here?) If you Tudor history buffs can't limit yourselves to explaining just a few major historic inaccuracies, then you need to remove the section altogether and make a general note saying that the series is not very historically accurate at all. CKarnstein 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the section does need to be cleaned up. However, it is dificult to narrow down what is important and what is not because the series simply did not follow history. I would perhaps narrow it down to the mention that Henry VIII in fact had two sisters, Margaret and Mary and not one, that was a big inaccuracy. Also, I would mention the timeline, several events in the series happened in a shorter amount of time then it did in real life. But, maybe list only a few key events. Virgosky 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is of reasonable length given the nature of the show. The eye color and other trivialities have been removed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly people, it's a drama, not a Ken Burns documentary. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's billed as historically accurate and therefore it's fair and notable to point out major departures from history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning of each episode a message is displayed along the lines of "Forget what you thought was true. You have to go back to the beginning" (I can't recall the exact words).

I suppose this means that we must forget the image of Henry VIII conditioned by Holbein portraits, "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" etc. Well obviously nobody knows exactly what live in Henry's court was like, but I'm pretty certain that this portrayal is well wide of the truth.

Not to mention the fact that and series called "The Tudors" which claims to go back to "the beginning" would at the very least have to commence with the life of Henry VII.

ALL historical dramas have to take some liberties with history, but this series contains such an enormous number of gross distortions of the truth that it cannot be taken at all seriously. Fictional details are not used to pad out a shadowy story but are put at the centre of the drama (eg Henry loses wrestling match with Francis I - trashes his bedroom)

And there's more. The computer-generated (presumably)views of Whitehall Palace and the Cloth of Gold pavilion were accurate enough to pass muster, but the architecture of actual buildings (did I recognise Boughton House?) is wildly anachronistic.

Likewise the carriages - they are 200 years out of their time.Mark Hasker 09:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of a thorough "historical inaccuracies" section. Personally, I came to this article for the precise purpose of checking how historically accurate the series is. I have talked to a few people who write historical novels or dramas and they say that "how historically accurate is it?" is by far the most common question they get, so people are obviously interested.

That said, some historical inaccuracies are just too minor to be worth mentioning. Historical dramas and series routinely have many historical inaccuracies: people are too big, speak modern English, have way too good teeth, ride too large horses, produce a metal sound when they draw their swords, are a lot less crowded in their houses or palaces, have way too few childred etc. You could point out such things in an article about historical dramas in general but to point them out in an article about a specific series is just plain silly. Furthermore, right now the "historical inaccuracies" section is a very large part of the article. However, that is a reason to add more about other things, rather than reduce the "historical inaccuracies" section. -Sensemaker

I agree with CKarnstein' words. I'm new to this series. And there is not a single a word about what this series is about. Do we have to guess everything from the "historical inaccuracies" section ??? Lvr (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about CKarnstein's commnets. This person had not seen the series at all, therefore is not really entitled to opinion about layouts or content here. Why would anyone do that and expect it to be reasonable? As far as learning about the series, why wouldn't someone just read what is in the article and pick up what you can without complaining about a section on inaccuracies? The people who commented about accuracy in the show know something about the show and the background history. He does not.ParaGreen13 (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is sort of out-of-date because the "historical deviations" section has been trimmed, but I actually think the observations of an "unbiased" non-viewer are a lot more valuable than a lot of the opinions and contributions I've seen thus far from viewers or "fans" of the series. No one can dispute the fact that, even now, there is more material about inaccuracies than there is about the actual plot. A Wikipedia article is intended to provide information on a subject for those looking for it; clearly this article is failing at that if a casual reader isn't finding the info one would expect to. I myself added the "Overview" plot section and the Hirst "disclaimer" about his changes to history to start fixing this issue and minimize the listing of every minute detail in the show which doesn't jive with history. And since then, I have seen little action in the bulk of the article and a lot more junk slipped in about physical appearance, non-notable dates and anachronistic guns and royal titles. Hey, I like trivia as much as the next guy and try to slip it in articles where I can find value, but this article is a classic example of editors forgetting/ignoring what an excylopedia article is supposed to be.— TAnthony^Talk 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points about volume of info in the article, ON the series, vs. what is wrong about it. I get your meaning. I think there is something about this series which lends itself to criticism and complaints. Perhaps a lot of viewers will naturally compare this series to previous ones on the same subject, like "The Six Wives of Henry the VIII" from the early 70's, which was renown for historical detail and accuracy. The latest one comes off at times like a fashion show with youth and looks supplanting accuracy in appearance. I never had that feeling from "TWOHTE". The "We Can't Be Bothered To Wear Beards, But We'll Lose our Bic Razors For A Week" look with Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Henry Cavill is pretty obvious, along with their ages never looking older than late twenties, and of course Henry's fatness(hugeness) and appearance mostly being ignored, even after the jousting injury. If you have the desire to nitpick about it, there are layers and layers to go on about. In that it's less of a play and more of a soap opera at times, "The Tudors" sort of assumes one is rather thick and therefore wouldn't care, and wouldn't notice. I guess that's the difference between the BBC and Showtime, and Richard Burton and Rhys-Meyers too, even though I think he's a pretty fair actor. Furthermore it has to be said that there's enough attention to historical detail and major events that it's very worth seeing nonetheless. I mean there's much redeeming value. That part could be lost in the discussion over inaccuracies. ParaGreen13 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jamie King

The Jamie King link goes to the wrong Jamie King. This guy is British and has appeared onstage as Dakin on the national tour of "The History Boys" in the UK and he's currently on the West End in the part. There are a couple of Jamie Kings. The one on "The Tudors" is NOT the choreographer!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.171.76 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

trivia

Maybe I'm missing something - can someone explain why it is worthy of noting what portraits hang on the walls in some scenes, even as trivia? Wouldn't we expect there to be such portraits? Is there some significance to these that makes them notable even in a trivia section? Tvoz |talk 02:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

controversy

I added some information on the Portuguese controversy of this series. I'm not very good with Wikipedia, but if anything else is required to support this subject feel free to contact me.

Mykas0 22:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entry for now, as this type of inflammatory information definitely needs a reliable source. — TAnthony^Talk 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Series 2 episode 2 anachronism

In series 2 episode 2 you have Henry and his moll walking around a winter garden, and in one of the garden rooms there is a copy of the Venus de Milo. The Venus de Milo was not discovered until 1820. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfssdfsdffg (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The various historical inaccuracies in this series could fill a separate article. Never mind the Venus de Milo, what about almost all the principal characters being around 25 and very good looking? This is historical drama for shallow, ignorant people. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who cares if it is historically inaccurate? It isn't a BBC special on the historical Tudors! No one wants to watch a fat, old gouty king getting it on with much younger women, and the producers know this. This is essentially a glamourous soap opera set in the Tudor period! Those who are looking for an in depth historically accurate reconstruction should look elsewhere. 67.193.235.237 (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Production info for season 1

Lots of lovely production info here. Bradley0110 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies redux

I've removed some of the more trivial tidbits that are making this section unwieldy. The seconds sentence of the section already notes "Liberties are taken with character names, relationships, physical appearance and the timing of events." There is no need to list every minute inaccuracy or departure. "Greensleeves?" Seriously?

I also added a short overview section since, as noted above, the article obsesses about the discrepancies rather than what the series is actually about. — TAnthony^Talk 18:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I will also add that nothing in the section is sourced, and it really needs to be. — TAnthony^Talk 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Briangotts has again restored some of this trivia here saying it is "relevant and notable material" and I removed it again. However, for the sake of fairness I am listing it here for discussion:

• Henry VIII is referred to as King of Ireland in several episodes. However, the position of King of Ireland was not created until 1541. During the period that the show depicts, Henry would only have been referred to as Lord of Ireland.
• William Brereton did not confess to adultery with Queen Anne and almost certainly was not a Papal agent. He was a wealthy magnate who had large landholdings in the Welsh Marches, where he was ruthless and unpopular, and was probably accused due to Cromwell's desire to remove a festering political problem.
• Thomas Cranmer was not present at Anne Boleyn's execution, nor did he instigate the crowd to kneel when she did to be beheaded. He was walking with Alexander Ales when it happened and is reported to have sat down and wept when the hour came.

In my opinion these items are the very definition of trivia, and are not notable in the context of this article. The article notes that there are inaccuracies in the series and already discusses several more significant ones. In addition:

• The costumes are wildly inaccurate as regards time and the nationality of the characters. Court etiquette is reproduced scarcely at all, and often inaccurately, such as announcing (at her own court) "Katherine of Aragon, Queen of England."

This item is an unsourced generalization, and of minor importance as well. — TAnthony^Talk 15:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I have to wonder if these people decrying inaccuracies are also as concerned about the historical changes in Shakespeare's plays such as Henry VIII --Logotu (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare's plays were neither presented as history, nor regarded as such today. The makers of the Tudors present their work as historically accurate. People interested in the history behind the show might well be coming to this article for the purpose of learning what deviations were made from known history, so it would be remiss of WP not to include this information. I am frankly amazed that a few diehards insist on removing this material again and again, when it is so clearly relevant and notable. The total re-invention of the character of William Brereton is not a minor issue. I will agree that the statement "The costumes are wildly inaccurate as regards time and the nationality of the characters." is unsourced and POV. The rest should definitely stay.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When has the series presented itself as "historically accurate?" We actually have quotes in there now that state the opposite. The inaccuracies you're talking about (the King of Ireland title and William Brereton) are pretty minor and trivial in context. I'm not going to revert them again at this point, but this article does not exist to debunk every fictionalized detail of the series. Viewers can read the articles on the actual historical figures if they're so interested in detail. — TAnthony^Talk 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And where Thomas Cranmer was when Anne died? How is that really notable? Next thing you know we'll have all that "Henry VIII was fat and had red hair" stuff back in. — TAnthony^Talk 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the sentence "By the time of most of the events in this series, King Henry VIII was already in his mid-to-late 30s. In the show, he is shown as being almost the same age as his second wife, Anne Boleyn." can be largely disputed. I, myself, would never think Jonathan Rhys was less than 35, and also Natalie Dormer, in the first series, looks very young (I find it hard to believe that the actress is older than 25; and she doesn't even seem to be out of her teen years in series one), and even on series two she still looks younger than Rhys. So I think that the sentence doesn't apply well to the page; how old one looks is a matter of personal pov. Diana Prallon (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree except that the cited source discusses the age issue, and notes that Rhys is 30. The paragraph could probably use a slight rewrite though, to minimize the appearance of POV and better reflect what the source says. Be bold, and take a crack at it! ;) I'll try myself when I've got a few minutes ... — TAnthony^Talk 03:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gay community

The first paragraph states that the show is co-produced by the "gay community Canadian Broadcasting Co.", something tells me that this may not be an accurate portrait of the CBC but, hey; I'm not Canadian so how do I know what all you rugged mountain boys get up to: a Mountie always gets his man, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.219.19 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be vandalism just added today, and I've reverted it. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I don't understand much about nobility and coat of arms and such but there is something that seems weird to me. I have just started watching The Tudors so I can only talk about the first two chapters. When Henry VIII goes to visit Thomas More and they are in a boat in the river, there are some flags and such with the coat of arms. Thought, it does not seem like the coat of arms of King Henry VIII but it resembles a lot to the coat of arms of the Crown of Spain at the time, or perhaps of the United Crowns of Castile and Aragon. This is, with the Lion, the Castle and the four pallets. Though, I don't see the chanins of Navarre. Actually, one of the rowers has only the Castile and Leon part. Though, I haven't found if this is exactly a coat of arms that existed. Is this for a reason? Because I think I am missing something. Thanks.--Nauki (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

well i do know that in order to displace a british royal family coat of arms you have to get actually permission from the royal family. So maybe they were not able to secure a right to reproduce the actual coat of arms so they altered existing ones to make a "new" ones for the show. Tj21 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not watched the show yet, but that particular coat of arms would likely represent Catherine of Aragon, Henry VIII's first wife. The modern coat of arms I believe is different to the Tudor CoA. Aria elwen (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Series 3 UK

When will series three air in UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.176.239 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am disparate to know. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.176.239 (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, anyone know what country those airing dates for? Ireland? Canada? I know it's not the UK. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry VIII's Court Jester, Will Sommers

In last week's episode there was a new character identified as the King's jester. I don't think he was identified by name but he was probably William Sommers. He was a prominent influence on Henry VIII, especially later in the King's life. It was interesting to me that his character was not more developed. I'm new to Wikipedia. Does anyone have an opinion on how this could be incorporated into The Tudor's article?Gerrym2 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical trivia

As discussed at length in other sections of this page, the article makes it clear that the series plays it fast and loose with the historical record, and there is no need to point out every single item that differs from actual history. In the case of this edit, as I explained in the edit summary, the King of Portugal thing was a minor plot point, and the section now notes that Margaret married a "fictional Portuguese king.". A thorough explanation of who was ruling Portugal is, in this case, excessive, tangential trivia about historical figures who are not even represented in the series themselves. I understand that some of it has been there for awhile in some form, but it is still unnecessary.— TAnthony^Talk 15:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.121.68 (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I noticed the same thing, and fixed it. Thanks. —Kevin Myers 08:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Casting in The Tudors

Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays a young Henry VIII extremely well, reflecting the aggression and physical dynamism of the young Tudor King. However, I think that perhaps another actor could have been introduced to play an older, more mature and jaded Henry. There is one change in actors - two actresses seem to play Lady Jane Seymour. My reasoning is that Henry VIII himself was somewhat of an intellectual and also filled out physically as he grew older (as can be seen from his portraits).

Another small issue is the disappearance of some minor characters e.g the Duke of Norfolk in the first series, Sir Thomas Wyatt after he is set free from the Tower, and Sir Francis Bryan in the third and Thomas Cranmer who is disappears fairly early, with Bishop Gardiner (the Bishop of Winchester) given more of a starring role despite Cranmer being the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would, perhaps, have been more consistent to have dealt with their absence from Henry's court as part of the plot structure (however, this seems to be part of artistic creative licence - for example, Patrick O'Brien in his majestic Aubrey-Maturin series has some of his minor characters disappear in a similar fashion).

However, overall, JRM does a very good job in his role as Henry VIII, as does the rest of the cast. A scintillating script by Michael Hirst makes this a truly fascinating and intriguing series which, despite straying somewhat from real-life events, keeps its audience engrossed right up to the last episode. Ivankinsman (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to review the show, go on to Amazon - this is a Wikipedia talk page for discussing THE ARTICLE. Also new content should be added to the bottom of the page, not the top. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Cast section

There are a few cast members who play fairly major roles in the series, but are missing from the cast list on this page, such as James Gilbert, who plays William Brereton, and Joe Van Moyland, who plays Thomas Tallis. Would it be okay if I added these to the cast list? I'm not sure whether there is a particular order which has been set though, as it seems fairly random to me. Christophee (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)