User Reviews

The series so far has been interesting, but it never ceases to amaze me that these historical pieces often abandon with no apparent reason the historical facts. Case in point is the role played by Gabrielle Anwar, called Princess Margaret int eh series. There of course was a Princess Margaret, but she married James IV of Scotland, was the mother of James V. Her marriage to the King of Scotland eventually led to the "Union of the Crowns" of Scotland and England. Henry VIII had another sister, Mary. This one resembles the character a bit more, but Princess Mary, married Louis XII of France and was therefore Queen Consort of France. After the death of Louis XII she remarried Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, as in the series. I'm not saying that everything else about the series is accurate, but why change this character when the real history is as interesting or more than the storyline used? Mary's short marriage to Louis of course preceded the reign of Francis I in France. Maybe they wanted to make the rivalry between Henry and Francis such a big part of the story that they decided it was worth changing the historical facts.

In this historical series, there are lots of inaccuracies, as such: While talking to Wosley, the french cardinal says that Pope Alexander is about to die. Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) died in 1503. Henry VIII didn't became king until 1509. Thomas More says to Cardinal Wosley that he is sorry to hear for the Cardinal Orsini's as Pope. There was actually several Orsini's elected as Pope, but none during Henry VIII reign. The last one before that was Nicholas III (1277) and after that only in 1724 Pietro Francesco Orsini would become Benedict XIII. Several historical sources refer specifically Anne Boleyn's dark eyes, as they were rare in the English court during the 16th century. In the series, Anne Boleyn (Natalie Dormer) has light blue eyes. Henry VIII sends his sister Margaret to marry the King of Portugal. In fact, Margaret Tudor was married to James IV of Scotland. Later she married the Earl of Angus and after that Lord Methwen, Henry Stewart. In 1525 (the year that Charles V armies capture Francis in Pavia, which occurs at the same time in the episode) Portugal didn't have a sick old king. John III was only 23 years old and he married Catherine, Charles V sister, precisely in 1525. It was Mary, Henry's younger sister, not Margaret, who was in love (and later became his wife) to Charles Brandon and was sent abroad to marry a feeble old king. This king was Louis XII, king of France, not king of Portugal. He died 10 years before king Francis was captured in Pavia by Charles V armies (not at the same time, as we are shown in the 4th episode).

By now, most of the Tudors' historical inaccuracies have been well pointed out; indeed, it's safe to say that the only thing that wasn't changed was the names. Granted, the series isn't good history. But is it good television? Unfortunately, although the Tudors are doubtlessly a visual triumph, they are also a fiasco in terms of pace, dramatic development and characterization – that is, the things that matter.

Tackling Henry VIII's life is no walk in the park; the events of his day can be daunting and a fine line has to be trod between the man's public and private life. It has to be said that the first episodes manage to balance the two fairly well (we get a decent examination of the birth of realpolitik) and do a good job of making 500-year old court intrigue actually look interesting.

But not for long. Apparently someone must have thought that audiences would soon tire of politics and that the only way to keep them hooked is to show costumes (for the gals) and boobies (for the guys). I have nothing against either of the two, but when you push everything into the background to make Henry's sexual escapades your sole focus, most of your plot ends up seeming irrelevant, a filler. The Reformation is a good case in point. Of course, we all know that heresy was a serious issue in those days – and that Lutheranism posed a very tangible political threat for England. The problem is that the series provides very little internal justification for the persecution of heretics; what we get instead is Henry taking a break from rolling in the grass with Anne Boleyn to pen a couple of pamphlets against Luther and a religious fanatic burning books and people. We are effectively requested to draw on our own knowledge to fill the gaps.

Another pitfall is the total lack of character development – something that may very well be the result of poor acting. None of the stormy events of the day (diplomatic crises; wars; epidemics) seem to have any lasting effect on the major characters - Sam Neils' Cardinal Wolsey being the sole exception. Some historical accuracy could have helped here. For example, Henry was 40 when he met Anne Boleyn (20 at the time) and pressed to produce a male heir to secure the continuation of the young Tudor line (he was only the second Tudor on the throne.) Any mention of the above would have added some much needed depth to their story; sadly the series opted for third-rate, sloppy romance that just drags on and on.

All of the above explain why the series suffers so much in terms of pace. The action visibly slows down somewhere in the middle to hit rock bottom during the last part. We see the introduction of several unnecessary sub-plots (Margaret, Thomas Tallis) that don't serve the development of the main storyline at all. The handling of Henry's divorce is also problematic. Considering how many other events were rushed through, was it really necessary to drag this one for so long? And why wasn't the issue resolved at the end? (Probably someone's idea of a cliffhanger ending.) Although the Tudors are great to look at, they are on the whole I found the Tudors uninventive and uninteresting – an no amount of costumes or boobies can compensate for that.

Having had an interest in Henry VIII and his various wives since I was small, I was keen to see The Tudors. The series (half-way through over here) provides food for thought for someone with Tudor interests and I am retrospectively grateful to my A Level in History for its exploration of the power that the king wielded.

Johnathan Rhys-Meyers does well at capturing the complex figure and personality that we know as Henry the Eighth. Far from seeing an obese monster inclined to separate bodies from heads, the viewer glimpses the qualities of a Renaissance king, ie. his diplomatic refusal to be recognised as King of France. Henry was merely eighteen when his reign began so I feel divided over Rhys-Meyers' portrayal. Kings could easily become tyrants then and something the actor captures perfectly is the feeling that Henry's mood could change from good to bad (or vice versa) in an instant. On the other hand the youthful element has its drawbacks. Wrestling with King Francis at the Field of the Cloth of Gold, he seems not so much vain as a hot-headed teenager trying to look macho. (Incidentally, the Field of the Cloth of Gold was well-dramatised, just the sort of Tudor extravagance and showing-off I imagined, and Henry - wanting physical comparisons with Francis - certainly gets his chance to be vain.)

An excellent example of the fine balance between favour and cruelty present in Rhys-Meyers' Henry is the treatment of his children. He recognises his illegitimate son with Bessie Blount by making the child Duke of Richmond, thus parting him heart-wrenchingly from his mother. When Queen Catherine suggests that he favours this child over their daughter Mary, Henry craftily gives Mary the same kind of independent establishment, so dividing two mothers from their beloved children. He is equally calculating when, after Catherine asks him to come to her at night, he does exactly that at a time when he knows she is at prayer, enabling him to blame her.

I note that the scriptwriters have adhered to that old film cliché about how no woman can give birth on screen (referring here to Bessie Blount) without screaming frantically, and in case we weren't sure what was going on, her waters are shown breaking. But then, her "newborn" baby is enormous.

I have a keen interest in historic costumes and am a little disappointed by the wardrobe department. Lady Blount's shoulderless dress seems anachronistic - in a time when showing too much hair was unseemly, shoulder skin seems unusual (the same impression that Catherine of Aragon's uncovered hair, while a short-sleeved dress worn by Anne Boleyn in the fourth episode looks completely wrong.) I hate to sound pedantic or picky, but there are plenty of surviving Tudor portraits - the costume designers must have studied one or two of them. For this reason, I also criticise that common mistake - the assumption that Catherine of Aragon had dark hair because she was Spanish. I was impressed, however, that she looked older than Henry without looking too old.

The editing is a little choppy in places. In the first episode, I think fifteen minutes passed where Catherine was not seen, so it was puzzling when the possibility of divorce was introduced. The dialogue balances fairly well between modern English and what we think of as "Tudor" English, although the use of "fashionably late" jarred.

The beginning warrants a little basic criticism. In spite of the dating early in the first episode, my first impression of Rhys-Meyers was a mental question over which Tudor he portrayed. Henry the Eighth had reddish hair; portraits of his father Henry the Seventh show a man with longer, brown hair so the image Rhys-Meyers presented didn't suit the look of either, although he acts the part of Henry the Eighth very well.

So I find a summary difficult. Intriguing aspects of history are eliminated - the fact that Henry VII spent 24 years on the throne cementing his position by increasing his powers and lessening those of the nobles (this could have been used to show why Henry VIII was so powerful - he needed to be to ward off usurpers, prior to Henry VII's accession had been thirty years of civil war) while more average events (ie. the marriage of Princess Margaret to the King of Portugal which never actually happened) are spiced up unnecessarily. The writers appear to have misunderstood which events were truly dramatic and which were not. We have recorded the series in our house, which is handy because my mum keeps pausing it for me to explain who the characters are, how they are related and what they did - surely the series is meant to do this, not the viewer?

I had hoped the title of this series indicated that they were going to look at the story of all of the Tudors. Henry VIII may be the most famous but that doesn't make the others boring or unimportant. Had Henry VII not passed the laws that he did, Henry VIII could not have been the potential tyrant that he was.

Since I laid my eyes on this show, I was captivated... The story, the cast, costumes and dialogs were just enough to make you come back for more.And I loved it. When I heard about this show,I was intrigued; so I red some reviews that were posted here. All together, big issue is historical inaccuracy. And, yes, I agree- in some segments of the story, writers were very "inventive"(especially, regarding King Henry's sister). But, majority of story follows historical facts very closely. For me, one of the best thing in this show is that it doesn't focus only on King's relationships with women, but it pictures the other part of his ruling- politics, war ambitions and what was like diplomacy in Europe in 16th century. I am not historian, but for me all the matters regarding treaties,international affairs,papal supremacy and influence and how it actually came to the separation of the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church were interesting to see and learn and I am glad that such details were equally told as the story of King's 6 marriages. The other big issue is casting Jonathan Rhys Myers for the role of King Henry VIII. Well, he is looking really good, but he looks nothing like King Henry VIII( yes, i saw the pictures, and how was king described). But, for me that wasn't such a big deal, because JRM is a great actor and his portrait of King was wonderful! He was arrogant as a King ,authoritative as a King, vain as a King, dangerous as a King. So it's not fair to say that he was in the show just to be attractive and sexy, he was great in this part. And that thing he does with his eyes...! Actors like Sam Neil, Natalie Dormer, Henry Cavill and Jeremy Northam were at their best and I loved every one of them! So, for me this show was guilty pleasure, but it made me wanna know everything about the Tudors and read real history of English monarchs.

Minor spoilers below, but nothing that many other people have not already discussed.

This new version of the Tudor story is not bad if you just think of it as a novel, whose action took place in the past, some of whose characters have names the same as actual people. Just keep telling yourself it's not meant to be accurate at all and you'll enjoy it more.

So many things they messed up, which I won't go into because they've already been done to death. One thing that's really puzzling: it was fairly idiotic of the producers to choose to combine Henry's sisters Margaret and Mary, since now there can be no James I after the death of Elizabeth I, nor any Lady Jane Grey. Doesn't seem to make sense to change history so much, and now there is clearly no possibility of any further episodes beyond Elizabeth! Or even before, since there's no Jane Grey.

The costumes were beautiful but inaccurate. HORRIBLY GROSSLY inaccurate. I can see making 16th century clothing look a little more glamorous for our modern sensibilities (Tudor female headwear was quite boxy and ugly), but why did they dress everyone as those they were in the 1800s? The corsets were completely wrong. The excess of bare skin was shockingly wrong. All those heaving bosoms are completely wrong. The men's costumes were a little more realistic, I'll give them that.

Maria Doyle Kennedy is very, very good, even if she physically does not match the real Katherine. (And why are they calling her Catherine? Her name was spelled with a K at that time.) I don't mind Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as Henry, although he physically is not quite large enough and his hair should have been dyed red. Of course his age is all wrong but the ages of most of the people are wrong, and the timelines are wrong. I think he does carry some of the "rock star" quality that Henry is said to have had at that time. Natalie Dormer is physically a great match as Anne but she has not been written anywhere near as charming and witty as the real Anne was said to be. There's a reason she held on to him, with no sex, for so many years before getting married. That's not the fault of Dormer; she played the character she was given.

I highly recommend that anyone who liked this series to read up on real Tudor history. Shoot, even Wikipedia is more accurate. Just watch and pretend it's an entirely fictional story and forget about all the unnecessary shortcuts the producers took.

Just like the title says, Michael Hirst should be banned from doing historical movies. His work has a complete disregard for history (just see Elizabeth to figure that out). I understand the need for drama but Tudor History was full of drama without completely destroying the actual facts.

First of all, Henry had two sisters, Margaret and Mary. Margaret married the King of Scotland and Mary (his favorite sister) married the aging King of France. But there is absolutely NO evidence that Mary ever killed her husband. And she didn't die as it was depicted in the movie. She had a daughter named Francis (who was the mother of Lady Jane Grey) with Charles Brandon. After her death some years later, he married a very young 14 year old girl meant to be his daughter in law originally.

Also, they butchered the life of Henry Fitzroy. He wasn't a child when he died, either.

The costuming is good and there is plenty of drama. But it should at least be accurate. Michael Hirst should stick to topics he knows about instead of butchering history for everyone else.