![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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:
Tvoz | talk 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Brookeormian 14:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Honestly people, it's a drama, not a Ken Burns documentary. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:20, 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 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
Lots of lovely production info here. Bradley0110 ( talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
uh? nobody noticed? Cliché Online ( talk) 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
[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)
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:
Unless someone has a better fix, I propose to remove the paragraph entirely. 84.203.35.9 ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
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:
Tvoz | talk 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Brookeormian 14:46, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Honestly people, it's a drama, not a Ken Burns documentary. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:20, 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 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
Lots of lovely production info here. Bradley0110 ( talk) 15:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
uh? nobody noticed? Cliché Online ( talk) 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
[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)
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:
Unless someone has a better fix, I propose to remove the paragraph entirely. 84.203.35.9 ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)