Shark Bytes
All of this rationalizing and defense of Henry the VIII's bad behavior is really very interesting. Was it syphilis? Was it diabetes? Was it madness inherited from his dear old dad? How about a far more simple explanation: THE MAN WAS A HIGH POWERED JERK HAVING A MID-LIFE CRISIS AND GETTING HIS ENTIRE KINGDOM, LET ALONE ALL OF EUROPE INVOLVED WITH IT, TAKING SIDES?
Let's see: he dumped wife number one because he became obsessively infatuated with a younger woman, using his need for a son and heir as an excuse. He grandiosely postures to give up everyone and everything close to him to "have" this woman in the eyes of God and his Kingdom. Making a great big huge spectacle of the situation and himself. He sacrifices friends and family relationships. Terrorizes his subjects. And what happens?
After he gets her, he decides she really isn't what he wants after all. And he knows he is now very unpopular with his subjects. He looks like a complete and utter fool. So what does he do? In order to save face, he tells everyone he was "tricked" "bewitched" by this woman, and has her killed mostly as a public relations exercise.
Having an affair, behaving irrationally, putting everything on the line, losing friends and family, coming to one's sensibilities and blaming the woman for it to save face....hey, this is an every day event in my country. No, people typically aren't killed as a result but then nobody has that power, either. Not an exclusive event to those with syphilis or diabetes or inherited madness. It is something called STUPIDITY.
HENRY THE VIII was a STUPID man and an even worse King.
Let's see: he dumped wife number one because he became obsessively infatuated with a younger woman, using his need for a son and heir as an excuse. He grandiosely postures to give up everyone and everything close to him to "have" this woman in the eyes of God and his Kingdom. Making a great big huge spectacle of the situation and himself. He sacrifices friends and family relationships. Terrorizes his subjects. And what happens?
After he gets her, he decides she really isn't what he wants after all. And he knows he is now very unpopular with his subjects. He looks like a complete and utter fool. So what does he do? In order to save face, he tells everyone he was "tricked" "bewitched" by this woman, and has her killed mostly as a public relations exercise.
Having an affair, behaving irrationally, putting everything on the line, losing friends and family, coming to one's sensibilities and blaming the woman for it to save face....hey, this is an every day event in my country. No, people typically aren't killed as a result but then nobody has that power, either. Not an exclusive event to those with syphilis or diabetes or inherited madness. It is something called STUPIDITY.
HENRY THE VIII was a STUPID man and an even worse King.
To: Guest
I have to agree with you on point one you make below. Diabetes does seem like a more likely suspect than Syphilis for Henry's descent into obeseity and borderline madness. . .at least if you beleive historical accounts of the end of his life. Some, however, have suspected syphilis since his personality seemed to change as much as his weight. Syphilis might have been hard to detect on most of his wives since they didn't live long enough to have symptoms show. In the case of Anne of Cleves he may not have even consumated the marriage due to his unhappiness over her looks. Jane Seymour died early in childbirth and both Anne Bolyn and Katherine Howard was beheaded young.
Then you have to look at his offspring.
Mary died early of a cancerous tumer eary, Elizabeth was (supposedly) barren and bald (or so history relates), Anne Bolyn delivered stillborn sons, The child by Jane Seymour was alwasys sickly and died before he was 20.
The most compelling argument that he suffered from diabetes and not syphilis was his 6th and last wive, who never had the disease and had a child by another following Henry's death.
Point 2 you make below isn't worth commenting about
On point 3 below, As far as Henry being athletic and verile in his younger days, that is certainly a possibility, perhaps even a liklihood. The point is, at the time he was with Anne Bolyn he was 45 years old. She was executed in Jan 1536, he died in 1547 at the age of 56. If he looked the way he does in the Tudors at age 45, he certainly went to hell in a handbasket in his last 11 years.
I don't think I've ever seen a portrait of Henry as being thin. They may be out there somewhere. He's always been played as being stout at the very least going back to the days of Charles Laughton (Henry the VIII), Richard Burton (Anne of a Thousand Days), and the PBS series (The 6 wives of Henry
the VIII) .That's what makes the series the Tudors so interesting, even if it does take "artistic license with the historical facts.
Now, I'm through commenting on this subject. You can have the last word
I have to agree with you on point one you make below. Diabetes does seem like a more likely suspect than Syphilis for Henry's descent into obeseity and borderline madness. . .at least if you beleive historical accounts of the end of his life. Some, however, have suspected syphilis since his personality seemed to change as much as his weight. Syphilis might have been hard to detect on most of his wives since they didn't live long enough to have symptoms show. In the case of Anne of Cleves he may not have even consumated the marriage due to his unhappiness over her looks. Jane Seymour died early in childbirth and both Anne Bolyn and Katherine Howard was beheaded young.
Then you have to look at his offspring.
Mary died early of a cancerous tumer eary, Elizabeth was (supposedly) barren and bald (or so history relates), Anne Bolyn delivered stillborn sons, The child by Jane Seymour was alwasys sickly and died before he was 20.
The most compelling argument that he suffered from diabetes and not syphilis was his 6th and last wive, who never had the disease and had a child by another following Henry's death.
Point 2 you make below isn't worth commenting about
On point 3 below, As far as Henry being athletic and verile in his younger days, that is certainly a possibility, perhaps even a liklihood. The point is, at the time he was with Anne Bolyn he was 45 years old. She was executed in Jan 1536, he died in 1547 at the age of 56. If he looked the way he does in the Tudors at age 45, he certainly went to hell in a handbasket in his last 11 years.
I don't think I've ever seen a portrait of Henry as being thin. They may be out there somewhere. He's always been played as being stout at the very least going back to the days of Charles Laughton (Henry the VIII), Richard Burton (Anne of a Thousand Days), and the PBS series (The 6 wives of Henry
the VIII) .That's what makes the series the Tudors so interesting, even if it does take "artistic license with the historical facts.
Now, I'm through commenting on this subject. You can have the last word
If you're going to criticize the show for inaccuracies, please get your own facts straight:
1) It is highly unlikely that Henry died of "the ravages of syphilis". Times being what they were, then most of his wives and all of his children would likely have been infected as well. The descriptions of Henry's illnesses, mood swings, etc are more consistent with advanced Type 1 diabetes, which is fatal if untreated. That his wives had so many miscarriages, stillbirths, and sudden infant death could be attributed to any number of factors including high infection risk, complicated deliveries, and simply, the amount of inbreeding among European royalty.
2) "Katherine" is the Anglicized spelling of Catalina, as another poster pointed out.
3) Up until his early 30's, Henry was lean, fit, and athletic. He began to gain weight when old wounds began to reopen and ulcerate, causing him to curtail his physical activities - again, most probably due to diabetes, which complicates the healing process.
I don't know that the show has jumped the shark. Hyperbolic advertising aside, it never promised to be anything more than a high-end bodice-ripper and it has not failed to deliver!
Collapsing some characters and events is commonplace - even among other movies that have been cited here. It's called artistic license.
1) It is highly unlikely that Henry died of "the ravages of syphilis". Times being what they were, then most of his wives and all of his children would likely have been infected as well. The descriptions of Henry's illnesses, mood swings, etc are more consistent with advanced Type 1 diabetes, which is fatal if untreated. That his wives had so many miscarriages, stillbirths, and sudden infant death could be attributed to any number of factors including high infection risk, complicated deliveries, and simply, the amount of inbreeding among European royalty.
2) "Katherine" is the Anglicized spelling of Catalina, as another poster pointed out.
3) Up until his early 30's, Henry was lean, fit, and athletic. He began to gain weight when old wounds began to reopen and ulcerate, causing him to curtail his physical activities - again, most probably due to diabetes, which complicates the healing process.
I don't know that the show has jumped the shark. Hyperbolic advertising aside, it never promised to be anything more than a high-end bodice-ripper and it has not failed to deliver!
Collapsing some characters and events is commonplace - even among other movies that have been cited here. It's called artistic license.
It certainly is watchable even if they do play it fast and loose with the historical facts. Are there shortcomings, doubtful moments, and even lol's at certain points?
Sure there are, but if you take it for entertainment only, it is a good show. It certainly has an interesting premise. That is, Henry as a lean stud rather than a disintegrating middle aged man suffering from the ravages of syphilis.
To respond to the last poster about Henry having the ability to stop the beheading of Sir Thomas More. Yes, he could have, but there was more at stake for Henry.
He had everything. . .and I mean everything. . .out on the line over his split from the Catholic Church. It may have initially been to divorce katherine, but it had transended that.
To save Sir Thomas More would have severely undermined all credibility in his court (and country). In a later episode, Henry related that he was, nevertheless, tempted to save More, but was pursuaded by Anne and her father's people to permit the execution to go forward. In hindsight, maybe he could have commutted the sentence to 10 years in the tower of London and then, when the heat died down, ushered More out of the country or something. But history is what history was in this case and More was beheaded. Was Henry' anguish real or staged for TV. Who knows?
We haven't got to the point yet where Anne (and her hapless brother) were executed, but too bad her father wasn't in the grouping. He was the one who should have got it in the neck but didn't.
Sure there are, but if you take it for entertainment only, it is a good show. It certainly has an interesting premise. That is, Henry as a lean stud rather than a disintegrating middle aged man suffering from the ravages of syphilis.
To respond to the last poster about Henry having the ability to stop the beheading of Sir Thomas More. Yes, he could have, but there was more at stake for Henry.
He had everything. . .and I mean everything. . .out on the line over his split from the Catholic Church. It may have initially been to divorce katherine, but it had transended that.
To save Sir Thomas More would have severely undermined all credibility in his court (and country). In a later episode, Henry related that he was, nevertheless, tempted to save More, but was pursuaded by Anne and her father's people to permit the execution to go forward. In hindsight, maybe he could have commutted the sentence to 10 years in the tower of London and then, when the heat died down, ushered More out of the country or something. But history is what history was in this case and More was beheaded. Was Henry' anguish real or staged for TV. Who knows?
We haven't got to the point yet where Anne (and her hapless brother) were executed, but too bad her father wasn't in the grouping. He was the one who should have got it in the neck but didn't.
Whatever, I am in agreement with you. Although I see now that I am going to have to rent Season II if what you say is true about Henry screaming/bawling during Thomas More's beheading. I have to see that - LOL. Did he forget he was the BLOODY KING OF ENGLAND!! and he could have put a stop to it?
Watching such truly over the top acting, Jonathan Rhys Meyers roaring his lines like it was Shakespeare on the Autobahn, "IT'S NOT ABOUT YOUR F***ING VIRGINITY!!!" "I AM THE BLOODY KING OF ENGLAND!" "YOU MARRIED WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!!!!" combined with bad writing, and bad directing, you just can't take it seriously.
Watching such truly over the top acting, Jonathan Rhys Meyers roaring his lines like it was Shakespeare on the Autobahn, "IT'S NOT ABOUT YOUR F***ING VIRGINITY!!!" "I AM THE BLOODY KING OF ENGLAND!" "YOU MARRIED WITHOUT MY PERMISSION!!!!" combined with bad writing, and bad directing, you just can't take it seriously.
Day 1 or the beheading of Thomas Moore, take your pick. I watched Season 1 on DVD. The cover caught my eye, it was so ridiculous - they made "Hanky" (Henry VIII) look like a K-Fed reject with the royal collar about his neck, punk buzz cut, three faceless, busty ladies-in-waiting behind him casually lounging on his thrown. I laughed out loud in Blockbuster! "Oh no they didn't!" I don't have Showtime thus I didn't see the commercials and I thought it was some quasi-tongue-in-cheek black dramedy. I quickly realized they were taking themselves seriously but kept watching out of morbid curiosity (due to the ravaging of historical facts and gratuitous sex scenes). Plus homoerotic story arcs that just...evaporate. By the beginning of Season 2, courtesy of friend's TiVo, I began to groan. The cut to Hanky screaming in anguish while Thomas Moore is beheaded was such a farce, it was campy! I giggled hysterically. If you didn't dismiss it from the beginning that was definitely a JTS moment. You could tell Jonathan Rhys Meyers was trying to hold back his laughter as well. Plus Ryhs Meyers is too effiminate and over compensates as a result. Bad series? Definitely. So bad it's good? Jury's still out.
I watched the entire first season of this crass Showtime series via DVD and I have to be honest, it really got tiresome very fast. Beautiful costumes, beautiful scenery, but the historical context got lost very fast. I got sick of "I'm the bloody king" uttered at least three times an episode, and gratuitous sex with some lady in waiting as filler. I think the scene that made me finally hit the stop button was the scene where Henry was self-gratifying while a servant held a bowl in front of him. I thought that was in extremely bad taste and unnecessary. It turned it into soft-core costume porn.
It was great to see Henry portrayed as handsome and athletic as he apparently was as a young man. But the last 15 years of his life (e.g. middle age) were when "all the interesting stuff happened."
On a positive note, I do think Jeremy Northam's portrayal of Thomas More was spot on. But Natalie Dormand made me laugh until I cried with all her huffing, puffing and eye rolling nympho portrayal of Ann Boleyn.
It was great to see Henry portrayed as handsome and athletic as he apparently was as a young man. But the last 15 years of his life (e.g. middle age) were when "all the interesting stuff happened."
On a positive note, I do think Jeremy Northam's portrayal of Thomas More was spot on. But Natalie Dormand made me laugh until I cried with all her huffing, puffing and eye rolling nympho portrayal of Ann Boleyn.
Re: Catherine of Aragon: her name in Spain was "Catalina", so her English name is Catherine. Showtime=Dummies=Jump
Historical inaccuracies in movies and television?! SAY IT AIN'T SO!
Get over it people. I'm a history buff, but I understand that history alone isn't always good TV.
The Tudors is good TV, inaccuracies aside.
Get over it people. I'm a history buff, but I understand that history alone isn't always good TV.
The Tudors is good TV, inaccuracies aside.
Actually, the Tudors is not as bad as you're all making out. Katherine is the original spelling of Katherine of Aragon, and Catherine is the modernised spelling, so that is actually correct.
King Henry was not ALWAYS fat. In his youth he was considered the handsomest man in England and was very athletic. I agree there are considerable discrepancies, but consider the limitations of making a TV show that uses one episode for each year. I was disappointed that Prince Henry, for example, only lived to be four years old instead of 17, but you can see that this is because they would have to employ a new actor every few episodes to depict his growth.
King Henry was not ALWAYS fat. In his youth he was considered the handsomest man in England and was very athletic. I agree there are considerable discrepancies, but consider the limitations of making a TV show that uses one episode for each year. I was disappointed that Prince Henry, for example, only lived to be four years old instead of 17, but you can see that this is because they would have to employ a new actor every few episodes to depict his growth.
I agree with all the views above. The Tudors jumped on DAY ONE!!!
It completely overlooks the period of Henry VII altogether! This is worthy of a series in itself. It is also historically inaccurate in so many ways e.g. ages of characters, Henry's sister marrying the King of Portugal.
So many DULL people will watch this series and think it is historically correct. It is not.
I also read an article on this series elsewhere, say that history buffs like me should just shut up and enjoy the show.
If a series like "Rome" can be so successful, and maintain some kind of historical accuracy, the Tudors could be equally as good.
The whole series is an OPPORTUNITY FOR GREATNESS WASTED.
There's also no mention (save a few dragon flags) that the Tudors were in fact Welsh people
It completely overlooks the period of Henry VII altogether! This is worthy of a series in itself. It is also historically inaccurate in so many ways e.g. ages of characters, Henry's sister marrying the King of Portugal.
So many DULL people will watch this series and think it is historically correct. It is not.
I also read an article on this series elsewhere, say that history buffs like me should just shut up and enjoy the show.
If a series like "Rome" can be so successful, and maintain some kind of historical accuracy, the Tudors could be equally as good.
The whole series is an OPPORTUNITY FOR GREATNESS WASTED.
There's also no mention (save a few dragon flags) that the Tudors were in fact Welsh people
It jumped from Day One! For one thing the series should've started with the defeat of the evil Richard III (who murdered his nephews to become king) by Henry VII in 1485 at Bosworth Field. That was the beginning of the Tudor Dynasty. The guy who plays Henry VIII, really sucks. He was suppose to be fat. I get sick of this actor always saying, "I'm the bloody king of England!"
Jumped on Day One. I tried watching the entire first season, but my eyes were soon stuck in the back of my head because of so much rolling. With a few exceptions, the actors are far too young for the people they are portraying (it's lke watching "Bugsy Malone" with a British accent) and the history is too fast and loose to ignore.
I can always enjoy a costume drama, and so I do enjoy the Tudors. However the show deserves all the other posters criticisms of historical innacuracies. For starters, what's with spelling Catherine of Aragon's name with a "K" (e.g., Katherine). So now, we'll have a new generation of young dummies that won't know the difference. Ugh.
Leave a Comment
