MovieChat Forums > The Tudors (2007) Discussion > Really loose with history

Really loose with history

posted 10 years ago by johnc-4
18 replies | jump to latest

As others have mentioned, they really played loose with history on this show.

I just started watching this week. From what I saw, they made it sound as though the show started about the time Pope Alexander was growing ill and ultimately dying.

Then they make it seem as if he was succeeded by Pope Clement. But Clement did not become Pope until 20 years later, (1523 ... Alexander IV {Borgia} died in 1503). There were actually 4 popes in between Alexander and Clement. Plus, they don't really make it seem like over 20 years have gone by. For one thing, I think Princess Mary was already born at the beginning of this series, so by the time Henry is trying to get the divorce from Pope Clement, Mary should be a woman, not still a child.

Of course, Princess Mary was actually born in 1516 (many years after Pope Alexander died and well into "The Tudors" story, so at the time Clement became Pope, that would have made here 7 years old, then however long the negotiations and trials were taking place.

Then there are the whole mergings and fabrications with Henry's sister(s), combining bits and pieces of both Mary and Margeret's lives, into Margaret.

Too bad they did not stay more historically accurate with the series.

But if one can set that aside, I am enjoying this series. Having just watched all of "Reign" and trying to tie it's people into this series.

[–] eyeguy72 10 years ago

I love to hear how new viewers are enjoying this show. 

It's best not to compare how the actual events went down to how Michael Hirst decided to tell his story. Trying to fit about 35 years worth of history into 4 season's worth of tv show is not easy and requires changes in order to try to even out the episodes as the seasons go on. And if you've read some of the other posts here you know how some folks feel upset by some of those changed you've mentioned. I urge you to please just enjoy the show without historical bias.

But, if these inconsistencies can be overlooked and you can instead focus on the great performances, the beautiful sets and costumes, the lovely music, and the engaging story-telling, you should enjoy the show from beginning to end.

As far as Reign, there is no connection to worry about. Best to keep these shows totally separate.

Hope you love The Tudors as much as I do and make sure to come back often and share your thoughts!

"Here's to the losers"

[–] johnc-4 10 years ago

Reign connection to Tudors is of course that Mary Stuart is Henry's Sisters granddaughter and also that Henry's daughter Mary is the same Queen Mary that the French court is anxiously waiting for her to die, poor health and all.

But yes, I've come to the conclusion to just enjoy it for what it is.

[–] johnc-4 10 years ago

I was wondering, I noticed in several episodes, and it plays more prominent in one episode about a fountain on the small pond. How would that have worked? They didn't have electricty back then, to power a pump to make the water flow. And the fountain does not look as though it was a natural spring.

[–] louiseculmer 10 years ago

I have zero understanding of technology, but reading a few sites that describe how it is done, I gather it has something to do with height, gravity, pressure, something like that. If you google 'fountains without electricity' you will find some information. I tried to understand it, but failed.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (8778465) 9 years ago

This. People complain about this a lot and with many shows, from Rome to Game of Thrones. The simple fact is, tv shows and movies are not real life, nor are they novels. A particularly absurd complaint I read in regards to GoT; an individual was angry that they didn't include all of the characters, and also that the show had too much exposition. This is a great example of non-sense. You cannot include characters without the accompanying exposition.
If the producers of the show had decided to include both Henry's sisters, that's an addition actress to hire and everything that goes with that. It's extra screen time to flesh that character out, extra periods of exposition and extra character development. If the character isn't well-done, people will complain about it and it will lower the over-all quality of the show for everyone, even those who wouldn't care if she was in the show either way. So, those are some serious cons, and for what? Nothing of value. TV shows and movies are entertainment. The mere presence of Harry's other sister does not nessisarily provide anything of value, but it demands a large amount of resources and could even be a serious liability if not delivered correctly, especially when you take into account the high quality of everything else.

[–] debbieblackman17 9 years ago

I've just watched the White Queen and - while again not terribly accurate - can anyone remind me of the connections (if any) of the characters in that and The Tudors as some names / titles seem familiar

[–] eyeguy72 9 years ago

The titles would have been passed down to the eldest son as most of the nobles had died by the time Henry VIII inherited the throne.

[–] debbieblackman17 9 years ago

The Tudors and The White Queen. - while not overly accurate. - could be companion pieces to each other

[–] Moonlighty 10 years ago

You mean a Showtime show isn't historically accurate? Groundbreaking information.

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

[–] KatharineFanatic 10 years ago

Mary is a little girl in the first season, so that's not inaccurate.

The stuff with Brandon and Mary (Margaret) Tudor, however, is in the wrong period -- their marriage was much earlier. Tons of other inaccuracies, too. Too many to name.

And that doesn't even touch on the vilification of just about every family involved at the royal court. Hirst slashes his way through history, leaving reputations in tatters. The Boleyns, the Howards, the Seymours -- all scheming, manipulative, cruel bastards. He pretty much takes every stereotype about the historical figures and uses them for his primary plot lines -- right down to Anne being a schemer.

Still, it's evocative and interesting.

[–] scorpiascorpio 9 years ago

The Boleyns, the Howards, the Seymours -- all scheming, manipulative, cruel bastards.

Umm, that's because they were all of those things; but it did not start with them... Life at Court was no picnic. Remember, we're talking about people vying for power, prestige, riches and leaving great legacies here. You had to play the game, and play it well to move up, get rich...and survive!

[–] KatharineFanatic 9 years ago

Umm, that's because they were all of those things; but it did not start with them... Life at Court was no picnic. Remember, we're talking about people vying for power, prestige, riches and leaving great legacies here. You had to play the game, and play it well to move up, get rich...and survive!

Prove it.

[–] louiseculmer 10 years ago

I also find those inaccuracies exasperating. It would have been so easy to get them right. The business with Henry's sisters is particularly maddening - what on earth was the point of that? Considering both sisters were grandmothers of British monarchs, it seems really annoying that they have been treated in this cavalier fashion.

[–] humphreyking 9 years ago

Does anyone know if Thomas Tallis(?), the musician, was a real person or not?

[–] Rikku25 9 years ago

He was real, but no one knows how he really looked since there are no contemporary paintings of him and pretty much everything about his private life was probably made up or changed on the show, e.g. while his wife's name was Joan they didn't get married before the 1550s, when Henry was already dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx-_XCOFX3g
(Tallis' mass for four voices)

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

Definitely real, and very very famous for his vocal liturgical music. His works are still fairly commonly performed today.

Mind you, the character in the show was highly fictionalised, and although he disappears after series one, in real life he was active past Henry's reign and into those of Mary and Elizabeth.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] humphreyking 9 years ago

Thanks, I appreciate the info.

Mind you, the character in the show was highly fictionalised

He seemed 'fictionalised' that's why I thought he might have been completely made up, or at least a conflation of the types of musicians that were around at that time.

Sometimes everybody's not always on the same side.

[–] rdpepper210 9 years ago

The show is to entertain and maybe people will develop an interest in that era. They got the wives right, so that's a start.