"The Tudors" (2007-2010) - Showtime Drama Series on Henry VIII's Reign


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The Tudors - Next - The Stuarts on TV?

I loved watching the The Tudors first season on BBC when it was aired last year. Even though it was overly glamorised and very modern with regards to language and so on, I think it would be absolutely fantastic if the producers/writers of The Tudors were to move on to the next Royal family - The Stuarts. However, I would like to see that series continue on all the way to end of the Stuart line as it one of the major time periods in our history which has shaped how this country has evolved and become what it is today.
I would be more engrossed in this type of programme more than I already am/was in The Tudors?

Any thoughts?
 
Moving this to the Royal Library...
 
Why not start for the beginning for example from the Plantagenets or Normans ?
 
Last edited:
Oh my goodness, why not go back to the Angles and and Saxons. Let us see, we could do a series on Aethelred the Unready that could be a massive study in political and military ineptitude which could warm the hearts of all those disparing over B. Bush and the N. Sarkozy. Then we could do a series on Alfred the Great etc with marvelous thingies built around all that lust and violence. Then there is poor Edward III (??? now I get my numbers confused) that should provide enough kinks even for the most jaded, particularly the method of his gristly demise. Ah history, we have only just begun.Cheers.
 
Well, if they do make a show about The Stuarts, I hope they stick to the facts a little better.
 
If...if the Stuarts are next, it could get pretty interesting towards the end especially if the Jacobites are introduced. But that's opening up a whole new can of worms!
 
Oh my goodness, why not go back to the Angles and and Saxons. Let us see, we could do a series on Aethelred the Unready that could be a massive study in political and military ineptitude which could warm the hearts of all those disparing over B. Bush and the N. Sarkozy. Then we could do a series on Alfred the Great etc with marvelous thingies built around all that lust and violence. Then there is poor Edward III (??? now I get my numbers confused) that should provide enough kinks even for the most jaded, particularly the method of his gristly demise. Ah history, we have only just begun.Cheers.

Edward II.

Edward III was one of our greatest kings - his father, erm, wasn't.
 
Well, if they do make a show about The Stuarts, I hope they stick to the facts a little better.


If we are talking about the same show, The Tudors on Showtime, I hope to heaven, if they give a greenlight for The Stuarts, that it would be a heck of a lot better than the mess on Showtime. Furthermore, I would hope they would cast a decent actor unlike JRM :)lol:) who is completely laughable as Henry VIII.

Another series I would love for someone to make: The House of Hanover and the Georges I, II, III, and IV only; the years would be 1714-1830.

I would also like to see someone complete a new series about The Plantagenets 1216-1399. My Mom was incredibly knowledgeable about this particular time in history, specifically Richard III whose protrait is still hanging in my Dad's house (why I have no idea. I've always hated the painting), and she would have loved to have seen a new series about the Plantagents.
 
Another series I would love for someone to make: The House of Hanover and the Georges I, II, III, and IV only; the years would be 1714-1830.

That would be interesting to see! :king3: Especially if they include George III---Mad King George and his brood of fifteen!
 
Edward II.

Edward III was one of our greatest kings - his father, erm, wasn't.

Now, now don't be too hard on Edward II. He did give you guys Cambridge and Oxford. That's got to count for something :lol:
 
I wouldn't mind a series about the Stuarts indeed, especially if they took Maureen Wallers excellent 'Ungrateful Daughters, The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father's Throne' as a starting point. Though I have to say after reading that one I have very little sympathy for Queen Anne (and I wondered why QEII named her daughter after her).
 
I just started watching this series, good grief how annoying. They had a nice subject but IMO they ruined it and made it look very unlikely. That everybody looks as if they could be participating in America's next topmodel doesn't do much for the credebility, neither do the acting skills of the guy who plays Henry VIII, it seems he has only 2 expressions in his face.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

In Canada now, we are getting the second season...

I too was annoyed at the historical inaccuracies, especially Margaret and the King of Portugal, but I stuck with it simply because I was greatly impressed by Catherine of Aragon. The actress who portrays her, Maria Doyle Kennedy, is very good and does Catherine justice - something she wasn't given in real life.

Also, Sam Neil is very good in his role of Cardinal Wolsey.
Both Catherine and Wolsey are now gone from the series but Peter O'Toole has come on as Pope Paul III and he's very good.

SPOILER:
He has a great line about Anne Boleyn - - "Why doesn't somebody just get rid of her??"....

Larry
 
I read somewhere that John McCain said he enjoyed this production. No further comment on my part.
 
I've seen the first season...not so good, full oh historical mistakes and inaccurancies...I didn't like it
 
I haven't seen it, but I don't know why they felt the need to embellish it. I'm sure there was sufficient sex and intrigue in reality at the Tudor court.
 
I've seen the first season...not so good, full oh historical mistakes and inaccurancies...I didn't like it

I'll second that. I wasn't very happy with Michael Hurst when I saw the first season. He's making a mockery of history with this stupid show.
 
They also made Catherine about fifteen years older than Henry when there was only a 6-year age gap between them in reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've read that they combined Henry's two sisters into one character because they thought audiences might be confused with two different Princess Marys.

The only other shows or movies I had ever seen Sam Neill in were Jurassic Park and The Omen III so I was pleasantly surprised by how good he was as Cardinal Wolsey. I also liked Maria Doyle Kennedy a lot too.

I enjoyed Season 2 a great deal although there too they played a bit fast and loose with historical fact.

The one thing that bugs me about the show is the decision to keep Henry young handsome and fit long after he was a fat bloated old man historically. I just don't buy their reasoning that today's audiences won't accept characters that aren't handsome or beautiful.
 
From what I hear, it's supposed to start on April 5.
 
Well, I make no bones about it. It is glorious, inaccurate, addictive. And yes, Henry (or should we call him Harry I) is sexy, smouldering and definitely not obese and objectionable.

When you are watching a program like this you check your intellect at the door and prepare to be enthralled. The Tudors do this well. It is, after all, entertainment, and it makes no claims to be historically accurate. However, if Henry were young hansome and virile it would explain a lot about his rampant sex appeal. I mean, not everyone wanted to bed him for political reasons, and if he didn't look (or act) like the back end of a bus the lady's would be queing up.

My money is on love, intrigue, romance and good old garden variety lust! :D
 
I saw the 1st and 2nd seasons and I love it. I think Jonathan Rhys Meyers was perfect for the role of Henry VIII. I'm looking forward to its 3rd season...
 
They are already in the 3rd season with the same young Henry? I wonder how much longer they can stretch it. I stopped watching it in the 2nd or 3rd episode of the first season when his sister killed the king of Portugal. There are limits to the amount of fictional crap you can add to historical series IMO, and this was 20 times over the top (or more) and as I am a historian (in training) myself I would say it borders vandalism at the very least.
 
Yes, that was a little over the top. And didn't they show only one sister. Like the Gabrielle Anwar character was a mix between Mary and Margaret? And by the third wife, I believe Henry was starting to pick up a little weight. And Joss Stone as Anne of Cleves....that's there verison of unattractive?

Its too bad they felt the need to sacrifice history for the sake of the story. Its a well down show othewise. THe acting is good IMO.
 
The costumes are fantastic too. If this was a movie, I'd expect it to win Best Costume Design at the Academy Awards. Historically inacurate...but that Jonathan Rhys Davis....yummy.
 
Yes, quite agree, historically incorrect but the costumes were fantastic.. I read in wikipedia that they named Henry's sister as Margaret to avoid confusion with her daughter Mary....Yep, Joss Stone will be Anne of Cleves...she's way prettier to be her... 3rd season will start this April. I'm a big fan of royalty so no matter how historically incorrect the movie/story is I'm bound to watch it anyway.. hahaha!
 
:flowers:"The Tudors" is pretty fictionalized, as was "The Other Boleyn Girl." Don't know the other book. IMO.
 
True enough, iowabelle. Isn't "The Tudors" the one that made Henry VIII's two sisters into one composite character?
 
Back
Top Bottom