Historical INACCURACIES of the TudorsThis is a featured page

Back home: The Tudors Fan Wiki

The Tudors Depictions Throughout History | The Tudors Photos | The Tudors 100 Reasons to Watch
| The Tudors Links & Resources

Showetime's The Tudors

The Tudors: Historical Inaccuracies and MysteriesFact or Fiction?

History buffs!
Have you sniffed out a few historical inaccuracies within The Tudors drama? Whether minuscule or huge, catalogue them here to see how the show sizes up against British history.

What about historical accuracy?
One of the Creators of the Tudors, Writer Michael Hirst believes that The Tudors brings out into the open the gaps and contradictions in the historical record that academic history shies away from. “Of course, there are certain facts which are incontrovertible,” he says, “but beyond that there’s just interpretation and there are surprisingly few sources.
So I discovered that the truth is variable and I also discovered that most historians are very bad psychologists:
They don’t tell you very much about the human relationships in history. I’ve discovered that nearly all the
caricatures of Henry’s wives for instance, are nonsense or only tell a little bit of the story.”

Click the Links below for each season

Showetime's The Tudors

The Tudors Fan Wiki
Historical Inaccuracies of Season 1

The Tudors Fan Wiki
Historical Inaccuracies of Season 2

fleur de lis Historical Inaccuracies of Season 3

The Tudors Fan WikiHistorical Inaccuracies of Season 4

Was Henry VIII that good looking? ? Does Pope Paul III suggest an assassination attempt on Anne Boleyn? ?
Did Edward Stafford try to kill King Henry VIII?
Did Elizabeth Darrell really hang herself?

Was Katherine of Aragon so much older than Henry VIII?
Was William Brereton a member of the Jesuits?
Did Henry VIII write Greensleeves for Anne Bolyen?
Was Jane Seymour truly so beautiful?

So everyone is saying The Tudors isn’t historical. Why should it be?
By David Sessions

The “televisionization” of a seminal historical event, a classic work of fiction, or a beloved superhero, is often decried in American critical pretention as a minor tragedy, an event to be mourned by anyone with an appreciation for all that is true and good in the art world. The critics apparently liked the smooth flesh and colorful costumes in the first season of Showtime’s The Tudors to at least say it was “entertaining,” despite their professional objections to its “neutered” history.

What the history buffs fail to realize is the latent absurdity of the demands they place on their television (or perhaps our television). There’s nothing wrong with shooting up a stodgy, self-important attempt at illustrating what really happened (yes, this means you, Oliver Stone), but complaints over shows like The Tudors are simply asinine assertions of imaginary intellectual authority. Truth is, I remember more of English from catching up on the first season than I did from History of Western Civilization II.

The Tudors, now in the early stages of its second season on Showtime, is a deliberately ahistorical depiction of Henry VIII’s “reign and marriages.” Young badass Jonathan Rhys-Meyers of the "Smoldering Blue Eyes" plays the Henry, who by historical accounts probably looked more like the ruddy, bearded John Rhys-Davies. Rhys Meyers, who stunningly portrayed the intense, womanizing Raskolnikov character in Woody Allen’s Dostoevsky allegory Match Point, is without question flat and dimensionless as a monarch. He vacillates between sensual whispering and petulant shouting without much of anything memorable to say or without as much as hinting at his complex motivations. But he is one thing that’s entirely believable: insane. The real, unscriptedness of Rhys Meyers’ acting does give The Tudors the quality of seeming like it might be showing us the actual Henry VIII in action. In this sense, the unrealistically hot Henry is a success; we watch him because he’s Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and hate him anyway, just like we would if he were played by someone more repulsive ! more historically accurate.

The New York Times whined that the show is “spritzed with Febreze,” but that’s precisely why it works as “historical” entertainment from the masses. I’m trying to imagine Greek artisans hovering over Homer’s shoulder during his composition of the Odyssey, objecting: “You’re sanitizing history! Odysseus had complex motivations! We need to feel what those peasants felt when they angered Zeus!” In the fantastic event that such a dialogue occurred, Homer was wise to toss their input onto the ash heap of history. After all, everybody knows that the beachfront breakup with Calypso is far more compelling. Common people, arguably the target audience of The Tudors, have always remembered more of history as sexed-up, simplified storylines than as nuanced, academic psychoanalysis. No objection to accurate, scholarly history here or even to the occasional intellectual T.V. series, but this is still television. And people still primarily watch television to enjoy attractive actors and the escape of a fictional story.

Watching with the motive of being entertained, the occasional intellectual stimulation The Tudors provides is a pleasant surprise. The back-dealing, sinister Cardinal Wolsey (Sam Neill) is a creepy delight to watch, and a painful reminder of the medieval Catholic church as a parallel political system, all the more inhuman and disgusting for wrapping its misdeeds in the will of God. (Also noted: these 16th-century Christians are portrayed, fairly or unfairly, exactly the same way modern ones always are). But bad as the church is, The Tudors doesn’t play to evangelical Catholic-bashing. Martin Luther, seen from the stained-glassed windows of the English monarchy, was a crackpot heretic who posed a serious threat to Christianity and to the Western world. Which got me thinking: if I were a devout Catholic at this moment in history— not one of these creepy red-headgear types, but a truly pious one— would I have objected to the bonfire that consumes Luther’s books in the first season? The reign of Bloody Mary, darkly foreshadowed in the scenes of Henry’s pretty little daughter? Reporting from the set of season two, the Times noted that despite critics being split between taking and leaving the series, viewers are “eating it up.”

“Showtime commissioned me to write an entertainment, a soap opera, and not history,” creator/writer Michael Hirst told them. “And we want people to watch it.” Considering the lengths other television markets travel just to get people to watch, a Cliff’s Notes history of England and a renewed appreciation for the physiques of Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Natalie Dormer are hardly a bad thing to be taken away. And if that’s all America gets from The Tudors, we will still have it just about right: Beautiful people fought battles, had sex, and died. And everybody—king, church, and all—were selfish, corrupt human beings.

David Sessions is the editor of Patrol His writing has appeared in Slate, New York, Politics Daily and The American Scene. He is currently an editorial assistant at The Daily Beast.

◄ Back home: The Tudors Fan Wiki
The Tudors Depictions Throughout History | The Tudors Photos | The Tudors 100 Reasons to Watch

Latest page update: made by MsSquirrly , Feb 12 2011, 2:56 AM EST (about this update About This Update MsSquirrly Edited by MsSquirrly

28 words added

view changes

- complete history)
More Info: links to this page
Started By Thread Subject Replies Last Post
EadaoinTheGael Inaccuracies 17 Apr 19 2011, 7:35 AM EDT by ApocalypticQueen
Thread started: Apr 11 2009, 7:34 AM EDT  Watch
Well obviously loads of things could have been different. Like the Henry having two sisters thing or about Mary Boleyns children by Henry but I presume that it would have taken way too much time.

With relation to George Boleyn and the rape scene, yes it was kind of unnecessary but they needed a plausible reason for Jane Parker hating him so much. The fact that he was gay (in the show) would not have been enough. That would only embarass her. Whereas the rape would justify her actions completely. Besides, although it is highly unlikely, we never know what goes on behind closed doors. If Jane P had been raped she would never have told anyone. Rape of a wife back then wasnt considered rape. Also, she would be endangering herself by attacking the Queens brothers. And in fairness, Cromwells face when Jane Parker admits gladly that her husband slept with his sister is absolutely priceless.
Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
Show Last Reply
MsSquirrly What scene of dramatic license on the series bothered you the most? (page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... last page) 145 Apr 29 2010, 1:01 PM EDT by Nofretete
Thread started: Aug 22 2008, 8:16 AM EDT  Watch
For me it was the rape scene with George Boleyn & Jane Parker. What bugged me the most is that it is a horrendous act which has no basis in history and it blackens George's name. According to most historians there is not one "scintilla" of evidence to support his homosexuality plus now they make him a rapist. From what I have read, he was a very well liked member of court & not mean spirited. He admits to his own "sins" of vanity & pride but not a violent man.
21  out of 22 found this valuable. Do you?    
Show Last Reply
grahamneil anachronism 4 Jul 22 2009, 5:12 PM EDT by SemperEadem
Thread started: Jul 22 2009, 2:40 AM EDT  Watch
Season3 eposide3 Henry says to Jane Seymour that she is "full of the milk of human kindness". This phrase is attribute to Shakespeare -MacBeth. much, much later. Still, the Bard might have got it from the series!
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: None
Show Last Reply
Showing 3 of 13 threads for this page - view all

Related Content

  (what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on WikiFoundry Central.)