Location: Historical INACCURACIES of the Tudors

Discussion: InaccuraciesReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / The TV Series
Showing 1 - 18 of 18  |  Show  posts at a time
EadaoinTheGael
EadaoinTheGael
Inaccuracies
Apr 11 2009, 12:34 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 11 2009, 12:34 PM EDT
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
aquasplash
aquasplash
1. RE: Inaccuracies
Apr 11 2009, 2:03 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 11 2009, 2:03 PM EDT
I don't know why they suddenly turned him gay, he was happily chasing the ladies in the beginning! You never know which way this show is going to take things. Part of the excitement i guess. Do you find this valuable?    
Hever
Hever
2. RE: Inaccuracies
Apr 11 2009, 2:29 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 11 2009, 2:29 PM EDT
"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. "
The inaccuracies are annoying at times.The Mary/Margaret one in particular. talking about Cromwell's face when she told him about Anne and George, in reality I thought Cromwell made those allegations up? 1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    

Reggie19
3. RE: Inaccuracies
Apr 11 2009, 3:27 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 11 2009, 3:27 PM EDT
"The inaccuracies are annoying at times.The Mary/Margaret one in particular. talking about Cromwell's face when she told him about Anne and George, in reality I thought Cromwell made those allegations up?"
I think he did, or someone just admitted that Anne and George were close, which they were, and Crom twisted it to make it out that they were having an affair, just so Anne's name was blackened beyond repair! Do you find this valuable?    
EadaoinTheGael
EadaoinTheGael
4. RE: Inaccuracies
Apr 21 2009, 6:37 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 21 2009, 6:37 PM EDT
" talking about Cromwell's face when she told him about Anne and George, in reality I thought Cromwell made those allegations up?"
Yeah he did but it is thought that Jane Parker gave in wicked easily when she was being questioned. So maybe they are just trying to show that even Cromwell might have been surprised by the brother thing. Really I'd say he just used George because he knew she was frequently, and understandably, in his sisters rooms.Everyone with any cop on knows that she was innocent, whether you like her or not. If you read the trial notes etc, it shows that they made up dates of when she had slept with the other men. Like for e.g. Anne supposedly slept with Henry Norris in may 1535 at Whitehall but during that time the court was at Greenwich. Another accuses her of sleeping with Mark Smeaton in February 1534 - when she was pregnant with Elizabeth? I don't think so..... 1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    

supermelisa3149
5. RE: Inaccuracies
May 30 2009, 7:52 PM EDT | Post edited: May 30 2009, 7:52 PM EDT
I'm pretty sure that this is an inaccuracy.

In season 3 the series shows Henry VIII referring to Mary and Elizabeth as Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth, though I am almost certain that they were never referred to as Princesses again, only Lady Mary and Lady Elizabeth. Do you find this valuable?    

mistressbibi
6. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 2 2009, 2:20 PM EDT | Post edited: Jun 2 2009, 2:20 PM EDT
One of the inaccuracies is the death of Cardinal Wolsey who died on his way to York where he was to be placed under house arrest.
Second George Boleyn was rumored to be gay, although this is only rumors. Jane Parker was jealous of George and Ann's close relationship. Further Henry VIII was planning to get rid of Ann as early as February 1536, their marriage had created many problems including a rift with Spain. Further Henry did not want to spend 7 yrs fighting to get a divorce from Ann. Which is why he needed to get rid of her permanently. However what is strange is that William Bereton, Henry Norris and George Boleyn were all present for his quickie marriage to Ann. Maybe he wanted to get rid of them so that he could annul the marriage and lie that it never actually took place. Do you find this valuable?    

tjb22
7. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 2 2009, 5:46 PM EDT | Post edited: Jun 2 2009, 5:46 PM EDT
"One of the inaccuracies is the death of Cardinal Wolsey who died on his way to York where he was to be placed under house arrest.
Second George Boleyn was rumored to be gay, although this is only rumors. Jane Parker was jealous of George and Ann's close relationship. Further Henry VIII was planning to get rid of Ann as early as February 1536, their marriage had created many problems including a rift with Spain. Further Henry did not want to spend 7 yrs fighting to get a divorce from Ann. Which is why he needed to get rid of her permanently. However what is strange is that William Bereton, Henry Norris and George Boleyn were all present for his quickie marriage to Ann. Maybe he wanted to get rid of them so that he could annul the marriage and lie that it never actually took place."
They sort of covered the dramatic presentation of Wolsey's death....only Henry knew he committed suicide and told the messenger that the fact that Wolsey took his own life would go no further.

they used this devise again when Anne lost her second child. Historically, we don't know what happened to this second pregnancy...it was spoken of, and then it wasn't. Period. The show covered this by having Henry tell Anne that they just wouldn't go public with her loss of the pregnancy. Do you find this valuable?    
BoleynGirl
BoleynGirl
8. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 3 2009, 5:29 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 3 2009, 5:29 AM EDT
I don't care about the inaccuracies....It's just a show......I think we all know the story....There aren't so many inaccuracies I think... 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
beardedlady
beardedlady
9. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 3 2009, 8:23 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 3 2009, 8:23 AM EDT
slightly off topic - does anyone know how to add a table row? I am trying to update this page and I have run out of table cells to write in. Do you find this valuable?    
Maggie-AnneB.
Maggie-AnneB.
10. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 3 2009, 10:33 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 3 2009, 10:33 AM EDT
"slightly off topic - does anyone know how to add a table row? I am trying to update this page and I have run out of table cells to write in. "
Did you want Rows added to Season 3 of this section? I added 6 rows. Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
11. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 3 2009, 10:53 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 3 2009, 10:53 AM EDT
There's actually a ton of inaccuracies but there are also a lot of accuracies as with most historical dramas ( with the exception of the Other Boleyn Girl which is rife with them from beginning to end LOL). Check out the pages at the top of this thread here : http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/The+Tudors+Historical+Inaccuracies

bl, you place your cursor on the bottom of the table and right click and a menu will pop up where you can choose "add rows" and you can add one at a time to add more. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

mistressbibi
12. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 3 2009, 2:49 PM EDT | Post edited: Jun 3 2009, 2:49 PM EDT
lol compared to other historical dramas such as Elizabeth which is full of inaccuracies from the start, the tudors is still accurate! 1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
DuchessGrey
DuchessGrey
13. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 4 2009, 8:30 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 4 2009, 8:30 AM EDT
Um, the same guy, Michael Hirst, who created the Tudors also made the movies about Elizabeth. And, both are loaded with historical inaccuracies, equally.

There is not a thread long enough to fit in all the historical inaccuracies of this series. Unfortunately, you have to except that historical dramas will always be filled with inaccuracies because the belief is that it is what the public wants to see. 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
CarolineZ
CarolineZ
14. RE: Inaccuracies
Jun 10 2009, 4:20 PM EDT | Post edited: Jun 10 2009, 4:20 PM EDT
"I don't care about the inaccuracies....It's just a show......I think we all know the story....There aren't so many inaccuracies I think..."
I agree--it's an enjoyable show. The inaccuracies don't bother me. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

CasaNova73099
15. RE: Inaccuracies
May 20 2010, 12:57 PM EDT | Post edited: May 20 2010, 12:57 PM EDT
"Um, the same guy, Michael Hirst, who created the Tudors also made the movies about Elizabeth. And, both are loaded with historical inaccuracies, equally.

There is not a thread long enough to fit in all the historical inaccuracies of this series. Unfortunately, you have to except that historical dramas will always be filled with inaccuracies because the belief is that it is what the public wants to see."
I agree and it's amazing to see certain key features that are both inaccurate and yet very frequent ly see or heard in movies/series of the Tudors. The appearance of actors/actresses used to portray certain characters doesn't bother me as much as it used to, especially if the actor/actress does their character justice (ie: MDK as COA and Henry Cavill as Charles Brandon), and since it's a historicial 'drama', I could expect some facts to be overlooked - if they are minor. However there are some things that shouldn't have been altered for the sake of entertainment, such as merging Henry's two sisters together, the Lady Misselton storyplot, the rape of Jane Parker by George Boleyn --I could go on and on... Do you find this valuable?    
GoldenAged.ER
GoldenAged.ER
16. RE: Inaccuracies
Feb 8 2011, 6:03 PM EST | Post edited: Feb 8 2011, 6:03 PM EST
"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. "
Um, it is not proven that Mary Boleyn's children were Henry's. They are just 'thought' to be. He never acknowledged them and the 'favours' they received were most likely because Elizabeth was their cousin. I don't think the show would have went that route because that would be considered historically inaccurate or far reaching. Do you find this valuable?    
ApocalypticQueen
ApocalypticQueen
17. RE: Inaccuracies
Apr 19 2011, 12:35 PM EDT | Post edited: Apr 19 2011, 12:45 PM EDT
To be fair, as the seasons progressed, the Tudors appeared to be more loyal to the historical facts. For instance, I was very impressed with the way Catherine Parr was portrayed and the performance highlighted her devotion to the "new learning", her role in facilitating the reconciliation between Henry and his children and I felt the show also demonstrated Henry's confidence in her when she was appointed regent when he embarked on yet another war in France. I felt this really took on board the consensus of historians of late, who indicate the significance of this event which demonstrate Henry's trust for her and her own talent as an intelligent and capable woman.
Although, I am a fan of other historical dramas such as the 1970 BBC series, Six Wives of Henry VIII, such dramas have tended to focus on Catherine's role as a nurse to Henry in his irascible old age, something which has since been confirmed as inaccurate by historians.
If you read portrayals of Katherine Howard, Katherine of Aragon, Anne of Cleves etc by the likes of Starkey, you will find that on the whole, their characters in The Tudors do on the whole, tend to correspond with what we know of them. The series has strayed however in the physical descriptions of these characters and also, with regard to Season 1, when Brandon's third wife, was depicted as Margaret (former Queen of Portugal) as opposed to Mary Tudor, who had married the King of France and the series has ommitted two important children derived from that marriage, notably Frances and Eleanor. The former went on to become mother to Lady Jane Grey! Do you find this valuable?