Location: PREDICTIONS for the Tudors Season 4

Discussion: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfallReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / The TV Series
Showing 1 - 14 of 14  |  Show  posts at a time
SemperEadem
SemperEadem
Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Jun 17 2009, 12:40 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 17 2009, 12:40 AM EDT
From the Tudors Season 4 Prediction Page:

How will Hirst Lady Jane Rochford's role as go between for Kathryn Howard and her lover(s)? Submitted by kiki52 Do you find this valuable?    
Keyword tags: None
JoshylovesAnneB
JoshylovesAnneB
1. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Jun 17 2009, 5:14 AM EDT | Post edited: Jun 17 2009, 5:14 AM EDT
She is pronounced insane and and not executable by law, but Henry Changes it, and she is beheaded like her husband before her. Do you find this valuable?    
karenofbethany
karenofbethany
2. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Jun 17 2009, 10:02 PM EDT | Post edited: Jun 17 2009, 10:02 PM EDT
They have really made her appear as an innocent victim of a tragic life so far. I can't imagine how they can turn her character into someone who is willingly an accessory to Kitty's affair. Perhaps she will "feel sorry" for Kitty because she has been thwarted by love and Jane will be seen as just an incurable romantic. Do you find this valuable?    
Bosworth_Beauty
Bosworth_Beauty
3. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Dec 18 2009, 4:39 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 18 2009, 4:39 PM EST
I hope the have her involved. Perhaps because she never got a chance to be in love she helps Kitty with the affair so that Kitty can have the happiness she never had? honestly I prefer Jane to be portrayed as an ambitious and two faced :P Do you find this valuable?    
Elliemental
Elliemental
4. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Dec 18 2009, 5:09 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 18 2009, 5:10 PM EST
I think they`ll stick to the confines of history on this one, and Jane`ll be complicit in the affair.
Or, they may show her blackmailing Katherine, somehow. After all, Katherine was balckmailed into giving her old flame, Francis Dereham, a position at court and they seem to have written him out. So maybe the blackmailer role will be given to Jane? Do you find this valuable?    
Isabella_of_Castille
Isabella_of_Castille
5. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Dec 18 2009, 5:29 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 18 2009, 5:32 PM EST
You know, I have been thinking about this...

Maybe they have not written Dereham out but they have regulated him to a minor role in the entire story - maybe more as an innocent bystander who becomes entangled in the entire scandal due to his former involvement with Katherine. That might explain why we have not heard anything about the Dereham character (or the actor portraying him) yet.

Regardless, if they HAVE written him out, I wish they had not done so. If they had wanted to further spice up Katherine's story (It's already spicy enough, don't you think?), they could have given him an even more prominent role along with Culpepper.

As it stands, I am still smarting at the fact that they might possibly portray Kitty as bisexual, which, in my opinion, is ridiculous and introduces a plethora of other problems to the story for the scriptwriters to solve.

As for Lady Rochford's role in Kitty's doings, I thought I heard her stating, "He's in love with you!" in the Season 4 preview. It almost seems like Hirst might possibly paint her as the older woman (motherly?) figure who encourages Kitty to notice Culpepper in the first place. What Lady Rochford's motivations might be for doing that, I cannot say. I remember in Season 3 that she gives Ursula a fierce look right before she informs Queen Jane about the king's afffair with the former. Lady Rochford seemed to sympathize very much with a woman who was dealing with a faithless husband. As someone else stated, this makes sense in light of Lady Rochford's own marital history. Maybe, in Kitty's case, Lady Rochford enjoys seeing a woman cheat on the husband, for a change! Do you find this valuable?    
luvprue2
luvprue2
6. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Dec 29 2009, 11:24 PM EST | Post edited: Dec 29 2009, 11:24 PM EST
"They have really made her appear as an innocent victim of a tragic life so far. I can't imagine how they can turn her character into someone who is willingly an accessory to Kitty's affair. Perhaps she will "feel sorry" for Kitty because she has been thwarted by love and Jane will be seen as just an incurable romantic."
...or maybe Jane is talk into helping Katherine conduct and affair (in order to conceive a spare heir) by Francis ,or Thomas Howard ? (if they bring back Thomas Howard for the series finale) Do you find this valuable?    
Anne'sCurls
Anne'sCurls
7. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Dec 30 2009, 2:18 AM EST | Post edited: Dec 30 2009, 2:18 AM EST
I dont think Hirst has portrayed Jane as an innocent victim at all. They have made it very clear that she lied about her husband; even if he didnt like her or want anything to do with her. It seems like she was just vindictive that her husband prefered Mark. Do you find this valuable?    
Bosworth_Beauty
Bosworth_Beauty
8. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Jan 1 2010, 8:37 PM EST | Post edited: Jan 1 2010, 8:37 PM EST
I just thought of this after watching the season 4 promo. I thought i saw Jane kissing Kitty? I'm prob wrong. Do you think it'll be some lesbian love loyality sort of thing? Do you find this valuable?    
QueenOfChelsea
QueenOfChelsea
9. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
Mar 4 2010, 8:02 PM EST | Post edited: Mar 4 2010, 8:02 PM EST
Based off the later trailers, it definitely wasn't Jane - it appears to have been one of Catherine's ladies in bed with her, and the clip shown in the Behind-the-Scenes makes it look like they're just sharing the bed, not uncommon in those times. Why Kitty seems to be naked if that's the case is anyone's guess, but...

On Jane specifically, it looks like she's either going to be the one to offer a solution, or else the one to initially suggest that Kitty see Culpepper privately. Not sure if they'll have her pushing Kitty into it or if she'll just be on hand to help, but she definitely will be right in the middle of it all. Do you find this valuable?    
sweetsister
sweetsister
10. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
May 4 2010, 9:37 PM EDT | Post edited: May 4 2010, 9:37 PM EDT
In the preview for next week's show, Henry orders Kathryn shut up in her rooms with only Lady Rochford, do you think his choice is because she is the chief lady in waiting or does the letter mention her (Rochford) as an accomplice? Do you find this valuable?    
Conyle
Conyle
11. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
May 4 2010, 9:52 PM EDT | Post edited: May 4 2010, 9:52 PM EDT
Chief Lady in Waiting, I'd say. I don't think he finds out about Rochford's role until later.

Also, someone remind me. Weren't the first charges brought against her regarding only Derhem and their precontract, and they don't find out about Culpepper until the investigation is under way? Or did the letter mention both? Do you find this valuable?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
12. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
May 4 2010, 10:23 PM EDT | Post edited: May 4 2010, 10:23 PM EDT
"Chief Lady in Waiting, I'd say. I don't think he finds out about Rochford's role until later.

Also, someone remind me. Weren't the first charges brought against her regarding only Derhem and their precontract, and they don't find out about Culpepper until the investigation is under way? Or did the letter mention both?"
yes you are right Conyle and under torture Dereham gave up Culpepper's name as his successor in Katherine's affections.

http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/Francis+Dereham Do you find this valuable?    

offwithherhead
13. RE: Lady Rochford's Role in Kitty's downfall
May 4 2010, 10:28 PM EDT | Post edited: May 4 2010, 10:28 PM EDT
"Chief Lady in Waiting, I'd say. I don't think he finds out about Rochford's role until later.

Also, someone remind me. Weren't the first charges brought against her regarding only Derhem and their precontract, and they don't find out about Culpepper until the investigation is under way? Or did the letter mention both?"
Yes, apparently they were initially investigating Francis Dereham and Henry Manox from Katherine's time living with the Dowager Duchess. It was thought that even if she did have relations with Dereham it was before she was Queen, sooo...they interogated Dereham extensively to see if he had renewed his relationship with her after he entered her service and he denied it completely, but he said that Culpepper had succeeded him in her affections. That was when they began to investigate Culpepper. Do you find this valuable?