Location: George Boleyn - Historical Profile

Discussion: Leave George aloneReported This is a featured thread

Showing 1 - 20 of 98  |  Show  posts at a time
2 3 4 5 | Next

Georgedeservesbetter
Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 9:33 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 9:33 AM EST
The Tudors is a trashy TV show. There's nothing wrong with that. I like the odd episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The thing is, I don't believe there is a girl born into every generation who fights demons. So I am interested to know why certain people watch the Tudors and think they are watching a history documentary.
From some of the comments I've read, George Boleyn is apparently an evil homosexual wife rapist. The Tudors is fiction and doesn't pretend to be anything else. The depiction of George Boleyn is nothing more than artistic licence resulting in demonising an innocent young man for the purpose of entertainment. That's fine if you like that sort of thing, but why believe it?
0  out of 7 found this valuable. Do you?    
Keyword tags: George Boleyn
Elliemental
Elliemental
1. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 9:47 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 9:47 AM EST
Sit down, relax, and have a nice cup of tea. I don't believe for one moment anyone here believes that when watching The Tudors they're watching a documentary. No one here gets confused between Michael Hirst and David Starkey, and no one here has based any of their history papers/coursework/exams on what they have seen on this TV drama series.
Really, this kind of knee-reactionary rant is better suited to a Phillipa Gregory board, or something like that.
3  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
Conyle
Conyle
2. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:01 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:01 AM EST
"
Really, this kind of knee-reactionary rant is better suited to a Phillipa Gregory board, or something like that."
True! Gregory tries to pass her work off as finely researched nearly true-fiction. Hirst has never tried to pass the Tudors off as anything other than a historically-based soap opera.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    

Georgedeservesbetter
3. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:06 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:06 AM EST
"Sit down, relax, and have a nice cup of tea. I don't believe for one moment anyone here believes that when watching The Tudors they're watching a documentary. No one here gets confused between Michael Hirst and David Starkey, and no one here has based any of their history papers/coursework/exams on what they have seen on this TV drama series.
Really, this kind of knee-reactionary rant is better suited to a Phillipa Gregory board, or something like that."
If you don't think some people believe this is real may I suggest you read the various comments. Yes people do get confused, as can clearly be seen from comments such as, George was a vile rapist who deserved all he got. May I say your comment was not constructive. As for Gregory, why on earth mention her? Your need to do so merely confirms my viewpoint.
1  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
jonnye29
jonnye29
4. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:09 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:09 AM EST
"If you don't think some people believe this is real may I suggest you read the various comments. Yes people do get confused, as can clearly be seen from comments such as, George was a vile rapist who deserved all he got. May I say your comment was not constructive. As for Gregory, why on earth mention her? Your need to do so merely confirms my viewpoint. "
I get your point, but why present it in a insulting way? I realy see no point in it!!!!
2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    

Reggie19
5. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:13 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:18 AM EST
OK, new here, i assume? For starters, no one here believes that George was either homosexual (which i can tolerate) or a rapist (that's crossing a line!), and i do agree to a certain extent with you in terms of the artistic license taken with his character. I have a great deal of distaste for how he was written, in particular the raping of his wife, which serves no purpose whatsoever other than to give Jane a reason to condemn her husband, which isn't reason enough to tarnish the memory of a man who, by all accounts, was gentle in nature; witty, charming and handsome to boot. Where the homosexuality is concerned, i can just about tolerate it, as long as no one believes it, and as long as i get more shirtless David Alpay scenes (which unfortunately i did not get =( )!

I wouldn't call the series trashy, i mean, Hirst never claimed it would be presented like a documentary, it was purely for entertainment purposes, but i still don't see what Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a complete work of fiction) has to do with the Tudors (which does have its fair share of accuracies, you have to admit)? Which comments have you read that lead you to believe we consider George to be any of the things you've listed? Are you talking about this board, or another one? Because i don't recall reading anything of the sort here, if i had i would have been quick to deliver the truth.

You did say it yourself: "The Tudors is fiction and doesn't pretend to be anything else", so therefore i don't believe George was an "evil homosexual wife rapist".
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    

Reggie19
6. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:15 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:15 AM EST
"If you don't think some people believe this is real may I suggest you read the various comments. Yes people do get confused, as can clearly be seen from comments such as, George was a vile rapist who deserved all he got. May I say your comment was not constructive. As for Gregory, why on earth mention her? Your need to do so merely confirms my viewpoint. "
OK, did Elliemental herself make such comments regarding George? I think i can answer that myself... um, no! In fact, Ellie herself once suggested dedicating a team page to the man, so don't jump down her throat. I've never said George was a vile rapist, and neither has Ellie for that matter, so, might i suggest you read her comments first?
2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    

Reggie19
7. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:17 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:17 AM EST
"I get your point, but why present it in a insulting way? I realy see no point in it!!!! "
Yes, i think everyone here agrees with you Georgedeservesbetter (only realized the name now!), but try to phrase your post in a milder manner, you really came off as rather accusatory, as if we here at this site had been saying such things about George?
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Conyle
Conyle
8. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:24 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:24 AM EST
"As for Gregory, why on earth mention her? Your need to do so merely confirms my viewpoint. "
Gregory was brought up because she is a good example of someone who really has written untruths about George Boleyn, and tries to pass it off as truth, as opposed to Hirst, who owns up to the fact that his show is a drama merely based on historical figures and is not to be taken as fact.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Elliemental
Elliemental
9. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:30 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:30 AM EST
"If you don't think some people believe this is real may I suggest you read the various comments. Yes people do get confused, as can clearly be seen from comments such as, George was a vile rapist who deserved all he got. May I say your comment was not constructive. As for Gregory, why on earth mention her? Your need to do so merely confirms my viewpoint. "
I mention Gregory for the reasons stated by Conyle. Gregory takes enormous liberties with history, and then tries to palm her appalling bodice rippers off as meticulously well researched, scholarly fiction. She even thinks that she is a historian in the Schama/Starkey vein. Unlike Michael Hirst, who once described "The Tudors" as a historical "soap-opera". Now, I've read comments from people who are confused before, but it is rare on this board (compare this board, to IMDB's TOBG and Tudors boards, and you'll see what I mean).
All of these adaptations, from The Tudors to A Man For All Seasons, are a double edged sword, in that they are littered with inaccuracies, however they have mass appeal and often draw people into that time period and often leads to more scholarly research/study.
You seem to have come bulldozing in here with a slight superiority complex to preach at us and make us see the error of our bodice-ripping ways. Quite frankly, there is no need. Almost everyone here was read at least one G.R Elton/David Starkey/Simon Schama book (I'm partial to Elton, myself) and some of us (I included), have even book marked British History Online, and gone so far as to consult primary sources.
So there you have it. No one here believes George Boleyn was a raving homosexual, wife raping, incestuous na'er do well. He was a wominser though.

Thanks to Reggie for your defence there!!
4  out of 5 found this valuable. Do you?    

Reggie19
10. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:33 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:33 AM EST
"Thanks to Reggie for your defence there!!
"
No problem ;D
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Brooke9/7
Brooke9/7
11. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 10:49 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 10:49 AM EST
As most of us who regularly post on this wiki know (whether posting info for the pages or discussion threads), the Historical Profile page above says nothing about George Boleyn being either homosexual or rapist. The CHARACTER back story page (for the show, not history) even states that there is no evidence for either behavior. Quoted from the character page:

"Annoying trait(s): had a reputation as a womanizer (as per Cavendish - see * "Metrical Visions", on the George Boleyn's Historical Profile) the series portrays him as having a homosexual affair with Mark Smeaton. Historian Eric Ives states that there is not one "scintilla" of evidence to support George as being a homosexual. In fact since the Buggery Act (outlawing sod*my) had been enacted in 1533, it is unlikely that Cromwell would not have evoked it as a cause for his arrest as he didn't balk at the incest charge."

Where are these comments/posts that you refer to? I have not seen any recent ones calling George a rapist. Point the way and one of our history whizes will get back with them.
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    

Georgedeservesbetter
12. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:02 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:02 AM EST
Wow, ok lets take a step back. At least it's got you talking about poor old George.
I made a point of saying in my original post that the Tudors doesn't pretend to be anything that it isn't. The point of this was that I don't have any problems with it in the same way as I do with Gregory, even though I hate the way they depict George.
The point I was making is that, because the Tudors doesn't hold itself out as being serious, I can't fathom why some people think it's historically accurate. As far as I know there are no comments to that effect on this site and I never said there were, but there are on numeruous other sites which clearly demonstrate that people take it seriously, which I cannot understand.
If I have offended anyone then I apologise because it wasn't my intention, but you have to accept there are a lot of daft people out there who have never read a history book in their lives and get their history purely from this and The Other Boleyn Girl. Because of their reaction to fiction the view of George as a monster is gaining momentum. He was a remarkable and brave young man and doesn't deserve that.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
Brooke9/7
Brooke9/7
13. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:05 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:05 AM EST
Here's a recent thread - http://tudorswiki.sho.com/thread/1342196/George

there's nothing in it but fair assessments and opinions of our boy Georgie based on historical scholarship (not the series) .
Do you find this valuable?    
tudorcrazy
tudorcrazy
14. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:05 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:05 AM EST
"Sit down, relax, and have a nice cup of tea. I don't believe for one moment anyone here believes that when watching The Tudors they're watching a documentary. No one here gets confused between Michael Hirst and David Starkey, and no one here has based any of their history papers/coursework/exams on what they have seen on this TV drama series.
Really, this kind of knee-reactionary rant is better suited to a Phillipa Gregory board, or something like that."
I agree Ellie. The Tudors is a soap opera that is based on the history of Henry the 8th. It is a feast for the eyes and ears. You can't say that about a history lecture from David Starky.
HOWEVER, I give Hirst tremendous credit for raising popular interest in Tudor history, among people other than historians, authors and museum curators.
Georgedeseavesbetter needs to calm down.
1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
MsSquirrly
MsSquirrly
15. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:09 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:18 AM EST
@Georgedeservesbetter....I think you will find you are preaching to the choir here. Most of our members are history buffs and if not they are more than willing to learn. As I know you have noticed...our profile on George sets the record straight pretty clearly.

Here is another thread to check out : http://tudorswiki.sho.com/thread/2373341/GEOGE+BOLEYN
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
tudorcrazy
tudorcrazy
16. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:13 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:13 AM EST
"The Tudors is a trashy TV show. There's nothing wrong with that. I like the odd episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The thing is, I don't believe there is a girl born into every generation who fights demons. So I am interested to know why certain people watch the Tudors and think they are watching a history documentary.
From some of the comments I've read, George Boleyn is apparently an evil homosexual wife rapist. The Tudors is fiction and doesn't pretend to be anything else. The depiction of George Boleyn is nothing more than artistic licence resulting in demonising an innocent young man for the purpose of entertainment. That's fine if you like that sort of thing, but why believe it? "
I think it is very insulting to compare the production of the Tudors with buffythe vampire slayer,whatever, or to call it trashy. The costumes, the acting, the guest appearances by some of the finest actors alive, Jeremy Northam, Peter O'toole, Max von Sidow, Sam Neill, my JRM is a newcomer compared to them. is just plain ridiculous. If you don't like it don't get involved here. We all know our Tudor History here and many of the folks here are historians and authors in their own right.
The Tudors-- Trashy, I think not. Sensational, and not always accurate, yes.
1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Conyle
Conyle
17. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:14 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:14 AM EST
"Wow, ok lets take a step back. At least it's got you talking about poor old George.
I made a point of saying in my original post that the Tudors doesn't pretend to be anything that it isn't. The point of this was that I don't have any problems with it in the same way as I do with Gregory, even though I hate the way they depict George.
The point I was making is that, because the Tudors doesn't hold itself out as being serious, I can't fathom why some people think it's historically accurate. As far as I know there are no comments to that effect on this site and I never said there were, but there are on numeruous other sites which clearly demonstrate that people take it seriously, which I cannot understand.
If I have offended anyone then I apologise because it wasn't my intention, but you have to accept there are a lot of daft people out there who have never read a history book in their lives and get their history purely from this and The Other Boleyn Girl. Because of their reaction to fiction the view of George as a monster is gaining momentum. He was a remarkable and brave young man and doesn't deserve that. "
Thanks for this elaboration of your thoughts. Now I get where you are coming from, and I think everyone else will as well. It really did sound at first as if you were stroking us with the same brush as those who believe everything they see or hear. That is what we were reacting to. And a belated welcome to the wiki!
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
Brooke9/7
Brooke9/7
18. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:24 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:24 AM EST
"Wow, ok lets take a step back. At least it's got you talking about poor old George.
I made a point of saying in my original post that the Tudors doesn't pretend to be anything that it isn't. The point of this was that I don't have any problems with it in the same way as I do with Gregory, even though I hate the way they depict George.
The point I was making is that, because the Tudors doesn't hold itself out as being serious, I can't fathom why some people think it's historically accurate. As far as I know there are no comments to that effect on this site and I never said there were, but there are on numeruous other sites which clearly demonstrate that people take it seriously, which I cannot understand.
If I have offended anyone then I apologise because it wasn't my intention, but you have to accept there are a lot of daft people out there who have never read a history book in their lives and get their history purely from this and The Other Boleyn Girl. Because of their reaction to fiction the view of George as a monster is gaining momentum. He was a remarkable and brave young man and doesn't deserve that. "
I see now, you mean other boards? I don't visit those other boards, so I wouldn't know what those ill-informed people are saying about George Boleyn. I'm glad you and all of the members who post about George or any Tudor-era historical figure here on TudorsWiki don't believe the fictional portrayals in the show or novel. Yes it is sad that there are some people out there who have only read fiction books and are not seeing the real story - like Reggie said, whenever those discussions come up, someone will clear the misunderstanding, so it's all good in this hood, so to speak.

As an aside, thank you for caring! I do kind of wish those mis-informed posters on other boards (whatever they are) would stop giving TudorsWiki a bad name! Peace, B
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    

Georgedeservesbetter
19. RE: Leave George alone
Feb 23 2010, 11:39 AM EST | Post edited: Feb 23 2010, 11:39 AM EST
I don't post on the other sites but I have read them with dawning horror. It's rather like watching a car crash. Yes they say George deserved to die because he was a vile rapist. There are others, including the belief that Anne's last miscarriage was his 'demon child'. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Sorry but I can't retract the view that the Tudors is trashy, but most TV is. As I said I like trashy and this isn't necessarily a critisism. I just wish they hadn't fed the fire of the current George bashing.
2  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
2 3 4 5 | Next

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.)