"But honestly, how can we know who was straight and who was gay in the past? Even now some people stay in the closet. When it was a hanging offense just about everyone stayed in the closet. So can we ever really say it's historically inaccurate to portray someone as gay in historical fiction?"

"I know there are allot of Surrey fans but I'm afraid I just didn't take to him. Maybe I've watched too many old Hollywood films but I felt his persona and line delivery to be too rough (or low class for lack of a better explanation) I've always seen the aristocracy more "genteel" . Even In 1969 Lion in Winter Peter O Tools portrayal of Henry felt right to me , he was a bit more "gruff" but it was a "messier" time in history and I feel he carried out the part of Henry well, but we are her to talk about the Tudors and in my opinion the Seymour's appeared more genteel than Surrey."

"So is it ok to say Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper because no one can prove it wasn't her? Can I say the Lindbergs killed their baby because, it could perhaps maybe happened? History is full enough with drama, there is no reason to make crap up just to push an agenda, sell tickets, make money, cause controversy etc."

"Pshaw. No one would ever say Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper, and if they did, and made a movie about it, a high caliber actor like Johnny Depp would never star in it! No way would Heather Graham appear in such a slanderous project and for sure not Robbie Coltrane or Susan Lynch! Oh...um...what? Oh. Never mind. ;p

But seriously folks, I don't consider choosing to portray someone as gay as being in the same category as portraying them as a baby-killer or one of history's most notorious serial killers. There may be some who feel homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore perceive a portrayal of homosexuality as a slanderous, but I don't. Furthermore, while 5-10% of the population is gay, my guess is that, 5-10% of the population is not made of of serial killers and baby-murderers. So, portraying Mary Tudor the Elder as murderer? Uncool. Portraying George Boleyn as gay? Nothing wrong with that. Portraying GB as a rapist? Bad."

"How come? Was it the actress or the way she was written?"

"Don't try to portray me as homophobic because I brought up a valid point. IF you cant prove crap then dont spout it out about a historical person. Portraying someone as gay who there is no proof was gay is the same as portraying someone as a murderer when there is no proof, the identical factor being it is a lie! The same way the fictional historical portrayal of Anne as an incestuous b---- is a lie! But people insist on using it just because it makes them feel special and important. "

"If there was any real credibility to the George Boleyn is gay rumors, chances are that someone would have proven it long ago. "

"The actress, I feel like she could have done a lot more with the character - I wish they had written into her a bit so we could have really known her but Stone's accent killed me and I found her very flat and dull. Which is a shame, I adore AoC through the research I have done :)"

"
BTW queen caroline has it officially been said that da Vinci was gay? I've heard the theories but I never heard if it was true or not. And I don't remember if it was Michelangelo or Donatello who I heard was gay. :runs off to google:"