The Tudors on Showtime
Sunday, April 1, at 10 pm Eastern, Showtime will premiere the first episode of its new historical drama series, The Tudors.
Thanks to my satellite TV provider, I was able to get a sneak preview of the first two installments, edited down slightly from the full episodes Showtime will be airing. When I saw the promos say "Forget everything you know. This is the UNTOLD story," I thought, Uh-oh! Here's the perfect excuse for the producers to put any darn thing they please on the screen and call it "artistic license," while people who don't know any better will think this is how things really were in 16th-century England. I got out my books on Henry and Tudor England and prepared myself for disappointment.
I can't tell you how pleased I am that I was wrong, wrong, wrong.
After some seriously bad historical documentaries (the latest being the dreadful Dark Ages special from the History Channel), I didn't expect a semifictional drama to come close to being historically accurate. Heck, I never expect historical accuracy from TV or film. But the writers and producers of The Tudors have really done their homework. I kept looking for mistakes and misrepresentations, but each time I thought I'd caught them out, my biography of Henry (by J. J. Scarisbrick; University of California Press, 1968) backed them up all the way.
Virtually everything in this production is spot-on -- the sets, the events, the details of daily life -- all of it is thoroughly-researched and beautifully presented. And fortunately for the viewer, the production value is high (awesome cinematography!) and the performances are all terrific.
I'm sure more sharp-eyed viewers than I will catch some errors (feel free to post them in our forum), and purists may have some trouble with the casting. Sam Neill may be going gray but he's still far too attractive to be mistaken for the toad-like Cardinal Wolsey on Wolsey's best day. Anne Boleyn was entrancing, but not particularly pretty -- and she was dark-eyed; Natalie Dormer is very pretty and blue eyed.
And then there's Henry.
Don't get me wrong. I am well aware that the young King Henry VIII was known to be in excellent physical condition (only after an injury in middle-age slowed down his activities, but not his appetites, did he pack on the pounds) and had been described as very handsome. But he was red-haired, dark-eyed, fair-skinned and tall, none of which describe Jonathan Rhys Meyers.
But if these kinds of things bother you, it might help you to remember that a) you're not watching a documentary and b) there are more important things in bringing a character to life than superficial physical resemblance.
Neill may not look like Wolsey, but he sure did act the part of the obsequious, manipulative, judgmental, ambitious churchman with complete believability. Dormer's eyes may be blue but in the few scenes I saw her in they certainly revealed a depth and darkness; and her smile was most Boleyn-like. And Jonathan Rhys Meyers turns in a powerhouse performance. His Henry is energetic, arrogant, fickle, passionate, neurotic, childish and, even without the customary height, majestic.
This is clearly historical drama at its best, and I can hardly wait to see what future episodes hold. Unfortunately, wait is just what I'll have to do, until the show comes out on DVD. I don't get Showtime.
- Watch the first two episodes online (if your connection is fast enough)
- Compare Prices on J. J. Scarisbrick's biography of Henry VIII
- Learn about the real Tudors in a History through Portraits
- Explore Medieval Britain resources
The portrait of Henry VIII was painted by Hans Holbein the Younger c. 1536; the graphic is in the public domain.
Daily Features
March 31 in Medieval History
Medieval History Site of the Day for March 31
Castle of the Day for March 31
Comments
I keep picturing Henry VIII as the actor Keith Michele from ages ago, or more recently Ray Winstone.
I only saw part of the Ray Winstone version, but I thought he really looked the part, and he was every inch the “bluff Hal” character. Jonathan Rhys Meyer pulls out all the stops in this production; he doesn’t look anything like Henry, but after a little while that doesn’t matter.
How is Catherine of Aragon portrayed? Who plays her and is she given any depth? You need a good, strong Catherine, or you’re not going to be fulfilling all the drama in the story, and you’re not going to be accurate no matter what they say.
The actress who portrays Catherine of Aragon is Maria Doyle Kennedy. Thus far, she has portrayed Catherine with dignity, sensitivity and — yes — strength. The real test will come when Henry tries to get his divorce and Catherine resists him. I hope she’ll be able to portray the eloquence and resolve that Catherine displayed during that ordeal, but I’ll have to wait and see.
Perhaps it’s a bit late to get in on the discussion, but there are two glaring historical inaccuracies in this series. Firstly, in the years they are dramatizing, Henry was well into his forties – not the young, buff fellow we see here. It’s hard to imagine this Henry is barely twenty – let alone married for twenty years! Secondly, the story of his sister is entirely inaccurate – every single detail of it. They seem to have her confused with Mary Tudor, and even then, they have taken some lisence with her story.
In all, though, I am a huge fan. I really hope the show will go through for another season…can’t wait to see what they do with the “conclusion” of Henry and Anne’s relationship…
It’s never too late to share your thoughts! I’m glad you did.
According to the IMDb, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will turn 30 in July. He really looks nothing like Henry, but he’s actually older than the king was at the Field of the Cloth of Gold (a few days shy of his 29th birthday). Henry was in his mid-30s when he started his relationship with Anne, and not yet 42 when they wed. Since I’ll never see 40 again, I like to think of 42 as “the prime of life”
Henry was probably never as buff as Rhys-Meyer, but he was actually in excellent physical condition until an injury slowed him down, and he didn’t start to fatten up until he was well into his 40s, probably after Jane Seymour’s death.
(You can get this data in myWho’s Who profile of Henry.)
I haven’t been able to watch more than the first two episodes, so I have no idea what they’re doing with the Mary/Margaret/whoever storyline. Probably messing it up pretty badly. Still, even if half of what you see on the screen is inaccurate, this fictional program would still be better than some documentaries I’ve seen recently on the History Channel.
I wondered why they messed up with the mary/margred deal. And that is an important thing. Considering that after Elizabeth I James V i think was crowned which was marys son
I would like to correct my mistake I ment James I instead of V
You’re thinking of Mary Stewart (Queen of Scots). She was James’ mother. Mary Tudor (Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon’s daughter) never married and had no children.
Mary,
You’re thinking of events a few decades later than those under discussion in these comments and the wrong Mary Tudor. Clearly there’s some confusion regarding the various women named Mary, so let me clear it up here.
First, Henry VIII had two sisters that lived to adulthood: Margaret (b. 1489) and Mary (b. 1496). Because they were daughters of Henry VII, whose surname was Tudor, they were Tudors, as well. Although I have not seen any more of the Showtime series, I believe it is these two sisters that the program is mixing up.
Margaret Tudor married King James IV of Scotland and gave birth to the boy James, who would become King James V of Scotland. After James IV’s death, Margaret remarried and got involved in some political troubles. Find out more about Margaret Tudor in this page by About Guide to Women’s History Jone Johnson Lewis.
Margaret’s son, King James V, would father Mary Stuart, better known as “Mary, Queen of Scots,” who would have quite an eventful life and, along the way, give birth to a son named James. (If any one of them had just thought to name their kid “Aloysius” the family tree would be much easier to understand!) James, the son of Mary Stuart, would become King James VI of Scotland and, after the death of Elizabeth I, King James I of England.
Whew!
Mary Tudor — the younger of the two surviving sisters of Henry VIII — married King Louis XII of France. She was soon widowed (fortunately for her — the guy was decades older than she was) and married Charles Brandon, which ticked Henry off. Find out more about Henry’s sister Mary Tudor in >a href=”http://tudorhistory.org/people/mary2/”>this page at Lara Eakins’ Tudor History site.
Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon had only one child who survived to adulthood: Mary Tudor. She did marry, but unfortunately her husband Philip (who would later become Philip II of Spain) despised her. She never had any children, although she had two miscarriages or phantom pregnancies, depending on which version of events you’d like to believe.
There are other noble and royal ladies named Mary but, for now, this should clear up the subject under discussion.
Ack! Sorry about the link error. The page for Mary Tudor is here.
So why has Showtime sent Margaret off to marry the Portugese king in Lisbon. I see nowhere that Manuel I was old and in need of a wife. The storyline should have been written for Henry’s other sister Mary who did marry France’s Louis XII in Oct 1514 with Henry’s promise that she could marry anyone she wanted after he Louis died. Louis died 3 months later. Mary,not Margaret, then married Charles Bramford. Why the ‘license’ to switch to Portugal and confuse the characters? It would work just as well if they had stuck to history.
This is the worst review I have ever read. This is an abortion of a show and there is not one interesting observation on it either way.
How can you say that there are no inaccuracies?
For example, the duke of Buckingmam (III) who got executed was not the father, but the brother of Anne Stafford, they were both children of the 2nd Duke of Buckingham. Plus … Anne Stafford had an Affair with Henry and she was 8 years older than the king .. and 6 years younger than the 3rd Duke of Buckingham.
There is no evidence that Thomas Thallis was gay .. so it is kind of weird to put it in there.
How about George Boleyn? He was a friend of the king, and at least in season 1, the king does not even know him.
The king is much too young for someone married for 18 years …
they completely mixed up the kings sisters ..
and Henry Fitzroy dies much to early .. I think, in real life he was between 12 and 17 when he died ..
Bessie Blount was not married when she had sex with the king .. he arranged some unspectacular marriage after he lost interest in her.
The whole thing is shockingly inaccurate, the worse one probably being the suicide of Wolsey. I really can’t work out why the makers did that.
Still. I love it. I cant get enough of it, inaccuracies and all.