4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great Entertainment
You seem to get so many people criticising the show for it's inaccuricies, but the book/show are great in actually making a part of history fun and interesting again, which makes us strive for more!
The reason i say this is that i am a young person and actually couldn't remember covering this subject at school, but the show was portrayed in such away that it made me...
Published on 13 Nov 2008 by Marc Dean
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Let's get the balance right
The two reviews highlighted as the best of the 'for' and 'against'arguments both make a number of good points. I am usually a stickler for the facts, but this book and TV production is not without some merit. Confusing serious students may be an issue (although they should be up to the challenge!), but if we can engage more young people generally with our history and stop...
Published on 7 Oct 2008 by C. ASHCROFT
Most Helpful First | Newest First
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Let's get the balance right,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)The two reviews highlighted as the best of the 'for' and 'against'arguments both make a number of good points. I am usually a stickler for the facts, but this book and TV production is not without some merit. Confusing serious students may be an issue (although they should be up to the challenge!), but if we can engage more young people generally with our history and stop them from switching off at the mere mention of anything that happened more than a week ago, that has to be seen as a little progress - even if it is through a story with numerous historical inaccuracies (and, to be fair, the producers never pretended otherwise!). And in defence of the TV programme, its actors, script and settings did create a real sense of menace and dark forboding throughout the series - which in many ways matched the definitive production with Keith Michele many years ago. We only have to recall the more recent attempts involving the hopelessly mis-cast Ray Winstone to show how wrong it can all go, whether the facts are historically correct or not.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Great Entertainment,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)You seem to get so many people criticising the show for it's inaccuricies, but the book/show are great in actually making a part of history fun and interesting again, which makes us strive for more!
The reason i say this is that i am a young person and actually couldn't remember covering this subject at school, but the show was portrayed in such away that it made me want to reasearch the subject further which i am pleased to have now done....
Also the acting is superb, and i believe that Natalie is by far one of the best actresses to portray Anne Boleyn.
Bring on season 3!
40 of 49 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The Tudors: Fiction or History?,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)Like another reviewer, I was somewhat appalled to find that history had been so altered. It is a question of cheering when something that is factual actually happens, rather than a question of spotting a few mistakes. It is not as if the REAL history events were not interesting either; indeed they were more so,thus I cannot see the point of the series having changed so much for apparently no reason at all.
Apart from the numerous "faux pas" about the sisters, they have the timing of events all wrong. The King had two sisters, the elder Margaret married the King of Scotland, James IV, years before, in Henry VII's reign, before Henry VIII was even King. The younger, Mary, was reputed a beauty and was legendary for it across Europe. She was betrothed by her father Henry VII to Charles V of Netherlands and Spain, who we see in the series. It is CHarles V's advisers who break off this marriage, just as it is about to take place. Henry VIII, angered by this, then betrothes and marries his sister Mary to the King of France ( NOT the King of Portugal). The King of France at the time is NOT Francois I but his father, who was aged 60 odd at the time, and this takes place several years before the book/TV series begins. The real Mary Tudor does not marry the King of Portugal, nor does she kill her husband... but she IS widowed early on, and Charles Brandon does go, on Henry's instruction to bring her back to England. IT is Mary who proposes to Charles Brandon, and persuades him to marry her. (Charles father, William Brandon, had been Henry VII's standard bearer at the Battle of Bosworthand was killed. His son Charles was then brought up with the royal children, so Charles Brandon and Mary would have known each other from a young age).
When Charles V of Spain and Netherland visits France, he sees Mary ( his ex-betrothed), now Mary Brandon and evidence from the time states that he cursed his advisers for breaking off the match because she was clearly so beautiful and he could see what he missed! It is at this stage that he accepted a betrothal to the OTHER Mary, the daughter.
Yet at this point in the series "the Tudors", the Mary/Margaret character had not yet left to marry the King of Portugal!! The real "sister" Mary was in fact in love with Brandon, yet in The Tudors book and series, she seems to be portrayed as disliking him to start with. Because they altered the timing, the "Margaret" in the series has to marry the "wrong" king, and appears older than Henry VIII when she was in fact, younger. The whole thing is a timing shambles.
Possibly it may give a view of Wolsey as a scheming diplomat, or of More as a carful and devout man, but in my view if the book follows the series, it will be fiction and not fact. A shame, as the real story is just as good. They also miss the fact that Mary Boleyn was married off by Henry and was in fact "around" as his mistress far longer than was suggested in this.
As if those inaccuracies weren't enough there are more!
Lady Bessie Blount's son did not die as a child, but as a young man, after he had married into the DUke of Norfolk's family, the Howards. In fact Henry VIII was considering putting a proposal to Parliament to make the young man his heir, which would have solved a number of problems!!
Nor did Anne Boleyn sleep with Henry VIII so early on. ON the contrary she held back until probably 1532, then fell pregant quickly. (Read Ives' biography of Anne for a more accurate view of her)- It as her pregnancy which forced Hnery's hand to decalre himself Head of the Church and reject papal authority , after the "enquiry" by Campeggio was parogued to Rome.
Anne had also been a lady in waiting to Mary ( the sister) when Mary was Queen of France, and returned to the English court later - Henry in fact pursued Anne Boleyn for a number of years, whereas this gives the impression it was less.
I agree that Starkey's history and Alison Weir's books are much better for an examiniation of the History. There are also books by David Loades and John Guy . (Or if you want an older classic biogrqaphy of Henry VIII, there is the famous one by J.J. Scarisbrick).
If you want a good read on Henry's two sisters, there is a fabulous book by Maria Perry "Sisters of the King" which is a more academic work and tells the TRUE stories, which are even more interesting and indeed scandalous, if that is what they think appeals to TV watchers who no doubt are those at whom the book is aimed.
The other problem about the "divorce" question, as portrayed in the series, is that Wolsey was working on betrothing HENRY VIII to a FRENCH princess, and THAT is why he got a shock to discover Henry had his eye on marrying Anne. A possible reason why Anne Boleyn dislikes Wolsey, was that Anne was engaged to marry Henry Percy of Northumberland, and it is suspected Wolsey,at the King's request, had Percy married off elsewhere, to prevent the match.There was also an Irish match (which would have solved a land inheritance question) proposed for Anne, which Wolsey also delays on... in order to leave Anne free to become the King's mistress...as her sister had been. He did not expect Henry to want to marry her.
(Perhaps the kING'S two sisters were amalgamated and given the name Margaret in The Tudors because the script writers thought the audience too stupid to be able to cope with the fact that there were two Marys - ie. that Henry VIII had a sister called Mary AND a daughter called Mary, and thought the audience would be unable to work out the difference..... depite the fact that they are vey different in age...!)
"The Tudors" may be someone's idea of history for a TV series, but it is not factual, and the many errors are counterproductive. As a teacher I am already having to correct my pupils, who think it is telling real history. I also mark A level and am dreading what I am going to read next year...
Books based on series like this, which alter history for their own purposes, do REAL history little service. Interpretation of historical facts is one thing -altering the facts themselves is another... Clearly the writers of the Tudors do not think that difference matters.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Tudors,
Amazon Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)Bought this book for myself after following the TV series The Tudors.Up to now the book doesn't disappoint ,it really draws you in& you can almost feel what the characters are feeling .At present I am half way through reading it.I can recommend it to anyone who likes history.A very easy read. A five star rating.
19 of 24 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars fake history,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)I have watched the TV series so far but have to admit that I would only buy the book as a work of fiction if it is well written & entertaining. As for the TV version, history it is not! There are so many historical inaccuracies that I've stopped counting: the real Henry was not given so much to smouldering as to exploding. As a young man he was truly the golden boy, tall & strongly built, towering head & shoulders above most of his fellows (go & see his suit of armour in the Tower of London), fun-loving & much loved, red of hair & fair of complexion . He had 2 sisters: the younger, Mary (not Margaret) married the King of France (not Portugal) then Charles Brandon Duke of Suffolk. Elder sister Margaret married the King of Scotland (granddaughter Mary Queen of Scots & great grandson James VI of Scotland, King James I of England). The chronology of the series is all over the place too but much could be forgiven if the editing had been more sringent - as it is, its becoming like The Archers - as long as you watch it now & then, you can keep up with the story; watching every episode is becoming slow & boring. Perhaps the book will have corrected some of the most glaring inaccuracies & it may be a rollicking good read, but examine it before buying. If you want entertaining real history, read Winston Churchill's History of the English-speaking peoples, Simon Schama's histories or Alison Weir. I'll reserve judgement but fear it will follow The Rag Trade's: 'never mind the quality, feel the width'!
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Adaptation,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)You all seem to forget that The Tudors is an adaptation!! It doesnt have to be 100% correct as you all seem to think. What is wrong with taking a piece of history and making it exciting and sexy! Have fun with it, enjoy it!
19 of 25 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars How could they?,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)How on earth are you supposed to get people interested in History when people do things like this? Production quality superb but content a load of rubbish. The problem is a lot of people are going to watch this and think its true. Imagine poor kids trying to write exams on it. This is one of our most interesting periods of history there was no need to fictionalise it. I think it should have a big disclaimer on the front - BEARS ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP TO HISTORICAL FACTS - it might be what happened to the Tudors in a parrallel universe but it certainly didn't happen in this one.
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars brilliant,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)I could not agree LESS with the reviews claiming this book (and the series itself) to be bad! It is a TV adaptation of the story, the clue is in the wording, it doesn't claim to be a documentary! I agree that the real events were also interesting, but the series is brilliant and I'm completely addicted.
To any teachers who wish to complain, I put it to you that it is your job to teach the actual facts and that children watching and, as a result, believing it all to be factual, may be a strong indication that they were not taught it properly in the first place, rather than a reflection on the TV series. The series has generated tremendous interest in the Tudors and this period in history, particularly with the young, which can only be a positive thing.
The reality is that the vast majority of people are bright enough to realise that TV dramas are not going to be 100% factually accurate, and the vast majority of those DO NOT CARE! The Tudors is watched (and read) for entertainment, and entertaining it definately is!
6 of 10 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars disservice to history,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)What a terrible shambles - nothing can possibly justify this travesty.
I think the title alone is misleading - The Tudors leads one to suppose that it is about ALL the Tudors, not just the early days of Henry VIII.
Having read the other reviews, with which I heartily concur, I cannot bring myself to re-iterate all that has been previously said; however, another faux pas is that whilst Henry and Francois Premier were vying with each other on the Field of the Cloth of Gold (Anne Boleyn was there as a member of the court, but probably not yet Henrys mistress). Katherine of Aragon was Regent in England, dealing with the Battle of Flodden Field where Margaret Tudors husband, James IV was slain, leaving their two sons fatherless.
Also, Wolsey did NOT commit suicide - he was arrested by Henry Percy at Cawood Castle ( an ironic touch, bearing in mind Percys previous association with Anne Boleyn); and on his way south, already a broken and sick man, he died naturally at Leicester.
This travesty of history has brought shame on the author, and cannot be justified in any way - heaven help GCSE and A level students who might have thought this would present history in an informative and palateable way.
5 of 9 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars absolutely agree,
This review is from: The Tudors (Paperback)Oh how I agree with the above comments, I haven't seen such dreamt up history for a long time and yes I am very worried people may try and learn history from this. As already stated one can forgive a few bits here and there, but this is too much to cope with. Why on earth did Margaret have to marry a King of Portugal? Wasn't France interesting enough (and that is before adding that Margaret was Mary!)? Or was it because the timing was several years out. To give an idea....most of the series is based in and arround the 1520's. Margaret became queen of Scotland in 1503, Mary queen of France in 1514, "Bess" Blount gave birth to Henry FitzRoy in 1519! Well I think everything has been said by others before me...
Most Helpful First | Newest First
The Tudors by Michael Hirst (Paperback - 3 Dec 2007)