History Headscratchers / TheTudors

18th Oct '17 6:25:05 PM Evighet
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** In real life, many of the attractive characters weren't considered attractive at the time. Anne Boleyn herself had a mole and a sixth finger. But, for the plot they changed it.

to:

** In real life, many of the attractive characters weren't considered attractive at the time. Anne Boleyn herself had a mole and a sixth finger. But, for the plot they changed it.

21st Mar '17 3:25:45 PM CapriciousSalmon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Because in real life marriages weren't made for love, more so for alliances and furthering the dynasty. In real life, yes, Charles had a pretty happy marriage, but sometimes with historical fiction, you need to change it up to make the story more compelling. In real life, Henry's son, Henry Fitzroy, died when he was a teenager from tuberculosis, but to make the story more dramatic and powerful, he dies as a child from sweating sickness, because from a storytelling perspective it's more powerful. And the children doesn't really mean that they loved each other, because even though you didn't like your spouse, you still needed to further your dynasty. For instance, Fernandid, King of Naples and Sicily wasn't in love with his wife, Maria Carolina of Austria, but that didn't stop them from having almost twenty children. Truth is, so much history has been lost or our sources are heavily biased, that a lot of facts, we don't know for certain.



** It does kind of make sense to cast people who are good looking by modern standards as characters who were considered attractive during their time period, in order to make it feel more [[RealityIsUnrealistic real]] for the audience. Cast someone who was considered good looking by 16th century standards, and people will just see it as InformedAttractiveness. Historical pieces often modernize other elements for [[RealityIsUnrealistic similar reasons]]. As far as having everyone be good looking... well, that's an issue with basically every show on TV, as well as every movie, comic book, video game, etc., with very few exceptions.

to:

** It does kind of make sense to cast people who are good looking by modern standards as characters who were considered attractive during their time period, in order to make it feel more [[RealityIsUnrealistic real]] for the audience. Cast someone who was considered good looking by 16th century standards, and people will just see it as InformedAttractiveness. Historical pieces often modernize other elements for [[RealityIsUnrealistic similar reasons]]. As far as having everyone be good looking... well, that's an issue with basically every show on TV, as well as every movie, comic book, video game, etc., with very few exceptions. And many of the noble characters are the result of inbreeding, which would make them look far more ugly than how the media portray them.




to:

** In real life, many of the attractive characters weren't considered attractive at the time. Anne Boleyn herself had a mole and a sixth finger. But, for the plot they changed it.




to:

** Also, Shakespeare isn't a reliable source, since many of his plays that are based upon works, such as Macbeth and Richard III are based upon propaganda at the time.



** There weren't very many first names in use in England at the time. Even as late as the 18th century, a quarter of all English men were named John.

to:

** There weren't very many first names in use in England at the time. Even as late as the 18th century, a quarter of all English men were named John. Usually, names would be reused as a way to honor relatives, saints, or ancestors. Even in real life, all of Henry's children were named to honor people: Mary was named after his sister, Mary Queen of France, who's story Margaret filled and with whom he had a close relationship; Elizabeth was named after his mother who died when he was a child and Anne Boleyn's mother; and Edward was named after Henry's grandfather and uncle and allegedly Edward the Confessor. Henry himself was named after his father, his predecessor Henry VII.
18th Sep '16 10:13:01 AM kundoo
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Yes. Because the rewriting of the history would be only notices by those vewers, who know history, while the recast would be obvious to everyone who watches the show.

to:

*** Yes. Because the rewriting of the history would be only notices noticed by those vewers, who know history, while the recast would be obvious to everyone who watches the show.
18th Sep '16 10:12:22 AM kundoo
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** Yes. Because the rewriting of the history would be only notices by those vewers, who know history, while the recast would be obvious to everyone who watches the show.
4th May '15 7:35:17 PM TrickyDick42
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

***Plus, King Henry VIII was quite handsome in his younger years. It was only after a severe leg injury that prevented him from playing sports that he turned into the morbidly obese man who's portraits people are familiar with.
3rd Dec '13 2:06:35 PM Ciara13
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It especially strange as the show had no problem recasting Jane Seymour.

to:

** It It's especially strange as the show had no problem recasting Jane Seymour.



*** More jarring than rewriting history and promoting other minor existing, or inventing completely new, characters to play 'Biff the Understudy' to Norfolk and Cranmer?

to:

*** More jarring than rewriting history and promoting other minor existing, or inventing completely new, new characters to play 'Biff the Understudy' to Norfolk and Cranmer?
27th Sep '13 3:27:22 PM Magwitch
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** More jarring than rewriting history and either promoting existing, or inventing completely new, characters to play 'Biff the Understudy' to Norfolk and Cranmer?

to:

*** More jarring than rewriting history and either promoting other minor existing, or inventing completely new, characters to play 'Biff the Understudy' to Norfolk and Cranmer?
27th Sep '13 3:26:02 PM Magwitch
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** They couldn't really write her character out of the show, from a historical perspective...
27th Sep '13 3:24:42 PM Magwitch
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** More jarring than rewriting history and either promoting existing, or inventing completely new, characters to play 'Biff the Understudy' to Norfolk and Cranmer?
30th Jul '13 2:30:46 PM RoseAndHeather
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* It bugs me that the show indulges in the "Sex equals ratings, so let's show as much sex as possible!" pandering often. Another point of contention I have with the show is the way they handled secondary characters. Aside from Wolsey, More, and Cromwell (who the audience actually gets to know), I couldn't care less about the advisor(s) of the seasons. Often times, they just disappeared into the ether without warning.

to:

* It bugs me that the show indulges in the "Sex equals ratings, so let's show as much sex as possible!" pandering often. Another point of contention I have with the show is the way they handled secondary characters. Aside from Wolsey, More, and Cromwell (who the audience actually gets to know), I couldn't care less about the advisor(s) of the seasons. Often times, they just disappeared into the ether without warning.
This list shows the last 10 events of 25. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheTudors