History Headscratchers / TheTudors

** 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.

** 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.

** 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.

*** 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.

** It 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?

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

* 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.

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

** The same goes for Archbishop Cranmer (Hans Matheson), as he played an important role in the events of seasons 3 & 4.

* More curiosity regarding behind-the-scenes rather than the show itself: if Henry Czerny/Duke of Norfolk was such an important character, why didn't they just [[TheOtherDarrin recast the role]]?

** 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.

* This isn't the fault of the producers, but why is everybody named ''Thomas?'' Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Tallis, Thomas Boelyn, Thomas More, Thomas Wolsey, Thomas Wyatt, etc. I'm sure I've forgotten more than half of them. I know they can't change peoples names; I just find it odd that so ''MANY'' people were named Thomas.

* Why do they switch between calling Prince Edward "Your Highness" and "Your Grace"? I mean, historically--at least going by Shakespeare--"Majesty" and "Grace" and "Highness" were all used for the sovereign, and everyone else was just "my lord," but it seemed like they were following basically modern styles, with the King being "Majesty" and the princesses being "Highness" and the dukes "Grace." I can understand why--it's probably less confusing for modern audiences--but why did they make Edward "Grace"? And then change their minds and make him "Highness"?

** 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.

** The people in charge believe the only way to get good ratings is to appeal to society's current aesthetic tastes. That and throw in a lot of sex and gore. Whether that belief is correct or not depends on how high or low your opinion of society is.

* Why do they cast people who are only attractive by today's standard? The king looks like a glamourpuss, he's wearing so much make-up and the women are skinny models.

* Why are there no functional marriages? All right, with Henry and his wives, there won't be, but his love life's not the only one we see on the show. Charles Brandon and his historical Tudor wife, Mary, seem to have been happy together. Margaret and Brandon, on the other hand, have a relationship that is initially fueled on what appears to be hate sex, and then Brandon starts his old playboy ways again. Speaking of Brandon, his second wife was never estranged from him, unlike in the show. But that. at least, had a plot reason to it, showing what loyalty to Henry costs Brandon. Then there's Edward and Anne Seymour... OK, where did they get the idea that Anne Stanhope was a slut? It was Edward's first wife, Catherine Filiol, who had an affair (with his father, which is probably where the Anne/Thomas Seymour in season 4 comes from). Even worse, there seems to be no plot reason for any of it, especially the Anne/Thomas, which was completely random. The bit with Surrey is the only part that's even mildly accurate, since Surrey does seem to have had a thing for Anne for a while. But Edward and Anne - like Brandon and Mary - were a happy pair in history (they had ten kids, so clearly...) but in the show they hate each other. The only healthy relationships seem to be the brief glimpses into Cardinal Wolsey's relationship with his mistress, Joan, or Brandon and his mistress, Brigitte.