I posted this over on the Q&A blog, but I thought it would be worth repeating here since I’m still getting questions about it:
As I’m sure some of you have figured out by now, the portrayal of Margaret Tudor’s story in the Showtime series is NOT the same as the life of the real Margaret Tudor. In the series, the story is basically that of Mary Tudor (Henry VIII’s sister), but my guess is that they decided to use Margaret’s name to avoid any confusion with the other Mary Tudor (Henry VIII’s daughter).
Since the series started out in 1520 when Francis I was already King of France, they couldn’t fit the real marriage saga of Mary Tudor into the series timeline as it actually happened in history. In reality Mary married Louix XII of France in 1514 and he died a few months later in 1515 and was succeeded by Francis I. Since this all took place before the time that the series started (1520), they moved it to a later year and used the King of Portugal instead of the King of France. Mary (or Margaret, in the series) does later marry Charles Brandon and they are the grandparents of the ill-fated Lady Jane Grey.
The real Margaret Tudor was married to James IV of Scotland (and had two marriages after that) and was the mother of James V of Scotland, who in turn was the father of Mary Queen of Scots. Margaret’s great-grandson was James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England after the death of Elizabeth I. So, as you can see, Margaret’s real story is very different from that of the character with that name in the Showtime series.
Now, to complicate things even further, the character biographies on the Showtime series website give the history of the REAL characters, which will be quite confusing to anyone who reads them and is watching the series (and seeing a different story!).
If you think about it, it’s like trying to fit a huge Harry Potter book into a one-hour movie. You just can’t, without sacrificing certain aspects, plots, even characters, etc.
The Tudor Age is really very complex and “involved” and trying to pare it down and package it into segments is a job I wouldn’t wish on any show writer. Frankly, they’d never be able to do it justice. As a Tudor fan, I’m just glad they’re trying! 🙂
A good point, but if the show is called “The Tudors,” why not start a few years back with Henry VII’s reign, the initial marriage problems with Catherine, and the stories of his sisters, etc? The “first” Tudor family is very soap-opera worthy, though you’re right about the potter comparison. Still, look at I, Claudius: a zillion characters with unfamiliar Roman names and covering nearly a hundred years of fairly accurate history–and its still essentially just a good drama.
–just-a-groundling-in-miami
I’d love to see someone tackle the Wars of the Roses all the way into Henry VII’s reign, but I think the later Tudors are considered more sexy and marketable. Or at least Henry VIII and Elizabeth I and maybe Jane Grey, since the others tend to get overlooked, except when they are brought in tangentially into the others’ stories.
I’ve noticed that they do at least have a painting of Henry VII on one of the walls in one of the rooms that they’ve used in several episodes!
I’m compulsively watching “The Tudors” but I cringe the entire time. Michael Hirst did “Elizabeth” and “The Golden Age” and while I understand he wants to dramatize everything and has to scrunch up some dates…his view of Tudor England and his regard to history is totally backwards. “Elizabeth” was bad…and “The Tudors” is well acted but in regards to history…well I like the opening in that show, “You think you know the whole story…” but obviously Michael Hirst never researched the “whole story” to begin with.
Hear, hear, Nicole. I agree with your assesment of the series. It is poorly written, but well acted. Im especially impressed with Natalie Dormer.
And yes, “the whole story”–if researched–would play out better. As with much history, the real story is always better than anything created out of the air…
–just-a-groundling-in-miami
I admit the series is addicting, sexy and well acted (although I don’t think Rhys Meyers is right for the part–doesn’t seem naturally strong and arrogant, like Brandon, his acting seems forced. Love Natalie and I’m now obsessed with everthing Henry Cavill. Any way, like most people, when I see or hear something that sparks my interest, I run to the Internet and search for all information possible. If the series is going to be different from the actual history and the family trees right on the Showtime website, there should have been a disclaimer. I’ll keep watching and hope another season has been approved.
So, the series is poorly written because it’s historically inaccurate?
I think many of you are confusing the difference between a historical drama and a documentary. If “THE TUDORS” had been a documentary, you would have reason to complain. But it’s not. It’s a historical drama. There is no such thing as complete historical accuracy when it comes to drama. While reading a book on novel writing, the author made this point – when writing a historical novel, if historical facts get in the way of one’s story, ignore it.
If you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary or read a history book. And even then, your chances of acquiring accurate facts will probably not be complete.