This popped up all at once through various news sources, so I’ll just pick one:
From Broadcasting & Cable:
Jonathan Rhys-Meyers reign as King Henry VIII will end in 2010. Showtime has picked up a fourth and final season of drama The Tudors.
The series will return to the network for its final bow in Spring 2010, with production slated to begin this June in Dublin, Ireland.
Well it’s not like it could continue forever. The way they’ve been flying through history and condensing stuff, it was bound to end sooner rather than later.
This sentence in the story made me laugh and cringe at the same time:
“[The crew] have breathed new life into the costume drama by making it both modern in sensibility but also faithful to history.”
Faithful to history?!?!?!? Where did they learn their history? From a Harlequin Romance novel? A comic book?
Oi vey!
I have mixed feelings about this. I usually watch The Tudors with clinched teeth. And I agree with PhD Historian, what history is it they think they are being faithful to? They do seem to have gotten better in most aspects since season 1 though. I will give them credit for that. I just wish they would do season 1 over again and get it right. Also I will never turn down a chance to watch Henry Cavill. He is finally being given a very decent story line in season 3. I am, however, wondering about Francis Bryan. He seems to have wandered in from The Three Musketeers or a similar movie.
At least this series seems to have sparked some interest in the Tudors. I know I’ve gotten questions from friends I never knew were interested before.
I have a sneaking liking for the way “The Tudors” has put on screen many of the famous episodes and anecdotes that turn up in the period sources, which I haven’t seen in other movies or series — although they mangle them or modernize them in an absurd way. Last night, for example they acted out Jane Dormer’s allegation that Henry, claiming his daughter knew “no foul or unclean speeches,” sent Sir Francis Bryan to test Lady Mary’s virtue … but how? Through a remark? Attempted seduction? A quick grope? What? What? Jane Dormer — or her interlocutor, Queen Mary, recalling the incident — refuses to specify.
Last night we found out! Of course, Hirst & Co. invented Bryan’s approach as being vulgar — but vulgar in a graphic 21st-century way. I think the original remark or jest would have been just a tad more decorous, or at least involved some courtly, if bawdy, wordplay. Also, I am not sure the word involved was actually in use back then.
But still, I enjoyed seeing it done. Nobody else has had a go at that one.
Foose, I presume you get Showtime since you saw ep. 2. Does your cable have OnDemand? If so, you can see each episode a full week in advance. I watched ep. 3 yesterday. I am just glad that Henry Cavill is getting some really decent story lines this season.
Hii,
I am of Brazil and I love the series The Tudors, I would like that you entered in contact with me to be able to change ideas on this incredible history.
I wait its reply anciosamente!
Kisses, Vit
Thank goodness it’s over. My eyeballs are out of their sockets after all the rolling they do when I watch it.
I think the retelling of history is very interesting and tells us a lot about ourselves. After 500 years, what could possibly be different yet we still find new ways to tell the story. One of the themes in this version is about power, power, power, the ability to do whatever you want, and how it is corrupting and eventually boring – would not have played well in Agnes Strickland’s time. I do wish they would do a better job with the costumes though.
I have enjoyed watching season 1 and 2 of the Tudors and am looking forward to season 3 which will be aired sometime in august. I know that the series hasn’t been all that accurate but some of the story has been accurate.Thats probably because the scriptwriters and the creaters of The Tudors don’t know much about the Tudor period.So naturally it would have some scenes in it that are wrong and not only that I think bits have been added to make the series more intersting and appealing to the viewer otherwise perhaps the show wouldn’t have got as many views as it did.I think that this is the reason why.I will continue to watch the series until it ceases at the end of season 4.
I think Denise has a hugely valid point: Showtime’s version of “The Tudors” tells us far more about ourselves than it does about the people who are being portrayed. Well said, Denise!
Now, I’m dying to know what the mysterious word was that Foose referred to … something with four letters, I assume. The “F bomb”? The female-specific C word? Both were definitely in common use in the 16th century. So was the S word. Hmmmm… enquiring minds want to know…..
It was the Latin term for a certain activity beginning with c and suggesting, shall we say, a crafty wordsmith, and I think if Bryan had actually said it that a reputable Latin scholar like Mary would have been able to work out what it meant, even if she hadn’t come across the word in her Education of a Christian Woman homeschooling.
I know the the frank Anglo-Saxon “c word” noun you mention was in fairly common use in the 16th century, but this Latin term? I’m uncertain about it because there’s the whole cultural point about men being dominant, and this activity might have been regarded as making a man subordinate to a woman.
Essentially, in the scene (Mary’s reinstatement at a court fete – “some would have the chiefest jewel in my realm put to death,” etc., etc.) Bryan approached Mary at Henry’s instigation, asked her if she had heard of a new court game, and upon her query as to what the game was, uttered the word. Mary looked somewhat blank but also uncomfortable; in this retelling she might still have not known what it meant but with some leering cyclops accosting her in this pointed manner, she might have had an inkling.
I have stayed quiet about the Tudor series because I know most of the people who visit this site regularly are not fans. Over the last few months, I have got many letters from young people saying that the reason why they purchased my book was because they loved the show and wanted to learn the truth behind the drama. I would bet authors of adult nonfiction are experiencing the same boost in sales.
If you watch the show regularly you will find that the writers did include many real historical details. Some of you might already know that I write a regular post after every episode of the Tudor detailing what is real and what is creative license. If you skim through the last posts, you will find a lot of real history behind the bodice ripping.
Episode 1:
http://blog.raucousroyals.com/2009/03/tudors-historical-vs-hollywood.html
Episode 2:
http://blog.raucousroyals.com/2009/04/tudors-historical-vs-hollywood-episode.html
The Tudors is certainly no John Adams, but honestly I am not sure a John Adams type of historical drama would have created any interest in an American market. I give talks to librarians, teachers and young adults throughout the year and this may come as a shock to the Tudor junkies but
What first got me into the Tudor family, reading their histories, about their courtiers, the state of England during the 1500’s, etc, was due to a hysterical fiction book. Shortly thereafter the dramatic movies were discovered and, for a while, those were soaked in for additional information (“Anne of a Thousand Days” is my personal favorite with “Mary, Queen of Scots” an extremely close second). Any questions I had lead me back to the bios and other such books.
Then I went through a period where anything about the Tudor’s that didn’t follow the prescribed historical record sent me into fits!!! Numerous times a program would try to be watched and my hands would just go up in despair and rage that the makers of the program could get it SOOOO wrong. I’m sure my husband thought I was loony, especially as he kept telling me to just enjoy it for the entertainment value. My first instance of this was “Elizabeth” with Cate Blanchett.
Finally, I settled down considerably. I can enjoy “The Tudors” on Showtime while softly chuckling to myself at the inaccuracies…and then grinning with delight when something that really did occur is shown.
Carlyn…you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for your words 🙂
Foose, the linguistic issue you referred to earlier was apparently unknown in the sixteenth century. The OED traces the word only as far back as 1887. The OED is usually very reliable for etymologies. I do note from another source, however, that it was common in the sixteenth century for persons to leap enthusiastically and head first into fur-lined tubular handwarmers.
Phd historian, thanks! Now I know for certain …
Where is episode 3 of season 3?
Of the Tudors.When will the link be posted online in the news and events page?
Tudorrose, I’m not sure what you’re asking about? I’ve only posted a link to the first episode of this season (which had been offered as a free preview).
oh because carlyn beccia poted information on episode 1 and episode 2 of series 3 of the Tudors.series 3 started april 5.The third episode was on on the 19th of april.I am just waiting for the follow up on that.Because as I live in the uk season 3 dosent air until august.But it has started already in the usa on showtime tv.
Oh, I see. Well, coincidentally I just posted a link to her write-up of the 3rd episode! I haven’t had a chance to watch the episode yet, so I haven’t read that write-up but I’m sure it is as informative as the first two she did.
For all my sour faces at the screen, it is entertaining. But I think it’s much better when they’re not trying so hard to be soapy (like the fourth Musketeer that Kathy mentioned) and tell the story. It is obvious that they’ve done their homework, but they don’t think that telling it straight will keep the audience they’ve won.
@ Carlyn
The show really is a great opportunity to get young (or old, for that matter) people interested in history, and I love what you’ve been doing with it! One of my in-laws teaches high school, and I’ve been pushing your site at her for a while.
Lara, thanks for posting the link! And MC thanks for referring the site.
I spoke to a group of 6th graders today about history