PLEASE let this stick to the historic facts…
-
greeneyedgirly — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 01:16 AM)
As much as I loved Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn in The Tudors, I couldn't help but be distracted by her ethereal fair skin and piercing blue eyes. Anne Boleyn was described in her day as having olive skin and beautiful dark eyes.
The Venetian diplomat, Francesco Sanuto, described Anne as: Not one of the handsomest women in the world; she is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, a bosom not much raised and eyes which are black and beautiful.
Also, David Starkey (modern author of Tudor era books) states that her eyes were large and black and she deployed them with practiced skill: Sometimes keeping them in repose; on other occasions, sending them forth as messengers, to carry the secret witness of the heart. Such was their power, that many men were hers to command.
I did enjoy The Tudors for what it was, at least as it appeared to me; a Renaissance soap opera, lol. -
greenegg — 10 years ago(April 12, 2015 03:20 PM)
Well-said, greeneyedgirly. The best two Anne Boleyns were Genevieve Bujold and Dorothy Tutin.
I couldn't sit through The Tudors since I can't stand bodice-rippers, and I especially detest Rhys-Meyers, who was appallingly miscast.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops! -
ida96 — 10 years ago(October 15, 2015 05:56 PM)
Agree totally that The Tudors was trashy and sexed up for a younger audience, and that J Rhys-Meyers was not Henry VIII in any conceivable way or alternate reality. Genevieve and Dorothy were each lovely as Anne, but the style of acting when they portrayed her looks a bit stilted now.
-
KatharineFanatic — 11 years ago(January 17, 2015 01:04 PM)
You're right, The Tudors is tosh but it was gorgeous tosh.
Though you're wrong; Anne of Cleves was present with Katherine Howard in the show, not Anne Boleyn. And though Henry found her repulsive, she's actually the prettiest of the wives in the paintings of them.
Wolf Hall is a heavily fictionalized account of the story through Cromwell's bias he is the unsung hero of the saga, whereas everyone else is a villain, particularly Thomas More.
If you are looking for "the truth," you may never find it for even the information passed down in straight up biographies on the wives are based on events told through contemporaries, with all their presumed biases (Anne Boleyn is best known through the writings of Eustace Chapuys who as the Spanish ambassador, a long-time friend of Katharine of Aragon, and a fierce Mary Tudor supporter hated Anne's guts).
Point is, we can't know exactly what any of them were like, so one retelling is just as speculative as another. In terms of historical "truth" in the sequence of events, however, yes, "The Tudors" dropped the ball. As may "Wolf Hall" having found the book pretentious and badly written, I skimmed my way through it. -
PaulDowsett — 11 years ago(January 18, 2015 09:39 AM)
KatharineFanatic
, thanks for correcting me about Boleyn. I had watched the episode where Cleves arrived at court, and spotted numerous glaring errors. Admittedly, it was a long time ago and I can't recall the exact details.
It may have been that when Anne of Cleves arrived at court, Henry introduced her to Catherine Howard, even though, in reality, Catherine was not brought in until later, specifically as Anne's maid. They certainly wouldn't have been so familiar, considering they were from different classes. It also missed out Henry's disastrous ambush, as Anne travelled to London, and thus the atmosphere between them would have been undoubtedly far less jovial.
I'm happy for artistic license to be used for meetings, conversations, character idiosyncrasies and other situations, but I see no reason for key, well-documented, points of history to be completely rewritten. Not only is it unhelpful and unnecessary to disseminate misinformation in this way, I feel that it's very patronising to believe audiences need history to be "watered down/sexed up" like this in order for them to find it entertaining. -
anatja — 11 years ago(January 18, 2015 04:47 PM)
Humph! I see they have (yet again) hired another brunette actress to play Catherine of Aragon even though she was strawberry blonde.
Just because people have this stereotype that all Spanish people look a certain way.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature! -
KatharineFanatic — 11 years ago(January 18, 2015 08:29 PM)
Humph! I see they have (yet again) hired another brunette actress to play Catherine of Aragorn even though she was strawberry blonde.
Just because people have this stereotype that all Spanish people look a certain way.
Yup. Annoying, isn't it?
Henry had red hair. Katharine had red hair.
So why, half the time, are both of them brunettes?
Elizabeth I is always a redhead; why not Henry and Katharine? -
Virginiana — 11 years ago(January 19, 2015 10:14 AM)
Because Katherine of Aragon was Spanish; ergo, in many people's minds, she must have been olive-skinned and dark haired.
Since a good proportion of Spanish-speaking people in Latin America have some native American ancestry, the stereotype has arisen that all "Spanish" people are brown-skinned and black-haired. Ridiculous to apply this image to people from Spain who have 100% European ancestry, but there you go! -
anatja — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 03:00 AM)
The frustrating thing is that we seem to be going backwards. Before selling to an American audience was a factor, they were more accurate.
Please note that in 'The Six wives on Henry VIII' in 1970, fair haired Annette Crosbie played Catherine with red hair, it is probably the best likeness on TV so far, which considering that was 45 years ago, is appalling.
http://images.delcampe.com/img_large/auction/000/068/381/551_001.jpg?v =1
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature! -
murad23 — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 10:40 AM)
America audiences tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces.
It is funny you should mention the 1970's "Six Wives" series as it was eviscerated by historians for a lot of absurd and central inaccuracies.
And absurdly 40-year-old Evi hale played a 24-year-old Anne of Cleeves in that. -
anatja — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 12:44 PM)
America audiences tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces.
If you say so.
And absurdly 40-year-old Evi hale played a 24-year-old Anne of Cleeves in that.
It was by no means perfect but I am referring specifically to the hair issue.
Rarely does Ketherine Parr get portrayed by a woman in her mid 30s (as the real life lady was at her marriage) but usually a woman in her late middle age.
Even the 'sexy' Tudors had the 50 year old Joely Richardson play the role.
If you love Satan and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature! -
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 04:36 PM)
This choice wasn't too bad. Back then 24 was old. A princess or a heiress was expected to wed when she was 12 or even younger. It was to make sure her dowry and extate(s) can't be captured by a rake who kidnaps a lady, seduces/rapes her and impregnates her so she can't be wed by any other candidate chosen by parents and other relatives. A princess could have had a grandchild when she was 30-32. Besides Henry insisted Anne was old, older than her real 24 years, with OLD withered body and so on.
The paternal grandmother of Henry had his father when she was 12 or 13 although 11 is possible, too. The year of her birth isn't certain. So Anne was really old, relatively.
What annoys me more in the last Tudor series that the writers kinda glued together both sisters of Henry and changed too many details from their interesting lives. Compared to reality the Tudor version of Henry's sister was boring. -
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 06:10 PM)
He testified it himself. There was a conversation with some members of his council and doctors and even Cromwell and Henry insisted her body smelled and she had sagging breasts and her belly was like a belly of old woman and had many other complaints. He told it to get annulment so his description was definitely biased but contemporary sources all claim it was what he told. Also in the same conversation he insisted she wasn't a virgin 'cause he was sure of it. Not kidding, it was his reason. He felt her body, he found out her body was a body of old woman, he knew at once she wasn't pure. So God himself prevented him from consummation and it had nothing to do with his impotency.
Try following books:
David Starkey The Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII
Alison Weir The Six Wives of Henry VIII
Antonia Fraser The Six Wives of Henry VIII
all the authors suggest some contemporary sources - so check it if you can find them in your library -
murad23 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 06:29 AM)
Henry saying whatever he said about Anne of Cleeves is credible? He did not want the marriage. The period is absolutely full of perjury, slander and utterly falsified testimony, with a full out propaganda campaign by shaekespeare, Marlow and a legion of lesser known hacks and flacks
-
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 01:52 PM)
No, it wasn't credible. I was refering more to consistency of historical sources from his period, most of the sources present the same story and arguments. It's not like Boleyn's story - for one generation she was a witch that used the blackest form of magic to seduce poor Henry, maybe even to murder Henry FitzRoy and Catherine but for another generation she was the mother of their beloved Gloriana so they couldn't call her a witch and so on. Her stories changed, had to be changed. The stories about his brief fourth marriage and its end are alike. There was no need to "slander more" or "slander less".
-
martunia21 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 01:41 PM)
It's OK, there's no need to apologize. I thought you didn't know which exactly conversation I meant, there were several with slightly different statements made by Henry. Well, "statement" in this case means "slander" even if Henry didn't see it that way.
Yes, Mrs Stone was a weird choice and I can't pretend I understand it.
