PLEASE let this stick to the historic facts…
-
Maya55555 — 11 years ago(January 22, 2015 12:06 PM)
Virginiana:
The same can be said about the stereotypes that are portrayed of the Italian people. Italian actress (RIP) Virna Lisi was a
natural platinum blonde with green eyes, yet she was forced to dye her hair to look "more Italian". It made her very angry.
Point of fact we are all Italian in my family and have blondes and a few red heads.
"A stitch in time, saves your embarrassment." (RIP Ms. Penny LoBello) -
Freiburger — 10 years ago(May 03, 2015 09:09 PM)
Although you are correct that natives of Spain are fairer than frequently portrayed, there is no such thing as "100% European ancestry". Not every one in Europe is fair haired, fair skinned. For example, northern Germans tend to be fair but southern Germans, Swiss, and Austrians tend to be darker. Some Italians are also fair but other Italians are darker. There is no generalized "100% European".
-
KatharineFanatic — 11 years ago(January 18, 2015 08:28 PM)
Ditto.
I get making some changes for the sake of storytelling, but Michael Hurst (The Tudors) added in and changed stuff that was unnecessary and well documented as being the opposite of how he portrayed it all the way through. (He's a bit like Philippa Gregory in that regard assume the worst, and go with that interpretation.)
The author of the book upon which Wolf Hall is based has already released a statement that she refuses to "water down" her plot for modern audiences; it's condescending and seems like a pre-strike in case people complain that the narrative is confusing.
Either way, it'll be interesting to sit back and criticize all the historical inaccuracies.
-
murad23 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 07:33 AM)
One has to be careful about
"types"
of perceived inaccuracies.
On one hand you have objective inaccuracies, say like Hirsh's Margaret Tudor's amalgam of Henry VIII's sisters.
On the other hand you have potentially worse historicity problems where the "official history" is a lie anyway. IE There are deviations from the historical narrative of the victors. But those original narratives or histories maybe the false ones in the first place.
EG Mary is "Bloody Mary" in the Reformers' (winners) narrative, but Henry viii mass murder of innocents in what may have been tens of thousands in reprisals for the pilgrimage of Grace does not make home "Bloody Henry"?
Richard III is a child murderer because the Tudors, desperate for legitimacy where they had practically none, needed him to be. And Bolingbrooke and Richard II before that? The exact same people who had Ann Boleyn absurdly sleeping with her brother are the ones who created the narrative that ann of cleeves was repulsive.
Is what we think we know of Edward II really true, or is the hatred of him really about the narrative written by the people who deposed him? Is what we think we know of John compared to the "heroic" Richard the lionhearted (who was really just a rapacious warlord) really true?
The fact is in British history the Normans controlled thee narrative for their takeover from/ genocide of/ the Saxons. The Plantagents created a narrative of their own takeover. The post Plantagenet Tudors created their own narrative. This was reinforced by literature, from the changing Arthur legend, to the Bayeux tapestry to Shakespeare and beyond -
KatharineFanatic — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 02:04 PM)
Well said, murad23.
You have to always consider the source, and their potential bias.
Didn't much of what was written about Richard III come from Sir Thomas More? I'm not sure where he stood on such matters, but he did imply the murder of the Princes in the Tower and then what, five hundred years later, they find the bodies?
A lot of what was said about Anne Boleyn came directly from the mouth of Eustice Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador, who had an obvious bias in favor of Katharine. Considering he delighted in her downfall, I hardly think he's a credible source to be trusted completely with her true personality.
When Elizabeth came to the throne, you can bet that her spin-doctors were out trying to discredit Mary as much as possible in order to cast the new Reformist monarch in a positive light. (Hence, we have "Bloody Mary.")
So, we have a jumbled up history to start with, influenced by a bunch of biased sources, and then modern novelists and screenwriters come along, choose their favorites, and rearrange the situations and facts to support their own biases. Hence, you have trumped up history. The only thing indisputable are the actual facts, rather than the interpretation of facts. -
shellieeyre — 11 years ago(January 23, 2015 06:00 PM)
Didn't much of what was written about Richard III come from Sir Thomas More? I'm not sure where he stood on such matters, but he did imply the murder of the Princes in the Tower and then what, five hundred years later, they find the bodies?
The deaths of the princes was being ascribed to Richard during his lifetime, and may be why so much of the nobility abandoned him. Certainly he murdered Hastings, Vaughan and Rivers. Whatever thomas More wrote, RIII gave him a lot to work with. The two boys were last seen in the summer of 1483 and when they didn't appear after that rumours started to circulate - rumours Richard could have dispelled by producing his nephews, which he failed to do.
So no, it wasn't all "Tudor propaganda".
Remains thought to be those of Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury were uncovered in the C17th during building work at The Tower.
I'm the clever one; you're the potato one. -
elena-28 — 10 years ago(April 27, 2015 09:19 AM)
The deaths of the princes was being ascribed to Richard during his lifetime, and may be why so much of the nobility abandoned him. Certainly he murdered Hastings, Vaughan and Rivers. Whatever thomas More wrote, RIII gave him a lot to work with. The two boys were last seen in the summer of 1483 and when they didn't appear after that rumours started to circulate - rumours Richard could have dispelled by producing his nephews, which he failed to do.
Actually, no one knew what happened to the boys - in fact, William Stanley lost his life for saying that if Perkin Warbeck turned out to be Richard of York, he'd stand by him. The Stanley brothers, Thomas and William, were intimate with the politics and events occurring during the reigns of Edward IV - Richard III - Henry VII. If William Stanley was doubtful about what happened to boys, then no one was sure. If the boys were shipped overseas to Burgundy, which is one theory, then it wouldn't have been possible for Richard to produce them.
The cases of Hastings, Rivers and Vaughn are much more complicated than is usually presented, and they were not murdered, but executed. There's evidence that the Woodville family were working against Richard from the moment of Edward IV's death; Rivers and Vaughn were both members of the Woodville family/faction, and there was likely much more to all sides of the story than we have access to at this point. Also, there's recent discussion on Hastings, his character and motivations during the spring of 1483 which also complicates matters.
As for Thomas More, he was educated in the household of Bishop John Morton, who had been a Lancastrian sympathizer for all of his career, and who worked closely with Henry VII after Bosworth. More would have received a lot of his Richard III data from Morton, who would have been a very biased source. -
i-danks — 11 years ago(January 22, 2015 08:27 AM)
I don't think it's at all condescending to say she won't water down a plotwhich Hilary Mantel spent a great deal of time researching.. because it might be a bit confusing for a modern reader, or indeed viewer. What is both condescending and patronising is to assume that people are too stupid to follow the intricacies and nuances of the Tudor court.
Anyway,why are most of these posts banging on about The Tudors? I thought this thread was about Wolf Hall!
Watched episode 1 and thought it was excellent. Some very subtle performances. -
eyeguy72 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 10:20 AM)
I loved Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies. Can't wait for The Mirror and the Light. Whether you enjoy Hilary Mantel's novels must be just a matter of mindset, don't you think? She wrote in a way that made me feel like I was a part of King Henry's court.
-
eyeguy72 — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 05:55 PM)
I agree. The books come highly recommended. The 3rd, and I presume final, novel comes out in a few months. I've been enjoying Hilary Mantel's interpretation of the events surrounding Thomas Cromwell's life.
-
PaulDowsett — 11 years ago(January 23, 2015 07:10 AM)
I've just watched the first episode of Wolf Hall, and absolutely, thoroughly enjoyed it. It has an authentic atmosphere, an intelligent script, fine acting and didn't contain any
blatant
historic inaccuracies.