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.

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.

eyeguy72, I'm afraid I haven't read the book but, don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to seeing Wolf Hall. It will be great if they are able to capture the atmosphere you're describing.

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.

Thanks for your post,
i-danks
, and for clarifying for people what this thread is about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

That situation has long puzzled me. Annette Crosbie's hair was pretty fair in Six Wives of Henry VIII.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

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".

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)

slugr, I disagree.
Genrally the best British work comes here and the popular tripe, which is just as common in the UK, stays there and you don't see it. I lived in the uk for two years. They have some excellent journalism and then a vast bulk of newspapers are more like the US National inquirer. Ie you would be making a mistake thinking the excellent journalism of the BBC News FT, Independent, Guardian Times are the whole picture. There is also a mountain of garbage in the UK media, including most of the higher circ papers.
The same goes for TV. Obviously some of the best TV in the world comes from the UK. They have fine actors. Top notch. Same for writers. So do we. To list a few utterly American productions, we have the stellar Fargo, Pacific, Boardwalk Emp., Breaking bad, Dexter, mad men, True detective and many many others.
They have quality stuff and we have quality stuff. They simply export less of their junk

As an American, I can honestly say that our TV programs are as inaccurate as they get, the exception being The Wire, which as a former Baltimoron, I can say was more a documentary than a TV show.
Hollywood (perhaps like the BBC as well), has an agenda fueled by political correctness. I grew up in the 70's and 80's believing that all UK TV was basically just what PBS brought over on Masterpiece Theatre. Only with the internet have I been able to broaden that outlook, and at the moment I'd day half of my viewing is current UK shows. Much of this came about after the horrible abortion that was the US version of Life on Mars. By having to seek out the original, I was able to tap into many other series which I'd been unaware of before. I had no clue that Thaw had done The Sweeney before Inspector Morse, knowing of it only as an obscure lyric in a Squeeze song. This new found knowledge, though, has led me to sincerely believe that perhaps the US is influencing some UK series, since we do represent a downstream cash cow in the form of licensing rights and DVD sales.
For those who haven't seen it, I suggest the Showtime series "Episodes" which is a very dark black comedy about the adaptation process applied to successful UK series when they are brought to the US market. Come to think of it, perhaps it is one of the few shows that can join The Wire as far as being an accurate protrayal of that process.
I think my percentage of Chimp DNA is higher than others. Cleaver Greene

I don't know that it is entirely fair to blame the Americans for the dumbing down of British television we did not ask for them to be dumbed down and have a long history of absorbing and appreciating British cinema regardless (way back when they were airing "I Claudius" and "Upstairs Downstairs" it was quite popular in the US) so it must have been voluntary on the British end of things, under the absurd assumption that we
can't
follow along!
The only real complaint I have about British cinema, old or new, is that their sound mixing is dreadfully off; I have to turn it way up to hear the voices and then down again when the music blasts me off my seat.

The original comment was made specifically in reference to period pieces. Quite what a contemporary drama brings to the discussion is unclear.
108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42

Paul Dowsett; A very astute observation. American TV over the last few years has given us some of the very best, intelligent and well acted fare that I have ever seen. just to list a few, in addition to "the Wire", I would add "Deadwood"; "Rome"; The "Fargo" series, (both one and two); and of course "Wolf Hall", to cite a few examples.
These days TV is giving us consistently more high quality entertainments than are being offered on the big screen. Motion pictures, With few exceptions, contain CGI filled adventures featuring more explosions, car chases, and zero character development.
Now, when attending your friendly neighborhood multiplex, it's buy a ticket and switch off brain before viewing. Sadly, It wasn't always this way.

As I said: "generally speaking".
There are some
very
good shows coming out of the US. But I still believe the vast majority (and let's face it, the US produces an
enormous
amount of television), tends to prove my theory that it's mostly about appearance and not substance.
So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb

I'm afraid this is a very outdated point of view. The US is making some of the best, most sophisticated, television in the world now. The best example of this is "The Wire", but there are many, many more.

America audiences tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces.
Come now, someone's nose is growing
Generally speaking, I get the impression that American audiences don't really care for complexity or accuracy (judging by a LOT of the television shows that emanate from there) so long as all the players have flawless skin, perfect teeth and silicone enhanced bodies.
So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb

I'm an American and I'm surmising that you were being exceedingly tongue in cheek when you commented that American audiences "tend to demand more complexity and accuracy in period pieces".
Many Americansand I blame our fabulous public school systemwouldn't know a Roundhead from a Cavalier, who Henry VIII was, what the Magna Charta was or anything about English History at all. They barely know anything about American History.
You could have Richard Lionheart driving around in a Lamborghini and they'd be fine with it.

You must be kidding. Shakespeare himself is "responsible for some shocking, and even unethical, retelling of history. I really don't think you want to go there!
"
Are yoy saying the British literature, form popular to high brow views on historic events are not often unethical retellings?
Inventing history goes beyond the first written words to oral tradition, from Homer to the Bible, to Suetonius, and certainly to the late Tudor rewrites!