Talk:The Tudors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Series 2[edit]

Hi just in regards to the second series shooting will commence in Ireland on June 4th. I don't have a citation on that. I am however an extra on the show and this is the date I ahve been given. The inforation didn't seem to fit neatly into any section of the artical so I have raised it here. If someone thinks it relevent feel free to add it to the main article. I have some additional information for which I can provide citations, I just need to gather them first and I will report back.

Historical Inaccuracies Section[edit]

This section is fairly interesting, but seems quite trivial or extraneous. No offence intended to the individuals that took the time to find sources to prove that this show is not a historical documentary, but the fact that it is not advertised as historical non-fiction and is shown on Showtime along with Weeds, Dexter, and Nurse Jackie should make that self evident. It is a show that’s main purpose is to entertain people for about 60 minutes, not teach them about some medieval war and drama in Great Britain.

I do not see many other Wiki pages with such time and effort invested on this subject. It seems like a few people pick and choose which movies or shows they want to pick on and thumb through books or webpages that themselves are most assuredly filled with a certain extent of historical inaccuracies as well, and perceptions of the author.

The most obvious example (Meaning not the only) of this point, just begging to be mentioned, is Inglorious Basterds. The writer and director changed the outcome of WW2 and the death of the Nazi leadership, and it is but a blurb in the plot on the Wiki page.

I believe it should be shortened or toned down, because the section as a whole comes off to me, as an average and regular Wikipedia reader, as POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Inglorious Basterds' is not 'just begging to be mentioned'. Deliberately reversing the outcome of a specific historical event to present an alternative history is very different from historical fiction presented as 'based on fact' but with deliberate inaccuracies for the purpose of plot flow.Smurfmeister (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im a hostory teacher and was disgusted at the historical inaccuraces in the show. Yes I am aware that it is a TV Drama but when based on historical people it should be kept as accurate as possible. Also there is the matter of the name of the series for me which is annoying.
The fact that the series is called the Tudors where are the follow ups for the reigns of Edward VI, Mary I and of course Englands Greatest Queen Elizabeth I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.171.220 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, you aren't outranged that the series doesn't cover Owen, Edmund and Jasper Tudor as well? What about Maredudd ap Tudur? Where's his show?
More to the point, since it is historical fiction, and rather successful historical fiction, the historical innacuracies section is very appropriate. I don't agree that the innacuracies are trivial either. The conflation of Henry's two sisters is a pretty big departure, as are the liberties taken with Cardinal Woolsey's character and Anne Bolelyn's story. Just because you, 12.86.230.202, if that is your real name, haven't heard of or don't care about Woolsey and the Princesses Mary and Margaret Tudor doesn't mean they aren't significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.124.47 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This section of the article was actually a lot longer at one time and editors continually add trivial bits about accidental anachronisms! I don't think you can really compare WP articles to determine the appropriateness of this kind of info because as you suggest, some articles draw particular editor interest and others don't. I tend to agree that a lot of "inaccuracy" material can be very trivial and full of OR, but in the case of The Tudors there has been a lot of media attention surrounding its diverging from the historical record. Nearly every article I've ever read about the series notes that it is inaccurate at times. Most of the info in this section is attributed to such articles which discuss the inaccuracies specifically. There are probably some bits which could be removed, but as a whole I think the material mentioned is notable.— TAnthonyTalk 23:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Henry's illegitimate seems relevant to this section.Asta2500 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was touched on in an earlier discussion; the age discrepancy isn't especially notable in the context of the series.— TAnthonyTalk 22:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very confused about the mess created by the inept writers of the show, and this section helped me a lot. Fir instance this fictional Portuguese king which I couldn't point out in neither of Henry's sister's biographies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.51.147 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it has been pointed out elsewhere in the article that the show is intended as historical fiction does not make an explanation of the inaccuracies - whether deliberate or not - irrelevant. The argument that 'it's shown on Showtime so should be self evident [sic]' is ridiculous. On that basis the article shouldn't mention it's a TV show; the fact that it's on TV would make that self-evident! Remember Wikipedia is not just for the US - people who have never heard of Showtime will be using this page too. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "In the series, the timeline from [Anne's] introduction to marriage seems to take little more than a year." This comment is no more than the author's impression and should be re-worded or omitted. In fact, Princess Mary's change in age--from toddler to teen--clearly indicates the passage of many years, as do the changes in the papacy. 50.76.224.121 (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 has Pope Paul III on the papal throne before Elizabeth Tudor was born (in 1533), but he wasn't installed until 1534. Series 2, Episode 4, sees Pope Paul III speaking about the Jesuits, and how he has ordained this order, at last six years before they were founded, and at least 3 years before overtures were made to him to allow the order to be founded.

Also, in a conversation between two characters in Series 1, we are told that Pope Alexander is unwell, but he died at least nine years before the events pictured in this series took place (apparently from 1518 onwards).

Also, Series 4 has Eustace Chapuys, the Imperial Ambassador, dying before Henry VIII, when, of course, he passed away in 1556.

In addition to these historical infelicities, there are one or two geographical oddities, too. For example, in Series 3 and 4, we see the region around York and Pontefract blessed with high mountains! I lived in Yorkshire for over 25 years, and although there are several mountains in excess of 2000 feet in the far north and west, there are none near York or Pontefract. Even more bizarre, we see Lincolnshire, a county which is (mostly) almost as flat a pancake, blessed with mountains too! Now, unless there has been some pretty serious erosion in the last 500 years, someone on the production team must surely have noticed these glaring anomalies.

To cap it all, Henry seems to develop an increasingly Irish accent as Series 4 unfolds!

Finally, one or two who have posted comments in this section complain that it is inappropriate to highlight the many historical inaccuracies there are in what is manifestly a work of historical fiction. Perhaps they'd have been happy to see the Tudors set in the Jurassic, or maybe on Tatooine?

Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have something to add to this, the section claims that Margaret Tudors death is juxtaposed with Cardinal Wolsey's giving the idea that they happen at the same time, in reality Wolsey lives for another whole episode after Margaret's death, episode titled " the death of Wolsey" their is no juxtaposition whatsoever as Margaret dies in the episode "Look to god first" ...i would suggest this section needs re-wording Tony Spike (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish in Ireland[edit]

The very first sentence of this article is arrestingly weird: "The Tudors is an Irish historical fiction television series filmed in Ireland." The verbiage is cumbersome and makes it sound like the fiction is about Irish history. Can we at least remove the word "Irish?" If more clarification on the show's Irishness is required, perhaps it could be added elsewhere. 207.38.252.241 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It's actually a British/Canadian production as it was written in England, filmed in Ireland, produced by Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.220.13 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of the TV show[edit]

The show was created and entirely written in Britain, by a British man. The companies involved in producing the show are either American, Canadian or British. The show is shot in Ireland. Many people keep undoing my edit of changing "The Tudors is an Irish-Canadian.." to "The Tudors is a British-Irish-Canadian". As far as I'm concerned, apart from it being shot in Ireland, the Irish have absolutely no claim to the creative or productive process of this show. Star Wars was shot in Tunisia and Australia - does that Make Star Wars an American-Australian-Tunisian film? NO, no it doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.70.88 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No part of Star Wars was shot in Australia. It was filmed primarily on sound stages in Britain, with some location shooting in Tunisia, Guatemala and the United States. The overwhelming majority of the cast, including Peter Cushing and Alec Guinness, was British. Three things potentially make it "American": (1) the writer/director was American; (2) three of perhaps four top-line stars (excluding Guinness) were American; and (3) the production was financed and overseen by 20th Century Fox, an American film studio. (2) is probably insufficient, or a large proportion of more-or-less strictly "American" television and film production is actually "British-American" based solely on the nationality of its lead actors. So we're left with (1) and (3): the nationality of the major behind-the-camera creators and the nationality of the finance and distribution entities. Based on these criteria, it would seem The Tudors is a British-American-Canadian production, as the creators are largely British or Canadian (with some American involvement (Reveille Productions)), and the financing and distribution entities are largely American (Showtime, Sony Pictures Ent.) and Canadian (CBC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.67.52 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Tudors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Tudors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Tudors&oldid=1209133339"