The BBC is running a television series called The Tudors, I believe that the show is in its second series. They seem to think that the Tudor dynasty started with Henry VIII as there were no episodes on his father Henry VII, and the show still seems to be stuck on Henry VIII. Indeed his second wife, Ann Boleyn, has not even been executed yet – sorry if this is a ‘spoiler’ to people who think the fate of Ann is a cliff hanger.
“Sneer as much as you like about how slow paced this series is,” I hear you say, “the BBC is concentrating on telling the story correctly”.
Really?
Today I channel hopped and came upon the point in the show where the actor playing Thomas Cromwell was introducing a new invention – a secret weapon that would win the propaganda war with the Roman Catholics. The printing press (spoken with special stress) – introduced to the show with cries of “by God, what is that?”, and other such, from the actors.
Sadly the printing press was introduced to England during the reign of Edward IV – some sixty years before the time the scene was set, so everyone would have known exactly what a printing press was.
The excuse for the special tax that funds the BBC is that the organization ‘educates’ the population. This excuse just does not stand up.
They also played quite fast and loose with Cardinal Wolsey, especially his death.
Season 2 has already played here in the US on Showtime. It’s not historically accurate, really, and no one pretends it is. It sort of mostly follows the general story lines with a huge amount of dramatic license taken. It’s primarily a bodice-ripper with Johnathn Rhys Meyers as a very sexy Henry VIII. If you simply accept that it’s not accurate and just go along for the fairly decent story telling, it’s fun to watch.
Plus, there are lots of hot chicks in it. That’s important.
You’re right, it’s bullshit, and has been for quite some time. Moreover, it’s not enough to claim that it ‘educates’ the population, it must educate the population better and more than the other networks could by competing in the market. Examples like the one you’ve provided simply serve to confirm that the BBC certainly isn’t doing so more than Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic, C-SPAN, PBS, etc. are in the United States (in which there is no special tax for a ‘special’ broadcaster).
Repeal the licence fee NOW! 🙂
The BBC might be showing it, but unless I’m missing something I can’t find anything saying they made it. It appears to be a Working Title production in conjunction with the Canadian Broadcasting Company and Show Time, a US pay for cable channel.
It doesn’t even seem to be like Rome a BBC co-production.
I haven’t seen any suggestion anywhere that it is intended to be an educational programme. The BBC does admit to carrying entertainment. It has previously funded solid historical coverage of the period, and shown more “serious” dramas. It has also shown endless reruns of Carry on Henry.
The splendid David Starkey histories of the monarchy, of Henry VIII and of Elizabeth I, on the otherhand, appeared on the other taxpayer subsidised channel: Channel 4.
Channel 4 seems not to get as much complaint about that subsidy. Maybe because it is much smaller. Maybe because it doesn’t have its own tax collectors.
Paul,
I know I’m the bleeding-heart pinko round here, but re-reading your post:
Sadly the printing press was introduced to England during the reign of Edward IV…
Now that is a conservative position.
The thing that annoys me most about this series is the “Johnathn Rhys Meyers as a very sexy Henry VIII”.
Henry and Catherine of Aragon were married for 24 years.
After the annulment he went on the mid-life crisis to end them all, going through five wives in little over a decade.
Rhys Meyers is what? 30?
I agree with andyinsc.
The license fee is wrong but not because of shows like this or “Rome”. It’s wrong because it’s involuntary and not because it’s “misused”.
The BBC’s position overall is untenable because of it’s supposed impartiality. It’s supposed to be some God like arbiter of Truth.
Now any fule knows that that is impossible and that everyone has biases. I have a great deal more respect for Fox News for coming right out with it and saying what they are. The BBC still clings to the belief that it is not the broadcasting wing of the Guardian and it’s protected status allows it that luxury.
Wikipedia has a fairly good entry on this which details a whole catalogue of historical inaccuracies from the death of Wolsey to the age-gap between Henry VIII and Ann Boleyn.
I think the BBC must be regretting showing it, to be honest.
They also showed a play recently called “Antony and Cleopatra” claiming that Cleopatra played billiards, referring to Octavian (or Octavianus) as “Octavius”, and where all the characters spoke hopelessly mis-pronounced 17th century English.
What is the world coming to, eh?
I don’t object to a certain amount of “creative licence” in dramatic context, but there is a limit, and I feel the producers of The Tudors have gone way beyond that limit. A few historical anacronisms (sp?) add to the pleasure and give the viewer something to keep them concentrating in the boring bits (the bits when the bodices are still unripped?). When you get to the point you are actively looking for one historically accurate (or at least plausable) thing, and not finding it you’re allowed to say they have gone too far.
The BBC may not be the producer, but they have chosen to pay to broadcast The Tudors, and then to broadcast a second series, so they have to accept some responsibility for it.
Like others I oppose the licence fee becaus it is compusory and unnecessary; the BBC could continue to operate if it carried paid advertising (would we notice in among all the trailers and ads for other BBC products?) or if it became a subscription service. I might even subscribe voluntarily, and if I don’t, I’m sure there are lots of old fashioned socialists out there willing to pay the BBC to confirm their prejudices.
“When you get to the point you are actively looking for one historically accurate (or at least plausable) thing, and not finding it you’re allowed to say they have gone too far.”
Well… it’s got big boats with sails on ’em, don’t it? Swords & stuff?
I mean, there’s not a Starbucks on every corner in the frame. Right?
Most of the TV stuff on the Tudors has had its bit of garbage, this one has much more. One thing never mentioned is that all the wives were descended from King Edward I (see Antonia Fraser). Anyhow King Henry VII is much more interesting than his spendthrift son, pity we never see anything at all about him. But his sex life was limited and left a balanced budget.
Actually “The Tudors” wasn’t made by the BBC it was produced by Peace Arch Entertainment for Showtime, and no tax payer funds were used to create the series (which is a generic cable drama inspired by history not billed as an historically accurate docu-drama). “The Tudors” is a co-creation of Reveille (Ireland), Working Title Films (UK) and the CBC (Canada). BBC just aires the episodes in Britian they aren’t responsible for actually creating it. Then again if you actually watched an episode and saw the credits, you would know all that.
Plus, Micheal Hirst (the main writer who also wrote “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth the Golden Age”) wanted to start of the series focusing on the young Henry VIII, which not many people are used to see as an athletic, attractive man (which is accurate, it’s only later in life that he became obese and sickly). Even though the series is titled The TudorS it will mainly focus on Henry VIII, his wives, and children. Fans are hoping for a spin off of Henry VII, but it hasn’t been noticed yet.
Oh, and by the way “The Tudors” is aired on BBC 2, which is not really known for much “high culture” entertainment anyway.
The BBC makes and remakes the same old stuff again and again. Each intake of staff has to have its go at Austen, Dickens and the Tudors. As time goes by these versions are increasingly dumbed down just as all BBC programmes are. In the newer versions the actors are often confrontational in a way that Eastenders character are – lots of shouting and contorted faces.
The recent ‘dramatisation’ of Lark Rise To Candleford was perhaps the worst example of the BBC’s modern standards – little more than an excuse to parade the period costumes and the political correctness of the makers, and nothing whatsoever to do with the book.
Why do we have to pay for this stuff?
Who complained about the accuracy of Blackadder ?
Which was brilliant, btw.
Just think of this as another variety of that, not meant to be taken seriously.
Taxpayer money was used to show it.
Plus, Micheal Hirst (the main writer who also wrote “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth the Golden Age”)
Despite my earlier flippant comment, these things annoy me too, even in Blackadder.
I watched Golden Age on a plane and didn’t even get past the opening credits before switching it off in intense annoyance. Gloomy threatening music, and subtitles making Phillip II out to be a cross between Bin Laden and the Dark Lord Sauron.
So better steer clear of the Tudors, I think.
Guy Herbert – quite correct by using the word “sadly” it could be interpreted that I mean it was a bad thing that the printing press came to England.
If one quotes out of context – as in context my words clearly meant it was sad that the B.B.C. was making the error of claiming the printing press came in during the time of Henry VIII.
However, in this context the word “sadly” was a an error, as I do not feel sad, I feel angry. So you are correct in your attack upon me, it was a mistake to type “sadly”.
As for the B.B.C. not using taxpayers money (etc) – Perry had already replied to that sort of stuff.
On Henry VII.
Actually he was not a good manager. Perhaps because of his total lack of experience in managing estates he had to abandon the “Household” methods of Edward IV and Richard III and rely on the old methods of managing the Royal estates – which brought in much less revenue.
So he had to depend on taxation more – so much so that he had to face tax revolts (such as the Cornish one that got as far as Blackheath).
However, he did keep a grip on government spending – which his useless son certainly did not.
In some ways Henry VII was like a modern head of government – as the Royal estates were run much like the nationalized industries rather than the private property of the King (as he had no experience of running estates – as he had been a political exile all his life).
I’m pretty sure that Guy Herbert was joking.
I agree Natalie.
However, there was still a serious point that needed to be accepted.
I was wrong to type “sadly”.
The Tudors-what a load of Pap. Lavished with Vatican wishful thinking you can guess the next episodes bollocks. Not a mention of Cath. Aragon’s mummy instigating the Inquisition or the lovable Borgias, buddies of the Aragon Mob. Nor Pappa Pope being a captive of Cath.Aragons nephew, yet another Holy Roman Emperor (the guy with the big battlions). All squeaky clean and pure as the driven snow. Anne Boleyn is well on the way for a witch. No doubt they’ll find she has too many fingers, ingrowing toenails and a pimple on her bum. Big play will be made of the revolting North when 3000 of the late Richard 111s diehards on Spanish pay(it wasn’t all religion) are given the whatfor. Pales in comparison to Vlad’s impaled, the Inqisiition and the Cathar genocide. But then again that must be OK as they had Pappas blessing, as had the Nazi, sorry Norman invasion. Tonight we saw monks being evicted by Hugeonots from their rundown farm buildings. Henry would have torched the Hugos as he did Protestants. Most monks were glad to be pensioned off and get a life. Admitted some were reluctant to part with St Bart’s jockstrap, the Virgin’s nighties and several ton(imperial) of Holy nails. As for the farm. We have plenty of ruined monstrosities, sorry monasteries, round here. All built by English serf tax. Thankfully they got a rebate at the Dissolution when some stonework was used to build good, olde worlde English pubs.Like the music tho’.
I thought the Tudors was just supposed to be a soap opera. Instead of having it set in the present which all other soaps are, this one has taken a new angle and is set in Tudor times. None of the soaps are true to life, they are just entertainment. The historical stuff has all been done before, so this series is something new and refreshing. And why can’t Henry still be sexy and gorgeous in middle age? Look at Brad Pitt!
Deborah Kirk.
The excuse for the B.B.C. tax is supposed to be education.
How is a “soap opera” education?
I do not accept the “education” excuse anyway, but “tax for soap opera” is insane.
Why do producers feel the need to dramatise so much and make things up, i read an awfull lot of history and with almost every page i read about, murder, mystery sex, intrigue, affairs,and so on…….how can real life not serve as education and entertainment……just dont get !!!!!
Bilge… total bilge.
The trouble is that a very fair proportion of the audience will believe that it is an accurate portrayal. And those who know that it is otherwise will, out of frustration, switch off.
Again the BBC tarts up and dumbs down history to make it acceptable to the masses who having learned nothing of English History in school (thanks Tony Blair… so well done!) will readily believe that it was just like this. Oh the cleanliness… oh the make up and oh my God, the hair!
Who can blame them when the BEEB turns out sanitised, dull, illiterate crap like”Merlin” and the dire “Robin Hood”
The Tudors is absolute crap and such a disappointment
A big bunch of bollocks. And they are making me watch it as part of my broadcast production course! Shame I actually knew about the tudors or I may have enjoyed it like the rest of the sheep it the class. What a waste of money and time, they made no effort to get anything right, a cardinal committing suicide!!! And not a drip of under garments in sight!!!! I wont go on, there are far too many things wrong with it.