The Tudors

Well, it's gorgeous, well-acted but far too much tampering with the facts of history. Henry had TWO sisters, not one, and it was his sister, Mary, who was married off to a king in his dotage - and it was to the king of France, not Portugal. Margaret was married to the Scottish King, from whence comes the Stuart claim to the English throne. Don't watch this for your history exam! Just enjoy the costumes, set, fiery acting and music. The portrait of Henry, though, is wonderful. Lest we forget; he was quite handsome and charismatic in his younger days. As he continued getting his way both in politics and the bedroom, he grew more and more self-absorbed and ruthless. One good historical item is pointing out that, whatever was going on in separating from the Roman church, most of the English reformers had little use for Luther and wished to distance themselves from the continental reformation. Odd that today the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran church work hand-in-hand in aid efforts and acknowledge more readily our common bonds. Just FYI, the word "protestant" actually means one who protests the abuse of the Sacrements, which was rampant in those days.

I'm glad to see Showtime taking on the Tudor era, even if they are doing it because Henry's life is a tabloid-seller's dream come true, and our culture is tabloid-obsessed.

I love the casting of Jeremy Northam (Sir Thomas More) and Sam Neill (Cardinal Wolsey).

I read an earlier comment after I had already expressed the following thought elsewhere, and I completely agree -- Steven Waddington (Buckingham) would have been a better Henry VIII - he's bigger (he properly fills the screen, which in various shots J R-M painfully cannot, either in height or breadth); red-haired (as Henry was); and a POWERFUL, mesmerizing actor who's a better age for the part. (J R-M's eyes are riveting, but that's not enough for the part b/c at this stage of Henry's life, his fame was largely due to his physical dominance, learning & musical skill.) Showtime seems to be trying to appeal to a VERY young, VH-1 audience with the J R-M casting. Or, as they suggest, to people who don't know the story.

That's my second issue - don't suggest in the ads that you're going to tell the REAL story when you're not. Some dramatic license is expected (like flipping France for Portgual b/c they introduced Francis I early on) but there is no GOOD excuse for making a composite of Henry's sisters by telling Princess Mary Rose Tudor's story, but calling the character Princess Margaret, which was her older sister's name.

The real Margaret had a dramatic story, too -- and she's got the line to the current royal family through her great-granddaughter, Mary, Queen of Scots -- but they lost the chance to tell that by combining the sisters. Presumably they did it b/c they thought the audience was so dumb that we couldn't handle Henry's daughter and sister both being named Mary. Too bad.

All these reviewers , boasting of their historical knowledge ....pleeeeez Get over yourselves !!! This is a Hollywood production , not a classroom lesson. The costumes , the scenery , the acting ... this is what film making is about . If you don't like it , go read an encyclopedia.

With the proposed ending of Rome - I think a lot of viewers will automatically turn to The Tudors as a replacement. I have watched the first episode and find that the acting and set alone can pull a viewer in. It is different than Rome, but the same core passions of humanity are present.

I am deeply saddened that Rome will be ending after such a short run, and I think that were it not, The Tudors would find far more competition. As it is, both shows are proving that there is an audience for historical dramas and I hope such endeavors continue in the future.

The Tudors has a quality cast with attractive actors for both genders to attach to. I cannot make an honest opinion yet on the plots and direction of the series until I see more of it, but the imagery alone is a good start for this series.

I think "The Tudors" is the best television I've watched in a long time. Interesting that it was a collaboration between Irish and Canadian TV, maybe that's why the BBC didn't give it more of a profile? I disagree with the approach taken by the other reviewers - it is a DRAMA and never purported to be an accurate historical documentary, so my advice is to understand that first and enjoy it as it was meant to be enjoyed. The acting is superlative from everyone with the exception perhaps of Joely Richardson whom I've never "got" anyway - too colourless and divorced from the part. Tamsin Merchant as Catherine Howard gave a consistently outstanding performance, and all credit to such a young actress. Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry VIII was absolutely excellent throughout, he thoroughly owned the character and delivered with incredible passion and conviction. (And yes, he was extremely pleasing to the eye unlike H8 - so what?). I would also like to praise the production itself, the incredible and spellbinding direction, the lavish sets and opulent costumes and not least of all the music which I am now intent on buying.