[Dave Musgrove]

So, The Tudors is back on TV now. Another series that has been leapt on by some for playing fast and loose with historical facts. Tracy Borman has written an analysis of the first programme here http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/feature/truth-behind-tudors to highlight the historical misdemeanours committed by the producers. What do you reckon - is it just good clean entertainment and a great way to bring people into Tudor history, or just another example in a long line of 'bad' history shows on TV?

We've got an interview with the series creator in the September issue of the mag by the way, on sale now, which I'll probably post on the site in the coming weeks.

[Harriet Smith]

Personally i love The Tudors. I believe it is good entertaining TV that does have some accurate history in it and as a history student i think that most people would not be fooled into thinking that what happens on the TV show is exactly true to the real events... its a TV show for goodness sake. It is what it is, there to entertain and it does that successfully.

[richard.d]

they all seem way too beautiful. in reality, didn't they all have poxed skin, lank hair and terrible body odour?!

[Eugene Byrne]

I've been watching it from time to time, but after last week's am now determined to follow it properly. As history, this series is astonishingly silly, but it's also very entertaining and it does the Bigger Picture very well.

Every age reinvents the Tudors to suit their own tastes and culture, and this one is a product of our era of celebrity culture, supermodels and conspicuous consumption. Though one might not notice it at first, it also owes a lot to Hollywood fantasy and science fiction conventions on monarchs and courts.

Of course it doesn't show us the bad teeth, syphilitic scars or squalor, and - just as important - it cannot even hope to convey the finer theological nuances of the Reformation to a modern audience which is overwhelmingly secular. Where it succeeds is in showing the sheer glamour of Henry and his court and the deadly competition for royal favour. And as last week's episode showed with its Pilgrimage of Grace sequences, it does a pretty honest job of showing the religious turmoil.

[Leanne]

The arguments "for" The Tudors that Tracy Borman puts forward are exactly the ones I have been using to defend the series (so many arguments with various friends about it- particularly about the casting of JRM as Henry). I have been completely addicted to the show since the first episode of the first series- a naked Charles Brandon (played by the gorgeous Henry Cavill) may have something to do with that haha. Admittedly, I sit there annoying whoever I'm with by saying "that's not right, that didnt happen etc etc" but when it comes down to it, I absolutely love it!

As Tracy Borman said, I'm sure it has at least given many people an interest into the Tudor period and given them a reason to go on and read up and iron out the inaccuracies. I know a few people who had no interest in history what-so-ever before the series started who are no avidly reading David Starkey and Alison Weir books.

Series 4, the final series is currently being filmed. It will be interesting to see where they're going to end it. Before Henry's death or after?

[Rosalind]

Admittedly, I sit there annoying whoever I'm with by saying "that's not right, that didnt happen etc etc" but when it comes down to it, I absolutely love it!

As Tracy Borman said, I'm sure it has at least given many people an interest into the Tudor period and given them a reason to go on and read up and iron out the inaccuracies. I know a few people who had no interest in history what-so-ever before the series started who are no avidly reading David Starkey and Alison Weir books.

Series 4, the final series is currently being filmed. It will be interesting to see where they're going to end it. Before Henry's death or after?[/quote]

I agree with you completely.

There are lots of thistorical drama shown on TV that have then sent people scurrying off to read more about the subject. me included.

The problem arrives when some people just take what they see as historical fact. Dare I mention Mel Gibson's interpretation of William Wallace!

[katnoodle]

I agree that historical drama has a duty to be entertaining rather than historically accurate. I also think it's a very valid point that it's very much a 21st-century take on The Tudors, especially in terms of what they all looked like! I often find myself thinking that the 'real' version of events was more interesting than the scriptwriter's take - not just for The Tudors but other dramas too. As a great fan of the Tudor dresses seen in Holbein portraits, it's a shame that the costumes aren't more accurate; I can only assume that gable headdresses aren't sexy enough! The 1970s film, The Six Wives of Henry VIII, managed to be pretty accurate and great viewing, but it certainly wouldn't pass for prime-time entertainment today.

[Rosalind]

Could somebody please clarify a point for me that was shown in the recent showing of the Tudors?

In the episode where the Pole family were incarcerated in the Tower of London, at the end young "Master Pole" was led away by the hand. Was he being released from the Tower of was he being led to his execution? Were the Tudors in a habit of executing children???