that Henry VIII's Court *was* bodice-ripper paradise.

A pretty, pampered, rich second son suddenly finds himself Heir to the Throne in his early teens. During his reign, England finally sheds its past as a barbaric backwater and becomes a World Power. Wealth flows. Henry surrounds himself with beautiful (and easy) women, beautiful castles (Nonesuch Palace, Hampton Court: huge "dwellings" built for pleasure and beauty, instead of holding the Yorks or the Lancasters), beautiful gardens, hunts and jousts and fetes and masques and dancing .... and not a single person able to say "No, your Majesty" without risking the block. the early years of Henry VIII's reign sound like one looooooong Project Prom.

So much of his reign was dictated by his sexual desires: courtiers figured out that throwing a willing, beautiful girl in his lap was the quickest way to get wealth, status, and political power. And, I don't think he ever really realized he was being led by his ... scepter.

But, he was also surrounded by smart, savvy, clever, sharp and probably quite witty people. So I doubt they spoke so clunkily. A pity.

Given that Henry's first marriage lasted longer than his second through sixth marriages, put together, I fear that there is a lot more bodice-ripping to come.

The problem may be that this bit of history is so well-known to anybody who cares that it's hard to do anything fresh or interesting with it.

I just finished the first season (via Netflix). I have already picked up that Henry is somewhat angst-ridden by his treatment of Katherine. But Henry, as depicted in this series anyway, is a shallow beast. Oh, and he doesn't really think women are particularly valuable; so, how sad can he be, really, to see Katherine go? It's not like he saw her daily in those 20 years he was married to her. He'd long quit sleeping with her. He's sad, but not that sad. There will be no moments at the swimming pool watching the birds; he's not that deep.

I am thoroughly enjoying this series. It is what it is. It delivers the escapist goods for the high-brow crowd; it is no day-time soap.

The Tudors is a lot of things, but historically accurate is not one of them.

As a Canadian tax-payer who helped fund this public television & government subsidied piece of excrescence, I unreservedly apologize for foisting its buffoonery on the world. It has remarkably little to do with actual history, other than a loose plot-line and a few characters named after historical figures; certainly none of the characters are much like their namesakes, and even the costuming is not particularly accurate.

I was really looking forward to it too, but what a piece of crud. The other half of the production was some Irish tv station; the Irish have little reason to love the English generally and the Tudors particularly, and I took this cartoonishly bad series as yet another f-you to the Brits.

Sorry, it IS a soap opera, pure and simple, a costumed bodice ripper with all the subtlety of a mack truck and historical accuracy you would expect of a novel with bare-chested long-haired man embracing a fainting beauty on the cover.

Be warned.

I'd gladly watch Henry Cavill do up his shoes, but this show is just boring. Nice to see someone who agrees.

Ah yes, The Sopranos, the ne plus ultra of television, of art, of reality. The one and only. The unbeatable. The breathtaking. The sacred touchstone for all time.

I found that show screamingly unbelievable and unwatchable.

The Tudors is written as a soap opera, unashamedly so. Heather--haven't you read interviews with the show's creators? It's not accurate, it's not art, it's trashy fun.

I've never seen it, but you had me at soft porn. As long as they don't have the bow chica chica bow music playing, it could be fun. And that JRM looks like a scoundrel, ready for torturous desire and unrest.

It is very tough for modern writers to excavate the motives of people who lived in a different culture. Henry VIII almost certainly did fear for his soul after marrying his brother's (older) widow in a shotgun political arrangement between his scary, dominating dad and the powerful King of Spain. His lack of an heir may very well have spooked him into believing that God was displeased with him. And his understanding that if he died without an heir England would go right back to the civil war that had, from 1470-1485 nearly ruined the country, was spot-on. Henry could have gotten all the "crumpet' he needed, so his dick was only a small part of the issue. What he needed was a new wife and a legitimate heir. Why the writers of this story can't make it come to life is, sadly, because it is easier for most people today to understand the foibles and motivations of a thug like Tony Soprano than it is to imagine the real fears and concerns of a deeply flawed 16th century monarch.

You wrote:

But more shades of emotion are required to elevate "The Tudors" from the status of the beautifully shot, skillfully costumed, historically accurate soap opera.

(emphasis mine)

You don't need to search very far to find glaring examples of historical inaccuracies in this series. In fact, a visit to the Wikipedia page about the series would be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tudors#Departures_from_history

That said, I've enjoyed the series for what it is: period-piece melodramatic fluff featuring a beautiful female lead (I hope Natalie Dormer's career takes off after this) and gorgeous, albeit historically inaccurate, sets, props, and costuming.

the Flavour of Love, or Bad Girls, or one of the really, really good fare on TV today.

For a REALLY GOOD depiction of the live and loves of Henry VIII, find videotapes or DVDs of the BBC's classic "Six Wives of Henry VIII" which ran on PBS in the 70's. Much closer to the actual history, and uniformly excellent portrayals of all the characters involved, especially Keith Michell as the "definitive" Henry.

BTW...Henry's extracurricular amours may not have been as numerous as popular myth implies. Compared to the wanton behavior of other European kings of the era, Henry was quite uxorious (look that one up) and had no acknowledged children out-of-wedlock except for the son of Bessie Blount. (Mary Boleyn's child was almost certainly her husband's because Henry made no provisions for the child to inherit any of his estate.)