Excuse Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Love or Hate it? discuss I think it's brilliant, really a good way to open up a period of history to people... even if it is a little inaccurate and overly raunchy... though... i aint complaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFriendlyFace Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Dunno, haven't seen it. I hear it's entertaining but is indeed historically inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 It is historically inaccurate, but it's well made and if you treat it as fiction then it's entertaining. There's a lot of shots of nice male bodies, where you can see everything except the dangley-bits. The king (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and his best mate, Duke of Suffolk (Henry Cavill) are espescially tastey! (IMHO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Hmmm... what channel is it on? It sounds both entertaining and delicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Frost Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 (edited) I'm a sucker for fancy dresses of few hundred years ago. I would watch it only for that. Marie Antoinette was a huge wet dream for me. Edited August 30, 2008 by Jack Frost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewbie Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 It's on show time in the states, im sure you can find it on dvd somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excuse Posted August 30, 2008 Author Share Posted August 30, 2008 Dunno, haven't seen it. I hear it's entertaining but is indeed historically inaccurate. Its very dramatic, hence why people like it... although it may just be the eye candy... I love that time period and studied it both at Alevel and just for fun, and I find it hillarious that the show only has Anne have one miscarriage and the idea that "straw that breaks the camels back" for Henry and Anne is Thomas More's execution... its just a little bit hmm. although the dramatisation is similar to Philippa Greggory's The Other Boleyn Girl... got to love that book. It is historically inaccurate, but it's well made and if you treat it as fiction then it's entertaining. There's a lot of shots of nice male bodies, where you can see everything except the dangley-bits. The king (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and his best mate, Duke of Suffolk (Henry Cavill) are espescially tastey! (IMHO). Bit on teh Duke of Suffolk I'm a sucker for fancy dresses of few hundred years ago. I would watch it only for that. Marie Antoinette was a huge wet dream for me. Same, I read Antonia Fraser's biography on her and it totally makes you feel there the way everythings described... everyone dresssed way more ellegantly back then - *pouts* I think sweat pants and a t are so boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rknapp Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 I'm a sucker for fancy dresses of few hundred years ago. I would watch it only for that. Marie Antoinette was a huge wet dream for me. Only Pennsyltuckians... Meh, I don't think we get Showtime. My dad is too cheap to get the good channels. Damn, I have to miss the hot boys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viv Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Totally LOVED it! Jonathan Rhys Meyers is amazing in this... and I don't have Showtime either, but I watched it all on www.surfthechannel.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excuse Posted August 31, 2008 Author Share Posted August 31, 2008 Totally LOVED it! Jonathan Rhys Meyers is amazing in this... and I don't have Showtime either, but I watched it all on www.surfthechannel.com Oh you know that link will come in useful cheers love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demetz Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I thought Cardinal Wolsey's final scene at the end of the first season was masterfully done. I felt for the man, sympathised with him, even feared for him. And then the geniuses in charge of this series ruined that masterful scene with a random stupidly pointless romp in the park between king and harlot. I thought season 2 was interesting, but Anne's end wasn't nearly so masterfully done as Wolsey's. She seemed.... pathetic, but not sympathetic like Wolsey was to me. Also, if this series has any point at all, it must be that it is a very bad idea to be anywhere near the king. If you're a woman, he'll probably try to screw you, which probably wouldn't be so bad if the man wasn't in all likelihood a walking pile of STD. On the other hand, if you're a man working for him, he'll eventually bore of your advice and have you killed. For no good reason because he's kind of... how shall we put this... dumb. The man is without a doubt a prime example of why inherited thrones are a terrible idea. The guy who had to fight for the throne knew its worth and had some kind of vision for the country. The child born to luxury on the other hand is often clueless... which isn't so bad when they become king, unless they actually try to rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Also, if this series has any point at all, it must be that it is a very bad idea to be anywhere near the king. If you're a woman, he'll probably try to screw you, which probably wouldn't be so bad if the man wasn't in all likelihood a walking pile of STD. On the other hand, if you're a man working for him, he'll eventually bore of your advice and have you killed. For no good reason because he's kind of... how shall we put this... dumb. The man is without a doubt a prime example of why inherited thrones are a terrible idea. The guy who had to fight for the throne knew its worth and had some kind of vision for the country. The child born to luxury on the other hand is often clueless... which isn't so bad when they become king, unless they actually try to rule. I do hope that you're not basing your opinion of Henry VIII and an inherited monarchy on this TV show, which is historically inaccuate. It's an entertaining historical soap-opera that just happens to have characters that have the same names and a few things in common with historical characters. Actually, Henry VIII was pretty intelligent and very well educated compared to other rulers of around that time. Apart from his messed up sex life he was also a reasonably good ruler, and arguably better than his father (Henry VII), who did have to fight and kill Richard III for his throne. Looking through history, you find that many of those who seize power by force are more tyrranical and do not rule in the interests of their country. This is because they feel less secure in their position than someone who inherits it. Also, people who seize power rarely do so for the benefit of the country, no matter what they say. They do so because they want the power and wealth. Mugabe didn't inherit his power, but I don't see that his rule has shown much vision for the future of his country! As for Henry VIII having some kind of vision of his country - most of his matrimonial problems were due to his desire for a male heir, and having an unopposed male heir was very good for the stability of the country. England had only just come out of many decades of the Wars of the Roses, and those wars were caused mainly because there were weak kings and uncertain heirs. Henry's desire to have a male heir and be a strong king may have been partly selfish, but he knew that it would also be in the best interests of the country. While a country has two sets of laws (one for religious clergy and one for the rest) and while a large part of the population accepts the sovereinty of some foreign bishop (the pope) over their own king, that king will be weakened. Therefore, even apart from any questions of his divorce, Henry VIII was acting in the interests of his country by throwing off the shackles of superstition imposed by a corrupt Church. Other rulers were doing much the same thing at this time as the Reformation swept across Europe. So, although I agree that inherited monarchy can have its disadvantages, especially if there is a fixed system of primogeniture and if the heirs are not properly brought up and selected, I do not agree that Henry VIII was an example of such disadvantages. Kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excuse Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 Henry was a petulant and spoilt child... spoilt by his grandmother and mother, according to accounts - "the golden child" usually got what he wanted, and was interested in tales of romance and valore - i reckon thats part of the reason he was always looking for the perfect wife... But he was far from stupid, well until the syphillis kicked in that is... He just took what he wanted at times... and well seeing as how he'd managed to gain an almost absolute monarchy for himself... he could. plus his ministers and advisors have to hold some of the blame... especially where the reformation is concerned, after all towards the end of his reign he showed signs of becoming more leniant with the clergy and even making a shift from lutherinism. to be fair we can probably never know what he was thinking or why he did certain things... and yes it does seem that his desire for a male heir and to get the wife he wanted did mess up England... but in the long run it was probably the best thing to happen. plus cannon law and state law totally clashed oh and with wolsey... I'm sure he died of pneumonia before he could be taken to the tower... fairly sure he didnt kill himself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demetz Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I don't base my whole opinion on the man on this silly little series, no. And I certainly didn't say every one who siezes power does so for noble reasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 or no good reason because he's kind of... how shall we put this... dumb. The man is without a doubt a prime example of why inherited thrones are a terrible idea. The guy who had to fight for the throne knew its worth and had some kind of vision for the country. I don't base my whole opinion on the man on this silly little series, no. You didn't say it was merely your opinion. You stated it as if it were a fact, and even used the phrase 'without doubt'. You certainly appeared to be stating as fact that Henry was dumb, which goes against what I've seen stated by historians. However, accepting that it was indeed merely an opinion and not based upon an inaccurate drama, what historical facts do you base your opinion on? And I certainly didn't say every one who siezes power does so for noble reasons Well, you said:- "The guy who had to fight for the throne knew its worth and had some kind of vision for the country" You didn't say some guys and you didn't say sometimes. In fact, you didn't use any qualifiers at all. So there is an implication that all or most of those who "had to fight for the throne knew its worth and had some kind of vision for the country". You seem to be saying that those who inherited the throne were unlikely to have vision for the country. So I wonder if you had any hard data to support that? Kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demetz Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 >__> <__< Semantics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now