Book Review - Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, by G.W Bernard

I've read a lot of Bernard's previous work, including his short articles where he claims that Anne Boleyn probably did commit adultery with at least one of the five men accused alongside her. I didn't find the argument particularly convincing, mostly because the dates on which Anne was meant to have done the dirty deed were not compatible with when she was actually at the royal palaces mentioned, and I have always believed that the poor woman, her brother, and the others, were simply destroyed on a whim by a King who'd become infatuated with yet another mistress. I'd even written an essay on Anne and Henry's relationship whilst studying for my masters, and vowed to defend her to the very last, bitter word. She has always been, ironically along with Katherine of Aragon, one of my heroes. 

So it was with great interest that I opened Bernard's latest book Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions, wondering what on earth he'd come up with now to paint Anne as an adulteress. In fact, the first 124 pages of the book are not concerned with Anne's fall, but with other aspects of her life, such as her early relationship with the King, and her religious beliefs. I actually found these parts of the book very well argued, as Bernard consistently shows evidence to prove that it was Henry, not Anne, who held back from full sexual relations during their early relationship, and that it was Henry, not Anne, who drove the divorce proceedings and subsequent religious change. Of course, putting Henry in the driving seat fits neatly with Bernard's much more complicated theory in The King's Reformation, which is that Henry was not manipulated by factions but directed policy himself. So perhaps we should be wary of taking all of his conclusions about Anne's religion etc at face value.

The last part of the book deals exclusively with the theories surrounding Anne's sudden fall and her execution. By this point, funnily enough, I really wanted Bernard to come up with some watertight arguments about why he thinks Anne might have been guilty. However, after refuting the other theories behind her fall - that it was the work of Cromwell, for example - he then goes on to offer no more than the 'might have beens' that he so criticises. He even ends the book by stating that his theory is a 'hunch' and that Anne 'probably' commited adultery (with Henry Norris, for example). We must remember that the sources that survive from the time are fragmentary and, in the case of Anne's fall, it was hardly likely that she would have confessed even if she had been guilty. But there is still nothing to raise Bernard's conclusions above other historical interpretations - the interpretations he was so quick to discard. He places an unreasonable weight on gossip, especially that of the Countess of Worcester, who denounced Anne's morals and way of life. Yet, even if Henry did believe this gossip, instead of destroying Anne because he was bored with her, it does not mean that the gossip was in fact true! 

I still greatly respect Bernard as a historian. I even cornered him whilst he was having his lunch during the Henry VIII conference in 2009 to bombard him with questions about the King's divorce. But I can't help feeling that his ideas about Anne's fall are still barking up the wrong tree, so to speak. Anne was no saint - it's the fact she wasn't that makes her so interesting - but in my opinion there is still no concrete evidence to prove that she was guilty of any of the crimes that she was charged with, and that her death was nothing less than murder.

Oops I forgot I had a blog. Oh yeah, and I got engaged.

I must be the worst blogger ever, as I keep forgetting I have this thing. Perhaps if my life were more exciting then I'd be more inclined to update it. At least now I have something to write about, which is that my boyfriend Michael and I got engaged yesterday :). 

November 1st was the 3 year anniversary of when we met, and we'd always said we'd get engaged once we'd been together for three years, so we did. This was in no way a 'traditional' engagement, as it was something we'd talked about for a while, so Mike didn't suprise me by getting down on one knee. There was no 'popping the question' either. Mike doesn't feel comfortable with the showy, traditional romanticism expected of the man in this situation and, to be honest, neither do I. So instead we went together to one of the big jewellery shops in the centre of Bristol and purchased a very modest engagement ring. And I do mean very modest. I find the idea of being wearing a ring covered in silly diamonds which cost more than a month's mortgage, quite utterly stupid. What's important about engagement, and then marriage, is the love between the two people, not the jewellery they wear. On the other hand, it's sometimes nice to have a pretty thing occasionally, which is why I didn't forsake the ring entirely. 

We do have a picture of the thing somewhere, but at the moment it's on Mike's phone and he's unable to email it to me because... well because he can't be bothered. The actual ring is currently being resized because I have ugly fat sausage fingers and the one at he shop didn't fit. So now I get to embark on the interesting journey that is wedding planning. Not that the wedding will be for at least another two years. A world of tacky tiaras, uncomfortable dresses, and needless decorations await, and I'm sure I will find it rather irritating at times, which is why I intend to blog about it because, lets face it, angry blogs are the most fun.

Allergy Watch - The Eden Project

My boyfriend and I joined my family for a holiday down in our 'usual spot' on the Lizard Peninsula in Cornwall earlier this month. The Eden Project seemed like a natural place to break the depressing journey back home, with the added benefit that we escaped the awful traffic building up on the A30 towards Bodmin. 

Having previously visited the Eden Project, I was confident that they would still be providing their range of gluten-free foods. On our last visit, my mum and I had found gluten-free soup and bread, and even a gluten-free sandwich in their cafe inbetween the biomes. We weren't even put off when their little info leaflet, picked up earlier in the week, mentioned that they had opened a bakery. We thought it would perhaps be a little shop where you could see bread being made and possibly buy some. 

Upon getting to the Eden Project, however, we found that the bakery had completely replaced the cafe inbetween the biomes, and was enormous. There was nothing on offer apart from bread. To make things worse, there were tomatoes everywhere, and this set off my allergy to the extent where I could barely breathe. A lot of the bread was made with nuts, which made the environment unsafe for my mum also. 

I was really disappointed and asked a staff member if there was anything we could eat. We were told that we had to go to 'Jo's Cafe' in a completely different building to see if there was anything gluten-free. Jo's Cafe was this tiny place and seemed to specialise mostly in pasta, ironically. There was one gluten-free cake, and two gluten-free dishes, one of which I couldn't have because it had tomato in it. But if they rotate their menu every day, what happens if you arrive on the day when it's just pasta and sandwiches? Do you end up with a banana and an overpriced elderflower cordial? 

When we entered the meditteranean biome, we also found that there was a small cafe there, which seemed to be serving regionally-themed bean type dishes. To be honest I couldn't get close enough to see because again it set off my tomato alarm. However, there was no way of knowing if these huge vats of stuff were gluten-free. My mum and I were slightly miffed that the Eden Project, which had previously been so good about gluten allergies, had taken a huge step backwards. No doubt they feel that there's more profit in the bakery angle, but don't they realise that gluten allergy is really common and that a significant minority of their guests will end up feeling excluded and going home hungry? Surely a place who's mantra is about diversity shouldn't go down the 'you can have any food as long as it's bread' road? 

We saw that some visitors had bought their own food and had hidden themselves in the garden bit. Perhaps that's what I'll have to do next time. It's a shame because it's put me off going back, and my boyfriend and I were planning on taking a trip there when he passes his driving test and gets his first car soon, as your ticket entitles you to free entry for a year. I've been of two minds wether to write a letter to them about the issue, but perhaps I should and see what they say, so at least other people are informed about it before they decide to go there.

Allergy Watch - Starbucks Gluten Free Sandwich

Ages ago, I'd heard that Starbucks were introducing a gluten-free sandwich, but I've never seen one until now. I even went looking on the web recently to see if they actually had made one, and discovered that the flavour was cheese and coleslaw. We stopped at a service station on the way back from London last night, and there was a Starbucks there, and I spotted this sandwich. It's really not obvious that it's gluten-free, as the words on the label are so tiny. I wouldn't usually pick the flavour as I don't really like coleslaw, but I thought I'd give it a go. 

It's made with 'genius' brand gluten-free bread, and the bread is nice. It tastes like real bread, not like cardboard, and it's not stupidly crumbly. The innards of the sandwich was rather pungant, as there were two different types of cheese and the coleslaw. It was perfectly acceptable, but not really something I'd choose if there were lots of options as I still don't like coleslaw. But if I'm ever at a starbucks on route somewhere and need something to eat, then I'd probably get one again. It's not cheap though, but nothing gluten-free is (you know, because we obviously choose to be this way). 

Exclusion Diet - The tough 2 weeks are over

Finally, the first two weeks of the exclusion diet are over and I can start to re-introduce foods. I really got sick of the bland stuff by the end of it. It's rather disheartening when someone else in your house gets to eat whatever they want and all you can look forward to is a bit of chicken and rice. My monthly period arrived on Saturday evening, meaning I was in absolute agony then and all day Sunday, and I could not do with the hassle of the silly diet on top of everything else. I decided to pick corn as my first thing to re-introduce as it meant I could have my gluten-free pasta for lunch, seeing as I really didn't fancy spud innards (I'm not even allowed the skin of a potato on this thing). I was naughty and had two gluten-free chocolate biscuits because the cramping from the period was making me feel sick and I thought they might settle my stomach. As I said before, I didn't care about sticking to the rules anymore once I was in so much pain that I had to take morphene. 

On Monday, I was due to travel from Bristol to my mum's house in Gloucestershire, and then on to London to see WWE wrestling at the O2 arena. I couldn't go straight from Bristol to London as I was taking my 15 year old brother and he can't get on the train by himself. Of course, my period, instead of being its usual 4 days early, had come at exactly the right time in order to make my trip out as painful as possible. In the end, the pain wasn't so bad but I was hit by the most god awful hormonal nausea, which exacerbated my motion sickness. It's a bit like morning sickness but without being pregnant, and I spent the whole process of getting to my mum's house (bus, train, car) thinking I was going to vomit or faint. Needless to say, the stupid diet went completely out of the window. I grabbed a coke at the train station shop hoping it might alleviate the sick feeling, and my mum made me pasta with real, not soy, margerine on it (wow!) for lunch. Luckily, the motion sickness went away for the journey into London, as I was contemplating giving up and calling it a day (my mum would have had to go in my place, and wrestling isn't her cup of tea). But there was no chance of sticking to the diet when at the O2 arena. I had several more cokes, a chocolate milkshake, and steak and chips. I'd looked through the dining options the night before, and it was rather restrictive, given my usual allergies. At least I'm not vegetarian though, because there really isn't anywhere there to eat if you are. As it was, the waitress at the place we picked got a bit arsey when I politely asked them not to grill my steak on the same thing as the tomatoes. Then they must have gone out the back to slaughter the cow becase it took them forever to bring our food, and she got arsey again when my brother asked where it was! We got a total of 10 minutes to eat before having to get to our seats, so I shovelled the steak as fast as I could. 

Today, I've continued being naughty and had real margerine again, chocolate yogarts, and a gluten free beer. I know I'm being terrible but I've had enough. As I said to my mum, the dietician will just have to understand. My priority at the moment is to lessen the physical pain I'm in because of my period, and if that means shoving chocolate in my gob, then so be it. I'll probably go back to being strict when I get home tomorrow. 

Exclusion Diet - Now on day 10

Day ten of the exclusion diet and all I can think and dream about is food. It's not even food that I could have anyway; my mind is filled with images of pasta and burgers. Every single meal on this diet is so bland and boring. Even squid, which would usually be a tasty treat, is mediocre when all you can do with it is plop it on some rice (I usually have it on gluten free pasta). The george forman grill has been having a thorough workout since I can't be bothered to measure the oil I'd usually put in a pan like the diet booklet suggests, but cleaning the damn thing every day is not much fun, to say the least. I think if I have to munch rice krispies for breakfast again, I'll scream. Oh wait, that's what I've got for breakfast tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, ad infinitum. I just want something with a bit of flavour in it, is that too much to ask? Apparently it is. 

I think I'd be less irate if this diet was actually helping. Despite surviving on the handful of foods I'm allowed, I'm still having stomach problems. This is because the majority of my IBS is caused by stress, and I simply can't get rid of all the stress in my life. I had a lovely sore stomach all through the night sunday into monday because my father decided to spend half an hour telling me how useless I was when I simply rang to wish him happy birthday. This morning, I had to run to the loo 5 times to make 'lemon sherberts' because he'd phoned the house. You can see a pattern emerging, can't you. In fact, the gastroenterologist told me to cut off all contact with him because he's making me ill. The point is, I'll never be completely free of problems. My insides are just too 'special'. So I'm starting to question why I have to go through this daft diet at all. At least I only have a few more days of the crap bit left before I can start re-introducing things. I think 'that time of the month' is going to hit this weekend, so the first thing I'll bring back will be wine. 

Exclusion Diet - The first three days

Despite being gluten and wheat free (due to an intolerance) for four years, my digestive system still refuses to play ball. I can't have anything spicy, I can't have anything rich. Sometimes I just look at food and I can feel my insides cramping. Whatever's going on in there is certainly compounded by stress, and my stomach defines stress as 'going outside the house'. It's completely stupid. 

Trying to get doctors to believe that I'm not making this all up is rather difficult, to say the least. When I mention my gluten intolerance and my tomato allergy, I get what I call the 'yeah right' face. In fact, watching them go from that face to a 'actually you have a point' is hysterical. In the end, I've been given the notorious dead-end diagnosis of IBS, which is essentially medical speak for 'we don't know what's wrong, please go away'. The attitude of doctors in this country is that, unless you're dead or in hospital with tubes coming out the wazoo, there's nothing wrong with you. At all. Ever.

So, finally, after four years, I've been allowed to see a dietician, and that's only with the help of private medical insurance. Her first question was 'do you take your gluten free diet seriously?' Oh no, not at all, I actually like making Jackson Pollock style paintings up the back of the toilet whilst it feels like my internal organs are leaking out. Facepalm. After going through the usual routine to convince her that I wasn't a time waster or someone on a fad diet, she recommended I go on an 'exclusion diet', where I cut out everything except the blandest, plainest, most boring food, in an effort to see what is causing my insides to behave so badly. 

For the first two weeks, I'm only allowed fresh meat and fish (no pork), certain vegetables and fruits, rice, soya milk, ribena, and pineapple juice. That's it. No wheat (well duh), dairy produce, cups of tea, wine, chocolate, not even my ordinary gluten free bread (it's got corn in it). I can't even have a humble orange. I started the thing on Monday and the first three days have been tough. On Tuesday, I felt so feint and weak that I just lay down and cried for most of the afternoon. Things weren't helped by having another upset tummy, which is funny because the diet is meant to stop those. I had a bit more energy on Wednesday simply by following my mum's advice of putting sugar on my gluten-free rice krispies in the morning. My body obviously needs a certain amount of it to function by the looks of things. I'm already sick to the back teeth of rice cakes, as they're the only thing I'm allowed to snack on during the day. I'm constantly hungry. Michael isn't helping by eating delicious gooey burgers and ice-cream milkshakes right in front of me. I know I couldn't have the burger anyway, but at least I could think about having a nice gluten-free alternative. Now, I get to have another cardboard rice cake. What fun! 

I'm in two minds as to wether I should re-introduce wheat into my food as the exclusion diet suggests. My original diagnosis as gluten intolerant was, to put it bluntly, more my own work than that of the doctor. Part of me wants to go through with eating bread and be ok, the last four years just be a mistake, and life to return to normal. I don't think there's one person with an allergy who doesn't dream of that. The other part of me is scared witless by the prospect of eating bread again. What if it isn't ok, and I end up in the bathroom for an entire day? Is it worth the risk to find out? I'm getting on alright with being gluten free, it's the tomato allergy that's the real bummer. I'm also worried that the two weeks of plain food won't actually help my insides, and I'll be told to carry on for another month. Or maybe it'll turn out that I can't have proper milk anymore. That'll be fun, being gluten and dairy free, that won't make me suicidal at all! I guess all I can do is wait and see what happens, as usual.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 4

• Aske is hanged in chains at York. He was haged in chains but, as far as I understand, this meant he was left chained to the wall to die of exposure/hunger etc, instead of being traditionally hanged with chains round him.
• Francis Bryan is sent to aprehend Reginald Pole, taking a rather young Thomas Seymour with him as some sort of aide. Thomas Seymour was an important man in his own right and would not have been suitable for such a role. The mission itself also did not occur in real life. 
• Edward Seymour is shown waiting in the Queen's chamber as Jane is in difficult labour near by. In reality, the Queen went into seclusion towards the end of her pregnancy and only women were allowed to attend her until she had given birth. 
• Bishop Gardiner is seen baptising Edward, when it was Archbishop Cranmer who did this (he seems to have disappeared after series 2). Also, Henry would not have attended.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 3

• Hans Holbein, the painter, has a slight altercation with another man, who is meant to be the fiance of Lady Miselden, Henry's mistress. As Lady Miselden is a fictional character, this did not happen, although Henry's statement about seven lords not being equal to one Holbein is accurate.
• Suffolk is shown implementing punishment on the people for the rebellion. In fact, as stated previously, it was the Duke of Norfolk who was Henry's representative in the North. 
• The poker in the bum scene is rather unnecessary. I'm not sure if Constable was tortured but, if he was, it probably wasn't by Edward Seymour and a red hot poker. 
• Henry did not visit Aske in prison, as is depicted.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 2

• When Brandon is arguing with the man about the cannons (or lack of), there is a large coach in the background. This type of coach would not have been around until the Victorian era, many hundreds of years later.
• Lord Darcy of Pontefract Castle is shown talking to, and then joining the rebels. The actual truth of Darcy's situation was much more complicated. He did indeed write many times to the King, asking for more men to hold the castle. Henry ignored him. However, Darcy may have gone along with the rebels fearful that, if he did not, he would be killed. 
• Lady Miselden, Henry's supposed mistress, is a completely fictional character. Henry did not take a mistress in the time he was married to Jane Seymour, although he was overheard making remarks about other 'beautiful' ladies etc.
• When Francis Bryan goes to touch Lady Miselden, she remarks 'you cannot touch me, for ceasar's I am'. This was actually a refrain from a poem by Thomas Wyatt (another character who has disappeared after season 2), and the poem is believed to be about Anne Boleyn.
• Robert Aske is shown with his family when, in reality, he was unmarried.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 3, Episode 1

• Sir Francis Bryan is introduced as a character when he had in fact been present at court for a number of years previously and had been, at one time, close to the Boleyn family. He did only have one eye and was a notorious trouble-maker.
• After the scene in which Henry celebrates his marriage to Jane Seymour, the story cuts to events in Yorkshire, where the common people rise up against religious changes. This makes it seem like these things were happening around the same time. However, Henry married Jane in May but the uprisings did not begin until October 1536. 
• Richard Rich tells Cromwell that they have taken possession of monastic wealth worth 'many millions of pounds'. The wealth from the monastaries was great, but not the great. There was no concept of 'millions' of pounds in the Tudor age.
• When Edward Seymour is shown receiving his honours, Brandon is standing (once again) on the dias behind Henry's throne. Again, this would not have happened. The dias, throne, and canopy of estate were visual symbols of monarchy. If Brandon had stood there, it would have communicated that he was on the same level as the King, which would have been treasonous. Also, I swear that the door into the throne room has been replaced by a curtain in between series 2 and 3.
• In the scene where she talks to abassador Chapuys, Jane is shown wearing an elaborate lace collar, which was not in fashion at the time. That sort of collar is instantly recognisable as belonging to the Elizabethan era instead.
• When Jane is talking to her ladies, and then Lady Rochford, she is wearing a rediculous head-dress made of pointy bits of metal. This would never have been worn. Also, her ladies are wearing odd sort of flat 'bonnet' hats. In reality, since Anne Boleyn had favoured the 'french' head-dress, Jane ordered her ladies to wear the traditional English 'gable' hood instead.
• Cromwell is shown recieving offices and the title of Baron of Wimbledon. Again this means that the timing in the episode is wrong, as this was done in July and not at the beginning of the northern uprisings (shown alongside), which were in October.
• Henry appoints Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, as commander of forces against the rebels. In fact, it was the Duke of Norfolk who was appointed. For some reason, Norfolk has been written out of the show after series 1, even though he was an increadibly important figure in Henry's reign. In all the scenes that follow to do with the rebellion, Brandon's actions are meant to be what Norfolk actually did.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 2, Episode 9

• At the opening of the episode, Henry's doctors are telling him that Anne's miscarried baby was somehow 'deformed'. The only evidence of this being true is the account of Chapuys, who stated that she miscarried a 'shapeless lump of flesh'. However, the bias of Chapuys against Anne is well known, and there is nothing to actually suggest her baby truly was deformed. 
• When Anne confronts Jane Seymour about the locket, she is wearing a ruffed collar which was not actually in fashion at the time. This style of dress was much more indicative of the Elizabethan era than the era in which Anne was queen.
• When Chapuys is talking with Cromwell, he refers to Anne as Queen. Chapuys actually refused ever to refer to Anne as queen, always calling her 'the lady', and in his private letters 'the concubine'.
• Thomas Boleyn is shown walking through the throne room and across the dias where Henry's throne was. In reality, he would not have been permitted to do so.
• In the episode, Brereton actually confesses that he slept with Anne, in order to fulfill his assassin mission of having her killed. In reality, he did not confess because he had not done anything. He was brought down by Cromwell because he was a powerful figure in his local area. 
• It's a shame that the episode did not show the trial of Anne, or of George Boleyn. Both defended themselves with great merit.
• The men were executed on Tower Hill, not within the walls of the Tower as depicted. Anne may not have been able to see them from her room.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 2, Episode 8

• Jane Seymour is shown becoming a lady in waiting to Anne Boleyn when in fact she had held this position for a few years already. 
• Anne is shown as being pregnant again. However, the timing of this is wrong. Anne miscarried her final pregnancy on the day Katherine of Aragon was buried, in January 1536. She was executed in May. Katherine died in the previous episode and, by looking at Anne's tummy, we surmise that this episode is set several months after. However, this does not fit with the actual timeline of what happened. There is actually no reason for the show to change the real timing of the events; the fact that Anne miscarried when Katherine was buried could have made an interesting scene. 
• Anne is shown performing the traditional role of washing feet of the poor and giving them maundy money. This also doesn't fit with the timing of her still being pregnant, as she miscarried in January and Maundy is the day before Good Friday in easter. 
• Henry did indeed suffer a jousting accident in 1536 (though I'm not sure he was jousting against Norris), but it was in January. Again, therefore, the timeline in the episode is not accurate. 
• Anne was told the news of Henry's accident by her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk (who seems to have been cut out of history after season 1 of this show). She later blamed his crass manner of telling her as one of the reasons for her miscarriage. 

The cancelling of 'Outcasts', and why the BBC has gone mad.

I don't watch a lot of TV. I never have. Mostly because there's nothing on. Well I mean that figuratively of course, there's always something on, but it's never what I'd want to watch. The BBC takes £120 of my money every single year, just so I can legally put a television set in my house, and yet my TV schedule remains so piss poor that I constantly ponder what they spend the money on. They certainly don't spend it on quality programming. 

TV these days is a cold, uncomfortable affair, driven by sinister words like 'community' and 'inclusion'. But the fact that I live in the south-west doesn't mean that I want to watch more programmes about the south-west. It's the south-west, not south-central LA - nothing happens here. In fact, when something does happen here, it's so endlessly talked about and churned round on TV that it instantly becomes so boring that it might as well have occured on the planet zog. Nor do I want more programmes about getting young people into music, or dance, or whatever other arts sector your researchers think is 'hip'. The fact that there is crushing poverty and hardship in some parts of this country is not a clarion call for yet more talent-based elimination shows, where some girl even younger than me who has 5 kids cries backstage because the judges didn't like her 'performance'. What these social issues represent is an opportunity to tear into politicians over why nothing is being done. Why does it take a TV programme, of all things, to give these people hope? Do they not deserve a better quality of life otherwise? 

I see TV as being easily divided into three parts; weekday daytime, weekday evening, and the weekend. God forbid you ever want to watch it during the daytime. I mean, what exactly do the elderly and the sick find interesting about an endless procession of shows telling you how to sell your house? Of course, nobody sells houses nowadays, so you get these wonderful little disclaimers at the end telling you the price was correct in...2005, because none of these programmes are new. No, the entire daytime schedule is made up of repeats. That is what we, as the fee payers, are worth. Weekend TV is just as bad. This is where you get the 'talent' shows mentioned above, whatever sport is in season, and - on sunday -  the absolute drivel about religion. It's 2011, not 1950, and a large part of the population has no religion. Even if they do, I doubt it'll be Christianity, which seems to be the only religion in existance according to the BBC. 

So we come to the weekday evening part where, if you're lucky, you might find something to watch. That is, if you like dramas about crime and law. What is it exactly about crime and law that the BBC find so fascinating? How many more programmes do we have to trudge through about digging up murder victims? If that doesn't satisfy your lust for the macabre, you've always got the stalwart hospital-based soap opera, where unfortunate nameless extras depart this life in a hail of blood and leaking organs, whilst the doctors and nurses talk a lot and don't do any actual work. This is what we're meant to be watching after we've had our dinner, by the way. If you've got half a brain and don't want to see dead bodies, there's nothing for you at the BBC. 

That is why I was so pleased when they started the series of Outcasts a few weeks ago. I was skeptical at first that it would another one of those dull BBC dramas (I was sure crime and law would feature somehow) where the broadcaster valiantly tries to prove its worth and squarely ends up in the flat, dusty middle of the road. I was so pleasantly surprised when the show turned out to have a well-written plot that developed over the course of the series, touching on issues that stem from simple human nature but can become so complicated. There was no identifiable 'hero', and even the 'villian' could have justifiable motives. The characters were flawed, but because they had flaws I grew to genuinely like them. I grew to want the trouble on Carpathia to be resolved because I could see how the show was addressing the question of wether there is hope for our species in the long term. 

I was somewhat miffed, then, when the series finished after only eight episodes, especially when the last episode ended on a huge cliffhanger. Each week, I got more and more frustrated with how the BBC decided to change the day and time that Outcasts was broadcast, with it being relegated to a late-night slot on Sunday. Nobody goes looking for quality TV that late on a weekend, and I sat there knowing that the ratings would suffer and that there would be the inevitable discussion over the programme's future. In fact, there wasn't even a discussion. It was quietly cancelled, without so much as a statement at the end of the first, and last, series. In a silly way, it felt like a balloon was being deflated somewhere in my brain. All the time I'd invested in those characters; all the emotions I'd felt along the way - it was all for nothing. What made it worse was that I went, expectantly, looking for the time of episode nine whilst clutching a handful of painkillers and a glass of wine, tears streaming down my face from the physical agony I was in that evening. What I wanted - what I needed - was a bit of lovely TV to take my mind off things. Something to make me happy, or sad even, but something to make me feel a response other than pain. Instead, I turned on the set to be met by the usual, awful, rubbish that's there every day. There was nothing to engage, nothing to interest, nothing even that I wouldn't have minded listening to in the background whilst I paced the floor waiting for the morphene to kick in. 

TV in this country is broken almost beyond repair. It won't take much longer before it resembles the US system, where even the news is not required to have a basis in fact. The BBC is meant to be a wonderful institution that delivers wonderful programmes that inspire, interest, and even educate a viewing public that encompasses a huge range of backgrounds and opinions. But it consistently goes with the mundane, the bland, the 'safe' option. And it knows that it can get away with it because, for most families, the TV has replaced all other activities. It can get away with it by counting on people being so tired from working long hours for low pay in a job they despise that they'd much rather see if Leanne, 20, from Scunthorpe has got through another sing-off than have their minds and their eyes treated to a well-written drama. That is why, for the rest of us, there's never anything on.  

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 2, Episode 7

• Henry decides to visit Wolf Hall, home of the Seymours, whilst hunting. Wolf Hall was actually too far to visit on a normal hunting excursion, but Henry and Anne went there whilst on progress in 1535.
• Whilst at Wolf Hall, Henry is introduced to Jane Seymour, wife number 3. However, Henry would have already known Jane as she had been a lady in waiting to Anne, and to Katherine previously.
• The celebration at the end of the episode seems to be for May Day. In reality, Katherine of Aragon died in January (Henry and Anne did celebrate this), and Anne was executed in May, so the timing in the episode is wrong.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 2, Episode 6

• Firstly, there were no major inaccuracies in episodes 4 or 5.
• Cromwell takes George Boleyn to see a printing press, which he describes as a 'new weapon' against the papacy. However, the printing press had been around for several decades already.
• George Boleyn is shown marrying. In reality, he and Lady Rochford were married in the mid 1520s.
• When Anne confronts Henry about where he's going, she's wearing a rediculous, almost see-through outfit, that certainly would not have been worn at the time.

Historical Innacuracies - 'The Tudors', Series 2, Episode 3

• William Brereton is again depicted as some sort of Papal/Spanish spy or assassin, when he was nothing of the sort.
• Katherine of Aragon is shown still resident at 'The More', when she was actually moved on from there to a succession of more remote properties.
• Henry is shown next to Anne in her cornoation procession. In reality, he was not there. The whole process of the coronation was soley about Anne and she went through it alone (she of course had servants etc near her).
• No one was shot during the procession.
• Anne was indeed crowned with the crown of St Edward (which was a huge crown - she swopped it quickly for a smaller one) but Henry did not participate in the ceremony. Apparently he watched, secretly, from a side chamber.
• I'm not sure that Henry had a mistress at the time of Anne giving birth to Elizabeth. There were constant rumours about his possible love affairs, mostly from the Imperial Ambassador, but since Chapuys would say anything to discredit Anne, not all of the rumours had actual basis in fact.

New series of 'The Tudors' begins tonight on BBC 2!

Finally, the 4th series of The Tudors begins tonight on BBC 2 at 9:45pm. In this first episode, Henry announces his marriage to his 5th wife, Katherine Howard. There will be 10 episodes in all. It's getting more and more irritating that the actor playing Henry, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, doesn't look at all like the real thing, especially since he hasn't been asked to wear padding to denote Henry's growing weight. It'll be interesting to see how this final series turns out though.