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 Also, I swear that the door into the throne room has been replaced by a curtain in between series 2 and 3.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.