Anne Boleyn is easily my favourite historical person. I am a huge history buff & read everything I can about the Yorks, Plantagenets & Tudors. I lose interest completely after the Stuarts.
I admire Anne Boleyn so much that I gave my daughter her name as a middle name.
I too loved 'The Tudors' and was very well aware that it was fictional & loosely based on the Tudor period. Charles Brandon for example wasn't such a nice man irl.
I read historical fiction & non fiction about the periods I'm interested in. Separating 'fact' from fiction is part of the fun but then what do we truly know as fact anyway. As with Richard III's portraits, much documentation about Anne was changed after she fell from grace & a lot of what is out there in the archives is written by people who hated her such as Chapuys etc who had their own axes to grind with her.
Everyone interprets Anne in different ways from what is known, however biased that information was.
Anne Of Green Gables arrived yesterday and it's not about Anne Boleyn....
I've read the first chapter and actually I'm quite enjoying it so far (even though it's not about Boleyn ) but why is it called AOGG if it's not about Anne Boleyn?
Anne Of Green Gables arrived yesterday and it's not about Anne Boleyn....
I've read the first chapter and actually I'm quite enjoying it so far (even though it's not about Boleyn ) but why is it called AOGG if it's not about Anne Boleyn?
Why you think this kind of thing is amusing is beyond me.
Try Keith Michell's portrayal of Henry in The Six Wives of Henry VIII, excellent series throughout. It's a BBC production from the 1970s but is still brilliant
It is wonderful I tried to collect the VHS versions - didn't get the full set but was going to get them copied to DVD when I discovered that Amazon had a DVD version, Keith Michell is wonderful. I think it was a struggle for them to be confined to one hour for each wife, when their stories really needed different lengths
Like I said before, with 'The Tudors' (series) I didn't go in watching it wanting historical accuracy. I quite liked the OTT of it all (as lots of others did too) but I can understand historians not liking it one bit. But I think if you can let go of inaccuracies before viewing, you'll be okay. It seems Natalie Dormer really did love the part of Anne and tried to do her justice the best she could (from what I've read).
I've only seen series 1-3 and not series 4 (yet) so not sure how Anne's (excellent) execution episode compared to Catherine Howard's.
I seriously have an obsession with this time in History as when I was very little (well, maybe 6 or 7) I'd demand my mum to record any documentaries on TV about it!
I couldn't cope with the Tudors. I was solo disappointed, Collapsing Henry's sisters into one did for me
Other monarchs had burials rearranged ie James 1 had MQoS moved.
Elizabeth didn't make much (if any mention of her mother). It was not in her interests to bring the issue of her up and questions about her legitimacy,
I love Natalie Dormer, I have a huge girl crush on her. I always thought it was downright weird that they cast an actress with blue eyes but she was perfect.
You should read Anne's biography by Eric Ives. It's very wordy but it's a fascinating read and is regarded as the definitive biography of Anne.
My wife is a Tudor Dynasty nut, she devours books, movies, and TV shows that feature it.
I remember when The Tudors was on TV, with Jonathan Rhys Meyers playing Henry V111.
When Natalie Dormer appeared, as Anne Boleyn, it reminded me of my old roué of a Dad's favourite non P.C. comment, "Christ, I could drink her bath water!"
Comments
I admire Anne Boleyn so much that I gave my daughter her name as a middle name.
I too loved 'The Tudors' and was very well aware that it was fictional & loosely based on the Tudor period. Charles Brandon for example wasn't such a nice man irl.
I read historical fiction & non fiction about the periods I'm interested in. Separating 'fact' from fiction is part of the fun but then what do we truly know as fact anyway. As with Richard III's portraits, much documentation about Anne was changed after she fell from grace & a lot of what is out there in the archives is written by people who hated her such as Chapuys etc who had their own axes to grind with her.
Everyone interprets Anne in different ways from what is known, however biased that information was.
I've read the first chapter and actually I'm quite enjoying it so far (even though it's not about Boleyn
It is wonderful I tried to collect the VHS versions - didn't get the full set but was going to get them copied to DVD when I discovered that Amazon had a DVD version, Keith Michell is wonderful. I think it was a struggle for them to be confined to one hour for each wife, when their stories really needed different lengths
I think Catherine of A was interesting too. I couldn't cope with the Tudors. I was solo disappointed, Collapsing Henry's sisters into one did for me
Elizabeth didn't make much (if any mention of her mother). It was not in her interests to bring the issue of her up and questions about her legitimacy,
My wife is a Tudor Dynasty nut, she devours books, movies, and TV shows that feature it.
I remember when The Tudors was on TV, with Jonathan Rhys Meyers playing Henry V111.
When Natalie Dormer appeared, as Anne Boleyn, it reminded me of my old roué of a Dad's favourite non P.C. comment, "Christ, I could drink her bath water!"