The Tudors

[ricevermicelli]

Okay, we're still on the lookout for heaving bosoms, and it turns out that Season 1 of the Tudors has far greater variety of those (at least in the first 1.75 episodes) than Season 2.

I confess, I cannot tell the men in this show apart. There are religious guys who wear red, religious guys who wear black, and flamboyantly dressed guys who change outfits so often that I can't keep track of them. I'm really not in this for the plot - I already know who gets beheaded and why, although it may turn out that they can surprise me with when. They've played merry hob with Princess Mary's age and betrothal to the Dauphin, they appear to be making the argument that Henry was 25 or so in 1530, and Lady Blount (who was never visibly pregnant) gave birth to a two week old infant with no umbilical cord after an apparent gestation of a week and a half, so I wouldn't put it past them to muck with the timing of a conspiracy or three just to make things more exciting.

I'm in this for the costumes, and I'm in it for the hope of sexy scandal.

There's a lot of sex, and a lot of scandal, but the two aren't quite going together as hoped.

I will say this though: the series implies that either Lady Mary Boleyn is seriously awesome at fellatio, or that Henry has quite the short fuse. She's barely got his historically accurate trousers unlaced when he starts crushing her aglets and hyperventilating. I guess this fits with the portrait of Henry as frat boy. Foreplay is optional when you're the king.

Comments

[zathrus.livejournal.com]

You have definitely managed to cement in my mind the fact that, while this may be a TV series that claims to have something to do with history, it is not, in fact, anything I should contemplate using in the process of educating my children about history. Thank you for getting that out of the way in a most amusing fashion. (And, while I understand the practical difficulties involved in getting actual newborns on screen, and certainly would never volunteer any newborn of my own for the role, still, the frequency with which two-week-olds (or two-month-olds) are passed off as newborns on screen bugs me.)

SpongeBob SquarePants seems to have books that also fall in this category, although not for all the same reasons. The lack of fellatio in SpongeBob SquarePants greatly increases the possibility for confusion on this point; it's in the children's section of the library, and claims to be about medieval Europe, so there's a chance, right? Sadly, no. Very much not. Closer acquaintance has, in this case, completely confirmed my earlier ignorance-born prejudice, which was based purely on the fact that he was a currently-popular cartoon character.

Newt

[ricevermicelli.livejournal.com]

We specialize in questionable media choices for children over here, and I'm not letting Danger Lad! watch this show with me.

The greatest dedication to historical accuracy here appears to come from the costume department. The costumes are incredible. They look like they were made by Mistress Laurel Seamchecker, with an infinite budget and hundreds of minions.

[mzrowan.livejournal.com]

I just pictured going down on someone who thinks washing is unhealthy.

Ew.

Must remember

[drwex]

...NOT to be eating lunch while reading ricevermicelli posts. Laughing and choking is awkward. And tends to get me funny looks from other lunch-timers.

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

they appear to be making the argument that Henry was 25 or so in 1530

That would depend on one's definition of "or so". He was 21 in 1530. Now, I changed a fair amount between 21 and 25, but I grew up in the modern American style of delayed adulthood. I don't rightly know what I would have been like if I had adult responsibilities from a younger age.

[ricevermicelli.livejournal.com]

He was 21 in 1530.

I know it's dangerous to trust Wikipedia, but they list a birthdate of 28 June 1491. He'd been king for 21 years in 1530.

Now, mind you, this is the same web site on which my sister once found an entry claiming that Bloody Sunday was a zombie rebellion. But tudorhistory.org agrees with wikipedia on the birthdate.

mea culpa

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

You are entirely correct. I believe the explanation that adequately explains my posting is "I was an idiot" - I really should know better than to post when I ought to be sleeping.

Something which I will go fix now.