I understand the anger, though. I habe been researching into Caroline Weldon, a political activist of the 19th century, who was dismissed by her temporaries as a nutter bc she thought the American Indians should not only be kept alive, but left alone, to practise and choose their own culture. Even though, the powers that be slowly came around to her view during the next century, Weldon was almost completely forgotten by history. Only to emerge as a perversely warped and silly version of a damsel in distress in "Woman walking Ahead", a film that made me experience true hatred... because of the real damage done to the cause of equality amongst all sexes (and, by the way, races) such a portrayal does. It's really a betrayal, and done by a female director as well. That said: I really love this historians attitude, and think it does much more to help lighten the dark recesses of history than anger can. Wish I could be like her!

Uhhh, none of them get angry. And you do know the experts are instructed to be as technical and critical as they can, right? They're not like this in normal conversations

She’s representing Penguin books so…..yeah.

I would describe it as a very puritanical attitude. Sometimes it’s warranted (I.e. Rein) sometimes it’s like come on, we give Shakespeare a pass for embellishing but we don’t let modern-day folks do it. Also some of the historians disregard the fact that some of these films are Adapted from historical fiction novels. And as is the way with Hollywood they don’t stay true to the source material. Anyway the whole point of historical fiction is the F word, fiction. It’s not supposed to be a minute by minute account. It’s supposed to be a dramatization of what might have happened explored through the arts rather than through the historical record. And in my opinion it helps inspire people to actually do research and see what the films got wrong. Which is important because you want people to have an imagination and enthusiasm when learning about history, because it makes the subject stimulating.

And much more INFORMATIVE and EDUCATIONAL. All these stuck ups who get angry might have a very good reason, but they seem to think that anger itself is sufficient as a pedagogical tool. It isn't. She takes the time to calmly lay out absolute facts, estimated facts, slight variations that have some historical backing, and complete nonsensical blunders. She also mentions the sources and logic to what she finds more or less reasonable. This is how you teach, folks.

Indeed

To be honest, a better term would be “gross miscarriage of justice”, but that kind of thing didn’t exist under Henry VIII…

Henry needed a son. The country needed a prince,or risk descending into the chaos of civil war. The wars of the roses were not that long ago and featured some of the bloodiest battles on English soil

Diana's too.

I think Henry got bored of her and was ready to move on

I thought she was strawberry blonde?? Definitely blue eyed. All her portraits show that

@@cherrytraveller5915 yes, could be, she was described as 'golden haired', but that could cover strawberry blonde

she was described as having red-gold hair, which I think we see in a lot of her portraits. I think the casting of Charlotte Hope as Catherine in the Spanish Princess was really perfect, although slightly darker red, not sure if you've seen it so I'll link it here- really so beautiful i.pinimg.com/originals/8a/fd/5e/8afd5ecc41c9b84f43c54724920e49ad.jpg

Spanish princess got it right

The two Spanish princesses now, Lenore and Sophia, are both blonde hair blue eyes, pale milky skin

She was very generous to the Mary Queen of Scots movie

The queen is not every woman, for sure. But grafting current values onto women of that time is one of the steps that the story writers could have taken to make it more palatable to some. Conversely, I think they portrayed her in this way to make it seem more "hisorically authentic".

I don't know...I've yet to meet a woman her age who didn't at some point struggle with the idea of motherhood - especially if they were single but wanted to be married. And this in a society that often values career over motherhood! If Elizabeth felt she could not marry and keep her throne, I'd find it very hard to believe she wouldn't struggle at some point with wanting that which she could not have - even if she only wanted it because she could not have it. Men probably only experience it less because marriage and parenthood is not as restrictive historically nor biologically as it is for women. They've generally had less to lose.

In what century? But perhaps she was afraid to marry because of her position but missed motherhood.

@@justicevanpool9025 I agree. So many times, people today, want to superimpose today's values on historical figures. We see these women as extraordinary for their times, anomalies, but few survived those character traits Anne Boleyn is one of those who did not.

But at least we got to see David Morrissey in tights.

their outfits were also more accurate than in other movies/shows but overall I hatethat movie :D

Lol I loved this movie! Even though I now know how inaccurate it is, it is damn entertaining!

So what? In the end he tossed them both aside. Katherine for Anne, Anne for Jane.

@@cinnow catherine was still a beloved queen of england by the people of england for the rest of her life after the divorce, whereas anne bolelyn was demonised and mocked by the public after her execution. you can’t say catherine’s royal status did not give her privilege

There is a letter from Mary to Elizabeth in which she for her bad English and definitely conforms to Scots pronunciation. The letter appears in Antonia Fraser's biography of Mary.

Interestingly her being brought up in France and the French language not having the letter W is why the name Stewart became Stuart

Yup, she grew up in France, so likely used French a lot. She could also fluently speak Scots.

It’s for a contemporary audience. The English wouldn’t have been dropping their Rs at that time either.

I read that MQS spokes scots but not English fluently, she had Scottish tutors in France to keep her aligned (poorly lol imo) with scotland. so Mary would have had a scots accent if she was speaking to her Scottish subjects.

Her comment is WRONG. Mary Boleyn wasn't executed. She was banished from court for marrying without permission, and died in her early forties.

Exactly, I absolutely love Anne of the Thousand Days so her take on that movie should be very good.

Yes, agree with all of this!

I also liked "go back to your rat hole!" ....."Spain is a very nice place"

Yes - one of the many inaccuracies in those movies.

Thye clearly got him mixed up with his step-son, Robert Earl of Essex, who betrayed her and was excecuted. Plebs...

And at the end of the first movie, it says that Elizabeth never saw Dudley in private again after the fictional betrayal.

such a weird choice to make in the first movie, I understand why they made some of the choices they made in that movie but the dudley thing was just unnecessary. not to mention lots of people who don't know that much about tudor history have heard of their relationship and might have known it wasn't true

Yeah when she literally had 2 other boyfriends who actually DID betray her. And the last one who did it cost him his head. The writers had plenty to work with and just gave us garbage

Did she do a fake accent at school too?

So I’m not going crazy! Her American accent sounds like a put-on, but I don’t know why she’d need to do that, especially as someone who gives lectures about *British* history

I can imagine. She knows her facts and she is funny. Great qualities in a teacher.

Why are people accusing her of doing a fake accent? She's literally just talking. It doesn't sound like she's putting on an accent or pretending in how she speaks

@@theesweetie23ca91 she’s Canadian. I went to school with her.

Anne's death was very political as she pointed out. Anne was very progressive and she wanted the reformation to put the interests of woman and the poor at it's forefront which made her many enemies who started accusing Anne of all those charges.

Yes, but let’s not forget their marriage was annulled 2 days before Anne’s execution, i.e. Anne was not his legal wife then. In the end his only legitimate (from law point of view) were Jane Seymour (who died after childbirth) and Catherine Parr (who survived him), the other four - Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Howard’s marriages to Henry were all annulled- not divorced, annulled - meaning legally they were never married. That is why Mary and Elizabeth were regarded as illegitimate after the downfall of their mothers.

She spoke of her husband's death which - especially for a queen- was high treason.

That's super interesting. It's very hard to imagine Scots with a French accent!

People code switch to accommodate the linguistic, cultural and social niceties in every language so it's actually more likely that she was raised with Scot and French as her mother tongues and distinguished each with their specific inflections etc. Considering that her position required her to be cognizant of her obligations, she would've worked on maintaining her "scottishness" i.e Scottish accent whilst speaking Scots.;-)

@@Gerwi545 I thought Scots was Scottish-flavoured and inflected English; I think they said Gallic when they meant the gaelic tongue. Correct me if I'm wrong!

Actually, most of the letters between Mary and Elizabeth were in French. She spoke French (both)- Marie de Guise was French she would have spoken to her child in French. Remember Mary's father died when she was a baby. She was bethroed and sent to France at a young age.

@@Gerwi545 Mary did not speak Gaelic. Gaelic and Scots are different languages. Old Scots is a dialect of English so full of slang, Gaelic, Welsh, Scandinavian and French influence so as to be almost unintelligible to an English speaker of English. The Highland Scots were Irish who invaded amd settled in Pictish lands. Scottish Gaelic is what happened to Irish after being separated from Ireland for hundreds of years.

Lol I'd have also liked a scene from the show Upstart Crow

You can't convince me that Lord FlashHeart wasn't a historical figure

Yes I loved that 🤣🤣😍

So it's settled. We must have a sequel.

I agree that Natalie Dormer was the best Anne Boleyn - I understand she has a degree in history - but I thought Rys-Myers was miscast. Not tall or imposing enough, and in the later episodes made no attempt to look like Henry.

​​@@barbarapaigethe later seasons they did. My guess is that they got a bigger budget for their wardrobe department (& a lot of flack for the inaccuracy)

Jonathan didn't have the physical representation, but he more than made up for it with his mad acting skills. You don't have to be a 6ft buff red-head to make people say "Oh sh*t, don't mess with this guy" & he played that to a T. - JRM = the best Henry VIII - Natalie Dormer = the best Anne Boleyn. - Cate Blanchett = the best Elizabeth - and Judi Dench is the best older Elizabeth (sorry Helen Mirran!). After all, how many people can win an Oscar for being on screen for 14 minutes? 😅

I’m a Tudor historian and I couldn’t agree more!!!

Natalie was great, but in my book Genvieve Bujold was the best Anne Boleyn.

I've been studying Tudor history for a while (certainly not nearly as well versed as she is) but, I don't mind the historical inaccuracies. In a way, it gives you more perspective

My schtick, even as a history major, is as long as the facts are told correctly, I don’t entirely mind if the costumes are wrong or the actors don’t look like the surviving paintings we have. Getting the story wrong is what grinds my gears, because it leads to incorrect information being spread.

@@aegonthedragon7303 Plus, the real stories are usually more interesting than the made up ones

Agreed. These are films, meant to be enjoyed as entertainment. If I wanted historical accuracy I would watch a documentary or attend a lecture.

So we don't have accurate records of royalty because they were too sensitive and needed to be portrayed in a good light, and we don't have accurate accounts about the poor because they couldn't tell their own stories and the people who could have weren't interested? It must be hard to be a historian

Game of thrones

@@joshberkin5567 what about it?

@@Heresjonnyagain convincing portrayal of medieval period

@@joshberkin5567 I’m sorry to greatly disagree. Game of Thrones was a fantasy series that I would say frankly did more to affirm popular misconceptions about the medieval period than portraying it. Everything is dark and grimy. Clothing, coiffure, and props are fantastical in appearance. The language and manners are something out of a modern Renaissance affaire. I cannot think of anything particularly medieval about it aside from some loose plot inspiration from 15th century events.

@@Heresjonnyagain oh. well i liked the show

YES! Mark Rylance! I know this video is more about the accuracy of the portrayal of Elizabeth I and Anne Boleyn but Mark Rylance in Wolf Hall was fantastic! I loved his very nuanced and subtle portrayal of Cromwell who's always been seen as an evil scheming master manipulator. Mark Rylance's performance gave him a more sympathetic human side. I can only imagine the impossible task of the real person. He not only had to gain power but in order to keep it, had to survive the court of a madan which he eventually he didn't.

C'est pour pouvoir montrer la romance entre le Duc de Suffolk et la soeur de Henry, c'est très télégénique, c'est cool à raconter, mais les dates ne correspondaient pas à la période décrite par le show. Comme cela se passe à l'époque de François 1er (et que Louis 12 était mort depuis longtemps), ils ont créé cette "astuce". Je le comprends, ça aurait été dommage de rater cette histoire "d'amour" et de désobéissance envers le roi (de toutes façons "Les Tudors" contiennent beaucoup d'erreurs historiques).

Or her ridiculous killing of the king...Mary got a long as best she could eith her husband and by all accounts she enjoyed being the queen of France and all the attention she got from that and her looks..but Gabrielle Anwar is a good actress and could have pulled off both enjoying her station as queen and showing respect to her king husband while still pinning for the duke of Suffolk at the same time.

@@leeannasloan2292 I know right, King Louis XII was old but very respectable, its unfathomable to think she would try to do anything like that.

@@steveniswho9254 I know right? Like she's going to really kill the Kong with a pillow and not one of his physicians question it..or be in the next room spying...it just makes no sense and so that whole plot annoyed me...and the show warped things so much that they didn't want to include Louis because of the timeline they had going with France in general..so they made up she married the king of Portugal..why do all that? I don't mind when shoes take liberties with some things, I get that, but to make up this whole plot for it to be so far fetched, it almost seems like an insult to the audience..Michael Hurst is no dummy either, he knows his history.

@@leeannasloan2292 I know right!!! It is an insult to the audience, they basically called us all stupid. The only think I really liked about the Tudor's was Natalie Dormer's performance, I think she was one of the best Anne Boleyn performances. I like Portman but Dormer was so much better. She should've won an Award.

The Tudors was just terrified that any teenagers watching would get bored so it had to throw in some tits every 15 minutes.

Dormer was lovely….everything else in that show was……not accurate.

Fell in love with Natalie because of that show! And Henry Cavill. 😍

They got most of it wrong, sorry.

@@SeanCSHConsulting Nothing to apologise for. My doctorate would disagree with you. They took creative license with a lot because the Wars of the Roses was unbelievably complicated. Everything Henry VIII did was the result of the tumultuous time in which he was raised with zero expectation of being King. Showtime's "Tudors" doesn't go into all that, so they had to take a certain amount of cavalier approach to make it make sense to those who didn't know the history of the era. It was designed for entertainment. With the exception of a handful of minor inaccuracies and only two really glaring ones...they kept it on point with history. No, Henry didn't look like Jonathan Rhys Meyers, but it's entertainment. When you look at the history as compared to Hollywood films, I think the answer to who Henry was falls somewhere between Richard Burton, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and yes...Charles Laughton in 1933's "The Private Life of Henry VIII". With regards to Queens Catalina de Aragón y Castilla and Anne Boleyn...I still think the most historically accurate portrayal of Catalina de Aragón was Irene Papas in "Anne of the Thousand Days". The look was wrong, but the portrayal was appropriate for the era. Anna Bolina for me will always be almost perfectly portrayed by Natalie Dormer. Whatever else can be said about The Tudors...Natalie did her homework. She refused scenes she thought would be out of character for Anne. She did her research in order to make a connection with Anne, and stood up for who she thought Anne was. The question will always linger...did she or didn't she, really? Until new evidence presents itself, we can only debate. Debate, however, requires education and in-depth knowledge. If you don't have that...don't try to correct people who do. It makes you look like a monkey.

Yeah Six is terrible when it comes to historical accuracy.

I love Six… when I first heard it I want to say it was the video of their performance at the Olivier awards, so I saw the costumes and choreography etc. I went from “This is the cringiest thing I have ever seen in my life!!” to adding the whole soundtrack to my YT library in about 10 seconds. 😆 But I can’t help thinking what a missed opportunity when Jane Seymour says “my son had to grow up without his mother” and Anne Boleyn says something about her body without her head. I know it’s comedy…. But damn, her daughter HAD TO GROW UP WITHOUT HER MOTHER!

"Canadian sense of humour" Huh??

You're right, but it's difficult to tell so many years later if an omission of unflattering facts about one's ruler is because they just weren't true or because it was smart politics not to mention it. Also, it doesn't take as long for lead to destroy the skin as we think. If Elizabeth was left with temporary marks that would have healed in time, and covered them up with lead makeup while they were healing, it could have been enough time for the lead to pit and blister her skin.

@@danaglabeman6919 Except she did not use lead based makeup when she caught smallpox. She may have used lead based makeup when she was older, but the evidence suggests no lead in her makeup when she was in her 20s. Also no one depicts MQOS with lead based makeup- despite it being the fashion for all women at the time. Also a lot of information we have about Elizabeth and her looks come from ambassadors to her court, not her courtiers. I can assure you had she been concealing scars the ambassadors would have mentioned it. They paid her maids to find out about her menstrual cycles so they could write back to their masters about her child bearing capacity. So I am sure they would have found out about scars etc when she was on the marriage market.

One of the best TV series ever produced imo. I heard they're considering making a sequal now that the new book is out, I hope they do.

I think she was a bit harsh on Wolf Hall, given she didn't actually point out any inaccuracies other than Clare Foy being too pale (which I think she might have over-egged, Anne was entirely of English descent going back at least 3 generations, and had a pale daughter, so I find it hard to believe she was _that_ much darker than Clare Foy, unless she had bizarre-for-the-period habit of sun-tanning).

@@merrymachiavelli2041 I totally agree with you that harping on skin tone when Wolf Hall is so amazing is very petty. But Anne was not of pure English descent three generations back. Her great grandfather was the Earl of Ormonde, introducing an Irish component. Many people of Celtic and Briton blood can be surprisingly dark, and Anne was referred to as of olive complexion even by her sympathizers. Skin tone genes are weird. In my own family, the only more olive skinned people we know of are a great grandmother of my fathers and a great-great grandfather of my mom's, but my sister gets asked often if she's Hispanic or Italian; she just came out darker. Totally possible Anne got a darker gene that got expressed in her that got pushed out of the way by Henry's pale genes in Elizabeth.

@@danaglabeman6919 Hmm, I grant you the Earl of Ormond wasn't English per se, although one great-grandfather is only 12.5% of a person's DNA. Also, Thomas Butler is perhaps better described as 'Hiberno-Norman' rather than Irish in the modern sense of the term, given that the Butlers of Ireland started off as Norman in the 12th century and married other Hiberno-Norman or British nobility almost exclusively thereafter. Although, the Normans were debatably French, so that doesn't support my original point about skin tone! Also, I'm always a bit sceptical of suggestion that there are major genetic differences between Irish/Scottish/English people - for all the Anglo-Saxon migrations changed culture and language, Anglo-Saxons only contributed around 30% of the English genome, and Northwest Europeans were relatively similar in the period to begin with.

I liked a video by an art expert, commenting on Holstein's portraits of Cromwell and More - made me realise that he regarded More as a good man - Cromwell - not. Of course, both had bad faults, and good sides, but Cromwell plotted the death of a Queen, and profited hugely from the destructions of the monasteries, while More died rather than betray his faith

I mean, for the most part the only fault any of Henry's wives commited was that none of them produced sons (emphasis on the plural, Henry technically got one son but one isn't enough) needed multiple).. And, assuming King Henry wasn't the villian in his own story, is that the only thing he did wrong was to fail in marrying a woman who could bore those sons. Eveything else was within his Divine Rights as King.

It is also said she was quite headstrong and spoke her mind a lot, which I absolutely do not see as a flaw but is important context for her situation. Their “faults” were more their inability to bend to Henry’s every whim and will at a moments notice, including bearing a living male heir, remember that Anne of Cleves not only kept her life but was rewarded greatly and lived fairly comfortably for the rest of her life because she bent immediately to his will and did not fight or argue with him at any point during the process. Henry was a minefield of a man, any foot out of line and he didn’t hesitate, and his wives suffered as a result of not being willing or able to give him his way at all times. Saying it was about sons is oversimplification, he wanted his way and felt he was more than justified to kill for it.

@@myheartiswriting Well, you could also argue that HE didn't produce the sons he needed as Catherine had multiple children/miscarriages that were male. But the fact that NONE of his wives could give him the children he wanted (either they didn't get pregnant or the children didn't survive) point to a possible disease on his side. To me it's highly unlikely that five women (Ann of Cleves doesn't count) couldn't produce the heir(s) he wanted that it was his "fault".

@@Tina-ig3be Dude, chill. We are in agreement. I fully acknowledged that I was writing from King Henry's perspective with the note of "assuming Hnery wasn't the villian in his own story," But let me expand on that. It was absolutely Henry's fault that he didn't have any sons. Modern science says it is the sperm that determines the gender of the child. If a man doesn't have boys swimming in his pond, he's gonna get stuck with girl. Like you said, all those miscarriages, someone should have figured that out back in the 1500s. Plus with all of those sport injuries like his jousting horse crushing him as a young adult, the countless head injuries, the weight and the rotting leg who knows what those physcial injuries could have had on his genetic outcomes. Yet! In the 1500s doctors and scientists literally believed a womans parts were inverted male gentials. They believed it was the woman's anatomy that determined gender, so although it was Henry who had the longer list of bad genes, the woman got the blame. Plus, because he was King, he had another unfair element. The Divine Rights of Kings. Basically he was God's chosen one, specifically selected by god to be king and everything he did was ordained by god. That meant he couldn't possibly have weak sperm, because then God had weak sperm. Reproduction was not a choice, it was an obligation. That's not even including needing an heir so the crown doesn't fall to imbecile. As much as I agree that it was his "fault" for not being able to have sons, that's not how anyone saw it back then. In that context, it was the wives "fault". Not because it was, but because it being Henry's "fault" wasn't an option.

Totally agree. I mean, Anne Boleyn wasn’t stupid. She had many enemies at court, her only true ally was Henry himself. She wasn’t about to do anything as stupid as betray him.

Whereas it is true that she did agree with a plot to kill 'Lizzy', isn't it also true that the plot was a setup/trap by Walsingham?

@@KPC-123 The plot was monitored by Walsingham, but I am not sure he set it up. It was more he a double agent planted, and he waited for a conspiracy.

Yes, didn't they wish to remove any doubt to legitimacy on the throne? Mary could not be allowed to live or threaten Elizabeth's reign.

@@lamoinette23 I think it was far more complex than that. Elizabeth kept Mary alive but under lock and key for nearly 19 years. She would have killed Mary far sooner if it was just about removing a threat to Elizabeth’s throne.

Mary spoke French and Scots as a child. She didn't learn English until later, from Scottish people. Randolph, the English ambassador to the Scottish court, said in his dispatches that she spoke bad English with a Scottish accent. Her English in the film is not accented wrongly, but it is far too fluent.

YES! My favourite portrayal of Elizabeth I.

Agree 100%!

YES!!!

Yes but it was disproven

@@kenna163 What was disproven- that a older man told Elizabeth this? Also in history things can’t be proved or disproved. Normally we would say stories are probably not true if the first time it emerges is well after all contemporaneous sources have died.

@@kenna163 I have checked the source for the story. It is indeed from a contemporary source. The Calendar of State Papers from 1558 contain a letter from a Protestant refugee to Elizabeth, sent to her on her accession. He told her the story of Anne carrying Elizabeth in her arms. She was in a courtyard at Greenwich Palace, holding Elizabeth as a little baby and entreating Henry. Henry was standing in an open window looking down. Although Henry concealed it, the writer thought from his body language Henry was angry. Elizabeth Jenkins: Elizabeth the Great Panther Books London 1958 p11 So I got the details of who was in the courtyard and who was in the window around the wrong way. Of course the refugee may not have been telling the truth and just trying to curry favour. But in absence of further evidence the story appears to be based on fact.

@@brontewcat If I remember what I've read correctly, I think they say it's disproven because court expense records show Elizabeth was at a totally different residence miles away from Henry and Anne when the gentleman who told this to Elizabeth said it happened. But he would have been very old, and memory will confuse things that happened a long time ago. Elizabeth was often at court when she was little before Anne's death (Henry loved to show her off) and Anne and Henry did quarrel quite a bit even when they were "happy". He could absolutely have witnessed such a scene, and as an elderly man many decades later, not perfectly remembered the date or circumstances.

@@danaglabeman6919 That is the most likely explanation. People often mix up the dates and specifics of incidents, and they do not need to be elderly to do so.

Not remotely underrated. Ridiculous comment

oh shit i thought philippa gregory's books were fairly historically accurate! do you have any better suggestions? i'd like to read more about tudor history in a non-textbook kinda way

@@cherrysubmarine not at all! she is notorious for not giving a fuck about accuracy or facts. not to mention she is a raging misogynist. I would love to help but alas i don’t like historical fiction and most of the books i read are kind of textbooky but if u like anne boleyn theres a really good book called the creation of anne boleyn that talks about her life, legacy, misconceptions, and portrayals in the media.

@@cherrysubmarine I really enjoy Alison Weir's novels. She's covered almost every wife of Henry VIII, with Katherine Parr's book coming soon. There are still inaccuracies (that I could spot), but overall, good reads!

@@cherrysubmarine read real history

The book was good, the movie was…. uhm

Oh please its just Sex and STDs galore while demonising most of his wives by painting them as either useless, insipid or just straight up sluts

I quite like it. Though I made the mistake of watching it with my older cousin who just so happens to be a history teacher. Very educational experience let’s just say lmao

as a history major i agree i could tell they really did their research because they would often include things I have seen in primary and secondary sources and small details many wouldn’t know about. unfortunately when they didn’t stick to the sources like making henry sisters into one it was a disaster!

How very cool is that!? I’d check to see if they are legitimate.

Too bad many of the viewers don't know it's not historical.

I got through 10 minutes...Katherine Hepburn version is better...lol

@@suswik3682 And the Katherine Hepburn version is *ghastly*. But at least the costume designer for Hepburn didn't dress her in denim....

@@cathryncampbell8555 The absolute worst depiction of Tudor costuming is in the TV series "Reign."

@@Shan_Dalamani I absolutely agree with you! But then, *Everything* about "Reign" was insanely off-kilter. The irony is that Mary Queen of Scots had a wildly exotic & strange real backstory. Had that reality been told, her story would make a fascinating film. It has yet to be done.

@@cathryncampbell8555 I spent 12 years in the Society for Creative Anachronism, learning about medieval/Renaissance history, famous people, daily life, and how much of most period drama is either fudged or outright just made-up crap. About the only parts of Reign that were accurate are that Mary, Elizabeth, Louis, and Catherine d' Medici were real people. The rest of the series is utter bullshit, from the characters to the costumes to how, in the dancing scenes, absolutely _nobody_ is dancing in time to the music, which wasn't accurate either. The only reason I watched as much as I did is because of Megan Follows, who played Queen Catherine. In my view, she's one of the best actresses Canada has ever produced (she's best known for the Anne of Green Gables movies that co-starred Colleen Dewhurst as Marilla).