In This Section
|
« The Tudors
Episode Recap: Season 2, Episode 7
“If you could read Greek, Master Smeaton, you’d know that even the gods had problems with their wives.” — George Boleyn
If that quotation doesn’t just about sum up all that is The Tudors, I don’t know what does. Had I started watching this show without knowing anything about the history of England, I’d probably be under the impression that all of Europe’s problems in the 16th century were due exclusively to Henry VIII’s bats*** exes. Luckily, we all know it’s slightly more complicated than that, but just to balance things out, I say we give some credit to Thomas Boleyn et al, for using his daughter as a rung in his climb up the social ladder. Anne might want to claim, as she did in that final scene, that she did most of it herself, but her father and brother were just as culpable in bringing about Henry’s (and England’s) woes.
Like last week, this episode was all about transition. Because, I suppose, we can’t see more than two of Henry’s wives at the same time (would that be the Law of Conservation of Wives?), we watched Katherine be replaced with Lady Jane Seymour, daughter of Sir John, apparently an old family friend. What a horrible way for Katherine to go, though. She’d been sick for so long, as Anne pointed out, that her death seemed like a relief even to her. However, she was still denied access to her daughter, except in pain-induced hallucinations, and her estate was nearly in poverty, leaving her almost none of the comforts she’d been accustomed to. With the way things are going for the Church in England, I’m almost surprised she was allowed to have a priest present to give her the Last Rites. I only wish I knew what Henry thought, as he read what she’d left for him (her love, her wish that he’d return to God). Was he comparing her to Anne? Was he full of regret? So much on this show is usually so overtly (sometimes obnoxiously) expository, but not Henry’s reaction to this.
On the other hand, this week Anne was all about exposition. Crazy exposition. Unfortunately for her and her entire family, she’s starting to chafe at the confines of her role as wife and Queen — positions without the influence she had when she was only the mistress. She quarreled with Cromwell about where the confiscated Church money should go (he says to the King, she says to charity), with her family about her actions, and with Henry about their daughter’s future. On the upside, she conceived again after some angry sex with Henry (at least I assume she isn’t actively having an affair with Smeaton), but something tells me her prediction of being, “on the edge of a golden world,” is a bit premature, and perhaps just a symptom of her anxiety.
Some superfluous (in the flow of the episode, but not in the greater history of things) scenes this week: the Huguenots ransacking a monastery, the Pope talking about how Henry must face the consequences of his actions, and the shoehorned in scenes with Wyatt and the now-deceased Elizabeth. These scenes were worthy of mention because they’ll probably come in to play in later episodes, but they didn’t really belong in this one.
A note: Next week’s write-up will either go up a few days early or a few days late, as I’ll be on vacation next Sunday. Nevertheless, a recap will go up at some point before the next episode airs. Happy scheming!
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
May 11, 2008 10:01 PM
|
Enjoy the up and coming vacation, Leah, and thanks for providing us with this forum to discuss the show.
Catherine has died, which in a way is a harbinger that Anne's days are quickly coming to a close. The dream sequence at the opening of the show (can I just say, eewww!) are the foreshadowing of what is to come. Anne's meetings with her brother and Smeaton will be significant later as well. All is not well at the "edge of the golden world" with Smeaton and George's love affair going south, Wyatt no longer in love with Anne, and the Queen's attendants looking on Anne's behavior with disapproving eyes. Ahh, court intrigue...
And we met Jane Seymour! Should we say, "uh oh, Anne!"?? 
Why on earth would Anne choose to create an unnecessary emnity with Cromwell when she knows that her own situation is precarious?
Hey, Leah, did your feminist heart go pitter patter at the forthright speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury's wife? Though please someone explain something to me: why is this woman kept in a box, and considered "illegal" even though she eats at the table of the second most powerful man in the kingdom?! I could only scratch my head and ask, "WTfrack?!" 
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:30 AM
|
Leah: "Anne might want to claim, as she did in that final scene, that she did most of it herself, but her father and brother were just as culpable in bringing about Henry’s (and England’s) woes."
And let's not forget about dear old Uncle--Duke of Norfolk--he (in history) had a hand in this as well.
What I don't understand is Anne's threat or "reminder" to Cromwell that he not forget HOW he got his position as Henry's secretary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was Wolsey who brought him in after having Henry's previous secretary arrested on some trump charges (which I'm still clueless about).
Regarding Henry receiving the news of Catherine's death--I know you don't like this Leah, but I have to point it out--according to this site I found on Henry VIII, both he and Anne dressed up in yellow to celebrate Catherine's death! I'm wondering if this show just wants to demonize Anne by just having her be happy about Catherine's passing? Did I miss something? Was Lady Mary's presence at her mother's deathbed, a hallucination?
Methinks Henry Boleyn's head is getting too big, and he thinks he's more important than he actually is.
mdaily: "speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury's wife?"
I'm blankin'--what did he say again?
Have a great vacation, Leah--can't wait to see your recap--as I watched next week's episode already and it's bloody good!
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 12, 2008 8:51 AM
|
Geets226- the Archbishop of Canterbury's wife said something about being swift and firm with the churches. I can't remember exactly. I've spent about 5 minutes trying to think of the exact wording, but I watched this episode almost a week ago On Demand so I can't remember. I loved her speech, though. I also am confused about the box since the Archbishop doesn't really seem to be keeping her a secret.
Also- Lady Mary was a hallucination. I thought it was real at first and I thought it nice that Catherine got to see her daughter one last time- but no.
While I agree that Wyatt and Elizabeth's scenes didn't really seem to go with the rest of the episode, I really enjoyed them. Elizabeth was such a caring person and loved Catherine so much and Wyatt seemed really upset that she killed herself. I am sure more will come of that later.
I come to the message boards because I know there is stuff that I miss. I will admit- I know practically nothing about this time period, so I want to learn the significance of some of the scenes and learn where maybe some things have been changed for entertainment value- but hardly any one is talking about this show. 
|
|
May 12, 2008 9:38 AM
|
For those of you who want to get into the history - I suggest taking a peak at the wikipedia entries for the main players. That gives a decent overview of the time period and some factual info about their lives. For deeper dives, there are tons of autobiographical books out there and, though it might seem geeky, they are truly interesting. Not just Henry VIII but anything on Elizabeth I is so entertaining...especially when it comes to Mary, Queen of Scots - her cousin and rival.
If you just want a good read, any of the Phillipa Gregory books, starting with The Other Boleyn Girl, are great fun. It's party history, part imagination but 100% captivating. The next two installments, The Queen's Fool (centering on the rivalry of Mary I and Elizabeth I) and The Virgin's Lover (all about Elizabeth I) are also good books.
Enjoy!
|
|
May 12, 2008 10:41 AM
|
Krista: "If you just want a good read, any of the Phillipa Gregory books, starting with The Other Boleyn Girl, are great fun. It's party history, part imagination but 100% captivating."
Krista, I saw the Other Boleyn Girl, but don't know if the movie is like the book. If it is, then it will only confuse us as to WHO Henry actually loved, lol. Not to mention the chronological order of how things happened. It was my disappointment in the movie that made me remember this series. At least the Tudors is more...accurate...then that movie.
Just sayin'. I would be confuseded.
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 12, 2008 11:26 AM
|
|
On a recent Tudors episode the Pope kissed a young man and said he would be a good cardinal. Do you know who he was and how does he fit into the story
|
|
May 12, 2008 11:48 AM
|
GeorgeE: "On a recent Tudors episode the Pope kissed a young man and said he would be a good cardinal. Do you know who he was and how does he fit into the story"
George, they never identified the boy, either by name or who he was. Maybe they'll show him again later? {shrugs}
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 12, 2008 11:54 AM
|
hi Sangeeta and all others.
Regarding the wife of the Archbishop, first she chastised the men for not going far enough in their Reformation of England's Church. When she was faintly admonished by her husband for having an opinion, she then stoutly defended the rights of women saying that they should be equals to men in this new world that was being brought about in England. She criticized her husband for keeping her in a box, and that she would speak her mind first. When she was done, she said something to the effect of "okay,now you can put me back in the box." (not exact wording, of course). So, is the box a metaphor for how women were restrained in a man's world? Funny, that later, Papa Boleyn chastises his daughter for having an opinion as well. So, is all of this a subversive interweaving of feminist views into a largely patriarchal worldview? Just sayin'...
Genniel and Krista, some blogs ago, I posted some sites that I found helpful, including http://www.tudorhistory.org.
I will probably watch the next episode ON DEMAND in case Leah posts her commentary earlier rather than later. Geets hint about it has me wondering...
|
|
May 12, 2008 11:56 AM
|
In reality, Catherine died in January 1536, Anne just four months later in May, so Catherine's dying wasn't just a convenience so they could bring in the new wife. She really did die at that point in history. The only thing I'm not sure about is when Henry actually met Jane. I thought she was already one of Anne's ladies-in-waiting when Henry met her, while in the show they have her being brought to court because Henry is interested in her.
That was the Pope's grandson. He was being facetious in a previous episode when he espoused celibacy to Cardinal Campenegio - Paul III had children before he became a Cardinal, who were grown and had children of their own by the time he became Pope. I think one of his grandson's really did become a Cardinal (at one point in history, they had a 15-year-old Cardinal who was the nephew of the then-Pope - there was a lot of nepotism at that point in the Church's history, which was one of the reasons for the Protestant Reformation).
As for Henry and Anne wearing yellow in real life (as Anne was on the show), there are two schools of thought on that. 1) that they were celebrating or 2) Henry was showing respect to "his brother's widow" because yellow was the color of mourning in Spain.
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:03 PM
|
Geets26- I never saw the movie b/c I heard it was a horrible remake of the book. I do know that the book isn't a complete historical accuracy, but the dates and major issues are accurate. Mary Boleyn was never a recognized mistress of Henry so the fact that it's about their grand affair and 2 chilren is where the inaccuracy lies. I read the movie plot on wikipedia and was astounded that they changed it so much. Phillipa Gregory shouldn't have let them do that.
As far as who Henry loves - I was never confused b/c it's himself! Selfish bastard!
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:17 PM
|
TracyJean: " The only thing I'm not sure about is when Henry actually met Jane. I thought she was already one of Anne's ladies-in-waiting when Henry met her, while in the show they have her being brought to court because Henry is interested in her."
The site I was looking at last night, kept saying that Jane was a Lady-in-Waiting for Catherine. So I'm just as confuzzled.
TracyJean: "As for Henry and Anne wearing yellow in real life (as Anne was on the show), there are two schools of thought on that. 1) that they were celebrating or 2) Henry was showing respect to "his brother's widow" because yellow was the color of mourning in Spain."
Ah. I didn't know that. Thanks for explaining! I really should know better, as White is the color of mourning in India. D'oh!
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:18 PM
|
Krista: "I never saw the movie b/c I heard it was a horrible remake of the book. I do know that the book isn't a complete historical accuracy, but the dates and major issues are accurate. Mary Boleyn was never a recognized mistress of Henry so the fact that it's about their grand affair and 2 chilren is where the inaccuracy lies. I read the movie plot on wikipedia and was astounded that they changed it so much. Phillipa Gregory shouldn't have let them do that."
Ah. Well maybe I will read the book now, lol. Thanks for clearing that up for me. (That's happening a lot this morning for me!)
Krista: "As far as who Henry loves - I was never confused b/c it's himself! Selfish bastard!"
 Too funny and oh so true!
~Sangeeta
|
|
May 12, 2008 12:29 PM
|
On a recent Tudors episode the Pope kissed a young man and said he would be a good cardinal. Do you know who he was and how does he fit into the story
George, I thought that the Pope called him Alessandro, his grandson.
Krista: "As far as who Henry loves - I was never confused b/c it's himself! Selfish bastard!"
Too funny and oh so true!
Hear, hear! To use language from another TV series, Henry was a "man-whore!"![]<img border=](http://community.tvguide.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif) ">
|
|
May 12, 2008 1:25 PM
|
mdaily: She criticized her husband for keeping her in a box, and that she would speak her mind first. When she was done, she said something to the effect of "okay,now you can put me back in the box." (not exact wording, of course). So, is the box a metaphor for how women were restrained in a man's world?
Metaphor it may be, but she was also being literal. As she was married to the Archbishop before the English Reformation, she was smuggled in from the Netherlands (Denmark? can't remember) in a box, because priests were not allowed to marry. That was the reference to her being "illegal." Presumably that law had not yet changed, as we saw the box on the back of the carriage the Archbishop was travelling in last night. He still cannot be seen with her, apparently.
|
|
May 12, 2008 4:17 PM
|
|
|
