This series was produced by a Canadian TV channel and had four seasons. It's name corresponds to the House of Tudor, one of the most notable royal English dynasties. For those who don't know or don't remember, this dynasty gave five kings to England: Henry VII, Henry VIII and his three sons (Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I). But despite that, the series focuses entirely on Henry VIII and this makes the title's choice a mistake. If it's about Tudors, where is Henry VII and why the series ends with the death of Henry VIII? Throughout the four seasons, there are dozens of actors entering and leaving, giving life to several people who were part of the court during the life of a king that most of people knows best by his six queens. But if there is something that deserves congratulations is the cast's performance. The highlight is for Jonathan Rhys Meyers (the volcanic king Henry), Henry Cavill (Charles Brandon), Peter O'Toole (in a brief role, as Pope Paul III) and the six actresses who gave life to the six queens who succeeded the throne and bed of Henry VIII: Maria Doyle Kennedy (Catherine of Aragon), Natalie Dormer (Anne Boleyn), Annabelle Wallis (Jane Seymour), Joss Stone (Anne of Cleves), Tamzin Merchant (Catherine Howard) and Joely Richardson (Catherine Parr).Now let's talk about the script. Here, the series makes a lot of mistakes (some more excusable than others). First of all, it exaggerates in the sex scenes. It's too much gratuitous sex for no reason, totally out of context and anachronistic, in situations and acts that would never happen in the sixteenth century. Okay, we aren't saints and we know that sex sells, but do they really need to turn queens and ladies into sidewalk whores? Worse than that is the enormous distortion of historical events and facts. How could a sister of the King of England marry the aged King Manuel I of Portugal if that same king married only three times and always with daughters of the Catholic Kings of Castile? And the insulting way as the court of Portugal, the richest and most powerful country in the world at that time, was portrayed? There are dozens of moments when the script runs over history, justifying that with "dramatic purposes"... but this argument isn't enough to justify arbitrary changes in the way historical facts and figures are portrayed.Speaking of anachronism, let's look at some furniture more closely and we will see some baroque furniture (18th century) in scenarios that should correspond to a period almost three hundred years earlier. One of the most egregious examples is the bed placed in the room of Charles Brandon (4th season), clearly baroque and portraying, in the back, the British coat of arms of the House of Hanover. Just pause the video and watch. Another problem, even more evident, is the wardrobe of the cast, in regard to something as prosaic as the underwear. If you look closely at the scenes, especially sex scenes, the actors almost never have the underwear that any person of the sixteenth century should use. This is even more blatant in women, who should wear inner skirts and a kind of shorts which helped to hold the tights, together with the garter.Conclusion: this series is not about the Tudors but about the way we, in the twenty-first century, see the reign of Henry VIII. Almost everything is fiction. Forget history, forget everything and understand this: this series created a fictional story based on real historical facts and characters. It's sex-driven fiction, the way people like it. Want to know true history? Read a book.

I think this is a good way to introduce some one to Tudor history. I find the discrepancies, quite humour- us, however it is history in fiction, not a documentary. Natalie Dormer, I think played the role well as Anne Boleyn, and even though Jonathan looked nothing like Henry Viii, He did I feel play the part well, in respect to Henry's random mood swings. I think maybe they should just called it Henry VIII, as it focused on just Henry viii, than go on to Edward VI, Mary, or Elizabeth. Good cast, good as historical soap opera, as long as people remember not to quote what they watched in this show as factual history lol!

The only thing that has ever concerned me about this brilliant movie-quality series is that the actors bear only a passing resemblance to the actual historical characters. But that's history, and this is television, and so, after having watched the entire series twice and totally enjoyed it twice, then I surmise that if that if my only gripe is a few pounds on Henry, whom probably in medieval times would have been seen as a sort of Brad Pitt actually because of his few extra pounds, then this wonderful show, as television, not history, deserves the 10 out of 10.

think the series is interesting, fascinating and exciting. But sometimes there are too many sex scenes and scenes I find unnecessary. I understand that these scenes exist in order to create suspense but it doesn't really work for me. Some moments are also a bit dramatized, and that makes things a bit too cheesy. There are also a number of historical anachronisms but they are not too obvious. What I find unfortunate is that the main actor doesn't really look like the real Henry looks the eighth. He isn't red-haired and not so big and wide. The story is well and clearly structured. The actors play their role well . As they say in the intro: ".. To get to the heart of the story you have to go back to the beginning" And they do. From The meeting with Anne Boleyn to the divorce from Queen Catherine. The major and minor events during the reign of King Henry are addressed in the series. The costumes in The Tudors are made very well and the designers of the costumes deserve a 10 out of 10. In the end, I recommend watching it for people who like dramas with romance and suspense.