Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
8:42 pm
June 13, 2013
Offline
I am a little confused here becouse in the Tudors we see Lady Rochford executed first followed by Catherine Howard, however according to my history book its the other way around. is there a reason why the makers of the series done this or did they get it wrong i would love to know. Its only a small thing but important i think. 
11:51 pm
November 18, 2010
Offline
I thought it was just to show how much of a coward Kathryn was by pee-ing herself.
It's always bunnies.
6:28 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
I wondered this one myself. I think it was done this way because Jane was older and therefore should have known better than to commit treason against the King. It was also perhaps to show how pathetic and immature K.H was. Peeing herself and practising naked putting her head on the block. I also feel it was done this way to show just how sadistic and brutal Henry was.
We know she did do that in real life but certainly not in the nude, K.H showed more dignity and courage on the scaffold then she showed in all of her short life. and certainly K.H was beheaded first although a lot younger than J.B because K.H was Queen she outranked J.B so therefore would have been chopped first. I read somewhere that poor J.B was made to kneel in K.H’s blood and put her down into the blood of her mistress on the block. If anyone should have wet herself in that scene I would imagine it would have been J.B.
Slightly off topic here. When K.H came to court was it the Howard’s intention to make K.H Queen? or did they just intend her to be a casual mistress for Henry, so that they could keep control of him and stop the Seymours more so Edward Seymour from getting to big for their boots?
I still feel that poor K.H’s fate was pre determined from about the age of 10. Thomas Howard was an ambitious grasping odious little cretin and used an abused him family in every which way possible.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
7:23 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Boleyn,
Katherine was being sent to court to serve AOC. Noble households everywhere were scrambling to get their daughters, granddaughters and nieces, etc., a position with the new queen. There were many pretty girls put forth. The Duke put forward Katherine and her cousin Mary Norris. Norfolk did no different than the rest. They were all looking for a way to get Henry to listen to their petitions and a pretty face went a long way with Henry.
Norfolk wasn’t alone in hoping Henry would notice one of his nieces.
Norfolk should have done his homework. Had he known of Katherine’s previous encounters, I don’t think she would have been sent to court. He would have married her off to someone who lived as far from court as possible.
Neil, They definitely got it wrong. The Tudors did more to damage Katherine than any other show I have ever seen. And like Anyanka said at the end she was made to look like a coward, which she certainly was not. She was very brave at the end and they should have shown it that way.
7:49 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
I know I go on about the depiction of GB on The Tudors….Grrr…..but the two other things that really get my goat were Wolsey committing suicide and Catherine Howard wetting herself on the scaffold. I agree with Sharon that it was so disrespectful to show a girl, who was in fact terrified, but who still died with dignity, die the way they showed it. She would have found comfort in dying with respect, but The Tudors took that from her.
As an aside, I can’t see how Howard introduced Catherine to court cunningly thinking she would catch Henry’s eye. To me that seems so unlikely. I think it was providence and had very little, if anything, to do with Howard.
8:14 pm
February 24, 2010
Offline
Yes, and once again it had everything to do with Henry. You could call it providence. I’d call it really bad luck.
9:25 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Sharon said
Yes, and once again it had everything to do with Henry. You could call it providence. I’d call it really bad luck.
Absolutely. Involvement with Henry generally resulted in ‘bad luck’. And I use the term sparingly.
11:14 pm
January 3, 2012
Offline
I feel the way K.H was portrayed in the Tudors series was dreadful. I really wanted to jump through the screen and put her over my knee and give her a good hiding. I had to settle for kicking the T.V set in instead LOL.
I don’t believe that the real K>H was like how she was portrayed. I just think she was an immature girl trying to make everyone happy all at once and ended up in a being used by all those she thought were her freinds. I do believe too that J.B tried her best to protect K.H from herself if that makes sence. K.H was a little like Icarus, who flew too close to the sun and melted his wings and fell. Jane tried to catch K.H but she fell too, and they both died for it.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
12:27 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
Boleyn said
We know she did do that in real life but certainly not in the nude,
Certainly not in Feb in a Tudor House unless you wanted hypothermia.
Slightly off topic here. When K.H came to court was it the Howard’s intention to make K.H Queen? or did they just intend her to be a casual mistress for Henry, so that they could keep control of him and stop the Seymours more so Edward Seymour from getting to big for their boots?
I still feel that poor K.H’s fate was pre determined from about the age of 10. Thomas Howard was an ambitious grasping odious little cretin and used an abused him family in every which way possible.
There were plenty of Howard connections in AOC’s household..Lady Mary, Duchess of Richmond, Katherine Carey as well as KH and JB. Henry would not be expected to look at either his son’s widow or a possible daughter as a playmate..and KH being Anne’s cousin makes that much harder to believe.
Sidetrack..Did Henry have a dispensatiion to marry KH???
It's always bunnies.
10:06 am
January 3, 2012
Offline
Good one Anyanka. But surely as head of the church he would have given himself a dispensation to marry K.H?
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod
1:44 am
June 13, 2013
Offline
Many thanks for your comments and input to my question regarding the execution of Lady Rochford and Queen Katherine Howard. I have been able to find this statement by Michael Hurst executive producer of the Tudors. He states that he was asked to write a “soap/entertainment show” and not history, with regard to the execution it states the following, in reality at their mutual execution the queen was executed first and lady Rochford second though she had suffered a nervous breakdown in her pre execution imprisonment Lady Rochford was noted to be calm and dignified in the moments before her death.However the series plays up Rochfords mental instability just prior to her death. She was executed before Katherine who looses control of her bladder at the sight of which will shortly be her end. the other correction is the interrogation of Kathleen was in fact carried out by Thomas Cranmer and not Bishop Gardiner as shown. now it is said this was done so as not to “confuse” the viewer and i wonder how that can be if what you are showing is in fact the truth and not fiction. the truth is always better. No one can possibly imagine the terror these two ladys must have experianced knowing exactly when they was to be executed and by the method at that time therefore loosing your bladder in fear i should think would be quite normal and nothing to be ashamed of but this was shown to portray her fear.
1:24 pm
May 3, 2013
Offline
I’m only guessing, on the following points, as I haven’t watched the relevant scenes:
* Gardiner, by virtually all accounts, was a far more reactionary & ill-tempered man than Cranmer; perhaps the producer wanted such a tempestuous character (Gardiner) to interrogate Katherine, as this would make for a more dramatic scenario?
* I’m being generous, perhaps, but the unsavoury incident before Katherine’s execution might’ve been an ill-advised attempt at emphasising just how young and – by inference – helpless the victim was. Though this may well be giving the producer too much benefit of the doubt…
3:52 am
November 18, 2010
Offline
However..Gardiner was a Catholic of the old school in the same way that KH was and not a reformer like Cramner.. you would have expected him to be the more sympathetic due to shared beliefs.while Cramner tried his hardest to try to get a confession of pre-contract and save KH’s life
Did Cramner want to save Kathryn because he couldn’t save Anne?
It's always bunnies.
4:00 am
May 3, 2013
Offline
Anyanka said
However..Gardiner was a Catholic of the old school in the same way that KH was and not a reformer like Cramner.. you would have expected him to be the more sympathetic due to shared beliefs.
That’s a very good point, and one I’d overlooked.
1 Guest(s)
