I can`t believe how smart was Elizabeth, she preferred to be a tolerant person according religions instead to be against it for me that was a very clever decision Oh My god she has the cleverness of her mother i truly believe so....
They should definitly make a new season of the Tudors. Maybe they can call it "The Tudors: Reign of Elizabeth". Since Michael Hirst did make the movie 'Elizabeth' and it's sequel, I have no doubt he can write a whole new series about her.
What SHOWTIME doesn't realize is that they wouldn't be created just another Elizabeth or Elizabeth: The Golden Age - they would be creating the one and only original series of "The Tudors" right down to the heirs which would make the show complete. We want to see Edward and Lady Jane Grey and Bloody Mary and the affair of Thomas Seymour and Elizabeth and The Virgin Queen's rise. We want this. Showtime doesn't see the success of this originality.
this guy is so wrong - it wasn't edward seymour that tried to change the succession it was John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland who had married his son to Jane. seymour was executed by Northumberland a few years before.
Also mary did loads of great stuff its just that she died too early for it to actually be known and the only thing remembered is the burnings. if it wasnt for her expanding the navy we would probs have lost the armada.
they should of continued it from Edward and Lord Hartford's rule all the way to Elizabeth taking the throne, sorry seen enough movies on Elizabeth's reign.
@negronomics it would have been good but they shot themselves in the foot when killing Margaret - or mary as she was meant to be - which was so historically inaccurate because Lady Jane Grey would never have existed so it couldn't have worked, as she was mary and charles' granddaughter.
i understood why he wanted a son. heirs and all. but then i think about elizabeth ii and its not a big deal. was it because they didnt think women could handle it or what?
i understood why he wanted a son. heirs and all. but then i think about elizabeth ii and she is a woman ruler. was it because they didnt think women could handle it or what?
I always feel torn between who my favorite queen was. Katharine (Catherine, however you prefer it spelled) of Aragon had to go through so much, yet she was a good queen. She was tolerant, patient, loving, and I admire her. But Anne of Boleyn, the exact opposite is also admirable. Anne knew what she wanted, and although it was her ambition that killed her, went through everything to get it. However if Anne didn't put Mary through hell, both Mary and Elizabeth would have been great queens.
i also think it would be better if they continued the series after henry.It feels like just a little of the Tudors story was told when there is so much more to the family.
If your only going to do Henry's life, call "Henry VIII" Because the name "Tudor" is his father, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. So do all their reigns if it's going to be "The Tudors" Trust me, you would make loads from it and i would buy every single one. I think this show is epic. I am sad thee wont be another one. (By the way Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard are my favorite)
If your only going to do Henry's life, call "Henry VIII" Because the name "Tudor" is his father, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. So do all their reigns if it's going to be "The Tudors" Trust me, you would make loads from it and i would buy every single one. I think this show is epic. I am sad thee wont be another one. (By the way Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard are my favorite)
Actually, she didn't. Only in her case, each and every one is advertised, while in Henry's case, most of the dead are nameless. Leaving aside his revolting acts apart that did not involve killing.
I feel bad Lady Jane Grey. She was ruler for a little over a week and then, Mary took over and had her beheaded and she was only a teenager. Bloody Mary, indeed.
@msinarath 'Bloody Mary indeed'? WTF? She gave Jane two chances, never mind the fact that she had USURPED her throne. Are you even serious? The throne was Mary's LEGITIMATE right; Jane had no rights to the throne whatsoever. Edward chose her because Mary was Catholic and he was a fanatical, puritanical Protestant who even outlawed the Catholic Mass (there isn't a worse thing to do to your Catholic subjects) and didn't want England to be ruled by a Catholic queen. He had no regard for H's will.
@CorieFaulkner Yes but Jane was forced to accept the throne off her parents scheming and abusive parents Janes life was just as sad as Mary's and she was forced into a Marriage with John Dudley's son, Edward was probably made to change the sucession by John Dudley
Also others had no reagrd for Henry's will by 1603 they put they Stuarts on the throne despite Henry VII banishing his older sisters line from english sucession
@hayleyshikari I agree with your point about Lady Jane Gray. She had no real wish to rule.
However the reason a Stuart was chosen to rule after Queen Elizabeth is because he was her closet living relation and a Protestant. Elizabeth never publicly or privately choose the next ruler after her. The first Stuart king was chosen by advisers who thought that the shift of power would go smoothly.
Michael Hirst is talking out of his arse. It was the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley (aka Robert Dudley's father) who executed Seymour, not Mary, and it was Northumberland who plotted to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne, not Seymour, who was already dead by that point.
He mentioned that Mary never liked Elizabeth. But I thought they had a close sister relationship when they were younger...? It only turned bad in Mary's reign.
@GryffindorGurl Well, I don't think anybody can really know for certain. It's a fact that during Mary's reign she was embittered towards her sister for the support she was receiving from the Protestants. During their childhoods,the show potrays them as being friends, that may or may not be true. During that time there was nothing to compete for, they were both bastard daughters of Henry, so it's possible they felt close because of that, others think that Mary hated Elizabeth because of Anne.
@PanBoleyn yes he did. He feared for his life after the death of King Edward. He came up with a plan with Jane Greys father and and father in law to put Jane on the throne.
@fraserca No he didn't. That was John Dudley, who replaced Edward Seymour as Lord Protector - unofficially, he never took on the title, but he acted as de facto Protector. Edward Seymour was executed in 1552, before Edward VI died. John Dudley was Jane's father-in-law.
@PanBoleyn All three men were involved. Edward moved lady Jane into Katherine Parrs household (and Thomas seymores house) when she was a child, she was raised there with Elizabeth by the former Queen. Thomas Seymore and Janes father came to an arrangment where Jane would be sold into the marriage with King Edward for 2000 pds. King Edward was already showing sings of death at the point. When King Edward died Jane was placed into a marriage with the Duke of Northumberlands son, John.
@fraserca Thomas Seymour and Henry Grey set that up between them; it was part of Thomas Seymour's bid for power. The last thing Edward Seymour wanted was for Thomas to gain more power. He wanted Edward to marry little Queen Mary of Scotland, and then when that fell through, he looked to Princess Elisabeth of France. Not to mention, he and Dudley were never co-conspirators - Edward and Dudley were rivals! Dudley was the one who ousted Edward from power.
During interviews they actually said they had combined certain characters into one therefore not to confuse the audience by introducing too many characters.
I think we should all be breathing a sigh of relief that the show is not continuing. HIrst displays an appalling grasp on history. As many have pointed out, Seymour had nothing at all to do with the usurpation of Jane Gray. That was down to John (father of Robert) Dudley, earl of Warwrick.
Still, the Tudors was enjoyable. But anyone who claims to have "learned from it", please don't take it at face value!
Lord Hertford (Edward Seymour) did not help turn Jane Grey into a usurper. Hertford actually died a few years before King Edward VI by beheading. The person who usurped Mary's crown was John Dudley, who was also responsible for bringing down Hertford. It was Dudley who died for using Jane Grey against Queen Mary I, not Hertford as he was already dead by that time. I respect Michael Hirst and I love The Tudors, but that was just an awful mistake to confuse Hertford with Dudley.
In fact Duke of Nothumberland tried to prevent Mary from succeding to the throne, not Edward Seymour, He was executed earlier for treason in january 1552. Anyway for sure he didnt want Mary to become queen
You know whats ironic. Mary was the daughter of Katherine of Aragon who was beloved by a lot of people. Mary ended up being the most hated queen of English history. Elizabeth was the daughter of Anne Boleyn who was hated by people. Elizabeth ended up being the greatest monarch of English history. I thinks thats ironic. I love this show though.
@AnneBoleyn15 I bet that you know this, but that's the reason she was know as Bloody Mary . . . . Se literally murder or execute many people, just like his father did . . . .
@mainsqueeze1977 History certainly supports your take on Mary not being the most hated monarch in English history, but I should very much like to know who rivals Elizabeth for the title of the greatest and what evidence you would use to support that. Henry VIII himself certainly would be on that very short list, but whom else?
Tell me 1st what it is that makes Elizabeth (or her monster of father) so great? Her problematic legitimacy? Her oppressive government (no medieval king would have done that)? Her propaganda? Getting lucky with the Armada? Her failure to continue her dynasty? Or simply the length of her reign? What makes her better than Henry 2 or Edwards 1, 3 or 4? Richard 3 would have been great if he had more time IMO. Or is it that coincidentally there was an upsurge in cultural/mercantile activity?
@mainsqueeze1977 None of those things were coincidental, argue as you may that her reign was not as good as anothers she still was important. She won the Armada because she had a good stratagy, you can argue it wasn't her idea but someone thought England was worth fighting for told her. She also had many suitors which she used for her advantage, she COULD marry but didnt want to. You might not think Elizabeth was the most important but her reign was great because of HER not of some coincidents
No one said she was unimportant. I said she is not the greatest because her reign meant so many dreadful things. A good "stratagy" (sic!)? Most of the Armada was lost in a storm! Englishmen fought for their country against invaders before, most recently in 1485. Another foreign invasion succeeded in 1688. What good are suitors if you don't chose one. From the political perspective that was a mistake. Do you really think that Shakespeare would not have been possible under a Plantagenet or Stuart?
@mainsqueeze1977 Elizabeth could have married & had children, but it's highly known she didn't want to. In 1688 Elizabeth was dead & gone for abt 45 years, so I guess I don't see your point in that. Elizabeth didn't get lucky with the Armada, she reinforced the british navy like Henry did, she calmed the storm between "protestants" x "catholic", supports the arts, historically what academic people say she gave a identity to the British people and that is true.
The relevance of 1688 is that that year saw the successful invasion and conquest of England, the last in a series. Elizabeth did not "calm the storm between protestants x catholics" but actually persecuted the latter. Identity? A fake identity?
@mainsqueeze1977 I see you're a catholic, just like I am, but face the truth. Mary & Elizabeth both had diff beliefs, Mary is deff. NOT the most hated queen of England, but she was was ill & her mind was not good, she persecuted the protestants & the way she persecuted the protestants is that what historically made the most english people their back once & for all & embrance Anglicanism, Mary reached her opposite objective.
@luadyp And of course Elizabeth persecuted the catholic people who tried to depose her, just like Henry did & just like Mary did with the protestants. The fact is that just like her mother, Elizabeth didn't belive in destroy in destroying the Abbeys that weren't corrupted Cromwell tried to destroy them all & it was its dowfall) & Elizabeth restored the Abbeys...during the Golden Age...that's why the catholic people in England started to calm down in some way bc & started to respect Elizabeth.
Anglicanism did not thrive (if it throve, see what happened after 1603) because of Mary's persecution but because Elizabeth having far greater time. Had Mary reigned for 45 years, England would have remained a Catholic nation. Liz & her cronies cleverly exploited the ill-advised excommunication and the Armada to potray Catholics as trators, when the vast majority of them were not. That at the complancency of the English Catholic elite.
Liz persecuted Catholicism before anyone tried to depose her. It was her first move as queen. Cromwell rose because he moved against the abbeys (money for his King), he fell for different reasons. Which abbey's did Liz restore? Other rulers supported arts etc. without being a tyrant. Should we respect rulers like the Shah of Iran because of his funding of culture?
@luadyp The radicals of course they didn't care & looked for support. I don't know if you've been to England but the restoration of the Abbeys, how beautiful they are, the fruits of Elizabeth's investiments in arts (writers, musicians, painters) & navy making England to be recognized, till nowdays, as having the greatest navy...this is what kind of identity she gave to them, that's why english people like her. Basically, she did the best with what she had to face & England loves her for that
I have been to England and know about history ... an Elizabethan restoration of monasteries sounds like a fairy tale to me. When did that happen. Anglicanism did not do monasticism until the 19th century.
Finally, you confuse those that spoke out (or were allowed to) with "the English people" - those that did not love that tyrant could not speak out. And I am not saying which party was the larger, just that you cannot tell that "the English people" loved her.
Responder a este vídeo... Long short story...Elizabeth walked in a thin line...she had debts that Henry VIII & Mary left , she could prevent an invasion supported by Rome...the period that it was REALLY hard to be a catholic in England...it's historical that radical protestants from her council wanted her to be even more harsh on the catholic people. After the Armada thing she spent the last years ill, the most important council members dead, & a big economic problem in her hands
Responder a este vídeo... amd that was when her investiment in arts that helped. Politically she played mostly in defense and trying to avoid a civil war, but belive me...historically the religious thing faced serious problems, but she got more under control & the fact that in her death bead she mad a easy succession possible by pointing her cousin made it to continue to be possible...
I don't see where what you write brings facts in opposition to what I said. I did not defend Mary, I merely contradicted the cult made around Elizabeth the greatest Queen. Sure, Liz was shrewder than her older sister but if anyone wants to blast Mary for her persecutions, let's not be silent about Elizabeth's which affected a far greater percentage of the population.
@randomstuff8991 nah she won because the duke of parma didnt give Spain any troops or ships that he was promised and the storm that destroyed loads of the Spanish ships. She was a good monarch up, but it really was Drake and others' plans that saved it. Also when looking at her reign post-armada it really wasnt that good and the people started to really dislike her. If she had died after the armada she probs would have been remembered as def one of the greatest monarchs of all time.
@TJ347 really i think henry viii def not he really didnt do that much - the only thing he is probably most famous for is his wives and the reformation - which werent exactly good. What about Henry V or Henry VII they were pretty good monarchs?
They cleared that up in the interviews with the author. I Especially remember him mentioning the "Margaret and Mary", sisters of the king being combined into one character
to simplify the story for the series. I guess it's ok, because if you are very interested in the subject, you already knew that is what they did.
@BobbieJeanS also , some things that really happen are not that appealing for a TV show. A TV show constantly needs to have nuances in every season , otherwise their ratings will fall and the show will be cancelled.
They cleared that up in the interviews with the author. I Especially remember him mentioning the "Margaret and Mary", sisters of the king being combined into one character
to simplify the story for the series. I guess it's ok, because if you are very interested in the subject, you already knew that is what they did.
They cleared that up in the interviews with the author. I Especially remember him mentioning the "Margaret and Mary", sisters of the king being combined into one character
to simplify the story for the series. I guess it's ok, because if you are very interested in the subject, you already knew that is what they did
@teenierx take it with a grain of salt though because they deviated a lot from what actually happened. Noticed how The producer talked about Lady Jane Grey in this video yet she was not even in the series at all. Her entrei existence was written out of the show.
Jane Grey, a women in the Series would never had existed....since her grandmother Mary Tudor(more than a slim claim, as a grand niece to Henry VIII and in place after Elizabeth by Henry's Will) never existed, minor problem.... But easily that another two or three seasons.... just sayin
Actress Helen Miren did a two part series on Elizabeth I (not to be confused with Miren's Elizabeth the II movie) in her later years, which was fantastic. I would highly recommend it!
Hirst got it wrong, Hertford was already dead when Lady jane grey was placed on the throne it was the duke of northumberland not hertford who did this... hertford was already executed after trying to steal the king, read the history books hirst...
@loverofLN I caught that, too. but Thomas Seymour was actually the one who tried to break into King Edward's bedchamber to hold him for ransom and take control away from Hertford, but of course he failed and was executed for treason in 1549. Hertford followed him to the block in 1552, in the wake of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland's rise to power as Lord Protector. Northumberland married his son Guildford to Lady Jane Grey and masterminded her ultimately failed succession
@BroomDancer2000 I completely agree! I really wish they could have continued The Tudors after Henry's death. Could have gotten @ least another 4 seasons depicting the reigns of Edward, then Mary, and ending with the coronation of Elizabeth.
@dragonfly74j Well, it just seemed to be that Queen Elizabeth's story has been re-told so many times in different formats (plays, TV, movies) that there really isn't much new ground to cover. The main idea of this series was to show us a side of Henry 8 that wasn't seen before, and I think it did that well. Edward VI likewise hasn't been focused on as much.
@BroomDancer2000 IT would've been awesome to see more of the royal children and show how they cope emotionally and maybe have them seeing visions of their mothers and father.
@HistoryLover1550 i so agree with u! that would of been very interesting to see. i'm curious to see what they're parents would of said to them after they died.
After watching The Tudors from beginning to end with great interest, I think I'm going to have to check out the Cate Blanchett films about Elizabeth. Henry the VIII has to be one of the most fascinating monarchs of known history, second only maybe to Julius Caesar. Definitely going to miss this show.
Does Micheal Hirst read ANY history books???? Edward Seymour was long dead befor Mary came the throne John Dudley was her enemy not Seymour, Seymour was actually her friend!
This has been flagged as spam show
I can`t believe how smart was Elizabeth, she preferred to be a tolerant person according religions instead to be against it for me that was a very clever decision Oh My god she has the cleverness of her mother i truly believe so....
justinandbritneyJLA 1 month ago
it wasnt the duke of somerset who try to change the succession ,he was already dead , it was the duke of northumberland
MrGeorgefoord 4 months ago
i cried when charles brandon died :( miss u charliexxx
mrsplum100 5 months ago
I would love to see a TV series about The Stuarts.
htcjunkie16 6 months ago
what had her baby ? an handicap?i can't hear very well what he says and my english is not very good to understand it.
MyLalinea 6 months ago
Bloody mary !!
DctrNugget 6 months ago
They should definitly make a new season of the Tudors. Maybe they can call it "The Tudors: Reign of Elizabeth". Since Michael Hirst did make the movie 'Elizabeth' and it's sequel, I have no doubt he can write a whole new series about her.
mattnashisgay 7 months ago
They need to continue the series make it While Henry is still alive but dying and how it goes down the line from there...Edward,Mary,Elizabeth..
Kxxxbreezy 7 months ago
What SHOWTIME doesn't realize is that they wouldn't be created just another Elizabeth or Elizabeth: The Golden Age - they would be creating the one and only original series of "The Tudors" right down to the heirs which would make the show complete. We want to see Edward and Lady Jane Grey and Bloody Mary and the affair of Thomas Seymour and Elizabeth and The Virgin Queen's rise. We want this. Showtime doesn't see the success of this originality.
TWIGBOYS4 7 months ago
I want another series about Queen Elizabeth!
TubingWithMyGnomies 7 months ago
i always thought jane seymour was catholic, dont know why, i thought edward was protestant because of henry
xloisx1 8 months ago
this guy is so wrong - it wasn't edward seymour that tried to change the succession it was John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland who had married his son to Jane. seymour was executed by Northumberland a few years before.
Also mary did loads of great stuff its just that she died too early for it to actually be known and the only thing remembered is the burnings. if it wasnt for her expanding the navy we would probs have lost the armada.
Cassabc 8 months ago
I never thought history can be this interesting :))
Amazing show! I learned a lot watching something I really enjoyed :D
pambears1 9 months ago
they should of continued it from Edward and Lord Hartford's rule all the way to Elizabeth taking the throne, sorry seen enough movies on Elizabeth's reign.
negronomics 9 months ago
@negronomics it would have been good but they shot themselves in the foot when killing Margaret - or mary as she was meant to be - which was so historically inaccurate because Lady Jane Grey would never have existed so it couldn't have worked, as she was mary and charles' granddaughter.
Cassabc 8 months ago
So, Elizabeth had "a wonderful tolerant attitude" and did not care what one believed - the historical truth is very different.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i understood why he wanted a son. heirs and all. but then i think about elizabeth ii and its not a big deal. was it because they didnt think women could handle it or what?
Rachulie 10 months ago
i understood why he wanted a son. heirs and all. but then i think about elizabeth ii and she is a woman ruler. was it because they didnt think women could handle it or what?
Rachulie 10 months ago
Another irony, Jane Seymour married the king 11 days after Anne Boleyns execution. Jane then died 11 days after Prince Edwards birth
nitanewsreader 10 months ago
they should have kept the tudor series running, following mary and elizabeth
JACKY93 10 months ago 3
@JACKY93 not forgettin edward
afrababes1 10 months ago
@afrababes1 yeah the trio: edward,mary and elizabeth from edward's accension to elizabeth's death. am i wrong or would that be a great show?
JACKY93 10 months ago
@JACKY93 You could still call it "The Tudors"
biblegirl 10 months ago
I always feel torn between who my favorite queen was. Katharine (Catherine, however you prefer it spelled) of Aragon had to go through so much, yet she was a good queen. She was tolerant, patient, loving, and I admire her. But Anne of Boleyn, the exact opposite is also admirable. Anne knew what she wanted, and although it was her ambition that killed her, went through everything to get it. However if Anne didn't put Mary through hell, both Mary and Elizabeth would have been great queens.
kbrookep11 10 months ago
elizabeth couldn't help it that her mother was hatede or yes? that is my opinion.
MyLalinea 11 months ago
I, devout follower of the series, by my own grace, DEMAND a new series about Bloody Mary. :p How can this not ne anything but a another success!
Mueiwark 11 months ago 32
what about a movieabout mary and elizabeth as a child?what is known about this? i live in netherland and not known wth this.
MyLalinea 11 months ago
Wow! That was pretty good!
chinagrrl 11 months ago
There have been so many films about Elizabeth I. It is about time one was made about Mary.
Daniela2936 1 year ago
@Daniela2936 Thank you! Absolutely I agree. Enuf Elizabeth.
mnorth1964 10 months ago
amazing serie! enjoyed watching it!
jahlove111 1 year ago
i also think it would be better if they continued the series after henry.It feels like just a little of the Tudors story was told when there is so much more to the family.
swing420 1 year ago
i miss this show SOOOOO much! it was amazing! just not the same watching it on DVD! lol!
BroomDancer2000 1 year ago
I'm so glad Edward Seymour was executed. He was an arrogant and cold bastard. I hated him so much throughout the show!
CatieCass 1 year ago
@CatieCass More arrogant than Surrey or Wolsey?
chopinDC 1 year ago
@chopinDC I would say they were on the same scale. I liked Surrey though! =)
CatieCass 1 year ago
@CatieCass yeah he was a badass.I wanted to see his execution. After the beheading of Katherine Howard they stop showing executions.
chopinDC 1 year ago
Elizabeth WAS his child. Whether he wanted to believe it or not, she was HIS daughter.
scorpianofthesun 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If your only going to do Henry's life, call "Henry VIII" Because the name "Tudor" is his father, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. So do all their reigns if it's going to be "The Tudors" Trust me, you would make loads from it and i would buy every single one. I think this show is epic. I am sad thee wont be another one. (By the way Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard are my favorite)
Eloise672 1 year ago
If your only going to do Henry's life, call "Henry VIII" Because the name "Tudor" is his father, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. So do all their reigns if it's going to be "The Tudors" Trust me, you would make loads from it and i would buy every single one. I think this show is epic. I am sad thee wont be another one. (By the way Anne Boleyn and Katherine Howard are my favorite)
Eloise672 1 year ago 2
i miss this show so much! i so wish there was a fifth one!
BroomDancer2000 1 year ago 2
Henry VIII had more people killed then his daughter Mary
LCoop1979 1 year ago 28
@LCoop1979 OMG, henry had almost 40 years to do that, mary only 6, i hate when people say that!!
xloisx1 8 months ago
@LCoop1979 Yes, but he was on the throne, LONGER; she killed more people in those 5 years than Henry did in 5 years.
Jamestopboy 4 months ago
@Jamestopboy
Actually, she didn't. Only in her case, each and every one is advertised, while in Henry's case, most of the dead are nameless. Leaving aside his revolting acts apart that did not involve killing.
mainsqueeze1977 3 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 Fine. But, nonetheless, over all, Mary killed more people!
Jamestopboy 3 months ago
I feel bad Lady Jane Grey. She was ruler for a little over a week and then, Mary took over and had her beheaded and she was only a teenager. Bloody Mary, indeed.
msinarath 1 year ago
@msinarath 'Bloody Mary indeed'? WTF? She gave Jane two chances, never mind the fact that she had USURPED her throne. Are you even serious? The throne was Mary's LEGITIMATE right; Jane had no rights to the throne whatsoever. Edward chose her because Mary was Catholic and he was a fanatical, puritanical Protestant who even outlawed the Catholic Mass (there isn't a worse thing to do to your Catholic subjects) and didn't want England to be ruled by a Catholic queen. He had no regard for H's will.
CorieFaulkner 1 year ago 4
@CorieFaulkner Yes but Jane was forced to accept the throne off her parents scheming and abusive parents Janes life was just as sad as Mary's and she was forced into a Marriage with John Dudley's son, Edward was probably made to change the sucession by John Dudley
Also others had no reagrd for Henry's will by 1603 they put they Stuarts on the throne despite Henry VII banishing his older sisters line from english sucession
hayleyshikari 1 year ago 3
@hayleyshikari I agree with your point about Lady Jane Gray. She had no real wish to rule.
However the reason a Stuart was chosen to rule after Queen Elizabeth is because he was her closet living relation and a Protestant. Elizabeth never publicly or privately choose the next ruler after her. The first Stuart king was chosen by advisers who thought that the shift of power would go smoothly.
TokyoAngel2006 1 year ago 4
Michael Hirst is talking out of his arse. It was the Duke of Northumberland, John Dudley (aka Robert Dudley's father) who executed Seymour, not Mary, and it was Northumberland who plotted to put Lady Jane Grey on the throne, not Seymour, who was already dead by that point.
TheGirlWhoKilledTime 1 year ago
I love the Tudors they should continue into the children's lives...
27PandaBear 1 year ago 4
If people were willing to honor Henry's last will, he must have been somewhat liked by the people. So maybe there was some good to him
Lundarigirl 1 year ago
They should have continued the show up to Elizabeth's reign.
sugabayer 1 year ago 4
Elizabeth: I dont want to know what your religious practice is, so long a you are loyal to me" :) long live the Queen!
GryffindorGurl 1 year ago 4
He mentioned that Mary never liked Elizabeth. But I thought they had a close sister relationship when they were younger...? It only turned bad in Mary's reign.
GryffindorGurl 1 year ago
@GryffindorGurl Well, I don't think anybody can really know for certain. It's a fact that during Mary's reign she was embittered towards her sister for the support she was receiving from the Protestants. During their childhoods,the show potrays them as being friends, that may or may not be true. During that time there was nothing to compete for, they were both bastard daughters of Henry, so it's possible they felt close because of that, others think that Mary hated Elizabeth because of Anne.
citygirl2192 1 year ago
try to see Lady Jane starring Helena Bonham Carter as Jane Dudley. a great movie.
kozykatz119 1 year ago
this is history at it's best. I've learned so much about English history since the Tudors appeared.
kozykatz119 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Tudors is wwaaaaaayyyyyyy better than watching the History Channel.
XinoraKnWing 1 year ago
Comment removed
XinoraKnWing 1 year ago
Say what now? I know it's been said, but... Edward Seymour had nothing to do with Jane Grey! Where does Hirst get his information from?
PanBoleyn 1 year ago
@PanBoleyn yes he did. He feared for his life after the death of King Edward. He came up with a plan with Jane Greys father and and father in law to put Jane on the throne.
fraserca 1 year ago
@fraserca No he didn't. That was John Dudley, who replaced Edward Seymour as Lord Protector - unofficially, he never took on the title, but he acted as de facto Protector. Edward Seymour was executed in 1552, before Edward VI died. John Dudley was Jane's father-in-law.
PanBoleyn 1 year ago
@PanBoleyn All three men were involved. Edward moved lady Jane into Katherine Parrs household (and Thomas seymores house) when she was a child, she was raised there with Elizabeth by the former Queen. Thomas Seymore and Janes father came to an arrangment where Jane would be sold into the marriage with King Edward for 2000 pds. King Edward was already showing sings of death at the point. When King Edward died Jane was placed into a marriage with the Duke of Northumberlands son, John.
fraserca 1 year ago
@fraserca Thomas Seymour and Henry Grey set that up between them; it was part of Thomas Seymour's bid for power. The last thing Edward Seymour wanted was for Thomas to gain more power. He wanted Edward to marry little Queen Mary of Scotland, and then when that fell through, he looked to Princess Elisabeth of France. Not to mention, he and Dudley were never co-conspirators - Edward and Dudley were rivals! Dudley was the one who ousted Edward from power.
PanBoleyn 1 year ago
@thesumerkidz I don't think so. Elizabeth's reign was pretty much portrayed through Cate Blanchett's films and when Helen Mirren played her.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
when is the last season going to start. It has been filmed why the wait?
mspumpkinpatch1 1 year ago
when is the last season going to start. It has been filmed whey the wait?
mspumpkinpatch1 1 year ago
i miss this show sooo much! i'm going through some serious withdrawal! haha!
BroomDancer2000 1 year ago
wrong wrong WRONG
Hertford was executed in Edward's reign, it was the Dudleys who tried to bring Jane onto the throne
And it's bullshit what they say about Mary and Elizabeth
Sweetlittlemystery 1 year ago
when does this come out in the uk?
xxdinzzixx 1 year ago
During interviews they actually said they had combined certain characters into one therefore not to confuse the audience by introducing too many characters.
cookiemonster2482 1 year ago
I think we should all be breathing a sigh of relief that the show is not continuing. HIrst displays an appalling grasp on history. As many have pointed out, Seymour had nothing at all to do with the usurpation of Jane Gray. That was down to John (father of Robert) Dudley, earl of Warwrick.
Still, the Tudors was enjoyable. But anyone who claims to have "learned from it", please don't take it at face value!
Lizzie9176 1 year ago
Lord Hertford (Edward Seymour) did not help turn Jane Grey into a usurper. Hertford actually died a few years before King Edward VI by beheading. The person who usurped Mary's crown was John Dudley, who was also responsible for bringing down Hertford. It was Dudley who died for using Jane Grey against Queen Mary I, not Hertford as he was already dead by that time. I respect Michael Hirst and I love The Tudors, but that was just an awful mistake to confuse Hertford with Dudley.
JRT8710 1 year ago 3
Edward looks like Elizabeth=P
PhatNatLovesCupcakes 1 year ago 2
@PhatNatLovesCupcakes They both had their father's red hair.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
In fact Duke of Nothumberland tried to prevent Mary from succeding to the throne, not Edward Seymour, He was executed earlier for treason in january 1552. Anyway for sure he didnt want Mary to become queen
marcinkapitaniak 1 year ago
You know whats ironic. Mary was the daughter of Katherine of Aragon who was beloved by a lot of people. Mary ended up being the most hated queen of English history. Elizabeth was the daughter of Anne Boleyn who was hated by people. Elizabeth ended up being the greatest monarch of English history. I thinks thats ironic. I love this show though.
AnneBoleyn15 1 year ago 127
@AnneBoleyn15 yeah truly ironic,,this is history and religion does play a great role.
belleahmarquis12 1 year ago 3
@AnneBoleyn15 I bet that you know this, but that's the reason she was know as Bloody Mary . . . . Se literally murder or execute many people, just like his father did . . . .
Jericho4444 1 year ago
@Jericho4444 They were all Bloody. lol
fraserca 1 year ago
Elizabeth Tudor and Henry II, the two greatest English monarchs.
Ennio444 1 year ago
@AnneBoleyn15 yup. very ironic.
ekateri28 1 year ago
@AnneBoleyn15 Yup, very. And that is what makes it soooo interesting and fascinating.
ekateri28 1 year ago
@AnneBoleyn15
Neither was Mary "the most hated" nor was her half-sister "the Greatest monarch in English history" - not by far.
mainsqueeze1977 10 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 History certainly supports your take on Mary not being the most hated monarch in English history, but I should very much like to know who rivals Elizabeth for the title of the greatest and what evidence you would use to support that. Henry VIII himself certainly would be on that very short list, but whom else?
TJ347 9 months ago
Tell me 1st what it is that makes Elizabeth (or her monster of father) so great? Her problematic legitimacy? Her oppressive government (no medieval king would have done that)? Her propaganda? Getting lucky with the Armada? Her failure to continue her dynasty? Or simply the length of her reign? What makes her better than Henry 2 or Edwards 1, 3 or 4? Richard 3 would have been great if he had more time IMO. Or is it that coincidentally there was an upsurge in cultural/mercantile activity?
mainsqueeze1977 9 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 None of those things were coincidental, argue as you may that her reign was not as good as anothers she still was important. She won the Armada because she had a good stratagy, you can argue it wasn't her idea but someone thought England was worth fighting for told her. She also had many suitors which she used for her advantage, she COULD marry but didnt want to. You might not think Elizabeth was the most important but her reign was great because of HER not of some coincidents
randomstuff8991 9 months ago
No one said she was unimportant. I said she is not the greatest because her reign meant so many dreadful things. A good "stratagy" (sic!)? Most of the Armada was lost in a storm! Englishmen fought for their country against invaders before, most recently in 1485. Another foreign invasion succeeded in 1688. What good are suitors if you don't chose one. From the political perspective that was a mistake. Do you really think that Shakespeare would not have been possible under a Plantagenet or Stuart?
mainsqueeze1977 8 months ago 3
@mainsqueeze1977 Elizabeth could have married & had children, but it's highly known she didn't want to. In 1688 Elizabeth was dead & gone for abt 45 years, so I guess I don't see your point in that. Elizabeth didn't get lucky with the Armada, she reinforced the british navy like Henry did, she calmed the storm between "protestants" x "catholic", supports the arts, historically what academic people say she gave a identity to the British people and that is true.
luadyp 7 months ago
The relevance of 1688 is that that year saw the successful invasion and conquest of England, the last in a series. Elizabeth did not "calm the storm between protestants x catholics" but actually persecuted the latter. Identity? A fake identity?
mainsqueeze1977 7 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 I see you're a catholic, just like I am, but face the truth. Mary & Elizabeth both had diff beliefs, Mary is deff. NOT the most hated queen of England, but she was was ill & her mind was not good, she persecuted the protestants & the way she persecuted the protestants is that what historically made the most english people their back once & for all & embrance Anglicanism, Mary reached her opposite objective.
luadyp 7 months ago
@luadyp And of course Elizabeth persecuted the catholic people who tried to depose her, just like Henry did & just like Mary did with the protestants. The fact is that just like her mother, Elizabeth didn't belive in destroy in destroying the Abbeys that weren't corrupted Cromwell tried to destroy them all & it was its dowfall) & Elizabeth restored the Abbeys...during the Golden Age...that's why the catholic people in England started to calm down in some way bc & started to respect Elizabeth.
luadyp 7 months ago
Anglicanism did not thrive (if it throve, see what happened after 1603) because of Mary's persecution but because Elizabeth having far greater time. Had Mary reigned for 45 years, England would have remained a Catholic nation. Liz & her cronies cleverly exploited the ill-advised excommunication and the Armada to potray Catholics as trators, when the vast majority of them were not. That at the complancency of the English Catholic elite.
mainsqueeze1977 7 months ago 3
Liz persecuted Catholicism before anyone tried to depose her. It was her first move as queen. Cromwell rose because he moved against the abbeys (money for his King), he fell for different reasons. Which abbey's did Liz restore? Other rulers supported arts etc. without being a tyrant. Should we respect rulers like the Shah of Iran because of his funding of culture?
mainsqueeze1977 7 months ago 2
@luadyp The radicals of course they didn't care & looked for support. I don't know if you've been to England but the restoration of the Abbeys, how beautiful they are, the fruits of Elizabeth's investiments in arts (writers, musicians, painters) & navy making England to be recognized, till nowdays, as having the greatest navy...this is what kind of identity she gave to them, that's why english people like her. Basically, she did the best with what she had to face & England loves her for that
luadyp 7 months ago
I have been to England and know about history ... an Elizabethan restoration of monasteries sounds like a fairy tale to me. When did that happen. Anglicanism did not do monasticism until the 19th century.
mainsqueeze1977 7 months ago 2
Finally, you confuse those that spoke out (or were allowed to) with "the English people" - those that did not love that tyrant could not speak out. And I am not saying which party was the larger, just that you cannot tell that "the English people" loved her.
mainsqueeze1977 7 months ago
Responder a este vídeo... Long short story...Elizabeth walked in a thin line...she had debts that Henry VIII & Mary left , she could prevent an invasion supported by Rome...the period that it was REALLY hard to be a catholic in England...it's historical that radical protestants from her council wanted her to be even more harsh on the catholic people. After the Armada thing she spent the last years ill, the most important council members dead, & a big economic problem in her hands
luadyp 7 months ago
Responder a este vídeo... amd that was when her investiment in arts that helped. Politically she played mostly in defense and trying to avoid a civil war, but belive me...historically the religious thing faced serious problems, but she got more under control & the fact that in her death bead she mad a easy succession possible by pointing her cousin made it to continue to be possible...
luadyp 7 months ago
I don't see where what you write brings facts in opposition to what I said. I did not defend Mary, I merely contradicted the cult made around Elizabeth the greatest Queen. Sure, Liz was shrewder than her older sister but if anyone wants to blast Mary for her persecutions, let's not be silent about Elizabeth's which affected a far greater percentage of the population.
mainsqueeze1977 7 months ago 2
Comment removed
luadyp 7 months ago
@randomstuff8991 nah she won because the duke of parma didnt give Spain any troops or ships that he was promised and the storm that destroyed loads of the Spanish ships. She was a good monarch up, but it really was Drake and others' plans that saved it. Also when looking at her reign post-armada it really wasnt that good and the people started to really dislike her. If she had died after the armada she probs would have been remembered as def one of the greatest monarchs of all time.
Cassabc 8 months ago
@mainsqueeze1977 YES! Richard III ftw..and edwards I, III, IV were worthy too imo.
Nicollie1062 3 months ago
@TJ347 really i think henry viii def not he really didnt do that much - the only thing he is probably most famous for is his wives and the reformation - which werent exactly good. What about Henry V or Henry VII they were pretty good monarchs?
Cassabc 8 months ago
@AnneBoleyn15
Also ironic is , that Henry wanted a male heir so badly and his son Edward is hardly remembered.
Most of the kings didn't play a great role in England's history.
But when Britain was ruled by queens (Elizabeth and later Viktoria) it was the empire Henry could hardly dreamed about.
Hannibu 9 months ago 3
dude they have to make this as a show!!! Please Please Please!
Konuvis 1 year ago 3
@Konuvis Ikr this would be great just like The Tudors!
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Why didn't they continue in to Edward's and Mary's reigns!? I understand not wanting to redo Elizabeth but some on!
SoILoveCheese2011 1 year ago 3
@SoILoveCheese2011 I agree, it would've been a cool miniseries if they went on through Edward and Mary's reigns.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
i wish they would do more series as well. i learn so much about the king and queens
Emii 1 year ago
one of the best shows i ever watched, ima miss it but it ended on a good note :)
charmed9901 1 year ago
they should do more series like this... I enjoyed and learned so much more watching this than any history class I took in high school or college!
teenierx 1 year ago 48
@teenierx I agree, they should do a series on King Tut's family too.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Comment removed
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@teenierx You know aleast half of this is made up.
fraserca 1 year ago
@teenierx Ikr I hope one day a series is done on the Amarna dynasty King Tut belonged to. That would be cool!
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@teenierx The show isn't completely accurate. Don't take for granted everything you've seen
hsmbabyv 1 year ago 5
@hsmbabyv
They cleared that up in the interviews with the author. I Especially remember him mentioning the "Margaret and Mary", sisters of the king being combined into one character
to simplify the story for the series. I guess it's ok, because if you are very interested in the subject, you already knew that is what they did.
BobbieJeanS 1 year ago
@BobbieJeanS also , some things that really happen are not that appealing for a TV show. A TV show constantly needs to have nuances in every season , otherwise their ratings will fall and the show will be cancelled.
hsmbabyv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They cleared that up in the interviews with the author. I Especially remember him mentioning the "Margaret and Mary", sisters of the king being combined into one character
to simplify the story for the series. I guess it's ok, because if you are very interested in the subject, you already knew that is what they did.
BobbieJeanS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They cleared that up in the interviews with the author. I Especially remember him mentioning the "Margaret and Mary", sisters of the king being combined into one character
to simplify the story for the series. I guess it's ok, because if you are very interested in the subject, you already knew that is what they did
BobbieJeanS 1 year ago
@teenierx take it with a grain of salt though because they deviated a lot from what actually happened. Noticed how The producer talked about Lady Jane Grey in this video yet she was not even in the series at all. Her entrei existence was written out of the show.
chopinDC 1 year ago
@teenierx You should read books on the subject, there are several inaccuracies in the show but as a show it is one of the best.
BWade1815 1 year ago
@thesumerkidz I hope they do that would be awesome. I think people should write the creater and pitch it.
ShannonM14 1 year ago
Jane Grey, a women in the Series would never had existed....since her grandmother Mary Tudor(more than a slim claim, as a grand niece to Henry VIII and in place after Elizabeth by Henry's Will) never existed, minor problem.... But easily that another two or three seasons.... just sayin
aneiasl 1 year ago
Actress Helen Miren did a two part series on Elizabeth I (not to be confused with Miren's Elizabeth the II movie) in her later years, which was fantastic. I would highly recommend it!
DerClippster 1 year ago
@DerClippster Trully it was great.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Hirst got it wrong, Hertford was already dead when Lady jane grey was placed on the throne it was the duke of northumberland not hertford who did this... hertford was already executed after trying to steal the king, read the history books hirst...
loverofLN 1 year ago
@loverofLN it was Jane's Fatherinlaw Dudley
aneiasl 1 year ago
@loverofLN I caught that, too. but Thomas Seymour was actually the one who tried to break into King Edward's bedchamber to hold him for ransom and take control away from Hertford, but of course he failed and was executed for treason in 1549. Hertford followed him to the block in 1552, in the wake of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland's rise to power as Lord Protector. Northumberland married his son Guildford to Lady Jane Grey and masterminded her ultimately failed succession
emrldeyez 1 year ago
@emrldeyez this would of made for an AMAZING 5th season! omg! i see trouble written all over the place! i miss this show already! :(
BroomDancer2000 1 year ago
@BroomDancer2000 I completely agree! I really wish they could have continued The Tudors after Henry's death. Could have gotten @ least another 4 seasons depicting the reigns of Edward, then Mary, and ending with the coronation of Elizabeth.
JRLeMar1 1 year ago
@JRLeMar1 why end with elizabeth's coronation? there is so much intrigue that elizabeth's reign could be its own show, lasting several seasons
dragonfly74j 1 year ago
@dragonfly74j Well, it just seemed to be that Queen Elizabeth's story has been re-told so many times in different formats (plays, TV, movies) that there really isn't much new ground to cover. The main idea of this series was to show us a side of Henry 8 that wasn't seen before, and I think it did that well. Edward VI likewise hasn't been focused on as much.
JRLeMar1 1 year ago
@dragonfly74j I agree. they have a great thing going and put on uninterstaing stuff.
mspumpkinpatch1 1 year ago
@BroomDancer2000 IT would've been awesome to see more of the royal children and show how they cope emotionally and maybe have them seeing visions of their mothers and father.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
@HistoryLover1550 i so agree with u! that would of been very interesting to see. i'm curious to see what they're parents would of said to them after they died.
BroomDancer2000 1 year ago
@BroomDancer2000 They probably would've told them they always loved them, their regrets, and advice to them.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
Awesome. I wish the series continued.
juniorjuice88 1 year ago 2
wow that was wonderful. Like and epilogue to a great story. I loved this show.
starlollie 1 year ago
I am gonna miss this show so friggen much :( it was one of the greatest shows i ever watched.
IWaSsoNauGhTy 1 year ago
michael you ll miss a lot of henry-!!its a word of a writer too
tiadejo 1 year ago
After watching The Tudors from beginning to end with great interest, I think I'm going to have to check out the Cate Blanchett films about Elizabeth. Henry the VIII has to be one of the most fascinating monarchs of known history, second only maybe to Julius Caesar. Definitely going to miss this show.
Deadmansparty2002 1 year ago
@Deadmansparty2002
The Elizabeth films were very good and I think you'll enjoy them. I'll miss the show as well =/
BroknDwnHalo 1 year ago
@BroknDwnHalo Well that's good, I always wanted to watch them but never got around to it.
Deadmansparty2002 1 year ago
@Deadmansparty2002 meh..there are many monarchs that are more interesting. \henry \viii is just really well known so nobody bothers with others
Nicollie1062 3 months ago
Elizabeth I was the most prized heir and child of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn....just my humble opinion, but she was one hell of a monarch!
Agenteee 1 year ago 2
"The rest is history." Well, yeah. Everything you mentioned was history.
bluebettle 1 year ago
I have enjoyed this show more than any EVER. I am heartbroken it is over.
terri3gs 1 year ago
I'm so going to miss this show.
CraftDknits 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cool vid, i subbed u! please rate my video its in a competition! :) G x
LikeGracesVideo 1 year ago
And after watching all this, people still believe there is dictatorship in the Middle East? Hahaha...
ashthegreat 1 year ago
Awesome! Elizabeth was an incredible Queen!
nataliedormerfan 1 year ago
Does Micheal Hirst read ANY history books???? Edward Seymour was long dead befor Mary came the throne John Dudley was her enemy not Seymour, Seymour was actually her friend!
AmethystPiscesNix 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
domulys 1 year ago