Historical accuracy

So while I was in Italy, I started watching that Showtime series The Tudors (don't worry, I did a lot of other more exciting things too). I got the first season on DVD and was watching it today, so that's what I'll start with (though I promise I'll get to my trip).

Historical accuracy is a funny thing. Even though I study history and plan to make a career in that field, the lack thereof in popular histories (movies or Showtime series, for example) doesn't bother me too much. I love a good fanciful romp through the dusty pages of history more the average person, probably. Everyone loves the dramatic, and history is filled with it. Throw in some codpieces and heaving bosoms and you've got a recipe for success. The Tudors takes this equation to heart, following the exploits of King Henry VIII (the one with all the wives) and taking quite a bit of artistic license on the way. The show is entertaining in spite of the inaccuracies, and I actually have a lot of fun picking them out. Here's a good one:

They picked this guy...

...to play this guy.

Wtf? Of course, the plot itself commits greater historical accuracy sins than this -- I bought the DVDs so I could find out what happens next, though I'm very familiar with the real Tudors. Maybe Anne Boleyn will actually give birth to the son he's always wanted and they'll live happily ever after. The real Henry's treatment of Anne probably will make it into the next season (which is out, I just haven't watched it), but what I'm really interested in is how the show portrays his character. In this season he's a very positive figure. He is shown as being impulsive and quick to anger, but he's also portrayed as being younger than he was when the actual events took place, so it's easy to put those characteristics down to his youth. So what if he breaks alliances and spends more money than he has? And his treatment of his first wife is more understandable to the audience because of the "great love" between Henry and Anne, and it's not as though divorce is nearly as controversial today as it was then. Religious controversy comes into the episodes in passing, but the real impact of this divorce -- separation from the Catholic church and the creation of a Protestant state -- is unlikely to appear.

Henry VIII is infamous for this schism, as well as his horrible treatment of his many wives, spending the country into debt, and being slightly insane (it's thought that he may have had syphilis). Few of these things make for a very likable protagonist, but they definitely make a compelling story. I just hope the show depicts his story as a descent into said infamy, rather than a misunderstood (and really hottt) ruler. Whichever direction The Tudors takes, though, I can take comfort in the very accurate historical fact that, despite his maniacal quest to produce a male heir (which the show does address), Henry VIII's most important contribution - his real legacy - is his daughter, Elizabeth I, who not only cleaned up the mess left by her father, brother, and sister, but who defined an age.