I love this mini series. I was wondering if any of this is historically accurate? I saw on another post that it wasn't really accurate. So my question is: Does anyone know of any books/websites that tells the story of Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV, and The Tudors accurately?
The good Dale is in the lodge and he can't leave. Write it in your diary. TWIN PEAKS
Honestly, I read tons of stuff on Wikipedia and that gave enough detail but it also listed several literary resources that you could check out. Start with Elizabeth Woodville and go from there.
shareI've read so much about the War of the Roses. I think it's fairly accurate. except for one thing which bothers me quite a bit - we all know by know that the remains of Richard III were found within the last 2 years. I know he had Scoliosis of the spine. That isn't shown at all in this series. I don't know why since the series was made after the discovery of Richard's burial site.
The hard part's over.share
The Scoliosis wouldn't have been terribly evident to casual observers. I saw a recreation they did once using a modern person with scoliosis and his condition was only notciable when he took off his shirt and you could actually see his spine. In some of the early episodes, Aneurin Barnard seems to be playing him with a slightly torqued body, which may be an attempt to reference his scoliosis.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
I have scoliosis, but that doesn't mean I'm a hunch back or that I'm deformed. There's no contemporary documentation that he had a hunch back or was deformed. All references regarding his hunchback were well after his death and most references were dated after the Shakespeare play was released. He, like most of us with scoliosis, would have looked normal and suffered some back pain.
shareI think there must have been something unusual about him for Shakespeare to have played it up as he did - unless you believe in the most almighty coincidences.
I'm the clever one; you're the potato one.
Shakespeare was part of the Tudor propaganda machine. He had to make Richard a monster in every way when it may well be the opposite of the truth.
Richard had a type of scoliosis that would have made him uncomfortable and given him a slight different elevation of the shoulders. it would not have made him a hunchback" with a huge hunch as played in Shakespeare plays
And extra padding on one of his shoulders in his garments (which would have all been custom made) would have taken care of that appearance. People with club feet or one short leg corrected this through special shoes all the time.
shareShakespeare is notorious for the political tilt of his plays. He was writing during the reign of Elizabeth I, a Tudor monarch. Her grandfather came to power by defeating Richard. Of course Shakespeare is going to portray Richard as the rankest of villains and highlight that by claiming that Richard's very real medical condition was a horrible deformity.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
They've done analysis of Richard's corpse and his scoliosis was fairly severe IIRC but he wasn't a hunchback. One of his shoulders would have been higher than the other and this wouldn't have been pronounced with clothes on, let alone in armor. There's a fascinating recreation that they did using a guy who has similar scoliosis to Richard and they wanted to see how well Richard could fight in armor of the day and he was perfectly able to. They actually found that the high backed military saddles of the day were actually much better for the reenactor's back than modern saddles are and on horseback there would have been no difference between Richard and any other combatant.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
Just in case the OP is still interested, there's a pretty good textbook on Google books that I've used to reference people and events when I need a reality check. "The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: England 1459-c.1513" by Colin Pendrill is well organized and, since it's a textbook, it gives just the facts without opinions and he doesn't take sides.
I'm currently listening to the audio version of Dan Jones' "The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors". It's really quite good. It's well written and he mentions his sources when necessary. You know, e.g., that an account from the Spanish Ambassador is going to give the Catholic point of view. Hope this helps.
A lot of this is available through wikipedia. The general outlines are fairly accurate although the series takes a revisionist take on a number of the characters and incidents. For instance it says that Jacquetta of Luxembourg was actually a witch, and that Perkin Warbeck was telling the truth. It also offers a very revisionist take on Richard III that doesn't seem to match up with history.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
there are also issues with the ages of the characters.Edward was born in 1442, George in 1449, and Richard was born in 1452,. When Edward and Elizabeth where married in 1464,Edward was 22,George 14, and Richard was 12. The show seems to age up the younger two brothers probably a 2-3 years to make them closer in age to Edward when in fact George was 8 years younger and Richard was 10 years younger then Edward. They may have done this because the brother who was closer to Edward in age Edmund was killed at Wakefield before the time the show was set in.
share