Book Review – The Hollow Crown/The Wars of the Roses by Dan Jones

Sorry I’ve been missing folks! It comes with good reasons!
This is a review of a book I’m adding to my list right now, thanks to his synopsis!

The Henry Tudor Society

By Nathen Amin

The Wars of the Roses is a period of English history that is very much in vogue at the moment, a situation undoubtedly bolstered by the Wars’ inclusion in a plethora of recent historical fiction releases by various preeminent authors. Their entertaining, if often disturbingly inaccurate, portrayal of the epic fifteenth century tussle for the crown has satisfyingly been equalled by a variety of releases by academic historians putting forward the ‘true’ story. Dan Jones’ new release ‘The Hollow Crown’ (published as ‘The Wars of the Roses’ in the US) is the latest welcome addition to this field.

As the best-selling author of the critically-acclaimed ‘The Plantagenets’, Dan Jones’ latest effort can be considered a natural sequel to his previous work. The Wars of the Roses were a complex and confusing period in English history and Jones succeeds in simplifying the conflict without omitting any detail detrimental…

View original post 566 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Lincoln Roll – the Princes’ Death Certificate?

Interesting evidence in the mystery of what happened to the “Princes in the Tower.” I hadn’t thought to look at the Lincoln Roll in such a way!

The Henry Tudor Society

By David Durose

The Lincoln Roll – the Princes’ Death Certificate?

This article is about the family tree that belonged to John de la Pole, the Earl of Lincoln and what it says about the fate of the so-called Princes in the Tower – Edward V and his young brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York. It provides an approximate date for the death of Edward V and disproves the idea that either of the Princes might have survived. It also puts the actions of Lincoln, his younger brothers and Margaret of Burgundy in a new perspective.

While this new evidence supports the ‘traditional’ view held by most historians that Richard III ordered the killing of his nephews, it also completely revises the narrative provided by the various contemporary chroniclers and Thomas More. It supports a view of Lincoln – and by extension, his uncle Richard III – as ruthless…

View original post 1,511 more words

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“The Borgias” vs. “Borgia” – Which was better?

“Borgia” vs. “The Borgias”

Canal+ vs. Showtime

Which was better?


I was very excited when Showtime announced that it had been working with Michael Hirst, of “The Tudors” and “Elizabeth I” to produce a show about the Borgia family, because I knew it would be visually beautiful. Nobody does costumes, sets and props better than Hirst. His actors are always top-notch, and this was no exception, with the inclusion of Jeremy Irons as Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander VI.

Between the first and second seasons of the Showtime production, I signed up for Netflix Streaming service. I saw a production called “Borgia,” and thought it was Hirst’s. It was not. A completely different approach to the story of the Borgia family, it was produced by Canal+, a European company. It was and still is amazing.

The actual Borgias were a Spanish family, and when Rodrigo’s uncle became Pope Calixtus III he was made into a Cardinal. In 1492 he became pope himself, taking the name Alexander VI. He was popular with the common people, but deeply resented by the clergy, and his family was hated. He had at least six children, including the four that both shows represent, with a few more that are uncertain with later mistresses. Rumors spread about him and his children, including that he slept with his daughter Lucrezia and was the father of her children. The worst and most continually pervasive rumor was that his son Cesare killed his brother Juan because they were both sleeping with their sister and grew jealous. Cesare was deeply hated, known for his leaving a position as a Cardinal to attempt military campaigns, which killed him in the end. He was known to be cruel and unbending, harsh and arrogant, and may have been the inspiration for Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” as the two were friends. He was a patron of Leonardo da Vinci, who dreamed up weapons for him.

Cesare is more of the main character in both series, and with good reason. There is more information about him, and he is a very interesting character to use with as a writer. Pope Alexander is the next primary character, then Lucrezia and the rest of the family and their friends. Some historical information both shows got right, and some both got wrong.

When it came to casting, both shows seemed to have different objectives. Showtime’s series went after the best actors they could find for the parts, wither the actors resembled the portraits of the actual people or not. For example, the real Alexander was a large man, both in height and weight, but Irons is a thin man, and bares no resemblance to the pope. Every character was played with an English accent. Canal+ seems to have focused on appearance first. Each character looks like the portraits and other sources we have which show the appearances of these people. As for the accents, the producers of Canal+’s series pointed out that at that time Rome was a melting pot. They hired actors from all over and allowed them to, mostly, keep their accents. This works well in the Vatican and on the streets, but not so in the Borgia family. Rodrigo is played by an American, as was Jofre, the youngest; Cesare is played by an Irishman who takes an English accent; Juan was French; Lucrezia was Russian; their mother was the only one played by a Spaniard even though she was actually an Italian.

When it comes to the supporting cast, Canal+ covers them well. It presents the full compliment of cardinals, dukes, clergy, mistresses and friends, again with an array of accents. In Showtime’s production these are given only a cursory glance. We know that Alessandro Farnese is the brother of the pope’s mistress, Julia, but other than a few brief scenes we never see him. Farnese also became a pope, Paul III, and had a lifelong mistress named Silvia Ruffini and many children and grandchildren. We see him in an episode of “The Tudors” with the cardinals and his grandson, but in “The Borgias” we barely know who he is.

Lucrezia’s first husband and marriage are very misrepresented by Showtime, and more accurately shown by Canal+. She was only 13 when she was married to Giovanni Sforza, an illegitimate member of the Milanese family. Showtime has him taking Lucrezia to his home, where he rapes and beats her until she runs away. The reality is that she never left Rome, and the marriage was later annulled due to lack of consummation, which is shown by Canal+.

The final very important secondary character to be altered by Showtime and correctly represented by Canal+ was the “villain” Cardinal Giuliano Della Rovere. Showtime has him running all over Europe, constantly looking for ways to kill the pope, who he resents for getting the papal throne which he believed he was due. While Della Rovere was never friends with Alexander, shortly after his election they began to work together, and he stayed in Rome. He was a political adversary, not a terrorist. After Alexander’s death, Cesare worked with Della Rovere and helped him become Pope Julius II. Canal+ shows them going from anger to friendship, which is never achieved by Showtime. In both shows he is an active homosexual, which he may have been.

Alexander himself is played better by John Doman, even though is not as talented an actor as Jeremy Irons. Beyond his physical similarity to the actual Alexander, Doman plays the pope as a politically active, conniving man who has one singular purpose, to further the causes of his own family and his friends. Irons plays him as a mainly innocent man, who is bent by the wind of his family’s actions, nearly clueless as to the cruelty they inflict. In the first season he seems surprised that the other cardinals do not like him. In Canal+’s production we see more of who Alexander was, because the series opens with Rodrigo in his position as Vice-Chancellor for the previous pontiff, Pope Innocent VIII, who then dies and opens the path for him. Showtime starts with the election, so we only see Rodrigo as Alexander.

Cesare is a very different man in both series, and this is one place where I think that Showtime excels. Firstly, they correctly place Cesare as the eldest of Rodrigo’s children with Vannozza de Cattanei. I do not know why Canal+ swapped him and Juan in birth order, except perhaps because it seems odd that the elder brother would be forced to go into the church while the younger would carry a title. It only makes sense once you realize that Cesare was not the eldest son of Alexander, and that their family was one built on the church. The eldest son was Pedro Luis, from Rodrigo’s relationship with an unknown mistress, as well as the eldest daughters Isabella and Girolama. They remained in Spain, and Pedro Luis had the title of Duke of Gandia, which was passed to Juan upon his death.

In Canal+’s show, the Cesare of the first season is whining, tortured and weak. He acts out of desperation and lives in regret, constantly complaining and committing harsh acts of penitence for his previous actions. In the second season, now seeing the way to free himself from the church, he becomes more calculating and less reactionary, and the true hardness of the actual Cesare begins to show. In Showtime’s production, Cesare is constantly calculating, willing to do anything at anytime so that he can further his and his family’s interests. He makes the harsh choices without regret, owning everything he has done. In my opinion, this cold and brutal man is more in line with the historical Cesare.

Lucrezia is a different woman in both shows. In Canal+’s production, she is just as calculating and cruel as her brothers, in some cases worse than they are. In Showtime’s she is a gentle, innocent girl who just wants equality with her brothers. The real Lucrezia had as much political savvy as her brothers, and knew how to position herself and her family to their benefit. She was the subject of many, many rumors, including affairs and illegitimate children, which are not believed to be actually hers. I believe she is more like Canal+’s character and less like Showtime’s.

There is one major plot point difference between the two shows. While the siblings in Canal+’s show flirt and proclaim their love, physical love nearly happens once, but it does not go far and none of the children are lovers. Showtime decided to take the rumor of Lucrezia and Cesare being lovers and make it real. In the 3rd season, they sleep together, and act like lovers at all times afterward.

While the costumes and sets for the Showtime production were beautiful, Canal+’s were a bit more honest. When you see the cardinals in Canal+’s show, their robes are different, varying colors and fabrics, which is more realistic. Not every cardinal was wealthy, and some may not have been able to afford the fabric dyed as richly as others, nor of materials of equal luxury. They seemed to have used fewer costumes and jewelry, and you see the same gowns repeatedly, which is also more honest. Even the very wealthy could not afford to only wear a garment once. The makeup is very natural, and I was surprised to learn that many of the characters are wearing wigs- the quality is very good, and it’s hard to pick out who is wearing one without already knowing. The only character whose hair I do not like is Lucrezia, who is played by an actress with red hair when she was a blonde.

In the end we will have three seasons of both shows, but because Canal+’s moves much faster I hope that we will have the total story of the family, at least to the point of Alexander’s death, if not after. Showtime pulled the plug on “The Borgias” close to the end of the 3rd season, and the story was never really finished. I have wondered if their choice to give credence the incest rumor led to the downfall of the viewers and support for the show.

Both programs use nudity and violence, but Canal+ does not make the violence humorous, nor the nudity illicit. It uses more nudity, and nearly every actor in the production has removed their clothes, but it is properly situational, and natural bodies are celebrated. The violence is brutal, but very realistic and accurate. There are several criminal executions, which I cannot watch because they are exactly as they were done at the time.

Each show chose a different culprit for the murder of Juan Borgia. I will not give it away, but as the murder was never solved, I like the direction Canal+ took for its creativity alone. Both show Lucrezia having an affair with a boy, who impregnates her and is killed, in Showtime’s by Juan and in Canal+ by Cesare. This did not happen, though there was a rumor that she had an affair with Pedro Calderone, shown in Canal+’s show, but while the rumors say that Giovanni Borgia was her son, it is believed that he was in fact Alexander’s son.

Both shows have wonderful opening titles. The music used in the first season of “Borgia” is an outstanding piece of work in its own right, and the second season and all seasons of “The Borgias” have wonderful music as well. In the first season of “The Borgias” several pieces from “The Tudors” and other Hirst productions were mixed in with famous paintings that had been slightly altered, which I found both lazy and distracting. You see Henry VIII stroke Anne Boleyn’s neck, and all I could think was that Hirst needed filler. The first season of “Borgia” contains a bit of nudity, the heaving chest of Julia Farnese, but it works so well with the music and show to not be offensive. I have to give the edge to Canal+.

So, in the end, which is the better show? They are equally inaccurate, in different ways. Just as Showtime gave us a show that was practically rose-colored, Canal+ gave us a show that was gritty and dark. In the end, it is Canal+’s production that I watch over and over again, which I enjoy every time. I cannot wait for the 3rd season to come to Netflix, so I can watch the end of the story.

Both shows are available on Netflix Streaming, and are available on DVD.

My main sources for the history were:

Bradford, Sarah. “Lucrezia Borgia.” 2004. Viking, New York.

Hollingsworth, Mary. “The Borgia Chronicles; 1414-1572.” 2011. Metro Books, New York.

And my husband, who found this family perpetually fascinating and devoted much study to them.



Filed under General History

The Tudors: Season One, Episode Two


There is a lot going on in this episode, which covers the Field of the Cloth of Gold, the arrest and execution of the Duke of Buckingham, the birth of Henry Fitzroy, and the affair between Henry VIII and Mary Boleyn. I am going to focus on a few points there were either accurate or inaccurate about this episode.

I became very distracted at the Field of the Cloth of Gold by the actions of Charles Brandon. This event happened at Calais in June of 1520. I will go more into the difference between the historical Brandon and the fictional one in future episodes, but at this time he was not some roaming stud looking for French women. Why not? Because he was married to Henry’s sister, Mary, in 1515, and she didn’t die until 1533. I went into this in the first post, but for me it was just hard to move past while I was watching.

While in France, King Francis I points out Mary Boleyn to Henry, and calls her his “English Mare,” because he “rides her so often.” Henry becomes jealous that a member of his court is sleeping with Francis, and sends for her himself, beginning an affair with her. Mary may have been Francis’ mistress, but she did not become Henry’s mistress at Calais. She had returned to England in 1519, when she was married to William Carey, and was in the household of Queen Katherine. We don’t know when she became Henry’s mistress, but estimates have their affair starting in 1521, after the summit. Later in the episode, Henry tosses her away seemingly out of nowhere- “leave.” In reality their affair ended sometime between 1524 and 1526, though since it was never publicized we do not know the exact date. We do know that it was longer than a few months. We know there was a relationship because when Henry petitioned the pope for a dispensation to marry Anne Boleyn in 1527, the reason that was given as to why a dispensation was needed was Henry’s familial knowledge of her sister. And we all know how that turned out…

When they all return to England, Henry is furious because Charles V of Spain has been named the Holy Roman Emporer. This is out of the timeline. In reality Charles was made Emporer in 1519, a year before the summit.

As well, when they return to England Bessie Blount gives birth to Henry Fitzroy, the king’s bastard son. This is juxtaposed against the treason of Buckingham, as the noblemen are giving Henry his Christmas gifts when she is in labor. The real Fitzroy was born in June of 1519, a year prior to the summit in Calais. In comparison, the Duke of Buckingham was executed in 1521, which is shown later in the show, and seems to be in the correct time.

One of the biggest errors that drives me nuts is the interaction between Charles Brandon and Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, when Brandon presents him with his father’s ring and makes a vague threat against him and his son’s futures if he fails to give the verdict of guilty against Buckingham. Norfolk says that his father was executed by Henry VII. There were two Thomas Howards that were the Dukes of Norfolk, the 2nd and the 3rd Dukes, father and son. Because Anne Boleyn later calls him “Uncle,” this makes him the 3rd Duke of Norfolk. It was the 2nd Duke who presided over Buckingham’s trial, and it was the last thing he did before retiring from court.

So here are the actual facts- The 1st Duke of Norfolk, John Howard, died at Bosworth in 1485. It was his death that may have pushed Richard III into his “suicide run.” His son, the 2nd Duke, was restored to the peerage by Henry VII, and died in 1524. This was Anne Boleyn’s grandfather, the father of her mother. The 3rd Duke was Thomas Howard, Anne Boleyn’s uncle, who was active in court before and after she was queen. He was also a Catholic, who put his other niece, Catherine Howard, forward as Henry’s future mistress and queen. Henry VII did not execute any of the Dukes of Norfolk, and it was not Anne Boleyn’s uncle who presided over the trial of the Duke of Buckingham. Therefore, this entire interaction makes no sense. There seems to be an inability of TV shows to put forward the line of the Duke of Norfolk accurately. The 1st Duke was left out of “The White Queen,” and in the “Six Wives of Henry VIII” he inaccurately states that his father was executed by Henry VII as well. I do not know if this is because the 2nd and 3rd were both named Thomas, or if the Howards are just disliked, but these little changes do not make any sense to me.

I am not sure which pope is supposed to be shown dying in this episode, because none died in 1521. The pope at that time was Leo X, Giovanni de Medici, who reigned from 1513 to 1523. When the cardinals speak of how the next pope must be an Italian, it confuses the issue further, because the following pope, Adrian VI, was Dutch.

One of the best moments in this episode happens in two parts. It starts with Cardinal Wolsey telling Sir Thomas More about how he will have to give up what he treasures most to keep the love of a king. It culminates at the end of the episode when Wolsey and Henry are approaching Wolsey’s new palace and Henry pushes the cardinal to give it to him. Clearly it was what Wolsey treasured, and to keep the king’s affections he had to give it away.

There was a lot to comment on in this episode, so I had to explain the parts that bothered and impressed me the most. Was there something that bothered you, that I failed to mention? Please leave a note in the comments!


Leave a comment

Filed under The Tudors

Henry VII, the King Maligned as a Miser

This is one topic I want to squash, especially because of the upcoming “White Princess” TV show. Did Elizabeth of York have to repair dresses instead of purchasing new ones? Yes, and so did every queen! The amount of time, labor and expense in a woman’s dress, especially a queen’s dress, was massive. Getting a hole or a stain, or having a seam give and repairing it was commonplace, not throwing it out as some do today. He donated money to charities and colleges, commissioned great building projects, invested his personal income into the trades. Because he didn’t squander his wealth we are to believe he’s a bad king? Come on now…

The Henry Tudor Society

By Nathen Amin

History has not been kind to Henry VII of England. The first Tudor king has often suffered from long-held accusations that he was a dark and greedy monarch, a man of such a suspicious disposition that his reign was a tyrannical period for England centred on the King’s grasping nature.

It could be argued that the one adjective used more than any other when describing Henry Tudor is ‘miser’. One needs to only witness the character assassination that accompanied the recent documentary ‘The Winter King’ by historian Tom Penn to understand this phenomenon. Amongst a plethora of speculative descriptions of the king in this overwhelmingly negative portrayal was “terrifying”. Penn further stated that Henry utilised ruthless methods to control England, whilst ‘money was dearest to his heart’. Are such accusations justified? It would appear by referring to the sources that the prevailing attitude of many historians, both…

View original post 1,268 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Could Roland de Veleville’s Death Have Influenced the Execution of Anne Boleyn?

Anne Boleyn was executed on May 19, 1326. That she was executed at all is one of the reasons we remember her and King Henry VIII so well. Before this, unwanted queens had been sent away or forced to go into nunneries, as evidenced by Louis XI of France’s first wife, Joan, and Henry’s own attempts to divorce Katherine of Aragon by sending her away. The change in personality and behavior that Henry exhibited just prior to and after Anne’s execution have become a very hotly debated topic- was he justified because she was cheating on him? Did the fall from his horse damage his brain and cause his changes? What sparked such a venomous hatred?

I have one idea which may not have been thought of before. Roland de Veleville died the year prior, in June of 1535, as evidenced by his replacement as Constable of Beaumaris Castle with Sir Henry Norris, a man executed as one of Anne Boleyn’s lovers.

Even if we ignore the evidence that Roland was Henry’s illegitimate older brother, he was a man who had considerable influence on the king. His words were enough of a threat to Henry’s counselors that he was sent to Fleet for speaking against them. He was often in the personal presence of the king, despite his “criminal” mouth. He had an unparalleled and hard to understand connection with Henry.

That connection started in Henry’s childhood, as Roland lived in the royal apartments and was a dominant figure in Henry VII’s personal life. He personally attended on Henry VIII, and was part of his entourage at some of the most important points of the young king’s life, including the Battle of the Spurs and the Field of Cloth of Gold. He mourned the loss of infant Prince Henry with the royal house. Even though he had been sent to Wales in 1509 (which I have my own theory about), he was never far from the king’s mind, and was consistently called back to court.

His influence on Henry VIII cannot be understated. Even though we have no information on it, I cannot believe that Henry took Roland’s death lightly. If we re-insert their family connection, his death becomes even more of a tragedy for the king. Roland was his last living brother, and since his sister Margaret was in Scotland and his sister Mary had died in 1533, Roland was his last sibling at court.

Roland’s opinion of Anne Boleyn and Henry’s denouncement of the Catholic Church are not known. Having spent so much time in the company of Henry VII could have made him a Catholic supporter, and since he had known Katherine of Aragon since she arrived in England he must have had a good relationship with her. But he does not seem to have been a conservative man, having lived with his wife prior to marriage and was known to be a gambler and drinker. Having no son of his own, he may have understood Henry’s drive to marry Anne and further their family. Or he may have not supported Henry’s turn from the Pope and casting aside of Katherine, and it may have contributed to his infrequent trips to court before his death. In either case, his opinion and counsel may have been valued by the king, even if it wasn’t in support for his actions.

With Roland’s death, Henry was very much alone. While we see Roland as a fun-loving and hot-tempered jouster, perhaps Henry’s older brother was a stabilizing influence on his life. Roland spent more time with Henry VII in a much more familiar way than Henry did, and perhaps he learned more of that style of governance from him, which he passed along to Henry. Henry called Roland to his side often, and especially at times where he was in need of counsel. Then Roland died. This must have been a shock to Henry’s stability.

Most of this is speculative, but based on information we do know. If Roland was a treasured counselor who Henry relied upon, his death may have sent Henry into an emotional and moral tailspin. Not only did he no longer have the advice or opinion of his brother, he no longer had anyone to be held accountable to. Roland may have been the last tie to Henry VII, and advice similar to what their father would have given. What would his brother have said if he had executed Anne while he was still alive? Would he have told the king to send her away, and been disgusted at the idea of killing her? Would she have been treated differently?

We may never know the real reason Henry turned so suddenly and violently against his wife, but this new idea may give a little more insight into the mind of the king who killed the woman he worked so hard to have.

Leave a comment

Filed under General History

How Could Henry Do It? Six Perspectives

An excellent post from The Creation of Anne Boleyn. Enjoy!

The Creation of Anne Boleyn

Henry Eats the Swan During the episode of The Tudors in which Anne Boleyn is executed, scenes of her suffering in the Tower are punctuated with the image of Henry, gazing contemplatively at two beautiful swans nuzzling in the pond outside the palace.  His mood and thoughts are left deliberately ambiguous; perhaps, the viewer imagines, he is thinking back over his love for Anne and the life they shared together, perhaps he is having regrets, feeling sorrow for the beauty that is about to be lost?  No.  After the execution scene, we are immediately taken to the King at his table, looking forward to his breakfast, which is being brought to him in a large gilt tureen on a silver platter.  The lid is lifted, and the servants and nobles surrounding Henry gasp and applaud in delight.  There on the platter is one of the swans, roasted and decorated with its own beautiful wings…

View original post 4,220 more words

Leave a comment

Filed under The Best of Other Blogs