Some of the best portrayals of Jane Seymour for are in the BBC’s “Six Wives of Henry VIII” and in “The Tudors” where she was played by two different actresses. The first shows her as someone who tries to make the best of a bad situation and as Amy Licence brilliantly pointed out in her book “the Six Wives and the Many Mistresses of Henry VIII” what women could truly say ‘no’ to Henry VIII?
We also forget that this was a different point in time, and women did not have the same freedom of choice as they today in free societies. Women were nonetheless assertive. In her biography on the Woodvilles, Susan Higginbotham, wittily ends her first chapter by loosely quoting Jane Austen, stating that a king -especially a new one- was in dire need of a wife to preserve his dynasty.
The Tudor Dynasty was still relatively new and Henry needed to secure it by any means necessary. He went to great lengths to marry Anne Boleyn and then to rid himself off her, marrying Jane Seymour over a month after her predecessor’s execution. Retha Warnicke decided to focus on this on her biography on the Queens of England when she addressed Jane Seymour, implying she walked all over her dead rival before her body was cold. Retha Warnicke’s influence continues to be felt among many Tudor fans and in pop culture that continues to borrow from her writings.
The Tudors did a good job showing a well-rounded Jane Seymour, who was neither hero or villain. Anita Briem showed her ambitious side, knowing that this was a dangerous game that she was being used as a pawn by her brother elevate her family, but one that she could also benefit from greatly if she went along with it. Anabelle Wallis showed her kinder side, without overlooking flaws.
The Six Wives of Henry VIII decades before that on the BBC was the first popular depiction to humanize her, tearing through the caricatures of the innocent plain Jane and the evil homewrecker that continue to abound in fiction.
Worth mentioning although it is not fictional is the portrayal from Lucy Worsley’s documentary series “Six Wives of Henry VIII” (“Secrets of the Six Wives” in PBS); it didn’t shy away from showing good and bad aspects of her character and of her situation.
Those in the UK will be lucky to see the new mini-series adapted from Hilary Mantel’s novels, Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies, this January. For those of us in America, we will have to wait until April when it’s aired on PBS. In spite of the long wait. Let’s review on the accuracy of this show.
So we have no cod-pieces because they thought American audiences, or others for that matter, would squirm at it. Okay BBC, first of all, not all of us in America are ignorant about cod-pieces or the fact that they are not sexual in any way. But anyways, refraining myself from an upcoming rant I will go to the most important points of this article: Accuracy. And how does Wolf Hall score in this respect?
If I could give it a score from 0 to 100 based on the photographs and articles I have seen written of it, as well as historians weighing in on it , I would give it a 90. (Yes not a 100 because of the lack of cod-pieces.)
To be honest, it was about time we had a series that other from being entertaining and being a Glee-style travesty of history, invested its big budget on accuracy. “The Tudors” was entertaining, many people liked it (myself included) but it was not accurate. Not by a long shot. In terms of acting it was great, new talent was discovered, young actors got their careers bolstered and I am glad. But the series missed a lot of good points such as Henry VIII’s two sisters that got merged into one because apparently Hirst believed we (the audience) would be too stupid to distinguish from the many Marys on the show. Hilary Mantel thankfully is not making the same mistake. And neither does the production team behind “Wolf Hall”.
There has been an intricate attention to detail, from costuming to the way people acted or were attended by their ladies. in this scene where Anne Boleyn is about to be crowned; she is not just about to be crowned in the traditional sense as we’ve seen on TV. But the complete ritual is about to be displayed.
She sits in the chair, crowned with a beautiful white dress and is visibly pregnant. She holds the scepter and the rod and on her forehead is none other than the heavy crown of St. Edward. Let’s remember this because it is very important! Anne was not crowned as her predecessor was with the traditional crown worn by Queen Consorts. She was crowned with the crown of St. Edward. Henry wanted to make a powerful political statement that this Queen was not only going to be his true queen and his true wife but that their heir that was nestling safely in her womb would be his undoubted successor.
Secondly, before she even reaches the chair she has to complete the long ritual of prostrating herself before the altar. For this, it had to be a complete ordeal for Claire Foy who was wearing a baby bump to simulate Anne’s real pregnancy. Lucy Worsley gave her advice how to accomplish this:
“Foy reveals that the ‘baby bump’ is uncomfortable under her costume, and isn’t sure how to ‘prostrate’ herself to the ground before the altar. With his customary attention to detail, director Peter Kosminsky asks me, as a historian, how she should do it. We agree that two of Anne’s ladies in waiting should help their pregnant mistress down to the floor.”
After the Mass ended, she made her way to Whitehall where a banquet was held in he…r honor. Upon her arrival the heralds cried:
“Now the noble Anna bears the sacred diadem.”
Anne’s victory was nearly complete. now all she needed was to give birth to a son. Anne was visibly pregnant during the ceremony, some whispered she had conceived before their marriage in January of that year (some historians place it before or after, depending on what sources they are using). This ceremony was significant because it guaranteed Anne’s place next to Henry and their offspring’ legitimacy.
In spite of all of this; there are some things that the series missed and this is that it will keep perpetuating the ‘dark Spaniard’ myth that all Spaniards are dark-haired- dark-eyed, etc.
Now the actress portraying Katherine of Aragon is not black-haired as Irene Papas in the “Anne of a Thousand Days” movies but she wears too much make up that makes her look too old and she looks very thin.
Katherine of Aragon had grown plumper as her predecessor, her mother in law Elizabeth of York had. The series of miscarriages and tragedies she had suffered -and the added stress- made her lose her figure but by no means did she look *that* old. Secondly, it was Anne who was dark-haired and dark-eyed and had olive skin and Katherine who was red-haired and with fair skin and blue eyes. Joanna Whalley by contrast is fair skinned, but her hair is not red enough and her eyes are dark brown, but at the same time she is shown wearing gable hoods and wearing the color purple which is very important if we want to talk about accurate costuming. Tudor society was very elitist. Everyone was put into boxes, or categorized according to their wealth and lineage. Thomas Cromwell and his family wear very sober colors, they have a lot of material artifacts thanks to the social mobility experienced during this period; but this doesn’t change the fact that they are still part of the middle class and not the elite. Royals, as they were above everyone else would wear specific colors. Purple was one of them.
But I guess, like with Katherine of Aragon, we can’t have it all can we?
Nonetheless, the production looks very good, the clothes are very accurate, the hoods, the castles -the way they are decorated-, and everything else in general looks spectacular and I, as many history buffs, will be looking forward to this production when it hits the States in April.