A little Tudor, with a side of intrigue, if you please

One new television show that's been producing quite a bit of buzz as of late is "The Tudors," on Showtime. Of course, when I first saw this title, I had no choice -- an obligation, if you will -- but to watch this production, and I do have to admit that both Don and I are hooked. Since "Rome" and "Deadwood" and other historical genres have been axed, I need my history fix somehow, and "The Tudors" has been filling that void nicely. If I could travel back in time -- and trust me, if I could meet that magical genie who grants wishes, time travel would be top on my list -- Tudor England would be my first pit-stop. I have always loved this time period in history, and that passion grew to extraordinary levels when I worked at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. -- 3 of the best years of my life -- where I got about as close to this "living era" as I could in the U.S. I have to laugh when I look at the coincidences of my current interests: I'm watching "The Tudors," I just finished reading "My Enemy, the Queen" by Victoria Holt (a novel from the perspective of Lettice Knollys, cousin and arch-rival to Queen Elizabeth I -- fabulous soap-opera stuff!), and we're also watching simultaneously the documentary series "Elizabeth" narrated by the hilarious (but not meant to be) David Starkey. Hmmmm ... I guess it's no wonder that lately my nightly dreams are placing me back at the Folger, mingling with the Readers and colleagues, handling the precious rare books and manuscripts, feeling that joy and fulfillment and sense of accomplishment I had while working there.

I do love this series. I love the costuming, the flamboyance, the scenery, the intrigue, the characters (for the most part). It's fun watching Cardinal Wolsey, played by Sam Neill ... I had the pleasure of meeting his brother, Michael Neill, at the Folger -- one of the Readers there who was working on a master undertaking of Othello at the time. But I have one problem with this new series, though, and it's a big, unavoidable one: the main character, the actor who plays Henry VIII, Jonathan Rhys Meyers ... it is just not working for me. Henry was huge (in many ways -- size as well as personality), fair, red-headed ... JRM is, well, not. He's small, he's thin, he has dark brown hair, he's just not Henry VIII. I do like this series tremendously -- but every time we finish an episode I can't help but say to Don, "I just don't like this Henry." Oh well, there's not much I can do about it.


And look at this dude -- he was casted as Edward Stafford, the Duke of Buckingham (portrait on the bottom - one of many to lose his head). Come on -- he should be Henry! I think the casting was switched -- put a squared-off beard on JRM and you've got a new Buckingham.



I recently heard that "Henry" (JRM) just admitted an addiction and is entering rehab. Oops. I wonder ... if they had rehab back in the 16th century, would a few women have been saved? Henry VIII sure could have used a couple of programs himself.

What a silly entry here ... but hey, I can't stay in the heavy, ethereal realm of life questions, God questions, issues of transformation and rebirth and journey every day! Consider this a pit-stop, a potty-break on this journey -- I'll hit the road again when I tank up. So today I'm thinking of the Tudors and lightening my brain load a little ...