The Sixteenth Century for the Twenty-First Century

The other day I came across an ad for The Tudors:




Looking past all the nice eye-candy (male and female) and the un-Elizabethan attire of both, I noticed something way cool:




"Jonathan Rhys Meyers is Henry 8". Showtime got rid of the Roman numerals!

I checked the Canadian marketing (it's airing on CBC up here) and, 'cos we're royalty nerds and also 'cos we're technically still attached to the Queen, we've kept the Roman numerals. It's all "Henry VIII" this, "Henry VIII" that.

But not in the USA. Just as they got rid of the British royal family themselves, they've also dumped their stodgy old-fashioned Roman numerals. The Revolution is still going on.

I like it.

What I like most, I think, is the visual aspect of it. Henry 8 just looks cool. Let's see -

Elizabeth 1 - eh, that looks like it did before.

Elizabeth 2 - not bad, but bets are she won't go for it.

Louis 14

Mad King George 3

Shakespeare's Henry 5

Richard 3

I like most of them, especially the 5 and the aforesaid 8. Lots of history-buff types are disgusted with The Tudors, for its shameless borrowing and bending of history to make a good soap opera. I'm no Tudor professor myself, but even I know Henry was in his 40's when he met Anne Boleyn - more like fat, crazy Henry than young, hot Henry. (And he was young and hot at one point - his suit of armor from his early twenties has been conserved.)

But they shouldn't be surprised, really, or even all that outraged. This is not actually the story of Henry VIII, but the story of Henry 8, who could be an entirely different man altogether. If you read the marketing, it gives you a clue: This is not your history teacher's Henry VIII.

Might as well see what Henry 8 got up to.