Already a member?
Sign in
Location: Jane Seymour
Discussion: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
Keyword tags: None
Watch
|
MissBrit |
Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 5:52 AM EDT I wonder why they never made any reference to Jane with Catherine or Anne earlier on as she was a servant to both queens? 9 out of 9 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
angelosdaughter |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 11:28 AM EDT "I wonder why they never made any reference to Jane with Catherine or Anne earlier on as she was a servant to both queens? "Well, you know since both women were not prominent until they became the objects of the King's affections, they were not often included in historical records for the period except in an occasional list perhaps as attendants on the Queen, so there is no basis for any particular notice of them. Jane Boleyn (the wife of George) is rarely depicted in movies. References to her in the historical record are scant, even those relating to the trials and executions of her husband and sister-in-law. She does not figure greatly in the history of Henry's court until the trial of his 5th wife Katharine Howard, whose affair with Thomas Culpepper she abetted and for which she was executed with Katharine. In "The Tudors", she will probably appear when the show gets to Katharine Howard. One movie I have seen in which a succeeding Queen is shown as one of the current queen's ladies is "Anne of the Thousand Days". Jane Seymour is shown briefly in the middle of the movie attending Queen Anne Boleyn, and later being asked to dance by Henry, after which Anne has her escorted away from court. (she refers to her as 'that half-witted Seymour"). 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
SemperEadem |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 12:03 PM EDT "I wonder why they never made any reference to Jane with Catherine or Anne earlier on as she was a servant to both queens? "I suppose my first question is, do you me Jane Boleyn (Lady Rochford), or Jane Seymour? I think angelosdaughter answered this the best, but just as a another point to throw out, the producers may not have thought the show would have ever progressed to the point where we would need to be introduced to the characters, and then they just got lost in the story. And like angelosdaughter says, Jane Seymour wasn't very prominent until she became an object of the King's affections. The only piece of fiction set during that time that I've ever seen Jane Boleyn have much attention paid to her in was Phillipa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl, and....I'll leave everyone else to make their comments about that! Do you find this valuable? |
|
Holly2 |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 12:41 PM EDT "I wonder why they never made any reference to Jane with Catherine or Anne earlier on as she was a servant to both queens? "For practical reasons, I would imagine - they'd have to pay the actress. In the UTV "Henry VIII", Jane Seymour was seen attending Katherine when she was Queen but that was only two episodes long. Do you find this valuable? |
|
MissBrit |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 2:27 PM EDT Hi, sorry thought i had added "Seymour" to the title. Oops. I just meant maybe they could have used the queens to say "Thank you Jane," when doing something for the queen, even if they didnt "use" the actress then. In "The Tudors" series, i saw at the end of last episode a clip from the next one, something about Jane being introduced to Henry? I don't remember it very well, but can someone help me refresh my memory? Are they introducing her as someone thats only just appeared on the scene? 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Hever |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 2:33 PM EDT "Hi, sorry thought i had added "Seymour" to the title. Oops. I just meant maybe they could have used the queens to say "Thank you Jane," when doing something for the queen, even if they didnt "use" the actress then. In "The Tudors" series, i saw at the end of last episode a clip from the next one, something about Jane being introduced to Henry? I don't remember it very well, but can someone help me refresh my memory? Are they introducing her as someone thats only just appeared on the scene?It looks that way. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boudica |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 2:35 PM EDT "Hi, sorry thought i had added "Seymour" to the title. Oops. I just meant maybe they could have used the queens to say "Thank you Jane," when doing something for the queen, even if they didnt "use" the actress then. In "The Tudors" series, i saw at the end of last episode a clip from the next one, something about Jane being introduced to Henry? I don't remember it very well, but can someone help me refresh my memory? Are they introducing her as someone thats only just appeared on the scene?I agree with you in that it would be logical that Jane's character would show up earlier on in the series (perhaps atleast in the last episode of season 1). It was my understanding that Jane entered service to KOA around 1529 when Jane was 21 years old. Do you find this valuable? |
|
aragon77 aragon77 |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:02 PM EDT "It looks that way. "Hever was Jane as little more closer to Henry's age v/s AB or Kat? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boudica |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:07 PM EDT "Hever was Jane as little more closer to Henry's age v/s AB or Kat?"Jane was younger, but not his youngest wife. Jane was born in 1508. Henry was born in 1491 Do you find this valuable? |
|
aragon77 aragon77 |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:10 PM EDT "Jane was younger, but not his youngest wife. Jane was born in 1508. Henry was born in 1491"Thanks Boudica. The youngest was the one after Jane, the one he didn't stay married to that long. WOW 15yrs apart the King loved the ladies "young ones". Do you find this valuable? |
|
lettice |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:20 PM EDT "I suppose my first question is, do you me Jane Boleyn (Lady Rochford), or Jane Seymour? I think angelosdaughter answered this the best, but just as a another point to throw out, the producers may not have thought the show would have ever progressed to the point where we would need to be introduced to the characters, and then they just got lost in the story. And like angelosdaughter says, Jane Seymour wasn't very prominent until she became an object of the King's affections. The only piece of fiction set during that time that I've ever seen Jane Boleyn have much attention paid to her in was Phillipa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl, and....I'll leave everyone else to make their comments about that!"Good points; who knew how poular this series would become or if it would have any longevity at all. Jane as a lady-in-waitng to COA was not a prominent figure while The Great Matter was in full swing. It was all Henry, Anne and Catherine with other pertinent figures who had influence on the situation and some scandal on the side to get our attention. Jane didn't seem to fit in with all the goings on. Do you find this valuable? |
|
aragon77 aragon77 |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:26 PM EDT " Jane didn't seem to fit in with all the goings on."I agree Lettice, it appears to me that The Kings attraction to Jane was partly to do w/ the situation and all the things he had going on at the time w/ Anne. Someone else said this before on a thread. Question I watched episode 7 again last night I don't know if anyone has, but Cramner wife does anyone know why she was illegal????? I loved the way she spoke her mind to Cramner and Cromwell. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boudica |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:38 PM EDT "I agree Lettice, it appears to me that The Kings attraction to Jane was partly to do w/ the situation and all the things he had going on at the time w/ Anne. Someone else said this before on a thread.You mean why their marriage was illegal? Because in the Catholic church priests are not allowed to marry (still aren't today), I think they mentioned that in one of the earlier episodes, which is why Cranmer had to smuggle her into the country in a wooden box (which was kinda funny and sad at the same time). Also, if you noticed in the earlier season Wolsey had a mistress, not a wife, but essentially they had a relationship that was like a common law marriage but it wasn't legal either. That wasn't uncommon for preists at the time, in fact Pope Paul III had a mistress who mothered his sons. And even after the Reforms of Henry VIII inthe 1530's the preists were still expected to remain celebate. I'm not sure when the rules changed. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Boudica |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:43 PM EDT "Thanks Boudica. The youngest was the one after Jane, the one he didn't stay married to that long. WOW 15yrs apart the King loved the ladies "young ones"."The youngest was Katherine Howard, the fifth wife. She was born sometimes between 1520 - 1525 while Anne of Cleves was born 1515. Do you find this valuable? |
|
aragon77 aragon77 |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 3:52 PM EDT "You mean why their marriage was illegal? Because in the Catholic church priests are not allowed to marry (still aren't today), I think they mentioned that in one of the earlier episodes, which is why Cranmer had to smuggle her into the country in a wooden box (which was kinda funny and sad at the same time). Also, if you noticed in the earlier season Wolsey had a mistress, not a wife, but essentially they had a relationship that was like a common law marriage but it wasn't legal either. That wasn't uncommon for preists at the time, in fact Pope Paul III had a mistress who mothered his sons. And even after the Reforms of Henry VIII inthe 1530's the preists were still expected to remain celebate. I'm not sure when the rules changed."Boudica, thanks a whole bunch b/c I was trying to figure out why, “sorry haha, their marriage was illegal”. Yes, being carried in a box was horrible, but it did show her love for him I guess, riding around in a box and all. From episode 7, I loved the way she told them both off (Cramner & Cromwell), when she said, "now you can put me back in my box". LOL they both looked as if they would choke on dinner. See now I realize I am guilty of watching for the drama instead of keeping up to learn. I have gotten caught up in the drama of it which is okay I guess, but I want to also watch to learn, so that when I am finish reading the all the Tudor history books it will all be copasetic. I did know about the Wolsey situation w/ his mistress, but I did not know the Pope had one as well. Next question: (please forgive me my ? may not make sense) Did their marriage (Cramner & his wife) ever become legal when the formations were created? Nevermind don't answer that .....I read your response again when you said after the reforms they were still expected to remain celebate. That would bring me to this why didn't the King punish Cramner for not doing so??? Do you find this valuable? |
|
angelosdaughter |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 4:15 PM EDT "You mean why their marriage was illegal? Because in the Catholic church priests are not allowed to marry (still aren't today), I think they mentioned that in one of the earlier episodes, which is why Cranmer had to smuggle her into the country in a wooden box (which was kinda funny and sad at the same time). Also, if you noticed in the earlier season Wolsey had a mistress, not a wife, but essentially they had a relationship that was like a common law marriage but it wasn't legal either. That wasn't uncommon for preists at the time, in fact Pope Paul III had a mistress who mothered his sons. And even after the Reforms of Henry VIII inthe 1530's the preists were still expected to remain celebate. I'm not sure when the rules changed."Yes, unfortunately often a Renaissance Pope's nephews/nieces were his sons/daughters. John Fisher was an notable for being faithful to his vows in a time when many priests flaunted theirs. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Shadow_in_the_Sun |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 9 2008, 5:38 PM EDT Because nobody likes a nice girl! Do you find this valuable? |
|
aragon77 aragon77 |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 12 2008, 10:08 AM EDT Jane and Henry (on the show) don't have the chemistry that he, and Anne have at all. Do you find this valuable? |
|
lettice |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 12 2008, 12:39 PM EDT "Jane and Henry (on the show) don't have the chemistry that he, and Anne have at all."That's for sure. Natalie was interviewed before season 2 and stated Johnny (she calls JRM, Johnny) is going to miss her after her character dies. Methinks there is a real attraction there, even if they don't or won't act on it. It easily translates to the screen. Do you find this valuable? |
|
aragon77 aragon77 |
RE: Jane - why didn't they use her earlier on?
May 12 2008, 1:27 PM EDT "That's for sure. Natalie was interviewed before season 2 and stated Johnny (she calls JRM, Johnny) is going to miss her after her character dies. Methinks there is a real attraction there, even if they don't or won't act on it. It easily translates to the screen."I agree (that they have a strong chemistry) it shows on the screen. Natalie just played the heck out of her part too. She deserves a award for it. Did you see her on either episode 6 or 7 when she gets Cromwell about the public disagreement....when she snaps her neck to let him know "now that I am done get out of here", right after she tells him to be careful or she'll have him cropped at the neck. I said dang to myself I have to learn to do that just like Natalie she meant business! Do you find this valuable? |
