I thought I read somewhere that the Anne Boleyn character is getting beheaded this season? Though if they're going for historical accuracy, I have a hard time believing that everyone on that court was that sexualized and good looking :)

What's ironic about this is I could totally see this as historically accurate - back then men did have absolute power over their wives, and in particular Henry VIII had absolute authority over his wives and their sexuality.

The problem is that we see ads like this all the time. So all I think when I see this one is that things haven't really changed.

Is that supposed to be Henry VIII? He's a little skinny for the job.

And yeah, the ad's more than a little disturbing.

For some reason I can't see the second image. But anyway, the ads I've seen have that same first image with the text "King takes Queen." So I always thought the strangulation aspect of the picture was a reference to her getting beheaded this season. I don't watch the show but I have heard that that is what happens this season.

But it's funny, the first time I saw this ad I thought to myself "I wonder when this will be up on Feministing!"

Ok it's interesting you guys found this disgusting because quite frankly, I saw this ad and thought it was really sexy. Perhaps I was in one of those hormone cycles where I find EVERYTHING sexy, but I really thought this was hot (I'm a straight woman, btw).

I think this is kind of brings up an interesting point because there are women, like myself, who find the whole control thing very sexy. How does that fit within feminism. I mean, realistic depictions of abuse are not sexy at all, but there can be something sexy about power play. Just wondering others' POV on this.

I think they are trying to foreshadow Anne Boleyn's beheading with this ad, although that doesn't make the image any less disturbing. I have to say though, that at least their marketing forewarns people that the show is wildly inaccurate and ridiculous.

Telling that most of the comments on this one are calling out people in the shot for not looking right.

There's no such thing as authenticity. Attempting historical realism is a problematic and likely violent way to go about things. Your use of the term "hyper-masculine" begs the question of its construction. Through its invocation you reify and make invisible the destructive sex binary that's responsible for much of the sexualized violence you aim to expose.

I don't understand all the sex-negativity. Some people like to get choked, some people like to choke. They all have agency to do that.

People also can get their bodies sexualized. If they want to feel sexy, that's their thing.

They can advertise however they want.

You don't have to like the images.

You don't have to like the show.

I would just ask that you please not use sexphobic rhetoric, especially in the context of gender essentialism.

It doesn’t look to me like he is strangling her. Plenty of people like having their neck touched (with no interest in cutting off their air supply).

What I REALLY dislike about the ad is the ridiculous tube dress on her. Tudor clothing was sexy and cleavage-y enough so that "modernizing" it just looks silly.

But yeah, I think the hand on her neck and the spilling wine (looks like blood) is supposed to foreshadow her beheading. I'm MUCH more offended by the headless women in the second image -- same old sexist, dehumanizing crap that seems to be in every third poster. Why do ad agencies still think this shit is okay?

yar, ditto @ MyBabyPanda. I saw the top ad go by on a bus while I was walking down the street with my gf and we both kind of stopped and looked at each other and were trying to figure out if we were going to offend the other and then she was like "uh I lose at feminism but that's really sexy" and I was like, it is indeed.

within the context of the show (forgetting historical inaccuracies and pretending it's just another fiction drama) I have no issues with the imagery. The way the two of them use their sexuality to manipulate each other and the complete disregard for treating anyone like a human beings makes the image representative of the show, not much else. Seeing as though neither character is inspiring as a role model, it's pretty well fine with me.

There's a ton of symbolism in there too- the beheading, the "spilling" of blood (she's "pretending" to be pure for him) or possibly a symbol of Elizabeth's birth. That said, I wonder why it's MORE disturbing for it to be within the context of the fiction- since we're all well aware of the violence and disposable marriages being loosely portrayed here, why would the image be worse?

I am outraged by the outrage at the relative lack of outrage. I think.

"Plenty of people like having their neck touched (with no interest in cutting off their air supply)."

Also, plenty of people like having their neck touched WITH an interest in cutting off their air supply. (Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

I actually find the ad very sexy as well. I'm reading her expression as one of pleasure, even if it is submissive pleasure.

Ohlily: I always find that strange as well. The dresses from that era are gorgeous and show lots of cleavage. So why do they feel they need to dress Anne in something anachronistic?
Similarly, Tudor history is so interesting that I'm always baffled by the way films and shows change it to make it more dramatic or exciting. There's no need!

I'm not surprised to read that some women find the first ad sexy. The first thing I thought when I saw it is that it looks like a romance novel cover - aka chick porn.

Henry was a misogynist asshole who beheaded several wives, including this one. This ad portrays him that way. Look at JRM's face--the cruelty is apparent. He's not turned on at the moment--it's about power and tyranny, not sex. It's supposed to be disturbing, imo.

i am outraged at the intimation that i like chick porn.

Wow, it's "sex-phobic" to be disturbed by aggressive imagery being used in reference to a couple in which the husband did indeed kill the wife? I don't get that viewpoint at all.

Rhys-Myers is sorely miscast in this show. He was 29 years old in filming the first season. Henry VIII was 42 when he married Anne Boleyn. He could play Henry during his athletic "golden boy" era when he married his first wife, but he and Katherine of Aragon were married for at least 15 years! The most egregious part for me was that they DID cast an age appropriate actress to play Katherine, perhaps to ramp up audience sympathy for this poor, hot little rock star married to an aging harridan.

This show ticks me off on many levels.

I'd argue particularly combined with the second ad, the headless women, it's clearly a historical nod.

They seem to be aiming for both creepy and hot. I think I've seen the entire first season, I'm ambivalent about it, so I'm not entirely sure. If I recall correctly the show likes it's heavy foreshadowing.

So far the show focuses on kind of campy, sexual court intrigue. The characters of Ann Boleyn and Katherine of Aragon are fleshed out enough I have no idea how the show is going to have Henry kill them and keep the show watchable. It seems too over the top to pull off a dark character study.

To sum up, I think the imagery is deliberate, and while the show is entertaining, it's handling of women is disturbing enough I'm on the fence about it.

cobblestonebeach,

I don't think I'm using sexphobic rhetoric, but my apologies if it came off that way. I was actually discussing this with a friend into BDSM who thought the image was very sexy as well, which there is obviously nothing wrong with. This is one of the reasons why I wanted to know other's thoughts as well.

But I also feel that considering the way that violence against women is consistently sexualized in the media, TV, film, etc. and the fact that this historical character in particular was beheaded, it was something worth addressing here.

I think that the hand around the neck thing, and the headless women thing, are indeed foreshadowing to the beheading.

I don't think Vanessa's reaction (or most of our reactions) to this are "sexphobic." I know some people enjoy the whole pretend strangling (or real strangling) thing, the S&M, all that fun stuff... but I highly doubt that Henry VIII & Anne Boleyn were just into kinky sex... I am PRETTTTYYY sure that this is about the fact that he has her beheaded for not being able to produce a male heir. This isn't about them having awesome sex in which they're both equals... this imagery, the text: "King Takes Queen", as well as WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN HISTORY (the beheading, the treating of his wives as brood mares to produce him male heirs), all point to the negative interpretation.

The Other Boleyn Girl was in many ways worse than The Tudors. However, being a history buff who is obsessed with Elizabeth, I take all I can get.

I also love anything related to Elizabeth I, Liz. It amazes me that a man who allowed his appetites to plunge his country into centuries of religious and political strife produced one of the most important and influential monarchs in human history. And yes, I would grant Elizabeth that much credit. Her accomplishments were amazing considering the condition of the realm when she inherited the throne. And of course Henry could never have appreciated how important his daughter would become. It also kills me that so many women have suffered for not producing male heirs when it's the father who determines the sex of the baby.

Elizabeth was also guilty for forcing the subjugation and oppression of millions of Africans and Asians as part of England's brutal, racist and inhumane "Empire-building".

No wonder minorities have trouble identifying with feminists. I guess it proves that given a choice you guys always pick gender over race in the oppression Olympics.

This kind of advertising is obnoxious when it's for cologne or something stupid like that. But in this case, it makes sense within the context of the show. The stupid, boring show, that is horribly disappointing. (I just expected more from Mr. Rhys Meyers, and the subsequent hype.)

Count me as another Elizabeth fan. I've never watched The Tudors, but I suppose I do have to have an appreciation for Henry because my husband is an Episcopal priest.

I agree with others that while the casting and fashions are off and the ads are in rather poor taste, I think they're a nod to history.

I won't defend her on that, Spottie, but I also would add that she certainly wasn't alone on that front.

So, for what it's worth.

As a young man, Henry VIII was an impressive figure. He was a physical giant -- over 6 feet tall -- at a time when men averaged about 5 foot, 4 inches. He was a decent poet and musician. And excellent athlete.

He was also a moral midget. Today he'd be dismissed as a serial philanderer. But as they say - Hey! It's good to be the King!. If the series manages to capture some of that, then it's closer to historical reality than Disney's long line of Princess movies ever was.

On the image - well. The way it's provoked such a range of responses suggests to me that it's almost art. Which is a good thing. Sure - it's laden with anachronism. Want another one? On the second image there is NO WAY a lady of the court (such as the right most of the three women) would be caught dead wearing green. "Green" was a color associated with promiscuity and prostitution.

My guess is that a view brought to the present from Tudor days via some kind of time machine would find the second image deeply offensive; the first merely confusing ("What the hell? I bet they're really, really cold!")

Here's my take. I watched the first 3 episodes of the Tudors this weekend and enjoyed myself thoroughly.

I can recognize some flaws in the Tudors as well as The Other Boleyn Girl- yes, they are historically inaccurate, yes they are overacted at times but I still find them fascinating and rather fun.

These ads fit the series because Henry 8th lived in a misogynistic time.

Just last night, in the first 3 episodes I thought countless of times of how these women were completely disposable—every single one of them from the Queen, to the King’s sister to his own daughter.

The Tudors series and the Other Boleyn Girl movie do feminism a service by portraying how poorly women were treated. While Rhys-Meyers is a young, sexy Henry (as was Eric Bana) the audience still sees their cruelty towards the women around them. So in a way, I see these sexist ads and don’t feel threatened or upset… I see that in light of the show, these ads make perfect sense.

The women in Henry's world were at the whim of his hand, his violence. And their face, their voices matter little (hence them being headless in photos). If the series were about Queen Katherine or Anne then these photos would make less sense. But the Tudors is very much about Henry and he DOES mistreat his women.

I agree with Tobes. Henry treated his wives horribly - see the multiple beheadings and divorces. I think the first ad is playing up on this historical fact, while the second really indicates how Henry saw his wives - they were meaningless, their personalities unimportant. Their function was to give him a son and when they failed, he was done with them. The ads are sexist, but they relate to the misogyny that's at the core of Henry's story.

Okay...I just have to say...I don't get it. I understand there is this whole fascination with HVII and Elizabeth, and the Regency period...etc. But I simply do not get it. I think of H8 and think...wow...so he's remembered for being a brutal tyrant without even a drop of mercy for the women he married. Fantastic.

I think of E1 and think...humm...she remembered for being H8 daughter...not for the many brutal inhuman things *she* added to the universe.

I guess it all feeds into our fascination with the aristocracy, money, privilege and power...but all I can think of when I see these things...is how many people were they standing on the backs of to be where they were.

I didn't like the show, and not just for the miscasting--I was less bothered by his physical differences than the personality. Henry VIII was not a whiner, and that's what I got out of the first few episodes. I didn't have a problem with the sex, either, I like sex, and I'm sure the Tudors had lots. Why not, it was very cold in England and those castles, and what else did they have to do? Drink & write poetry, but both of those tend to lead to sex.

Anyway, it seems really obvious to me that they're presaging the beheading in that ad. Holding the neck, the wine spilling like blood, her upper torso exposed--I could be wrong, but I think they did that to keep the blade from catching in the fabric. Beheading was a nasty business, it tended to need several strokes, it's why the guillotine was considered a humane invention at the time.

Still, I do find the ads pretty hot, as I adore Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. Just not in that role.

"Elizabeth was also guilty for forcing the subjugation and oppression of millions of Africans and Asians as part of England's brutal, racist and inhumane 'Empire-building'."

Good point to remember.

"No wonder minorities have trouble identifying with feminists."

What about minorities who *are* feminist instead of misogynist? I mean, I sure can be Iranian-American and female - and not want to be discriminated against for either - at the same time.

"I guess it proves that given a choice you guys always pick gender over race in the oppression Olympics."

Then again, I've also seen this accusation whenever we pick freedom over misogyny, homophobia, anti-intellectualism, religious funamentalism, patriarchy, etc. since not everyone who promotes *those* is white...

I'm unsettled, but in the ways that the ad is seeking to unsettle me. It's an effective ad, and I can't say it turns me off.

Any Tudorists in the crowd? I once got a lecture from a friend of mine whose father is a Tudorist that, while Henry VIII was no choirboy and certainly didn't help matters, he wasn't the raging villain he's made out to be. Not any worse than any other king, anyway (and he didn't even want to be king. He was the second son). She pointed out various political and legal reasons for at least a few of the divorces/beheadings. Not that he helped the situation much, but he didn't just say, "I'm sick of you, off with your head," either.

His split from the Church, btw, was as political as it was to allow his divorce from Katherine--probably less motivated by the Kat thing. Germany was also splitting from the Church around this time, and that had nothing to do with divorces. The fact that the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church--not solidified until Elizabeth's reign--specify the monarch as head of the church rather than the pope suggests that it has less to do with who the king gets to be married to and more with who gets to control religious monies.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the show, which I haven't seen. I do drive by the "King Takes Queen" billboard on my way home from work, and I wondered if it would show up here.

"I won't defend her on that, Spottie, but I also would add that she certainly wasn't alone on that front."

Which means the others on that front were assholes too, instead of excusing QE1. We don't have to sugarcoat racism to be feminists.

"while the second really indicates how Henry saw his wives - they were meaningless, their personalities unimportant. Their function was to give him a son and when they failed, he was done with them."

Which reminds me, he did have a son who survived infancy and how did he treat that child's mother (who wasn't one of his wives)?

"I think of E1 and think...humm...she remembered for being H8 daughter...not for the many brutal inhuman things *she* added to the universe."

She's also remembered for expanding the British empire, though not remembered enough for how brutal that was.

"he wasn't the raging villain he's made out to be. Not any worse than any other king, anyway (and he didn't even want to be king. He was the second son)."

In other words, it was part of his culture. Hmm.

I'm a "fan" of the Tudors and I'm not offended by the ads. Like many others here have stated I just took it to foreshadow her beheading this season (especially with the wine spilling out of the chalice).

While I hate that the writers aren't keeping with what actually happened (which is interesting) Henry8 didn't get fat until he injured his knee and developed gout (I think it was gout), then you get the santa claus version. While Rys-Meyers is still too young, it's not that I have a problem with, it's his total over acting in damn near every scene he's in.

Though if you do watch the show you do get to see how bad it was for women back then, as they were used and bought and sold by the men in their lives (Henry "sells" his first daughter Mary in a deal with France in Season one and Anne is manipulated by her father into seducing Henry).

I love English history - it is so bloody bloody! I was excited to see the Tudors. That being said, I am exhausted. I am irritated. I am defeated. I am tired of seeing women portrayed as sex objects, even when "historically accurate." Does anyone else feel this way?

I'm unsettled, but in the ways that the ad is seeking to unsettle me. It's an effective ad, and I can't say it turns me off.

Exactly, this, yes.

And yes, there are undertones of unsavory sex (not to say that consensual BDSM is unsavory, but when it's one-sided it is) and not-so-unsavory sex and all sorts of subtext about control and beheading and bloodshed and purity and childbirth and wasted riches.

And those are all integral parts of the story as well.

This is beautifully crafted advertising. The story isn't meant to make you feel good (no matter how good watching Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Natalie Dormer, Maria Doyle Kennedy and/or Jeremy Northam may make one feel) and the advertising should send that message too, and it does.

Echoing something others are hinting at.

I think it's really important not to judge historical figures by contemporary values. Was Henry VIII a particularly offensive misogynist? Well - not really by the standards of his day. He was an equal opportunity bastard; also ordering the execution of many inconvenient men. Recall that, in the process of getting Anne Boleyn to the block, Henry falsely accused 5 men, including Anne's brother, of incest, treason and what-not. They were all executed.

And as for Elizabeth I - sure her government was guilty of empire building. But so were the Spanish, Portugese, the Ottoman Turks, the Hapsburgs, France and so on. To single her out seems .... to miss the point about the banal evil involved. Empire building is bad, Mmmkay? All the more so because empire builders typically believe they're acting from the best of intentions.

The feminist point -- as opposed to the drama of the TV show -- is that as a historical figure Elizabeth changed the way anglo-saxon culture looked at a woman's role in politics and economics. Britain had Queens after Elizabeth, who mostly ascended to the throne without a stain on their legitimacy on account of their gender. Before Elizabeth (and Mary, really England's first Queen) women were simply forbidden the throne.

@Jeffery Collins
Henry VIII wasn't always obese, he was very athletic in his youth, when this was set.

---

The image is disturbing, but I think it's appropriate for Henry VIII.

"I think it's really important not to judge historical figures by contemporary values."

OTOH, isn't judging the past by our contemporary values part of how we criticize abuses that happened IRL and move forward instead of starting from scratch all the time?

For another example, "that was OK in the 1950s because it was different then, now how will that work in theory?" doesn't seem as effective as "that is not OK, see how much damage it did in real life in the 1950s"...

Mina I understand what your saying, but if your predecessors did it, your contemporaries did it and the majority of your replacements did it then how does that stand out as a unique wrong. It isn't anything that was original to Elizabeth

Which reminds me, he did have a son who survived infancy and how did he treat that child's mother (who wasn't one of his wives)?

He had two sons who survived infancy. One was Edward VI, of course, and his mother Jane Seymour was certainly one of Henry's wives. She was treated very well--why not, she produced the heir. She didn't live long, though, she died of complications of childbirth. "Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived" is how it goes. Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, Katherine Parr. And contrary to Henry's image of one who preyed upon his wives, he got along quite well with Anne of Cleves, there was just nothing romantic or sexual between them, which led to the divorce.

Anyway, the child you mean is Henry Fitzroy, his mother was Elizabeth Blount. After the affair with Henry VIII ended, she was married off to a rich nobleman, she outlived both her husband and Henry's son and she, I believe, later married for love as a rich widow.

I love this show. This show and the Elizabeth movies made me learn everything I could get my hands on about Tudor England. I don't know what she's wearing in this add but the costumes are fabulous. Anne Boylen was all about her 'little neck'. It was commented on in history as well as her own words (before being beheaded - being thankful for her little neck). Her neck is gorgeous in this photo. I didn't think he was strangling her.

BTW, this actor looks nothing like Henry VIII but he plays the part well. One major thing that bugs me about this series - is Anne comes off as a demanding spoiled beotch. I doubt she had Henry VIII mesmorized with this behavior. It is said that he was a crappy lover. I'm sure it has something to do with her hold on him.

I love this show. This show and the Elizabeth movies made me learn everything I could get my hands on about Tudor England. I don't know what she's wearing in this add but the costumes are fabulous. Anne Boylen was all about her 'little neck'. It was commented on in history as well as her own words (before being beheaded - being thankful for her little neck). Her neck is gorgeous in this photo. I didn't think he was strangling her.

BTW, this actor looks nothing like Henry VIII but he plays the part well. One major thing that bugs me about this series - is Anne comes off as a demanding spoiled beotch. I doubt she had Henry VIII mesmorized with this behavior. It is said that he was a crappy lover. I'm sure it has something to do with her hold on him.

I just wanted to add to BluePencils's post that Henry actually requested to be buried next to Jane Seymour, whom he considered to be his first "real" wife. However, it was remarked at the time that he seemed more upset about her death because he didn't have the next wife waiting in the wings.

I think the people dismissing Henry's obsession with having a son--and the importance of it at the time--aren't appreciating the world in which he lived. Henry was nothing if not a student of history and up to that point the only example he had of a woman ruler was the ineffective (as queen) Matilda, mother of Henry II. Henry's preoccupation with a male heir was more to prevent civil war or England being "married" into another country than just wanting a son.

BluePencils, I stand corrected. Thanks! :)

Erin R--you are so right about Henry's desire for a son. It's nothing like people wanting boys today. He knew what could happen to a kingdom ruled by a queen--look at what Mary did! I think he knew that could happen, for one thing. There is absolutely no way he could have foreseen the Elizabethan age, but modern people think of his desire for a son in that light, that his daughter was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarch in English history. I'm not exactly a "fan" of Henry's, it's hard to be as a feminist, but I think he was an interesting and complex man, not just the fat wife-murdering king of popular lore.

I'm a big fan of the Tudors. While I agree the ads aren't promoting feminist ideals, I think they portray the lifestyle and choices of Henry VIII well. He wasn't someone who valued women. The ad shows that. I agree the first ad is a foreshadowing of Anne's beheading. I think the second ad shows how Henry wanted women's bodies for baby making, and cared little about their personalities.

Ah! Yeah! One of my suite mates had a copy of Rolling Stone on the table, and I was flipping through it the other day and I saw this ad...it disturbed me.

The problem with the ad, Tanya, in my opinion, is that the average reader (and perhaps non-Tudors fan) will know very little about the historical context of the ad. What they will understand, however, is the fact the simulated strangulation.

And that is problematic to me, although I do see your point as being valid.

"The problem with the ad, Tanya, in my opinion, is that the average reader (and perhaps non-Tudors fan) will know very little about the historical context of the ad."

Exactly.

it's pretty clear to me that the ads are deliberate in alluding to the whole beheading/philandering thing. i think it's supposed to be disturbing--henry isn't exactly the most likable character, but he is interesting. aside from the obvious dark sex appeal, i really don't think the show glorifies his behavior. if i only watched television shows where everyone was a feminist, i wouldn't have much in my tivo.

despite the glaring inaccuracies, i enjoy the show nonetheless and think it's pretty well acted. also, i would do dirty, dirty things to jonathan rhys-meyers.

Is that supposed to be Henry VIII? He's a little skinny for the job.

I'm going to have a nerd moment here so bear with me: Henry VII didn't really start to put on the large amount of weight he was known for until later on in his life, if I recall correctly it was after Anne Boleyn.(H had 4 more wives after her) He had a bad jousting accident and walked with a limp for most of his remaining years

I've been on a big English history kick for the past year or so. Antonia Fraser and Alison Weir both have great books on Henry VII and his wives. I also happen to love love love this show, but I will admit that was a bit disconcerted by the ad. But the Nip/Tuck ads have been MUCH worse

Rhys-Myers is sorely miscast in this show. He was 29 years old in filming the first season. Henry VIII was 42 when he married Anne Boleyn. He could play Henry during his athletic "golden boy" era when he married his first wife, but he and Katherine of Aragon were married for at least 15 years! The most egregious part for me was that they DID cast an age appropriate actress to play Katherine, perhaps to ramp up audience sympathy for this poor, hot little rock star married to an aging harridan.

The timelines are bit screwy. Henry's efforts to divorce Katherine took years and Anne was in her late twenties when they finally married in secret when she was preggers with Elizabeth I.

I've always sympathized with Katherine and I think Maria Doyle Kennedy is doing an awesome job of really caputuring Katherine's spirit and her refusal to abandon her beliefs and her conviction that she is the rightful wife and Queen of England.

"The problem with the ad, Tanya, in my opinion, is that the average reader (and perhaps non-Tudors fan) will know very little about the historical context of the ad."

I disagree. I think the H8 story is pretty much average folklore in many circles. There's joking kid songs about it. And I'm not certain I'm seeing the "simulated strangulation". Possession? yeah, it's right there in the text- king takes queen.

So! Open question, speaking of the Tudors.

Shakespeare's Richard III.

Hot? Or not?

On the one hand, malformed hunchback with a black soul.

On the other hand, blacker eyes, a mighty warrior, and wit and charm to burn.

The advertising is perfect for the show. There's a whole lot of sex, and it's not exactly fuzzy happy empowering stuff. Henry VIII is a misogynist who sees women as objects and very little else. And yeah, he does eventually kill Anne, so the strangulation and blood-like wine are appropriate. The second image really just captures the way he treats women.

The whole romanticization of Henry IIX is disturbing to me. "Hey guys, lets take some historical figure who is famous for the mistreatment of and violence towards his wives and make him super sexy!"
Hopefully I'm misinterpreting the premise
of the show.

Yeah Little Punk,

That's what i was going to say to all these people defending the OP's point in terms of "well, the show is just being historically accurate". Well then, why is it our culture has fascination with a character who treated women as objects and had wives beheaded?

That being said, I've sort of had a tendency towards BDSM since I was a kid, and I find the images here pretty sexy personally.

"Well then, why is it our culture has fascination with a character who treated women as objects and had wives beheaded?"

BTW, did anyone else here see the PBS version a few years ago which focused on (and seemed more fascinated with) Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, and Katherine Parr instead of Henry VIII?

"Erin R--you are so right about Henry's desire for a son. It's nothing like people wanting boys today. He knew what could happen to a kingdom ruled by a queen--look at what Mary did! I think he knew that could happen, for one thing."

When I saw the PBS version I wondered "so he needed a male heir for all that political stuff, why didn't he just designate Henry Fitzroy his heir?"

I don't find it that disturbing. For one, the show is based on henry, and you probably know a bit about the history of that era. I also find the way he holds her really sexy...I love being grabbed like that. Sorry if thats too much info but you get it.

What I find more disutrbing is those stupid reality shows....those aren't even fiction (for the most part) and people are obsessed with it. They are almost just as bad.... and they aren't completely fake. sad world.

I don't find it that disturbing. For one, the show is based on henry, and you probably know a bit about the history of that era. I also find the way he holds her really sexy...I love being grabbed like that. Sorry if thats too much info but you get it.

What I find more disutrbing is those stupid reality shows....those aren't even fiction (for the most part) and people are obsessed with it. They are almost just as bad.... and they aren't completely fake. sad world.

There's one of these billboards in my subway station, and it makes me angry every day when I walk past it.

I don't find the second poster that offensive. I think they were playing off of the fact that he beheaded his wives. Its just adding historical context into the graphic image. The first one I do find a little odd though.

blitzgal,

way to take things to a place that *no one went. too bad everyone is too busy discussing 'historical accuracy' and 'sex-i-ness' of this ad to notice the big 'ol fight you tried to start.

i'm so glad you reminded me that people of color aren't in on the patriarchy.

thank the baby jesus.

"When I saw the PBS version I wondered "so he needed a male heir for all that political stuff, why didn't he just designate Henry Fitzroy his heir?"

He thought about it, seriously, but everyone knew that Henry was illegitimate AND his wife (Katherine of Aragon) was the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor and he didn't want to piss him off. Plus, he and Katherine had a legitimate heir in Mary--and there was no law that said she couldn't rule, it was just thought that she SHOULDN'T. I don't know if the show goes into this and I can't remember if David Starkey mentioned it in the PBS documentary, but Henry Fitzroy died--I think possibly the same year Katherine and Anne did.

I don't have cable, so I assumed, when the ad said "King takes Queen" about a show called "The Tudors" and given both the less-than-corpulent build of said king as well as the slightly more narrow silhouette of the queen's costume, that we were dealing with Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. In which case I thought...hot. However, the symbolism of the way Henry VIII grasps Anne Boleyn's throat and the spilled wine, foreshadowing her beheading, coupled with the sexuality of the pose...it's creepy. Accurate, in so far as the events rather than the relative ages of the protagonists, historical clothing, or anything else. But still way creepy.

My initial reaction to the post was 'What am I missing'? Yes it's a dominance/submissive photo, very erotic in that regard, with the woman in the submissive role.

Is it because the man holds the position of power, and distribution of power is central to the concerns of feminists?

If power every becomes equally distributed between the genders and races, will the roles of sexual dominant and submissive be equally distributed as well?

I find myself drawn to both roles, and who knows where I'd land if society didn't tell me that a man's role is to take the lead.

whoops, that retort was for SPOTTIE.

not blitzgirl. sorry blitz.

I don't watch the show because it's too ridiculous for words. The costumes are wrong, Henry VIII was an athletic redhead instead of a sinewy brunet, and the whole thing is about as historical as George Washington shoving a cherry tree into a wood chipper.

The picture actually makes me wonder if it's a precursor to Anne Boleyn's beheading, which would make it even more unsettling; although I tend to doubt SHO is trying to incorporate historical cues into their marketing.

Um, not to be flippant, but the picture strikes me as a blatant precursor to her beheading (which, from what I have read, forms the denoument to this coming season). My initial reaction when I first saw the ad was that, if anything, they were being too obvious. I didn't take it as particularly unsettling (at least no more so than the historical events on which the show is based), and to be fair, the show does a decent job portraying Henry as a bit of an anti-hero, highlighting his mercurial personality, his pettiness, his fits of rage and violence etc. Also, for better or worse, the fact that manipulation and violence underlie most of the relationships, sexual and otherwise, between nearly all of the characters is a big part of what makes the show dramatically interesting. I don't take the poster as being particularly offensive or unsettling.

Vanessa said: "spousal strangulation is just not screaming "hot" to me."

To you, sure.

And then the person sitting beside me saw the picture and the post text. She said, "but I think that's really hot!"

I said I'd come back to this and comment, then switched tabs and read other stuff for a bit. When I came back, she said "but I really do think that's hot, I don't understand why it's upsetting". The other image makes her happy in the same way, yes. Happy meaning happy-in-the-pants, not generic flowers and sunshine happy. I think the post glosses over the why of the ads, that they're hot to the women who might be among the target audience for the show.

In the sea of sexualized women for a male audience, you have a sexualized man for the female audience. Maybe this audience isn't specifically you, but that's fine also. The women in the mass media don't appeal to all men either.

Jonathan Rhys-Myers is cast as the star because the female portion of the audience may find him hot. Picture as a case in point:

http://innerjoejoe.files.wordpress.com/
2007/03/jonathanrhysmeyersbrown.jpg

The comment from beside me here was in a disappointed voice, "See, look at his chest" - he has no chest hair, did you notice? Or much other body hair, possibly a Photoshop job or some waxing. But then her point of view travelled down, and she said in a wholly different tone, "oh... and his pants". Miss... and hit.

So since I was putting this post together, I checked my quote (very journalistic!), asking "You said that, right?" And she said in the same disappointed tone as the first clause, "Yeah, but he's hairless."

Did you find Mr. Darcy (played by Colin Firth) from Pride and Prejudice really hot? Do you think Henry Tudor (played by Jonathan Rhys-Myers is really hot? Now you know what it's like when mainstream media is geared to your sexual tastes.

There's nothing extraordinary here, except that the sexual tastes being catered to are hetero-female oriented, not hetero-male oriented. Just because they aren't specifically yours doesn't mean the message isn't dripping sex.

(This post officially approved by she who is sitting next to me.)

I have never seen the show, but this era of European history has been a hobby of mine since I was 12.

That being said, I always just assumed that the second photo, which was an ad for the first season (?), displayed Katherine of Aragon, Bessie, and Anne. The green, being the color of a whore, being Anne since she was commonly called that.
And the women were in that order.

Fritzroy couldn't be named heir for the same reason having Mary be Princess of Wales was a bad idea for Henry. Fritzroy was a bastard and had no real legal ground under the laws of the day. His older sister's children did have a legal claim to the throne, but then the throne of England would have been under the hands of the Scots.
Their were a few other legal claims to the throne. Declaring Fritzroy as heir to the throne, even as a stand in as Mary was, would have caused a war similar to the war Henry the VII had just gotten England out of.

I have never seen the show, but this era of European history has been a hobby of mine since I was 12.

That being said, I always just assumed that the second photo, which was an ad for the first season (?), displayed Katherine of Aragon, Bessie, and Anne. The green, being the color of a whore, being Anne since she was commonly called that.
And the women were in that order.

Fritzroy couldn't be named heir for the same reason having Mary be Princess of Wales was a bad idea for Henry. Fritzroy was a bastard and had no real legal ground under the laws of the day. His older sister's children did have a legal claim to the throne, but then the throne of England would have been under the hands of the Scots.
Their were a few other legal claims to the throne. Declaring Fritzroy as heir to the throne, even as a stand in as Mary was, would have caused a war similar to the war Henry the VII had just gotten England out of.

LOL @ Paul G Brown's Mel Brooks reference; "Hey! It's good to be the King!"

And personally i cant say ive seen the show, like the ad, or the demented look on the "kings" face. Historically accurate or not, this as a public ad is bit much.

If this image wasn't tied to some random prime time soap opera, there would probably be way more outrage. With that said, when a kid sees this, what do they think?

I get that Henry VIII really WAS abusive to his women, and how people here are saying that these ads are accurate in that way. But when did it become okay to turn abuse and violence towards women into something hot and sexy? Oh right, when it made money.

That's what i was going to say to all these people defending the OP's point in terms of "well, the show is just being historically accurate". Well then, why is it our culture has fascination with a character who treated women as objects and had wives beheaded?

Evil is always fascinating. The glamorous, sexy kind even more so.

That being said, I've sort of had a tendency towards BDSM since I was a kid, and I find the images here pretty sexy personally.

Posted by: Ninapendamaishi

I think every woman in my office has the hots for Jonathan Rhys-Myers.

I'm pretty astounded by most of the comments here. Last I checked, this was still a feminist website - indeed, one that brought me into feminism to begin with. Yet we've got a whole slew of comments saying that simply because it gets someone off, that makes it okay, as if no more critical engagement is required. The fact of someone's sexual pleasure somewhere obviates all other considerations - even if that pleasure response stems in a large part from a cultural response to violence against women as "sexy". The exact same arguments you folks are using could justify any of the misogynist "torture porn" or "rape jokes" this site has decried in the past - but someone gets off on it! But someone finds it funny!

Just because some women get off on other women being treated badly doesn't make it right. Criticising that bad treatment doesn't make one sexphobic. Am I really having to say this on a feminist website?

When I saw the PBS version I wondered "so he needed a male heir for all that political stuff, why didn't he just designate Henry Fitzroy his heir?"

Mina--

A lot of people at the time lobbied for Henry to designate Henry Fitzroy the heir, and I'm sure he thought about it. But Henry Fitzroy would have never been secure on the throne. One thing you have to remember is that Henry's father, Henry VII, took the throne, and Henry VIII had to deal with nobles who thought they had a better claim to the throne than he did. Some did have a better claim, in fact. It's likely that Henry Fitzroy would have been quickly overthrown. I'm sure Henry thought similar things about queens. And since Henry knew he could father a son, there's no reason why he couldn't do it again, in his mind. I'm sure he saw it as a failing of his wives--at that time, I think they held the Aristotlean belief that the man put the seed in the woman who only "grew" the baby.

Like I said before, I didn't enjoy the show at first, so I didn't watch it. But then I didn't like Battlestar Galactica at first and skipped it, but since I started the DVDs in December I haven't been able to get enough of BSG. So I may watch the Tudors later on. I do think it's amusing that some people think that because the show is against my feminist principles of how men and women should interact, that I shouldn't watch it for that reason. We'd be missing out on most classic literature if followed that dictate. I think I can handle entertainment like The Tudors without turning into a submissive female.

I saw the ad a few weeks back, it was practically posted all over Manhattan.

I thought it was purposely disturbing and rather sophisticated. Especially since I thought the show was little more than a soap opera when I watched a few episodes of the first season.

The ad concentrates on Henry's need to control, overpower and create an heir. Hence the neck grab and his other hand is positioned above Anne's womb. As other people noted, the focus on Anne's neck is foreshadowing her beheading and the spilled chalice is rather bloody looking. The sophisticated element comes in with the flower symbolism. Flowers always indicate mortality in old paintings. Someone took a lot of time and deep thought to create this ad. Too bad the show doesn't live up to it.

However I am disturbed that abuse is percieved as sexy. It is the culture we live in, that finds female submission desirable. On the other hand, like many other posters before, I was also turned on by it. Which is also provoking.

I'm pretty astounded by most of the comments here. Last I checked, this was still a feminist website - indeed, one that brought me into feminism to begin with. Yet we've got a whole slew of comments saying that simply because it gets someone off, that makes it okay, as if no more critical engagement is required. The fact of someone's sexual pleasure somewhere obviates all other considerations - even if that pleasure response stems in a large part from a cultural response to violence against women as "sexy". The exact same arguments you folks are using could justify any of the misogynist "torture porn" or "rape jokes" this site has decried in the past - but someone gets off on it! But someone finds it funny!

Because it's nothing more than a trashy TV show.

Just because some women get off on other women being treated badly doesn't make it right. Criticising that bad treatment doesn't make one sexphobic. Am I really having to say this on a feminist website?

Posted by: Jol

So you don't watch horror films? War movies? Not that there's anything wrong with NOT liking those things, but there's also nothing inherently wrong with violent entertainment. The same goes for trashy soap operas like The Tudors.

By the way, I'd like to know how one is supposed to make, let alone market, a movie or TV show about Henry VIII. The things he is best known for are:

A) His womanizing.

B) The gruesome way he got rid of those who displeased him.

C) His break with the Vatican.

D) Being very fat in his later years

I suppose they could just stop making TV shows about evil bastards, but that would make for some pretty dull viewing.

Jol,

I think you misunderstand... not all of us are pro-ad because we’re turned on. Although to be fair, both actors are very physically attractive. This series is about the violent times of Henry 8th's reign and his reign included two beheaded wives.

I think it's kind of silly to criticize this ad for being truthful to the story. If you were trying to advertise the central plotline to season 2 (which is Anne losing her head) how would you depict it?

Do we want Henry wielding an axe at her? Do we want her on the gallows? Either way we have to depict some violence coming to Anne Boleyn and it happens because of Henry. So yeah, it’s gonna be somewhat uncomfortable to look at from a modern-day feminist perspective, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

This image was at least a more subtle form of violence with the hand possessively at the neck, the spilled wine... but it's not overtly violent.

I’m glad Vanessa posted this because it’s good to have such thoughtful discussion but to me… it's sort of like arguing that the movie preview for "Saving Private Ryan" should feature soldiers running through a field of daisies or something.

Henry 8th beheaded Anne Boleyn. That is what happens this season. They are alluding to that in their advertising for season 2- I can’t imagine how they could have done this any better when I can imagine 1000 ways when it could have been worse.

I'm pretty astounded by most of the comments here. Last I checked, this was still a feminist website - indeed, one that brought me into feminism to begin with. Yet we've got a whole slew of comments saying that simply because it gets someone off, that makes it okay, as if no more critical engagement is required. The fact of someone's sexual pleasure somewhere obviates all other considerations - even if that pleasure response stems in a large part from a cultural response to violence against women as "sexy". The exact same arguments you folks are using could justify any of the misogynist "torture porn" or "rape jokes" this site has decried in the past - but someone g