I first saw this film, aged about ten, as a result of my great interest in the famous King Henry and I think possibly also because I was in the middle of writing a short play about him. It's been a while since I saw this, but - looking back - I think I was perhaps a bit young to view it back then. There's nothing explicitly gory or violent but some scenes - on reflection - are perhaps a bit much for children of that age.
Nevertheless, it does tell the story of Henry and his wives, even if you get the sense that some things (the real Catherine of Aragon, for instance, was pregnant about six times, but you'd never know it from this - one might get the impression that she only had two children before Henry tired of her) are brushed over a bit. In keeping with the real time span, a lot of time is concentrated on Catherine and her successor Anne Boleyn although I seem to remember that nothing much is made of, for instance, Henry's need to marry the pregnant Anne before she bore the future Elizabeth I.
Although the story is told in flashback and some major points in history (eg. the dissolution of the monasteries) are dealt with through scene montages, you do get a flavour of Henry VIII's character and life - notice how the plainly-dressed Jane Seymour becomes more decorated as she gains the king's notice - and even an idea of communication in Tudor times (he decided to marry Anne of Cleves because he saw a miniature of her). It occurs to me that the focus on Henry may be a disadvantage - we don't see Anne of Cleves adapt to life as the King's sister, we don't see the Holy Roman Emperor enraged when his aunt Catherine of Aragon is being divorced, we don't see much of the infant Elizabeth I at all.
One opinion this film formed for me was the idea that Katherine Howard was very much a victim of fate. I have read that the real woman was sexually precocious (although this film merely gives the impression that she was a bit flirty) because of her grandmother's lack of moral guidance, but this interpretation made me think that the Duke of Norfolk, head of the Howards, suddenly jumped on an opportunity to get into Henry's good books by pushing a young family member under the King's nose (apparently unaware of his teenage niece's past - she must certainly have been the least suitable member of his family to have been promoted in this way) without bothering to properly consider his actions.
Little is made of Catherine Parr - after Henry's dispatch of his fifth queen - and one gets the impression that he settled into a happy family life, failing to mention that he did in fact have the unfortunate woman investigated due to her religious convictions. However, my A-Level history lessons led me to believe that mediaeval kings were quite at liberty to be ruthless despots, and Keith Michell certainly gives us an idea that Henry was that way inclined.
Nevertheless, it does tell the story of Henry and his wives, even if you get the sense that some things (the real Catherine of Aragon, for instance, was pregnant about six times, but you'd never know it from this - one might get the impression that she only had two children before Henry tired of her) are brushed over a bit. In keeping with the real time span, a lot of time is concentrated on Catherine and her successor Anne Boleyn although I seem to remember that nothing much is made of, for instance, Henry's need to marry the pregnant Anne before she bore the future Elizabeth I.
Although the story is told in flashback and some major points in history (eg. the dissolution of the monasteries) are dealt with through scene montages, you do get a flavour of Henry VIII's character and life - notice how the plainly-dressed Jane Seymour becomes more decorated as she gains the king's notice - and even an idea of communication in Tudor times (he decided to marry Anne of Cleves because he saw a miniature of her). It occurs to me that the focus on Henry may be a disadvantage - we don't see Anne of Cleves adapt to life as the King's sister, we don't see the Holy Roman Emperor enraged when his aunt Catherine of Aragon is being divorced, we don't see much of the infant Elizabeth I at all.
One opinion this film formed for me was the idea that Katherine Howard was very much a victim of fate. I have read that the real woman was sexually precocious (although this film merely gives the impression that she was a bit flirty) because of her grandmother's lack of moral guidance, but this interpretation made me think that the Duke of Norfolk, head of the Howards, suddenly jumped on an opportunity to get into Henry's good books by pushing a young family member under the King's nose (apparently unaware of his teenage niece's past - she must certainly have been the least suitable member of his family to have been promoted in this way) without bothering to properly consider his actions.
Little is made of Catherine Parr - after Henry's dispatch of his fifth queen - and one gets the impression that he settled into a happy family life, failing to mention that he did in fact have the unfortunate woman investigated due to her religious convictions. However, my A-Level history lessons led me to believe that mediaeval kings were quite at liberty to be ruthless despots, and Keith Michell certainly gives us an idea that Henry was that way inclined.