The drama is based on so much sexual activity that it rather spoils the look for those who want to see also History without quite such great liberty taken.Costuming is less than stunning; and hair and make-up do nothing but enhance the physical beauty of the actors. Nice for them but dull for a history buff. This is more a lusty, ‘busty’ romance novel come to screen - the costuming, hair and makeup, especially of the women, looks right off the cover of a 1967 Harlequin Romance paperback novel and I’m wondering about those carriages - they looked awfully ’spry’ for the early 16th century. They weren’t on long enough to examine closely but surely they are not representative of this period but the late 18th and early 19th century - so how much is really Tudor?Is Henry’s youth without portraits? Holbein only painted him as an old man? Are we only to watch women’s breasts bounce about while the ‘king’s’ buttocks do likewise? Don’t misunderstand me - sex and violence are what sells, and certainly add to the story, but must they BE the story? That’s all I see here - and I’m a fan of Showtime’s programing generally.HBO’s ROME has much greater feeling of authenticity, and hair and costumes are far more true to history overall, which, at least until we arrive in Egypt, seems important to the producer and director. Lots of sex and violence here, too - but not so pretty. And the not so pretty and very gritty realism are far more gripping in my opinion than the far too many flowing tresses, gossamer gowns and sugary sweetness of the love-making of the Tudors. Perhaps it will yet mature into a drama and make the lithe limbs worth waiting to see: a glimpse please, not soft porn.