Why so much of the Tudors?

William and Mary's a good call. That was pretty significant, and joint rulers is a good story.

Ah yes. The tax dodging rebels.

Nuff said.

Yes its not a era that Ive been that interested in, I love history but usually from Romans to around the end of the Tudors

Im interested in the outright coup which gave William and Mary the throne though, outrageous.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002wmw8

Do you remember what the series is called? Sounds interesting.

The 4 Georges don't get much coverage - especially I and II.

Theres a really interesting series on iplayer at the moment which tells the story of us losing the American colonies, but from the British perspective, its usually told about the American perspective but obviously it was a big loss to us

Never really understood why there are sometimes comments about 'celebrating 4th July', its not for us to celebrate!

Romans?
Anne?
Vikings?
Jacobites?

I prefer the Tudors but lets not pretend theres no other skullduggery and drama in our history

How about the Saxons and the making of England, the laying down of laws nationally, English being written in a major way, constantly at war with the Vikings and seeing them off

No, you shouldn't.

Not unreasonable at all, I feel exactly the same way!
I think it's partly Henry's awfulness...killing two queens amongst other things.....and the Reformation which was not really so he could marry Anne Boleyn but so he could strip the monasteries of their wealth for his own gain I reckon. She wanted that wealth to go towards more worthy causes. Of course he was under the influence of Cromwell.

I work in healthcare and am interested in the theory that H8 may have had the Kell antibody/McLeods Syndrome which kind of fits in with his wives' miscarriages and his personality change in midlife. I even did a presentation on this to some doctors I work with 😆 they were a bit 🤨

You should see Six, The Musical.

It's because Henry VIII (Tudor) whose split with Rome created a Protestant England (Scotland to follow).

His successors (Edward, Mary, Elizabeth) policies were very much a reaction to that seismic change and most critically how it affected Englands place in Europe (mainly against Spain and later France). Which one could argue is the reason Britain ended up with an embarrassingly large empire. And regardless of todays politics (or maybe because of them ?) you can't look at any country in the world without realising that at some point it was either directly or indirectly affected by the British Empire.

The fact you have the drama of Henry VIII means you have a pleasing confluence of global pivot points and bonkbuster dramas.

Surely they must heave learned something other than the Tudors? Pretty sure I did most, if not all, of those topics at school

Seriously - where shall I start - History is and always has been my favorite subject. (not in any particular order). So aside from the Tudors you have the Medieval times, the Middle ages, the Normans, the Anglo Saxons, the Celts, the Stuarts, the Georgian period, Victorian period, Elizabethan period, the Vikings, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, oh and lets not forget the Romans, oh and two world wars. I am sure there are many more but I cannot think of them off the top of my head.

I think putin is trying to recreate the Russian empire, not the Soviet Union. But other than that I agree.

There speaks a true Republican! Current dynamics yes obviously, but studying the past can give insights into why many of the current dynamics exist.

I remember having a number of discussions with various people over the years about drawing a line in history regarding who were the "native" peoples of an area, and/or the "rightful" rulers.

New Zealand may be a good example here - there was a massive drive in the 70's and 80's of giving NZ "back" to the Maoris as they had been considered the indigenous population when Europeans first colonised the islands. But in fact the Maoris had only occupied NZ for around 500 years before that.

The fighting between Pakistan and India? Well the area only became known as Pakistan in 1933, at that time the area was still considered part of the Indian Empire. Pakistan only became a state in it's own right in 1947, and prior to British rule had been included in many different empires and states. Without understanding the history of the preceding few hundred years both political and religious, it would be very hard to understand the current conflicts there.

Putin is trying to recreate the old Soviet Union. Current situation is a large number of independent countries with full self determination. If you consider any time between 1922 and the fall of the Soviet Union as "current", then he has every right to "take back" countries that were under their control. Go back just 5 years from then and Russia was ruled by the Tsars, and for 500 years before that - is that "current"?

In the present day we have the freedoms in most Westernised countries to follow whichever religion we want, but in the past your religion could be determined by the monarch. Tudor monarchs are a classic example of this. Henry VIII was Catholic through and through - he wrote pamphlets supporting the Pope and was apparently well versed in the doctrines. But his need for a male heir and his head being turned by a younger woman led to the creation of the CoE, and various other countries around northern Europe were turning to Protestantism at the same time.

Edward VI was brought up Protestant and was very devout. Then he died and Mary came to the throne, Catholic and determined to turn England Catholic again and by force if necessary. Then Elizabeth, Protestant again, going back the other way. One of the reasons why she wouldn't name Mary Queen of Scots her heir is because Mary was Catholic - no issues with James, who was a very devout protestant.

TL:DR History going back centuries, and monarchs of those days, have influenced where we are now politically and without understanding those influences we can't truly understand the modern dynamics

This is what I was going to say. My history teacher in the 60s called it 'the beginning of Modern Times'. It probably isn't called that now but it was an era of great changes not only in the monarchy and politics but art, clothing, architecture snd so on.

What I never got taught about the enclosure act was the impact on women as it limited their ability to work.

Me too, I remember the bits I learnt thoroughly for the three essay questions: Agricultural revolution, Russian revolution, Industrial revolution. I recall whistling through the ages and then the kings in 1st/2nd form. It was very dry. One book, the blackboard and an exercise book.

But it is as rare as hen's teeth for anyone to tell the story of those women that are not linked to Henry VIII.

That pisses me off.

I wonder whether you get the concentration on the tudors as you have Henry vii, his descendant, mary queen of Scots and through her/ them the joint line of tudors and Stuart’s which united the two thrones eventually.

Modern history is more important in understanding the current dynamics of world politics.
All that monarchy stuff should be a very miniscule part of the curriculum IMHO.

See also The Nutcracker, Romeo & Juliet, Sleeping Beauty etc.

Sorry, my post upthread was really snippy (I'm going to blame the heat).

What I mean is, I think we start to believe that everything happened while the Tudors were in power, so if Pepys wrote personal diaries in the middle of the seventeenth century then of course there must be similar things from when Anne Boleyn was alive, and if Holbein sketched Henry's court then of course the pictures that survive must be almost the equivalent of photographs telling us exactly what people looked like, and so on. And we compare it all quite negatively to the century before and the century after, and presume we're looking at this unprecedently rich, amazing time.

Having taught secondary history I am happy to tell you that all of these topics are covered.

He’s famous for having six wives and his two daughters were eventually queens. I find that time period interesting