Why so much of the Tudors?

[HenriettatheChicken]

Just that really. Why so much about the Tudors, particularly Henry VIII? It’s been done again and again and again and we never seem to tire of it. What is it about that period that makes us all so fascinated?

AIBU to not tire of it, whilst accepting there are other interesting period that could be covered?

It’s a good question. I LOVE the Tudor and Stuart periods but I’m getting more interested in the Plantagenets and Georgians in recent years and have realised there’s a lots of exciting stuff to discover that I knew nothing about. I think the school syllabus and movies /tv dramas keep people focussed on the Tudors. Some big characters, the break with Rome and the emergence of the printing press means it’s a reasonably well documented time and an easy sell.

Oh wow! Your family history must be really interesting. He was a horror - is it a bit strange knowing this bit of your ancestry? Most of us will have awful personalities somewhere in our family history, but will likely never know who or the specific details of their actions. The Duke of Norfolk was quite notorious. Do you make a point of reading about these famous ancestors? I thought Gareth Russel's biography of Catherine Howard was excellent.

This is why DD decided to do Ancient History at college, rather than history. She absolutely loves history, but looked at the syllabus and couldn't deal with doing Henry 8th and the first world war for the 4th bloody time.

I think the Tudors are more accessible for primary aged children… as a PP has mentioned, there’s a soap opera element to all the beheadings/divorces etc. It’s also critical to know about the religious upheaval Henry VIIi’s reign caused in England in order to understand later periods ie the civil war (Roundheads and cavaliers) which is arguably a more difficult topic in any event and more suited for 14/15 plus

I agree, I remember learning about Henry VIII and his 6 wives in year 3. Looking back it was taught frlm a from a misogynistic viewpoint, I wonder if they still teach it like that. Our teacher said he divorced Anne of Cleves because she was ugly and beheaded Catherine Howard as she had too many boyfriends.

We know Henry blamed his impotency on AOC rather than admit he was ‘unmanned’, and Catherine Howard was a teenager who suffered from sexual abuse. I suppose that may be a bit much to teach primary school kids though.

Couldn't agree more. He was a monster. And so many other interesting periods in our history that aren't covered. The civil war between Stephen & Matilda. Or the later English Civil War which is a fascinating, but arguably more gruesome period (if that's what people like with the Tudors), given it occurred at the same time as years of famine, when an estimated 5% of the entire mainland population (and a staggering 40% in Ireland), died of starvation or in the fighting. Sometimes I can't help thinking with that particular period, it's because they don't want to give us any ideas...

Perhaps because nobody makes as many dramas about them?

Stephen and Matilda.

I am a big fan of period drama but other periods just don’t seem to grab audiences in the same way. The more successful ones seem to focus on relationships / sex more than politics, which is why the Tudor period is so popular.

Anne Boleyn is also one of the most popular female figures in our history so that plays a part too.

And his son took very particular revenge for his fathers 'interesting' death in an oubliette. The ghost of Mortimer and his mother are said (by the history tour of Nottingham Castle) said to haunt the castle, screaming. Stories of course, but which could easily be made into an interesting historical drama, with added medieval affairs, power struggles, skulduggery, homophobia the lot.

The notable sinking which also changed the history of England was that of The White Ship, which plunged England into a civil war so horrendous, historians call it The Anarchy, and it lasted nearly 20 years. The country also suffered famines at the same time and a complete breakdown in law and order, all while 2 branches of the Royal Family roamed the country fighting each other endlessly. I don't think I've ever seen a drama covering that (it was a side story in The Pillars of the Earth, a great read for anybody who enjoys historical fiction btw and hasn't already read it).

I think by now it's a period that has its own self-perpetuating forcefield. We all think we know it and so we're biased to believe there are good reasons why it's so important. Case in point:

The invasion by the Normans was as pivotal, but without the art and diaries we have from the Tudors, people don't really 'connect' to the Normans as much.

I am struggling to think whose diaries this poster means. Margaret Hoby and her ilk are later (and the seventeenth century has lots of fun stuff to study IMO). Margery Kempe and Julian of Norwich are earlier, and not really true 'diaries'. There are commonplace books, but that's all I can think of. Maybe I'm having a mind blank, but I think what's happening is that we believe there are such rich sources for this period that we imagine them into being.

Similar with Holbein. Yes, absolutely, the portraits are incredibly arresting, but there's huge controversy over the identities of some of the subjects. We've no idea what Anne Boleyn 'really' looked like. But people have very, very strong views.

This plus so many contemporaneous documents. It is sometimes possible to read both sides of an exchange of letters.
The Boleyn family were absolutely TV soap opera. Aristos + sharp lawyers + a touch of The Shelbys. And they got their comeuppance.

I think because it has everything -religious family and poltical conflict - with a relatively small cast and time period buildings from time are still around and everyone heard of Henry VIII and his children.

I did get excited recently about BBC William the Conqueror show - him and his great aunt Emma of Normandy lived every interetsing lives and so much poltical interest as well- but it was so dire couldn't watch it.

There are other periods that do have equally colourful people and important events and I do think we should hear bit more about those.

Henry II first Plantagenet king - his mother was Empress Maud/Matilda was one side of the civil war called The Anarchy - his wife Eleanor of aquitaine - who lived quiet the life. He's rumours to have seduced Alys of France daughter second wife of Lous VII and his wife ex betrothed to his son Richar the Lion heart - went to war with his wife and all his sons. He feel out with his best mate Thomas Becket leading to his death. His last son John was dire and signed magna carter - his wife was later accused of trying to poison the french king - he was so bad barron invited french king heir to be king - and only Willam Marshal standing for his grandson got him the crown. William Marshal life would also very interesting. I think there's less documentation than with the Tudors so more speculation.

300 years of plantagenets - many of who lived in interesting times - Simon de Montfort and Henry III and Edward I and second barron wars. I think Edward I was first to be secure in succession as well - he basically introduced primogeniture - he also got away from his captures by lulling them into false security taking his horse further eveyday and went on crusades with his first wife and his second won his favour by heading out to a battle field rather than waiting at home - very devoted husband.

There used to be more about English civil war when I was a teen - though more about the Hanoverians in recent years.

Even with Tudors Henry VII and Margaret Beaufort led pretty interesting lives as well and tend to get over shadowed by Henry VIII and his kids - though both his daughters were first and second queen regnants in England.

And how many people know why Mary was in England anyway to become a focus? It's always about England and not what was happening in Scotland. Even the civil war that started with the Covenanters in Scotland is called 'The English Civil War'. And it's Scotland's history that resulted in the formation of the UK as we know it, not England's. If people really are interested in the UK then you have to look at Scotland's history, not just England's.

I do find Scottish histroy - their monarchs and their poltics so often intertwined with England and France really gripping as well. There are so many good stroies there as well and yes poltcically very important in history and development of the UK.

Charles II last king crowned in Scone - and lived an intersting life - managed to get back the English crown - or what happend with Queen Ann that united the parliments.

The Plantagenet into Tudor period is full of “stuff” and drama and human interest…

One I don't think I've ever seen covered Theodora (wife of Justinian I) died 527 - a real rags to riches story.

Though have seen clips from TV show about Catherine de Medici - not one I've seen covered before. Queen Amanirenas would be better subject than another Cleopatra VII for TV or film.

The Medicis are basically the Italian Tudors.
In the sense that they get all the glamour coverage.

I think The Anarchy is a great part of history, which I’d love to see properly televised. Maud/Matilda really should have been our first Queen.

Agree, and there's the title of it right there. No need to make anything dramatic up, it's already called The Anarchy by historians, ripe for a TV drama I'd say.

Well you could ask why the English National ballet ( insert ballet company here ) put on a performance of Swan Lake every year. It’s a crowd pleaser and semi familiar to people who would otherwise not bother with the ballet. Those people interested in history will dig into other periods of their own volition but for bums on seats bring our the old favourites.

Because it's a great soap opera obviously. Henry VIII so obsessed with getting a legitimate heir and then his line stopped at his own children!

Standard time periods that are done in primary are:

Egyptians
Greeks and romans
anglo Saxons
great fire of London
Tudors
either or both of the world wars.

it’s a lot about what there are resources for and what is interesting for small ish children.

medieval times can really come across as fairly random deaths and invasions and endless fucking working out who is who.

other popular time periods that are usually done in secondary:
Industrial Revolution (I did this at gcse)
Cold War (my kids did this)

civil war is significantly less popular.

civil war is significantly less popular

I did it in primary but were close to some notable battles and country houses that did civil war re-enactments with primary school kids and that was pre national curriculum.

DC did industrail revolution in primary similar for reasons local area had lots of notable easily accessible sites.

My DC primary did Chartists - as there was a big event here.

I do agree though there are standard timer peroids often covered - with a few local varaitions.