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?

There's a surprising amount of contemporary documentation from that time. One of the best sources are the letters from the Spanish ambassadors which have survived well to modern times. Catherine Parr was a published theological author. There are state papers in the Royal archives, personal letters, and so very many political or religious tracts survive from that time.

And of course it was a time of great authors like William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlow.

Im not hugely into history, but I do still remember more about it than any other historical period because we did it SO much at school! And I’m 41!

Love the Tudor era and I even yesterday wore a pearl and garnet cross necklace I retrofitted some old jewelry from to look like a Tudor piece (lost on my co-workers…) I find Henry the viii fascinating, so much drama. I hope I don’t tire of it, but for right now I’m obsessed.

actually this is what English school history looks like Scottish school history tends to do Stone age/ bronze age emphasis on Callanish and the early orkney villages then the Romans ( albeit with the emphasis that they didn't conqueror Scotland), then the Vikings part of the Western and Northern islands belonged to Norway until 12th century. Then the Scottish wars of independance, then rather than Tudors it is Mary Queen of Scots the reformation John Knox and the covenanters which is why Church of Scotland is Presbyterian not Anglican, then Bonnie Prince Charlie and Culloden and the Act of Union, then we might mention slavery and industrial revolution and Highland clearances then it is WWI and WWII
The Norman conquest is not really touched on nor is Henry VIII and his wives as that is English rather than British history
Welsh and Irish history will also be different

Yes, but there are not, in fact, diaries as we know them today.

(I'm a historian; I've taught this period quite a bit, so I genuinely do wonder what 'diaries' we would be talking about.)

I don't find it remotely surprising how much documentation there is - do you? You know there's a ton from the fifteenth century, too, and much of it every bit as interesting and personal.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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