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?

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!

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

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

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

Ah yes. The tax dodging rebels.

Nuff said.

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

But why were they chosen over James II ?

Ah, yes. Henry VIII.

Again.

Because it’s like Hollyoaks of the Middle Ages

More like The Sopranos.

The Tudors also led from and covered a period of great change, economically, that lead us to call that time the early modern state*. It was a time of propaganda and narrative, and in particular the (re?)creation of an English identity, a building of unity after wars and chaos following on from the Norman invasion. The press had been invented, the English language was back in legal settings after a few centuries of neglect in favour of French. In Henry 8 I suppose there was an original charisma that fell into dictatorship and madness. No doubt the misogyny and dictatorship attracts a certain sort. Personally I prefer his father’s life work.

ed to add * the time of the renaissance and exploration in Europe too.

It literally wrote women out of the picture. Beforehand custom had dictated fairer shares to family. Enclosure came with writing and written charters naming men only.

Too right! We had some very interesting Edwards.

Religion

Or, power grab in the name of religion

By the way did you know that carrots were mutated to be orange in deference and celebration of the House of Orange?

And also what is never told is the last time Britain was invaded successfully and occupied by another nation, not the Normans, but the Dutch, on Sheppey.

Stormed Sheerness.

This is quite an old fashioned view (which is sort of why I think the Tudors as a topic could do with being accompanied by other things).

It's absurd to think there was no 'English identity' for nearly 500 years, because of the Norman invasion! Of course there was. Nor was it 'chaos' from 1066 onwards. English and French co-exist as legal languages for a long period, which doesn't neatly map onto pre- and post-Tudor England.

(I'm a medievalist so get a bit irritated by the way the Tudors and the Renaissance are wheeled out as examples of progress and Englishness all the time.)

Most history taught is about battles and war. The tudor stories are human and more relatable. It was possibly the only element I had any interest in.

The establishment of the Church of England to facilitate Henry's sex life is absolutely fascinating to me. I'm Irish and grew up during the troubles in the 80s and 90s although I lived nowhere nearby. The settlement of Ireland happened during the tudor reign and obviously Henry's new church created the religious divides. This period in history linked directly to the issues of the time I grew up despite happening 100s of years earlier. It seemed more relevant than some of the turbulent European 20th century events.

I’m always surprised the 17th century doesn’t get more of a look in: civil war, execution of the king, Great Fire, plague, another revolution… Plenty of soap opera moments to be had.

To be fair, it’s not so much that they were chosen as that they challenged James II, who immediately ran away.

Which is about.. those women who are linked to Henry VIII. Not the women who weren’t.

English and French did not coexist as legal languages, Norman French very clearly took precedent with many kings not knowing one word of English and refusing to learn. You’re simply wrong. The identity of the country was also riven, with continuing clashes, resistance and rebellion to Norman rule continuing for some time after the Conquest. The genocide that was the Harrowing of the North stopped some protest by simply murdering all of it, but not all.

The Tudors were skilled propagandists, but the explosion in writing in that time is not. Nor was the timing of the renaissance of their making, but that’s when it happened.

Perhaps we should resurrect Chaucer.

Personally I prefer his father’s life work.

Ah, you mean the one who's claim to the throne was rather weak, with plenty of others with as much if not more right to rule. It may be different in the 21st century, but then the male line took precedent over all and Henry VII's claim came through his mother.

I quite like Philippa Gregory's theory that it was Henry VII's mother who had the princes in the tower murdered - she had much more to gain. Richard III had already declared them illegitimate so not much need for him to get shot of them, whereas Margaret's cause was much strengthened by getting rid of 2 boys whom (IF legitimate) had a much better right to the throne than her son, and at the same time blame it on the current incumbent.

If they were accepted as illegitimate then they weren't a threat to anyone. But clearly not everyone accepted that they were and they were always going to be a threat as long as they were alive.

Why didn't Richard ever hold an inquiry about their disappearance?

Wouldn't have made any difference I don't think. Those who thought he was guilty wouldn't believe any outcome apart from that, and those who blamed anyone else wouldn't accept that he did it.

The whole point is moot anyway, as he didn't have any heirs of his own.

History is written by the victors.

Even if people dismissed it as all for show, though, it does look very suspicious that they were just never seen again and no investigation of any kind was ever held.

This is really suss, as my kids would say. It's possible that Tyrell ordered the murders without troubling his master with the responsibility of it - that would explain it - but I can't believe Richard didn't know or have any involvement in a cover up. The simplest explanation is usually correct and he might have reasoned, with cause I suppose, that they were a threat as long as they were alive and ultimately it would be him or them.

So horrible.

The 17th and 18th century was a time of massive change.

Republic then restoration of a constitutional rather than absolute monarchy - setting up our modern system of parliamentary primacy.

The Enlightenment and the foundations of science - pursuing knowledge rather than simply learning. Alchemy giving way to natural philosophy and then to science as we know it. Founding the Royal Society in 1660 and all the developments that led from there up to the Royal Institution at the end of the 18th century. Being able to build robust social status on what you knew, discovered and created, on science and technology, rather than on heredity and Royal favour. These are the foundations of the Industrial Revolution and all the social change of the 19th century.

The mass development of dictionaries and classification systems.

If the Tudors are a soap opera, Samuel Johnson - via Boswell - is perhaps the first fly-on-the-wall documentary. And Pepys is a soap opera in himself. Whether you're trying to interest children or make a TV drama, he gave us so much gripping material: the buried cheese, rushing to tell the king about the Great Fire, the mistresses, the cutting of the stone, shitting in fireplaces .... something for everyone.

The rise of the Radical Thinkers and the roots of the French and American revolutions.

The explosion of of coffee houses - which as 'penny universities' began to democratise understanding and diacussion of these new ideas.

The development of the modern banking system, stock markets, institutions like Lloyd's insurance brokers. The beginnings of modern capitalism and globalisation. The Dutch and British East India companies - empire building as a corporate activity.

The Tudors may mark the start of the 'early modern' period, but the Restoration and Enlightenment is where the recognisable modern world really began.

And legal reform. The 1701 Act of Settlement enabling the independence of judiciary by abolishing the right of monarchs to dismiss judges they disagreed with. The switch from an inquisitorial to an adversarial court system, and therefore the beginning of plea bargains and the rise of the defence barrister.