Best English Dynasty: Plantagenet vs Stuarts

[Deleted member 161180]

Which is the best English Dynasty:the Plantagenets or the Stuarts?

note:i count the Lancasters and Yorks as part of the Plantagenets
and i didnt include William III because he wasnt a true member of the dynasty

 

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

The Stuarts, the Plantagenet are a more French dynasty IMO.

 

[NotAMyth]

Imo neither of them were English dynasties- One is French, and the other is Scottish. Though I feel Plantagenet cadet branches were definitely more English, so I'll go with them. I think they are also more meshed up in the national identity of England as a whole, with some of the most popular dynasts like Richard I, the Black prince and Henry V being Plantagenets.

 

[Jonathan1997]

We had a English dynasty from 927 to 1066 not the mentioned Norwegian dynasty from 1016/17 to 1041 I believe. Than we had the Norman from 1066 to 1134, House on Anjou/Plantagenet from 1154 to 1485, Tudors Welsh dynasty from 1485 to 1603 than we had the Stuart/Steward dynasty from 1603 to 1714. it is very common for most dynasties to come from other countries a especially in a time without nationalism. I would have to argues that the Plantagenets will the greatest dynasty England has ever had they are responsible for creating the English identity.

 

[Lalli]

I don't really rate both dynasties very high, altough early Plantagenets were somehow fine rulers And even on its best Plantagenets were quiet mediocre. They were more intrested about issues in France and England was ratherly place where fromt they went get more money to their wars. Many even didn' speak English.

Stuarts are not very great too. Speciality two first Stuarts just managed de-establishing English system and eventually helped to cause English Civil War and ten years lasted theocratic tyranny. Charles II was somehow OK but James II didn't realise that he is Catholic in Protestant majority nation.

 

[VVD0D95]

I don't really rate both dynasties very high, altough early Plantagenets were somehow fine rulers And even on its best Plantagenets were quiet mediocre. They were more intrested about issues in France and England was ratherly place where fromt they went get more money to their wars. Many even didn' speak English.

Stuarts are not very great too. Speciality two first Stuarts just managed de-establishing English system and eventually helped to cause English Civil War and ten years lasted theocratic tyranny. Charles II was somehow OK but James II didn't realise that he is Catholic in Protestant majority nation.

James did realise that, he wasn’t trying to force everyone to convert.

 

[Booster Gold]

Are you referring to the Stuarts who had not one, but two kings chased out of power by parliament?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not them".

 

[Lalli]

Are you referring to the Stuarts who had not one, but two kings chased out of power by parliament?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say "not them".

And another one of these yet beheaded by parliament.

 

[Emperor Lucas I]

The Stuarts, the Plantagenet are a more French dynasty IMO.

Thet are neither actually, there was no real conept of "English Nation" or "French Nation" - at least in modern understanding of it - back in XII and XIII century (and when you think about there was no concept of "Plantagenets" either). But since technically Anjou was de facto it's own, separated state at first, Edward III was considered too "foreign" for french nobility and their the most important title was King of England, IMO we should consider them "of Anjou" at first "English" since at least Edward I. IMO, both "English Nation" and "French Nation" originate from Hundread Years' War. And Edward I and his descendant played important role if forming of both nations.

And Stuarts were considered "our own" by English.

BTW. Why only Plantagenets and Staurts? Where are Tudors - arguably the most succesful english dynasty?

 

[Captain Seafort]

and i didnt include William III because he wasnt a true member of the dynasty

Why not? He was Charles I's grandson and, until the Old Pretender was born, third in line to the throne behind Mary and Anne.

In any event, neither - the answer is the House of Hannover/Saxe-Coberg-Gotha/Windsor. Over three centuries in and still going strong. If you want to object on the grounds of them technically being monarchs of of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, I will point out that England is and always has been a constituent country of both those states.

 

[Avrorrange]

I don't really rate both dynasties very high, altough early Plantagenets were somehow fine rulers And even on its best Plantagenets were quiet mediocre. They were more intrested about issues in France and England was ratherly place where fromt they went get more money to their wars. Many even didn' speak English.

Stuarts are not very great too. Speciality two first Stuarts just managed de-establishing English system and eventually helped to cause English Civil War and ten years lasted theocratic tyranny. Charles II was somehow OK but James II didn't realise that he is Catholic in Protestant majority nation.

Same, but I gave the vote to the Stuarts because they gave England Scotland—though the latter may protest.

 

[Deleted member 161180]

The Stuarts, the Plantagenet are a more French dynasty IMO.

And so The Tudor were Welsh, the Stuarts were Scottish and Hannover and Windsors were Germans

 

[Deleted member 161180]

if William III was part of the House of Stuart that means that Henry VIII was a member of the House of Plantagenet and Henry II was a member House of the House of Normandy

Perché no? Era il nipote di Carlo I e, fino alla nascita del Vecchio Pretendente, terzo in fila al trono dietro a Maria e Anna.

In ogni caso, nessuno dei due - la risposta è la Casa di Hannover / Sassonia-Coberg-Gotha / Windsor. Da oltre tre secoli e ancora andando forte. Se vuoi obiettare sulla base del fatto che tecnicamente sono monarchi della Gran Bretagna o del Regno Unito, farò notare che l'Inghilterra è ed è sempre stata un paese costituente di entrambi questi stati.

 

[Lalli]

Why not? He was Charles I's grandson and, until the Old Pretender was born, third in line to the throne behind Mary and Anne.

In any event, neither - the answer is the House of Hannover/Saxe-Coberg-Gotha/Windsor. Over three centuries in and still going strong. If you want to object on the grounds of them technically being monarchs of of Great Britain or the United Kingdom, I will point out that England is and always has been a constituent country of both those states.

Not through male lineage IIRC.

And so The Tudor were Welsh, the Stuarts were Scottish and Hannover and Windsors were Germans

Fun thing that only very few of current European royal houses are from their current country. British royal family is from Germany. Belgian and Luxembourg families are too from Germany. I think that at least Dutch royal family is originally form Negherlands. Spanish royal family is from France and so is Swiedish one too. Danish and Norweigian royal families are German origin. And Grimaldis of Monaco are from Italy.

 

[Deleted member 161180]

Non attraverso il lignaggio maschile IIRC.

Sorry he was a great King without a doubt bot he wasnt a male member of the family so he doesnt count

 

[Deleted member 161180]

In ogni caso, nessuno dei due - la risposta è la Casa di Hannover / Sassonia-Coberg-Gotha / Windsor

Nel reality Hannovers e Windsors sono due dinastie differenti

 

[Mikestone8]

The Stuarts remind me a lot of the House of York. Each had one man of abiity (Edward IV, Charles II) amidst a bunch of mediocrities.

From Edmund of Langley through Richard of York that famiy was pretty nondescript, and it reverted to type after 1483. Similarly the Stuarts, both Scots and British, were unimpressive pre-Charles II, and soon collapsed after him.

 

[CaptainShadow]

The Stuarts remind me a lot of the House of York. Each had one man of abiity (Edward IV, Charles II) amidst a bunch of mediocrities.

From Edmund of Langley through Richard of York that famiy was pretty nondescript, and it reverted to type after 1483. Similarly the Stuarts, both Scots and British, were unimpressive pre-Charles II, and soon collapsed after him.

Don't think York, Norwich, and Gloucester can be described as nondescript.

 

[VVD0D95]

The Stuarts remind me a lot of the House of York. Each had one man of abiity (Edward IV, Charles II) amidst a bunch of mediocrities.

From Edmund of Langley through Richard of York that famiy was pretty nondescript, and it reverted to type after 1483. Similarly the Stuarts, both Scots and British, were unimpressive pre-Charles II, and soon collapsed after him.

I'd argue Robert II, James I, James II, James IV and James V were all pretty capable. James I and VI was also pretty capable. Charles I inspired fanatical loyalty, as did James II.

 

[phil03]

I'd argue Robert II, James I, James II, James IV and James V were all pretty capable. James I and VI was also pretty capable. Charles I inspired fanatical loyalty, as did James II.

Robert II was lackluster, to say the least, and James IV do loose allot of points for Flodden.

Personally I'd have James I, James V and James VI and VI as meh kings, with James II the only truly good one of the bunch, mainly because for at least getting some power back from the magnates.