Best English Dynasty: Plantagenet vs Stuarts

  • Thread starter Deleted member 161180
  • Start date

Which is the best Plantagenets or Stuarts

  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
CaptainShadow

CaptainShadow

Mikestone8 said:
Really? I agree he was m crucial momentore competent than Someerset, but does that quaify him as outstanding?

In the WotR, he was routed at Ludlow and forced to flee the countery. His return in 1460 ended in a catastrophe at Wakefield. Afaics, had Edward IV not been around to take charge at the crucial moment, then despite Henry VI's total incompetence, he would nonetheless have retained his throne and passed it to his son.
Click to expand...
Look at his service in France for his achievements, he defeated the king's forces at Dartford IIRC, some defeats would definitely happen, Wakefield happened because York was low on resources and couldn't afford to wait.

What makes you say that? The Nevilles and the Bourchiers and De La Pole and Mowbray etc aren't suddenly going to abandon the man, and he was popular with the gentry and commons. Contrary to popular belief Edward didn't magically get popular support in 1461, all he had going for him were his military victories and his father's supporters, and York not Edward being in charge ain't butterflying that.
 
Last edited:

Emperor Lucas I

kasumigenx said:
Both the Plantagenets and Stuarts are dynasties from Northern France.
Click to expand...
It's just not working this way - you can'T determine someone'S nationality by nothing more but DISTANT ancestor's "starting point" . By this logic, Capetians should be considered German (Founder migrated from Worms in Germany) . And why stop there - why ignore original "ancestral lands" of Franks and Normans?
 
Last edited:
WilliamOfOckham

WilliamOfOckham

I might be a little biased, but in my objectively true opinion, the Stuarts win by a mile in a hundred metre race.

If nothing else, just by being around in the seventeenth century: the wackiest and wildest time in European history. Jesuits and Puritans and pamphleteers, discovering the New World and riding a carriage on the Thames, ruining relations with the greatest power of Europe because you wanted to surprise his daughter, then getting executed on behalf of some unknown upstart called “the people”... how can the medieval world even compare?

It’s not so much their skill as monarchs, which I think is really hard to compare given the totally different conditions (domestic, foreign, and global) they confronted - I like the theatrics, and the Stuart age was the pinnacle of theatre, in every sense of the word. The modern world was forming, and everybody was kind of... making things up as they went along.
 
Last edited:

Mikestone8

CaptainShadow said:
What makes you say that? The Nevilles and the Bourchiers and De La Pole and Mowbray etc aren't suddenly going to abandon the man, and he was popular with the gentry and commons. Contrary to popular belief Edward didn't magically get popular support in 1461, all he had going for him were his military victories and his father's supporters, and York not Edward being in charge ain't butterflying that.
Click to expand...
But if York has got himself killed as OTL and there's no E4, whom do they rally round? a 10yo George? Or do you see the Bourchiers taking the lead?

I don't deny that RoY matttered, but as I see it he, like quite a few historical figures , mattered chiefly just because he existed at all, in that he provided a Yorkist rallying-point during the long interval between Cambridge and Edward IV

And isn't E4's importance illusitrated by what happened upon his death? The House of York was swept away within little more than two years, and even that was mostly down the the bad weather that scuppered Buckingham's Rebellion. W/o it, the Yorkist might have survived E4 by barely six *months*
 
CaptainShadow

CaptainShadow

Mikestone8 said:
But if York has got himself killed as OTL and there's no E4, whom do they rally round? a 10yo George? Or do you see the Bourchiers taking the lead?

I don't deny that RoY matttered, but as I see it he, like quite a few historical figures , mattered chiefly just because he existed at all, in that he provided a Yorkist rallying-point during the long interval between Cambridge and Edward IV

And isn't E4's importance illusitrated by what happened upon his death? The House of York was swept away within little more than two years, and even that was mostly down the the bad weather that scuppered Buckingham's Rebellion. W/o it, the Yorkist might have survived E4 by barely six *months*
Click to expand...
W8 what's the topic of discussion here? Because so far from what I could make out you called every York except Edward IV not important/ mediocre and that's what I'm disputing. Your next post says they were not getting anywhere before Ed got in on the action and that if it weren't Edward incharge Henry would still have his son succeed him, implying York would screw it up. And I see Warwick taking charge.

Again is the agenda importance or competence?

Not really feeling Richard not putting down Buckingham even under fair weather given he knew about it already and hasn't had his wife and son die on him.

But anyway this is beside the point DM me if you wany to discuss this further.
 

Jimbo808

Plantagenet dynasty in my view was better.

You had some rubbish ones, some blood thirsty ones as well. But also in the mix were the good ones, the law reformers and conciliators who instituted good law and worked with the fledgeling parliament.

Stuart's seemed to be a rather unlucky dynasty, rather short lived but seemed to do more harm than good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top