Why do you think there is more interest in the Tudors than the Stuarts among the general public?

[Charles III Stuart]

Is it all because of Henry VIII and all of his marital drama? The Stuarts had just as much intrigue as the Tudors, what with Oliver Cromwell's idiotic regicide, the rightful king James VII & II getting his throne usurped by an incestuous couple, Queen Anne and her favourites, King Charles II being a merry monarch (who treated his many women far better than Henry VIII treated his). It was the time when the British Empire truly began, with Jamestown, Plymouth Rock, etc...many iconic folk songs ("Over the Hills and Far Away") come from this time, as does lots of British classical music. The German Hanoverians who came after the Stuarts put a real damper on British classical music, with their preference for German composers like Handel. As someone with a degree in music, there are a lot of famous British composers from the Renaissance and Early Baroque, and then very little of note until well into the 18th century.

Heck, even Britain itself came to be as a state under the last Stuart monarch - Queen Anne.

So why do you think there is more interest in the Tudors than the Stuarts? The Tudors were cool, too, but I prefer the Stuarts. Henry VIII's marital dramas don't match the romanticism of the Jacobite cause and all of the wonderful songs it produced. It's kind of interesting that from the Conquest until the Tudors, England was ruled by French dynasties, and then the Welsh Tudors, Scottish Stuarts, and then a succession of German dynasties to this day (Hanover, Wettin*, Oldenburg**). There will no be another dynasty indigenous to Britain in my lifetime, the earliest possibility for that is if Prince George's first child is female and she marries, as is likely given the Royal Family's recent marriages, someone British instead of a German prince. That child would be unlikely to take the throne for at least a hundred years. Interestingly enough, British people dropping the r sound from the ends of words apparently comes from George I and George II's accent when speaking English, nobody wanted to correct the King's pronunciation, so they just copied him. Neither and either being pronounced "neye-ther" and "eye-ther" are for the same reason

*Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor
**Mountbatten-Windsor/Glücksburg

 

[Viking25]

Is it all because of Henry VIII and all of his marital drama? The Stuarts had just as much intrigue as the Tudors, what with Oliver Cromwell's idiotic regicide, the rightful king James VII & II getting his throne usurped by an incestuous couple, Queen Anne and her favourites, King Charles II being a merry monarch (who treated his many women far better than Henry VIII treated his). It was the time when the British Empire truly began, with Jamestown, Plymouth Rock, etc...many iconic folk songs ("Over the Hills and Far Away") come from this time, as does lots of British classical music. The German Hanoverians who came after the Stuarts put a real damper on British classical music, with their preference for German composers like Handel. As someone with a degree in music, there are a lot of famous British composers from the Renaissance and Early Baroque, and then very little of note until well into the 18th century.

Heck, even Britain itself came to be as a state under the last Stuart monarch - Queen Anne.

So why do you think there is more interest in the Tudors than the Stuarts? The Tudors were cool, too, but I prefer the Stuarts. Henry VIII's marital dramas don't match the romanticism of the Jacobite cause and all of the wonderful songs it produced. It's kind of interesting that from the Conquest until the Tudors, England was ruled by French dynasties, and then the Welsh Tudors, Scottish Stuarts, and then a succession of German dynasties to this day (Hanover, Wettin*, Oldenburg**). There will no be another dynasty indigenous to Britain in my lifetime, the earliest possibility for that is if Prince George's first child is female and she marries, as is likely given the Royal Family's recent marriages, someone British instead of a German prince. That child would be unlikely to take the throne for at least a hundred years. Interestingly enough, British people dropping the r sound from the ends of words apparently comes from George I and George II's accent when speaking English, nobody wanted to correct the King's pronunciation, so they just copied him. Neither and either being pronounced "neye-ther" and "eye-ther" are for the same reason

*Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor
**Mountbatten-Windsor/Glücksburg

In two words Whig Historiography, and anti Catholic sentiment. Though I will push back against your characterisation of James II as the rightful King.....because I take a very Roman/Ottoman View on these sort of things and believe that a Monarch ceases to be the rightful ruler of anything as soon as they prove they can’t keep hold off it or reclaim it(I can fully symphatise with not liking William of Orange though, and Hey Johnny Cope is an utter banger I must admit). Also I don’t really get your fixation on England’s ruling dynasty being Indigenous? May I remind you the House of Stuart was itself founded by a random Norman/Breton Knight like a bizarre amount of Scottish noble houses? The closest you are going to get is maybe the Tudors(And lets not pretend they ever gave much of a damn about any Welsh heritage post Henry VII), and or the various royal families of Ireland like the O Brians or O Neils, if you stretch your definition of “Britain”.

 

[material_boy]

The Tudors were fantastic propagandists, had the uniqueness of delivering both the first and second queens ever, and had Shakespeare in their corner. Hard to compete with that, even if there was nothing really interesting about them beyond the soap operatics.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

I think you answered your own question. Henry VIII is popular for his dramatic personal life, and the changes he wrought in England religiously. He gave essentially gave the Catholic Church the middle finger and decided to do his own thing. Edward and Mary are often overlooked.

Elizabeth is well remembered and idolized because of her position as a woman who decided to buck the trends of the 16th century and remain unmarried, and cemented England's status on the European stage. When the Tudors come to the throne, England had been reduced from it's position as a hegemon in France into backwater part of European politics ravaged by civil war. Henry VIII is well known for his flipping between being a French and Imperial proxy. Elizabeth was probably the first of her dynasty to cement an independent foreign policy. On top of that, she stood up to Europe's boogeyman of the period, Philip II, and came out 'victorious.'

As for the Stuarts? Well, they don't exactly measure up in comparison. If you ask anyone in general about the Stuarts, people are more likely to remember Mary Queen of Scots before anyone: who was known for her own dramatic love life and ending her life exiled in England, before being executed by her cousin, Elizabeth. Her son and his descendants don't exactly measure up in that area. They don't care / know about Cromwell, the British Empire (Roanoke likely captures popular imagination more than Plymouth Rock) or British Classical Music.

James VI and Charles I are mainly known for their difficulties with Parliament, and of course the resulting civil war. Charles II had a lascivious love life, and James II is probably more well known for his deposition / exile than his reign. Mary is remembered as foot note in William's reign, and until recently Anne was ridiculed until fairly recently by historians because of the Duchess of Marlborough's disparagements of her former friend. A long lived dynasty, but not as dynamic as the Tudors or those who preceded them.

The Tudors were dramatic, and there's a reason why even today they have such a position in pop culture. I can't say the Stuarts ever had that same impression. While there have been some more modern interpretations on members of the dynasty (George & Mary comes to mind, as well as The Favorite come to mind) the Tudors are always a favorite when it comes historical dramas, and the amount of popularization of Henry VIII and his ilk outnumbers the Stuarts.

 

[Lalli]

Tudors lasted longer and had much more intresting life. Furthermore Tudors have really lot of intresting PODs.

 

[Domz]

The Tudors had a good ratio of competent rulers (Henry VII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I) to incompetent rulers (Edward VI, Mary I), the latter two barely reigned at all. In comparison, all of the Stuarts are either marred by controversy or the lack of strong and competent leadership (in a lot of ways the Stuarts preceded a lot of the damning characterizations of the Hanoverian rulers plus the emergence of tabloids and the open press being able to poke holes in the monarchy post-Tudors). William III was in my opinion the best monarch during the Stuart era but he wasn't even a Stuart (plus his lack of children only fueled the Stuart succession crisis).

And let's be honest: the Stuart pretender situation ultimately became a farce after 1745.

 

[King of Danes]

This is kinda a chicken-egg situation, but the Tudors also had a banger tv series in the late 00s which was an entrypoint to the history world for many preteens/teens at the time. That might also explain a lot of fascination for it currently

Beyond that, there’s also the fact that the surrounding world was filled with more interesting characters than during the Stuart period. Think Francis I, Charles V, Christian II, Martin Luther (the Reformation is also a huge reason why the period is so interesting).

It was also the last huzzah of the Medieval period, where chivalry ideals meant great drama and it was the transition period from kingdom to state, meaning the final period where kingdoms could merge and split just by dynastic inheritance and before the modern type big diplomacy took over.

I would argue that, even if the Tudors were a milquetoast dynasty (which they aren’t let’s be real) the period itself just allows for so much storytelling. The fact that we have such interesting and tragic characters to play with is just a cherry on top

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

As someone with a degree in music, there are a lot of famous British composers from the Renaissance and Early Baroque, and then very little of note until well into the 18th century.

then speaking as a classically-trained violinist, I would refer you to Arne, Avison*, Babell (William and Charles), John Ogden Marsh, Samuel Wesley, John Eccles, Joseph Gibbs, Maurice Greene, William Hayes, James Brookes, Thomas Linley (father and son) and Thomas Shaw...all of whom wrote and composed and published under the Stuarts, the Georges. Under the so-called "wholly English" George III you had Johann Christian Bach, Johann Baptist Cramer, Muzio Clementi, Jan Ladislav Dussek and other foreigners dominating the music scene. Charles II's taste in music ran French, James II's preferences were Italian, William III's were French again (ironically). One needs only compare the music that Purcell, Blow, Clarke and others were writing under the Stuarts to realize that they didn't particularly "care" for nationalism.

What the tastes of the royal court were didn't always filter down to the public. Compare contemporary Paris. Lully still dominated the French musical life until Rameau produced his first opera (at age 50!). Did that mean that French musical life was dead? No. The Concerts Spirituels - established by Marie Leszczynska- performed twice a week at the Tuileries. It's where French composers like Francoeur, Gossec, Henri Joseph Rigel, Étienne Méhul, Pierre Alexandre Monsigny, the Chevalier de Saint-Georges and others cut their teeth. But also, Mozart, Stamitz, Pleyel and Gluck were the preferred choice of the court, and it caused massive problems at the Paris opera because the tastes of the people and the tastes of the court differed (see how hard they had to campaign to get Glück staged in Paris, JC Bach had a similar problem). Nor were they fighting against native French composers, Bach was up against Sacchini and Gluck against Piccinni.

When Felipe V went to Spain, what followed was a wandering in the wilderness for Spanish music since native born composers were denied places at royal court in favour of French composers (under Felipe V), the Scarlatti's (under Fernando VI), and when Carlos III became king, he brought a bunch of Neapolitan composers with him. It took the Russian court until Dmitri Stepanovich Bortnyansky to break free of the Germans and Italians (Cimarosa, Paisiello) who infested the court in the 18th century. Denmark's native composer, Klaus Schall, was sidelined in favour of imports from Germany- until after the 1848, most Danish composers worked abroad because there was no work for them in Denmark. Even Frederick the Great and Friedrich Wilhelm II preferred French or Italian composers to German ones (Cimarosa declined a job offer from Friedrich Wilhelm II of Prussia). It was part of the reason that CPE Bach resigned from Frederick the Great's service. Because the performances at court consisted of the same pieces over and over again (the works he wrote during Fred's service were all commissions outside the court, and by the time he resigned, he was still on the same salary that he'd started at twenty years earlier).

Why was Handel so successful when the native composers were not? Not because of royal patronage, but because he was a good businessman. He wrote what sold. And he sued people for copyright infringement in an era before copyrights existed. Most of all, he advertised. His famous line to a tenor threatening to jump on his harpsichord: "tell me when and where, sir, and I will advertise. I assure you, more people will come to see me play than to see you jump!"

In short



*Avison tried to pass off some Handel concertos as his own and got blackballed for it

 

[Charles III Stuart]

then speaking as a classically-trained violinist, I would refer you to Arne, Avison*, Babell (William and Charles), John Ogden Marsh, Samuel Wesley, John Eccles, Joseph Gibbs, Maurice Greene, William Hayes, James Brookes, Thomas Linley (father and son) and Thomas Shaw...all of whom wrote and composed and published under the Stuarts, the Georges.

Yes, but none became nearly as famous as the continental composers.

Under the so-called "wholly English" George III you had Johann Christian Bach, Johann Baptist Cramer, Muzio Clementi, Jan Ladislav Dussek and other foreigners dominating the music scene. Charles II's taste in music ran French, James II's preferences were Italian, William III's were French again (ironically). One needs only compare the music that Purcell, Blow, Clarke and others were writing under the Stuarts to realize that they didn't particularly "care" for nationalism.

George III wasn't "wholly English", no matter what he said. German parents, German wife, King of Hanover, fluent in German.

 

[Elfwine]

George III wasn't "wholly English", no matter what he said. German parents, German wife, King of Hanover, fluent in German.

I kind of have to ask: What do you accept as "wholly English" that isn't "I refuse to have anything to do with anything or anyone that isn't English."?

Because I'm not sure England has ever had a king that was English enough for that.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

I kind of have to ask: What do you accept as "wholly English" that isn't "I refuse to have anything to do with anything or anyone that isn't English."?

Because I'm not sure England has ever had a king that was English enough for that.

Maybe if Jem Scott, duke of Monmouth, had won? Or James II had a son by Anne Hyde?

 

[Elfwine]

Maybe if Jem Scott, duke of Monmouth, had won? Or James II had a son by Anne Hyde?

Maybe?

I personally think of James II himself as being sufficiently British, if not necessarily "English", but I'm not very fussy about things like "had a French mother" there. If he thought he was British, that's good enough for me.

 

[Vabasion]

Henry and Tudors lived during the time of the Greats. Charles V. Suleyman the magnificent. Francis of France. They lived during a crucial period of religious reformation. The Americas by and large are still an empty uncolonized lands with no firm footings of any powers there. Japan was undergoing the Sengoku period. Mughals just took India. Safavids just established their rule in Persia. It is by far a more interesting period during which England could be shaped a lot more than any other in terms of its identity and lands. Gunpowder is just about entering the mainstay of European armies in actual battles rather than just sieges.

 

[Happiness]

People associate the Tudors with Henry VIII and his six wives, the break from Rome and the Golden Age under Elizabeth I. All this arouses interest in the dynasty, and although they ruled for 118 years, they left a big mark on history.

 

[DrakeRlugia]

George III wasn't "wholly English", no matter what he said. German parents, German wife, King of Hanover, fluent in German.

By your definition then, Bonnie Prince Charlie wasn't very English either. Polish mother, Italian grandmother, French great-grandmother. His paternal line was Scottish. BPC probably had more common with a continental nobleman in Italy or France than he did with his compatriots in England.

Despite George III's heritage, there's a reason he's considered one of the first British/English Hanoverians, because he was the first Hanoverian to be culturally British. Most royals were fluent in the period in other languages (typically French, but occasionally German too). English was George III's primary language. But of course he spoke German! He had a German territory within the HRE and dealt with officials and a chancery attached to Hanover.

Plus, if we consider the other Hanoverians, George II's primary language was French! He only learned German later on. Does this make him a Frenchman? Absolutely not, because he was culturally German. Cultural background matters way more than blood percentages. It seems inane to attack the Hanoverians for random things when the last of your beloved Stuarts were cultural mongrels.

BPC's primary mother tongue was Italian alongside English. Does this make him less English? Seems like it should, given your odd definitions.

 

[Viking25]

Even the House of Wessex were if you go back enough migrants from Germany who claimed fucking Odin in their family tree. So not sure why OP is picking on the Hannovers over this.

 

[Mikestone8]

Is it all because of Henry VIII and all of his marital drama?

That and all the heads he chopped off [1]

There's a reason that he is the only King of England whose picture *every* Brit would instantly recognise.

[1] I often wonder whether the expression "chopping and changing" dates from his reign.

 

[jacob ningen]

In two words Whig Historiography, and anti Catholic sentiment. Though I will push back against your characterisation of James II as the rightful King.....because I take a very Roman/Ottoman View on these sort of things and believe that a Monarch ceases to be the rightful ruler of anything as soon as they prove they can’t keep hold off it or reclaim it(I can fully symphatise with not liking William of Orange though, and Hey Johnny Cope is an utter banger I must admit). Also I don’t really get your fixation on England’s ruling dynasty being Indigenous? May I remind you the House of Stuart was itself founded by a random Norman/Breton Knight like a bizarre amount of Scottish noble houses? The closest you are going to get is maybe the Tudors(And lets not pretend they ever gave much of a damn about any Welsh heritage post Henry VII), and or the various royal families of Ireland like the O Brians or O Neils, if you stretch your definition of “Britain”.

house Gregor. Hell since Macbethad mac Findlaech all Scottish Kings are usurpers because Lulach and Malcolm Canmore tried to break the alternating agreement and Malcolm was backed by the English

 

[jacob ningen]

I kind of have to ask: What do you accept as "wholly English" that isn't "I refuse to have anything to do with anything or anyone that isn't English."?

Because I'm not sure England has ever had a king that was English enough for that.

Harald Goodwinson

 

[jacob ningen]

Even the House of Wessex were if you go back enough migrants from Germany who claimed fucking Odin in their family tree. So not sure why OP is picking on the Hannovers over this.

he dislikes them first and comes up with a reason after