Why do you think there is more interest in the Tudors than the Stuarts among the general public?
- Thread starter Charles III Stuart
- Start date
and sounds way too much like the discredited urban legend of Castilian dental fricatives.
Yeah but sejm didn't have the conflict about that with any member of Valois dynasty I can recall.
no. IIRC it was electing heirs during the lifetime of the king.
But it was conflict between Sejm and Jan Kazimierz, who was member of Vasa dynasty and wanted to elect member of Bourbon dynasty, neither of them were Valois. And of course Jan Kazimierz was right.
I meant more on a Historiographical level.
The roots of Charles I's troubles can definitely be found in James I & VI's reign and I'd agree with all the arguments you mentionned. But people taking a mundane (i.e. not Historical or Academic Research) interest in Charles I's reign generally don't look his father up. They just look at the life of the king who got beheaded and basically think "damn, so many mistakes..." while not looking at the context in which he came to power.
As far as it goes, James I & VI isn't really high on the list of most-studied British monarchs and he doesn't captivate the heart of the masses. Few litterary works were done centered around the man himself, or if they did they have fallen out of favor. James also happen to be surrounded by monarchs that feel far more interesting, between the Tudors that preceeded him and his son and grandsons that had to deal with Parliamentary opposition and/or a Religious crisis. Hell, even the most important historical moment of James' reign, the Gunpowder plot, is less about him and more about Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators when it gets mentionned.
That's what I meant when I say James I & VI lacks "flashiness". It's not that there isn't anything flashy, colorful or interesting about the man (because there is if you do a deep dive), but it's just that he doesn't feel as if he did anything noteworthy to be remembered or draw attention. He's kinda just one of those monarchs that is in the list but nobody really talks about.
without forgetting that some of the problems that we think are original to the reign of James I were in reality inherited directly from the last years of Elizabethan government, in particular the increasingly frequent frictions with parliament over funding for the crown, the growing Puritan movement that becomes further radicalized, the "cold" war with Spain and to conclude the problem of the "papist" recusants who, in response to the terrifying state persecutions against them, begin to radicalize and organize increasingly extreme political responses ( without forgetting the state of war perennial in Ireland )
I otherwise agree with Kellan's analysis, Charles made various political mistakes, but the situation would have gotten out of hand even for a more competent sovereign, because England at the time was a bomb ready to explode, given that the whole he political establishment was tremendously radicalized and extremely millenarian, if we add to this the underground religious conflict ( between the various Protestant currents fighting for power ) and the political climate of the continent, we find ourselves dealing with a tremendous mix, very difficult to deal with, especially for Charles, who from a religious point of view was a faithful Protestant ( high church ) but very willing to compromise with other confessional minorities ( just look at his negotiations with the Irish, which were having good results )
Last edited:
Henry VIII was A below mediocrity king who is only remembered for three things: his inability to produce a male heir, his marital/extramarital affairs and his break with the church, And if it weren't for the last one (breaking with the church) he would be Only remembered as a terrible monarch both in terms of competence and as a person.
Honestly even then he’d probably be at worst C Tier compared to somebody like King John in terms of governing and compared to IDK, Edward “Oh my son died while I was on crusade. Oh well I’ll just make another one” Plantagent his particular brand of douchebaggery would probably be a blip on the radar of anyone(Aside from some ineffective campaigning in France what the hell did he even do in his early reign that was all that memorable let alone terrible? Well besides letting Wolsely do everything.). I do agree that if not for his break with the Church he would be remembered as a pretty forgettable and mid tier monarch at best and vastly overshadowed historiographically by even people like Edward II(Whose reign is somewhat underrated considering the impact it had in Englands monarchy developing the way it did) let alone dear old Dad.
Last edited: