Harold was half Danish, though.
I mean, I don't think it matters, but if "fluent in German" disqualifies you from being "fully English", that would.
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
Harold was half Danish, though.
I mean, I don't think it matters, but if "fluent in German" disqualifies you from being "fully English", that would.
I think we're talking about English, not Scots.
There's some historians who think they might actually have been native Britons, though.
Last edited:
Nah his mom was Danish and since aharold itself is a Norse name so by ops standards he won’t count.
Maybe, if talking Scots?
I honestly tend to treat it as not really that important - it matters that William I was foreign, or William III, but percentage of blood feels like the most awkward way to define it.
Huh really? I like to think I know a bit about the Anglo Saxons and have never heard of that theory before.
I'd say that a big thing that play in favor of the Tudors is that they basically are synonymous with Renaissance England. Henry VII and the new dynasty came out just as the Roses War ended, Henry VIII kinda belongs to a trio of great rulers with Francis I of France and Charles V, not to mention that he broke with Rome and Elizabeth I's reign is basically a golden age as well as the peak of Renaissance England in terms of power. The Stuarts have no chance when competing with that. For some reason the XVIIth century and beyond tend to not be as remarkable and popular of a period (except maybe if we're talking about France because Louis XIV) compared to the Renaissance.
The dynasty is also not necessarilly that well-remembered in the hearts of the people... Sure the Tudors had their share of blood and drama, but they've got three monarchs whose reign feel like it shaped the country. The Stuarts? James I isn't that fondly remembered as well as bit forgettable to be honest (most people tend to talk about him only because of two queens he succeded in Scotland and England...), Charles I was beheaded, Charles II was a womanizer, James II was way too Catholic for his own good, Mary II is overshadowed by her husband William III and died pretty quickly to boot, and Queen Anne is remembered as being quite moody. Went over this quickly and there is definitely more to say about each than that, but that's it as far as people are concerned. Can that really compete with the King that ended the Roses War, a real-life version of Bluebeard (he's no Gilles de Ray but Henry VIII does have that rep) and Gloriana? Quite frankly, no.
Last but not least: Shakespeare. The guy is litterally synonymous with the Tudor era and regarded as England's best author. Because of this, he tends to draw far more interest towards that era than the one that came after. And he was sponsored by the Tudor as well... The Stuarts simply have nothing of that caliber in their favor.
The dynasty is also not necessarilly that well-remembered in the hearts of the people... Sure the Tudors had their share of blood and drama, but they've got three monarchs whose reign feel like it shaped the country. The Stuarts? James I isn't that fondly remembered as well as bit forgettable to be honest (most people tend to talk about him only because of two queens he succeded in Scotland and England...), Charles I was beheaded, Charles II was a womanizer, James II was way too Catholic for his own good, Mary II is overshadowed by her husband William III and died pretty quickly to boot, and Queen Anne is remembered as being quite moody. Went over this quickly and there is definitely more to say about each than that, but that's it as far as people are concerned. Can that really compete with the King that ended the Roses War, a real-life version of Bluebeard (he's no Gilles de Ray but Henry VIII does have that rep) and Gloriana? Quite frankly, no.
Last but not least: Shakespeare. The guy is litterally synonymous with the Tudor era and regarded as England's best author. Because of this, he tends to draw far more interest towards that era than the one that came after. And he was sponsored by the Tudor as well... The Stuarts simply have nothing of that caliber in their favor.
There are 3-4 Kings that are 'Age Changers' as in England was never the same.
Alfred The Great for not being an unwilling participant in a Viking victory celebration/sacrifice and gradually starting the uniting of England.
William the Conquer for Conquest and lots of French loan words.
Henry the Eighth for getting rid of the church, and basically disrupting the world he was born into.
Arguably Charles the 1st for dying or James the 2nd for leaving, but those two are for there for being self made victims rather than the game changers. This makes them less cool than the others.
Alfred The Great for not being an unwilling participant in a Viking victory celebration/sacrifice and gradually starting the uniting of England.
William the Conquer for Conquest and lots of French loan words.
Henry the Eighth for getting rid of the church, and basically disrupting the world he was born into.
Arguably Charles the 1st for dying or James the 2nd for leaving, but those two are for there for being self made victims rather than the game changers. This makes them less cool than the others.
He was half-Danish, his mother Gytha being King Canute.'s cousin.
I've seen it claimed online that his father Godwin was descended from Alfred the Great's elder brother, but ain't sure if this claim can be taken seriously
I think Charles Oman suggested it, because the name "Cerdic" bears a suspicious resemblance to Caradoc or Coroticus.
Alfred Duggan used the idea in his novel Conscience of the King.
Let’s just agree and say Chad Vortigern was the first, last and only true King of the land of Albion.
I suppose but still it strikes me as a bit of a leap.
Still, he was more English than that Norman who replaced him. At least he lived in the country.
And as for the Tudors, I think it's from having two famous players in one lineup: first Henry VII, with all his wives and the break with the Church of Rome. Then Elisabeth, the 'Virgin Queen' with her staring down the Spanish Armada. And of course, her sponsoring William Shakespeare didn't hurt her standing with later generations either.
That and also the other names that don't seem Germanic or are outright Celtic (Ceawlin, Cædwalla) that occasionally pop up amongst the early Wessex kings, although considering that these kinds of names also pop up in Mercia, they could just as well have been named by a Briton mother or they might not even been too closely related to other kings at all and only worked into the dynastic line after the fact...
Last edited:
Yeah of course but it seems to let Harold off easy as authentically English when apparently Queen Elizabeth II wasn’t by the standards of OP’s first post.
Hmm interesting. Though I still think if there was anything to do with this we would have a source or too on something like this? Certainly a connection to the old Celtic/Roman Aristocracy would have been a useful tool for Legitimisation and considering how much of a skilled propagandist Alfred was and his(moderately absurd)pretensions to being the King of all the Christians in Britain, I can’t see him passing up the opportunity to trump up the connection.
im reminded of george carlin on why only baseball gridiron and basketball are sports. I'll help him out rugby is an intermediate step between association football and gridiron with a side of boxing. jai alai is high speed wall ball. cricket is a variant of the stickball games that became baseball.
Thank you for this! As someone who only knew Purcell and then Handel and Mozart, your post has given me great list of composers I need to start listening to.