'Tudor era' is misleading myth

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Tue May 29th, 2012, 12:57 pm

This article is guaranteed to do one or more of the following:

make you roll your eyes
make you want to pull your hair out
make you laugh
make you cry
make you fume
make you wonder how this idiot became an OXFORD historian

The idea of a "Tudor era" in history is a misleading invention, claims an Oxford University historian.

Cliff Davies says his research shows the term "Tudor" was barely ever used during the time of Tudor monarchs.

There are also suggestions the name was downplayed by Tudor royals because of its associations with Wales.

Full story

I found this wonderful article on another forum and there was only one response to the article on that forum: "next they'll be saying noone in the middle ages called it that!"

Madeleine · Post by **Madeleine** » Tue May 29th, 2012, 1:01 pm

I did a lot of eye-rolling and basically almost stopped reading it after a while, what would he rather that era was called? And as for the associations with Wales? Think this guy is on a different planet!

And yes, I go with your last suggestion Rowan.

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Tue May 29th, 2012, 3:39 pm

Kinda makes me wonder if Oxford University is in desperate need of historians.

Misfit · Post by **Misfit** » Tue May 29th, 2012, 3:54 pm

Erm, what exactly is his point? I don't think any *period* had its own name at the time the period was happening (if that makes sense). The didn't call it the Wars of the Roses until long after.

sweetpotatoboy · Post by **sweetpotatoboy** » Tue May 29th, 2012, 6:51 pm

It's a fair enough point to make, but it's no great revelation and, as everyone says, could pretty much be applied to any era.

Eras typically only become defined as such once they're over, sometimes much much later. They don't tend to acquire their names till many years afterwards. In any case, eras are a very artificial construct and any historian or even layperson recognises that. They are just a convenient and extremely crude way of referring to blocks of time in the past.

I guess it's somewhat interesting that the Tudor monarchs never really thought of themselves as the House of Tudor (whereas I suppose the Stuart monarchs may have thought of themselves as Stuart monarchs given that dynasty's longer history by the time they acceded to the English throne as well). But that's no reason for us not to refer to them as such or to claim that it's misleading to do so.

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Tue May 29th, 2012, 7:40 pm

Sometimes I have wondered if monarchs and other royals ever really gave consideration to their surnames over the centuries.

DianeL · Post by **DianeL** » Tue May 29th, 2012, 11:33 pm

Rowan: ask the "Windsors" ...

One of my writing group members got in a scuffle with me at a meeting one time when it came out that I didn't use the name of Clovis I's dynasty in "The Ax and the Vase" ... I tried over and over to explain to her why it would be weird to do that - never MIND the associations people have now with the term Merovingian - but she actually said, "If I pick up a book about the Merovingian Dynasty, and the word never appears in the book, I am going to be angry."

I actually love her dearly, and we got past it, but it kind of made me want to wring her neck at the time.

Eesh.

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Wed May 30th, 2012, 12:01 am

When you ask someone if they are interested in the Tudor Era most people(who know history) know what you are talking about.

The article is dumb.

hackcyn · Post by **hackcyn** » Wed May 30th, 2012, 1:53 am

[quote=""DianeL""]Rowan: ask the "Windsors" ...

One of my writing group members got in a scuffle with me at a meeting one time when it came out that I didn't use the name of Clovis I's dynasty in "The Ax and the Vase" ... I tried over and over to explain to her why it would be weird to do that - never MIND the associations people have now with the term Merovingian - but she actually said, "If I pick up a book about the Merovingian Dynasty, and the word never appears in the book, I am going to be angry."

I actually love her dearly, and we got past it, but it kind of made me want to wring her neck at the time.

Eesh.[/quote]

That's hilarious. I have an image of somebody marking down names in the book with coloured pencils. "Hey! That's not right! There's 45 Childerics but only 32 Dagoberts! That would never happen."

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Wed May 30th, 2012, 2:06 pm

[quote=""DianeL""]Rowan: ask the "Windsors" ...

[/quote]

If I knew any I would.

Aside from the consideration given to changing a name to be more acceptable to subjects, I wonder if they think about it at all. I mean at least once a day I sign my name to something or see it otherwise in print. They don't. If someone mentions Queen Elizabeth or Prince William, you know who they are without the need to state exactly which Elizabeth or which William. They're like the original stars to go by only one name.