Talk:Tudor myth

Talk 2023

It is stated that Tudor Myth was created to ruin King Richard II and King Richard III. Why would that be? What did King Henry have against them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thathistorystudent (talk • contribs) 14:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to understand that Richard III and Henry VII are from different dynasties and that this is a historiography, which is an interpretation of how history should be viewed. This is clearly politically motivated. As an article, maybe there should be a section added to provide some counter arguments and context; the goal is to be impartial. MrHistoryBunny (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2005

I would welcome historians and experts on English literature to view and refine this entry, which deserves a place in any encyclopedia. The Tudor Myth is a much discussed topic among historians of the 15th Century and the Wars of the Roses. The acceptance of the existence of this phenomenon in historiography and literature is now commonplace. (See: http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLTnoframes/history/tudormyth.html)drboisclair 02:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Tudor myth" vs. "Tudor ideal"

Sorry, but could we have some discussion on this page move? I'd always learned it as the "Tudor myth" in school.--TurabianNights 01:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is going to be reverted. "Tudor ideal" is not as identifiable for a title of this article, and it is a broader concept.--Drboisclair 01:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's just as well, since the person who moved it didn't seem to bother changing any reference to "Tudor myth" within the article itself.--TurabianNights 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, is there such a thing as the "Tudor myth"? I've never heard of it. Yes, we know that there is such a thing as Tudor propaganda, but "myth"? What is it supposed to mean? Deb (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations badly needed.

"Even though this work is considered biased, modern research has shown More's facts to be accurate:[citation needed]"

This statement needs to be broadened and cited. Which of More's facts have shown to be accurate and what modern research has shown them to be accurate? Certainly not all of More's facts are "accurate" - starting with sentence 1 in which he states that Edward IV was 53 when he died instead of the accurate 41 years of age.

Also, any mention of More's work on Richard III should also state that he did not finish this work or publish it. Has the unfinished and published posthumously work been used since Elizabethan times to prop up the Tudor myth? Surely. But the phrasing in this article is misleading.

Opinions? History Lunatic (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is complete garbage. I've made the WP:BOLD decision to simply redirect it. If anyone wants to recreate it as a "proper" article than I suggest they start from scratch. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

How exactly was Edward Hall's Union of the Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York (1548) used to further the Tudor myth? LostInHistoria (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hall's work showed King Henry IV lots of sympathy. I added a bit more context to his portion of the article. Vcgmu (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Small changes

I think that the "though" in "Though the Tudor myth was made to elevate King Henry VII of Lancaster’s rule, by ruining King Richard II and King Richard III" should be removed for clarity. I also think that the article would read better if the "Shakespeare's Richard II" section and "Richard III portrayal in Shakespeare’s plays" were swapped and/or merged. NocturnalAudax (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions! I agree, I think the order is better if those two sections were swapped. However, I decided to keep them separated for reader's clarity. Vcgmu (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of the Tudor Myth

This sources section seems a bit barren. I wonder if it could be bolstered some more. Two sources for this topic seems like too few. I think that would be a quick and easy way to add credibility to the article. RBMBH (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. Looking deeper into them, they seem to have been works based off growing myth rather than sources for the myth. Proper changes have been made! Vcgmu (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlinks

Would it be beneficial to add hyperlinks in the first paragraph to the wikipedia pages for King Henry VIII, King Richard II, and King Richard III? CmisterHistorian (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I went ahead and added them. Vcgmu (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's Portrayal of Richard III

Is there a reason Shakespeare would disparage Richard III in his plays? Was it for malicious reasons or just for the plays? Chillfroi (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Field of Golgotha"

How can one be sure that "The mention of the "field of Golgotha" is in reference to Jesus’s crucifixion in the city of Golgotha"? Is there any proof of this or just an assumption? Uh Kay Shuh (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Could possibly add a hyperlink somewhere to the play Richard II and perhaps a photo would make the article look more dynamic and complete. 3ez r4ay (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]