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!"
Handel's music wasn't even that good, compared to Turlough O'Carolan, who was active at the same time. I'd take traditional Irish music over continental music any day. Irish music does a better job of connecting with you on an emotional level with a beautiful melody.
Maybe if Jem Scott, duke of Monmouth, had won? Or James II had a son by Anne Hyde?
As much as I love James VII & II, even I have to admit that Monmouth winning would have been better for the Stuarts in the long run.
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.
He had an English first name, Scottish last name, spoke English natively, was raised with British culture, cared about the people of Britain in a way Geordie Whelps, with his frequent excursions to Hanover, never did. Keeping in mind that I'm Irish, there is no doubt in my mind that my people would have been better off under Bonnie Prince Charlie than we were under Geordie Whelps.
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.
He was not tyrannical to the American Colonists. He was, however, tyrannical to the Irish. He refused to emancipate us.
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.
What he was not was meaningfully British in any way. He was 3% British ancestrally, as a great-great-grandson of the 48% British James VI & I. He had no connection to British culture, spoke English poorly, preferred Hanover to Britain, discriminated against the Irish, etc...
BPC's primary mother tongue was Italian alongside English. Does this make him less English? Seems like it should, given your odd definitions.
No, because BPC wasn't from a German family that was only in England because they usurped the throne from the rightful monarchs because of religious bigotry. Bonnie Prince Charlie was the rightful King from 1766 to 1788. His brother Henry was the rightful King from 1788 to 1807. After that, we're out of legitimate Stuarts. The crown should then have passed to Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia, according to male-preference primogeniture, but I'm not as enamored with the House of Savoy as I am with the House of Stuart, and Charles Emmanuel IV wasn't any more British than George III, and would have also led Britain into another personal union.
After the death of Henry I & IX, the crown should probably have gone to the most senior Monmouth descendant.
he dislikes them first and comes up with a reason after
Why would I like them? They were responsible for upholding laws that turned my people into third-class citizens in our own homeland for over a century. It's like asking an African-American why they dislike Strom Thurmond.
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.
James VI & I is remembered for the King James Bible. Charles I was a murder victim. It makes no sense to hold the fact that he was murdered against him. Do we hold the fact that Spencer Perceval was murdered against him? James VII & II was not "way too Catholic for his own good", he was a victim of religious bigotry.
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.
Neither Charles I nor James VII & II is to blame for being mistreated by others, and it's kind of victim blaming to say they are. It's not Charles's fault that Cromwell was a murderous fanatic, nor is it James's fault that the English were bigoted against his faith.
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.
Elizabeth II was the most British monarch since Queen Anne, who died in 1714.
I think the only English monarchs after 1066 who can be called English/british by blood are the Lancastrians (perhaps sans Henry VI), the Yorkists, the Tudors (maybe not Mary I), James VI/I and maybe Charles I, Mary II and Anne. Maybe also Richard II, Empress Matilda and her late majesty, Liz II. But even their english parents/grandparents have ancestors who are not English so where do we cut the definition? It’s all so nonsensical really. Besides, a lot of those who can be called “genuine British kings” weren’t really amazing kings. Meanwhile, George VI was essentially 100% german genetically and he was the epitome of Britishness and led the empire through WW2 against the Germans - So what the hell does it matter really?
None of the monarchs since 1066 have been of 100% British ancestry, the last monarch to be more than half British ancestrally was Queen Anne (d. 1714), the next one will be William V. From 1760-1952, the British monarch was less than 1% British ancestrally. I've looked at their family trees and done in the math.
(Also, sigh, once again we got derailed into weird definitions of genetic ancestry)
It's not weird at all.