GoT abroad: U.K. Millennials Know Game of Thrones Better Than Actual English History 

is popular around the world. In some places, the details of the series are so well-known that they’re forcing out information about actual history. Case in point: a poll by ICM Research

revealed that people in the U.K. aged 24-35 know more about characters on the show than participants in the Battle of Hastings, a hugely important 1066 battle that marked the beginnings of the Norman conquest of England.

Mind you, 34% of those surveyed thought that 1066 was the most memorable year in English History, so it looms large in the British consciousness. (By comparison, only 8% of people chose 1945, the year World War II ended, as the most memorable year.) A lot of people also knew about William the Conqueror, who won the Battle of Hastings to become the first Norman king of England. However, they weren’t clear on the other players. Only 17% could identify Edward the Confessor, whose death prompted the events of 1066, while 15% had heard of Harold Godwinson, the Anglo-Saxon king who fell at Hastings.

Millennials were pretty clear on the players in the game of thrones, though. Twenty-three percent could identify Joffrey and Stannis Baratheon, and 22% had no trouble recognizing Daenerys Targaryen.

“Eat your heart out, Edward the Confessor.”

“1066 was a year that saw four different claimants for one throne, brother fighting brother, and three battles, including a decisive one outside Hastings,” said Jeremy Ashbee, of English Heritage. “For drama, it was the equal of anything in Game Of Thrones.” Yeah, but did it have dragons?

are becoming increasingly popular in China. There’s a new generation of educated Chinese people who are questioning what they learned about America through textbooks, and are taking a closer look at the country by absorbing its popular culture.

Feng Jun, senior analyst at Chinese consulting firm EntGroup, attributes this increased interest to Hollywood’s penchant for razzle-dazzle. Superhero series and magic-based stories are especially popular among young, educated Chinese, something Feng attributes in part to better visual effects. “It’s not surprising, though,” she said, “as the producers [of Chinese dramas] often spend two-thirds of total investment paying the actors and actresses.”

In any case, China’s leading entertainment companies are getting behind American TV. V.qq.com, a video portal owned by Chinese internet giant Tencent, picked up 17 programs from HBO alone, including the upcoming season of 

Which isn’t to say that American TV is taking over the country. Korean dramas remain very popular among Chinese women, but 

I am Razor’s Broken Heart: I have foolishly and anxiously anticipated an announcement from...

Before George R.R. Martin made his big announcement at the tail end of New Year’s Day, I...

Have you already read all the books and/or don\'t care about spoilers? You can reveal all the spoilers in the comments with the click of a link below.

I’m sure you could do this for quite a few places, the US being one of the worst

True, but I think it’s a little funnier when applied to English history, since some of these historical figures actually inspired characters in A Song of Ice and Fire. For example, William the Conqueror is the guy behind Aegon I Targaryen, also called the Conqueror.

My favorite is the War of the Roses parody that is the Starks vs. Lannister’s. In England, the houses were named York and Lancaster, who were both branches of the Royal House of Platagenet. Each houses arms bore a rose, ones was red and ones was white. The result of the war saw a Lancaster claimant named Henry Tudor take the throne.

And thus began the famous Dynasty of House Tudor, who gave England such notable rulers as the notorious King Henry VIII and his 6 wives, as well as his daughter by Anne Boleyn, who’s reign as Queen Elizabeth I ushered in an English golden age.

I’m American, but love me some English history. I’m surprised I seem to know more about it than many people who live there, apparently.

Oooh you really do know your stuff, ever read any Alison Weir or Phillippa Gregory? Might be your cuppa if not.

Arghhh, no- do NOT learn about the Wars of the Roses from Philippa Gregory. Comparable in terms of historical accururacy to Game of Thrones……though at least GOT does not make claims to historical accuracy.

in fact, neither side consistently used Roses as thier symbols. Richard III had a White Boar, his brother a ‘The Sun in Splendour’…..etc….

Aegon was far more forgiving than William ever was. Add in the fact aegon had no claims on any of the crowns of westeros unlike William and their is very little in common between their stories other than they were both conquerors. Aegon conquered just because he could.

Oh, it’s definitely not a 1 to 1 comparison, but when it comes to historical influences on A Song of Ice and Fire, nothing is. There are plenty of differences between William and Aegon, but they’re similar enough to see how the one inspired the other. William ushered in the Norman conquest, which changed the landscape of English culture, while Aegon ushered in the Targaryen conquest, which would define Westeros for the next 300 years.

My copy of the Carolyne Larrington book came today. Looking forward to it.

And guess what – just flicked through and straight away saw a painting of the princes in the tower!

Indeed. After more than 10 years of repeated rebellions against William the entire English aristocracy, including the last surviving members of the Wessex dynasty were either dead or in exile. All the English bishoprics and Abbeys were held by Norman placemen (the sole exception being Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester who died in office in 1095). And then there was the Harrowing of the North in the winter of 1069-70 which devastated many of the northern counties and is probably one of the main reasons why there is scant information about them in the Domesday Book.

I love reading history, especially English history (hence my WIC name) and at time despair of the lack of interest in the subject.

Mind you, there are plenty of authors who are keen to borrow from GOT’s success. Last year I read “The King in the North” about King Oswald of Northumbria and the formation of the kingdom amidst the murky history of the 6th and 7th centuries. It’s actually quite good and worth a look.

Oh, there’s plenty of interest in that period, although it’s probably fairer to call it Anglo-Saxon rather than English history, the English aren’t really recognisable as a people until the reign of the Edwards.

It’s just the average UK millennial is shockingly ill-educated.

I’m not surprised if this is the period they focused on. We have a couple of thousand years of history after all, plus we get some European and global stuff in there too. This is actually a really obscure part and touched on quite early in the school syllabus. I think even well educated Brits know little of this era beyond what they may glean from historical fiction.

That doesn’t surprise me at all in the United States it’s very much the same way and our history only dates back a few hundred years and our history channel airs stuff like ancient aliens and calls it history so people don’t even absorb anything factual. At least in the uk on the bbc they still produce some pretty awesome historical documentaries even if they aren’t all that in depth you can get the gist. I think we even saw articles on here talking about that bbc show copying got which I personally thought was ridiculous since one is based on actual historical events, although fictionalized, and the other is complete fiction which leans on elements of European history as a basis for conflicts and characters. Yet there were some here who still insisted it was a ripoff. Mind boggling.

We still get our fair share of history channel Hitler’s Socks type stuff…

But yea I love the BBC. Makes me sad so many Brits don’t appreciate it and want it dismantled because of some left wing bias they perceive.

I adore the bbc I’m always searching YouTube before the shows get taken down.

I love the historical documents on BBC, especially the Sherlock Holmes stuff!

The History Channel – great if you like watching stuff about sharks and nazis!

Yes I agree with you here Gaia. Because these millennials didn’t know the participants in one battle, out of hundreds in our history, I think it’s far too bold to claim that they know Game of Thrones better than ‘English history’ (a massively broad topic). Besides we learn far more about other aspects of English history at school, like the votes for women campaign, the Tudors and England’s role in international relations 1918-39 (at least that’s what I learnt about).

The idea that the Lancasters ‘won’ the wars of the roses is open to opinion. Especially as the First Tudor King married a Yorkist. The wars ebb and flow over 30 odd years……..truth is stranger than fiction. Children ( with a valid claim to the throne) were put in The Bloody Tower and never heard of again. Their gaoler/jailer was their Uncle who was supposed to look after them until they ‘came of age’……….

The princes in the tower!!! I hate that I’ll never know the truth behind that!!

Didnt some arse hat across the channel come over with an army trying to press a claim as one of the Princes in the Tower? If I’m remembering right it sounds a lot like fAegon

If there was foul play involved, and dying young at that time wasn’t uncommon, I’d say Henry Tudor had them killed.

There was no motive for Richard, he’d got them under his control,and they’d been declared illegitimate,it was unlikely anyone would fight Richard to put one of them on the throne.

But after Richard’s death, had they lived they would have been a rallying point for Plantagenet loyalists (as happened with Perkin Warbeck who claimed to be one of the missing princes. Presumably where Martin got the Young Griff storyline from) and too dangerous to keep alive.

Josephine Tey’s “Daughter of Time” goes into it really quite clinically.

Regulus, I am sorry to say, that there is evidence that people DID indeed plot to Put the oldest of the Princes on the throne under Richard III. There was at least one plot to that effect, and at least one rebellion. Indeed, Buckingham’s rebellion was intitally conducted in the name of Edward V, the oldest boy.

The evidence shows that many people in England were still loyal to Edward V, not Richard, and the declaration of ‘illigitimacy’ did not end this. Henry Tudor was not even in the country until 1485, by which time, as evidence from even outside England shows, many people already believed the Princes were dead or gone. (The French Council were talking about killing Nephew/Children in 1484 for instance, as a stab at the English)……

Also, Henry Tudor’s later actions, especially his fears over Perkin Warbeck, strongly suggest he had no more idea about what happened to the Princes than anyone else…..

….and please, I am sorry to say, but a novel or any work of fiction is not a credible source of historical information. Is that what you have based your theory about the Princes on?

If you have, can I politely recommend that you read some non-fiction works on this subject. Its just that as a historian, the notion of directly basing your knowledge on this complicated subject on what one novelist has written horrifies me….

No,of course it isn’t what I based my ideas on, don’t be a fool. It’s just a very good and well-researched book that goes into the evidence against the popular theory that Richard killed them. Quite accessible for someone without any other knowledge on the subject.

And, if you are in fact a historian,you’d have to admit we have no credible information whatsoever not only on this subject, but on almost the entire war,or series of wars.

Also,there is a difference between politeness and passive aggression. Learn it.

Guess what, it wasn’t called the ‘Bloody Tower’ in that era…not till later in Tudor times when the royal palace (which is was in the 1400’s) became more of a place of torment and regular execution. And no, the uncle was ‘Lord Protector of the Realm’…it’s a misconception he was some kind of ‘royal babysitter.’ There was debate about the legitimacy of the princes…their father was a known womaniser who liked to make secret marriages with ladies who wouldn’t sleep with him without wedlock.

Also, I don’t know if I said the Lancasters win outright. I think I just said The result was a Lancaster claimant eventually wound up with his arse on the throne. Basically. Idk I’m not bothering to scroll up and look lol

Yeah the house of York tore itself apart from the inside. Edward won the crown ignored Warwick which drove him to ally himself with George who vied for the crown himself didn’t succeed then when Edward died Richard as regent stashed away his boys killed them and lost to Henry the seventh a man who had no claim to the throne except through his mother who’s line was disinherited from ever claiming the crown. Yes Edwards daughter was queen but she was never the ruler of the country and the line continued through the Tudors. I would call that a victory for the Lancasters in the end.

How do you prove he killed them? Not one shred of actual proof tbh. Some documents of the period actually accuse the Duke of Buckingham who behaved in a most bizarre fashion and may have been angling for the throne himself. Some think at least one boy survived. Even Thomas More’s account, weirdly taken as history despite adding in dialogue and pages of detail he, a child at the time, could not have known, actually adds ‘No one really knows’ after reciting his hilarious tale which starts off with Richard sitting on the loo then tripping over two murderous blokes lying outside his chamber door. Pure panto.

What IS definitely a fact is that Henry Tudor imprisoned George Plantagenet’s son Edward (who may have had Downs or some other kind of problem) in the Tower from the age of ten onwards…and then executed him on a trumped up charge.

Also, it’s historical fact that King Henry VIII had the fattest ass in all of England.

I don’t want to enter into another Richard III discussion, but I have studied the WOTR under academics who know thier stuff- and can say confidently, that there is no evidence Margaret Beaufort killed the Princes either. Yet its become a popular theory because of ‘The White Queen’ series………

Given we will probably never know, what’s your educated guess on what happened to them?

This is what you end up with after years of inbreeding…

I love that GRRM split Richard the third into two characters in Asoiaf. Stannis is based on the anti-Richard view of his personality and Ned Stark is based on the pro-Richard view.

Robert is based on Edward the fourth who defeated his mentally ill cousin Henry the sixth and gained the throne. Edward married (possibly not legally) the famously blonde and beautiful Elizabeth Woodville. Edward got fat and drunk and slept with most of the women in London . Edward and Elizabeth had a bunch of daughters and two sons the prince’s in the tower.

Richard’s power base was Yorkshire the north of England. He married Anne Neville his brother George married her sister Isobel. Oh and Richard had an illegitimate son named John who was raised with his legitimate son.

There is only ONE TRUE KING – Stannis “Pure Fuking Iron” Mannis Baratheon!

History is so interesting it always surprises me that more people don’t dive into it. I think it was Stephan Ambrose who said that everyone loves history they just may not like how it was taught to them.

Ygritte on Game of Thrones Nominated for Major Editing Award, Up for People’s Choice Awards Tomorrow

Gaia on Winter isn’t Coming: Why I’m Worried about The Winds of Winter

Cyndy on Winter isn’t Coming: Why I’m Worried about The Winds of Winter

An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.