Why were the Tudors so violent?

This is interesting...

https://youtu.be/_oiP0-a8BM0

Why single out the Tudors from much eazrlier than that there has always been the have and the have nots. The poor old have nots never got a look in. Lots of the Lords and Ladies now are there just by pure luck tha some time in the past there ancester had more clout that another faction. Life goes in cycles relative calm and civilisation swaying to anarchy it is human nature to use force if all else fails. As Doald on that point!

Yes @jillt - Rik Mayall fell short on knowing his British history as violent Monarchs & their underlings took charge over every level of society in the day using violence in conjunction with medieval devices used for control / suppression / torture & were well established long before the Tudor (1485 - 1603AD) reign. By many many centuries, heck one could probably trace it back to the building of Hadrians Wall under Roman controlled Britain

I bet Vincent Price or Christopher Lee handed the narration duties would've given a more complete background on violent rule down the ages

It was a violent time. The Tudors were a reflection of the era.

Dunno, but you may find the Tudors weren't terribly violent at all when compared with the rest of the contemporaneous world. It's a bit like Oliver Cromwell, who is condemned by the Irish as being barbaric because he killed all the Irishmen who surrendered after sieges. But Cromwell forbade his troops to rape or plunder what was left. Throughout Europe at the time, a victorious army would expect to do so, but Cromwell had English soldiers shot if caught terrorising and pillaging conquered people. One wonders what the Irish would have done, had the boot been on the other foot?