Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
My 25th great grandfather knew King John I of England personally. My 25th great grandfather not only knew King John I personally, he also had floor length hair. My 25th great grandfather was absolutely devastated when King John I died at age 49 in late 1216. My 25th great grandfather mourned the death of King John I of England for decades. May they rest together in peace. 💐🌷🌹🌺🌸🌼
King John was not a good man -- He had his little ways. And sometimes no one spoke to him For days and days and days. And men who came across him, When walking in the town, Gave him a supercilious stare, Or passed with noses in the air -- And bad King John stood dumbly there, Blushing beneath his crown. King John was not a good man, And no good friends had he. He stayed in every afternoon... But no one came to tea. A.A. Milne.
This man's brain is an absolute treasure of mind boggling history. I. Watch in awe and wonder how he can talk on a subject without notes and keep going from dynasty to dynasty. I have trouble remembering what day it is. To top it all he's from a working class background, I love him to bits. Forgot a knighthood, make him KING,he would be great.
Let's not forget that John tried to usurp the kingdom from Richard while he was away crusading. And then what started the wars with the French? King John wanted a new wife and went for Isabelle of Angouleme who was already betrothed to his Lusignan vassal. As bad as he was I don't think he matches the sheer stupidity of Edward II or the god-complex deluded Richard II. Henry VI sure ranks among the worst too, but in his defence he wasn't quite right in the head and the bad decisions were made by Suffolk, the Somersets, etc.
That first sentence actually sounds like the problem itself: duhh John is bad, because my comic book , Disney and Hollywood say he was against " glorious" King lionheart. Congrats Mr starkey, you anti woke BS seems to drag you down to that niveau too now. OK then, but say magna carta was the worst thing ever also then and still the World of great god given rule of one, all because of one bad King.
@@herzkine Richard Couer de Leon was no saint, but he was a far greater leader and frankly better human being than John was. John is a classic case of seeking far more power than one can competently wield, often over really unimportant $hit like cucking his major magnates because he couldn't keep it in his pants.
Thank you for answering my question Dr Starkey! I had the pleasure of meeting you once and asking you a couple of questions in person too. Above all, thank you for getting me back into history, after the abysmal teaching I received on the subject at my secondary school. I'm forever thankful for experiencing so much of it, and only wish I could have seen more!
I am following 'This Is History: A Dinasty to Die For', a podcast by Dan Jones telling the history of the Plantegenets. The third season is about King John and the next episode about the Magna Carta. So far, it checks out. I would like to hear David talks about Henry II.
You are a treasure!...I just discovered your channel after watching an interview on GBN. It's refreshing to hear a conservative perspective so eloquently articulated through the lens of logic & history. Would you kindly cover topics that relate more to current events, such as the history of the Orthodox Church and Russian Empire. Much love from a new fan on Vancouver Island.
Before the video goes up, my overall opinion of John is that he could have gone down in a similar manner as Henry VII, the problem is that he failed where Henry did not, militarily. Henry secured his throne and defeated pretenders whereas John failed to use the funds raised from taxation to defeat France whereas Richard was able to use his taxes effectively in wartime. Or, at least, he was able to embody the perception of being a great warrior king who deserved the financial support whereas John simply could not. He was a micromanager, with one of my favorite anecdotes being how he chose to mediate a dispute between two boys over who threw a rock first, as an example of how detailed he wanted things to be. The man would have gotten along well with Louis XIV and been an excellent autocrat but he was born to a limited monarchy and thanks to his own actions, ended up limiting the powers of that monarchy even further. It doesn't mean he was "Bad" King John or as malevolent as some monarchs have been, but he was certainly the author of his own demise and cause far more problems for himself through his own incompetence than he ever really needed to suffer.
Don't I recall John also promised the Sultan of Turkey to turn the country muslim in exchange for cash? In the scale of leaders who sell out one wouldn't want to overlook the heroic contribution of Edward Heath
I am torn between William Marshall (1st Earl of Pembroke) and Francis Walsingham (Elizabeth 1st spymaster) as being the greatest Englishman. Both men were extraordinary, as commoners, in their service to our country.
Dr. Starkey, would you consider William Marshal (1st Earl of Pembroke) as a subject for a video? An important figure in British history we don't hear about which is a pity.
It's a question...I read somewhere that it was a Scottish 'nobleman' who was skint. He married a lady down south and sold Scotland Also love your emphasis on language. Great to have found your channel..great to be a away from council/state telly. Re language I'm always fascinated by the word krph. My best lecturer ever was Proff Emeritus Nick Wyatt. krph has survived.
Regarding the similarity in character between King John and Putin mentioned in the video, John would have loved to have given Litvenenko’s Polonium-210 treatment to William de Briouze…
I dispute this. Philip Augustus was a great. Richard 'the lionheart' was losing the battle for french held lands before John came to the throne. Admittedly Richard would have fought harder and with popular support. Strategically, Richards march on Jaffa showed he was a tremendous tactician which John was not and thus Richard may have overcome Philip. In my opinion, Philip was a star, not flawless but a brilliant opponent. This is not taken into account when factoring in Johns performance in defending his french held territory. A victory at the battle of Bouvines and magna carta would never have happened. As for Magna Carta, John was clearly never going to adhere to its stipulations. You could argue that we have a huge misunderstanding of what happened at Runnymede. John was not coerced. Magna Carta was a negotiation. John signed it and walked. The barons were still arguing amongst themselves for amendments days after the ink had dried. John inherited a kingdom/ empire stretching across three land masses. He had to govern this on horseback. He was tremendously energetic but politically incompetent. I can name five kings worse than him.
Another great take on a monarch & adore the link between the Magna Carta and the 'glorious revolution ' with bringing in foreign princes. Sometimes very positive unintended consequences.Charles 1st must be up there , losing 2 Civil wars on his own people ,& Parliament
In some ways Magna Carta was simply rewinding the clock back to Saxon times, when the Witan selected the next king from the available members of the Royal house (“Aethelings”) and had more power. It was harder for a king to rule without the support and consent of his nobles.
James wasn't interested in mere "tolerance for Catholics", he ultimately wished to return England into a Catholic supremacist state, much like Bloody Mary. The difference is, Bloody Mary was actually a better ruler and less divisive than she's usually remembered (for instance stomaching the problems with presiding over Anglican services) and was let down by lacking an heir. James was not so subtle, doing things like banning Hugenot refugees from arriving in Britain (in contrast to William of Orange). In contrast, James's victory over his namesake Monmouth really made power go to his head and he basically began wholesale, massive, and rather divisive purges of his enemies and perceived enemies along with attempts to rig Parliamentary elections. Aligning too closely with the French also hurt, especially after two fiasco-laden wars against the Dutch.. So when the Dutch made moves to overthrow him there was a wholesale lack of will to fight for him in England and only a modest amount of support in Scotland. He mostly adopted the "Tolerance for Catholics/All Religions" thing as a desperate attempt to salvage something of his support, and his Irish "supporters" mostly fought for that. In short, even if one believed he was just seeking religious toleration for his faith (which he certainly wasn't) he bungled a lot of things and screwed things up in a way that would make the Protestant majority of the British Isles unlikely to tolerate him. And again, he wasn't actually seeking religious tolerance, unlike some others; he just overshot and wound up doing too much repression too fast and too rashly. This is ironically in contrast to William, who DID personally believe in religious toleration (for instance, many of his elite and loyal units like the Blue Guards were Catholics) and even attempted to extend it to Ireland only to have it heavily overridden by the Protestant Ascendency. He just was callous/pragmatic/wise enough to drop open support for it when the Protestant great lords objected. Which I guess goes to show that being a competent Lord does not always mesh with doing the morally right thing.
Probably the worst English monarch was Aethelraed “Unraed”. Granted the Danes were invading, but backed by England’s worst ever traitor Eadric Streona this King deliberately had the Danes of York killed in an act of genocide, despite that by this time the Danelaw was settled in and peaceful. He continually broke his word, kept paying Danegeld, beggared his own people - until it got to the stage that his army refused to fight any more (albeit that it was his son, Edmund Ironside, who seems to have been sent in command most times).
The comment on James II being a bad king is interesting. My understanding is that he was overthrown because he wanted tolerance for catholics against an intolerant protestant establishment fearful of popery. Is that bad? Or is he considered bad because he failed?
What is never clear is why James, a man of proven ability and a Naval Admiral of many battles, fled. That was probably the single fatal mis-step that lost the throne outright.
It is surely time to stop soft soaping William the Conqueror whose harrying of the North alone led to the deaths of far more English folk than any other king ever caused. William was a heartless killer who hated 'his' own people. Therefore, William was by far the worst king that the English ever had. Please do a wonderful documentary on this tragedy, David Starkey.
I wonder how long it will be before someone posts here saying that King John is their great grandfather from this or that generation?😂 Excellent talk by the way👌👌👌
@@margarethoskins590 I responded to you earlier but my reply had too much uncomfortable truth in it so it was taken down as is all too common now. She is part of that system that silences the truth.
@@KPC-123 the King’s son was about to come of age, and the Lancastrian “Court faction” led by the Queen was backed by most of the nobility (albeit they were not as powerful individually as the likes of Warwick). They weren’t “unled” at all. Recommend Alison Weir’s book “York and Lancaster” as a primer.
@@KPC-123 Edward IV is one of the most underrated kings in English history. Winning at Barnet and Tewkesbury in such a short timeframe was a military achievement unparalleled in our history. Very similar to Harold and Stamford Bridge/ Hastings except Edward won both battles.
@@crazyhorse2542 One could argue that Edward's victory at Barnet was owed largely to the confusion in the Lancastrian lines whereupon a returning Lancastrian unit was fired upon by their own side after having just routed part of the Yorkist lines. This in turn caused panic and a slipping of moral, which in turn allowed Edward to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. One could then go on to argue that means his victory was owed to the fog of war more than his 'genius'.
@@mikereger1186 I am not sure the relevance of the 17 year old son who was slain on the battlefield, but with regard to Henry's wife; Isn't she the one who sparked the Wars of the Roses by attempting to exclude Edward's father Richard from having any influence in the Kingdom's affairs?
Is it true that there is hidden french treasure below Fast Castle between Aberdeen and Eyemouth? Think Fast was where Mary Queen of wherever plotted to kill her hubby.
Yes and no. The brutal fact is that the Armenian Genocide and a lot of the internal genocides of the Late Ottoman Era had been going on for decades prior to WWI, and indeed the Young Turks actually came to power by (among other things) overthrowing the Sultan Abdul Hamid II who pioneered it and promising to heal the wounds of society. Which they kind of did until the Young Turks split and a junta formed of former members called the "Committee of Union and Progress" took over the Empire and instituted "The Young Turks" as we know them today. The Dardanelles campaign and especially the resounding defeats suffered by the Ottomans in the Sinai and particularly the Caucasus probably helped contribute to an intensification of the genocides with the goal of basically exterminating everyone in the war, but that's kind of like acting as if the Holocaust only started with the Wansee Conference while ignoring all the thousands upon thousands of people Hitler and co murdered before then. And frankly the CUP Triumvirs and Ottoman society were so broken up and internally divided that almost any stress in the war would probably have triggered this.
@@Infernal460 You asked for it... The idea that Richard I was a good soldier but a bad king is a myth and the idea that he cared more about his French holdings than England, exploited England for taxes relative to his French holdings are more are all popular myths. Richard I was actually extremely administratively competent, he did fight for England indirectly and his people loved him for it and the evidence for all of this is very very clear if you just look beyond the basic internet cliches you see. ''In the first two years of John's reign, for example, over 450 charters for English beneficiaries were enrolled (i.e. file copies were made for the royal archives) compared with less than 100 for both Normandy and Aquitaine and less than 50 for Anjou. It is clear from these figures that English property owners found it advantageous to seek royal charters and confirmations of charters. An analysis of Richard Fs charters listed in the study of the king's itinerary by Lionel Landon showed that out of the 145 which were issued in Normandy no less than 91 were for English beneficiaries (compared with 49 for Normans, four for Angevins and one only for a Poitevin). In the king's courts the king's charters provided the best possible proof of ownership, and from the reign of Henry II onwards the English royal administration was offering routine procedures for bringing cases to court. The flood of litigation which followed suggests that royal justice was relatively cheap,' 'This contrast between England and the continental dominions is made explicit in a charter issued in favour of the Templars and confirmed by John in 1199. From each English shire which brought in £100 or more the Templars were to receive one mark; in Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, Poitou and Gascony they were to receive one mark, or its equivalent, from each city, castle or vill which rendered 100 pounds or more. In England, in other words, cities, castles and vills were enclosed within a uniform network of shires which, with a few exceptions, such as the Welsh march, covered the entire kingdom (Map 1). On the continent there was no such clear-cut pattern of local administration. In Anjou, for example, there were comital officials, sometimes prevots (provosts), sometimes seneschals, sometimes both, based on the castles at Tours, Chinon, Bauge, Beaufort, Brissac, Angers, Saumur, Loudun, Loches, Langeais and Montbazon. They are to be found in the Loire Valley and in western Touraine; that is to say in those regions where the count held extensive demesne lands. Elsewhere in Anjou comital officials and comital castles are conspicuous by their absence. Here, and in Maine, we are in the land of the seigneurs. They recognized the count as their lord and might be expected to obey the count's representative, the seneschal of Anjou, but their own seigneurial organization was not overlain by a comital administrative unit equivalent to the shire. From their castles the barons of Anjou dominated the surrounding countryside, untroubled by the meddling of some local official who claimed to represent the count.' 'Of all the Angevin continental dominions Normandy was the least patchy. Indeed, one of the longterm consequences of the Norman Conquest of England had been the introduction of English administrative practice into the duchy. The local officials characteristic of eleventh-century Normandy - prevots and vicomtes - found themselves increasingly, but by no means completely, eclipsed by a new type of executive and judicial (and therefore financial) official, the bailli. By 1200 there were about 25 baillis in the duchy at any one time and there was an observable tendency for their bailliages to become more shire-like, but as new creations of the twelfth century they were still subject to rearrangement and boundary alteration (as the English shire had been in the tenth century) according to immediate political or military need. This fact, plus the existence of great franchises like Eu, Aumale, Evreux and Alenc.on, meant that Normandy - as the privilege for the Templars indicates - still remained a land of cities and castellanies. Around 1200 ducal authority was relatively strong in the west of the duchy and along the frontiers (except on the north east) and relatively weak elsewhere (e.g. in the districts of Auge, Ouche and Caux)' The Angevin Empire by John Gillingham page 50-55 b-ok.cc/book/885936/69da68 So we can see from the relative focus that Richard placed on all his different holdings that England was by far the most important one regarding the attention his administration played. So Richard definitely didn't neglect England relative to his French lands from a governmental point of view. Not only did RIchard I and his administrators not neglect England, but they literally exported the system of management in England to his French holdings because they were superior. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyway who knows about henry II because Henry II used anglo-saxon law and some new developments made since Henry I (who largely built on anglo-saxon law) to create the worlds first national legal system, the common law. There was absolutely nothing comparable to this in Aquitaine, Anjou or even Normandy and it allowed for cheaper and more effective legal provisions. Another example of big bad Richard I was his alleged exploitation of England for taxes in order to defend his French holdings and go on a crusade. We very regularly get quotes about him 'wanting to sell London if he could' for example.' What most normies completely fail to recognise is that he sold political offices precisely so that he didn't need to excessively tax the regular population. Don't just take his goodwill as reason for this, if you spend your life away from England then if England rebels you have a big problem so he did everything he could to raise money within the confines of the aristocracy and not from taxation which impacted the peasants to heavily. - - Specifically, regarding the crusades, people seem to forget that back then in the medieval era everyone was deeply religious and it was the most important thing in their lives. The idea for English people that their king was fighting for Christianity was something they approved and loved him for. When he fought for god he fought for them. In fact, it wasn't just something they loved him for but it was the very definition of what a king was supposed to do when he was a king according to the definitions of kingship at the time. In respect of the composition of Richards forces while on crusades its important to note that by the time of the third crusade almost all of the ethnic hostility between Normans and English people had gone and they were basically identifying as one group. Some historians say that the Normans had completely assimilated to the English by the 1140's, some say the 1160's, others say the 1180s...every single historian agrees that by the early 1200s at the very latest the ethnic conflict had completely vanished. This is a point that people seem to not know when talking about anglo-norman relations in this time period and medieval England in general. Most of the knights from England would be of Norman descent, but most of them would have identified as English despite speaking French (William Marshall for example identified as English and called it his home) and the men at arms definitely would have been majority English given they weren't equipt to the same degree as the Normans and the Normans were fighting with Anglo-saxon men at arms from the very start of their reign. The Normans for the first 70 years fought on horseback most of the time and the anglo saxons were trained as foot soldiers and trained in anti cavalry tactics. So there's very strong reason to believe most of the regular men at arms and archers were English based on the history of Norman England. At the Battle of Arsuf, in particular, the Richard I said the following...'how essential those valiant crossbowmen and archers were that day, those absolutely inflexible men at arms who brought up the rear of the army and drove back the relentless turks as best they could with a continuous volley of shots.' oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251230.001.0001/acprof-9780199251230 - Regarding his French holdings, Richard I raised the vast majority...and I mean the VAST majority of his taxation for the defence of his French holdings in France. When Richard was actually in Normandy the taxation from the region literally doubled England...which considering for the most of its history it had been easily lower than England is completely insane. It also wasn't the case that only Richard gained from having these territories. There was a very significant quantity of trade between England and Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine Poitier ext and it provided a source of wealth not just for the flow of consumption goods into England but also was a great source of power for English taxation as one of the main taxation forms all throughout medieval English history was taxes on imports. For example the taxation of wool in the 100 years war and how Edward I used it to leverage power over Flanders. In fact, the trade and relationship between Gascony was so strong by the time of the 100 years war that there are French primary sources literally describing the Gascons as being 'English' because they had nothing in common with the northern French holdings and a close connection to England.
@@Infernal460 Also keep in mind that Richard I died after only being king for 10 years, for the first 10 years Henry II hardly spent any time in England either and yet he went onto be a great king for England for a number of reasons (although as a law student I must admit I'm biased). There's plenty of reason to believe if Richard I hadn't died he could have been another Henry II. - Final point is regarding taxation and war. Why is it we seem to single out Richard I as wanting taxes to fight wars? The 100 years war did not benefit the average Englishman very significantly...did the Anglo-Spanish war? Did the war of Spanish succession? Did the War of Austrian succession? Did the 7 years war, Napoleonic wars, ww1, ww2 really help the actual 'average person in England'. The British empire (contrary to popular myth) conferred absolutely no benefit on regular people at all and yet people still took pride in the empire. It seems to me that people very regularly take a unique and unfair approach to Richard I on this specific issue. Another point to add is that when Richard I was in negotiations with the French king he offered to give up Anjou and other French holdings with his primary goal of maintaining England and Aquitaine...despite many of his French regions giving him more money than England in many years and despite him allegedly not caring about England. I could talk for ages about all of the little historical details in his life but I'll finish with something more interesting. Richard I gave England its coat of arms...a coat of arms which foreigners would forever associate not just with Richard but the entire history of England but specifically its very long and successful military history. Let's be honest, the lions he gave us are cool and the representation and association of England with lions is now stronger than probably any other nation. It sounds absurd but foreigners do judge nations on their emblems and we've got a good one which had good associations. It's important to note that this symbol of English history started with a great crusade that won many famous battles against one of the best generals in Muslim history and was (in my opinion) an incredibly successful crusade. he probably did the most of any single man in European history to defend the holy land and he is now remembered as an iconic figure for that. In fact, he is probably the single most well-known figure from one of the most well known historical events (the crusades) in history. The bravery and leadership he showed in his battles and campaigns has become a part of our national ethos and people have used it for inspiration for 100's of years. So even if Richard I was a bad king, which I don't agree with...his representation and simply association with England has created a myth that has long out-lived himself and been very positive for England popular image in the wider world and as a source of pride for England. There's no a lack of precedent for something like this, the French take great pride in Charlemagne and Charles Martel when they were Germanic Franks who spoke a Germanic language while most of the populace of France were Gallo-Romance and spoke another language. But they gave France its literal name and now people forever have this association.
Richard was considered a good king by most of his contemporaries. Of all the many just plain stupid things about the modern Woke school of history is imagining that people in the past all thought like people born in 1999.
Richard 1 was only in England for under a year. The rest of his time was spent either on crusade or imprisoned! Glad Eleanor of Aquitaine was a better Queen one of the best for England!
@@ruthcollins2841 Richard the line heart is one the lower end of the ranking for English monarchs but he is no where near the bottto he did the duty of every medieval monarch who had sworn to go on crusade and was an able administrator with a good amount of charisma.
pls stop denigrating President Putin! This brings you DOWN to the level of western woke opinion based on feelings, predjuice, distorted facts...generalsations!!!
When assessing 'bad monarchs' of England was the current incumbendent included for consideration? She's lost a lot of territory during her reign, only last year lost a long war in Afghanistan and has recently taken to despoiling suddenly the assessts of wealthy people, who had peacefully gone about their business.
I think the difference now is that our monarch does not rule as past monarchs did. Government rules now . Elizabeth 11 is but a figure head. She has no say . She has been a dutiful monarch but not a ruler. That role no longer exists.
Prince Charles? I would argue there has never been and will never be a better Prince of Wales. He had a bad first marriage but that is not unusual today. A bit woke? Perhaps, but in no way placing him among the worst of the worst.
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
L
Hi, where can I find details to take David to lunch?
My 25th great grandfather knew King John I of England personally. My 25th great grandfather not only knew King John I personally, he also had floor length hair. My 25th great grandfather was absolutely devastated when King John I died at age 49 in late 1216. My 25th great grandfather mourned the death of King John I of England for decades. May they rest together in peace. 💐🌷🌹🌺🌸🌼
King John was not a good man --
He had his little ways.
And sometimes no one spoke to him
For days and days and days.
And men who came across him,
When walking in the town,
Gave him a supercilious stare,
Or passed with noses in the air --
And bad King John stood dumbly there,
Blushing beneath his crown.
King John was not a good man,
And no good friends had he.
He stayed in every afternoon...
But no one came to tea.
A.A. Milne.
This man's brain is an absolute treasure of mind boggling history. I. Watch in awe and wonder how he can talk on a subject without notes and keep going from dynasty to dynasty. I have trouble remembering what day it is. To top it all he's from a working class background, I love him to bits. Forgot a knighthood, make him KING,he would be great.
Agree totally. Just discovered him. Sorry about how expressing this in this way. Refreshing to be able to listen to free speech.
Let's not forget that John tried to usurp the kingdom from Richard while he was away crusading. And then what started the wars with the French? King John wanted a new wife and went for Isabelle of Angouleme who was already betrothed to his Lusignan vassal. As bad as he was I don't think he matches the sheer stupidity of Edward II or the god-complex deluded Richard II. Henry VI sure ranks among the worst too, but in his defence he wasn't quite right in the head and the bad decisions were made by Suffolk, the Somersets, etc.
That first sentence actually sounds like the problem itself: duhh John is bad, because my comic book , Disney and Hollywood say he was against " glorious" King lionheart. Congrats Mr starkey, you anti woke BS seems to drag you down to that niveau too now. OK then, but say magna carta was the worst thing ever also then and still the World of great god given rule of one, all because of one bad King.
@@herzkine That rant makes no sense.
@@herzkine Richard Couer de Leon was no saint, but he was a far greater leader and frankly better human being than John was. John is a classic case of seeking far more power than one can competently wield, often over really unimportant $hit like cucking his major magnates because he couldn't keep it in his pants.
Thank you for answering my question Dr Starkey! I had the pleasure of meeting you once and asking you a couple of questions in person too. Above all, thank you for getting me back into history, after the abysmal teaching I received on the subject at my secondary school. I'm forever thankful for experiencing so much of it, and only wish I could have seen more!
I am following 'This Is History: A Dinasty to Die For', a podcast by Dan Jones telling the history of the Plantegenets. The third season is about King John and the next episode about the Magna Carta. So far, it checks out. I would like to hear David talks about Henry II.
You are a treasure!...I just discovered your channel after watching an interview on GBN. It's refreshing to hear a conservative perspective so eloquently articulated through the lens of logic & history. Would you kindly cover topics that relate more to current events, such as the history of the Orthodox Church and Russian Empire. Much love from a new fan on Vancouver Island.
Many thanks, David, for another fascinating talk.
Before the video goes up, my overall opinion of John is that he could have gone down in a similar manner as Henry VII, the problem is that he failed where Henry did not, militarily. Henry secured his throne and defeated pretenders whereas John failed to use the funds raised from taxation to defeat France whereas Richard was able to use his taxes effectively in wartime. Or, at least, he was able to embody the perception of being a great warrior king who deserved the financial support whereas John simply could not.
He was a micromanager, with one of my favorite anecdotes being how he chose to mediate a dispute between two boys over who threw a rock first, as an example of how detailed he wanted things to be. The man would have gotten along well with Louis XIV and been an excellent autocrat but he was born to a limited monarchy and thanks to his own actions, ended up limiting the powers of that monarchy even further. It doesn't mean he was "Bad" King John or as malevolent as some monarchs have been, but he was certainly the author of his own demise and cause far more problems for himself through his own incompetence than he ever really needed to suffer.
Very well put.
Don't I recall John also promised the Sultan of Turkey to turn the country muslim in exchange for cash? In the scale of leaders who sell out one wouldn't want to overlook the heroic contribution of Edward Heath
True story
I am torn between William Marshall (1st Earl of Pembroke) and Francis Walsingham (Elizabeth 1st spymaster) as being the greatest Englishman. Both men were extraordinary, as commoners, in their service to our country.
Book recommendations?
Spencer Klavan discussed Marshal in two recent episodes of his podcast The Young Heretics. It's really good.
Barristan Selmy in Game of Thrones is based on William Marshal
He’s one of them, though I think there’s a strong case to be made for King Ethelred II (978-1013; 1014-1016).
Dr. Starkey, would you consider William Marshal (1st Earl of Pembroke) as a subject for a video? An important figure in British history we don't hear about which is a pity.
I read a very good book on William Marshall by Thomas Asbridge. Called the greatest knight.i recommend it.
It's a question...I read somewhere that it was a Scottish 'nobleman' who was skint. He married a lady down south and sold Scotland
Also love your emphasis on language. Great to have found your channel..great to be a away from council/state telly. Re language I'm always fascinated by the word krph. My best lecturer ever was Proff Emeritus Nick Wyatt. krph has survived.
Regarding the similarity in character between King John and Putin mentioned in the video, John would have loved to have given Litvenenko’s Polonium-210 treatment to William de Briouze…
I dispute this. Philip Augustus was a great. Richard 'the lionheart' was losing the battle for french held lands before John came to the throne. Admittedly Richard would have fought harder and with popular support. Strategically, Richards march on Jaffa showed he was a tremendous tactician which John was not and thus Richard may have overcome Philip. In my opinion, Philip was a star, not flawless but a brilliant opponent. This is not taken into account when factoring in Johns performance in defending his french held territory.
A victory at the battle of Bouvines and magna carta would never have happened.
As for Magna Carta, John was clearly never going to adhere to its stipulations. You could argue that we have a huge misunderstanding of what happened at Runnymede. John was not coerced. Magna Carta was a negotiation. John signed it and walked. The barons were still arguing amongst themselves for amendments days after the ink had dried.
John inherited a kingdom/ empire stretching across three land masses. He had to govern this on horseback. He was tremendously energetic but politically incompetent. I can name five kings worse than him.
Out of curiosity, who are those five picks, and why?
Another great take on a monarch & adore the link between the Magna Carta and the 'glorious revolution ' with bringing in foreign princes. Sometimes very positive unintended consequences.Charles 1st must be up there , losing 2 Civil wars on his own people ,& Parliament
In some ways Magna Carta was simply rewinding the clock back to Saxon times, when the Witan selected the next king from the available members of the Royal house (“Aethelings”) and had more power. It was harder for a king to rule without the support and consent of his nobles.
James wasn't interested in mere "tolerance for Catholics", he ultimately wished to return England into a Catholic supremacist state, much like Bloody Mary. The difference is, Bloody Mary was actually a better ruler and less divisive than she's usually remembered (for instance stomaching the problems with presiding over Anglican services) and was let down by lacking an heir. James was not so subtle, doing things like banning Hugenot refugees from arriving in Britain (in contrast to William of Orange). In contrast, James's victory over his namesake Monmouth really made power go to his head and he basically began wholesale, massive, and rather divisive purges of his enemies and perceived enemies along with attempts to rig Parliamentary elections.
Aligning too closely with the French also hurt, especially after two fiasco-laden wars against the Dutch.. So when the Dutch made moves to overthrow him there was a wholesale lack of will to fight for him in England and only a modest amount of support in Scotland. He mostly adopted the "Tolerance for Catholics/All Religions" thing as a desperate attempt to salvage something of his support, and his Irish "supporters" mostly fought for that.
In short, even if one believed he was just seeking religious toleration for his faith (which he certainly wasn't) he bungled a lot of things and screwed things up in a way that would make the Protestant majority of the British Isles unlikely to tolerate him. And again, he wasn't actually seeking religious tolerance, unlike some others; he just overshot and wound up doing too much repression too fast and too rashly.
This is ironically in contrast to William, who DID personally believe in religious toleration (for instance, many of his elite and loyal units like the Blue Guards were Catholics) and even attempted to extend it to Ireland only to have it heavily overridden by the Protestant Ascendency. He just was callous/pragmatic/wise enough to drop open support for it when the Protestant great lords objected.
Which I guess goes to show that being a competent Lord does not always mesh with doing the morally right thing.
He does have a statue in King's Lynn, Norfolk, mainly as John lost the Crown jewels in some local marshy bit :)
"Hell is defiled by the fouler presence of King John"
Probably the worst English monarch was Aethelraed “Unraed”.
Granted the Danes were invading, but backed by England’s worst ever traitor Eadric Streona this King deliberately had the Danes of York killed in an act of genocide, despite that by this time the Danelaw was settled in and peaceful.
He continually broke his word, kept paying Danegeld, beggared his own people - until it got to the stage that his army refused to fight any more (albeit that it was his son, Edmund Ironside, who seems to have been sent in command most times).
unready*
@JohnyG29 in modern parlance yes. If you were a Saxon, no.
David 'Elizabeth I looked like madonna' Starky
The comment on James II being a bad king is interesting. My understanding is that he was overthrown because he wanted tolerance for catholics against an intolerant protestant establishment fearful of popery. Is that bad? Or is he considered bad because he failed?
What is never clear is why James, a man of proven ability and a Naval Admiral of many battles, fled. That was probably the single fatal mis-step that lost the throne outright.
I read that he wanted not tolerance of RC but like "Bloody" Mary (or Mary 1), wanted the country to return to RC.
Most enjoyable: as ever.
Always an education 👏
the question now because, who is the king most like a mob boss, John Plantagenet or Offa King of Mercia
Really informative
The establishment thought John was a really bad king as there was no King John the second or third. There was a Prince John who died young.
Stands the clock at six to six?
Will David ever his timepiece fix?
He’s busy, earning TH-cam clicks,
And, sometimes, lobbing evacuant bricks.
🤣
@@chrisbanks6659 maybe the time has some special meaning to him. I wondered if it was related to his partner who passed away
It is surely time to stop soft soaping William the Conqueror whose harrying of the North alone led to the deaths of far more English folk than any other king ever caused. William was a heartless killer who hated 'his' own people. Therefore, William was by far the worst king that the English ever had. Please do a wonderful documentary on this tragedy, David Starkey.
I wonder how long it will be before someone posts here saying that King John is their great grandfather from this or that generation?😂 Excellent talk by the way👌👌👌
As it happens, King John was my 23rd great grandfather. 😉
@@sonianordenson Then you must surely be American😂😂😂
I would put the current monarch as the worst of all time.
@@margarethoskins590 I responded to you earlier but my reply had too much uncomfortable truth in it so it was taken down as is all too common now. She is part of that system that silences the truth.
Twenty years ago when my daughter was a toddler, I taught her to say, "Bad King John."
You left out Edward IV, 18 years old and he kicks Lancastrian ass!
But weren't the Lancastrians led by the 'catatonic' King Henry VI at that time; which is to say they suffered from 'non-existent' leadership?
@@KPC-123 the King’s son was about to come of age, and the Lancastrian “Court faction” led by the Queen was backed by most of the nobility (albeit they were not as powerful individually as the likes of Warwick). They weren’t “unled” at all.
Recommend Alison Weir’s book “York and Lancaster” as a primer.
@@KPC-123 Edward IV is one of the most underrated kings in English history. Winning at Barnet and Tewkesbury in such a short timeframe was a military achievement unparalleled in our history. Very similar to Harold and Stamford Bridge/ Hastings except Edward won both battles.
@@crazyhorse2542 One could argue that Edward's victory at Barnet was owed largely to the confusion in the Lancastrian lines whereupon a returning Lancastrian unit was fired upon by their own side after having just routed part of the Yorkist lines. This in turn caused panic and a slipping of moral, which in turn allowed Edward to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. One could then go on to argue that means his victory was owed to the fog of war more than his 'genius'.
@@mikereger1186 I am not sure the relevance of the 17 year old son who was slain on the battlefield, but with regard to Henry's wife; Isn't she the one who sparked the Wars of the Roses by attempting to exclude Edward's father Richard from having any influence in the Kingdom's affairs?
Is it true that there is hidden french treasure below Fast Castle between Aberdeen and Eyemouth? Think Fast was where Mary Queen of wherever plotted to kill her hubby.
Why not tell us all about Edward the Confessor?
A monarch with a lot to answer for, certainly...
King John gets a bad rap!
what a question “who was the worst king” mmmmm. a five pipe problem Watson.
Max fosh he good friend to you Thomas.
You told truth Thomas she told you Tories have to lose the uk general election is Art Bezrukavenko yes.
Yeah, he was. Disney's Robin Hood said so.
Do you know if Churchill's attack in the Dardanelles have anything to do with the Armenian genocide?
For chronology you could look at TimeGhost’s The Great War series, although it’d be a lot to sift through.
@@mikereger1186 Thanks
Yes and no. The brutal fact is that the Armenian Genocide and a lot of the internal genocides of the Late Ottoman Era had been going on for decades prior to WWI, and indeed the Young Turks actually came to power by (among other things) overthrowing the Sultan Abdul Hamid II who pioneered it and promising to heal the wounds of society. Which they kind of did until the Young Turks split and a junta formed of former members called the "Committee of Union and Progress" took over the Empire and instituted "The Young Turks" as we know them today.
The Dardanelles campaign and especially the resounding defeats suffered by the Ottomans in the Sinai and particularly the Caucasus probably helped contribute to an intensification of the genocides with the goal of basically exterminating everyone in the war, but that's kind of like acting as if the Holocaust only started with the Wansee Conference while ignoring all the thousands upon thousands of people Hitler and co murdered before then. And frankly the CUP Triumvirs and Ottoman society were so broken up and internally divided that almost any stress in the war would probably have triggered this.
Keith woods Irish Upper class He Catholic Conservative Ireland he won 🇮🇪
the worst king was Henry 8th for me
Is it true that John frequently slept with the wives of his nobles just because he was king and could without fear?
Keith woods won with Englishman Max Fosh politically Thomas. It dirty fight Ireland won.
He was a bad king, but his predecessor was also a bad king.
Richard I wasn't a bad king, reply if you want to be copy and paste slapped ;)
@@Swift-mr5zi He bankrupted his country 3 times. And expected England to pay for it.
He betrayed his father, and had no son.
He was in it for himself.
@@Infernal460 You asked for it...
The idea that Richard I was a good soldier but a bad king is a myth and the idea that he cared more about his French holdings than England, exploited England for taxes relative to his French holdings are more are all popular myths. Richard I was actually extremely administratively competent, he did fight for England indirectly and his people loved him for it and the evidence for all of this is very very clear if you just look beyond the basic internet cliches you see.
''In the first two years of John's reign, for example, over 450 charters for English beneficiaries were enrolled (i.e. file copies were made for the royal archives) compared with less than 100 for both Normandy and Aquitaine and less than 50 for Anjou. It is clear from these figures that English property owners found it advantageous to seek royal charters and confirmations of charters. An analysis of Richard Fs charters listed in the study of the king's itinerary by Lionel Landon showed that out of the 145 which were issued in Normandy no less than 91 were for English beneficiaries (compared with 49 for Normans, four for Angevins and one only for a Poitevin). In the king's courts the king's charters provided the best possible proof of ownership, and from the reign of Henry II onwards the English royal administration was offering routine procedures for bringing cases to court. The flood of litigation which followed suggests that royal justice was relatively cheap,'
'This contrast between England and the continental dominions is made explicit in a charter issued in favour of the Templars and confirmed by John in 1199. From each English shire which brought in £100 or more the Templars were to receive one mark; in Normandy, Maine, Anjou, Touraine, Poitou and Gascony they were to receive one mark, or its equivalent, from each city, castle or vill which rendered 100 pounds or more. In England, in other words, cities, castles and vills were enclosed within a uniform network of shires which, with a few exceptions, such as the Welsh march, covered the entire kingdom (Map 1). On the continent there was no such clear-cut pattern of local administration. In Anjou, for example, there were comital officials, sometimes prevots (provosts), sometimes seneschals, sometimes both, based on the castles at Tours, Chinon, Bauge, Beaufort, Brissac, Angers, Saumur, Loudun, Loches, Langeais and Montbazon. They are to be found in the Loire Valley and in western Touraine; that is to say in those regions where the count held extensive demesne lands. Elsewhere in Anjou comital officials and comital castles are conspicuous by their absence. Here, and in Maine, we are in the land of the seigneurs. They recognized the count as their lord and might be expected to obey the count's representative, the seneschal of Anjou, but their own seigneurial organization was not overlain by a comital administrative unit equivalent to the shire. From their castles the barons of Anjou dominated the surrounding countryside, untroubled by the meddling of some local official who claimed to represent the count.'
'Of all the Angevin continental dominions Normandy was the least patchy. Indeed, one of the longterm consequences of the Norman Conquest of England had been the introduction of English administrative practice into the duchy. The local officials characteristic of eleventh-century Normandy - prevots and vicomtes - found themselves increasingly, but by no means completely, eclipsed by a new type of executive and judicial (and therefore financial) official, the bailli. By 1200 there were about 25 baillis in the duchy at any one time and there was an observable tendency for their bailliages to become more shire-like, but as new creations of the twelfth century they were still subject to rearrangement and boundary alteration (as the English shire had been in the tenth century) according to immediate political or military need. This fact, plus the existence of great franchises like Eu, Aumale, Evreux and Alenc.on, meant that Normandy - as the privilege for the Templars indicates - still remained a land of cities and castellanies. Around 1200 ducal authority was relatively strong in the west of the duchy and along the frontiers (except on the north east) and relatively weak elsewhere (e.g. in the districts of Auge, Ouche and Caux)'
The Angevin Empire by John Gillingham page 50-55
b-ok.cc/book/885936/69da68
So we can see from the relative focus that Richard placed on all his different holdings that England was by far the most important one regarding the attention his administration played. So Richard definitely didn't neglect England relative to his French lands from a governmental point of view. Not only did RIchard I and his administrators not neglect England, but they literally exported the system of management in England to his French holdings because they were superior. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyway who knows about henry II because Henry II used anglo-saxon law and some new developments made since Henry I (who largely built on anglo-saxon law) to create the worlds first national legal system, the common law. There was absolutely nothing comparable to this in Aquitaine, Anjou or even Normandy and it allowed for cheaper and more effective legal provisions.
Another example of big bad Richard I was his alleged exploitation of England for taxes in order to defend his French holdings and go on a crusade. We very regularly get quotes about him 'wanting to sell London if he could' for example.' What most normies completely fail to recognise is that he sold political offices precisely so that he didn't need to excessively tax the regular population. Don't just take his goodwill as reason for this, if you spend your life away from England then if England rebels you have a big problem so he did everything he could to raise money within the confines of the aristocracy and not from taxation which impacted the peasants to heavily.
- - Specifically, regarding the crusades, people seem to forget that back then in the medieval era everyone was deeply religious and it was the most important thing in their lives. The idea for English people that their king was fighting for Christianity was something they approved and loved him for. When he fought for god he fought for them. In fact, it wasn't just something they loved him for but it was the very definition of what a king was supposed to do when he was a king according to the definitions of kingship at the time. In respect of the composition of Richards forces while on crusades its important to note that by the time of the third crusade almost all of the ethnic hostility between Normans and English people had gone and they were basically identifying as one group. Some historians say that the Normans had completely assimilated to the English by the 1140's, some say the 1160's, others say the 1180s...every single historian agrees that by the early 1200s at the very latest the ethnic conflict had completely vanished. This is a point that people seem to not know when talking about anglo-norman relations in this time period and medieval England in general.
Most of the knights from England would be of Norman descent, but most of them would have identified as English despite speaking French (William Marshall for example identified as English and called it his home) and the men at arms definitely would have been majority English given they weren't equipt to the same degree as the Normans and the Normans were fighting with Anglo-saxon men at arms from the very start of their reign.
The Normans for the first 70 years fought on horseback most of the time and the anglo saxons were trained as foot soldiers and trained in anti cavalry tactics. So there's very strong reason to believe most of the regular men at arms and archers were English based on the history of Norman England. At the Battle of Arsuf, in particular, the Richard I said the following...'how essential those valiant crossbowmen and archers were that day, those absolutely inflexible men at arms who brought up the rear of the army and drove back the relentless turks as best they could with a continuous volley of shots.'
oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251230.001.0001/acprof-9780199251230
- Regarding his French holdings, Richard I raised the vast majority...and I mean the VAST majority of his taxation for the defence of his French holdings in France. When Richard was actually in Normandy the taxation from the region literally doubled England...which considering for the most of its history it had been easily lower than England is completely insane. It also wasn't the case that only Richard gained from having these territories. There was a very significant quantity of trade between England and Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine Poitier ext and it provided a source of wealth not just for the flow of consumption goods into England but also was a great source of power for English taxation as one of the main taxation forms all throughout medieval English history was taxes on imports. For example the taxation of wool in the 100 years war and how Edward I used it to leverage power over Flanders. In fact, the trade and relationship between Gascony was so strong by the time of the 100 years war that there are French primary sources literally describing the Gascons as being 'English' because they had nothing in common with the northern French holdings and a close connection to England.
@@Infernal460
Also keep in mind that Richard I died after only being king for 10 years, for the first 10 years Henry II hardly spent any time in England either and yet he went onto be a great king for England for a number of reasons (although as a law student I must admit I'm biased). There's plenty of reason to believe if Richard I hadn't died he could have been another Henry II.
- Final point is regarding taxation and war. Why is it we seem to single out Richard I as wanting taxes to fight wars? The 100 years war did not benefit the average Englishman very significantly...did the Anglo-Spanish war? Did the war of Spanish succession? Did the War of Austrian succession? Did the 7 years war, Napoleonic wars, ww1, ww2 really help the actual 'average person in England'. The British empire (contrary to popular myth) conferred absolutely no benefit on regular people at all and yet people still took pride in the empire. It seems to me that people very regularly take a unique and unfair approach to Richard I on this specific issue.
Another point to add is that when Richard I was in negotiations with the French king he offered to give up Anjou and other French holdings with his primary goal of maintaining England and Aquitaine...despite many of his French regions giving him more money than England in many years and despite him allegedly not caring about England.
I could talk for ages about all of the little historical details in his life but I'll finish with something more interesting. Richard I gave England its coat of arms...a coat of arms which foreigners would forever associate not just with Richard but the entire history of England but specifically its very long and successful military history. Let's be honest, the lions he gave us are cool and the representation and association of England with lions is now stronger than probably any other nation. It sounds absurd but foreigners do judge nations on their emblems and we've got a good one which had good associations. It's important to note that this symbol of English history started with a great crusade that won many famous battles against one of the best generals in Muslim history and was (in my opinion) an incredibly successful crusade. he probably did the most of any single man in European history to defend the holy land and he is now remembered as an iconic figure for that. In fact, he is probably the single most well-known figure from one of the most well known historical events (the crusades) in history. The bravery and leadership he showed in his battles and campaigns has become a part of our national ethos and people have used it for inspiration for 100's of years. So even if Richard I was a bad king, which I don't agree with...his representation and simply association with England has created a myth that has long out-lived himself and been very positive for England popular image in the wider world and as a source of pride for England. There's no a lack of precedent for something like this, the French take great pride in Charlemagne and Charles Martel
when they were Germanic Franks who spoke a Germanic language while most of the populace of France were Gallo-Romance and spoke another language. But they gave France its literal name and now people forever have this association.
Richard was considered a good king by most of his contemporaries. Of all the many just plain stupid things about the modern Woke school of history is imagining that people in the past all thought like people born in 1999.
K9
John, Edward ii, Richard ii, Charles I and George iv are all contenders for the worst king
Richard 1 was only in England for under a year. The rest of his time was spent either on crusade or imprisoned! Glad Eleanor of Aquitaine was a better Queen one of the best for England!
@@ruthcollins2841 Richard the line heart is one the lower end of the ranking for English monarchs but he is no where near the bottto he did the duty of every medieval monarch who had sworn to go on crusade and was an able administrator with a good amount of charisma.
“King John will lose all.King Henry will win all”
John should have become a librarian, and not a King. Like Charles should be a horticulturist and not a King.
John should have become an actor instead of a king. John would have made a much better actor than a king. 🎭🩰🎨
pls stop denigrating President Putin! This brings you DOWN to the level of western woke opinion based on feelings, predjuice, distorted facts...generalsations!!!
He was almost as bad as John’s son: Johnson
Cba to watch this but yes he was fucking awful
When assessing 'bad monarchs' of England was the current incumbendent included for consideration? She's lost a lot of territory during her reign, only last year lost a long war in Afghanistan and has recently taken to despoiling suddenly the assessts of wealthy people, who had peacefully gone about their business.
I think the difference now is that our monarch does not rule as past monarchs did. Government rules now . Elizabeth 11 is but a figure head. She has no say . She has been a dutiful monarch but not a ruler. That role no longer exists.
GE SyIts jiye
The. Slisris kie
King John was just so mediocre
A historian: "King John was the worst King we've ever had."
Prince Charles: "Hold one's beer."
Prince Charles? I would argue there has never been and will never be a better Prince of Wales. He had a bad first marriage but that is not unusual today. A bit woke? Perhaps, but in no way placing him among the worst of the worst.
The trouble with academics like Starkey is that they are unable to break outside the confines of their instruction!
John did nothing to advance the rights of BIPOC