ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- 👉Original Video: • All English Kings and ...
👉Discord: / discord
👉 Patreon: / mcjibbin
☕Buy me a coffee!: www.buymeacoff...
📦P.O. Box info (NOT accepting ANY perishable items)
For any clothing: l'm a Men's size large
McJibbin
P.O. Box 447
Bristol, Rhode Island 02809
USA
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through TH-cam videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
#american
#mcjibbin
#americanreacts
#reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Just to emphasise, Canute was not an idiot. He ordered the sea to retreat in order to convince the clergy that the king was not 'god-like' or infallible. He knew it would not retreat.
Thank you I was going to say the same thing. 👍
I expect like me you are sick of people getting this wrong. I have heard professors misquoting this.
@@QPRTokyo - Irritated, certainly 😊
It's only made me smile once... th-cam.com/video/2_UkfOldNJU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5BwFcmJw4B_AUfPH
Cnut was not only not an idiot but also a devout Christian. The episode with the sea was intended as a practical demonstration of the limitations of a king's temporal power at a time when, in most regards, the king's word was law and the majority of his supporters both lords and soldiers still adhered to the old religion.
Cnut actually travelled to Rome to meet the Pope and was welcomed as a true son of the Church and Christian king. He was held in high regard by his contemporaries both as a military leader and administrator.
That story may have been fabricated as there was no contemporary record of it.
Interesting point, William I's wife, Matilda of Flanders, was descended from Alfred the Great. Their son, Henry I, married Matilda of Scotland, who also descended from Alfred the Great. So, from the second generation the Norman kings were also descendants of the House of Wessex.
William asked Matilda to marry him (legitimising his position as much as anything else, although she was a famed beauty). She refused. He beat her up. Sometime later, he asked again. Again she refused. He beat her up again. Third time he asked she accepted. She bore him many children, some have suggested this is the sign of a happy marriage. To me it suggests repeated spousal rape and an abusive marriage. William was a cruel and violent monarch.
But he was never unfaithful, there is no hint of a mistress. Perhaps Matilda who was tiny, learned how to tame the Conqueror? Also, no wonder he became cruel, he had to fight for his Dukedom from the age of 10, in an age when warfare was cruel and violent. Many Normans were only a generation away from being pagan Vikings.
@@AnneDowson-vp8lgtbf, I believe Williams ancestors converted to Catholicism pretty quickly. Like wasn't its Rollos son who became Catholic
There were some fascinating Anglo Saxon Women. The most Famous being Aethelflaed, Aethelfryth, Cynethfryth and Emma of Normandy
This is how we learned it at school (except I have changed the end to include Charles III):
Willie, Willie, Harry, Steve; Harry, Dick, John, Harry three;
Edwards one, two, three, Dick two; Harry's four, five, six, then who?
Edwards four, five, Dick the bad; Harrys (twain) and Ned (the lad);
Mary, Lizzie, James the Vain; Charlie, Charlie, James again;
Will and Mary, Anne (of Gloria); four Georges, William and Victoria;
Edward seven, Georgie five; Ed, George, Liz and Charles alive.
Matilda was the legal successor. Stephen was never a legitimate king. Nothing in English law prevented women from ruling.
George II did indeed lead his armies in battle in 1743, he was the last British Monarch to do that. His son the Duke of Cumberland led the army at Culloden, the last pitched battle in Britain a few years later.
Yes, indeed. George II led his troops into battle and defeated the French at the Battle of Dettingen during the War of the Austrian Succession in 1743.
You’re right, Connor. The death of King Rufus while out hunting is widely considered to have been a murder.
The house of Hannover ended with Queen Victoria. Her children were of Alberts House (Saxe Coburg Gotha). This was the one changed to Windsor during WW1.
The Current King is strictly speaking of his fathers line (Prince Phillips) which is the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg NOT Windsor. However they have fiddled it to keep the Windsor.
.... respektive adoptierter Philip Battenberg/Mountbatten, aus dem landgräflichen Hause Hessen-Darmstadt, inzwischen wieder mit Hessen-Kassel vereinigt.
das Haus heißt eigentlich Haus auf Oldenburg kein schlechtes Haus hält es doch seit über 500 Jahren die Dänische Krone dazu heute noch die Belgische und mit Katerina die Große hielt man auch die Zaren Krone
26:00 "The only reason they swapped fro Hanover to Windsor was anti-German feelings during the World War..." No. Victoria was the last British monarch from the House of Hanover. She didn't inherit the Hanoverian crown as female succession was not allowed. She took her husband's house, Saxe Coberg and Gotha on their marriage. It was her grandson, George V who changed the family name to Windsor during the Great War--almost a century after the end of the Hanoverian connection.
Actually between Hanover and Windsor was the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Prince Albert's name. That's why king George 5th changed it to Windsor.
George 1-3 were of the Hanover dynasty. From Victoria's reign die to her marriage to Albert they then became the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha. It was changed from that to Windor during WWI after a lady made a comment during a banquet with the then King which made him decide to change the family name of the royal House and he wanted it to be the most English name possible. He decided on Windsor as the name as it was the countries oldest Palace and Royal residence and emplified the most English of all things in Royal history. I've watched a cpl documentary films about this talking through the name change etc.
Conor your knowledge outstrips many Brits
I live near the New Forest and there are a lot of nods to King Rufus. There is a pub called The King Rufus. He was supposedly shot by Tyrell, and it wasn't an accident. He was not a liked King.
William the 2nd , he had a red head
One day to the forest , his huntsmen he led
A fellow called Tyrrell an arrow let loose,
And William fell dead as a Mickelmas goose ,
And nobody knows if the fellow called Tyrrell
Took Williams red head for the King or a squirrel
I rhyme I learned at primary school , Connor .
The first Archbishop of Canterbury was consecrated in 597, but didn't gain authority over all of England and Wales until after the Synod of Whitby in 664, when the older, Celtic Church finally recognised Rome. There had been bishops in the Celtic Church in Wales for at least 250 yrs before Canterbury was founded as a diocese.
Cromwell taught us a valuable lesson. Monarchy works.
There were people in Britain before the Celts btw, these videos never mention them... But they built stonehenge😅 one name for some of them is the beaker culture, but they could just say nomads or tribes.
And yes they were homo-sapiens. I'm not referring to sombe random skull of a heidelbergensis from 500k years ago😂😂
The Welsh were in Britain at least 10,000 years ago. Ancient DNA confirms it. The Stonehenge was built about 5000 years ago.
@@gitaryddcymraeg8816 nope. Welsh were 4000 years ago. Try again.
@@DerekDerekDerekDerekDerekDerek It won't let me post a link. Just look it up. 2000 people from around Britain had their DNA tested against ancient remains found in Wales dated 10000 years ago. Welsh DNA is very different than any other UK DNA and the Welsh DNA matched the 10000 year old remains DNA. Also, we know that some of the Stonehenge stones came from Wales because Wales is the only part of the UK where these specific types of stones are found.
@@gitaryddcymraeg8816Skarra Brae in the Shetland Islands was built before Stonehendge by quite a margin in terms of years.
Dane law was the rules by which the Vikings lived when they invaded and conquered areas of the UK, Vikings were actually Danish or Norse raiders. The term Viking was actually the act of raiding itself.
The Danelaw was the area under the rules(laws) of the Danes. It was expanded greatly by conquest, until finally Alfred defeated Guthrum at the battle of Edington(Ethandun) on the northern edge of Salisbury Plain; close to where I currently live.
As Wessexdruid7598 says, it was an area under the rule of Danish law. It was the Anglo Saxons holding their hands up and saying "fair enough guys, we're not going to beat you yet, here, have this land and rule it how you like".
Just to get mind-blowing for a minute. My own grandfather was born in the Victorian era. It still shocks me a bit. He died in 1932.
All my grandparents were born during the Victorian era. My great-great-aunt Mary was born in 1861, either days before or days after the declaration of the American Civil War, and she died aged 107, in 1967 when I was 17, so I have spoken to her. And of course, I spoke to my grandparents, apart from my dad's father, who died in 1937. He fought in World War I.
In todays Monarchy , if something happened to William, there are the next 5 people in line of succession
one of whom would take over and keep the Throne warm until George was old enough himself ... and so on.
Just because Harry is Williams brother does not mean that HE takes over. His wife, that vile woman, made a
remark in public that they were "only a plane crash away from the Throne"! Not only was this untrue, which
surely disappointed her, but laid bare her overweening ambition and insane jealousy !
If she went after Harry, believing this, then not only would she be disappointed, but showed her ignorance too !
should anything happen to William when he is king and Prince George is still under age, the person acting as regent must be domiciled in the UK. Many believe that this is the reason Frogmore was taken from the Sussex pair and why there are rumours that H is looking to find a home in the UK.
One of the reasons why the sovereign and heir never travel together.
Since the late Queen changed the rules, Catherine, with the help of the Privy Council, would likely act as Regent.
Thank you for this Connor. I have written notes on the early kings, but still get them in a muddle (their names are similar) so seeing this Reaction has, at least, let me grasp a few more in the right order.
You mentioned that George III may be your favourite. He was quite a guy, The first two Hanovarians - George 1 & II were more concerned with their German realm and, although quite careful, allowed ministerial government develop. The politics during George III;s reign were more fraught. There were factions rather than parties and many MP's looked to the king for rewarding them - so any government couldn't be formed without the king playing an important part. He did make mistakes over America - but he was very patriotic (English) and was proud of the fact that he was the first Hanovarian to be born in England and to make that is priority - he was known as Farmer George because he wanted to know everything about the country. He did write a letter of abdication after the loss of the American colonies - but was persuaded not to act upon it. He later lost his mind and died a miserable end - blind and without reasoning. He was a character! Incidentally, you may have noticed, during Charles III recent coronation, the golden carriage after his coronation. This was made for George III
I always think it a shame that (understandably perhaps) Americans have a kneejerk negative reaction to George III. After 250 years though it would do them no harm to look at the broader achievements and character of the man and give some credit where it's due.
The carriage was made for the despised wastrel George lV, the former Prince Regent.
@@karenblackadder1183No, the OP was correct: the Gold State Coach was made for George III in 1762, the year in which the future George IV was born.
George IV had extravagant tastes but this was not one of his follies.
There was an interesting documentary about the Princes in the Tower on Channel 4 recently. Phillippa Langley, who found Richard III in a Leicester car park, is now gathering together research regarding the Princes which points to both boys being sent abroad for safety (most of the evidence has come from other European countries, as hardly anything remains in the UK, probably on purpose).
I agree the Victorian age is very interesting. Victoria was influenced by her husband Prince Albert, there are certain things that wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Albert. I find the wars of the roses and Tudor eras fascinating, that might be because we covered that time period quite a bit throughout school so probably know more about it than any other time period.
That channel has individual videos in the same style on each of person too going into more detail. They have done upto Richard III so far. As shown, it took many hundreds of years to establish what is the modern England. Some consider William the Conqueror as the first king of "England" as others say Athelstan.
The Tudors and Stewarts are always taught in school , or they was when I was there. I was learning about that stuff at about 6-7. I remember studying the Battle of 1066 around 10, the War of the Roses at about 11 and the English civil war at about 15 aswell as the mess with Mary and Elizabeth. I can't remember doing much on Victoria though . We was taught of a few other incidents scattered in throughout the years involving other kings like the murder of Thomas Beckett
The King John/Richard the Lionheart scenario is when Robin Hood is set. As famously portrayed in the Disney film as a wimp obsessed with taxes
Whatever King John was, he was not a wimp.
Connor, I'm really impressed what an interest you take in British history 👍❤️
The Church of England is not Catholic. It is Anglican. It is Protestant.
When the Pope refused Henry 8th permission to divorce, Henry was so angry that he broke away from Catholicism and Rome and set up the Church of England and placed himself at the top of it. He then gave himself permission to divorce.
This break away led to the dissolution of the monasteries which is a part of English history you might want to look up.
To this day the Archbishop of Canterbury is the religious head of the Church of England, but it is actually the reigning monarch who is the supreme head of the Church of England.
Henry VIII would have you burned at the stake if you said that though. He regarded the CofE as Catholic, but not Popish. We have Mary and Elizabeth's reigns to thank for that distinction.
It was actually an annulment Jenry 8th wanted. Its just described as a divorce today for modern ears. He wanted his mraaige to Catherine of Aragon to be dissolved meaning that in the eyes of the church he'd of never been married to her in the first place. Which would've then made Mary (his 1st child) a bastard which is the main reason why Catherine refused to allow it or agree to it. If itbwas a simple divorce then Mary wouldn't have been deemed a bastard. Catherine refused to allow Mary to become a bastard as it'd mean she was taken out of the line of succession and wouldn't have been a Princess never mind Queen one day.
'Danelaw' refers to BOTH the area of England AND also the area of land under which the 'law of the Danes' held sway (as opposed to either 'West Saxon law' and the 'Mercian law').
Thanks so much for this one 👍✨…. It’s so much easier for me to understand these kinds of videos when you are commenting and questioning….a bit like “that great teacher at school” who makes complicated things a lot more simple 🤗 Thanks again 🙂
With Matilda, it wasn't normal for women to rule in their own right, but it wasn't completely unheard of. But the thing a lot of people underestimate about medival monarchs is the power that the barns held over them. If the barons didn't want you to rule, you wouldn't be around for long - or (as in the case of John) you'd be forced into signing away bits of your control.
The Church of England is know outside the UK as Anglicanism. It's not a branch of Catholicism, but of protestantism, although it can sometimes (depending on the church and vicar) have similarities to the Catholic church.
George II didn't die in battle, but he was the last king to fight alongside his soldiers, so yes, he did go into battle, in (if i remember right) the 7 years war.
Harold Godwinson may not have been on the throne for long, but between him, his brothers and his father, the family had come to own more land in England than King Edward himself, and so their power cannot be overstated. He was also the king’s right hand man - ie his advisor/deputy - and so was easily the best placed man to inherit the throne. That said, the reason it is contested as to whether Edward really named him as heir or not (as Harold claimed) is because he was humiliated by the dominance of Earl Godwin and his sons (literally the Godwinsons) and also he had married their sister, whom he disliked so much he banished to a convent. Also, Edward’s mother was Norman and so he had grown up in the Norman court. Needless to say, it’s all very complicated, hence why historians argue over whether he named Harold or William to succeed him. The Godwinsons’ sister is an interesting character, as she was unusually highly educated for a woman of the time, and was multilingual among other things.
Was it normal for kings to name their successors? I thought the succession was in the hands of the Witan who chose on the basis of bloodline, age and suitability? After Harold's death, the Witan proclaimed the young Edgar the Aetheling (Edward the Confessor's great nephew) as king so William could never have been in the running as far as they were concerned. It was only when Edgar failed to win enough support to oppose William and submitted to him some weeks later that the Witan accepted William (who was subsequently crowned on Christmas Day) and seemingly disappeared from history.
@@MrBulky992 Yes, exactly, which is the other reason the French claim that William was the rightful heir is nonsense!
@@MrBulky992 Yes, they basically had no choice but to accept William by that stage. And Edgar was a child, so he was never going to be a match. But I gather Harold’s son returned from Ireland, where he had been hiding out, and tried to summon a rebel army in Taunton, Somerset of all places but was subsequently betrayed and killed.
Love the names , they should make a come back 😊. Fascinating stuff Connor love it .
Brilliant brilliant brilliant!
(but please don't Fire a Bow, you just end up with a pile of ash, it's much better if you Shoot an arrow 😂😂😂)
No mention of St Edmund the Martyr 🤬 England's original (and true) patron saint.
Maybe with it focussing on Wessex instead of East Anglia
Basically, goes back to Alfred the Great's grandfather. But there was no England before Alfred the Great's grandson Aethelstan (as covered in The Last Kingdom: Seven Kings Must Die and preceding mini-series). St Augustine of Canterbury arrived in 597 CE. There were already Celtic Christians there from early Roman colony times.
The first Archbishop of Canterbury was St Augustine at the end of the 6th century. Kent was then the first Christian Anglo Saxon kingdom.
It never occurred to me before that Charles II looks just like Brian May with a moustache.
Try the book '1066 and all that'.
I wish history channels focused on Queens Consort. There's Hell of a lot of them and many are even more interesting than the kings they married. Particularly Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was the most powerful woman in Europe (or even, and more likely, the most powerful woman in the world) at that time. She was awesome. At one point of her husband's reign, he went away and she was regent (and already duchess of Aquitaine) so for quite a bit, she ruled all of England and a very sizeable chunk of France at the same time. On the other side of the coin, there was Isabella of France, who overthrow her husband and ruled England with her lover for a few years. Apparently when she found out her husband was having an affair she had his lover disemboweled while she ate lunch and watched.
Hugh Despenser
Absolutely. She was as tough as they came. There are still crosses of Aquitaine around England, marking where she travelled around the country to raise the ransom to free her son Richard the Lionheart.
The crosses, such as Charing Cross, were erected by Edward I, to commemorate the journey of the body of his beloved wife, Eleanor of Castile, who died on the Scottish border, having joined him while he was preparing to fight the Scots.
As usual Richard III is depicted as the murderer of his nephews. He did not kill them but sent them to safety. I would suggest looking at Philippa Langley and Matt Lewis programmes, Philippa discovered Richard III's body. Richard III was actually a very brave soldier who did a lot of good in his short reign, especially for the poor. The Tudor's had very little royal blood and were cruel. Henry VIII murdered up to 72,000 people.
A great video, simple and succinct. George III apart from the American fiasco, was actually considered a great King, his 'mental illness' was a very sad ending to his reign/life.
The office of Archbishop of Canterbury dates back to St Augustine of Canterbury, the first Archbishop of Canterbury. St Augustine established the See of Canterbury in 597 after coming to Britain from Rome; bringing the Christian faith to southern England
William IV (whom you know NOTHING about) was a lousy king, but he LOVED clocks, all he did was walking through Buckingham Palace, making sure that EVERY clock it correct and is showing the right time. He was not known for his brains... But he did love Princess Victoria of York, that her mother, the Duchess of York (his dead brother's daughter's wife) kept from him in Kensington Palace. Yes, she became Queen Victoria.
William iV never lived at Buckingham Palace except during his childhood when it was still Buckingham House or the Queens House at Pimlico. He actually hated Buckingham Palace and offered it to Parliament as a new base after the old Palace of Westminster burnt down. The first monarch to use a London home was Queen Victoria
When William Rufus was killed in a hunting accident, his brother Henry was part of the hunting party and immediately moved to secure the throne, he certainly seemed well prepared. A member of the party Walter Tyrell was later named as the person who fired the arrow and his absence because he fled the scene immediately made it difficult to mount a defence. William Rufus had made a number of enemies particularly in the Church, he died in his mid forties having never married, and never acknowledged any children so there were rumours after his death that he might have been gay, but there were also rumours that he had taken advantage of a number of women as well.
The change of Royal house took place under Victoria. She was born into the house of Hanover but as per the custom of the time, when she married she became a member of the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotter, as did the following monarchs. Saxe-Coburg was the house name they switched from. Elizabeth II remained a Windsor, as did her house, after she married Phillip. Otherwise the royal house would now be Glucksberg. The Mountbatten's themselves changed their name from Battenberg , which was a German royal house. Not all Royals did drop their German names, Princess Marie Louise (Queen Victoria's granddaughter) who died in the 1950s, remained Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein till her death.
Yes, I'm Catholic, but the way I understand Protestantism, it came about when the Pope would not sign off on the King of England's divorce and essentially appointed himself "new pope", lots of people were dissatisfied with the way the Pope and the Catholic Roman Church was ran so it was easy for loyalists the likes of Luther to get people to support it. The English Monarch is the head of the "Church of England" and thus basically the "Protestant Pope" as a result.
"Is the church of England an offshoot of Catholicism"
Oh shit, here we go again. Everyone grab your torches and pitchforks people. We're doin' this again.
Henry VIII actually thought so, and would have had anyone who called him a protestant burned at stake. In fact, he did. He always saw himself as Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. The whole mess that was various protestant paths didn't really coalesce until later, there were lots of different flavors, and it was Elizabeth of England who first truly glommed the Church of England into it decisively as a distinct type of protestantism, and high anglicanism is still fairly catholic. Especially if you compare it to its northern neighbor, Scottish Presbyterianism. A lot of people died on both sides as they sorted that one out.
I am descended from Owain Tudor and therefore related to Henry VII and Henry VIII and also Mary Boleyn, and John of Gaunt by his marriage. I have 2 different lines to Royalty, both mother and father's sides..which had Vikings in through a French soldier from William the Conqueror's army in 1066.... my 27th great grandfather. Been on ancestry for a year and half, brilliant
It's SO good to listen to an American who doesn't talk all the time and knows stuff about countries and history other than American. It's almost comforting.
The noble civil war between Mathilda and Stephen is known as the Anarchy.
It is the backdrop to the Cadfael novels, where Matilda is known by the English equivalent, Maud.
The royal house name always changed when a King succeeded a Queen line when Victoria died, she was the last Hanovarian monarch as she was succeeded by her son Edward VII and he was the first King of the house of Sade Corburg -Gotha (his Farther’s House). His son King George V changed that to the less German sounding Windsor in WWI and when our Late Great Queen Elizabeth II died, it should have changed again to the House of Mountbatten. when Charles III became King, but that was changed to state that all descendants of George V that ascend the throne will remain part of the House of Windsor.
Not quite correct. In 1952 Queen Elizabeth issued a royal proclamation confirming the House would continue to be known as the House of Windsor. This was the same document used by George V to change the name to Windsor previously. In 1962 Queen Elizabeth signed a privy council declaration confirming that herself and male line descendants would be known as the House of Windsor, but any male line descendants that didn't hold a title would be known by the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. The first of these is Queen Elizabeth's granddaughter Lady Louisa Mountbatten-Windsor, daughter of Prince Edward. The name has also been used in official documents for other children and grandchildren where titles haven't appeared or been recorded.
William II death is shady af, he was left in the forest by the rest of the hunting party, which included his youngest brother Henry 1, who rushed of to london to get crowned before anyone had a chance to stop him. William II was very unpopular as king though. His body, was carried home in a wheelbarrow.
The Anglo-Saxons were a group of Germanic tribes: Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Frisians from mainland Europe. They were mostly from Northwest Germany and Southern Denmark. "Anglo-Saxon" is our way of referring to this group of Germanic people, who began migrating to Britain after the Romans withdrew in 410 AD. The Saxons landed in Kent and the Angles landed in "East Anglia". They then spread out and setup several independent kingdoms:
- Kent
- East-Anglia
- Northumbria
- Wessex
- Essex
- Sussex
- Mercia
"Wessex" means "West Saxon". "Essex" means "East Saxon". "Sussex" means "South Saxon". Wessex became the dominate kingdom over time. Eventually they all united into a single kindgom which they called "England", which comes from "Angleland" or "Land of the Angles". They eventually started referring to themselves as "English".
Aethelstan was the first monarch to hold the title of "Rex Anglorum", which is Latin for "King of the English".
The Normans (i.e "North Man") invaded and wiped out the Anglo-Saxon way of life in 1066, replacing it with the Norman French system. The people of England would subsequently be referred to as "Anglo-Norman". William the Conqueror built about 30 castles around England to show that the Normans were now in control. William himself was the Duke of Normandy and a descendent of the Viking Rollo, who was the very first Duke of Normandy. The Norman Conquest laid the foundation for century after century of continuous animosity between the English and French.
The first non-Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury was Thomas Cranmer, following the break with Rome.
An archbishop was the bishop of an archbishopric, a pope the bishop of a papacy, a patriarch the bishop of a patriarchate.
It wasn't until Pope Gregory the Great that the bishops of Rome began to consolidate a feudal princely power in western Europe, which eventually led to the Great Schism of 1054, when the Roman Catholic Church comes into being as its own entity and the pope of Rome becomes head of the Church and of all bishops in the west.
The English Church retained communion with Constantinople until 1066 when William of Normandy subjected it to the pope.
The Saxon nobility, many of them, left England after this to serve in the Byzantine emperor's Varangian Guard.
One archbishop of Canterbury, Theodore, was in fact a Greek.
If you like this, David Mitchell has a book called Unruly that goes through the subject in some good detail. It's also available as an Audiobook, narrated by David.
William rufus was killed in a hunting accident, or so Henry who was also there claimed. Its worth noting that they had an older brother Robert who was Duke of Normandy and the clergy felt he had a better claim. After william was shot henry left his brothers body in the woods and rode to Westminster where he demanded the keys of the treasury while clasping his sword and was being crowned by the time his brothers body was brought back. The whole thing was rather fishy but william wasn't very well liked
Hi Connor, to explain Danelaw a bit, it was that part of Britain where the Law of the Danes was enforced as opposed to the Laws of the West Saxons (Wessex) and Mercia ☺
Coming from Birmingham myself my interest was piqued when the narrator mentioned that at one point the kingdom of Mercia was top dog! 😀
Well there is no British Empire anymore. Queen Elizabeth had the unenviable task of dismantling it in an era where its collapse was inevitable. She did so with dignity and succeeded in establishing the Commonwealth of Nations, which consists of many former colonies as well as other countries that had nothing to do with the empire, all electing to have the Queen as their figurehead. In reality, she had no power over them, so the citizens of countries recently campaigning for their ‘freedom from British rule’ and who instead want China and its dictatorship to take over (naming no names) 😂😂😂 have no idea what they’re talking about. The Commonwealth is probably the most powerful union of nations/political entity on earth - however, it’s not united in the name of power but rather solitary. In that sense, the late Queen did an incredible service to humanity.
About a month ago there was a recent british programme well 2 actually 1 proving Richard 1st burial in Leicester, 2nd was history new records writen down the 2 prices were not killed in the tower, 1 eventually died 2nd changed his name and tried reclaimed the crown, it was a inside job to seek the prince's to Belgium or France may have been both countries, but they hid and placed 2 child's bodies around same sizes ages, ,can't remember the tv channel, it was the same channel and Richard the 1st group how believed he was somewhere in Leicestershire
The Danelaw also known as the Danelagh; Danish: Danelagen; Old English: Dena lagu) was the part of England in which the laws of the Danes held sway and dominated those of the Anglo-Saxons. The Danelaw contrasts with the West Saxon law and the Mercian law.
Some of the women who were very significant in the line of succession and who have interesting stories... Emma of Normandy, Empress Matilda, Eleanor of aquataine (spelling??), Isabelle (Edward II wife), Kathryn Swynford, Catherine (Henry V wife, particularly after she was widowed), Margaret de Anjou ( Henry VI wife), Elizabeth Woodville, Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII mother) and all of Henry VIII wives. Lady Jane Grey ( and her grandmother Mary Tudor), Mary Queen of Scots ( mother of James I of England, James VI of Scotland).
Kathryn Swynford may not have the most interesting story, but her significance in the line of succession is enormous. She was John of Gaunts mistress who bore him 4 children out of wedlock but later married him, thus legitimising their children. There was an act of parliament prohibiting her offspring from the line of succession.... Which is why Henry VII claim to the throne was very tenuous.
5:30 that's actually interesting because i was wondering that this days too.
What i understand is that bishop (or the equivalent word from the time) is a leader or a elder of the early church becoming a more established as we know already in the turn of the first century.
Danelaw was the area where the Danes ruled (living under the law of the Danes)
The skeletons in the tower have never been confirmed
Several important changes occurred during the reign of William IV: the passing of the Great Reform Bill which began the process which eventually led to universal suffrage in the 20th century; the introduction of the Poor Law which reorganised the workhouses for vagrants and the unemployed, introducing a harsher regime (as described in Dickens' novel "Oliver Twist"); and the abolition of slavery throughout the Empire.
The English Church was Roman Catholic and the head was the Pope. There had always been a tussle of power between the monarchs of various countries and the Pope - which was a purely political position : monarchs would bribe Popes and scramble to get a new one elected who would be sympathetic to their causes.
The Pope wouldn't grant Henry 8th a divorce because he wanted to gain the favour of the Spanish King (Spain was the most powerful country at the time) and Catherine of Aragon was the Spanish King's niece. It wasn't unusual for the Pope to grant divorces to kings if their wives couldn't produce an heir - the refusal was purely political.
Henry merely replaced the pope by nominating himself as the supreme head of the Church in England, but it was still a Catholic Church - it was his son Edward (or, rather his Archbishops) who got rid of the Catholic liturgy and theology, and replaced it with the Anglican ones we have now.
Fun fact - The Church of England is officially 'The Reformed Catholic Church in England', not fully protestant.
Matilda and her son, Henry II, the first of the Plantagenets, were descended from the Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Edmund II Ironside and his forebears, Ethelred II the Unready and Edgar the Peaceful.
When the Danes invaded Britannia, they captured a huge chunk of land. But the Danish werent unified in rule, the land was divided up amongst various different chiefdoms.
The land ruled by the Danes was called Danelaw precisely because the land was under the law of the Danes.
You should watch the kings and Queens song done by Horrible histories
They missed out lady jane grey. Edward Vl nominated her as his successor in his will rather than be succeeded by his catholic half sister Mary. She reigned for nine days and was executed. Needless to say bloody Mary then took the throne.
I think the Wars of the Roses is the most fascinating period of English history, which Game of Thrones is based on.
You're mistaken. The change from oppressive empire to a Commonwealth of equals was a power move.
One thing he didn’t mention was that the throne was offered to Mary II as she was James II eldest daughter who also happened to be Protestant. She refused unless her husband William of Orange could be co-ruler. The fact that William was descended from Charles I was just the icing on the cake to give more legitimacy to their claim to the Crown. Anne was Mary’s younger sister and took the throne after William’s death. Anne was the last of the Stuarts who are considered one of the unluckiest Royal Houses that ever existed. Every Stuart Monarch from James I of Scotland (Great, great, great, great grandfather of James VI/I of Scotland/England) either was killed, deposed or died without legitimate issue with the exception of James VI/I of Scotland/ England.
Yeah right, William III wasn't invited, het asked himself to be invited while planning the invastion to further help contstrue the legitimacy that simply wasn't there, just like Mary being co-ruler was.
Yes, it's fascinating. Elizabeth II was (I think the number's right) the 28th great-granddaughter of Alfred the Great. Even when different "houses" (i.e., the Plantagenets) ruled, threw each other over, etc., they were related. So....the modern royal family are descendants of those that ruled over 1,000 years ago. That's one of the things that make them so interesting. They are living history. And yes, no one wanted a female king. Queen Elizabeth I, I think, was the first one who pulled it off without ever marrying. But her cousin ended up following her....and so it goes on. Although the Church of England is similar to the Catholics, they are not Catholics.
You could perhaps look at Anglo Saxon law and the role of the Wittan council. The punishments were often trial by ordeal and were gruesome but sometimes logical in a strange way
Athelstan tends to be somewhat forgotton, largely overshadowed by the more well known Alfred The Great. However I grew up in Malmesbury where he was buried, and he is well remembered there. There is still a group of Malmesbury residents known as the 'Commoners' as they were rewarded by Athelstan with ownership of common land in the town after they aided him in the Battle of Brunanburh. They still own land, properties and businesses in the town. The history of Athelstan was still being taught in school when I was there, though that was *cough cough* years ago.
Also, these days, the Archbishop of Canterbury is Anglican not Catholic (see the Reformation :) )
Danelaw is the area where the Danish law was well the law 😊
Queen Anne did have children, but most died in infancy; only one reached the age of 11. When pregnant Queen Anne was advised to eat white bread and drink red wine - could be one of the reasons why her children didn't survive.
King Henry VIII never considered himself as Anglican or Protestant. He firmly believed he was a true Catholic throughout his life. The Catholic Church's teachings are often controversial. One of them says kings are chosen by god and hold a divine power, they're answerable only to him. So what's a pope imposing himself over the king? Henry VIII claimed he only removed the redundant pope from his reporting line.
Regarding Harold Godwinson and William of Normandy: in this period English Kings were not invariably succeeded by their sons, nor could they definitively name their successor, who instead was chosen out of the various potential successors in the Royal Family by the nobles of the Witan, the monarch's advisors, who took age, ability and existing power into account.
Thus, Edward could not have promised his throne to either of them, and Harold could not have pledged to put William on the throne, as the latter claimed - the most either could have done would have been to argue in a candidate's favour, with no sure outcome.
The nobles chose Harold, who commanded the military power to combat potential invaders. After he was killed at Hastings they chose Edward's teenage great-nephew Edgar Ætheling, who had previously been considered too young and powerless, but who was now the only surviving male member of the dynasty. However, William's invasion could not be resisted and the nobles submitted to him without crowening Edgar, who subsequently led several abortive uprisings, but eventually became just another minor player in the Normans' interdynastic and international struggles of the period.
Enjoyed watching your video tonight it was good
Sweyn Forkbeard was proclaimed King of England but he was never crowned.
William the Conqueror may have told people he had a claim by blood to the English throne but he didn't because he had no English blood whatever: being a relative of the wife of a king (Emma) doesn't cut the mustard (otherwise we might potentially have monarchs from the Bowes-Lyon and Middleton families in the future).
The video should end at 1702 as they are no longer monarchs of England, but the United Kingdom as the two monarchies of England and Scotland came to be under one crown.
That didn't happen until 1707 with the signing if the Treaty of Union and the Scottish Parliament being dissolved. Prior to that since 1603 it was just a union of the crowns, in 1707 it then became a union of the nations and crowns.
@@chadUCSD Yes, my mistake. The point still stands, however.
It kind of skated over the fact that Mary II was James II's daughter. They didn't just randomly invite William III to England, he was the king's son-in-law, but was also a Protestant figurehead in Europe, so it worked out pretty well. I doubt they would have been able to invite some random Dutch prince over but they could invite him to rule as co-Monarch with the legitimate Mary II. He went solo after Mary died and Anne took over as Mary's younger sister. So Mary II basically deposed her own father, which she felt guilty about. Monarchs are pretty crazy.
You'll have fun looking up William IV, definitely a guy who lived like he would never be king, although all his brothers (including George IV) are a bit nuts.
To be honest, I don't think England intended to get rid of the monarchy, they just didn't want a dictator, no matter who it was. It was Charles I lacking any compromise that created the chaos. Ironically it may have saved the UK monarchy because later on other countries went through the same struggles against a dictator and many monarchies never came back.
10:45 well for things like that that you have to wear a orange vest when hunting nowadays
Fun fact Cnut the Great was grandson of Mieszko who was first ruler of Poland
Guy Fawkes didn't lead the Gunpowder Plot.
The tv series starring Kit Harrington 'The Gunpowder Plot' is a great watch if you have a wee look for it. It turns out that the character Kit Harrington plays in the series, the main instigator and mastermind of the Gunpowder plot, was actually one of his ancestors. Its actually a very good series and surprisingly historically accurate too which can often be hard to find in many historical dramas. Definitely worth a watch. 😉
@@chadUCSD Yes, I remember seeing that one. There were a few incorrect details, but it certainly left the viewer in no doubt about the extreme violence of the society, and the punishments meted out to the conspirators. Clues can be found in the signatures found on confession documents (barely legible scribble), but the graphic scenes in this series filled in any gaps viewers may have had. On a point of principle, when I was a kid, my family enjoyed the November fireworks and seasonal foods, but had no Guy burning on the fire.
The Church of England (founded by Henry VIII of England) wasn't originally Protestant. But it assumed more Protestant practices as time went on.
As others have previously said, you should try and watch the film, "The Madness of King George". Even though a film and not a documentary, It may give you an incite into the man and the times rather than all that rot many Americans believe? Plus one of your favourites, Nigel Hawthorne plays the lead in it.
27:12 You know this guy... he fought off the Spanish and the French in North America. Had he not done that, you'd be making your videos in your native French or the most widely spoken language, Spanish, which you'd have learnt with sweat and blood given how bad Americans are at learning foreign languages.
My 23rd great grandfather is John of Gaunt. He had legitimate and illegitimate children. Henry Beaufort eventually became legitimate, but he had an illegitimate daughter Jane Beaufort. My 21sr great grandmother. John of Gaunt was the son of King Edward 3rd. William the Conqueror and King Rollo my ancestors. I only found this recently. 3 grandparents of mine are Cornish, and I always looked at the Normans as evil oppressors. I discovered I descend from them. Just shows we should never have preconceived dislikes for tribes in history. We are all related.
Henry VIII broke with the pope in 1535 and made himself head of the Church in England. But he hated protestantism and burned both Catholics and protestants. The ritual stayed basically the same in churches, minus mention of the pope. His son Edward VI invited protestants to England and made the Church protestant, and Elizabeth I. went further still. It became a capital offence to be a Catholic priest.
Henry VIII sacked England's monasteries, destroying the social fabric of the countryside and gave the monastic lands to his cronies. This was when we lost about 70% of England's literary and artistic heritage, as everything was looted or destroyed.
Edward’s victories against the Scots is not considered controversial at all.
King William was a direct descendant of Queen Emma, but he was illegitimate, so was not a legitimate heir to the throne, his wife Matilda however was a direct descendant of King Alfred and proved a capable ruler when William was away.
Queen Emma is one of our greatest Queens - after Æthelred died she married Cnut in a canny political move - she rarely gets mentioned, but was a powerful figure.
From an influential family, Harold Godwinson didn’t have a legitimate claim to the throne either, being Brother-in-law to Edward The Confessor.
After The Battle Of Hastings a true heir, King Edgar II, aged about 14 and grandson of King Edmund (Edmund Ironside) was elected king, but he was considered too young and never crowned.
It wasn't william of orange that was invited but his wife mary who was James's daughter and protestant. There are many more aspects to the conflict than that though
This is precisely the kind of production that confuses Americans and others, as there hasn't been a "King or Queen of England" since Elizabeth I died in 1603. James VI of Scotland inherited her throne as "King of Great Britain," as were Charles I and II, James VII and II, Mary II and William III and II, Anne and the first three Georges. In 1800, George III became "King of Great Britain and Ireland," before also becoming King of Hanover in 1814! The same titles were held by George IV and William IV as well as Queen Victoria, though as a female she couldn't inherit the Kingdom of Hanover, which then split off again and so she was, "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland," etc. her son, Edward VII had the same title, as did her grandson George V and her Great-Grandsons Edward VIII and George VI. In 1949, as a consequence of international recognition of Eire as a separate Sovereign State, George VI's title was changed to "King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," which remained throughout the reign of Elizabeth II and now Charles III. England by itself is not an individual Sovereign State - any more than Scotland, Wales or Nothern Ireland are; but collectively they are the Sovereign State known as "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and so this is the monarch's title!
As far as I'm aware, the inheritance rules had always been Male-Preferred Primogeniture (which continued to be the case right up until 2013!), meaning that male heirs always took precedence over their female relatives. The practice of if or when an uncle (or aunt, since Absolute Primogeniture replaced the previous system in 2013) takes precedence over a nephew or neice seems to have been left to the discretion of each generation. For example, the four children of
Elizabeth II were ordered by sex and age order, and many voices were dsismayed when it became clear that the sons of Prince Charles - even as minors, had been given precedence before their adult uncles, Princes Andrew and Edward.
The Church of England is a Protestant Church that was established after Henry VIII was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church by the then Pope. Every King or Queen since then has been Supreme Governor of the (independent) Church of England.
The Royal House did not change directly from Hanover to Windsor: Edward VII and George V (initially) were of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha (inherited from Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert). Victoria herself was the last member of the House of Hanover in the direct line; but could not herself inherit the Kingdom of Hanover because it used Salic Law, meaning that it could only ever be inherited by male heirs... Also via Prince Albert, the Royal Family's surname was technically Wettin, while the cadet branch (that descended from George III's younger sons) had other German-sounding names such as Battenburg - all of which were also changed to more English sounding names in the Letters Patent of George V in 1917, when the House Name was also changed to Windsor. While most of the branches of relations were given new names, there was the rather amusing anomally as was recalled in the autobiography of the late Princess Marie-Louise, "My Memories of Six Reigns," that the family of her mother, who was Queen Victoria's third daughter Princess Helena and who had long been known as "Princess Christian," as that was the feminine version of her husband's title, Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein were together with their two daughters now to be known as Prince and Princess Christian, Princess Helena-Victoria (whom she called Thora) and herself were now Prince and Princesses of nothing!
Great Britain didn't exist until the Act of Union in 1707.
I think you may be getting confused with the Union of the Crowns in 1603 when James Vl of Scotland became James l of England upon death of Elizabeth l
@karenblackadder1183 Sorry to disagree, but Great Britain is the geographical name of the largest of the British Isles! I know it didn't exist as a political identity until 1707 (and the United Kingdom didn't exist until Ireland joined the political unions of GB in 1800); but it was the geographical name of the kings/queens' territory since the beginning of the Personal Union of the Crowns in 1603.
What the Church of England is, is quite a tricky problem. The original breach was simply the replacement of the Pope by the King as the head of the Church (on Earth, at least), otherwise theologically the church continued to be a Catholic Church, just not Roman Catholic - the breach was because the Pope wouldn’t sanction the annulment of the Kings first marriage, so by taking control of the church, Henry could do it himself. The Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 1530s was simply Henry VIII grabbing the Church’s money for his own use. The more “Protestant” aspects of the church developed in Mary/Elizabeths’ time, but the CofE remains a very “broad church” and the style of service you will find in a church can vary between “High Church” where you can see a lot of similarities to a Roman Catholic service, and “Low Church” which looks a lot closer to evangelical, depending on the preferences of the congregation and the minister.
The first Archbishop of Canterbury was St Augustine, who arrived in 597, after being appointed by Pope Gregory I, to establish the Roman Catholic Church (ignoring the fact that there was already a Celtic Church in the west and north of the island).
Others may have no doubt already commented on this point:
the Archbishop of Caterbury is nothing to do with the the Catholic Church or representing the Pope! He's the senior Bishop of the Church of England (C of E) and principle leader of the C of E. The C of E, is part of the Anglican Church (part of the protestant sect) - essentially formed afrer Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn and formed a new branch of Christianity with different rules (obvs it's much more complicated than that!).
You announced your knowledge of the Archbishop being representative of the Pope, with such confidence, I feel sad correcting you!
Its noticeable how successful Britain was in the reign of the Queens! Maybe because their reigns were generally very long.
He skipped over the disputed monarchs, mentioning only Matilda but nevertheless thought he'd include Lady Jane Grey.
The Archbishop of Canterbury was head of the Catholic in England until 1533. From then he is head of the Church of England.