Hello everyone, instead of making a new video on Her late Majesty we thought we'd give you your regular dose of royalty by releasing our remastered version of our Edward II documentary. We are remaking all our Plantagenet videos with our new narrators as we will soon release them in a series. We will be covering the entire Windsor dynasty next year to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III. God bless Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth and God save the King.
........House of Windsor in 2023?!? OK, nut if it does not happen I will throw both a conniption AND hissy fit, but I might throw out my back....... Gret channel! Bravo Zulu.
People do not understand as we now are hear in 2022 our country is about to be ripped apart from within its going round in the halls of power our government as committed treason by locking our full economic system into the world Economic Forum we are about to face a dark time in history
I still think Dan Jones said it beast quate "Edward the 2nd is the sort of guy how can only see one step ahead. He wants what he wants now no matter the coast."
People back then encountered death so often in their lives. Mothers losing babies, losing children. Brothers losing sisters and sisters losing brothers. And at the same time people were slashing at you with swords and war was going on all the time when there wasn’t another plague or famine. We truly have won the lottery. And yet we complain on and on about the most inane garbage. We’ve never had to worry about the water we drink. Every piece of food you put in you is sanitized. Yet, we flip out if someone ahead of us makes us stop for a red light and we say horrendously hateful things about people who support a different political party
We've never had to worry about the water we drink? Our parents and grandparents did. There's also a lot of folks on the planet that do not have access to clean drinking water or food. Your life and mine might be gravy, but there are a lot of people that are still living as bad or worse than the people in the middle ages. At least back then you could still grow crops and live completely off your own lot. You can't do that these days. They tax you for EVERYTHING.
Anyone who claims to be your dearest friend, the person that loves and values you the most but then actively ruins every other personal and work relationship you have does not love you, in fact they only wish to own you, because you are not a person to them, you are a possession.
I love this channel so much. The drawings and imagery, are beautiful, there’s so much good research put into it and the narrators voice just makes it so much better
Edward I eventually had Galveston ordered out of England and exiled in France. The moment Edward II heard his father, Edward I, had died; the first thing he said was to tell Galveston to come home immediately! Hmmmm, I say yes they were more than friends for many other reasons found in contemporary books and diaries. Look them up, I'm too tired to write them all out. Just remember the English hated foreigners and too be ruled by 1 most of all, but they gathered around, cheered and joined his French wife & under aged son to uncrown Edward II and make his French Queen regent during their son's minority!
Being an American I couldn't even imagine trying to be tested on this in a history class this gets terribly confusing as to who's who but the only thing I do get is Edward loved this guy Galvaston and was willing to go to war just to keep him near along with having him marry his family.
Sounds like none of yall ever had a friend. It's probably cause everyone isn't friend material. An then they turn on you one time after decades of you supporting them
@@ShawnJonesHellion theres a big difference between " best friend" and " someone I caused a civil war for, a ended up getting a hot poker up the arse for*
I know. It's a real struggle to find any decent info on pretty much anything. It's ironic that with the internet, we are less informed than people of the past who just had books
When I was at school in Wales we were told that upon baby Edward's birth in Caernarfon Castle his father immediately held him up to the disgruntled Welsh people and said 'Here I give you the Prince of Wales who speaks not a word of English'
I'm sorry but giving in to his favorites over and over and over again, bringing them back from exile and giving them titles, lands and riches at any cost suggest that there was a much more intimate bond there than brotherly love. And yes, all of them had wives and children, but that was their duty. The wives were probably aware of their preferences anyway. And so what if he was bi or gay? What is unfortunate is that the whole country suffered because of his personal relationships.
His relationships, no matter the nature, didn’t matter. He had a job to do: rule England. He utterly failed in his job, therefore his country suffered as a result. The countrymen were forced to take matters into their own hands because they knew Edward didn’t have the balls to do so. That’s just my opinion
I disagree. He was a teenager with a best friend. He didn’t just give lavishly to Galveston, he gave generously to many “commoners” which angered the nobles, as stated in the doc here, instead of letting them trade favors with the King, which is their natural order of things. The commoners asked for nothing yet he gave to them more generously, according to THEM. I see Edward II as someone’s that saw through the entire facade of court and they bastardized his excellent friendship with his best friend. It’s pretty easy to see in my perception. Jealousy. It all comes down to noble jealousy.
There's a saying, that hard times create good men, and good times create weak men and this couldn't be more true in this case, with Edward III fulfilling the dialectical discourse.
A man can’t have a good best friend that he considers a brother…absolutely ridiculous. They didn’t like Edward II don’t you think if there was any truth to him being a sodomite that they would have made it front page news so to speak? He had a child so we know he clearly could get it up for a woman. There is no evidence other than him treating a couple of men well. Where are the servants, other men’s accounts of him being one? He had so many enemies it would have came out. To muddy his name (although it’s already muddied as he is one of England’s worst Kings)…and he isn’t here to defend himself or state the truth.
There was a historical series that focused on King Edward III, but it did give it's answer to the death of Edward II and who done it. Fascinating series (to me at least) Love these history specials.
Nooo. He went through too much trouble for someone who is just a friend. He was probably bi. The problem politically was he showed certain people too much favor blatantly.
It was a different world back then. Men where more sensitive. The victorians completely changed society in their expectations of the genders. Men showed favours to other men quite openly and it was the accepted norm. Didn't mean their were banging in private.
@@MegaJacko4 Yes, friendship was taken much more seriously, and men weren't embarrassed about showing affection for each other, often quite extravagantly.
People go through a lot for their friends. That doesn’t mean they have a sexual relationship. I’m with the modern historian take in that I don’t see Edward as homo or bi. Plus there isn’t enough concrete evidence. I truly think he and Gaveston were just really close which is normal. Edward didn’t grow up in a household with many brothers so I can see him developing a close bond with Piers. The problem is Edward gave him too much patronage. Plus all the commentary from contemporary sources regarding him & Gaveston have to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes Edward was a weak king, but this made him likely more prone to slander. Edward isn’t the first and last person in existence to ever have close friends he went great lengths for. Yet what you can say he is is the first English king to have a fairly well documented close friendship and is also a king having to operate within the bounds of Magna Carta & a fairly hostile nobility lead by the likes of Thomas of Lancaster. Look at it like this. Edward III had a close friendship with William of Montagu, yet he never faced the same hostility Edward II faced for his relationship with Gaveston & the younger Despenser. Perhaps if Edward II had a great respected rule, we wouldn’t be having this commentary. Cause we certainly don’t have that discussion about Edward III (who had a great & respected rule) & Montagu.
Kindness is not a weakness. Though those that love war would think so. He was a King of kindness and peace, but the loss of his father, made him an easy target by those that wanted to take his place and made it sound as if he was weak. Great listening❤
In today's world kindness is a virtue. But in those days would be used against people. Ruthless hard times. Thank.god we don't live in such days. I wouldn't last 5mins
Kindness isn't necessarily seen as a weakness by those who love war. There are many great warriors throughout history who have also had kind hearts. While there are, of course, also lovers of war who do think of kindness as a weakness, love of war is not the trait that overlaps the most with seeing love as a weakness. Cruelty is. It is more accurate to say that kindness is most often seen as a weakness by wicked people. The people who most often claim that kindness is a weakness are the morally bankrupt. They think that people are kind because they aren't strong enough to be cruel. Or they think that kindness is a pointless waste of time. Or they'll think that kindness is only useful as a ruse to prepare for a later betrayal.
Unfortunately in medieval times kindness in its most simplest form was definitely a weakness. As a monarch or lord of those times, your subjects had to earn your respect and generosity. To give it freely would be perceived as weak by common folk and noblemen alike.
His father Edward I known as the Hammer of the Scots, being ruthless was at the same time an efficient king and tactician. His reign oversaw the annexation of Wales and France and military invasion of Scotland and the capture and execution of Scottish leader William Wallace. People have been comparing the two kings and it turns out that Edward I would always outweigh his son. Edward II was also known as the Incompetent and his reign saw the English surrender to the Scots led by King Robert de Bruce at Bannockburn. English campaign against the Scots weakened during Edward II's rule.
A contemporary book was written during Edward II reign. The writer was either clergy or a well educated peer of the realm & close enough to the 'inner court to have written in detail about Edward II & his strange behaviors & proclivities. 1) at the wedding & combined coronation feast, the new King gave Galveston all the new young (12 yrs old) Queen's gifts of the finest gold and gems, also a large gold with extremely rare very large pearls set upon it. Instead of the King & Queen's large cloths/banners, hanging behind the raised dinning table at this feast, in each of their colors with each of their families Coats of Arms upon them. In place of the new Queens Banner Arms hung Backs you'd instead. Having on arrived wearing Imperial Purple velvet along with many of the new Queen's jewels. If all that was not bad enough Racist on was seated at the Royals' high table on the other side of the King & amongst the highest persons from the New King & Queen's families. During the feast Edward ignored his new wife along with all others and only talked to & drank with Gaveston like a couple of young boys getting drunk & too loud together. At some point, the entire strength delegation stormed out in a rage & the brokered peace this marriage & coronation was brokered by his father King Edward I over many years representing A long awaited peace agreement between their 2 nations, France & England. Which Edward the II destroyed in 1 day! After all that diplomatic work, after that feast, which was supposed to be the physical embodiment of the peace agreement through marriage. In one day the French considered it all null & void. There you have it & either you believe it or not.
@Geri AA this is a good post. Please reread it and edit to correct it, as there are missing words, nonsensical words, etc. that make it unreadable in places, and I want to know everything you've written. No biggie--just a few typos. Thanks. :)
I know I hear the explanations and the penalties for sodomy and all those explanations, but at some point, it just seems there was actually a physical relationship given the lengths Edward II went to shoot himself in the foot.
@@skintagathahotness8456 Yep. it's really tough to see the history of Edward II and not make the obvious conclusion a lot of other Historians have made. Then again, I've noticed in some of the other "The People Profiles" history, that they are quite prone to whitewashing history and trying to put a spin on it.
@@theblackjfk8190 I have no doubt. The odds that there were no gays in the Monarchy are astronomical, and if you are going to bet on anyone being a poof, it's Eddie 2.
@@Dethfeast also just because they had kids with their wives and mistresses, doesn't mean they were not also lovers in some way. I'm sure the "sodomy" accusations were exaggerated definitely over time and historical retellings, but them having kids and sex with women definitely isn't a good enough reason to throw the theory out altogether
Thanks for the video. He was not a good king, but his greatest achievement was to father King Edward III. I feel the pain of his Queen consort for the humiliation, but he paid a high price for it. I look forward your documentary about the Windsors ❤😊
Edward III was the son of Edward II and Isabelle of France. The movies are based on characters of the past but they put some fiction on it, but not historically accurate 😉
It's so odd what people considered a "good" King or leader in those days.. Nowadays, the common people would love a leader who was into athletics (He swam and rowed boats), wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty(he dug ditches and thatched roofs) and most importantly, WASN'T fond of warfare. Yet they saw that as a BAD thing a WANTED a lazy, pampered, warmonger of a King?
King Charles III was very much into sport with polo. A tough game. Princess Anne and zara plys hubbys all Olympic or top of their sports. Even Catherine princess of Wales is very athletic, enjoying playing tennis and also rugby. Charles is v into thatching and old style County farm maintenance. Keeping the old trades alive. Including organic and climate change decades ahead of his time. King Charles III is going to make a great king. Spent his life helping eg prince's trust for disadvantaged.
I don't think common people considered warmongering kings to be good kings back then. Often (according to sources that survived), what was considered to be good or bad ruler back then only reflects opinion of nobolity or clergy (or other members of "ruling classes"), who would love to have more land to rule. Same goes for other civilizations, like for example ancient rome, - common people and soliders loved Commodus for ending wars waged by his father Marcus Aurelius and for organising and taking active part in common peoples entertainment like pretend fightingn in gladiatorial fights, but we know him today as a horrible emperor because our sources are from senatorial class (ex. Cassius Dio), who initialy hated him for taxing senators and having favorites and later after attempted senatorial coups they started to hate and fear him for taking charge and excercising more dictatorial rule against plotting senators.
Not the worst, that has to go to King Harold II. Harold's defeat and death at Hastings resulted in the destruction of the English nobility, land, and Church. All of which were given to a foreign nobility. The French take over was not only in England but also in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Harold's defeat was a catastrophe for the English, Irish, Scots and Welch.
Edward II would have had to go through with his marriage - producing an heir was part of the job. Sounds as if Edward and Gaveston were as openly gay a couple as the 14th century would allow...
Agreed. As much as I detest Edward II, Aethelred the Unready was indeed the worst, and to top it off that mangey weasel had a long reign. He weakened England so much.
Thank you for such a comprehensive and balanced portrait of Edward II. Every documentary I’ve watched paint him as a ONE DIMENSIONAL man child. They also insinuate that Edward II was homosexual; but this assertion doesn’t make sense because he had mistresses thing while Isabella was too young to bed, a gay man would be with men. I think he had a bromance NOT a romance with Piers Gaveston. It was foolish of them to continually provoke the earls, they were greedy arrogant a**holes, throwing them a bone once in a while may have kept the piece. That DISGUSTING story about the red hot poker never happen. This story was created century later, but it’s SUCH a gruesome and titillating detail it became part of the tragic king’s story! Great works… thx
Nah, he was too insecure, a little dumb and ultimately weak. I'm not one that is on the whole he was gay thing. You can't really be in his position and have secrets like that in that day. I think he was just really really insecure as a man, and regarded gaveston as a 'true friend' in a sea of nobles trying to jockey for position. That would explain a lot of his behavior. And Gaveston wasn't a true friend like that either, he played the role as he was benefiting most. Far from the worst King of England.
@@thomashernandez8700 He's just being a pretentious twat. A lot of people portray King Charles as a demon because A: He's not super charismatic. He's low-key and subtle. A lot of people fawn over Price William, because he's outgoing and plays the media/social media game. B: He doesn't have the longevity that Queen Elizabeth had, to compensate for the fact he's not a "celeb" C: He had a pretty bad marriage with Princess Diana, who was basically a national hero at the time. He did do her dirty, but it was a two way street
What I don't understand: why do we think that people were having such a hard time to dispose of a king after making him abdicate? I don't think people had any qualms ...
killing a king is a much different thing from abdication... abdication is for the good of the country if the king is not doing a good job. but killing a royal person is terrifying to those of that era, the king is a symbol, something closest to God, alongwith the Pope. people in those days could not handle hurting an anointed king
No , sadly only Piers' distant descendants would reap the benefits of his invention of the wonder cure. Little could Piers have realised ,at the time , that he would bring relief to so many sufferers of heartburn.
well he managed to lose enormous provinces in France that were all under the lordship fo the English monarch... he managed to lose them despite inheriting them from his enormously charismatic and capable mother who was loved by the people of Aquitaine-Gascony in France... he also lost provinces in the north of france like Normandy, etc... he was completely outwitted by Philip Augustus the French king who was set to get back everything the French had lost to English lordship under John s more capable father Henry II Even though all those lands were still considered under the French king, the English monarch held the title of "lord" in those places, and the powerful lords could act pretty independently of the French king even though they owed him homage and were technically under him. King John inherited lordship of Normandy and crown of england from his ancestor William the Conqueror, William invading and making himself king of england while still being lord or Duke of Normandy the english had way too much power before John and Philip Augustus of france was out to set them straight
He was the cause of the Wars of the Roses. He wasn't, by all accounts a terrible person as John was, but he was on the throne way too long, twice, and it was a disaster. England always finds a way to bounce back though. @@spencerfrankclayton4348
Hi, idk if this has been mentioned yet, but during the famine, how can they have eaten "damp and rotten corn" (1:02:12) when corn wasn't introduced from the Americas until 1493?
Let me just say. Edward II’S death is truly traumatising. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. It’s so disgusting and painful. I highly recommend to not watch the videos of his death scene if your at the age 0-12. Or if you get disturbed easily, afraid of screaming, get traumatised easily, or get panicked in danger. But if you want to that is I’m not stopping you. I just don’t want anyone getting scared.
Far from being a good king, he was by no means the worst either. Surrounded by truly awful people it was never going to be easy for him. Thomas, the Earl of Lancaster was truly despicable and as cowardly as they come. Hugh Despenser was worse than Gaveston... Isabella was quite a decent queen and got along well with Edward for most of his reign, until Despenser caused them to fall out with eachother. His greatest weakness was that he was terrible at reading people and placed his trust in people he really shouldn't have allowed anywhere near him. I'd say Edward II was ahead of his time. He cared little about government or warfare but instead preferred to spend time with lowborns, enjoyed the arts, could be very generous, and led a healthy lifestyle. His contemporaries frowned on all of this.
This king was totally unsuited for several reasons. The main one was his propensity to favor his friends and/or paramours. Isabella was more man then he was. He did however produce a valiant son who became a good king.
I’m neither English, nor "high born," but even I found the deference Edward II paid to Gaveston extremely objectionable. Edward's wedding ceremony to Isabella seemed more like a surrogate for his wedding to Gaveston. Were I a member of the royal family and/or an earl at that time, I would have been outraged and scandalized by such behavior.
From "Kings and Queens" by Herbert and Eleanor Farjeon Edward the Second is commonly reckoned one of the feeblest of all of our kings. Favors he lavished on pretty Piers Gaveston, giving him duchies and riches and rings. Though Ned was mad about this giddy gadabout, others had had about all they could bear. So the king's favorite they made to pay for it on a fine day for it with spring in the air, When those who hated Piers decapitated Piers. King Ned was sorry, but everyone said, We executed him, seeing it suited him. Long e'er WE cut it off, Piers lost his head.
I had this book as a child and absolutely loved it! It's still in the bookcase somewhere at my parents home, I'll have to look for it the next time I visit them 😊
One of the worst kings no doubt. Other dishonorable mentions Stephen.John .Richard 2nd .James 2nd .Henry 6th, Charles 1st George 4th .And Henry 8th mid to late reign.
Edward II was undoubtedly a bad King in some ways. In fact , overall he was one of our worst .However , I don't think he was quite our worst King of all . King John was the worst of them all. Yes, he was and has been a little misunderstood both at the time and since but this often happens with figures from history and its easy for us to look back from our time with the gift of hindsight.
Scotland definitely never enjoyed a better time with England than when Edward II was on the throne, mind you we never had another king as capable as Robert the Bruce.. Robert enjoyed much success and the invasion of 1318 and Old Byland in 1322 further embarassed Edward II following Bannockburn.. But, the two kings either side of Edward II were obviously far greater! Interesting video 👏
It's a well established fact that at least a few of them have been what we today would call homosexual. What's the big deal? William Rufus was Englands first Queen after the Conquest. I find it rather odd how many people today find it so exciting to think about what he did with his johnson. Let it go people, it really shouldn't be that fascinating. Is that all that really matters? Not directed at you specifically.
@@pedanticradiator There has never been a King or Queen of Scotland it’s king or queen of Scot’s what you are referring to is from England mean’s nothing in Scotland
@@pedanticradiator That's when you had the union of the Crowns 👑 I repeat again there has never been a king or Queen of Scotland its King or Queen of Scots
@@deedeethomas7835 we’re not “making them gay.” People be gay. People been gay. Historians were intent on erasing the gay. As for historical significance it changes the context of their motivations, you think he just really liked helping out his best good special friend so much the to the point of dieing over it?? “No homo” 🙄
Surely, when Edward I had 2 further children by his new wife, after Eleanor's death, these two were NOT 'step-brothers', as narrated, BUT HALF-brothers to Edward II? Very interesting watch with much in particular mentioned about Edward I 's relationship with Galveston which laid much doubt, very interestingly, on the much-voiced (by 'experts') conclusion that the relationship between Edward and Galveston was sexual, and as explained , reiationships between many men was a 'brotherly love' in those days. I think many may also be swayed by the portrayal in the excellent (as a spectacle) movie, 'Braveheart', where it was strongly inferred the two were lovers, and Edward I was so digusted that he threw one of his son's male lovers (I think, from memory, it was supposed to be Galveston, though it may have been another) out of the castle window, to his death (which of course didn't happen in fact). Thanks again for the entertaining watch, but please address my comment about ''step-brothers'/'half-brothers', which I think is a VERY important fact to countless people in real life, including myself (unless I misunderstand).
Hello everyone, instead of making a new video on Her late Majesty we thought we'd give you your regular dose of royalty by releasing our remastered version of our Edward II documentary. We are remaking all our Plantagenet videos with our new narrators as we will soon release them in a series. We will be covering the entire Windsor dynasty next year to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III. God bless Her Majesty the late Queen Elizabeth and God save the King.
........House of Windsor in 2023?!? OK, nut if it does not happen I will throw both a conniption AND hissy fit, but I might throw out my back.......
Gret channel! Bravo Zulu.
Gives me time to get to London for the coronation, thanks for the heads up 🙏🏼
@@hotstepper887 what have they done to upset you so much ?
@@scottbassett1549 today
Edward II - England's Worst or Most Misunderstood King
King Charles III- "Hold my ale."
imagine the hell the ordinary citizen went through during all these shennanigans
No different than what's happening these days to citizens, with all the power hungry fools running the nations of the world.
People do not understand as we now are hear in 2022 our country is about to be ripped apart from within its going round in the halls of power our government as committed treason by locking our full economic system into the world Economic Forum we are about to face a dark time in history
they were better off than the "royals". They lived hard but quiet lives farming and raising families.
Edward II deserves every single bit of pain and torment from his wife Isabella. They didn’t call her the she-wolf of France for nil ya know.
Not Good. But, in the middle ages, the default state for peasants / serfs was only barely above Not Good.
I still think Dan Jones said it beast quate "Edward the 2nd is the sort of guy how can only see one step ahead. He wants what he wants now no matter the coast."
The Plantagenets were bonkers. I love them. Thanks!
amen couldn't say it better.. never a dull moment
I heard that family reunions were a real hoot.
Not as Bonkers as the TRUMP Family
People back then encountered death so often in their lives. Mothers losing babies, losing children. Brothers losing sisters and sisters losing brothers. And at the same time people were slashing at you with swords and war was going on all the time when there wasn’t another plague or famine. We truly have won the lottery. And yet we complain on and on about the most inane garbage. We’ve never had to worry about the water we drink. Every piece of food you put in you is sanitized. Yet, we flip out if someone ahead of us makes us stop for a red light and we say horrendously hateful things about people who support a different political party
First World problems, yr right.
Not everywhere on the planet.And what about Aids, n Covid? We will always have new virus's to contend with!
We've never had to worry about the water we drink? Our parents and grandparents did. There's also a lot of folks on the planet that do not have access to clean drinking water or food. Your life and mine might be gravy, but there are a lot of people that are still living as bad or worse than the people in the middle ages. At least back then you could still grow crops and live completely off your own lot. You can't do that these days. They tax you for EVERYTHING.
Well said
Amen to that brother, let us remember our blessings! 🙏
Anyone who claims to be your dearest friend, the person that loves and values you the most but then actively ruins every other personal and work relationship you have does not love you, in fact they only wish to own you, because you are not a person to them, you are a possession.
couldn't have put it better myself. It's a such a shame things have to go to shit for so many people to realise this
@@almostclintnewton8478 pop II o. D p
@@almostclintnewton8478 Hgh h Hgh h hh
As Harry is to and for MeGain! She doesn't love him one jot!
So true!!!
I love this channel so much. The drawings and imagery, are beautiful, there’s so much good research put into it and the narrators voice just makes it so much better
Edward I eventually had Galveston ordered out of England and exiled in France. The moment Edward II heard his father, Edward I, had died; the first thing he said was to tell Galveston to come home immediately! Hmmmm, I say yes they were more than friends for many other reasons found in contemporary books and diaries. Look them up, I'm too tired to write them all out.
Just remember the English hated foreigners and too be ruled by 1 most of all, but they gathered around, cheered and joined his French wife & under aged son to uncrown Edward II and make his French Queen regent during their son's minority!
Being an American I couldn't even imagine trying to be tested on this in a history class this gets terribly confusing as to who's who but the only thing I do get is Edward loved this guy Galvaston and was willing to go to war just to keep him near along with having him marry his family.
Sounds like none of yall ever had a friend. It's probably cause everyone isn't friend material. An then they turn on you one time after decades of you supporting them
@@ShawnJonesHellion theres a big difference between " best friend" and " someone I caused a civil war for, a ended up getting a hot poker up the arse for*
@@ShawnJonesHellion the 2 of them were gay lovers
US history is just a fascinating and like a soap opera! It moved fast and there are lots ok players in the game.
@@imfrankiea"society which glorifies and celebrates gay culture sees gay culture in everything, more news at 10"
Thank you, finally a balanced & sensible biography of Edward. Our times make so many false assumptions of the past.
I know. It's a real struggle to find any decent info on pretty much anything. It's ironic that with the internet, we are less informed than people of the past who just had books
When I was at school in Wales we were told that upon baby Edward's birth in Caernarfon Castle his father immediately held him up to the disgruntled Welsh people and said 'Here I give you the Prince of Wales who speaks not a word of English'
I heard that, too
He probably spoke french
@@rehabwales He didn't speak French at birth.
@@thomashernandez8700 🤣
wasn't born in Wales either
I'm sorry but giving in to his favorites over and over and over again, bringing them back from exile and giving them titles, lands and riches at any cost suggest that there was a much more intimate bond there than brotherly love. And yes, all of them had wives and children, but that was their duty. The wives were probably aware of their preferences anyway. And so what if he was bi or gay? What is unfortunate is that the whole country suffered because of his personal relationships.
That's kind of how people are. Have you ever worked in retail? The favorites get everything and the hard workers find new jobs
He had bastard son with a mistress so it wasn't just duty to him.
His relationships, no matter the nature, didn’t matter. He had a job to do: rule England. He utterly failed in his job, therefore his country suffered as a result. The countrymen were forced to take matters into their own hands because they knew Edward didn’t have the balls to do so. That’s just my opinion
People give favors to friends all the time. Doesn't mean they're having sex with them.
I disagree. He was a teenager with a best friend. He didn’t just give lavishly to Galveston, he gave generously to many “commoners” which angered the nobles, as stated in the doc here, instead of letting them trade favors with the King, which is their natural order of things. The commoners asked for nothing yet he gave to them more generously, according to THEM. I see Edward II as someone’s that saw through the entire facade of court and they bastardized his excellent friendship with his best friend. It’s pretty easy to see in my perception. Jealousy. It all comes down to noble jealousy.
There's a saying, that hard times create good men, and good times create weak men and this couldn't be more true in this case, with Edward III fulfilling the dialectical discourse.
Hard times create _hard_ men more like.
And no, that's not a compliment.
Tough times create tough people, tough people create soft times, soft times create soft people, soft people create tough times.
Thanks for an excellent watch!
I love these videos so much! Great information.
Me too
Omg, the amount of “they could still very well just have been friends”. Eddie boy liked the fellas
Maybe but most likely not.
Who you think was the bitch and Butch
A man can’t have a good best friend that he considers a brother…absolutely ridiculous. They didn’t like Edward II don’t you think if there was any truth to him being a sodomite that they would have made it front page news so to speak? He had a child so we know he clearly could get it up for a woman. There is no evidence other than him treating a couple of men well. Where are the servants, other men’s accounts of him being one? He had so many enemies it would have came out. To muddy his name (although it’s already muddied as he is one of England’s worst Kings)…and he isn’t here to defend himself or state the truth.
They were roommates
This was extremely interesting. Another A+ effort by "the crew."
There was a historical series that focused on King Edward III, but it did give it's answer to the death of Edward II and who done it. Fascinating series (to me at least)
Love these history specials.
Nooo. He went through too much trouble for someone who is just a friend. He was probably bi. The problem politically was he showed certain people too much favor blatantly.
It was a different world back then. Men where more sensitive. The victorians completely changed society in their expectations of the genders. Men showed favours to other men quite openly and it was the accepted norm. Didn't mean their were banging in private.
@@MegaJacko4 Yes, friendship was taken much more seriously, and men weren't embarrassed about showing affection for each other, often quite extravagantly.
You wouldn’t understand what friendship between men was back then.
People go through a lot for their friends. That doesn’t mean they have a sexual relationship. I’m with the modern historian take in that I don’t see Edward as homo or bi. Plus there isn’t enough concrete evidence. I truly think he and Gaveston were just really close which is normal. Edward didn’t grow up in a household with many brothers so I can see him developing a close bond with Piers. The problem is Edward gave him too much patronage.
Plus all the commentary from contemporary sources regarding him & Gaveston have to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes Edward was a weak king, but this made him likely more prone to slander.
Edward isn’t the first and last person in existence to ever have close friends he went great lengths for. Yet what you can say he is is the first English king to have a fairly well documented close friendship and is also a king having to operate within the bounds of Magna Carta & a fairly hostile nobility lead by the likes of Thomas of Lancaster.
Look at it like this. Edward III had a close friendship with William of Montagu, yet he never faced the same hostility Edward II faced for his relationship with Gaveston & the younger Despenser. Perhaps if Edward II had a great respected rule, we wouldn’t be having this commentary. Cause we certainly don’t have that discussion about Edward III (who had a great & respected rule) & Montagu.
Kindness is not a weakness.
Though those that love war would think so.
He was a King of kindness and peace, but the loss of his father, made him an easy target by those that wanted to take his place and made it sound as if he was weak.
Great listening❤
In today's world kindness is a virtue. But in those days would be used against people. Ruthless hard times. Thank.god we don't live in such days. I wouldn't last 5mins
Kind or not, Edward II objectively failed as King. It doesn't get much worse that having your own subjects force you to abdicate.
Kindness isn't necessarily seen as a weakness by those who love war. There are many great warriors throughout history who have also had kind hearts. While there are, of course, also lovers of war who do think of kindness as a weakness, love of war is not the trait that overlaps the most with seeing love as a weakness. Cruelty is. It is more accurate to say that kindness is most often seen as a weakness by wicked people. The people who most often claim that kindness is a weakness are the morally bankrupt. They think that people are kind because they aren't strong enough to be cruel. Or they think that kindness is a pointless waste of time. Or they'll think that kindness is only useful as a ruse to prepare for a later betrayal.
@@1987MartinT
♥️👍
Unfortunately in medieval times kindness in its most simplest form was definitely a weakness. As a monarch or lord of those times, your subjects had to earn your respect and generosity. To give it freely would be perceived as weak by common folk and noblemen alike.
Such good content, thank you so much!
His father Edward I known as the Hammer of the Scots, being ruthless was at the same time an efficient king and tactician. His reign oversaw the annexation of Wales and France and military invasion of Scotland and the capture and execution of Scottish leader William Wallace. People have been comparing the two kings and it turns out that Edward I would always outweigh his son. Edward II was also known as the Incompetent and his reign saw the English surrender to the Scots led by King Robert de Bruce at Bannockburn. English campaign against the Scots weakened during Edward II's rule.
A contemporary book was written during Edward II reign. The writer was either clergy or a well educated peer of the realm & close enough to the 'inner court to have written in detail about Edward II & his strange behaviors & proclivities.
1) at the wedding & combined coronation feast, the new King gave Galveston all the new young (12 yrs old) Queen's gifts of the finest gold and gems, also a large gold with extremely rare very large pearls set upon it. Instead of the King & Queen's large cloths/banners, hanging behind the raised dinning table at this feast, in each of their colors with each of their families Coats of Arms upon them. In place of the new Queens Banner Arms hung Backs you'd instead. Having on arrived wearing Imperial Purple velvet along with many of the new Queen's jewels. If all that was not bad enough Racist on was seated at the Royals' high table on the other side of the King & amongst the highest persons from the New King & Queen's families. During the feast Edward ignored his new wife along with all others and only talked to & drank with Gaveston like a couple of young boys getting drunk & too loud together. At some point, the entire strength delegation stormed out in a rage & the brokered peace this marriage & coronation was brokered by his father King Edward I over many years representing A long awaited peace agreement between their 2 nations, France
& England. Which Edward the II destroyed in 1 day! After all that diplomatic work, after that feast, which was supposed to be the physical embodiment of the peace agreement through marriage. In one day the French considered it all null & void. There you have it & either you believe it or not.
Over sensitive those French back then
@Geri AA this is a good post. Please reread it and edit to correct it, as there are missing words, nonsensical words, etc. that make it unreadable in places, and I want to know everything you've written. No biggie--just a few typos. Thanks. :)
@@juliemarshall7458 relax darling. It is a comment made from a small phone! Not a thesis!
@@juliemarshall7458 I agree!
no disrespect intended, but why would you retell the story we just watched - as though we hadn't?
I know I hear the explanations and the penalties for sodomy and all those explanations, but at some point, it just seems there was actually a physical relationship given the lengths Edward II went to shoot himself in the foot.
That’s because it’s obvious. Historians have always tried to erase us. Gays didn’t just appear one night in the 50’s.
@@skintagathahotness8456 Yep. it's really tough to see the history of Edward II and not make the obvious conclusion a lot of other Historians have made. Then again, I've noticed in some of the other "The People Profiles" history, that they are quite prone to whitewashing history and trying to put a spin on it.
Yea ya boy Edward was a fruity boy
@@theblackjfk8190 I have no doubt. The odds that there were no gays in the Monarchy are astronomical, and if you are going to bet on anyone being a poof, it's Eddie 2.
@@Dethfeast also just because they had kids with their wives and mistresses, doesn't mean they were not also lovers in some way. I'm sure the "sodomy" accusations were exaggerated definitely over time and historical retellings, but them having kids and sex with women definitely isn't a good enough reason to throw the theory out altogether
Thanks for the video. He was not a good king, but his greatest achievement was to father King Edward III. I feel the pain of his Queen consort for the humiliation, but he paid a high price for it.
I look forward your documentary about the Windsors ❤😊
King Edward 8 father was King George 5.
Did he father Edward III ? according the film 'Braveheart' he was the offspring of William Wallace....😉
Edward III was the son of Edward II and Isabelle of France. The movies are based on characters of the past but they put some fiction on it, but not historically accurate 😉
@@rhondafleming6352 Yes I know, I was just pulling a leg. There were many historical inaccuracies about the film
@@wattyler2994 Lord of the Rings was more historically accurate than Braveheart. ;-)
It's so odd what people considered a "good" King or leader in those days..
Nowadays, the common people would love a leader who was into athletics (He swam and rowed boats), wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty(he dug ditches and thatched roofs) and most importantly, WASN'T fond of warfare.
Yet they saw that as a BAD thing a WANTED a lazy, pampered, warmonger of a King?
Agree with you.🇦🇺
King Charles III was very much into sport with polo. A tough game.
Princess Anne and zara plys hubbys all Olympic or top of their sports.
Even Catherine princess of Wales is very athletic, enjoying playing tennis and also rugby.
Charles is v into thatching and old style County farm maintenance. Keeping the old trades alive.
Including organic and climate change decades ahead of his time. King Charles III is going to make a great king. Spent his life helping eg prince's trust for disadvantaged.
I don't think common people considered warmongering kings to be good kings back then. Often (according to sources that survived), what was considered to be good or bad ruler back then only reflects opinion of nobolity or clergy (or other members of "ruling classes"), who would love to have more land to rule. Same goes for other civilizations, like for example ancient rome, - common people and soliders loved Commodus for ending wars waged by his father Marcus Aurelius and for organising and taking active part in common peoples entertainment like pretend fightingn in gladiatorial fights, but we know him today as a horrible emperor because our sources are from senatorial class (ex. Cassius Dio), who initialy hated him for taxing senators and having favorites and later after attempted senatorial coups they started to hate and fear him for taking charge and excercising more dictatorial rule against plotting senators.
Interesting stuff,keep up the good work!!! :)
Not the worst, that has to go to King Harold II. Harold's defeat and death at Hastings resulted in the destruction of the English nobility, land, and Church. All of which were given to a foreign nobility. The French take over was not only in England but also in Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Harold's defeat was a catastrophe for the English, Irish, Scots and Welch.
historians will say they were friends
Edward II would have had to go through with his marriage - producing an heir was part of the job. Sounds as if Edward and Gaveston were as openly gay a couple as the 14th century would allow...
Historians are always so desperate to erase us
My goodness. I have to watch this again. My only knowledge of Edward 2 came from the movie “Braveheart”..
Nope, reckon Aethelred "Unraed" is still the worst. The others didn't commit genocide against a whole city of their own people.
Agreed. As much as I detest Edward II, Aethelred the Unready was indeed the worst, and to top it off that mangey weasel had a long reign. He weakened England so much.
If I took a shot everytime I heard Gaveston, I would be dead now!
After a while all I heard was Gaviscon..
As dead as Edward II.
Thank you for such a comprehensive and balanced portrait of Edward II. Every documentary I’ve watched paint him as a ONE DIMENSIONAL man child. They also insinuate that Edward II was homosexual; but this assertion doesn’t make sense because he had mistresses thing while Isabella was too young to bed, a gay man would be with men. I think he had a bromance NOT a romance with Piers Gaveston. It was foolish of them to continually provoke the earls, they were greedy arrogant a**holes, throwing them a bone once in a while may have kept the piece. That DISGUSTING story about the red hot poker never happen. This story was created century later, but it’s SUCH a gruesome and titillating detail it became part of the tragic king’s story! Great works… thx
Bisexuality is a thing you know
Nah, he was too insecure, a little dumb and ultimately weak. I'm not one that is on the whole he was gay thing. You can't really be in his position and have secrets like that in that day. I think he was just really really insecure as a man, and regarded gaveston as a 'true friend' in a sea of nobles trying to jockey for position. That would explain a lot of his behavior. And Gaveston wasn't a true friend like that either, he played the role as he was benefiting most. Far from the worst King of England.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Thank you so much for such a detailed history. It was a fascinating documentary.
Brilliant stuff. 👍
Charles III: "Hold my beer..."
What? American here.
@@thomashernandez8700 He's just being a pretentious twat. A lot of people portray King Charles as a demon because
A: He's not super charismatic. He's low-key and subtle. A lot of people fawn over Price William, because he's outgoing and plays the media/social media game.
B: He doesn't have the longevity that Queen Elizabeth had, to compensate for the fact he's not a "celeb"
C: He had a pretty bad marriage with Princess Diana, who was basically a national hero at the time. He did do her dirty, but it was a two way street
I’m only five mins In and what I gather is people don’t like him for being too down to earth
That's one "special friend" right there
This is really informative
And the status of the King Stephen and Empress Matilda vids?
Moral of the story : Do not anger your wife 😂
What I don't understand: why do we think that people were having such a hard time to dispose of a king after making him abdicate? I don't think people had any qualms ...
killing a king is a much different thing from abdication... abdication is for the good of the country if the king is not doing a good job. but killing a royal person is terrifying to those of that era, the king is a symbol, something closest to God, alongwith the Pope. people in those days could not handle hurting an anointed king
@@onwingsofshadow Good point - thank you!
No mention of Piers Gaviscon’s invaluable contribution to the treatment of indigestion? Otherwise an excellent video!
😆
What?
No , sadly only Piers' distant descendants would reap the benefits of his invention of the wonder cure. Little could Piers have realised ,at the time , that he would bring relief to so many sufferers of heartburn.
I’m just trying to eject Glen Campbell and his ear worm out of my head…
He was named after a town in Texas made famous by glen campbell.
It’s claim to fame is oil refineries and a propensity to get walloped by hurricanes.
King John was the worst king we've ever had. Historian John Gillingham once wrote that "John was a shit".
😂
High brow indeed.
@@PeopleProfiles he's a good read is John Gillingham, would recommend
Fortunately, at least, he was forced to sign the Magna Carta.
well he managed to lose enormous provinces in France that were all under the lordship fo the English monarch...
he managed to lose them despite inheriting them from his enormously charismatic and capable mother
who was loved by the people of Aquitaine-Gascony in France...
he also lost provinces in the north of france like Normandy, etc...
he was completely outwitted by Philip Augustus the French king
who was set to get back everything the French had lost to English lordship under
John s more capable father Henry II
Even though all those lands were still considered under the French king,
the English monarch held the title of "lord" in those places,
and the powerful lords could act pretty independently of the French king
even though they owed him homage
and were technically under him.
King John inherited lordship of Normandy and crown of england
from his ancestor William the Conqueror,
William invading and making himself king of england
while still being lord or Duke of Normandy
the english had way too much power before John
and
Philip Augustus of france was out to set them straight
I think without a doubt he definitely inherited his granddad's lazy eye
His father had it, too.
Edward II can't be the worst king when Henry VI is in the lineup, but he was pretty bad.
He was the cause of the Wars of the Roses. He wasn't, by all accounts a terrible person as John was, but he was on the throne way too long, twice, and it was a disaster. England always finds a way to bounce back though. @@spencerfrankclayton4348
Wow the twists and turns of history ! We would have had an English king called Alfonso wow 🤩 Alfonso the first
Hi, idk if this has been mentioned yet, but during the famine, how can they have eaten "damp and rotten corn" (1:02:12) when corn wasn't introduced from the Americas until 1493?
In the English usage of the day, the word corn signified wheat or rye. What we now call corn, earlier English speakers called maize.
Let me just say. Edward II’S death is truly traumatising. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. It’s so disgusting and painful. I highly recommend to not watch the videos of his death scene if your at the age 0-12. Or if you get disturbed easily, afraid of screaming, get traumatised easily, or get panicked in danger. But if you want to that is I’m not stopping you. I just don’t want anyone getting scared.
The mortality rate for infants in this period is truly terrifying 😢
Requiescat In Pace
Gaviston gave no f*cks with his nicknames lol
Excellent introduction & informative video about a son of a great king 🤴 & father of another great king of Britain 🇬🇧
There is no way around it, Edward II was a bad king.
Far from being a good king, he was by no means the worst either. Surrounded by truly awful people it was never going to be easy for him. Thomas, the Earl of Lancaster was truly despicable and as cowardly as they come. Hugh Despenser was worse than Gaveston... Isabella was quite a decent queen and got along well with Edward for most of his reign, until Despenser caused them to fall out with eachother. His greatest weakness was that he was terrible at reading people and placed his trust in people he really shouldn't have allowed anywhere near him.
I'd say Edward II was ahead of his time. He cared little about government or warfare but instead preferred to spend time with lowborns, enjoyed the arts, could be very generous, and led a healthy lifestyle. His contemporaries frowned on all of this.
Henry III, Richard II & Henry VI would be strong competitors. But I feel the worst English kind would be Henry VIII.
Was Edward 1 “longshanks”?
Yes
The serfs, peasants and plebs of these gangsters must have had a lovely time.
Is that a 'midjourney' Edward the 2nd in the thumbnail?
Ok I'm just saying it.. Galveston was his first Queen 👑 😂🤣
This king was totally unsuited for several reasons. The main one was his propensity to favor his friends and/or paramours. Isabella was more man then he was. He did however produce a valiant son who became a good king.
These weren't friends, they were lovers! He didn't like women
@@mariwiniarski1835 and you have absolute proof of this? I
We can sympathize,having the worst President and Vice President in U.S. history.
What an amazing video! Bravo!
I’m neither English, nor "high born," but even I found the deference Edward II paid to Gaveston extremely objectionable. Edward's wedding ceremony to Isabella seemed more like a surrogate for his wedding to Gaveston. Were I a member of the royal family and/or an earl at that time, I would have been outraged and scandalized by such behavior.
Any The Last Kingdom lovers here?
yup
From "Kings and Queens" by Herbert and Eleanor Farjeon
Edward the Second is commonly reckoned one of the feeblest of all of our kings.
Favors he lavished on pretty Piers Gaveston, giving him duchies and riches and rings.
Though Ned was mad about this giddy gadabout, others had had about all they could bear.
So the king's favorite they made to pay for it on a fine day for it with spring in the air,
When those who hated Piers decapitated Piers.
King Ned was sorry, but everyone said, We executed him, seeing it suited him.
Long e'er WE cut it off, Piers lost his head.
I had this book as a child and absolutely loved it! It's still in the bookcase somewhere at my parents home, I'll have to look for it the next time I visit them 😊
Royal blood.... Cracks me up
Who would be considered the greatest...
Late Monarch would certainly be up there, Maybe Arthur 🙃😉
except he is considered legend, or if real, was modeled after early celtic prince, not anglo saxon England
@@chocho8036I would of thought you would of picked up by the emoji's it was a tongue in cheek comment.
Another ancestor on my mother’s side of the family
One of the worst kings no doubt. Other dishonorable mentions Stephen.John .Richard 2nd .James 2nd .Henry 6th, Charles 1st George 4th .And Henry 8th mid to late reign.
At least they have been reasonable for the last few centuries!
Let's not forget Edward VIII
My gentle son. 😠
Apparently, being industrious and enjoying the company of ordinary folk isn't kingly enough. 🤔
Edward II was undoubtedly a bad King in some ways. In fact , overall he was one of our worst .However , I don't think he was quite our worst King of all . King John was the worst of them all.
Yes, he was and has been a little misunderstood both at the time and since but this often happens with figures from history and its easy for us to look back from our time with the gift of hindsight.
Just a point.....Edward 1st died in Burgh by Sands ....in effect " Bruff" by Sands ...
Scotland definitely never enjoyed a better time with England than when Edward II was on the throne, mind you we never had another king as capable as Robert the Bruce.. Robert enjoyed much success and the invasion of 1318 and Old Byland in 1322 further embarassed Edward II following Bannockburn.. But, the two kings either side of Edward II were obviously far greater! Interesting video 👏
Interesting documentary
My head is spinning 😵💫! Whew!
I'm reading Christopher Marlowe's Edward II right now.
I think it's rather funny the lengths to which contemporary Britons will go to deny that one of their kings had been a homosexual.
It's a well established fact that at least a few of them have been what we today would call homosexual. What's the big deal? William Rufus was Englands first Queen after the Conquest.
I find it rather odd how many people today find it so exciting to think about what he did with his johnson. Let it go people, it really shouldn't be that fascinating. Is that all that really matters?
Not directed at you specifically.
Gréât documentaire 👌
Thanks.
Oh please. He was bisexual and totally in love with Gaveston who was undoubtedly his first lover. He was so besotted that he had the EQ of a gnat!
Not entirely certain also, it was an irresponsible behavior.
Where is the Queen Elizabeth ll and Prince Philip documentary? Been trying to workout why you keep uploading and then removing
Recited 7 times the word nine times wouldn’t have ever known third time said
Never been a King or Queen of Scotland it's king or Queen of Scots
@@pedanticradiator There has never been a King or Queen of Scotland it’s king or queen of Scot’s what you are referring to is from England mean’s nothing in Scotland
@@pedanticradiator That’s the English thing I repeat there has never been a king or queen of Scotland it’s king or queen of Scots
@@pedanticradiator That's when you had the union of the Crowns 👑 I repeat again there has never been a king or Queen of Scotland its King or Queen of Scots
Charles III…… hold my champagne….
His best friend was the worst paedophile we've seen on these islands he's already scum . All the royals are scum though tbf
Little bit of Nero and Claudius
I usually love your documentaries but found this one just had too many mundane details especially at the start. However keep up the good work
This is sad 😔 that he is misunderstood 😢
Try Henry VI...
Thank you
Gaston wasn’t his bestfriend he was his secret lover let’s be REAL here that isn’t befriend behavior that’s secret lover behavior
It was best friend behavior for the middle ages.
@@sjw5797 it was gay boyfriend behavior in the Middle Ages
@@sjw5797 they probably were besties, yeah, but that doesn't make that all they were.
Why are people so intent on making historical figures gay? Who cares, these people are dead and it doesn't change their historical value.
@@deedeethomas7835 we’re not “making them gay.” People be gay. People been gay. Historians were intent on erasing the gay. As for historical significance it changes the context of their motivations, you think he just really liked helping out his best good special friend so much the to the point of dieing over it?? “No homo” 🙄
Edward II, James I; can no one keep their lovers on the DL in these dynasties?
Longshanks. Easily Thee Worst Royal Monarch in the History of The British Crown.
@@quinton01 That is a fact
i actually detest him but he was considered great in his time , bizarre times
Longshanks is widely regarded as one of the greatest kings in the history of the crown.
Well done.
George the 4th was voted the worst King in a fairly rececent poll.
Well,there are quite a few contenders
Edward and Pierce probably had a good laugh over the True Cross giving his wife a floor piece of wood
No: John “Lackland” is the worst English king in history. Lost Normandy and undid all the great work of his legendary brother Richard.
Surely, when Edward I had 2 further children by his new wife, after Eleanor's death, these two were NOT 'step-brothers', as narrated, BUT HALF-brothers to Edward II? Very interesting watch with much in particular mentioned about Edward I 's relationship with Galveston which laid much doubt, very interestingly, on the much-voiced (by 'experts') conclusion that the relationship between Edward and Galveston was sexual, and as explained , reiationships between many men was a 'brotherly love' in those days.
I think many may also be swayed by the portrayal in the excellent (as a spectacle) movie, 'Braveheart', where it was strongly inferred the two were lovers, and Edward I was so digusted that he threw one of his son's male lovers (I think, from memory, it was supposed to be Galveston, though it may have been another) out of the castle window, to his death (which of course didn't happen in fact).
Thanks again for the entertaining watch, but please address my comment about ''step-brothers'/'half-brothers', which I think is a VERY important fact to countless people in real life, including myself (unless I misunderstand).
I believe its used interchangeably.
Step is to separate the mothers of the boys from his first son
@@Threadbow Nah its not. Step brothers are from a previous marriage whith no blood connection. Half brothers is correct when one parent is the same.
@@Goratrix66 ah yes if 1 present is the same half siblings. No blood related is step.
Just thought the same thing while watching