The concept of honor was one thing creating a problem between Richard and John. Richard was seen as honorable, while John was not. Richard freely bleeding England of money for his campaigns in the crusades was not questioned. Richard made little attempt also to provide an heir other than John. His wife Berengaria was largely ignored. Today, close scrutiny of the kingships of both men would most likely indicate Richard was a far worse king for England than John.
This is true. Churchill once said, “When the long tally is added up, Britain and the English-speaking world owe more to the vices of King John than to the labors of more virtuous sovereigns."
Right?! I’ve often thought the same thing. While King Richard was always painted as this great person/King, I always saw him as selfish and a bit on the narcissistic side.
Richard was hardly ever in the country and would have sold it if he could to fund his endless crusades. It is also a fact that he was almost certainly gay so of course Berengaria was of no use to him except to provide an heir. I feel very sorry for this poor lady and also more for the poor wife of George 1st, Sophia Dorothea who spent many years locked up for adultery when he was at it even more. Lots of double standards those days!
Amy Dudley fell down stairs and broke her neck, the question was whether her husband pushed her, to end the marriage to give him a chance to marry Elizabeth.
@@SKILLIUSCAESAR William Cecil had more reason to have her killed, as a scandal might ruin Robert Dudley and prevent him from marrying Queen Elizabeth I. He thought that if she was violently killed, Robert Dudley would be accused and being Her Majesty's highest officer would have been able to have Dudley found guilty. This would stop him marrying Elizabeth I.
Julius Caesar said 'I came, I saw, I conquered', about his defeat of Pharnaces of Pontus at the battle of Zama, in Anatolia, long after he left Britain!
American here. I think the reason why royalty is fascinating is that they represent what could be. We are surprised when they turn out to be just like us- messy.
😲 SURPRISE!…. Now, get those old fairytales and Hollywood fables out of your head. Ancient Royalty was far more akin to Shakespearean dramas and Machiavellian plots than Disney tales. Hidden behind all of the medieval castles, lavish palaces, splendid pomp and pageantry, was far more often than not maelstroms of ‘ cloak and dagger ’ , intrigue, and numerous scandals. Ancient royal life wasn’t all ‘ fun and games ’ .
Another scandal is that of the eldest son of Edward and Alexendra, who was born unannounced, baptized and abandoned in June, 1862. His descendents discovered their Royal Family bloodline through irrefutable DNA evidence but like the Romanov Royal Family, they find themselves ostracised by their Royal Family members in both Denmark and England who shun them to this day. This is despite there being no intention of claiming their Crown but merely to be accepted by their relatives. Sadly, they feel that they need their existence to be made public, as the male members of these descendents succumb to fatal medical illness. Please share, thank you and God Bless 🙏
Actually, another TH-camr and historian did a video recently that the theory about Albert Victor being Jack the Ripper is based on shoddy history. The official royal court records show he wasn’t even in the country for one or two of the murders and at a dinner over a hundred miles away at another.
Beautiful music, particularly the string arrangement during the regency, from George 3 to George 4, lovely. If anyone can name that tune I'd be grateful.
So true. But the moronic WEF has completely lost the plot if they believe the American people will allow this unholy menace to enslave us. We will fight to the death to ensure our constitutional republic maintains our rights. We will never comply. Even though some sheep already have, it's not the majority!😮
Unfortunately during these eras violence perpetrated upon the "common ,average citizens" made said aforementioned "common citizens" more than happy to take upon themselves the yoke of a king or other ruler so they could lay their heads down with a modicum of security in the fact that they wouldn't be killed as they and their family were asleep... Just as our modern-day citizens will sacrifice the freedoms we enjoy for the same reasons. The plain truth is that the average,John Q Citizen is not very well trained in general defense. We're faced with choice of freedom or safety.
The Royal Family :ie the King Doesn't make the laws. They're just the head of state people are under that are heal anymore. Did you see troop another colors? There's nothing like that that could be put on in America. Nothing at all I love the Royal Family a couple not so much but they migrated their arse over 2 U.S. So really your off the rails & need 2 brush up on British History & by your remark u must love Trump , but he loves the British Royal family especially the late Queen Elizabeth & I'm sure whoever wins this election they're go over 4 a State Dinner,who is invited by the government Not the king God Bless the Royal Family & I'll pray 4 U 2 not be such a D.A.& look into what you say 1st so u don't look like a donkey rearin
@@atlantisrising100 I don't think any RF really rules, maybe the Spanish tried but I am not sure. The French and Russian revolution ended the ruling and monarchies can be happy that they survived this barbaric slither.
Diana wasn't killed by anyone as it was an accident. If she hadn't done away with her royal bodyguards, and worn a seatbelt she would probably be alive now.
Historians have completely debunked the association with JTR and the royal family, but the nonsense is still trotted out. Every bit of this section at least is utter bunkum.
For anyone who has even only a nodding acquaintance with British royal history, this is dull beyond belief. Presented in a pseudo-scholarly tone of voice, the information is neither revelatory nor particularly engaging. A bit of gossipy snarkiness would have been more than welcome!
It is also glaringly inaccurate in many places. But then, this guy is much given to flights of fantasy in all of his videos. To use Hollywood films as though they are factual sources is laughable. It is all very lazy, as is the constant recycling of amateur clips, whatever the subject. Ghosts in one video, queens in another Lord knows what his books are like. I doubt if fact feature heavily in them. Lol
1:23 People are more curious when someone of high status falls. For some reason it interests us more the further and higher the fall!I guess it makes us feel superior some how to look down on their flaws.
It is now Scotland's nation anthem and is sung at rugby international games , football games etc. The "song" was written in the 1960s by Roy Williamson who was then part of a two man folk group known as the Corries. They made many high quality albums of folk songs with emphasis on Scottish folk lore and Celtic mythology. Yes, it is called Flower of Scotland as the post above correctly stated. More commonly pronounced, Fluer of Scotland.
We learned in school that Robert Locsly did not exist?? Now I am confused. I think we all saw the amazing movie with Kevin Costner. Did this guy exist or not?? PLEASE!!
Robin Locksley is Legend. That is what the film starring Kevin Costner is about. The actual film is a work of fiction and not based on facts. Historians have debated whether or not one of the nobles did rise up against King John for decades. What is definitely true is there were plenty of Outlaws during that time.
A :36 second intro is not a great move. I'll keep watching to give it a chance. EDIT: @ 3:45 I realize this is for history neophytes, not those who are already familiar. Maybe change the title? It's a bit misleading. Cheers.
I think Richard 111 and Elizabeth Woodville worked together to protect the princes, and they escaped with their mother and sisters to live a common life … Richard stayed on the throne to protect them. This would not have been made public as that would be counter productive…. Worth considering. It is said that Richard and Elizabeth were close.
I believe this is at least close to what happened to them, I don't believe Richard killed or had them killed! I just think it would have been hard for these boys to live a "common life" they were very young yes, but well knew their status. Especially Edward. And as far as the girls go, the sisters, they went to live at the court of Richard III so no common life there either.
@@cindysuecox1 Not sure I agree. I have heard reports of doctors being sent to the tower to treat the princes so I think they had what they used to call jail fever. I think the 2 boys died which put Richard in a bind. He obviously couldn't produce them live and if they were dead no one would believe he hadn't had them killed. He lost both ways. Maybe he would have found a way forward if he hadn't been killed by Henry 7th's army and lost his life. As it is we are just left with a mystery. They think the children's were found in the 18 or 19th C? I know it was a few hundred years ago. They could be tested for DNA but the monarchs including the Queen always refused. I think Charles should do this but I guess he won't either.
Lol that makes zero sense. Instead of allowing him his inherited kingship and the protection of knights everywhere 24/7 he was safer in obscurity? There was nothing remotely controversial about her son’s’ succession until Richard smeared them in order to usurp…. So what would they be in danger from?
I’ve literally never heard Richard & Elizabeth getting along nm being close. I think their camps were always in opposition but never more so than when EdIV died and Woodvilles immediately tried pushing Richard out…
Bode ee see a is a pronunciation based on a misspelling from years back. Because the spelling is Boudicca they thought it was written Boudicea which resulted in the confusion.
The concept of honor was one thing creating a problem between Richard and John. Richard was seen as honorable, while John was not. Richard freely bleeding England of money for his campaigns in the crusades was not questioned. Richard made little attempt also to provide an heir other than John. His wife Berengaria was largely ignored. Today, close scrutiny of the kingships of both men would most likely indicate Richard was a far worse king for England than John.
Richard was also responsible for the massacre of over one thousand four hundred captured Muslims during the Crusades. And they called Mary " bloody"
This is true. Churchill once said, “When the long tally is added up, Britain and the English-speaking world owe more to the vices of King John than to the labors of more virtuous sovereigns."
Well said!! And true
Right?! I’ve often thought the same thing. While King Richard was always painted as this great person/King, I always saw him as selfish and a bit on the narcissistic side.
Richard was hardly ever in the country and would have sold it if he could to fund his endless crusades. It is also a fact that he was almost certainly gay so of course Berengaria was of no use to him except to provide an heir. I feel very sorry for this poor lady and also more for the poor wife of George 1st, Sophia Dorothea who spent many years locked up for adultery when he was at it even more. Lots of double standards those days!
Read many history podcasts but this was amazing thank you so much 🏴
Very good. The one unsolved mystery not mentioned, that always haunted Elizabeth I, was the death of Amy Dudley.
Amy Dudley fell down stairs and broke her neck, the question was whether her husband pushed her, to end the marriage to give him a chance to marry Elizabeth.
@@tomcat4765he was at court when it happened
@@SKILLIUSCAESAR William Cecil had more reason to have her killed, as a scandal might ruin Robert Dudley and prevent him from marrying Queen Elizabeth I. He thought that if she was violently killed, Robert Dudley would be accused and being Her Majesty's highest officer would have been able to have Dudley found guilty. This would stop him marrying Elizabeth I.
@@tomcat4765 yes his letters to the Spanish ambassador are shocking. Tho I think it’s more likely he was exploiting the death rather than causing it.
King Liam thank you for Your voice,Word,Time,and The Names
Rewatching 2024 ❤😊
This was wonderful 😊
Great documentary!
Julius Caesar said 'I came, I saw, I conquered', about his defeat of Pharnaces of Pontus at the battle of Zama, in Anatolia, long after he left Britain!
Correct ! But dont let facts ruin a good TH-cam documentary.
Julius Caesar IV, said of Britannia that he never wanted to visit the wet dreary Island again.
@@tomcat4765so being a rainy wetland has its uses 🤣
American here. I think the reason why royalty is fascinating is that they represent what could be. We are surprised when they turn out to be just like us- messy.
😲 SURPRISE!…. Now, get those old fairytales and Hollywood fables out of your head. Ancient Royalty was far more akin to Shakespearean dramas and Machiavellian plots than Disney tales. Hidden behind all of the medieval castles, lavish palaces, splendid pomp and pageantry, was far more often than not maelstroms of ‘ cloak and dagger ’ , intrigue, and numerous scandals. Ancient royal life wasn’t all ‘ fun and games ’ .
the best bit is how much u sound like Rowan Atkinson....Black Adder's stories playing in my mind lol
Another scandal is that of the eldest son of Edward and Alexendra, who was born unannounced, baptized and abandoned in June, 1862.
His descendents discovered their Royal Family bloodline through irrefutable DNA evidence but like the Romanov Royal Family, they find themselves ostracised by their Royal Family members in both Denmark and England who shun them to this day.
This is despite there being no intention of claiming their Crown but merely to be accepted by their relatives.
Sadly, they feel that they need their existence to be made public, as the male members of these descendents succumb to fatal medical illness.
Please share, thank you and God Bless 🙏
Who are these people?
the story about richard the lionheart and prince John is so inaccurate
Oh boy, All I could think was, "someone watched the movie Robinhood and thought it historical"😂
King I saw the movie, thank you so much 🎉🎉🎉
Actually, another TH-camr and historian did a video recently that the theory about Albert Victor being Jack the Ripper is based on shoddy history. The official royal court records show he wasn’t even in the country for one or two of the murders and at a dinner over a hundred miles away at another.
Sure! There’s no chance alibis weren’t invented for someone like that right…
Beautiful music, particularly the string arrangement during the regency, from George 3 to George 4, lovely.
If anyone can name that tune I'd be grateful.
14:41 Edward I of England was most certainly NOT “2 metres” tall as that would have made him 6ft7”. He was actually 6ft2”
Huge for the time, tho.
@@drdeb_ocherry indeed it was huge for the time, but that shouldn’t detract from my point which was that it was quite the error
I doubt there were many basketball players in those times. As soon as he said two metets a red flag jumped up in my head.
Fun fact, tallest King was supposedly Edward IV at 6ft4"
As shown when his Tomb was opened and he was measured.
It's all just so ridiculous that people feel the need to be ruled. To this day, people hold rulers to high regard as though they deserve respect.
So true. But the moronic WEF has completely lost the plot if they believe the American people will allow this unholy menace to enslave us. We will fight to the death to ensure our constitutional republic maintains our rights. We will never comply. Even though some sheep already have, it's not the majority!😮
Unfortunately during these eras violence perpetrated upon the "common ,average citizens" made said aforementioned "common citizens" more than happy to take upon themselves the yoke of a king or other ruler so they could lay their heads down with a modicum of security in the fact that they wouldn't be killed as they and their family were asleep... Just as our modern-day citizens will sacrifice the freedoms we enjoy for the same reasons. The plain truth is that the average,John Q Citizen is not very well trained in general defense. We're faced with choice of freedom or safety.
What royal family still rule their people to this day?
The Royal Family :ie the King
Doesn't make the laws. They're just the head of state people are under that are heal anymore. Did you see troop another colors? There's nothing like that that could be put on in America. Nothing at all
I love the Royal Family a couple not so much but they migrated their arse over 2 U.S.
So really your off the rails & need 2 brush up on British History & by your remark u must love Trump , but he loves the British Royal family especially the late Queen Elizabeth & I'm sure whoever wins this election they're go over 4 a State Dinner,who is invited by the government Not the king
God Bless the Royal Family & I'll pray 4 U 2 not be such a D.A.& look into what you say 1st so u don't look like a donkey rearin
@@atlantisrising100 I don't think any RF really rules, maybe the Spanish tried but I am not sure. The French and Russian revolution ended the ruling and monarchies can be happy that they survived this barbaric slither.
Still feeling sad diana has being killed
Dianna was a spitfire and a great woman....
Diana wasn't killed by anyone as it was an accident. If she hadn't done away with her royal bodyguards, and worn a seatbelt she would probably be alive now.
Historians have completely debunked the association with JTR and the royal family, but the nonsense is still trotted out. Every bit of this section at least is utter bunkum.
For anyone who has even only a nodding acquaintance with British royal history, this is dull beyond belief. Presented in a pseudo-scholarly tone of voice, the information is neither revelatory nor particularly engaging. A bit of gossipy snarkiness would have been more than welcome!
It is also glaringly inaccurate in many places. But then, this guy is much given to flights of fantasy in all of his videos. To use Hollywood films as though they are factual sources is laughable. It is all very lazy, as is the constant recycling of amateur clips, whatever the subject. Ghosts in one video, queens in another Lord knows what his books are like. I doubt if fact feature heavily in them. Lol
weird pronunciation of Queen Boudica too.
This documentary is also over 20 years old 🤦
Nevertheless it is a great documentary!
@@hogwashmcturnip8930better than nothing
1:23 People are more curious when someone of high status falls. For some reason it interests us more the further and higher the fall!I guess it makes us feel superior some how to look down on their flaws.
What is the bagpipe piece called?
Flower of Scotland...I think
It is now Scotland's nation anthem and is sung at rugby international games , football games etc.
The "song" was written in the 1960s by Roy Williamson who was then part of a two man folk group known as the Corries.
They made many high quality albums of folk songs with emphasis on Scottish folk lore and Celtic mythology.
Yes, it is called Flower of Scotland as the post above correctly stated. More commonly pronounced, Fluer of Scotland.
Thanks!
Yes,thats it,just had a listen.
We learned in school that Robert Locsly did not exist?? Now I am confused. I think we all saw the amazing movie with Kevin Costner. Did this guy exist or not?? PLEASE!!
Robin Locksley is Legend.
That is what the film starring Kevin Costner is about. The actual film is a work of fiction and not based on facts.
Historians have debated whether or not one of the nobles did rise up against King John for decades.
What is definitely true is there were plenty of Outlaws during that time.
A :36 second intro is not a great move. I'll keep watching to give it a chance.
EDIT: @ 3:45 I realize this is for history neophytes, not those who are already familiar.
Maybe change the title? It's a bit misleading.
Cheers.
What's the title of the tune from 39:48 ? Please thanks
I cannot defend Henry VIII; I will simply note that his marriage to Anne Boleyn was annualled, as was another of his marriages; he was never divorced.
Not even from his 1st wife??????
Anne Boleyn was beheaded. Annulment was not necessary.
Go to google type in first king of all England, it’s not the one you say
I think Richard 111 and Elizabeth Woodville worked together to protect the princes, and they escaped with their mother and sisters to live a common life … Richard stayed on the throne to protect them. This would not have been made public as that would be counter productive…. Worth considering. It is said that Richard and Elizabeth were close.
I hope to goodness I'm still not over the French children who died in tower.
I believe this is at least close to what happened to them, I don't believe Richard killed or had them killed! I just think it would have been hard for these boys to live a "common life" they were very young yes, but well knew their status. Especially Edward. And as far as the girls go, the sisters, they went to live at the court of Richard III so no common life there either.
@@cindysuecox1 Not sure I agree. I have heard reports of doctors being sent to the tower to treat the princes so I think they had what they used to call jail fever. I think the 2 boys died which put Richard in a bind. He obviously couldn't produce them live and if they were dead no one would believe he hadn't had them killed. He lost both ways. Maybe he would have found a way forward if he hadn't been killed by Henry 7th's army and lost his life. As it is we are just left with a mystery. They think the children's were found in the 18 or 19th C? I know it was a few hundred years ago. They could be tested for DNA but the monarchs including the Queen always refused. I think Charles should do this but I guess he won't either.
Lol that makes zero sense. Instead of allowing him his inherited kingship and the protection of knights everywhere 24/7 he was safer in obscurity? There was nothing remotely controversial about her son’s’ succession until Richard smeared them in order to usurp…. So what would they be in danger from?
I’ve literally never heard Richard & Elizabeth getting along nm being close. I think their camps were always in opposition but never more so than when EdIV died and Woodvilles immediately tried pushing Richard out…
Is that pronunciation right....Boo dee ka. i have only ever, previously, heard the name pronounced Bode ee see a.
Think it’s a regional thing I call her Bodacia but have heard other variations
You’re probably right 😊
Bode ee see a is a pronunciation based on a misspelling from years back. Because the spelling is Boudicca they thought it was written Boudicea which resulted in the confusion.
Both are correct
The change in pronunciation came with the Victorians
The story about Queen Mary the first is totally inaccurate
You mean bloody Mary !
@@den264Yes, officially called Queen Mary I of England. The first Queen regnant not counting Matilda and The Lady Jane.
Miserable lot.
And it goes on....😂
😅😅
😅
Pronounce correctly : [Nante]
13:54 we’ll see about that
8:51 letters patent
8:51 letters patent i
8:51 letters patent