American Reacts to the Cruelest British Monarchs in History
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2023
- As an American I do not have any real reference for the history and behavior of monarchs outside of the little we learned in school. That is exactly why I am extremely interested in leaning about the cruelest monarchs in British history. If you enjoyed the video feel free to leave a comment, like, or subscribe for more!
Mailing Address:
Tyler E.
PO Box 2973
Evansville, IN 47728
You didn’t get to stay long as king if you were nice and kind. Someone who wanted the throne was bound to kill you to get it! Those were tough times. The survival of the fittest was the order of the day!
Facts bro these times were brutal asf ahha
Just think about the fact that Henry VIII was the father of both Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Mary I - known by her infamous nickname Bloody Mary.
Being a monarch meant fearing for your life, especially by those closest to you. This goes back forever, witness the Roman Emperors. One needed no premeditated predisposition to violence, paranoia grew with the job. Many started out well, but opposition & events often went against them.
Kings aren't "given" their power. They usually either take it by force, or inherit it (and have to defend their position from those who would take it be force).
That tends to require or reward brutal behaviour. (Although kings that are brutal _and incompetent,_ like John or Ethelred tend to make people hate them more than they fear them, and that's how you get rebellions).
Kings and queens of almost every country ever had to be ruthless and vicious, for the most part. Good, kind monarchs often didn't last long.
It was a much more brutal time to be alive so to be a ruler at the time you had to be as well.
The number one on the list, King John, was the brother of Richard the Lionheart and died in Nottinghamshire. "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood" established John as the principal villain within the traditional Robin Hood narrative.
There was an actual Robin Hood in the South, in The Weald ... but he fought an invading French army that had been brought in by the revolting barons. Once King John died ... the need for the revolt went away, the French army was told to go home ... and King John's baby son (King Henry III) was made king under a regent.
King John was so shit massive L
The Monarchy isn’t something that is given to someone. It’s hereditary.
yeah literally the definition of a nepo baby, the idea they were genetically predisposed to be horrid rather than their upbringing and class is silly
If you want to learn more about British history in general, I highly recommend Horrible Histories. It's a kids sketch show which is encreadibly popular with both kids and adults and was voted best comedy. It is brilliant at explaining history. I dont know if full episodes are available in the US but you can certainly find short videos of some of the skits along with the songs.
I love Horrible Histories . I watched it more than my kids when they were growing up .😂
Good Grief....Horrible Histories is indeed horrible history. Do not watch it to get any proper grasp of history at all.
Here's a great drinking game: Take a shot every time he says "I've never heard of this"
That was amazing, and horrifying! Doesn't change my love for the monarchy, but thankful for the Magna Carta. Anyway, I tried to find a video with the kindest monarchs, but couldn't find one in a quick search. Luckily, we have the recent examples of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and her father. I hope you have a great day, Tyler.
Re William the Conqueror, he was the King William you got a bit confused about in your video "American Reacts to the History of England" (5 months ago). He was the Duke of Normandy (in France) who conquered England in 1066 (and started building castles, remember?) and whose descendants became the English monarchs from then to the present day.
It would be interesting to compare these with world leaders of other countries and empires around the same time and earlier. Some Roman emperors spring to mind. But many world leaders throughout history have been very similar to these kings and queens.
Rome had kings , and Britain had their own Roman emperor when we. Were under Roman rule
@@da90sReAlvloc who are you be referring to in terms of Britain having their own Roman Emperor. I've been watching quite a few videos recently of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Plus some videos of The Napoleonic Empire. Plus some videos on the change of rulers from Rome up to James I of Great Britain.
Given comments sections I'm thinking it's possible your being sarcastic about more recent prime ministers. Our you could be being totally serious. Could you be talking be about the British Empire which very clearly had some major flaws. Then again empires are never really great for the countries that are taken over, though there can be some perhaps administrative or technological benefits.
That said I'm not sure that any section of land or people group in Europe hasn't had multiple different empires ruling over it over the last two thousand years and before then too.
Now you know, where the ideas for game of thrones,came from.
Interesting to note that HenryII was 15, when he rode out to meet Was Tyler and his army of rebels. You were considered an adult at 10 in those days! I'd also like to point out that these punishments and deaths were pretty normal for the times. It's abhorrent to us now and rightfully so, but when you consider that public executions were attended by hundreds of people every week, it brings some perspective to it all!
You mean Richard II.
@@MrBulky992 Yeah sorry, getting my Richard's and Henry's mixed up! 😆
Do you mean WAT Tyler ?
Many Napoleonic / Nelson era prisons in Britain had viewing holes through the wall with a mound outside so people could see the executions on the Scaffold in the yard. Lewes prison in East Sussex has an example of them (now bricked up). Many minor theft offences carried the death penalty. The origin of "Might as well be hanged for stealing a Sheep than a Lamb".
@@tonys1636 They did but many juries were unwilling to convict at all because they felt the penalties were too severe or they'd convict of a lesser offence on a technicality. I believe I read that in cases where the death penalty was the maximum sentence but not mandatory, it was often not given out though the alternatives were severe e.g. transportation. The death penalty for treason remained hanging, drawing and quartering until the 19th century but it was always commuted to simple hanging (some consolation to the accused). I should imagine most executions were for murders or blatant or persistent offences.
Queen Elizabeth the 1st was a good Queen and unlike her half sister, she was not cruel by the standards of the time. Even Edward the 1sts reputation depends on whether or not you were Jewish, Scottish or English. And to make judgements about people who ruled at a time when cruelty was more or less a given across the globe is not really saying much.
My ancestors are Jewish, Scottish, and English, so I guess I should be two-thirds opposed to Edward.
Love these history videos mate keep them coming 💯👍
They were not "given the crown" for the most part they damm well took it!😆
William the Conqueror - Let's not get confused about Matilda - that was a wedding of convenience. He wanted to maintain control of Normandy when he was in England - and she was his route to do so.
Her saying no because he was born out of wedlock (aka a bastard) was a kick to the shins. So he informed her that maybe she might want to change her mind.
After that, he did everything he could to make her happy; one can only assume that they actually fell in love.
She was 12! And his requirement to have an aire ment he didn't wait for her to grow up. She was only able to have one child because of this, and spent the rest of her days making damned sure no other political marriage was consummated before 16! But sure the child predator loved her.
You are not typical or average mate, you're really quite witty and charismatic.
That persecution of Jews thing isn't that uncommon. I think it's about 109 countries if not more that they've been expelled from throughout the years.
I didn't realize it went back that far
@@adamstewart9383 You can trace such events back as far as 733 BCE when the population of Naphtali was deported to Assyria.
And it was never their fault, no really.....🤔
Smoke...fire?
Jews were invited into England in the late 1600s. Although by then there were quite a number of Jewish people already here.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Exactly what I came to write but I see you have beaten me to it!.
Queen elizabeth 1 reigned for 45 years she was bound to have teething problems lol But look at the battles she led us through on the whole she was an awesome queen
Not if you were Catholic
@@Marse73 We all have our crosses to bear x Being born into the church of England i think she was a very good queen -after all she was a woman in a mans world thats always difficult x
The Glorious Queen as she was known . Not one to be messed with that's for sure .
@@Marse73 Elizabeth was just as “bloody” as her sister Mary, and was responsible for very many executions of Catholics, including her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots. She was only “glorious” to those on her side, and was shrewd and cunning in her politics.
It seems a bit harsh to come down too hard on Henry II for Becket's death. It rather sounds as though his words were taken out of context by the four knights. He was certainly not pleased when he heard of Becket's murder even though the latter had been frustrating his policies with regard to church immunity from English secular law. If Becket had not been murdered, could Henry not have just exiled him again like the last time?
He didn't exile him though, that had been done by Becket himself, also Becket had betrayed him once so why would he not do it again if he got the chance
@@zachall101 If Becket had been out of tge country, he wouldn't have been in a position to carry on his betrayal.
I think the assassination was the result of a misunderstanding and not deliberate. According to Simon Schama, these are Henry's words according to a contemporary latin source (Edward Grim):
"What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?"
which contained no actual explicit exhortation to kill the archbishop. Henry could have brought charges against him as he had done before the last exile when Becket asked for the Pope's support and didn't get it.
@@MrBulky992 you know that a person can plot to overthrow a king while he’s out of the country right, now whether he would have done that is another thing all together but it has been the case many many times in many different empires so it’s not totally unreasonable to think it could have happened again here, but yes I think a lot of what went on between these 2 was misunderstood by those outside of their friendship
He certainly pulled off a massive PR stunt afterwards by walking bare foot to Canterbury Cathedral and being whipped by the monks. He just couldn't let Becket upstage him.
I would say our late Queen Elizabeth 2nd was our kindest and most loved monarch
She wasn't living in the medieval power struggles time, where those closetest to her would seek her position.. Monarchys where forced to be brutal in order to survive
@@malopephasha5341 true, but she was still a monarch and had a great reputation for kindness
@@lewis123417 a monarch that didn't have the burden of ruling her kingdom
@@lewis123417 - And humor.
If you want to react to more vids about monarchs, CGP Grey did a good one and Useful Charts have done a few (1 just about English and Great British, 1 just about Scottish, a combined one, welsh princes, lords of Ireland, and some ‘What if’ vids)
🤣Tyler , I’ve just finished all your Videos PHEW 🤣really enjoyed them , your giving us all a history lesson as well so we are in your Club wanting to drink up info of the development of the world History all nations included , it’s so fascinating , so keep up the good work you are doing . I’ve also been watching (Steve )Reacting To My Roots , both you guys are are easy on the ear and have thirst to want to learn like we all do and have an enquiring minds 👏👏love it so admire you both for your truthfulness of I DID’NT KNOW THAT or WHAT WHAT , and WOW , JUST A MINUTE etc etc 🤣🤣priceless , we all thank you as I’m sure your followers would agree 👍👏🤷♀️
Americans should learn World History with UK in the mix as it is so important as it developed where we are now . “Game of thrones” was based on the English “War of the Roses “. William the Conqueror is William I.Henry VIII was a SPARE his brother Arthur died at a very young age his wife was Catherine of Aragon so Henry married his Widow . Tyler don’t worry you can’t remember your History Your making up for loss time MUCH TO BE ADMIRED another great video you’ve given us 🤣👌👌👍👏👏👏🤷♀️
Queen Elizabeth will be the top of list for best royalty
You should look up the Magna Carta if you haven't already, it's quiet the document and definitely the main influence of the U.S. Constitution.
Also while a very cruel man, William the Conqueror is said to have been accidentally responsible for abolishment (of slavery) in the UK by creating a law which fined any person who tried to sell slaves from England to aboard, while likely meant to be a way to raise capital, it instead was interpreted as Slavery being not acceptable. The idea that no man could be a slave on British soil would later become an idea that'd eventually lead the British Empire to wage war on Slavery, effectively ending multiple slave trades, bur primarily focused on the African export of slaves to America. This started before the American Civil War.
A good thing to look at is medieval torture in Britain
i agree we definitely had some evil horrific ways of torture in England back in the day !
Brasen bull anyone
In the words of Hancock:
Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?
Did she die in vain?
Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten!
Is all this to be forgotten?
That's just how it was back then they were pretty brutal .
Great reaction Tyler, I'm sure somebody else may already have mentioned this but I think I'm right in saying that the Magna Carta was an inspiration for the American Declaration of Independence? You know what they say 'Don't throw the baby out with the bath water'! 🤣 So when you guys gave us Brits the heave ho the Founding Fathers had the good sense to keep some of the good bits! 😁Best wishes from across the pond! 🇬🇧🇺🇸
10:03 Power corrupts, and violent tendencies are often hereditary. There is a reason so many revolutions happened and why most of Europe is either full republics or constitutional monarchies now.
John is more widley known because of the legend ofRobim Hood as it was hhis taxes etc. that Robin of Loxley was rebeling against. Mary Tudor was a very complex woman. You must remember she was very young when her father divorced her mother and put a uch younger woman in her place and without proof other wise religion was a big thing and very dear to Mary. She also had several miscaridges and suffered from what we now know as endometriosis or very severe period pain from the age of 13
I think Elizabeth 1st was a little mischaracterised. Really you need to see them in the contect of their circumstances. Her whole life growing up she was in imminent danger of being executed by Catholics. She was imprisoned for many years as a teenager and became Queen when she was around 20 I think. She changed the country back to the prodestant religion and spent her whole life in fear of Catholic rebels who were plotting her down fall to return the country back to Catholicism. She was pretty good to the general population though and she probably wouldn't have lasted long without rooting out the Catholic rebels as they were given cart blanch by the Pope to have her killed and her rule restored to a Catholic monarch. She was born into a world of terrible danger, fear and conspiracy with her life constantly in danger especially when young and it was a real not imagined threat. Also there's no evidence she had her potential suiters wife murdered most likely an accidental death or potentially conspiracy to implicate her.
I am surprised they didn't include the archetypal villain Richard III thought to have murdered his nephews. In defence of Elizabeth I she did have to deal with constant plots against her life. It was also very difficult for a woman to be sole monarch in those times. Most monarchs before constitutional monarchy took over had to be pretty brutal to keep their throne and maintain order. And they became monarch by inheritance so there was nothing to inherently equip them to be good in the job. Re: Henry VIII, evidence does seem to suggest he became more paranoid and tyrannical after the jousting accident, he turned against his second wife Anne Boleyn very soon after.
@6:50
The cruelty connoisseur is relieved to be in familiar territory again with the more classic cruelty :P
I'm sure the "monochs" (how we pronounce it) weren't born bad. You just have to look at the old adage "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely" to understand that.
Nobody says "monochs", not even the English. They say "monucks". The Scots, the Northern Irish and even some northern English pronounce their R's and say "monerks". The Welsh may say "monecks" (not heard enough Welsh people to be sure about that, though)😃
@@alicemilne1444 I'm Welsh. Yes, we pronounce it as 'monucks '.
I say Mon..Arcs (I use the R)
'Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' - Lord Acton
There's a difference between an absolute monarch and a constitutional monarch. Charles 1st was the last absolute monarch. If we are talking about cruelty, some of today's 'president's rather come under 'absolute' power, such as Putin and Erdogan.
The #1 - King John is the king in the Robin Hood movies. His brother, King Richard the Lionhearted, was the true king but Richard was away on the crusade and ended up in a prison in Germany. There are many movies depicting this interesting time.
I’d also recommend watching horrible histories for more information on various subjects especially English rulers, made for kids but very good for adults too!
I was always told that King John wasn't as bad as he was made out to be. That the Robin Hood Legend made him out to be a worse king than he really was.
Most monarch's successes are measured by their successes in war. John was a bad King in this measure. He was defeated by Philippe Augustus, and lost most of his French territories. Then he lost the Barons War, and lost a lot of his royal authority in the process... bad King.
John mostly had the issues of Richard’s wars, bankruptcy due to ransoms, bad military luck and historical revisionism in order to give Rubin good a more palatable tone for the nobility
He wasn’t snacking and was most likely shit but all monarchies are shit by there very existence (also all top down hierarchical systems of leadership)
At least we got the Magna Carta out of it
But he did starve William de Braose's wife and daughter to death in Corfe Castle, and he lost Normandy by allowing his mercenaries to run riot, forcing the populace to turn to the French King. He would fall into terrible rages.
In all fairness, I'm convinced he was abused. His parents' marriage was breaking up, and when very small he was dumped in the French Abbey of Fontevraut. Ever afterwards he detested French clerics...
He murdered his young nephew, Arthur, some say with his own hands in a fit of temper. Arthur was 11 or 12 when John came to the throne and had a better claim to it as he was the son of John's older brother, Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany. He was 15 or 16 when murdered by John. John also died leaving southern England in the hands of a French invasion force led by the future Louis VIII. There is nothing positive to say about John.
@@plokijm22 ... and lost England to Louis of France (Louis VIII) whom the barons accepted initially but defected from the following year.
If he does a video on russian monarchs he will find these a joy in comparison.
Keep in mind it was over a thousand years ago to a few hundred years ago . It was a very violent time and not just in UK i might add . But all of Europe .
We were constantly being invaded as well .
But you know what i love living in our country is history dating back to the stone age .
Regarding Ethelred the 'unready'. It didn't mean he was always the last one ready to leave anywhere. It was a pun on his name and in the language of the time it meant he was not predisposed to taking the advice of his more experienced advisors or he followed the bad advice from those who knew no better.
Richard II’s second wife (Isabella of Valois) was an extremely controversial choice being merely six, although many historians have said he was actually very kind to her and sent her dolls and books and treated more like a daughter than anything else.
When Richard passed it was said Isabella was in deep anguish and mourning after his death.
Sometimes a great king must do terrible things
You got to remember as cruel as this sounded King was under constant attack from plotters within?
Bit like a Stag deer at rutting time he was always rushing about quelling this uprising that Conspiracy,especially if he were a tyrannical monarch
Henry II almost certainly didn't expect his knights to take up the challenge to literally kill the bishop.
The problem for early kings and Queens was that if their right to the throne was in any way disputed, the only way to resolve the issue was for one side to kill everyone on the other side. No democratic way to remove your opponent back then.
Richard III not being on this list is criminal… Henry VIII is severely overrated in cruelty, though obviously evil he was rather restrained compared to many more (though Henry VII was far nicer)
You need to look into these Kings and Queens more. That really isn't correct as a whole although I agree with the hammer of the Scott's and Mary the first :) the others have more to them. X
What Mary 1st did was appalling but she may not have been behind the burnings at the stake it may have been more to do with her husband and her Catholic advisors. Her health was very poor physically and mentally and its possible she was frail and not in full control of what was happening, not paying attention and burying her head in the sand especially the last couple of years. Deferring to her advisors and allowing her husband to over power her. Also she had the most awful, harsh, tragic childhood I'm always equally torn between feeling pity for her and feeling appalled by what she did!! Ultimately I think I go with pity as I don't think she was making the decisions or fully aware what was going on. It all kind of went horribly wrong! It doesn't seem that she was cruel by nature. Elizabeth 1st learned a lot from it I'm sure.
I don't think they were excactly elected as king or queen, they either took the place or were born into it like today. This is why Norway had an election when we became our own nation and got to have our own king and was given a Danish prince and a English princess as king and queen of Norway. He actually had the name Carl and took the name Haakon the 7th and his son was called Alexander but was renamed Olav and later became Olav the 5th, his son is the current king Harald the 5th, and that is why Princess Ingrid Alexandra is called Alexandra after her great grandfather Alexander. Ingrid is after some queen or princess way back. Crown prince Haakon will become King Haakon the 8th Magnus when he becomes king when his father the king dies. In England Prince Charles became the new king the minute his mother Queen Elizabeth the 2 died.This is why they always have a number instead of a last name, exept for the Windsors in UK and the Bernadotte family in Sweden. All of Europe is kind of connected through monarcy as some old king was litterarly giving his daughters away to the princes all over Europe. King Haralds mother was the grand daughter of queen Victoria of England or something.
Elizabeth the first is the queen in Alice in wonderland and this is why the knights paints the roses red and they have to cut the head off people she don't like. The syndrome that Alice is experiencing with things seem smaller or larger is an actual diagnosis and is now called Alice in Wonderland syndrome or AIWS, I think it is formerly called Todd's syndrome. (Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't bother to google it again.)
We learnt about Henry Viii with this rhyme. Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived. That's how he dealt with his wives.
Im surprise Richard lll didn't make the list 😂.
And I know she was regent for her son at the time but what Isabella of France did to Hugh Despenser was just plain sadistic!
U have to keep in mind that as a Ruler in those days, cruelty was quite needed alot of the time becouse if the Nobles did't like u, u would't live long, so alot of stuff was done to keep them in line and the populace. Not to mention your own family who were probably plotting to have u removed for their own goals.
Of course, another reason for the messed up personality of many a Monarch is their upbringing, when no one is allowed to say no to u(even as a kid)it tends to really mess with one's personality, add to that power feuds and the fact that to much power corrupts, and u have recipe for disaster.
If u want to see some really messed up stuff, look up what the Roman emperors did in their days,they are a prime example of cruelty and other stuff(like Incest) that rulers did/do.
King John was on the throne in the day of Robin Hood (even though Robin Hood is probably just a ficticious character)
I'm surprised that Richard the third didnt' get a look in on this list. He took care of the throne on behalf of his nephew until his nephew was old enough to take his rightful place on the throne. However, Richard managed to have his caretaking role made permanent by having his nephews held in the tower of London (for their own protection of course). Unfortunately shortly after their arrival in the tower they somehow disappeared. (it seems pretty certain they were murdered)
You really should read a history of the Tudors for a start. Henry VIII is world famously infamous. He had 6 wives and in the UK we remember them by “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived” Henry caused the breakaway of the English church from Rome, and therefore was largely responsible for the protestant churches, (protesting against the Pope for not allowing him to divorce his long standing Queen who could not bear him a son, only a daughter) he declared himself head of the Church. There have been so many movies made of this whole period,some good, and some not.
If you were to watch the most popular monarchs in the Britain then Edward 1 and Elizabeth 1 would be up there with the best. Richard was only a baddy to the Scots and Jews, he brought many laws to the country which still survive today. Elizabeth 1 had to clean up the mess left by her father Henry V111 and half sister Bloody Mary. Elizabeth allowed Protestants and Catholics to worship but in so doing allowed Scottish & Spanish Catholics to plot against her. Elizabeth reigned over the Golden years when The British empire started to expand.
The position of monarch was not given. It was taken.
Without monarchy, there was anarchy and tribal warfare. That might not be a lot different from some monarch's reigns, but you have to have some structure, unless everyone lived in isolation to each other hundreds of miles from their neighbours, and even then, somebody would rustle their neighbour's animals. That's the phase of government that lasted to the Age of Reason in the C18th and beyond. But those developments didn't happen in the USA, they happened in Europe, and the USA inherited those philosophies of republicanism (small r) from the English (British) civil war in the C17th, when the King's head was removed, and the English and Scottish philosophers, who took those ideas with them to the 13 colonies, and with them the various religious groups that had developed their own way of thinking. I notice that Wikipedia references the revolutionary Thomas Paine as an American, even though he was 45 when he left the UK, but Im sure you take my point. So for Americans to scoff at the existence of monarchy, is down to ignorance, because its their inheritance as well as that of Europeans. They may not like the continued existence of monarchy in the world, including the UK, but the civil war in Britain left a lasting legacy in Britain associating republicanism with the turmoil and authoritarianism of Cromwell................
Don't forget that back in the day Monarchs were up against dukes, barons, earls, etc. who were equally brutal, ambitious and greedy for more than they already had. They didn't go in for counselling in those days; more direct methods were often required. Elizabeth I faced attempts by the Spanish court (the most powerful in Europe) to have her murdered by catholic supporters in England.
Elizabeth I was on the throne for a very long time by the standard of the times...45 years. She had inherited a particularly tough gig after her father split from Rome and across europe there was religious political friction. Elizabeth I had those challenges plus being a woman, which was very difficult to negotiate and command her barons and defend the realm. She could show no weakness. She had watched her father kill and divirce his wives, including her own mother, she survived being 'out of favour' and multiple plots against her life from her birth and throughout her life.
if you want to learn about the kings and queens of the UK may i suggest searching out the BBC TV program Horrible Histories the monarch's song? its a TV program aimed at kids but this song is brilliant and lists them in order
If you have the time, then watching Simon Sharma’s “History of Britain” series is another way to get the whole history of Britain (both bad and good)
The peasants revolt, not peasants but artisans. Post Black death. You have heard of Magna Carta, well King John was the King who unwillingly gave assent to it. Luckily he didn't live long enough to be deposed and killed, lol. Best not to look at history through the lens of modern eyes.
Honestly I’m surprised Henry the 8th had any children after what he did??!!
The name Aethelread the Unready is misleading. In Old English the word "red" meant something like well-advised, so "unready" meant "ill-advised".
Hey, Tyler, thanks for your reaction. This top ten was a good topic for you to react to. There is no surprise in your having a very sketchy appreciation of this aspect of British history. Most modern Britons will share this lack of knowledge. In a a very weak defence of the monarchs featured, it is important to assess their behaviours in context of the medieval and post-medieval notions of kingship and as such one would find similar litanies for the deeds of French kings, Popes etc. The image of monarchy as a cosy embodiment of national identity etc. is effectively a fiction dating from the Victorian era. Don’t get taken away in the good king/bad king narrative for the brothers Richard the Lionheart/John. Richard was equally inclined to cruelty, such as ordering the death of 2,000 prisoners of war during the Crusades. You might find it interesting to review the histories of England’s interference in, and subjugation of, Ireland and Scotland in an appreciation of the backdrop of current disputes. Keep up your efforts.
I think Mary 1 gets a very bad deal. She initially wanted to spare Jane Grey - she knew Jane had been used by others- but when her father joined another revolt the next year, Mary had little choice. Similarly, she didn't want to burn anyone, but as she became more desperate, she felt forced to do it in order to save the souls of her people. This meant much more then than it does now. I have a soft spot for poor Mary.
9:00 What do you mean by "if this is the correct Elizabeth"?
How many English/British queens named Elizabeth have you actually heard of?
Just a little hint: Elizabeth II passed away last year...
The Scottish National Anthem "Flower of Scotland" is a response to Edward I.
I'm still learning about British History. When I went to school in Australia, they had already abolished and dumped British history are a core subject replacing it with Australian history, with electives or modules on American, French, and Asian history. In defiance against my mother who was an Anglophile, I chose American and Frech history. one of the few rebellious acts towards my pushy parents. I probably did myself a disservice as so much went on. I did learn much about all the counter-revolutions in France which were a universe of their own
If you are of English/British decent, then that is your history too. 🇬🇧
@@Paul-hl8yg Correct. Non-native Australian history only goes back so far before it becomes connected with British history, and Dutch before that.
Indigenous Australian history goes back roughly 50,000 years or so.
@user-wx1lj3oz2l The only thing wrong with your statement is that you classified England and Britain as one in the same. That's incorrect. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people are British but not English. Britain is not just England.
Australian history?!!!! Haha!!! The entirety of which was all written on a pamphlet, I'm sure!
What were the more gripping Australian historical events? Ned Kellly's execution? Recollections about Gallipoli? The archeological triumph when Rolf Harris' first wobble board was saved from the incinerator? Germaine Greers' explicit diary extracts about losing her virginity in Billabong? or maybe that pinnacle moment when 'Neighbours' first aired on ABC?
@@rnw2739 Firstly, you only refer to colonial history. Hiding behind a mask, your ignorance, arrogance, sarcasm, whatever, holds a mirror to your intellectual disability. If putting others down while ignorance is bliss, you must be a happy man
I think Lady Jane Grey was likely to be the nicest of monachs from back then, but then she was only Queen for something like 12 days.
Elizabeth I, should be above Mary I. Elizabeth had more people executed including her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. Elizabeth's sister Mary is only known as Bloody (instead of Elizabeth) because the winners write history! I don't think John should be first on this list neither. Yes he's a villain in the Robin Hood stories but at least he was trying to maintain law and order etc... in England whilst his brother Richard the Lion Heart was messing about, off fighting in the crusades. Those crusades being part of why John had to raise taxes. I'd probably put Elizabeth I, first on this list actually. Closely followed by her father Henry VIII. Henry's execution of Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth's mother and how Elizabeth was treated after that, probably having a lot to do with how Elizabeth turned out. With the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the creation of what would become The Royal Navy, Elizabeth I is also arguably England's most successful Monarch.
The persecution of Jews was pretty common throughout Christian Europe, usually due to money.
Christians weren't allowed to lend and charge interest on loans. The Jewish religion didn't proscribe this so most money lenders were Jews. Money lenders don't tend to be very popular.
Consequently whenever a ruler was short of funds he'd think:
"Who has money/who do I owe money to? The Jews."
"Who is unpopular with the rest of the population? The Jews"
"If I find some pretext to persecute the Jews it will cancel all my debts AND I can steal all their money. Plus I'll be popular with everyone else who is in debt to Jewish money lenders. Whilst I'm about it I'll blame all the rest of the Kingdoms problems on them too. Sounds like a perfect plan!"
Consequently this happened on numerous occasions throughout European history. A similar thing happened to the Templar Knights for the same reason. They were huge money lenders.
Henry 8th - A Spoilt Brat.
Elizabeth was actually pretty damn kind for a monarch. You had to be ruthless to keep the crown back then, but by the standards of the time, she was good. The claim that torture was more widespread under her reign than any other monarch is at best dubious and at worst horseshit. Torture was common but no more than under any other monarch. To many historians she was our best monarch and I don't think she should even be on this list. Put it this way, her father Henry VIII executed at least 57,000 people during his 36 year reign, while Elizabeth executed less than 300 in her 45 year reign.
Game of thrones was actually loosely inspired by the war of the roses from 1455-1487. House of Lancaster vs House of York. The house of the dragon, Rhaenyra was loosely inspired on Empress Matilda who had claim to the throne in the 12th century
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely!
I don't know if you're familiar with the Pirates of Penzance by Gilbert and Sullivan, but if you are, remember the line from the Pirate King's song. "For many a King on a first class throne, if he wants to call his crown his own, must manage somehow to get through more dirty work than ever I'll do!"
A lot of things in the game of thrones were based on historical events. The overall story is based on the war of the Roses, where two families were fighting over the throne of England. It ended with Richard the third being defeated in battle by Henry, the seventh. Later, Henry married Richards niece, the daughter of his oldest brother, and united the two families to put an end to the fighting one and for all.
Back in the day you weren't given the crown you took it by force, and then held on to it by claiming you were anointed by God to rule.
You have to remember that a monarch had to be more ruthless and feared than the last to hold onto power, However King Ethelstan was sad to be the kindest king 925-935 and as known for his compassion and charity , We only hear about the ruthless monarchs because they are more exciting.
You might like to look at Henry VIII in more detail. To get his 1st marriage annulled he eventually split from catholic church and set up Church of England. After that with brief exception of Mary I you get distrust and persecution of Catholic's. Mary I was catholic so she had protestants burned at stake. Elizabeth I was protestant so was constantly concerned with potential catholic plots to dethrone her. From this split you got the Gunpowder Plot. Also, in Ireland the general population were catholic while the land-owners were protestant. Hence in Northern Ireland today generally protestants want to remain part of UK while catholic's want to reunite with Republic of Ireland.
Also idk but usually it seems if it’s the direct child of a monarch that steps in they try and be more brutal than they parents like Elizabeth 1st with Henry the 8th or Ivan the terrible who took over from his dad Ivan but it seems when a distant relative gets the throne they want to try seem better than they’re predecessor and do some stuff differently
I would put Stephen, Charles I, and Oliver Cromwell on the list.
James 1st he was responcible for all the witch trials and even wrote a book on witches and how to deal with them!!
It’s because of what these past kings and queens did , why Britain has always been a prominent player in world politics and have the respect of many countries.
I’m proud of our monarchy, past and present
Bloody Mary was the daughter of Henry, the 8th and older half-sister of Elizabeth, the 1st. Her mother was sister to the king of Spain and former wife of henrys older brother, who died before he took the throne.
Catherine of Aragon didn't had any brother. Her nephew charles was king of Spain and Holy roman Emporer. Her nephew's son philip II was husband of Bloody Mary and philip also attended England with his armada.
In past periodsof history everywhere violence was very common among rivals.
Got to number 2 and realized that they hadn't mentioned either Richard III or King John ( Or prince John from the Robin Hood story.) yet. So no mention of Richard murdering the 2 princes in the tower.
Henry VIII was not the first heir, the crown was to go to his older brother, who married Katherine of Aragon...but he died. Katherine swore her marriage was never consummated, so she could then marry Henry instead. This was accepted. At the time, it was not permitted religiously to marry the widow or widower of your sibling, unless the marriage wasnt consumated or the Pope gave special dispensation. Katherine had a daughter, Mary, but never conceived again. Henry felt it was necessary to have a male heir...bear in mind that his father was not the legitimate heir when he became King through conquest, and the Wars of the Roses establishing different heirs had been devastating for England. Hence the pressure to have a male heir that noone could question or set aside on the basis of sex. As it turned out, the male heir he eventually got was sickly and died at about age 15...and the throne went to his older sister Mary, and then she died and the only surviving heir was Elizabeth...and then she reigned for 45 years.
William the conquerer aka 'the bast**d' is my top of list he was responcible for death of something like 25% of the population and after him all the nobility were Norman/French and spoke a different language to general population - they basically just 'lorded' it over everyone from that point. Prior to his invasion England was supposedly pretty a pretty peaceful country at that time.
Another for top of list is James 1st who wrote a book on witchcraft and initialised and promoted the hunt for 'witches' across the country responcible for the brutal murder of 100s of unsuspecting supposed 'witches' /innocent people across the country in towns and remote villages alike.
You’re Not Given The Throne , You Inherit It By Right Of Birth !!
Fun fact Henry VIII is the father of both Elizabeth 1 and Mary 1(Bloody Mary)
Trust me, your knowledge of British royalty is better than most Brits. We often know the history of other countries more than our own.
You must understand. To be a King or Queen was a hugely dangerous and violent job centuries ago. Elizabeth I spent her life in peril. The Spanish tried to murder her. She was surrounded by treason and infamy. If you'd lived like that, you probably would've resorted to harsh measures too, in order to keep your throne and your life. It was a brutal world. You wouldn't have been a very long lived or successful Monarch by being nice or kind. But ask yourself - are things much better now? Endless violence and evil dictators rising up everywhere. Including in America.
Henry 8th and Richard 2nd were super cruel. Henry boiled one of his chefs to death slowly for giving some of his guests food poisoning. They tortured and murdered people for fun. Mary and Elizabeth killed for religious control and to defeat personal enemies. King Edward I was a ruthless warrior, along with Henry V and William the Conqueror.
Phineas Gage
A man who had a giant steel rod go through his eye and out the other side of his head. Survived, but the brain injury changed his personality from a nice guy to a kind of psychopathic asshole
So yeah.. Henry the 8th, doesn't surprise me if the jousting accident did something similar
William the Conqueror is a direct ancestor to Courteney Cox
How he must hold his head in despair at his descendents spiral into oblivion!
The risk is taking British history of these times in isolation. All Countries of these rimes were savage. Britain is picked on because we are one of few who have survived as a monarchy and still have a Royal Family. We also enjoy criticism. Fair is fair. 'Out of the strong comes forth the sweet' as they say.