thank you for sharing...I love history...the good and the bad....and am proud of my British heritage....
3 ปีที่แล้ว +1
NOT History Judith...another load of psychophantic arselicking....it includes a few of the British monarch...but mainly the Windsor Mob exported from German.......
58:00 Richard the Lionhearted was held for ransom by the Duke of Austria, not the Emperor of Germany. Strictly speaking, there was no Emperor of Germany until 1871. There was a Holy Roman Emperor, but at this time he was a Hohenstaufen, not a Habsburg.
@Greg Gilligan And Richard's grandmother was Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England, wife of Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, very briefly the first Queen Regnant of England, and mother through her second husband of Henry II, father of Richard. Emperor Henry VI wasn't a descendent of Emperor Henry V. Duke Leopold of Austria was a Habsburg and pretty much every royal in Europe is descended from him, or is supposed to be. They didn't get into the Holy Roman Emperor league until 1273 with Rudolph I, which I think is 74 years after Richard died. Cunard had a ship called the RMS Berengaria in the 1920s and 1930s. Where did they get that name? From a queen of England, of course--Richard I's wife. She was Basque. The ship was larger than the Titanic--and it was built in Germany and served the Hamburg-America as the Imperator line until World War I. Cunard got it as a reparation for the Lusitania.
They were thugs, murderers, land grabbers and sibling-killers. I'd be embarrassed to be descended from any of these evil souls. How these evil people could possibly think they were "ordained by God to rule" is incredible. If they had any supernatural ordination to rule, it was from the depths of hell. It's interesting that the only two monarchs who were respectable were women -- Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. The male heirs always made a mess of things. Maybe for the monarchy to survive going forward would be to change the law that ONLY FEMALE descendants may become monarchs, starting with the current Princess Anne. Anne is respectable, hard-working, very smart, and very much a Queen. How about it, citizens of Britain???
It's imprudent to assume anyone is less inclined to corruption based on gender - and I'm a female feminist. The entire notion of monarchies is spiritually and practically obsolete. Humanity must progress beyond our collective desire to idolize people at all, much less based on bloodline.
To everyone criticizing this biography, look at that McDonald's cup at 2:24. That cup is from the 90's making this documentary at least 20 years old. That is reason enough for different historical views on people, or lack of things we know now. Documentaries aren't primary sources, they're obviously produced by somebody and have a message to put across. So they can't be 100% right all the time, especially when it's from 20 years ago. Personally ten minutes into it I thought it was slowly paced and uninteresting, and usually when you start to smell bullshit, you click away. If you made it to the end of the video A+, I couldn't do it.
Good point. We skipped a lot of royal scandal. You could barely get it into an hour actually, but it would help if you didn't wander off into Robin Hood and Jack the Ripper.
"Interchange rules" of what, chess and chequers? Reigns? Henry Bolingbroke was the Royal cousin and he was also extremely popular with the people, whereas Richard was utterly hated after doing a few bad things over his "reign" or ruler, rule, I mean "rule", right. I love it when Americans see an English history documentary with an English narrator, they always try to wax lyrical and fail so miserably, because they don't speak English there, and it always shows. Anyway, if you guys were around back then you'd all be going "Yeehaw!" for Henry Bolingbroke like everyone else did, I don't why you think you'd be any different, he was doing it to "save" the realm, see.
In some cultures when the first son inherited the throne for the father, it was expected and accepted for him to kill his brothers. As brutal as that sounds, that's how kings made sure nobody could take the throne.
Totally agreed. Im American and I know how's the British Royality is such a... horrible thing, it's really interesting but at the same time it's always the same thing.
Honestly, I think comparing Richard to king Herod, isn’t exactly right. He was named protector by his brother, he had always been loyal. But the Woodvilles tried to pull a fast one. He would have probably lost his head.
I believe that Henry VII or Margaret Beaufort has those boys killed. Richard had no reason to kill them, they were already deemed illegitimate, so he was logically the next in line to the throne.
TRUTH BE TOLD The public was outraged that it took the Queen so long to even address Diana's death publicly. You must of not been around then, as I got 9 upvotes to your 0, which does seem like the "public" agrees. :) Sorry your opinion is so wrong, factually.
what an old bag is Camilla and Charles is a moron and disgusting. Virginal Dianna was made to bear children and be hurt and Humiliated by these two Her two sons are the only ones to love and remember Dianna
Dodi Byrne But she was always Charles’ true love. Why does that make her a whore? Diana had affairs whilst married. Harry looks suspiciously like the groomsman Diana had an affair with. Charles loved Camilla, Diana slept with many; most of whom either didn’t want to be with her or ran to the tabloids.
Marilyn Whitelock Diana is a narcissistic personality who slept around. Harry looks suspiciously like the groomsman she had an affair with whilst married, the one who wrote a book about it.
-Henry the VIII inherited Katherine of Aragon?? She was his brother's widow. Henry had to ask for a special dispensation from the pope to marry her. I would hardly call that inheriting a wife.
4ArcticFox it was a costum to do that. it was a political contract., so even if she didn't like it... she have to do it like it or not. It was done frequently no just her... people died like flies.
Drewbygus Anne of Cleaves was a smart girl - she came out of that marriage not only with her head still on her shoulders, but lands, estates, a generous income, and, best of all, her independence! Then she stayed in England to make certain she maintained that independence, staying far away from her brother's marriage manipulations of her other sisters. A woman far ahead of her time.
Nowadays whenever I see a knight on a prancing steed I think of Captain Mainwaring in full armor trying to get on a horse. Kinda takes the grandeur out of the image.
That just kind of gives away that you're intimidated by that, if you have to do something so elaborate, most of us wouldn't admit that in public, really. That we find posh people intimidating, so we have to imagine them like a comedy character, most of us don't get intimidated in the first place, so don't have to do that to compensate, pro-tip ;)
The Jack the Ripper murders were never a "royal scandal" at all. Nothing to do with the royal family but a story invented in the 1960s - over 70 years after the actual murders. Rubbish to include this!
I am an American citizen. I LOVE the monarchy! Not only do certain nations find much of their definition in Monarchy, but need Monarchy to remain what, and as they are. Having no Royalty may at first seem a pleasant change, a nation rarely survives change of such staggering dimension. I LOVE Monarchy!
Bud Fields The British Royal Family are scarcely even human to me. Prince Charles doesn't even put his own toothpaste on his toothbrush. A servant does this menial task for him. The royal family are parasites. The Queen hasn't even ever granted an interview, Do you think nay of them even know what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk costs? Their subjects bow and curtsey to them for what? They cant prepare a meal for themselves or do a load of laundry if their life depended on it. I think that's all pretty sad. Monarchy? No thank you. I'd much rather have a republic where a head of government can be whatever religion they want and aren't totally pampered people who are waited on hand and foot.
MrAviron we Americans "crown" beauty queens. The Spanish did away with a monarch then brought it back. The British beheaded their King Charles I, then brought back the monarchy in his son Charleston II. People like the pomp and pageantry. It's worth a FORTUNE in tourism.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +1
No such animal as Elizabeth ll Ms Mountson. - Elizabtheth l of England...but never an Elizabeth of Scotland....
And they showed Rochester Castle at 6:53 - 7:14 while talking about a Castle in France, before switching to another one, why? They brushed over quite a bit of history in this. And perpetuated more rumours that have now been proven to be just that rumours.
We'll see how good their consultants are when all the sex crimes that the've done come out. Hope the're as good as you say they are the're going to need to be.
While not totally in-depth, this gives an interesting "quickie" look at the Royals' ups and downs over the centuries. The video/sound quality has a few drops, unfortunately right at some interesting points...but otherwise it's pretty watchable.
We hear of Royal lives; their scandals, adventures, but not one a story of bowel and mental constipation is ever revealed. Any of the valets, servants trying to disclose the real fact is immediately gets the shit and fired
I've heard in another documentary that Alexandra never let Alice Keppel be near Edward VII bed, and Alice made quite a number about it, but who knows ..greetings from Uruguay! which, by the way, had a very "british" origin thanks to Lord Ponsonby :-)
I concur. Caesar never set foot in Britain and the phrase: Veni, Vedi, Vici, comes from a 4 day campaign in the east. No where near Britain and as a fan of all things British, being from the States, I am deftly saddened by this false claim. Come on, Brits---you should know your shit...
3:50 - Here we go again. One of the most common mistakes is many people thinking that Julius Cesar was murdered by 'by those he thought were his closest friends'. Yes, Cesar was indeed murdered on On March 15, 44 BC, initially surrounded by around 12 powerful men of the senate, with more prepared (Sixty or more men according to Eutropius) to join a second wave. Among those twelve there were only a couple he considered his 'closet friends' at the time such as Decimus and Brutus (who, by the way, were both distant cousins of Cesar) and perhaps the Casca brothers. The majority however were not part of his close friend network as there is a difference between being a 'close friend' of Cesar and Cesar being in 'favour' of someone. By the time leading up to his murder Cesar was well aware of the fact that there were many conspirators in the senate working against him. His actual closest friends were alarmed at certain rumours and tried to stop him going to the Senate-house, as did his doctors, for he was suffering from one of his occasional dizzy spells. His wife, Calpurnia, especially, who was frightened by some visions in her dreams, clung to him and said that she would not let him go out that day. In fact, Caesar originally cancelled his appearance in the Senate on March 15th, but went after Decimus mocked his fears and said the senators would look at him as weak if he did not attend. So yes, we can say most of those who conspired against him had his political favour or were strong former supporters of Cesar but only a tiny amount can be considered part of his 'closest friends' who managed to surprise Cesar with their betrayal. :)
+MrAviron Charles and co. are called "the Wales" because the first-born Prince of the British Royal Family since the early 14thC has inherited that title (hear me out!!) this was a response to the defeat (or brutal slaying!) of the last true Welsh Prince, Llewelyn ap Gruffydd in 1282. In order for Edward I to imprint his conquest of Wales, he had his first born son, Prince Edward (later Edward II) invested with the title Prince of Wales at Caernarfon Castle. The tradition has been kept up ever since. I'm no Royalist, just a Historian.. or a mine of useless information ;) I also live in Wales.
Oh poor prince Eddie, this documentary just butchered his character. No one thought he was 'retarded', and there is loads of evidence that Eddie wasn't even in England during 4 of the 5 murders, and for the 5th, he was having dinner with his grandmother. He was also a love-sick puppy when it came to his cousin Alix (The future Empress of Russia). As for the male brothel incident, again, Eddie wasn't even in the country. Someone was trying to use him to get himself out of trouble.
so the real English are the Celts (who were pushed by the Saxons to live in Scotland and Wales.) ..shame on you Scots then for waving independence surely if you are actually the original English?
"black haired, dark eyed Celts" WTF who wrote the script this person has never been to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany or what? While it's true that black hair is very common among Celts the vast majority of them have blue eyes. As for the Saxons there were plenty of them with dark eyes; "Saxon" was a moniker for peoples originating in medieval Saxony, a huge region that comprised a large part of today''s Germany, Poland and big chunks of France so Saxons were definitely multi-ethnic with wide variations in physical appearance. Interestingly enough some Saxons were just as Celtic as the Scots or the Irish
That is true Although their origins are not in Britain at all. The Center of the Celts is in France and Central Western Europe. The territory was called Hallstatt
Martin Boulger Yes indeed the Celts came from Indo-European stock as Germanic peoples and were hard to tell apart from of language. Gauls were the largest Celtic group and, based on language, were the ancestors of the Welsh. Gaelic speaking Irish and Scots were a different group less influenced by the Romans, but were later frenchified through Norman rule. This is more evident in Scotland than Ireland, due to Scotland's centuries-old alliance with France. Sotland even went so far as to reject common law in favour of the Civil Code for the sake of mutual trade laws
Karl K. Thank you for your reply. That is correct. Unfortunately in the USA for example people have the believe that Celts are only form the UK. In that is not exactly the truth as you mentioned. Also that is much to understand about their culture that was extremely Romanized. Thanks for the feedback.
Excuse the spelling as an illness causes insidious forgetfulness. Of course Spanish are caucasion. Blonde Spanish or not, Spain invaded Ireland. Spain and iz people are Latin, having dark hair and olive skin. I'm 100% Sicilian w/blonde hair, green eyes and WHITE skin. If the humour offends you, I did make mention of it. Since you think it insulting, thaz because your nature is insulting, and humour evades you. Not that that statement iz particularly amusing to some, but is an hilarious analogy to others, finding no intent of incurred racism. Witty sarcasm eludes, evades, escapes the ignorance of insult.
Lizzie Sangi Some historical background. NO, Spanish as a whole are NOT latin. The Latini are an ancient (like really really ancient) group of people that lived in Latium, now Italy, in the 5th Century BC. The origins of all Romance languages come from this civilization. They were a caucasian race. Now, the territory covered by Spain of "today" Has many groups of IndoEuropeans encompassed within. Some of these groups are: Basque (Bascos), Celts, Saxons, Romans and later "some" parts of Spain, not all, were invaded by Arabs for about 600 years they are called Moros. The only common thing amongst people called Latin today, is that all of these different cultures and races, share the same language. (the Latin derived language). They are not a race group, and for this reason Latins can be from many cultures and continents, such as North America, South Central and Europe. This is why Spain is vastly rich in the mix of peoples and many are Blond or redhead or darker or olive or not. Same thing happens in Ireland. I have been there many times and most people have black hair not blond. I hope this helps, thanks
From Edward III to Edward V - You missed Edward IV who was known as the *Bastard King* because of being illegitimate. Born of a liaison between his birth mother, Cecily Neville, and an archer in the King's Army. The story was covered in Tony Robinson's documentary, *"Britain's Real Monarch"* which showed Queen Lizzie the Second and her brood including Charlie Chuckles, now King Charlie, are illegitimately on the throne!.
The queen has protected and enabled Andrew for years, which should be recognized as a scandal, she has no respect whatsoever for the people she vowed to serve, her reign has been one after another of her family dramas being left to become scandals, which has affected the reputation of this country, and embarrassed the people, we have endured decades of this woman's cold-hearted arrogance, she has never done anything other than what has been expected from a monarch, duty my foot, she has been very well paid for the little she has done.
Actually Caesar did go to Britain. Here is some of the narration taken from text Beach-head[edit] The Romans established a camp of which no archaeological trace has been found, received ambassadors and had Commius, who had been arrested as soon as he had arrived in Britain, returned to him. Caesar claims he was negotiating from a position of strength and that the British leaders, blaming their attacks on him on the common people, were in only four days awed into giving hostages, some immediately, some as soon as they could be brought from inland, and disbanding their army. However, after his cavalry had come within sight of the beachhead but then been scattered and turned back to Gaul by storms, and with food running short, Caesar, a native of the non-tidal Mediterranean, was taken by surprise by the British tides. At high tide, his beached warships filled with water, and his transports, riding at anchor, were driven against each other. Some ships were wrecked, and many others were rendered unseaworthy by the loss of rigging or other vital equipment, threatening the return journey. Realising this and hoping to keep Caesar in Britain over the winter and thus starve him into submission, the Britons renewed the attack, ambushing one of the legions as it foraged near the Roman camp. The foraging party was relieved by the remainder of the Roman force and the Britons were again driven off, only to regroup after several days of storms with a larger force to attack the Roman camp. This attack was driven off fully, in a bloody rout, with improvised cavalry that Commius had gathered from pro-Roman Britons and a Roman scorched earth policy.
I am a damisel in distress, I am, I can tell you for sure so please any knight available please gallop here or take me there on horse. there is no other damisel more in distress, so gallop. And bring some whisky, please 🥃.
At 16:00 why do they seem to equate the king's homosexuality with military defeat. The fact is there are as many gay men who can kick ass as there are straights. What happens in the bedroom does not determine the outcome one the battlefield, consider the case of Alexander the Great's questionable sexuality.
Consider, also, the Sacred Band. Also, I think too much is made of Alexander's sexuality without considering the sociological context. In his time, Greek society saw sex with women as only useful for procreation. Men were for "love". Women were severely sequestered and guarded to ensure that the babies they produced were one's own. But, any man of status had a young lover, openly and without shame. In fact, it was considered the DUTY of a man to choose a young boy to mentor, to teach the arts of war, to guide and to initiate into sex. A man who didn't do this was considered radical and strange. Somewhere along our evolutionary line, humans stopped being sexually driven by the estrus of females and became interested in sex year-round. Some societies developed the "harem" form to provide enough women to ensure sex-on-demand and some developed male-on-male and female-on-female sex for the same reason. Sex has probably also been a vehicle for dominance for a long time. Many animal species use sexual behavior to express dominance. Sex is complicated and how it is expressed morphs throughout history. It probably always will and those who act as if one way is the "only" way are just deluded.
The reason that they do so is because Edward II was so busy persuing his relationship with Piers Gaveston that he was actually neglecting his kingdom. Because of his infatuation with Piers, he alienated his nobles, who did not want to fight for him and he made a lot of decisions that were not based on what was best for his kingdom and his subjects, but what was good for Piers. It's a fascinating tale.
Anthony Williams We don’t even know for a fact that he was gay. The precise nature of Edward and Gaveston's relationship is uncertain; they may have been friends, lovers or sworn brothers. Not that it matters. Look at Alexander the Great. We don’t even know how he was murdered except that he was probably murdered on the orders of the new regime.
I am a damisel in distress, I am, I can tell you for sure so please any knight available please gallop here or take me there on horse. there is no other damisel more in distress, so gallop. And bring some whisky, please
I always love how they show some 19th century lithograph for portraits of medieval monarchs.
thank you for sharing...I love history...the good and the bad....and am proud of my British heritage....
NOT History Judith...another load of psychophantic arselicking....it includes a few of the British monarch...but mainly the Windsor Mob exported from German.......
A nice film. Very lightly presented. Thank you
58:00 Richard the Lionhearted was held for ransom by the Duke of Austria, not the Emperor of Germany. Strictly speaking, there was no Emperor of Germany until 1871. There was a Holy Roman Emperor, but at this time he was a Hohenstaufen, not a Habsburg.
@Greg Gilligan And Richard's grandmother was Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England, wife of Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, very briefly the first Queen Regnant of England, and mother through her second husband of Henry II, father of Richard. Emperor Henry VI wasn't a descendent of Emperor Henry V.
Duke Leopold of Austria was a Habsburg and pretty much every royal in Europe is descended from him, or is supposed to be. They didn't get into the Holy Roman Emperor league until 1273 with Rudolph I, which I think is 74 years after Richard died.
Cunard had a ship called the RMS Berengaria in the 1920s and 1930s. Where did they get that name? From a queen of England, of course--Richard I's wife. She was Basque. The ship was larger than the Titanic--and it was built in Germany and served the Hamburg-America as the Imperator line until World War I. Cunard got it as a reparation for the Lusitania.
Greg Gilligan me too I witnessed the most horrific experience ever,
They were thugs, murderers, land grabbers and sibling-killers. I'd be embarrassed to be descended from any of these evil souls. How these evil people could possibly think they were "ordained by God to rule" is incredible. If they had any supernatural ordination to rule, it was from the depths of hell. It's interesting that the only two monarchs who were respectable were women -- Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. The male heirs always made a mess of things. Maybe for the monarchy to survive going forward would be to change the law that ONLY FEMALE descendants may become monarchs, starting with the current Princess Anne. Anne is respectable, hard-working, very smart, and very much a Queen. How about it, citizens of Britain???
It's imprudent to assume anyone is less inclined to corruption based on gender - and I'm a female feminist. The entire notion of monarchies is spiritually and practically obsolete.
Humanity must progress beyond our collective desire to idolize people at all, much less based on bloodline.
They're all bastards, except for the women.
You're an idiot.
To everyone criticizing this biography, look at that McDonald's cup at 2:24. That cup is from the 90's making this documentary at least 20 years old. That is reason enough for different historical views on people, or lack of things we know now. Documentaries aren't primary sources, they're obviously produced by somebody and have a message to put across. So they can't be 100% right all the time, especially when it's from 20 years ago.
Personally ten minutes into it I thought it was slowly paced and uninteresting, and usually when you start to smell bullshit, you click away. If you made it to the end of the video A+, I couldn't do it.
Really enjoyable despite a few little audio glitches (could have been my overheating laptop though!)....thanks for posting.
paul greenwood
Not your laptop, I am watching
On my phone and it is happening here to . Your laptop is fine
One wrong move can cost your life
So we just skipped the whole fiasco between Richard II and Henry VI and the wars of the roses which saw 2 kings interchanging rules?! Ok then...
Good point. We skipped a lot of royal scandal. You could barely get it into an hour actually, but it would help if you didn't wander off into Robin Hood and Jack the Ripper.
"Interchange rules" of what, chess and chequers? Reigns? Henry Bolingbroke was the Royal cousin and he was also extremely popular with the people, whereas Richard was utterly hated after doing a few bad things over his "reign" or ruler, rule, I mean "rule", right.
I love it when Americans see an English history documentary with an English narrator, they always try to wax lyrical and fail so miserably, because they don't speak English there, and it always shows.
Anyway, if you guys were around back then you'd all be going "Yeehaw!" for Henry Bolingbroke like everyone else did, I don't why you think you'd be any different, he was doing it to "save" the realm, see.
Enjoyed this historical documentary 👍🏽👍🏽
In some cultures when the first son inherited the throne for the father, it was expected and accepted for him to kill his brothers. As brutal as that sounds, that's how kings made sure nobody could take the throne.
In the Ottoman Empire until some point.
@@novislav282so did the russians. It’s called fratricidal and was fairly common. Wouldn’t want to be born a Prince.
Totally agreed. Im American and I know how's the British Royality is such a... horrible thing, it's really interesting but at the same time it's always the same thing.
Honestly, I think comparing Richard to king Herod, isn’t exactly right. He was named protector by his brother, he had always been loyal. But the Woodvilles tried to pull a fast one. He would have probably lost his head.
Mango, that's what I thought when I heard that. In those days it was eat or be eaten; Richard would surely have been murdered by the Woodvilles.
Melting pot? Not by choice of most knowing people.
Maybe the person who ordered the death of the two princes was the man who would become Henry the 7th.
Unlikely he was living in France at the time
I believe that Henry VII or Margaret Beaufort has those boys killed. Richard had no reason to kill them, they were already deemed illegitimate, so he was logically the next in line to the throne.
Who says being royal is easy
Such a great and informative program.
A history of murderers and scandals. What a noble legacy...Yet people hail them as if they came from heaven when the contrary is evident.
No one hails the royal family imo. After what happened with Princess Diana the public turned their back on this crusty, old monarchy.
No they have not. Where do you get that?
Looking at tabloid sales, and royal footage views on the tellie would indicate otherwise...
Leon
TRUTH BE TOLD The public was outraged that it took the Queen so long to even address Diana's death publicly. You must of not been around then, as I got 9 upvotes to your 0, which does seem like the "public" agrees. :) Sorry your opinion is so wrong, factually.
I have never heard a greater collection of mis-statements, errors, and flat-out LIES.
Brad Miller How would you know?
Caroline Johnson he was probably there the whole time, since the ancient times.
It is indeed fundamentally flawed. Entertainment rather than serious history.
Oh that narrator is glorious,I'm having that the time of my life😍😍😍😘😘😘😘
As british as it can gets
👎
Good programme and narrative, but far too many sound problems during the programme spoiled the continuity of the story.
that seems to be a problem with the older documentaries
Oh dear. First world problems.🙄
Oys Self-inflicted spinsterhood ,I love this narrator😙😙👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
And Charles wants to be Camille's TAMPAX.
How disturbing Is that
what an old bag is Camilla and Charles is a moron and disgusting. Virginal Dianna was made to bear children and be hurt and Humiliated by these two Her two sons are the only ones to love and remember Dianna
That is all he is good for and further his small talent leans to that
Marilyn Whitelock the two sons of Diana are probably the most popular in some time.
Dodi Byrne But she was always Charles’ true love. Why does that make her a whore? Diana had affairs whilst married. Harry looks suspiciously like the groomsman Diana had an affair with. Charles loved Camilla, Diana slept with many; most of whom either didn’t want to be with her or ran to the tabloids.
Marilyn Whitelock Diana is a narcissistic personality who slept around. Harry looks suspiciously like the groomsman she had an affair with whilst married, the one who wrote a book about it.
-Henry the VIII inherited Katherine of Aragon?? She was his brother's widow. Henry had to ask for a special dispensation from the pope to marry her. I would hardly call that inheriting a wife.
4ArcticFox it was a costum to do that. it was a political contract., so even if she didn't like it... she have to do it like it or not. It was done frequently no just her... people died like flies.
4ArcticFox That's true. The pope gave aa special dispensation.
Also he H. VIII did like her at the begining. Only when she didn't give him a son is when things went *@#&%$
Celia Younger
I totally agree. I deeply admire Catherine of Aragon and have such respect for her. I actually like Ann of Cleves too.
Drewbygus Anne of Cleaves was a smart girl - she came out of that marriage not only with her head still on her shoulders, but lands, estates, a generous income, and, best of all, her independence! Then she stayed in England to make certain she maintained that independence, staying far away from her brother's marriage manipulations of her other sisters. A woman far ahead of her time.
I used to paint armours in my red linguistics book when I got bored.Jjj I just remembered it.I still got the book at mom's. jjjj
Nowadays whenever I see a knight on a prancing steed I think of Captain Mainwaring in full armor trying to get on a horse. Kinda takes the grandeur out of the image.
That just kind of gives away that you're intimidated by that, if you have to do something so elaborate, most of us wouldn't admit that in public, really. That we find posh people intimidating, so we have to imagine them like a comedy character, most of us don't get intimidated in the first place, so don't have to do that to compensate, pro-tip ;)
The Jack the Ripper murders were never a "royal scandal" at all. Nothing to do with the royal family but a story invented in the 1960s - over 70 years after the actual murders. Rubbish to include this!
Not scandals...Just fast history lesson...
I am an American citizen. I LOVE the monarchy! Not only do certain nations find much of their definition in Monarchy, but need Monarchy to remain what, and as they are. Having no Royalty may at first seem a pleasant change, a nation rarely survives change of such staggering dimension. I LOVE Monarchy!
theforcewithin
I do hate to point this out, but you are dying out, as well. I'd never cheer your demise. Evidently, my pov is in a clear majority.
Bud Fields The British Royal Family are scarcely even human to me. Prince Charles doesn't even put his own toothpaste on his toothbrush. A servant does this menial task for him. The royal family are parasites. The Queen hasn't even ever granted an interview, Do you think nay of them even know what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk costs? Their subjects bow and curtsey to them for what? They cant prepare a meal for themselves or do a load of laundry if their life depended on it. I think that's all pretty sad. Monarchy? No thank you. I'd much rather have a republic where a head of government can be whatever religion they want and aren't totally pampered people who are waited on hand and foot.
Bud Fields France and Germany don't. seem to have done too badly without unelected 'royals'.
How do you make that out ??? "a nation rarely survives changes of such staggering dimension " Are you saying that the Uk would cease to exist?
MrAviron we Americans "crown" beauty queens. The Spanish did away with a monarch then brought it back. The British beheaded their King Charles I, then brought back the monarchy in his son Charleston II. People like the pomp and pageantry. It's worth a FORTUNE in tourism.
No such animal as Elizabeth ll Ms Mountson. - Elizabtheth l of England...but never an Elizabeth of Scotland....
Tone problems at the best part. Mary Kelly tried to blackmail the govt.
True they bombarded at night and sirens wailed for people to take shelter,I read it.
And they showed Rochester Castle at 6:53 - 7:14 while talking about a Castle in France, before switching to another one, why?
They brushed over quite a bit of history in this. And perpetuated more rumours that have now been proven to be just that rumours.
Actually, the current British Royal Family's marketing and specifically its promotion of itself is excellent. It must have extremely good consultants.
RobRoyBoaz YAP... ABSOLUTLY... THE THINGS THEY HAVE COVERED U[P. !!
y da f
We'll see how good their consultants are when all the sex crimes that the've done come out. Hope the're as good as you say they are the're going to need to be.
RobRoyBoaz: Their pedophile/Illuminati involvement is every day news. No one seems to raise the proverbial eyebrow.
king john was not a good man
he had his little ways
and sometimes no none spoke to him
for days and days and days...
A.A. Milne....brilliant poem
caroleroberts25 my fav poem of all time in my very old when we were six book.
plus, their very good at hiding their freakeness.
While not totally in-depth, this gives an interesting "quickie" look at the Royals' ups and downs over the centuries. The video/sound quality has a few drops, unfortunately right at some interesting points...but otherwise it's pretty watchable.
Not so much scandal as history lesson. Interesting nonetheless.
It was scandalous THEN.
Why was there nothing on Princess Margaret? She provided her fair share of scandal during her lifetime.
Yes, we sure have the same issue!
We hear of Royal lives; their scandals, adventures, but not one a story of bowel and mental constipation is ever revealed. Any of the valets, servants trying to disclose the real fact is immediately gets the shit and fired
Churchill's mum was and AMERICAN from Brooklyn NYC haha yes! Take that you tea bags!!!
I do not understand this thing. Mary Stewart or Stuart was not an English subject. A queen: so how could she have committed treason?
I've heard in another documentary that Alexandra never let Alice Keppel be near Edward VII bed, and Alice made quite a number about it, but who knows ..greetings from Uruguay! which, by the way, had a very "british" origin thanks to Lord Ponsonby :-)
Diana I know you have peace. God Bless You.
Yes, indeed, she rests in peace together with Dodi.
⚘🕊
I concur. Caesar never set foot in Britain and the phrase: Veni, Vedi, Vici, comes from a 4 day campaign in the east. No where near Britain and as a fan of all things British, being from the States, I am deftly saddened by this false claim. Come on, Brits---you should know your shit...
barelybalancing7 true That o second that
Elizabeth I another brave Queen💝💝💝💝💝💝😍😘😍😘😘😘😘😘😘
Coincidence how the sound goes just as they say names of connections to jack the ripper
WARNING! The sound keeps cutting in and out in some very important spots. Rather irritating!
3:50 - Here we go again. One of the most common mistakes is many people thinking that Julius Cesar was murdered by 'by those he thought were his closest friends'. Yes, Cesar was indeed murdered on On March 15, 44 BC, initially surrounded by around 12 powerful men of the senate, with more prepared (Sixty or more men according to Eutropius) to join a second wave. Among those twelve there were only a couple he considered his 'closet friends' at the time such as Decimus and Brutus (who, by the way, were both distant cousins of Cesar) and perhaps the Casca brothers. The majority however were not part of his close friend network as there is a difference between being a 'close friend' of Cesar and Cesar being in 'favour' of someone. By the time leading up to his murder Cesar was well aware of the fact that there were many conspirators in the senate working against him. His actual closest friends were alarmed at certain rumours and tried to stop him going to the Senate-house, as did his doctors, for he was suffering from one of his occasional dizzy spells. His wife, Calpurnia, especially, who was frightened by some visions in her dreams, clung to him and said that she would not let him go out that day. In fact, Caesar originally cancelled his appearance in the Senate on March 15th, but went after Decimus mocked his fears and said the senators would look at him as weak if he did not attend. So yes, we can say most of those who conspired against him had his political favour or were strong former supporters of Cesar but only a tiny amount can be considered part of his 'closest friends' who managed to surprise Cesar with their betrayal. :)
seems to be a sound issue about 21mins-is that just me?I cannot get that bit to play correctly
and again at 45mins
Kat Lowe
The film, itself, is messed up. You're not missing anything.
Sound kept going
you need to fix those sound errors. They are almost scary.. lol
I can't find a link to the source? I really want to know what was not being said!
It's amazing all the things these people did to stay in power or to gain it.
About 21 minutes into the video, the audio keeps cutting out like I'm watching an explicit lyrical music video that YT sensored.
Why are Charles and his family called the Wales'? Charles has never lived here and very seldom bothers to visit.
MrAviron
Because he is Prince of Wales
+SUPERSPORTS wax b
No he isn't the legitimate Prince of Wales. That title was stolen from the Welsh by Henry III in 1301.
+MrAviron Charles and co. are called "the Wales" because the first-born Prince of the British Royal Family since the early 14thC has inherited that title (hear me out!!) this was a response to the defeat (or brutal slaying!) of the last true Welsh Prince, Llewelyn ap Gruffydd in 1282. In order for Edward I to imprint his conquest of Wales, he had his first born son, Prince Edward (later Edward II) invested with the title Prince of Wales at Caernarfon Castle. The tradition has been kept up ever since.
I'm no Royalist, just a Historian.. or a mine of useless information ;) I also live in Wales.
+Crona Dargarth thank you for separating truth from fiction.
This was history not scandal.
Oh poor prince Eddie, this documentary just butchered his character. No one thought he was 'retarded', and there is loads of evidence that Eddie wasn't even in England during 4 of the 5 murders, and for the 5th, he was having dinner with his grandmother.
He was also a love-sick puppy when it came to his cousin Alix (The future Empress of Russia).
As for the male brothel incident, again, Eddie wasn't even in the country. Someone was trying to use him to get himself out of trouble.
precisely, poor Eddy is maligned
Indeed Eddy was the best Candidate-in- waiting...he would have made the best king.
The music is J S Bach.
I think he said that "veni vidi vici" about his campaign in Asia Minor.....
I challenge the queen of England to a duel! Muhahaha!
I is gonna be teh kingz!
howtoplanaparty It was on purpose :P
so the real English are the Celts (who were pushed by the Saxons to live in Scotland and Wales.) ..shame on you Scots then for waving independence surely if you are actually the original English?
"black haired, dark eyed Celts" WTF who wrote the script this person has never been to Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany or what? While it's true that black hair is very common among Celts the vast majority of them have blue eyes. As for the Saxons there were plenty of them with dark eyes; "Saxon" was a moniker for peoples originating in medieval Saxony, a huge region that comprised a large part of today''s Germany, Poland and big chunks of France so Saxons were definitely multi-ethnic with wide variations in physical appearance. Interestingly enough some Saxons were just as Celtic as the Scots or the Irish
That is true Although their origins are not in Britain at all. The Center of the Celts is in France and Central Western Europe. The territory was called Hallstatt
Martin Boulger Yes indeed the Celts came from Indo-European stock as Germanic peoples and were hard to tell apart from of language. Gauls were the largest Celtic group and, based on language, were the ancestors of the Welsh. Gaelic speaking Irish and Scots were a different group less influenced by the Romans, but were later frenchified through Norman rule. This is more evident in Scotland than Ireland, due to Scotland's centuries-old alliance with France. Sotland even went so far as to reject common law in favour of the Civil Code for the sake of mutual trade laws
Karl K. Thank you for your reply. That is correct. Unfortunately in the USA for example people have the believe that Celts are only form the UK. In that is not exactly the truth as you mentioned.
Also that is much to understand about their culture that was extremely Romanized. Thanks for the feedback.
Excuse the spelling as an illness causes insidious forgetfulness. Of course Spanish are caucasion. Blonde Spanish or not, Spain invaded Ireland. Spain and iz people are Latin, having dark hair and olive skin. I'm 100% Sicilian w/blonde hair, green eyes and WHITE skin. If the humour offends you, I did make mention of it. Since you think it insulting, thaz because your nature is insulting, and humour evades you. Not that that statement iz particularly amusing to some, but is an hilarious analogy to others, finding no intent of incurred racism. Witty sarcasm eludes, evades, escapes the ignorance of insult.
Lizzie Sangi
Some historical background. NO, Spanish as a whole are NOT latin. The Latini are an ancient (like really really ancient) group of people that lived in Latium, now Italy, in the 5th Century BC.
The origins of all Romance languages come from this civilization. They were a caucasian race.
Now, the territory covered by Spain of "today" Has many groups of IndoEuropeans encompassed within.
Some of these groups are: Basque (Bascos), Celts, Saxons, Romans and later "some" parts of Spain, not all, were invaded by Arabs for about 600 years they are called Moros.
The only common thing amongst people called Latin today, is that all of these different cultures and races, share the same language. (the Latin derived language). They are not a race group, and for this reason Latins can be from many cultures and continents, such as North America, South Central and Europe.
This is why Spain is vastly rich in the mix of peoples and many are Blond or redhead or darker or olive or not. Same thing happens in Ireland. I have been there many times and most people have black hair not blond.
I hope this helps, thanks
Inaccurate. He actually did make it TO Britain. He did not conquer it, but he made it there.
Thank you for this.
the round domes are actually very much not pretty; in fact, they are unsightly and avoiding any likeness to them is preferred
Haha for the poison-I doubt they had eyedroppers back then
From Edward III to Edward V - You missed Edward IV who was known as the *Bastard King* because of being illegitimate. Born of a liaison between his birth mother, Cecily Neville, and an archer in the King's Army. The story was covered in Tony Robinson's documentary, *"Britain's Real Monarch"* which showed Queen Lizzie the Second and her brood including Charlie Chuckles, now King Charlie, are illegitimately on the throne!.
No mention of Edward VIII's fascist sympathies?
All inbred or not really related completely w/ all the affairs since they didn’t have heirs.
Skipped right over Victoria’s father and his mistress ...
The film has broken sound in many parts. is this taken from VHS format?
Ays the poisoning no, how cruel ays those times.
lol, he can't 'abdicate' - he isn't king!
Corcho a knight in his armou😋😋😋😋😋how romaaaasntic ayssssssss😍😍
The last British Royal line ended with the Stuarts. The present mob, the Windsors have less right to the throne than my dog, and she's a mongrel.
How come what they say something about what they think. It all goes wrong
I'll end up spinster a este paso if nobody turns up, self aflicted
The queen has protected and enabled Andrew for years, which should be recognized as a scandal, she has no respect whatsoever for the people she vowed to serve, her reign has been one after another of her family dramas being left to become scandals, which has affected the reputation of this country, and embarrassed the people, we have endured decades of this woman's cold-hearted arrogance, she has never done anything other than what has been expected from a monarch, duty my foot, she has been very well paid for the little she has done.
A strong opinion I haven’t heard before. I neither agree or disagree. Food for thought.
Jo thanksssssssss each vídeo is better than the one before.Chapeau.
Be better if the video didn't skip.
Actually Caesar did go to Britain. Here is some of the narration taken from text
Beach-head[edit]
The Romans established a camp of which no archaeological trace has been found, received ambassadors and had Commius, who had been arrested as soon as he had arrived in Britain, returned to him. Caesar claims he was negotiating from a position of strength and that the British leaders, blaming their attacks on him on the common people, were in only four days awed into giving hostages, some immediately, some as soon as they could be brought from inland, and disbanding their army. However, after his cavalry had come within sight of the beachhead but then been scattered and turned back to Gaul by storms, and with food running short, Caesar, a native of the non-tidal Mediterranean, was taken by surprise by the British tides. At high tide, his beached warships filled with water, and his transports, riding at anchor, were driven against each other. Some ships were wrecked, and many others were rendered unseaworthy by the loss of rigging or other vital equipment, threatening the return journey.
Realising this and hoping to keep Caesar in Britain over the winter and thus starve him into submission, the Britons renewed the attack, ambushing one of the legions as it foraged near the Roman camp. The foraging party was relieved by the remainder of the Roman force and the Britons were again driven off, only to regroup after several days of storms with a larger force to attack the Roman camp. This attack was driven off fully, in a bloody rout, with improvised cavalry that Commius had gathered from pro-Roman Britons and a Roman scorched earth policy.
Their blue blood is tainted.
Ah Brewbaker
Yea, it's too bad the sound is screwed up especially near the end. This is a good documentary.
I'll have you all know, that, I,. That's right I; am a descendent of one of the bastard sons of Henry the VIII. Off with yer heads.
And I am a descendent of many of Europe's Royal families through William de Warrenne! Have a nice day :)
Off wit yer ed..
Henry VIII's only bastard son, Henry Fitsroy, died without having children
Darnley Lennox Off wit yer "ed!
I thought that Darnley was the great nephew, through sister Margaret
Well narrated
monarchy should be DONE!
interesting documentary...some problems with sound ,and stopping at times... or is about time for me to get a faster computer ?
+Gabriela Lopetegui Very choppy. I thot it was my reception!
Gabriela Lopetegui same here...creepy!
Same here. Especially around 22 minuets
A damisel in waiting here.😍😍😘😘😘😘😘😘😘
Not such a good legacy .. William and Harry and their mother changed that in modern times..
Rest in peace Diana and Dodi.
⚘🕊
they can prove who the real royal were before the 10th century
jack the ripper killer found now ,
And officially, the Ripper was likely Walter Thomas Sickert-Google the 2 together-you'll see...
I am a damisel in distress, I am, I can tell you for sure so please any knight available please gallop here or take me there on horse. there is no other damisel more in distress, so gallop.
And bring some whisky, please 🥃.
happy I care , I have been waiting 68 years for my prince to show up, whiskey or not. A Diet Coke would be sufficient! 😹😹😹😹
Food poisoning,. OK, sure it was (wink wink).
At 16:00 why do they seem to equate the king's homosexuality with military defeat. The fact is there are as many gay men who can kick ass as there are straights. What happens in the bedroom does not determine the outcome one the battlefield, consider the case of Alexander the Great's questionable sexuality.
Consider, also, the Sacred Band.
Also, I think too much is made of Alexander's sexuality without considering the sociological context. In his time, Greek society saw sex with women as only useful for procreation. Men were for "love".
Women were severely sequestered and guarded to ensure that the babies they produced were one's own. But, any man of status had a young lover, openly and without shame. In fact, it was considered the DUTY of a man to choose a young boy to mentor, to teach the arts of war, to guide and to initiate into sex. A man who didn't do this was considered radical and strange.
Somewhere along our evolutionary line, humans stopped being sexually driven by the estrus of females and became interested in sex year-round. Some societies developed the "harem" form to provide enough women to ensure sex-on-demand and some developed male-on-male and female-on-female sex for the same reason. Sex has probably also been a vehicle for dominance for a long time. Many animal species use sexual behavior to express dominance.
Sex is complicated and how it is expressed morphs throughout history. It probably always will and those who act as if one way is the "only" way are just deluded.
Anthony Williams and he had no children/heirs.
The reason that they do so is because Edward II was so busy persuing his relationship with Piers Gaveston that he was actually neglecting his kingdom. Because of his infatuation with Piers, he alienated his nobles, who did not want to fight for him and he made a lot of decisions that were not based on what was best for his kingdom and his subjects, but what was good for Piers. It's a fascinating tale.
Anthony Williams We don’t even know for a fact that he was gay. The precise nature of Edward and Gaveston's relationship is uncertain; they may have been friends, lovers or sworn brothers. Not that it matters. Look at Alexander the Great. We don’t even know how he was murdered except that he was probably murdered on the orders of the new regime.
Anthony Williams not to mention by the roman empire times men had open homosexual relationships.
Anyone know what the music is from circa 34,27? Bach?
Film dies a slow, stuttering death at 21:30.
Thanks Nationale Netherlanden too
I am a damisel in distress, I am, I can tell you for sure so please any knight available please gallop here or take me there on horse. there is no other damisel more in distress, so gallop.
And bring some whisky, please
jooo four children being a homosexual! That's a feat
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏Thanksssssssss this vídeo is perfectttt
Ahhhhh lmao, the comments are better then the documentary..........where is my popcorn?