Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
I have had the honour and priviledge of meeting Mr Starkey in folkestone in October 2021. And what a man he was, as a fellow historian with a first and a masters in history we spent a good 5 minutes talking about British social policy fron 1913 to 1947. What a legend. Love you David
❤ David for examining the facts Explaining it as a narrative With factual references I am a lover of the Hebrew and Greek good news(Scriptures,) I respect your witness In the local interest Thank you On behalf of all Young Farmers In the Uk 💯%✔️
What a speaker, what an intellect! I could listen to Dr Starkey all day. Also, his occasional pomposity is quite forgiveable, if I were him, I'd be parading around like a peacock😅
It’s Friday night, my friends are in the pub drinking beer, I am at home, drinking the heady wine of history. Thank you David for such an amazing lecture. Oh, and if Teresa May can be PM…😂
Dr Starkey, brilliant as always! He manages to capture the attention from the instant he starts speaking. I'm not Christian, but I must say I really admire the Christian Church for welcoming free speech and being open to debate. I wish other religions would learn from them ❤
Magnificent! Dr. Starkey your delivery style - professorial, at the lectern, makes the audience listen intensely and think. Some of us who are a bit older, are challenged by your delivery, when you ask a question a especially when you ask a question and we do not have a ready answer. Please continue to challenge us, and write so we can learn from you.
Dr Starkey we are so happy to hear your current lecture! Keep doing them, because we have never learnt the amount of historical and political information- only you Dr.Starkey have the courage and the intellect to share as much vital information of the past and of the future!❤😊
David Starkey is too intelligent and too honest to be knighted. In Britain today like scum rising to the top of water only scum rise to the top of the establishment eg. Chris Bryant Tony Bliar etc.
@@maryhook9478 you must know better than us over here in the USA! But I always thought it was an honor to be knighted- we only want the very best for our Dr.Starkey!
@@carmenfoster6912 It used to be an honour to be knighted but the system has been so corrupted that only establishment rogues and villains such as Tony Bliar who took this country to war on a lie and is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent lives both British and Iraqi are now" honoured." Honorable truthful men are now cancelled. As Dr. Starkey was by the Blob but he fought back am glad to say. . We have the same problem as you have in the USA Our whole Civilization is breaking down. The Government The Lords, The Commons (with a few notable exceptions) The Judiciary The Police and other organs of State have become irredeemably corrupt. I cannot see a way out of it. The parallels with the Fall of the Roman Empire are alarming.
What a performance Mr Starkey. You're a true great patriot of our country, and custodian of our island story. Your face should be on money, and I want statues.
I would describe David Starkey as an intellectual pit bull terrier - once he clamps those jaws down on someone or something it is impossible to unlock them!
'You don't often get London taxi drivers who are philosophically literate'... That's a sweeping generalisation but what more can you expect from the likes of Starkey...
At 18:00 mins Professor David Starkey claims of the Popes at Rome in the 16 th century: “these Popes are primarily rulers” and students came from all over Europe (Erasmus) to study primarily law at Padua not Theology. I want to expand on this to look at the context of the changes of the view of nature from Aristotelain Potentiality and Actuality: growth development freedom and consent, to nature as causal law series and “efficient” “material”(?) causal “force”. This wrt. human experience is now a contrast between experience as reflection freedom consent and justification verse experience as direct causal force. (my example consider the difference between seeing an object and nodding, verses reacting by a flinch of the head to a painful blinding light. Indeed Ricky Gervais in a recent discussion with Richard Dawkins made a very sophisticated joke out of this from the context of the existace of God drawing on Hume Kant Hegel and Husserl. Something like “I can doubt whether God exists or not, but I cannot doubt whether I believe that God exists or not”. ) There is another myth that the Catholic Universities like Padua were full of dogmatic Aristotelians, ignorant of the new sciences. Ceasar Cremoninus held that it was not possible to argue from the movement of the heavens to the existence of God as the mover. Thus he rejects Aquinas’s argument for the existence of God as unmoved mover drawn from Aristotle’s metaphysics. “In other words the idea of nature as a more or less independent system was gaining ground; and, indeed, Cremoninus insisted on the autonomy of physical science. He based his own scientific ideas, however, on those of Aristotle and rejected the newer ideas in physics, including the Copernican astronomy.” (Copleston, Fredrick. SJ. “A History of Philosophy Volume 3: Ockham to Suarez” (1960) pg 226) So at Padua there is an Aristotelian tradition in conflict with Renaissance Humanism e.g. Florence and northern Europe. That is the Humanists, at once, in praise of Cicero, and moving towards neo Platonism that linked St Paul’s “love of God” through observing creatures, with Plato’s “love of absolute beauty” where we are reminded of eternal ideas by their temporal and material imitations”. The Aristotelians viewed this as an individualist movement the extreme version Ciceronianism was viewed as replacing Aristotle with the Tyranny of Cicero. The neo-Platonists and Humanists made Rhetoric central to education e.g. public speaking from Cicero’s work but I think they had no knowledge of Aristotle’s Rhetoric at that time. They held Cicero Rhetoric (logos as speech) above Aristotle’s “artificial” logic of deduction. The “natural” working of the mind has concern for real things and so not an ontology and metaphysics of universals and particulars but parts and wholes in the hands of Petrus Ramus for example. (Note: This shift from logos as deductive logic towards logos as speech is repeated in the second half of the 20th Century with J. L. Austin’s Speech Acts against Russell for example, but this became via Paul Grice a theory of discursively and communication pragmatics and linguistics, in which, as a mixture of Behaviourism and scientific communication theory and social psychology becomes the site and discipline of the arguments for political correctness against freedom of speech, which roughly passes though arguments from communication efficiency to communicative justice.) But the debate will slide towards conflicting views of nature, those following Aristotle’s Physics as potentiality and actuality, and those who begin to use new developments in mathematics in understanding nature that will lead to nature as series algebra geometry rule and law. (see David Webb’s essays in “Heidegger, Ethics and the Practice of Ontology” (2009) particularly “The Contingency of Freedom: Heidegger Reading Kant”; “Dimension and Difference: From Undifferentiatedness to Singularity”; and “Continuity and the Experience of Language as Such”) Here’s is a nice metaphor for the distinction I have used myself for some time now but I have just found in an old paper by Douglas Gasking “Causation and Recipes” (1955) in John Hospers “Readings in Introductory Philosophical Analysis” (1969). “From one point of view the progress of natural science can be viewed as resulting from the substitution of pure inference licences for recipes” (pg 152) My view is then that we have to view the developments of mathematics and physical science to a nomological view of nature, could be viewed as bringing nature under the realm of a legal context. That is Rome and Cicero as Law, replacing Greek and Aristotle and processes of learning and virtue and means. From “aim” to “objectivity” In terms of “experience” and change, Erasmus was a synergist: the grace of God must be by agreement between God and man e.g. in freedom, as opposed to the monergist, eg. Luther and Reformed Protestantism, which held that the grace of God needed no human cooperation. (Wikipedia “Erasmus”) this issue can be used to express the difference between the view of nature as cause: as law and force; and the notion of nature as process becoming growth e.g. actuality and potentiality. For a very long and complex version of this we have Hobbes Leviathon from Job, though Burke and Kant on the sublime and awe.
42:00 mins Goodness! Henry VII and the Habsburgs I didn't know that. At 56:00 mins Proff. Starkey comments on the kind of Gothic political realism (from reading Kissinger's Diplomacy when it came out), You don't bake it in you don't institutionalise it. Keep as "occasional". it reminds me of Kant's distinction between a moral wrong and evil. In the later the act is made a maxim a formulae a repetition. I think taken up by Arendt in her approach to the holocaust in Eichmann in Jerusalem. She focus on burocarcy and system of projects, to distinguish it as coordination and series from a mere association of single agent acts. It raises the question of responsibility and legitimacy since what is key for me is the intuitionalism and system of law can lead to no one being responsible. You know people say today "The Dept of X apologises or the Y PLC apologises or we contracted XYZ and no one was available for comment. its the fault of the Corporations which we then kind of use as schema for a composite of people "The Elites". But like in this history when they say "Profits are all going to the share holders, when the share holders can be your pension funds. I remember a story in the 1980's i think, when an investor realised that in law the pension funds of the company employees only had the rule that they should invest to maximise returns, so he used the money to buy the company and close it down for profit for him and the pension funds. These strange contradictory paradoxes exist in modern international law and within and between domestic law and so on in practice. I guess in practice an act can be just copied as an occasion without the need for a legal institutional system. kind of like Kant's "Judgements of perception" as opposed to his objective structured "judgements in experience". Yes Luther's 96 th Thesis should have been "and all your decedents and their decedents will be thrown into a War without aim or reason that will go on and on and destroy Central European society from which it won't recover for over 2 centuries" Just as a person can act in excess: lust so can a legal system act in excess. The law is not an exception to vice. indeed Arendt's point is that the law can make things that would be impossible possible and then in great magnitude. problem is when a act is defined then people can play to the definition and/or use the definition to generate wholly new and scaled up malfeasances. Another example is the attempt by American President to break up the monopoly's of the Gilded Age, and in so doing, they created laws that allowed them the affordances to take there wealth to a whole new Corporate Level. I think this is what is behind the insight of St Augustine in his two page demolition of Cicero, that we have still not thought through. Thank you Prof Starkey.
I don't think so. The Papacy today was influenced by the Franks (Barbarian tribes in the north) who ended the Roman empire in the 4th century. Roman Catholicism is a Frankish Church, whereas the Eastern half of the empire remained Roman until the 14th century. The Eastern (Byzantine) half of the Roman empire went on the influence the Eastern Orthodox Church, which split from the Frankish Church in Rome in the 11th century. We can first see the influence of the Franks in the Papacy with the Emperor Charlemagne, a Frankish king who in 800 AD established the Holy Roman Empire, although there was nothing Roman about it, it wasn't holy, and neither was it an empire. Charlemagne's "empire" later became known as the 1st Reich and the "thousand year reign of the Holy Roman empire" began. A Frankish dictator in the 20th century was to copy those words of the "thousand year reign" after the 3rd Reich was established in 1933. During his campaign, Charlemagne went to Rome to reaffirm the Frankish protectorate over the papacy, which also put Frankish ideology and thought into Christianity. Charlemagne gave himself a ridiculous amount of power, aswell as being the Frankish protectorate over the papacy, he was the king of the Franks. But the Eastern half of the empire maintained its Roman influence until the 14th century when the Byzantine empire and Constantinople fell to Islam. The Byzantine Church became the Eastern Orthodox Church (orthodox meaning the "correct glory" or the "correct doctrine").
@@isoldam Yes, you're right. I've changed the comment to, "Charlemagne became the Frankish protectorate over the papacy", from Encyclopedia Britainnica.
Id like an explanation why the private jet Charles used after the Queen's death, on the day of her desth flew from Glasgow to Rome, then to Aberdeen. And why her actual funderal was private. If the royal family are secretly Catholic that should be known.
@James_RC Nobody knows more about this biblical story as put forth in Revelations but I still say that not ALL of them are the Anti-Christ , there are few of them that meant well and others well - they were the Anti-Christ! My point is that DR.STARKEY put it all in the proper perspective! He knows who is and who isnt!
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
Another great lecture. One of our finest historians who doesn't rewrite history to suit modern day acceptability and woke preferences
I have had the honour and priviledge of meeting Mr Starkey in folkestone in October 2021. And what a man he was, as a fellow historian with a first and a masters in history we spent a good 5 minutes talking about British social policy fron 1913 to 1947. What a legend. Love you David
Here faithful listener from Belgrade, Serbia. Thank you professor. I am learning immensely.
Very good. An hour spent listening to David Starkey talking about history is invariably an hour well spent.
Abolutely riveting. David Starkey's grasp of the facts of history is simply amazing. We need more historians like him.
❤ David for examining the facts
Explaining it as a narrative
With factual references
I am a lover of the Hebrew and Greek good news(Scriptures,)
I respect your witness
In the local interest
Thank you
On behalf of all Young Farmers
In the Uk
💯%✔️
From one Yorkshire lad in America to another, a well spent hour! Thank you!
What a speaker, what an intellect! I could listen to Dr Starkey all day. Also, his occasional pomposity is quite forgiveable, if I were him, I'd be parading around like a peacock😅
Couldn't agree more. I like him, but I don't think anybody likes David Starkey as much as David Starkey.
I have never thought of David being pompous in any way. He's a great historian, who has the gift of keeping the listener's attention and interest.
It’s Friday night, my friends are in the pub drinking beer, I am at home, drinking the heady wine of history.
Thank you David for such an amazing lecture. Oh, and if Teresa May can be PM…😂
Friday one month later. GMT 17.19.
A superb and immensely informative lecture. As always, Dr. Starkey is a wellspring of historical insight.
Dr Starkey, brilliant as always! He manages to capture the attention from the instant he starts speaking.
I'm not Christian, but I must say I really admire the Christian Church for welcoming free speech and being open to debate. I wish other religions would learn from them ❤
Well done David what a great man
Could listen to this gentle and very wise man forever . Thank you sir
Magnificent! Dr. Starkey your delivery style - professorial, at the lectern, makes the audience listen intensely and think. Some of us who are a bit older, are challenged by your delivery, when you ask a question a especially when you ask a question and we do not have a ready answer. Please continue to challenge us, and write so we can learn from you.
Dr Starkey we are so happy to hear your current lecture! Keep doing them, because we have never learnt the amount of historical and political information- only you Dr.Starkey have the courage and the intellect to share as much vital information of the past and of the future!❤😊
I wish GB news would give David an hour on their channel for history.
What an amazing and insightful lecture! When is Dr.Starkey become Sir David Starkey? We here in the USA think it's long overdue!
Why?
David Starkey is too intelligent and too honest to be knighted. In Britain today like scum rising to the top of water only scum rise to the top of the establishment eg. Chris Bryant Tony Bliar etc.
@@maryhook9478 you must know better than us over here in the USA! But I always thought it was an honor to be knighted- we only want the very best for our Dr.Starkey!
@@carmenfoster6912 It used to be an honour but the system has become so corrupted that it is now an honour not to be knighted.
@@carmenfoster6912 It used to be an honour to be knighted but the system has been so corrupted that only establishment rogues and villains such as Tony Bliar who took this country to war on a lie and is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent lives both British and Iraqi are now" honoured." Honorable truthful
men are now cancelled. As Dr. Starkey was by the Blob but he fought back am glad to say. . We have the same problem as you have in the USA Our whole Civilization is breaking down. The Government The Lords, The Commons (with a few notable exceptions) The Judiciary The Police and other organs of State have become irredeemably corrupt. I cannot see a way out of it. The parallels with the Fall of the Roman Empire are alarming.
This is absolutely riveting! David Starkey is unique.
Superb!
A delight to listen to on one of my days off work. Thank you David.
What a performance Mr Starkey. You're a true great patriot of our country, and custodian of our island story. Your face should be on money, and I want statues.
Enjoyed this
Excellent lecture. Richard in Dallas
Wow! Fascinating perspective! 👍
I'd not appreciated the wider context to such a degree of why Henry VIII broke with Rome. An excellent lecture. Thank you.
Wonderful David. Thnak you.
Brilliant!
brilliant!
This is tremendous. Thanks v much
Bravo!
Exhilarating !
Beautiful 🥰
My daughter is a Progressive, she rejects the contract with the past. But like a Confucian, my foundation is the past.
Time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme
Brilliant lecture as always.Thanks David.
Consciousness is the fundamental reality
I would describe David Starkey as an intellectual pit bull terrier - once he clamps those jaws down on someone or something it is impossible to unlock them!
That's correct! The reason he is so beloved the world over: honesty, and superb intelligence !
The Crown discovered that the Revolution always devours its own children.
I enjoyed that greatly, but will note that my wife asked why were there no women in the audience?
Come off it David!
I surmise that if London Taxi - Drivers are not philosophically literate then they must be doing something else all day, more or less every day.
'You don't often get London taxi drivers who are philosophically literate'... That's a sweeping generalisation but what more can you expect from the likes of Starkey...
Maybe the reformation was a powergrab excuse when the horde broke up like Fomenko suggests. Henry was defender of the faith.
🇬🇧🙏🙌🙌
A towering intellect
At 18:00 mins Professor David Starkey claims of the Popes at Rome in the 16 th century:
“these Popes are primarily rulers” and students came from all over Europe (Erasmus) to study primarily law at Padua not Theology.
I want to expand on this to look at the context of the changes of the view of nature from Aristotelain Potentiality and Actuality: growth development freedom and consent, to nature as causal law series and “efficient” “material”(?) causal “force”. This wrt. human experience is now a contrast between experience as reflection freedom consent and justification verse experience as direct causal force. (my example consider the difference between seeing an object and nodding, verses reacting by a flinch of the head to a painful blinding light. Indeed Ricky Gervais in a recent discussion with Richard Dawkins made a very sophisticated joke out of this from the context of the existace of God drawing on Hume Kant Hegel and Husserl. Something like “I can doubt whether God exists or not, but I cannot doubt whether I believe that God exists or not”. )
There is another myth that the Catholic Universities like Padua were full of dogmatic Aristotelians, ignorant of the new sciences. Ceasar Cremoninus held that it was not possible to argue from the movement of the heavens to the existence of God as the mover. Thus he rejects Aquinas’s argument for the existence of God as unmoved mover drawn from Aristotle’s metaphysics.
“In other words the idea of nature as a more or less independent system was gaining ground; and, indeed, Cremoninus insisted on the autonomy of physical science. He based his own scientific ideas, however, on those of Aristotle and rejected the newer ideas in physics, including the Copernican astronomy.” (Copleston, Fredrick. SJ. “A History of Philosophy Volume 3: Ockham to Suarez” (1960) pg 226)
So at Padua there is an Aristotelian tradition in conflict with Renaissance Humanism e.g. Florence and northern Europe. That is the Humanists, at once, in praise of Cicero, and moving towards neo Platonism that linked St Paul’s “love of God” through observing creatures, with Plato’s “love of absolute beauty” where we are reminded of eternal ideas by their temporal and material imitations”. The Aristotelians viewed this as an individualist movement the extreme version Ciceronianism was viewed as replacing Aristotle with the Tyranny of Cicero.
The neo-Platonists and Humanists made Rhetoric central to education e.g. public speaking from Cicero’s work but I think they had no knowledge of Aristotle’s Rhetoric at that time. They held Cicero Rhetoric (logos as speech) above Aristotle’s “artificial” logic of deduction. The “natural” working of the mind has concern for real things and so not an ontology and metaphysics of universals and particulars but parts and wholes in the hands of Petrus Ramus for example. (Note: This shift from logos as deductive logic towards logos as speech is repeated in the second half of the 20th Century with J. L. Austin’s Speech Acts against Russell for example, but this became via Paul Grice a theory of discursively and communication pragmatics and linguistics, in which, as a mixture of Behaviourism and scientific communication theory and social psychology becomes the site and discipline of the arguments for political correctness against freedom of speech, which roughly passes though arguments from communication efficiency to communicative justice.)
But the debate will slide towards conflicting views of nature, those following Aristotle’s Physics as potentiality and actuality, and those who begin to use new developments in mathematics in understanding nature that will lead to nature as series algebra geometry rule and law. (see David Webb’s essays in “Heidegger, Ethics and the Practice of Ontology” (2009) particularly “The Contingency of Freedom: Heidegger Reading Kant”; “Dimension and Difference: From Undifferentiatedness to Singularity”; and “Continuity and the Experience of Language as Such”)
Here’s is a nice metaphor for the distinction I have used myself for some time now but I have just found in an old paper by Douglas Gasking “Causation and Recipes” (1955) in John Hospers “Readings in Introductory Philosophical Analysis” (1969).
“From one point of view the progress of natural science can be viewed as resulting from the substitution of pure inference licences for recipes” (pg 152)
My view is then that we have to view the developments of mathematics and physical science to a nomological view of nature, could be viewed as bringing nature under the realm of a legal context. That is Rome and Cicero as Law, replacing Greek and Aristotle and processes of learning and virtue and means. From “aim” to “objectivity”
In terms of “experience” and change, Erasmus was a synergist: the grace of God must be by agreement between God and man e.g. in freedom, as opposed to the monergist, eg. Luther and Reformed Protestantism, which held that the grace of God needed no human cooperation. (Wikipedia “Erasmus”) this issue can be used to express the difference between the view of nature as cause: as law and force; and the notion of nature as process becoming growth e.g. actuality and potentiality. For a very long and complex version of this we have Hobbes Leviathon from Job, though Burke and Kant on the sublime and awe.
42:00 mins Goodness! Henry VII and the Habsburgs I didn't know that.
At 56:00 mins Proff. Starkey comments on the kind of Gothic political realism (from reading Kissinger's Diplomacy when it came out), You don't bake it in you don't institutionalise it. Keep as "occasional". it reminds me of Kant's distinction between a moral wrong and evil. In the later the act is made a maxim a formulae a repetition. I think taken up by Arendt in her approach to the holocaust in Eichmann in Jerusalem. She focus on burocarcy and system of projects, to distinguish it as coordination and series from a mere association of single agent acts. It raises the question of responsibility and legitimacy since what is key for me is the intuitionalism and system of law can lead to no one being responsible. You know people say today "The Dept of X apologises or the Y PLC apologises or we contracted XYZ and no one was available for comment. its the fault of the Corporations which we then kind of use as schema for a composite of people "The Elites". But like in this history when they say "Profits are all going to the share holders, when the share holders can be your pension funds. I remember a story in the 1980's i think, when an investor realised that in law the pension funds of the company employees only had the rule that they should invest to maximise returns, so he used the money to buy the company and close it down for profit for him and the pension funds. These strange contradictory paradoxes exist in modern international law and within and between domestic law and so on in practice. I guess in practice an act can be just copied as an occasion without the need for a legal institutional system. kind of like Kant's "Judgements of perception" as opposed to his objective structured "judgements in experience".
Yes Luther's 96 th Thesis should have been "and all your decedents and their decedents will be thrown into a War without aim or reason that will go on and on and destroy Central European society from which it won't recover for over 2 centuries"
Just as a person can act in excess: lust so can a legal system act in excess. The law is not an exception to vice. indeed Arendt's point is that the law can make things that would be impossible possible and then in great magnitude. problem is when a act is defined then people can play to the definition and/or use the definition to generate wholly new and scaled up malfeasances. Another example is the attempt by American President to break up the monopoly's of the Gilded Age, and in so doing, they created laws that allowed them the affordances to take there wealth to a whole new Corporate Level.
I think this is what is behind the insight of St Augustine in his two page demolition of Cicero, that we have still not thought through.
Thank you Prof Starkey.
Great lecture, but why the dig at Theresa May, thought she was very qualified
The Pope authorised William Duke of Normandy's brutal conquest of England.
Time and space are functions of ones conceptual scheme
Vive La GAULE!
"The Papacy is not other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof." (Thomas Hobbes)
I don't think so. The Papacy today was influenced by the Franks (Barbarian tribes in the north) who ended the Roman empire in the 4th century. Roman Catholicism is a Frankish Church, whereas the Eastern half of the empire remained Roman until the 14th century. The Eastern (Byzantine) half of the Roman empire went on the influence the Eastern Orthodox Church, which split from the Frankish Church in Rome in the 11th century. We can first see the influence of the Franks in the Papacy with the Emperor Charlemagne, a Frankish king who in 800 AD established the Holy Roman Empire, although there was nothing Roman about it, it wasn't holy, and neither was it an empire. Charlemagne's "empire" later became known as the 1st Reich and the "thousand year reign of the Holy Roman empire" began. A Frankish dictator in the 20th century was to copy those words of the "thousand year reign" after the 3rd Reich was established in 1933. During his campaign, Charlemagne went to Rome to reaffirm the Frankish protectorate over the papacy, which also put Frankish ideology and thought into Christianity. Charlemagne gave himself a ridiculous amount of power, aswell as being the Frankish protectorate over the papacy, he was the king of the Franks.
But the Eastern half of the empire maintained its Roman influence until the 14th century when the Byzantine empire and Constantinople fell to Islam. The Byzantine Church became the Eastern Orthodox Church (orthodox meaning the "correct glory" or the "correct doctrine").
Charlemagne was never Bishop of Rome. He was not a Pope, Bishop, or Priest. He was crowned King of the Franks by Pope Leo III.
Dear old Tom preferred that noted humanitarian Henry VIII to the Pope.
@@isoldam Yes, you're right. I've changed the comment to, "Charlemagne became the Frankish protectorate over the papacy", from Encyclopedia Britainnica.
Sunderland A.F.C.
It's festered with flies in there. Legion
Приветствует возрождение от трации
self aggrandizing, my experience at a Lutheran university
The antithesis of nepo dolly-boy "historian" Dan Snow ...
Are you a Christian now, David ? God bless you, David Starkey.
Id like an explanation why the private jet Charles used after the Queen's death, on the day of her desth flew from Glasgow to Rome, then to Aberdeen. And why her actual funderal was private. If the royal family are secretly Catholic that should be known.
So, Donald Trump can be likened to Henry VIII....
Why don’t atheists just stop talking about religion all together?
The Catholic Church could care less about British anymore!
Get over it!
Catholics are still bitter about the loss of England, you can't talk history without talking about religion.
The Crown and the Antichrist
Please say on.
Don't be so disrespectful!
@James_RC Nobody knows more about this biblical story as put forth in Revelations but I still say that not ALL of them are the Anti-Christ , there are few of them that meant well and others well - they were the Anti-Christ! My point is that DR.STARKEY put it all in the proper perspective! He knows who is and who isnt!
@James_RC. And then the Romans build their Rock on Saul/Paul instead of Peter!!
@dougaldouglas8842 blah blah blah blah blah
It's spooky, you'd think this guy had lived through these events he knows the spirit of the time that well