British Royal Family Saints & Sinners
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ม.ค. 2023
- Please consider supporting me at / lindsayholiday
Why, in each generation, is one Windsor above reproach and another vilified?
You may love or loath Prince Harry and Meghan. Or sympathize with how they’ve been treated by feel they are being rather hypocritical by calling fowl on the media while capitalizing on their fame and airing the Windsor’s dirty laundry. Either way it is fascinating to see that the contrasting media portray of the two brothers, William as the saintly heir and Harry as the naughty spare has been going on in the British royal family for nearly 200 years. Going back to King George IV and Queen Victoria. In each era or generation some in the dynasty, usually the current monarch and heir apparent are portrayed by the media and history as a bastion of morally upright behavior, faithfulness to god, family and country and a glowing example of the values of the time. Meanwhile, another family member, either a spare to the throne or someone who is out of the succession for one reason or another, is labeled a cad, a playboy, morally corrupt, an abandoner of family and public duty, a criminal or even just an idiot. Creating this dichotomy of a saintly monarch or heir and their sinner sibling serves the firm well. As the monarchy only survives because of continued support from the public it is essential that those on the throne be loved and respected. Their good behavior is highly publicized while missteps are covered up, or downplayed. Meanwhile having someone in the family to point to as an example of bad behavior serves as a distraction and as a kind of “Well as least we don’t have them on the throne” pressure valve. The palace public relations machine and complicate media perpetuate these roles time and again. This is not to say that good or bad reputations are without substance. But in some cases media caricatures have become self-fulfilling prophecies. Let’s take a look back at the saints and sinners in each era of the British royal family. And examine if the saints were really as good and the sinners as bad as they have been portrayed.
Saints:
Queen Victoria
King George V
King George VI
Queen Elizabeth II
Charles III (sort of)
William, Prince of Wales
Prince George
Sinners:
King George IV
King Edward VII
Prince Albert Victor
King Edward VIII
Princess Margaret
Prince Andrew
Prince Harry
Prince Louis (Maybe?)
Correction: It was George V, not Edward VII whose doctor gave him a lethal injection.
Check out the History Tea Time Podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7iW8gOI...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
Music: Butterflies in Love by Sir. Cubworth
For business inquiries, please contact LindsayHoliday@ellify.com
I am absolutely NOT trying to vilify Prince Louis. My point is that the British media is already doing so and it is deeply troubling. This video is not about my opinion on who is good or bad in the family, but rather how the palace and the media silo royals into good or bad categories from a young age, to protect the institution. I'm excited to join you for a lively chat at 12!
I think there's an unusual tradition of training the heirs of the throne, such as Charlotte and George, to be fully trained from birth. And the spares not so much. Making sibling rivalry exist. To end this tradition all heirs, because of unknown factors in the future, should be trained equally. That could end the good vs. evil siblings rivalry all together, hopefully. I adore your channel and look forward to more content. 👏👏👏
The best thing that could come out from Harry speaking out is for the Royal Family to take a serious look and change how they interact with the press in relation to the "spare" members of the family. Maybe they have time to prevent sending Louis or other future family members down a destructive path and narrative.
You did a great job of explaining how the media and royals manipulate with "the people" think. I am glad that Harry has written about it, and I look forward to reading his book. Though I do wish I had Netflix, maybe the show will be aired elsewhere in the future.
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems many families do the same thing, the difference, no one cares about middle income and poor people doing the same thing. I was the "lazy child, my middle sister was the rebellious one, and my brothers could do no wrong. My sister used to say, "the boys are gold, and the girls are rust". She was right. It didn't matter how good the girls were, we were never good enough.
Great show! Thank you!
I’m glad someone is acknowledging it. The press sure gets a kick out of “Laughing Louis” acting differently than his siblings now, but I can already see the titles they’ll come up with trying to make him out to be the scapegoat of the kids.
I love this video Lindsay, thank you.
Prince Louis is a typical preschool child. What people forget is that Princess Charlotte is technically The Spare for the Wales' family thanks to the 2013 change in The Act of Succession prior to Prince George's birth.
Why have one saint when you can have two? Especially when the two are more likely to rule than the third.
Bingo.
She will likely be the next princess royal, though. I think because of that Louis will be the preferred scapegoat.
I think and hope all 3 of them turn out to be saints
@@AlexOtto I agree. All three seem to be very well adjusted, well behaved children . It irks me when people criticize a child for acting like a child. I have seen some absolutely horribly behaved kids who were not nearly as "privileged" as the Wales trio.
People need to get a grip. Louis is FOUR. As ask parent of a 4 year old boy what life is like lol.
I thought Louis did really well at "boring adult" events.
My brother at age 4, would have flung himself over the palace balcony railing pretending he was Spiderman.
4 year olds barely know they are alive, and are full of magical thinking.
He’s so innocent and yet the press worldwide criticized him for his “bratty attitude”, poor baby.
I agree! As a mom of two boys (7 and 2), Louis was acting like a normal 4 year old. It’s tough being on your best behavior for that long at only 4, so I’m not surprised he acted out a bit. I’d expect the same from my two.
That is how it starts! First call them naughty and next villify/tramutize them by throwing them under the bus to show how much of a saint the heir is!!! Let us get back to this in a decade.
My mother babysat for a doctor in the forties who left Pentothal suppositories in the refrigerator for any and all his five young children if they were to act up while their parents were out.😮
@@renafielding945 That’s what’s used to make anesthesia, I feel like that was illegal even back then in some way.
However you feel about any of these people, there is clearly some significant generational trauma being passed down in this family and seeing it already starting to inflict itself on literal children is absolutely heartbreaking.
🤣🤣🤣
Yes!
Indeed, it's quite eye-opening to witness the hierarchy within the hierarchy. It's scary to think of how powerful being constantly hit on the head with other people's labels and visions of a person could potentially alter how they see themselves and their lived reality.
They're not really allowed to be human.
@LeBou95 that's a strange comment. They hold themselves to a high standard, villainizing a child for being a child, as some have, shows we hold them to a different standard. Of course they're human, they argue as we do, apparently take drugs, party too, cry at funerals. All very human in my mind.
Out of all the sons of Elizabeth II and Philip, Edward definitely deserves that halo the most. But Charles and Edward are by far more saintly than the dastardly Andrew. Anne always was one to defy categories, in my opinion.
I’d love to see George, Charlotte, and Louis team up and turn this age old paradigm upside down and break the generational trauma.
Daughters seem to be ignored unless they're very close to the throne (ie, the late Queen and P. Margaret as girls/young women). Interesting to see what will happen with William's children with the new succession rules
The wales children are a very loving stable family . Charlotte is very loving to both George & Louis . She has a great role model like the Royal Princess Anne who suppotrs her older brother king Charles . They have wonderful parents William & Catherine so unlike the current two mr & mrs Oversea's in California the Wales children have a loving & stable childhood & not an admitted drug taking mommy issue dad . 💅
@@partlycloudy3519 I agree. Also Lindsay forgot that Prince William lost his mother too. Seems like she is pro- Harkle.
@@anne-marie2972but you can’t deny how the British press keeps vilifying the Sussexes whereas William and Kate can do NO WRONG! They’re perfect little family, it’s all propaganda, don’t you get it? Maybe because you’re in the middle of it all and you’re conditioned to accept monarchy but they’re all human. The press is the one manipulating your emotions and mindset. William has had several affairs but do you know about it? Nope, but hey, let’s focus on how evil Meghan is, that’ll keep the pressure off that adulterous king and queen you have now. Enjoy their reign, you’re the ones paying for their extravagances in the mean time the British people struggle to pay their bills.
@@partlycloudy3519 Charlotte isn't even 10 years old, and her parents have the good sense to keep her out of the public eye somewhat. You don't actually know much of anything about what she's really like or her sibling dynamic.
You're literally proving everything said in the video to be true by parroting the image that the media has created for her, and you don't even seem to realize that. It would be funny if it wasn't so horrifying.
🤣🤣 little Louis. He was so expressive during the Jubilee. Considering the nonstop multi day long rush of all the celebrations he did very well for a 4 year old.
I’m calling it now. When they all grow up George will be a dutiful king, Charolette will be his right hand keeping a tight ship and making sure everything runs smoothly in the Royal Family and Louis…Louis is just gonna keep being Louis😂
@@Kyle-qd2sy It might be just because he's still little but he is so expressive. I could see him possibly being a good actor.
Do you think “the rogue spare” is a characteristic unique to the Windsors? Or are there other royal families where the spare went rogue? I hope neither Charlotte nor Louis end up going the way of the rogue spares.
@@Kyle-qd2sy I can see Charlotte already has a lot of personality. I think she's going to be a lot like Anne. Headstrong, doesn't attract a whole bunch of media attention, but you know she's the boss between her and her brothers.
hitting his mum though, that wasn't cute
Let's not forget that princess Anne was the spare until prince Andrew was born
Was Andrew ever a spare? I don't recall any bad press until his shenanigans came to light. He was also his mother's favorite child
@@Indigo565 he was the spare until William was born
@@Indigo565 the press called him Randy Andy for decades
Ann wasn’t the spare for long she was bumped down when Andrew and Edward arrived, the rules of succession didn’t change until Charlotte came along
@@christineb7710 It's "Anne". I don't understand how so many people get the spelling wrong.
6:06 Anyone who completely believes Victoria was a complete grieving widow all of their lives needs to read even the few things her children didn't burn or destroy to get a good picture. Victoria was at least manogamus, but John Brown had done so much for her. First, he kept her from joining Albert in death; then he helped get her back on her feet afterwards. It was difficult to say the least. But Brown helped Victoria discover who she truly was. Part of the reason we admire her today so much. And she loved him completely for that. And he reciprocated it. Thank you and thank Julia Baird.
Loved him so much she was buried with a picture of him, a lock of his hair and his mother's engagement ring that he gave to Victoria
Tom McDonald
I kind of see it as Albert being the love of Victoria’s life, and John Brown being her soulmate.
I think she rationalized this by saying that Albert’s spirit was in John Brown’s body. But seriously, there’s nothing wrong with Victoria having found love and companionship with John Brown. She was only 42 when Albert died, she was so young and I hope she and John had a loving relationship.
And Victoria had a statue made in the image of Brown, she was also buried with a pic of Brown in her hands (of course it was covered up)...her children except one hated Brown...its interesting after his death her other servant was darkskin she even left him a lifelong pension....hhhmmmmm it sounds like her children that didn't like Brown had a step dad vibe from Brown
@@erinstanger416 That would be a fair assessment to make. Soulmate is definitely by definition how Victoria described Brown in the Tennyson letters.
So it's actually been proven via Wallis Simpson's private letters that she actually didn't want to get divorced or married to the king. She felt trapped because once the affair started (which her husband was originally on board with because it would benefit him financially) and Edward decided he wanted her he was going to have her and that was that. She actually begged him not to give up the thrown for her but after he did she felt she had to stay with him.
Mary and George were so busy worrying about morality in their family they didn't notice the nanny was abusing the kids 🤦
That happened when the elder two were just babies.
@@zzzbbbooo so why did it take them 3 years to notice.
Factual error: Edward VII was put to bed at 11:30 pm and died at 11:45 pm with no room for injections in between; he had had several heart attack that and didn't need help shuffling off the mortal coil. It was his son George V that was given the lethal dose. The administering doctor was Lord Dawson of Penn, who famously had issued the billeting earlier that day stating that "The King's life is moving peacefully towards its close." At 11pm Lord Dawson decided to euthanize the king without consulting his wife or heir. He injected the king with morphia and cocaine, and by 11:55 pm George VI was dead. Long live the king.
Came here looking for this comment, it was King George V the one euthanized.
Yep. He wanted it to stay true to his earlier report. Aaaand George V wanted his death announcement in the morning edition of the times.
This!
I thought I heard it was George V not Edward VII
That’s what I just comment too. I was like really? Didn’t he die with his ladies by his bed.
I do think it’s important though to show how much the media focused on Will when he was in college, and the way that the media used to paint him, his relationship with Kate, and Kate herself. Charles also had a huge amount of bad press long before Camilla and was painted in his youth as the playboy Prince before marrying Diana. I think that the person that is next in line to the throne just knows what they are taking on and it’s beaten into them from a young age what they can and can’t do but modern media has made it more difficult to hide them being human and making mistakes.
Sadly most will neglect this because it's easier to shift blame than to accept that "spares" can't blame a press narrative for everything. Harry blames William for a lot in his book, including for refusing to do hard drugs with Harry to "bond". Sadly the people in the RF not directly in line for the throne usually grow up as equally spoiled yet not very intelligent aristocrats, with money and fame but few of the duties- much trouble probably stems from that though some like Princess Anne break the mold by being hardworking and personable unlike Andrew.
@@shortgiraffe3792 I think you forget the palace also pays for media too, you will know this if you know someone that works there. They can make the heir look clean in public and make the spare the enemy this creates sibling rivalry. Its common for British RF siblings to hate each other because of how they trained them. Margaret hate the queen because of how they treated them unequally.
To counter one comment that keeps coming up: yes, Charlotte was the first "spare". Before Louis came along, she was positioned in the media as the "bold, naughty one" to Georges "shy, dutiful one". That changed as Louis got older, and acted like a typical four-year-old at the Platinum Jubilee and fly past. Apparently they find him easier to stereotype.
I also remember the coverage of William vs. Harry in their teen and college years. To generalize, William's antics were under-covered, although they often went out together, at the same time, to the same places!
Yeah I remember William being mentioned a lot too. He did get slightly more favorable press, mostly because a lot of the time he was with Kate Middleton and the media was constantly speculating if he'd marry her (which he did). Harry on the other hand was partying and had a string of girlfriends before finally settling on Meghan Markle.
@@Myne1001 he literally had 3 gfs before her. The press made it out to be that he was a playboy prince. They've been lying on him since he was 12 and his own father did that
@@Indigo565 I know he dated other women but he was with Kate for quite a while. Especially compared to Harry & Meghan.
@@Myne1001 No. I was commenting on you saying Harry had a string of gfs. He did not. He had 3 that the press all ran off. One of whom committed suicide because the British press bullied her constantly.
@@Indigo565 oh ok. I did think Will had other gfs but Kate was the main one.
I highly doubt Charles was ever seen as a saint 😂
Yes i thought the same
He hasn’t been it’s basically been part of a PR campaign to rebuild his reputation and his wife’s. So insert “naughty Prince Harry” narrative and Andrew just happened to be timed perfectly to makes Charles sins more distant and not as bad in comparison. Whatever you think of Charles as a husband or father, I don’t think he’s a bad leader for that particular role. Far better than a pedophile and a “naughty out of control spoiled prince who likes to cosplay in Nazi regalia” according to the media (PH fan by the way). So for most people it’s helped that he isn’t as “bad”. Hence this bizarre tradition.
Only slightly better than prince Andrew
@@mrm7098 naw Charles compared to Andrew is a saint, Charles only problem was his beef with his wife but at least he didn’t touch kids.
@@davidgarcia32323 Welp almost anyone compare to Andrew is a saint
It’s heartbreaking to already see the media starting to pin the young Wales children against each other.
They have done the same for 3 generations?? Why is this a shock? They did it with Charles and Anne ..and then Andrew? They did it with William and Harry and they are doing it again.
@@suzyfarnham3165 I am thinking OC was expecting the treatment to be better as time went on, but unfortunately, it doesn't seem to change much.
The British press are the leeches of humankind.
And the producer of this video!
The UK media is vile.
Came back to check on this after watching the coronation. One of the presenters jokingly described Prince Louis as "very naughty," while Prince George did a wonderful job as a perfect little page boy. It made me think back to this video, and I too hope that this doesn't result in some kind of future vilification or falling out between the brothers.
Exactly! I had to come back because of what I keep seeing in media about Prince Louis in the coronation 😢
Do you really believe in the sh* Harry tells?..
If you look more carefully at the thumb, you’ll notice the inclusion of question marks (i.e Saintly Heirs? Vilified Spares?). This means that there is room for skepticism, and challenging of certain narratives. It implies that a closer analysis may be warranted. People seem to be reacting to the thumb as if the question marks were exclamation points (!!).
Well said!
You will also note a couple of the 'spares' started out as the heir, so perhaps at times the initial spare was the better person.
I feel for William & Harry to an extent, growing up with the world watching your every move and having the press (and possibly their family) pit them against each other, then the fall out from being so young when their mother died and probably not being able to release their grief in a healthy way as they'd have been raised with the toxic "stiff upper lip" idea and not be allowed to show emotions. I still don't think it was right they were made to walk behind the hearse their mother's coffin was in either, they were far to young for that. Although Charlotte is the spare to George she won't be pitted against him like William and Harry were because she's female.
Why do you assume William & Harry were pitted against each other? Really? You know what happens in the palace?
@@alidabotes6264 Any person with eyes can see there were pot-stirrers who drove a wedge and pitted them against one another. From their young years, they’ve been treated differently by the press, their family and friends. Diana spoke openly about how they’d invite William for tea, but not Harry - and she pointed it out to the Queen Mother.
@@alidabotes6264 I agree. Also Harry was the most popular member until hi met one person.
The money and honor will never be worth it for me
This is what their mom feared the most..I know she's turning over in her grave
I would sympathize with Louis in this case; airplanes flying over your head are loud AF! Louis is a child; his ears are going to be more sensitive than mine, and let him enjoy his youth for crying out loud! No need to vilify a frigging child!
It’s so interesting to realize this has happened in every generation!
More creepy than anything else tbh
You.can.take it right back to.sibling pairs like the "good" Richard the Lionheart and the "bad" King John
Slight correction. It wasn’t Edward VII who was given a lethal injection, it was his son George V.
I was just about to comment this!! I was thinking “you’ve said this yourself before numerous times, how did you get it wrong??”
@@WinterGatlin Lindsay was too busy trying get to the part where she shows her unbridled support for the behaviour of the Sussexes. Anyone with half a brain knows what a hot mess they are and how lucky the monarchy is that William is the elder son.
To be fair, that 4 year old Louis was bouncing off the walls at the public event and it's probably good to not force him to attend important events where he'd be expected to sit still for hours, at least until he's older and calmed down.
Honestly, I don't understand the criticism at all his behavior is on par developmentally with his age. I could see if he were 19 pouting and stamping his foot. I guess it comes from the old-fashioned notion that children are to be seen and not heard basically just accessories to a perfect nuclear family devoid of personalities or interests of their own.
@@dominiqueg1639 Yup, that seems accurate. The royals and much of the media coverage they receive are quite old-fashioned in that way.
I don't think any child should be taken to long events untill they're like 15 or 16.
Leaving the kids with the nanny and only circulating a few carefully-staged pictures is the norm in most other European royal families.
To not expect a four year old to be hyperactive is ridiculous. 🤷♀️
Probably why he didn't attend Queen Elizabeth II's funeral but George and Charlotte did.
Isn't Charlotte George's spare?
Yes, indeed she is.
Yep, oddly enough that was not mentioned nor was the 17 lies in the Oprah interview, countless lies in the Netflix paid promotion & don't even start me on the book...
Yes, thanks to absolute primageniture.
Yes, but she has been the best behaved in public recently. Prince Louis is only four and has been acting exactly like a typical four year old. Hopefully, these three will be portrayed more fairly as they grow up.
YUP
Lindsay PLEASE make a video about Tomyris, she was an incredibly strong ruler from the bronze age.
She was an East-Iranian Queen who reigned over the Massagetae and inherited the throne from her dead husband. She then led her armies to defend against an attack by Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid Empire. According to Herodotus, she defeated and killed him in 530 BC in the most badass way. Tomyris is tragically unpopular, it would be great if you could make a video about her 🥺
Who is she?🤔 I’ve never heard of her
Is Tomyris the sister of a Bronze Age Pharoah who got revenge on his murderers by drowning them all during a great feast in a tomb or some such? Including drowning herself? I think Lindsay (I said I only THINK I onviously do not speak for our Channel Host) but I think she does videos on those she can find enough verifiable information about. I bet there are hundreds of women she wants ro qrite/film about
She's been letting us do some voting on her next few videos and I'm sure becoming a Patron would help your Cause or maybe help Tomyris get on the Ballot 🗳 ❤️ I'd love to see a video about her and learn more about her life! All I know is about her Badass Dinner Party of Revenge 🥳
@@ChibiProwl She was an East-Iranian Queen in 530 BC.
@@mediocremaiden8883 Tomyris was an East-Iranian Queen who reigned over the Massagetae. She inherited the throne from her dead husband and then led her armies to defend against an attack by Cyrus the Great of the Achaemenid Empire. According to Herodotus, she defeated and killed him in 530 BC in the most badass way. I learned about her on the game Civilizations and I couldn't believe I never heard of her before.
This sounds really interesting! I really hope Lindsay sees this.
Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but why did you go straight from George to Louis without mentioning Charlotte? She is next in line to throne after George and Louis is after her.
Because the media narrative that's problematic here is not around Charlotte (though she has her own not ideal "dutiful sister" thing), but Louis.
@@TinaOe "The media narrative that's problematic"... including in this video 😬
I agree technically Louis isn’t George’s spare it’s Charlotte unless we are also trying to skip her to feed this narrative
@@IDGAF_AboutYourLuckyCharms_238 I think the point is that one sibling in each generation is made to look bad so that the heir/monarch can look better. it's not strictly heirs and immediate spares throughout this video because some of the vilified were the first born.
@@breensprout Yeah but I think it’s not very fair to say that just because you were runner up your vilified it’s about behavior and any gross behavior should be called out. Just cause your “Royal” according to some ancient customs doesn’t mean anyone should get a pass on that. Idk maybe it’s because I’m American with Scottish, German, and French roots that I don’t really see what the big deal is. The whole thing should be abolished and the Royal family should pay taxes like every other hard working Britain imo.
Wasn’t it George V whose doctor euthanised him? I think Edward died of a series of heart attacks.
Yes, it was George V not Edward
This is a very interesting topic for a video. I have often thought that society and the media tend to put past and present members of the British Royal family in extreme positions of being saints or sinners. This seems especially true today where people like the late Princess Diana and Kate Middleton are put on a pedestal and practically worshipped, where people such as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are strongly criticized for practically everything they do and say. I believe, from experience, that there is good and bad in everyone and we really don't know the whole picture of what these people are really like.
Lmao that childhood pic of Andrew says everything.
Quick correction.. Edward 7 died of a heart attack.. George V was the one that was euthanized by his doctor for the Morning Papers
Terrible that Louis is already classified as such.
As a literal four-year old, he shouldn't have been included in this video using that pretext.
@@laffietaffie disagree. It’s good the video touched on how this dynamic continues into the current generation so that people can self-reflect and demonstrate proper disdain when this shows up in the media.
@@purpleflows5680 The media was largely, largely fawning over Louis. It's Harry's fans online who were accusing the 4-year old of being "autistic" and Kate of being an "unfit mother." Imposing this narrative on Louis is spiteful concern trolling.
@@laffietaffie This is so true. They wrote horrible mean comments about Louis.
@@laffietaffie that's how the British press is labeling him. That narrative had already been created
Interested to hear why you lumped Edward VII, Albert Victor, and Edward VIII into the "spare" column despite them being first born sons and heirs
Same, especially as Edward VII wasn’t ever a spare, he was always an heir. And definitely an odd choice to have the two Georges here when they were the spares.
I think it's more to do with reputation rather than being a spare.
Not Spare Column "Sinner" Column
@@mediocremaiden8883 I'm looking at the thumbnail of the video, they were listed as Vilified Spares
Well she also put Edward VIII in the spare column despite him being the heir and his brother being the spare. I think she just sorted them by how the world saw them during the ‘saintly heirs’ reign. And Edward VII was vilified during his mothers reign.
William IV and Edward VII were largely able to rehabilitate their reputations during their reigns and history generally looks favorably on their reigns.
George' s spare is his sister, because she is not being moved in the line of succsesion by the next born male.
Yes but Charlotte is a mini Elizabeth, and she’s in line to one day hold the title Princess Royal. Louis is unlikely to recieve anything but a dukedom the day he marries, *if* he marries. So the media sees him as a scapegoat to make look bad.
Yes, but if you look, the heir and the spare is usually based on same genders when it comes to press. It’s very similar to Charles, Anne, and Andrew. Anne was describe as Prince Philip favorite and take no sh*t attitude. There pictures of Charlotte doing what Louis was and it wasn’t taken as such. She doesn’t have to compare herself to anyone else because she is the model
@@tatianalewis5141 It used to be same gender because the rules were different. Boys were before girls. However this all seems like a reach. Charlotte is the spare not Louis.
@@ivy456And yet the media are still pitting the boys against each other while allowing Charlotte to simply be the grown up middle sister who has to protect her big brother & train her little brother, as if she isn’t the immediate spare anymore.
@@ivy456 People much rather compare people of the same gender.
If we're honest with ourselves then we see that this isn't really a "Royals" thing. Almost all of us have some sort of situation, only most of us aren't under the microscope.
Yep. First born favorites, the baby, and a black sheep usually.
I was thinking this same thing. I think all families have what they consider a “good” child and a “black sheep”. No parent will admit it, but they all paint their kids this way.
I don't think you can say any British monarch in history-except maybe for Charles I, for a little while-was actually absolute. "Absolute" litterally means "unbound" by any political limitation. This was the case in France from Louis XIV to XVI, and in few other places and times in Europe, but certainly not in Great Britain, where either the aristocracy, the Church or the Parliament were always entities that the monarchs had to deal with, even when they had actual political power.
That goes for every ruler ever: even without direct democracy you always need to maintain some level of popular support or else everyone will decide you have lost the mandate of heaven and your brother or cousin or advisor is the real godgiven king
Edward VII was not 'euthanized' by his doctor, it was his son George V
While this trend *is* most noticeable with the Hanoverians and the Windsors, you can see aspects of it with the Stuarts too! Charles II vs James II, William III vs Mary II, and William III vs Anne, although in their cases it was more politically-focused than morality-focused.
Lindsay, you did a very good presentation about how the winners write history and influence generations. It is what it is as unfair as that is. Hopefully we can do better some day.
This is fascinating. There is a reason you are almost at a million subs. This channel is amazing.
Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting videos.
I am laughing to see Charles portrayed as a Saint! 😂😂
Same. But he’s more of a saint than Andrew that’s for sure
@@AlexOtto Charles has damaged the monarchy far more than Andrew has!
But Louis is the Spare to Charlotte, isn’t he? The line of succession is William, George, Charlotte and then Louis.
This is so much more honest and insightful than anything from the official press or tabloids.
This was a really good one; what a timely topic.
This was really fair and well rounded. It also gives great context to the current goings on. Thanks for all your hard work!
I have a 4 year old and she would have behaved exactly the same as louis😂
Generational trauma is an incredible thing. They ALL need therapy.
No more than any other family. Their peccadilloes are shown to the world, that's the difference.
Wow everyone getting upset over the thumbnail, as with all other videos she will look at how they were/are portrayed or shown in the media/public not that it is her opinion! As for the children it will most likely be the outlook based on history of what to expect the narrative will be.
I was expecting something related to Edward the Confessor (he was stated to have been declared a saint as a political move in order to placate a powerful England around the time of the Investiture Controversy) but ended up in a class on public relations and gobsmacking hypocrisy & bootlicking attitude of the British press.
Correction : The Anglican Church did recognise divorce at that time (after all it was created due to a divorce) but the problem lay in marrying somebody who had divorced more than once.
Actually, while often called a divorce, the marriage of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon was annulled. So was Henry's marriage to his 4th wife Anne of Cleves. The little mnemonic "Divorced, Beheaded, Died, Divorced, Beheaded, Survived is factually incorrect.
The Reformation came about because Henry sought an annulment and the Pope would not approve it. Had he sought a divorce he might have avoided a lot of trouble. While Catherine did not believe in divorce either, at least her daughter Mary I would have retained her legitimacy. Mary, in her turn was determined to declare her half-sister Elizabeth I a bastard because if Mary confirmed her own parents' marriage valid, by default Elizabeth must be illegitimate.
@@VeracityLH Well put. I was just going to point that out.
I personally think you are going a bit too easy on Harry and Megan. But overall I really enjoyed the video!
You are spot on with your assessment of this generational practice. I’ve been telling people this for years and I can’t understand how people can’t see this pattern. 😮. Great video and once again you are correct ✅
What about Eugenie and Beatrice?? They are always getting thrown under the bus!
Children of the sinners.
They aren't heir or spare
Lucky for Prince Louis, he’s not the spare this time. Princess Charlottes has spared him that position
Only a couple min in and I love the way you’ve already broken this down. Never even thought about this. But it’s so true w Louis and George already.
It's easier to shift blame than to accept that "spares" can't blame a press narrative for everything, Harry blames William for a lot in his book, including for refusing to do hard drugs with Harry to "bond". Sadly the people in the RF not directly in line for the throne usually grow up as equally spoiled yet not very intelligent aristocrats, with money and fame but few of the duties- much trouble probably stems from that though some like Princess Anne break the mold by being hardworking and personable unlike Andrew.
Everyone needs to relax and wait until this airs - This will be a VERY INTERESTING watch - Long Live Our Kings & Queens !
The concept of Kings and Queens should be abolished. We as humans occupying this planet in the 21st century should elect our officials. People should not be considered leaders just because of birth.
Wow, I never realized it was a thing in British royalty and was going on for generations.
There's no other option when it comes to Harry and Meghan? It's only hate them or feel bad but not like what they are doing?
That's pretty telling tbh. And disappointing.
Louis is not a spare. Technically, he’s the 2nd Spare. Charlotte is the Spare. However, you're spot on about the press coverage. God for it a toddler acts up. I seem to remember when George pulled a full-on tantrum in front of an airplane when he was younger.
Great vid as usual 😁
This was such a good video.
I think this happens in most families, whatever their station in society.
Elizabeth's father was a spare...
Fair point.
Yeah, this thesis is kinda shaky lol
And a nazi member
Love your videos but, you confused King Edward VII death with King George V’s. King Edward VII died from heart attacks while King George V was the one who’s DR gave him the lethal cocktail.
Re Margaret's divorce. It was the first since Princess Victoria Melita of Edinburgh in 1901
I think this dichotomy is actually fair in terms of its portrayal of Edward VIII and George VI. I mean, literal Nazi sympathizer and adulterer < literally anything else
Funny that a cheater is saintly. That would be the joke of the century.
It's not surprising that media and historians want to paint particular individuals as good or bad because this is a a normal tendency of human beings, which governments tend to exploit. This is despite the fact that all people have good and bad traits
I love this because patterns don’t lie. You just see it playing out. Great video. ❤
Thank you for presenting a fair and balanced analysis. The Firm has a formula that has worked for generations and it will not change. The perception of the purity of the crown and the people who wear it must come first, always. A very oppressive and losing proposition for any spare.
This practice of making William look good and Harry bad all the time is horrible. This is 2023 everybody knows people have good days and bad days. Nobody is perfect not even the Royal family. I am 100 % with Harry for calling that out. For his putting his wife first and getting out of the toxic situation. As for Harry and William's fight. Brothers fight then they make up. William was just being the over protective big brother. Harry also says at the end of the argument William told Harry he was sorry for his out burst. Nobody mentions that fact. Shame on the Palace & British Tabloids for attempting to pit George against Louis they are just children. Nor should there be any comparison between Kate and Meghan. Or any other royal. Being Royal is hard enough without that kind of manipulation going on. Whoever thought up that idea needs their head examined! Pitting one royal against another is a tradition that should immediately be stopped!
It's easier to shift blame than to accept that "spares" can't blame a press narrative for everything, Harry blames William for a lot in his book, including for refusing to do hard drugs with Harry to "bond". Sadly the people in the RF not directly in line for the throne usually grow up as equally spoiled yet not very intelligent aristocrats, with money and fame but few of the duties- much trouble probably stems from that though some like Princess Anne break the mold by being hardworking and personable unlike Andrew.
Harry and William are in their 30's not early teens. There was no fight; William assaulted Harry in a fit of rage and should have been arrested, charged and jailed. According to Harry, William told Harry not to tell his wife though there were physical injuries. Harry did not accept his so-called apology! Did you even read "Spare?" No!
So interesting ❤ thank you
I really enjoyed this video. Very informative and fair.
This isn’t factually correct
It's totally bizarre to see anyone calling Charles a "saint". He's always been sensitive and into protecting the environment, sure, but he's always been a womanizing, weak chinned little cretin. Out of all the siblings Anne is the one most capable of being a monarch, but even she slept around on her husband. The fact of the matter is that we have such an insight to modern royals and their "beyond reproach" status has been almost fully eroded, both leading to the outcome that we, imo, will never again see a truly "good" monarch, because that ship has long sailed away with the name Saxe-coberg en gotha, or even earlier, with the stuarts. We have german bred "english" royals who are no more "british" than the saxon invaders were. We have never had a celtic ruler, or someone of celtic descent, and like most other europeans these days, the royalty exists only as an artifice of a bygone era that we cannot rid ourselves of without violence whilst they sit on their hugely profitable lands, titles and properties. Rob them of that and they'd tumble down like a house of cards.
Charles will be the reason the 'British Empire' has it's royalty dumped by the few countries still under it's banner. He is pathetic. I will vote to get rid of them the next time my country has a it's next referendum. Last one was 1999 and only passed 55/45 ?? Most people I know voted to keep them out of respect for the Queen and all her years of work. ALL my family voted to keep them. NOT A SINGLE one of us will next time. Charles will never be a King to me...and his mistress is NOTHING to me but ...a mistress.
Anne's husband cheated too. I read she really loved Andrew Parker Bowles as a young girl, but he was Catholic. He later married Camilla. According to reports, they are still good friends.
Great video❤❤❤❤❤
I think a lot of it is because heirs to the throne generally have more pressure on them to do the right thing, thus the self-fulfilling prophecy like you said, and "spares" don't have as much pressure, so they feel freer to do whatever they please. Also, a note on the affairs: I find it highly unlikely that either Prince Phillip or King George VI had any affairs; if they actually did, I find it very likely that this would've been picked up by the actual press worldwide (especially in the case of Prince Phillip, perhaps not so much in George VI's case) and not just trashy tabloids. Same with the allegations of affairs agains the Prince of Wales which I've seen floating around. There's no real evidence for any of these three men's supposed affairs; it's just tabloid fluff, and I doubt that the Prince of Wales really suggested the Nazi outfit for Harry. Feel free to prove me wrong if I am, though. Also, the press coverage of the Prince and Princess of Wales was a lot more negative at the start, and only became more positive later on. (See Catherine being harrassed by the press when she and William were just dating.)
Thank you! For almost a decade Kate was mocked as lazy Waity Katie from a non aristocratic background with an embarrassing drunk of uncle. Now people are acting like she was always loved by the media. Chelsy Davey, Harry's white South African ex was brutalized by the media. Maybe Lindsay should do a video on how the British media treats girlfriends and boyfriends in general then changes their tune after a while after the wedding. And the Palace never stands up for any of them.
Philip had many affairs. My mother was very close friends with someone I will not name [ my mother is still alive] but was close enough to call Her Majesty Lilibet. The Queen also presented a trophy in her own name after the death of this person..that is how close they were. Their friendship started when Edward VII was still prince of Wales.Philip was never faithful and everyone of the royal household knew it. The Queen Mother did not like him at all. The press, in those days would NEVER print stories about the Royal Family?? Even the story of Wallis Simpson was all over Australian and American newspapers long before Brits knew it was happening. The affairs were with titled friends wives and one VERY close to Buckingham Palace. I was young..in my 20's, when this person died but she knew it all and named names AND DATES. A clue is in the birth of a certain child not 8 months after a rushed marriage to someone VERY close to the Queen. Maybe you shouldn't rush to judgement based on magazines?
It's irresponsible to quote things verbatim from Harry's book like the costume story, when Harry is very much an unreliable narrator at best and trying to recover his public image for cash/escape racism claims by dumping it at someone else's door. Many inaccuracies have already been uncovered from Spare (like where he was when the Queen Mother died and him being a helicopter pilot/gunner-he never passed the exam to do so) and it's more '"the version of the story he wants to promote to cover for his own flaws" rather than "the truth". I also think it's distasteful in general to speak about kids, Louis has been covered as a goofy child but I haven't seen anything malicious.
I would not give too much credence to what random people claiming to be royal experts or close to the RF on the internet say (unless there's specific and credible proof).
It's easier to shift blame than to accept that "spares" can't blame a press narrative for everything, Harry blames William for a lot in his book, including for refusing to do hard drugs with Harry to "bond". Sadly the people in the RF not directly in line for the throne usually grow up as equally spoiled yet not very intelligent aristocrats, with money and fame but few of the duties- much trouble probably stems from that though some like Princess Anne break the mold by being hardworking and personable unlike Andrew. I have no idea what this other person is talking about, but I really think that all or almost all of those affair stories were just tabloid junk.
@@shortgiraffe3792 Rant!
@@shortgiraffe3792 have you read the book? Cause nowhere is it ever mentioned that he wanted William to do hard drugs with him. Ever!! As for him being a pilot/gunner do you honestly think any of the people he mentions who trained him wouldn’t have said something to the effect of it being a lie??? Or how about the Queen actually being the one who pinned his wings when he graduated?? In the book you can see how he loves his family. His issues are with the press and the firm not standing behind him when lies were spread. I suggest you read it again to fully understand the nuances.
HOW KING EDWARD VII AND CHARLES ARE SAINTLY IS BEYYYOOONNND ME
some of the "saints"...... were/are not "saints"
Princess Margaret was not the first member of the Royal Family to get a divorce since Henry VIII. George I not only divorced his wife, Sophia Dorothia, he imprisoned her in a castle and didn't allow her to ser her two children. Caroline Mathilde, sister of George III, was divorced by her husband, the insane king of Denmark.
Edward VII may have been a bit naughty, but he was always popular with the British people.
Edward VIII was also popular, even though his relationships with married older women was an open secret. I don't think the public minds a bit of naughty as long as you don't cross a line.
Thank you for your insight on these old institutional patterns they are still very much at play now and will continue to play out with the next generation no doubt
Love your videos Lindsay! I normally do my own research after each one of your videos. I’ve found that Edward VII actually died of an unexpected heart attack 9:09 , and that George V was the one who was killed by his doctors with the lethal dose of morphine for the news to be in his favourite paper. Looking forward to more videos in the future, especially about the upcoming coronation in May!!
whoever threw the natives and colonials party needs to be put on blast
The lethal injection story relates to George V not Edward VII
Who’s that between Edward VIII and Prince Andrew below Elizabeth II? Princess Margaret?
Yes
lol wow here for the comments already on the thumbnail! whooo
I am rather curious on how all the spares have been labelled as 'sinners' yet some of the heirs were actually the sinners....e.g Kings Edward VII and VIII
This is the story of every family..
It's life
Charles with a Hallo. Please
Louis is only 5 years old for goodness sake so you can't take his innocent toddler antics that seriously, and Charles, who committed infidelity apparently, is by no means a saint!
An exception to this trend is the Prince Regent, who was widely hated in his nation, whereas his daughter was the one portrayed as the saintly heir
Regarding information about the Sussex's, much of the info provided by them, as the Queen stated "recollections may vary".
Think this is in all families, certainly in my own the oldest is told to be responsible and safe and the youngest is a bit of a liability ;) That's me lol
How is Charles on the top list? 🧐
Truly enjoyed this and hope the family will change for the better.
Every family has those dynamics...
Prince Louie is not the spare, Princess Charlotte is.
True. But in terms of media portrayal, Charlotte who initially had the ‘naughty spare’ label is now the ‘dutiful sister’-the little one protecting George’s rep while being the experienced, second mum type big one to Louis. Since she’s now the middle child (and only girl of the three) even though she’s the spare to George’s heir, she’s more or less being able to slip out of either saint or sinner typecasting. Not to mention, the media hasn’t before had to remember that the middle sister has retained her place in the line of succession in relation to her brothers.
@@jessicadangerfield1539 I think stating the media isn’t capable of remembering who the actual spare is. Is just plain ridiculous! Com one now!
I do however hope any man hater in the audience. Notice how her being a girl. Is quite possibly the reason they are taking it easy on her.
That’s a female’s privilege right there! Lol
@@inthewindago I wasn’t implying the media wasn’t capable of remembering who the immediate spare is, rather simply that they’re unused to them being a sister in between two brothers, thus the pitting of siblings of the gender against each other pattern continues.
I wouldn’t call Charlotte’s particular example a case of female privilege, just a matter of different gendered middle child privilege. If she had a little sister and still was having the media machine take it easier on her as well as said little sister, I’d agree completely.
Harry is not being treated badly by the press,it is his own actions and how he treated his grandparents that disgust me.The way he shared private conversations during Prince Philip's memorial tells me all I need to know about his character.Had relatives who made it all about them during my grandparents' funeral and I can smell the nonsense from a mile away after dealing with such people...
HIS GRANDPARENTS disgust ME. With how they treated his MOTHER, HIM & HIS WIFE. Tf 🤨
My grandmother was just as SELF-CENTERED as my mother is now.... we can be RESPECTFUL. Without taking any more SHT from the people who CAUSED US trauma. Period. RIP to them but for those who REMAIN & STILL need to heal.... FOH. No excuse for how Harry & Megan been treated, lied on, bullied & slandered. THAN vilified & not even APOLOGIZED to or supported by their own family. Sounds like my OWN very, very messed up family. And the ignorant public harassing you even more, ADDING to the trauma...... can't imagine it. F you & the people LIKING your comment. Leave that man and his wife TF alone.
@@angeleyeszarai His mother, him and his wife were hardly displaying respect for the institution by the time it led to trouble for them. There are sacrifices inherent in their ultimately privileged positions, but they were too weak to accept them.
Spot the racist Brit challenge complete
@@cparker7992 lol... WHAT? What did ANYONE say in this entire thread that's *RACIST*??
Lindsay, thanks 4 your informative and delightful channel. Can you do a video on Diana, Camilla and Fergie and how they are descendants of Charles 2?
Since when Meghan and Harry outshine the Prince and Princess of Wales
It's pretty easy to do. They're way more interesting
@@Yagura6They’re dynamic, human, and so far from fitting into ‘the script’ it makes them fascinating & different.
I like both of them.
@@cocoaorange1 Same. I like both couples, the Wales’ because they bring the institution stability & Kate was clearly given the preparation Diana wasn’t, meanwhile I like H & M because they’re clearly a stable & loving couple and bring a certain charisma.
I can see why the institution feels threatened by anything or anyone that is both shiny & new. It’s just ridiculous that it always becomes a competition as enmeshing the two would best poise the institution for ensured continuity.
I don’t find prince William to be all that impressive. In prince Andrew’s case, the label is very appropriate.
Edward VIII’s label is fitting too considering the n@zism…
I feel like Kate's increased William's popularity a lot. They're much more impressive and attractive as a symbol of a rich, white, powerful nuclear family than he is on his own.
@@kohlinoor good points!!!!! Yep, I agree