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.
Wow. I can't believe you made a whole video for my question. I'm so honored!!! THANK YOU DAVID STARKEY!!! It seems so obvious now that it's pure gossip. My problem started when I tried to look up this Ortiz. I couldn't find anything about him online. I also thought that the word "miscarriage" maybe could have an other meaning like an 'unsuccessful outcome'. Anyway, thank you so so much again. I feel like I have won a lottery of some sort. I'm a true fan of yours, and you always have a place to be, if you ever want to visit Denmark! Best regards, your second favorite Dane, Blimunda Isadora ;)
a very happy weekend to you David, thank you for the latest video, and I wish all my fellow Starkey-ians here at your channel also have a wonderful weekend! xx
It is so curious why the two Catherines and Anne, as solutions to Henry's problems with his queens - were not taken from the Mafia playbook. Either make them an offer they can't refuse, or suffer a predetermined accidental death; and of course (absolutely!) they could also die from the "poisonous" bloody flux or sweating sickness... nothing to see here...it happens every day. Problem solved. No parliament or public show trials. No need for alienation from Rome. A quick and clean Machiavelli or Borgia solution. We have the precedents.
1. His first wife was the Aunt of the King of Spain, and her murder or suspicious death would have been a personal attack on his family and act of war. 2. He had no need to murder Anne or the other Catherine secretly when he could have them publicly executed as a warning to unfaithful wives. They were English subjects without the protection that Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves had as members of foreign royal families.
@@robinlillian9471 These are the prevailing theories of why not to assassinate (obviously and deviously) the queens, but at the cost of what? Was he not ridiculed as a weak husband, a cuckold husband, impotent and 'unable to do the deed,' a victim of multiple adulterous episodes by his own court and right under his own nose? Twice over! Are these the actions of a vainglorious narcissist, who risked the complete wrath of God and all Catholic kingdoms to get his way? Neither the Pope, Wolsey, or Cromwell we're above assassinations of heretics or supposed pretenders to the throne (Cardinal Pole and Bishop Fisher et al). Isabella was already dead, Ferdinand was fighting to hold onto his fragmented kingdom. A dead aunt was an insufficient reason for the Holy Roman emperor to wage war with both the Turks, France and England on two martial fronts. Charles had occupied Rome and took the Pope prisoner. It just seems absurd that the three queens dragged a consenting Henry through the political and personal mud of ridicule and show trials, or that his privy chamber wouldn't have voted or advised that assassination or extreme coercion was the best last solution. It is still too curious, too difficult to understand why it unfolded as it did, but stranger things have happened. Henry's daughter Elizabeth, and her privy chamber, learned the lessons of this cautionary tale and took decisive clandestine and overt actions to protect her image and throne.
King Ferdinand pulled off stuff like that. I am convinced Henry believed in divine right of kings so he had to at least pretend. Nobody would have been the wiser if Henry arranged fir Anne Boleyn to have a hunting accident. I think Henry could have just said Catherine Howard wad already married and just sent her away in disgrace.
Dear David, Thanks for this. I especially appreciated your comments on the proper, or correct approach of researching documents. Often, my well meaning, and intelligent, adult students, will arrive at a lecture filled with a palpable excitement. They have discovered something that generations of scholars have missed! I explain my personal 3 proofs rule, not unlike your proving of an historical fact. Recently I've been rereading "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey, which follows another intelligent, amateur history sleuth delving into documents and hearsay in the same fashion. Curious that you should discuss this subject the same week of my reread. Coincidence;-))) Thanks again.
I love The Daughter of Time. It’s a wonderful exercise in reconstructing and deducing history from a few written sources. I seem to remember the detective starts with the nurse’s schoolbook version of the Princes in the Tower. It’s years, decades, since I read it and I’m not sure how it stands up today against what has been discovered, including the remains of King Richard III, since Tey wrote it. For what it’s worth, my favourite Tey book is Brat Farrar, where she bolts you with your knowledge and willing acceptance, onto the side of the imposter.
@@tommoncrieff1154 I read it first as a teenager, and loved it. Now, as an art historian, I am interested in the way amateur researchers approach historical problems. I lecture to many groups of mature professionals; lawyers, doctors, teachers, alumni, accountants even ;-))) and have found the approach of the convalescent detective similar to the approach of the otherwise occupied, intelligent contemplators of ideas. That's really my only point. There is more to research than many think. That's all. It's a very entertaining little novel.
You’re my favourite Historian as well. I’ve watched all of Monarch probably a dozen times over the years. Gloriana, Edward and Mary, etc, etc, etc, you’re a brilliant man. Your anti vaxxer comment is gossip in itself. The term is incorrect at it’s core, and calling those who refused the vax that term in comparison to silliness is wrong. It also hasn’t aged well. Regardless, you’re a brilliant man who I deeply admire.
Hello Mr Starkey, firstly May I say I appreciate your work very much, personally I don’t think you can have enough English history, truly fascinating and connecting. However, I wanted to let you know that I too am from Kendal, I went to Kendal Grammar School and I lived on the Sandylands estate. A very lovely dinner lady who served me my excellent school dinners was a Mrs Starkey, was she a relation of yours? Lastly like, I couldn’t wait to leave the town soon as I reached my twenties. Robert
Jane Seymour; was she really that naive innocent as she's long been portrayed, and how was she groomed by her ambitious family (especially her brothers)? After all, she was a full decade older than most aristocratic brides of her era, not a young girl. (And why was that?) Thank you for your consideration.
I don’t believe she was particularly innocent, no. She definitely flirted with Henry and badmouthed Anne to him. She wasn’t particularly bright or attractive, either, which I think explains why she was still unmarried. I guess the family had a hard time finding a groom for her. So what did Henry see in her? Maybe she was just the right woman at the right time, and cultivated herself to be submissive which after two strong willed wives he maybe liked the idea of. I have a feeling he would eventually be bored to tears with her, but she died before that could happen.
@@graphiquejack I agree with all your points. Jane supposedly could only write her name and was certainly an intellectual comedown from Catherine and Anne, who were steeped in the New Learning. Nor was she attractive. I too, believe that boredom would have set in, and that Jane died at just the right moment, having delivered Henry's long-awaited son.
Mr. Starkey: Please be aware that there is no link to merchandise from your website's main page. I looked, because I was interested in a t-shirt, and there's nothing there, except a request for a donation.
Could it be that the word miscarriage could have had a different meaning. For example, that she had usurped the Queen and was acting as a Queen against public and popular desire.
Can’t believe there are people out there that would take romes version of events over British versions Jesus didn’t they even try and claim Anne had 6 fingers and Elizabeth was a man
Dear Dr. Starkey, You are my and my husband’s favorite historian of all time and we have listened to you for years and will continue to do so. I am not the type of person who is easily put off by a casual comment made by a person. I know you do not have any hesitation in voicing your opinions regarding certain issues and neither do I. That is one of the reasons I respect you. I think that the University of Cambridge “cancelling” you for one of your comments on a podcast , of which I was watching at the time, was unforgivable and ignorant. I must disagree with you regarding your putting every person who has chosen not to get the Covid gene therapy injection as as an “anti-vaxxer” and a disseminator of false information. I have no statistics,but I am sure, that there are many people in the worldwide community with post-graduate degrees who have researched the Covid vaccine and have decided for whatever reason, be it medical reasons or otherwise, not to be vaccinated. Many people who have chosen not to be vaccinated for Covid-19 are not blind, ignorant barbarians, anymore than a person who has chosen to have the Covid vaccine are blind sheep lining up for the shearer. Thank you for your channel. I enjoy it very much and will continue to be a subscriber and a listener.
It turns out that those who didn't vax are avoiding the stroke clusters that are now being seen by the CDC and FDA in people 11-21 days after the bivalent boosters. Maybe it pays to be a "blind, ignorant barbarian" after all. ;-)
Dr Starkey is entitled to his opinion, just like you are. How about we get back to the point where we allow others to have an opinion without thinking we have a right to bully them if we don't agree? In the old days, we accepted that we don't have to agree 100% with people to get along or admire them. Maybe we should strive to return to that.
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 was absolutely gripped by David Starkeys' history broadcast.
Brilliant!
Wow. I can't believe you made a whole video for my question. I'm so honored!!! THANK YOU DAVID STARKEY!!!
It seems so obvious now that it's pure gossip. My problem started when I tried to look up this Ortiz. I couldn't find anything about him online. I also thought that the word "miscarriage" maybe could have an other meaning like an 'unsuccessful outcome'. Anyway, thank you so so much again. I feel like I have won a lottery of some sort. I'm a true fan of yours, and you always have a place to be, if you ever want to visit Denmark! Best regards, your second favorite Dane, Blimunda Isadora ;)
It’s so wonderful to have David online, a real unbiased historian. Thank you!
No one is unbiased. David isn't a robot or some kind of advanced AI.
Metatron is another history content creator that doesn't revise history, check him out
Dr Starkey, you’re my favorite historian of all time too!!!!!!!
a very happy weekend to you David, thank you for the latest video, and I wish all my fellow Starkey-ians here at your channel also have a wonderful weekend! xx
Thank you..and to you toox
Love listening to David Starkey
Interesting and so much fun! Thank you Dr. Starkey.
Facts facts facts. So refreshing in these times.
A talk on the Bedingfields of Oxburgh Hall in Norfolk would be interesting.
It is so curious why the two Catherines and Anne, as solutions to Henry's problems with his queens - were not taken from the Mafia playbook.
Either make them an offer they can't refuse, or suffer a predetermined accidental death; and of course (absolutely!) they could also die from the "poisonous" bloody flux or sweating sickness... nothing to see here...it happens every day.
Problem solved. No parliament or public show trials. No need for alienation from Rome. A quick and clean Machiavelli or Borgia solution. We have the precedents.
1. His first wife was the Aunt of the King of Spain, and her murder or suspicious death would have been a personal attack on his family and act of war. 2. He had no need to murder Anne or the other Catherine secretly when he could have them publicly executed as a warning to unfaithful wives. They were English subjects without the protection that Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves had as members of foreign royal families.
@@robinlillian9471
These are the prevailing theories of why not to assassinate (obviously and deviously) the queens, but at the cost of what?
Was he not ridiculed as a weak husband, a cuckold husband, impotent and 'unable to do the deed,' a victim of multiple adulterous episodes by his own court and right under his own nose? Twice over!
Are these the actions of a vainglorious narcissist, who risked the complete wrath of God and all Catholic kingdoms to get his way?
Neither the Pope, Wolsey, or Cromwell we're above assassinations of heretics or supposed pretenders to the throne (Cardinal Pole and Bishop Fisher et al).
Isabella was already dead, Ferdinand was fighting to hold onto his fragmented kingdom. A dead aunt was an insufficient reason for the Holy Roman emperor to wage war with both the Turks, France and England on two martial fronts.
Charles had occupied Rome and took the Pope prisoner.
It just seems absurd that the three queens dragged a consenting Henry through the political and personal mud of ridicule and show trials, or that his privy chamber wouldn't have voted or advised that assassination or extreme coercion was the best last solution.
It is still too curious, too difficult to understand why it unfolded as it did, but stranger things have happened.
Henry's daughter Elizabeth, and her privy chamber, learned the lessons of this cautionary tale and took decisive clandestine and overt actions to protect her image and throne.
King Ferdinand pulled off stuff like that. I am convinced Henry believed in divine right of kings so he had to at least pretend. Nobody would have been the wiser if Henry arranged fir Anne Boleyn to have a hunting accident. I think Henry could have just said Catherine Howard wad already married and just sent her away in disgrace.
I have a feeling this "Blimunda Isadora" might just be H.M. Queen Margrethe...
She made a comment on this video above saying thanks so probably not.
Dear David, Thanks for this. I especially appreciated your comments on the proper, or correct approach of researching documents. Often, my well meaning, and intelligent, adult students, will arrive at a lecture filled with a palpable excitement. They have discovered something that generations of scholars have missed! I explain my personal 3 proofs rule, not unlike your proving of an historical fact. Recently I've been rereading "The Daughter of Time" by Josephine Tey, which follows another intelligent, amateur history sleuth delving into documents and hearsay in the same fashion. Curious that you should discuss this subject the same week of my reread. Coincidence;-))) Thanks again.
I love The Daughter of Time. It’s a wonderful exercise in reconstructing and deducing history from a few written sources. I seem to remember the detective starts with the nurse’s schoolbook version of the Princes in the Tower. It’s years, decades, since I read it and I’m not sure how it stands up today against what has been discovered, including the remains of King Richard III, since Tey wrote it. For what it’s worth, my favourite Tey book is Brat Farrar, where she bolts you with your knowledge and willing acceptance, onto the side of the imposter.
@@tommoncrieff1154 I read it first as a teenager, and loved it. Now, as an art historian, I am interested in the way amateur researchers approach historical problems. I lecture to many groups of mature professionals; lawyers, doctors, teachers, alumni, accountants even ;-))) and have found the approach of the convalescent detective similar to the approach of the otherwise occupied, intelligent contemplators of ideas. That's really my only point. There is more to research than many think. That's all. It's a very entertaining little novel.
You’re my favourite Historian as well. I’ve watched all of Monarch probably a dozen times over the years. Gloriana, Edward and Mary, etc, etc, etc, you’re a brilliant man.
Your anti vaxxer comment is gossip in itself. The term is incorrect at it’s core, and calling those who refused the vax that term in comparison to silliness is wrong. It also hasn’t aged well.
Regardless, you’re a brilliant man who I deeply admire.
Very interesting, thank you David.
Thankyou for your time David. Your the reason I took an interest in history thanks Your channel 4 documentary about Henry viii and his six wives.
Very informative
Hello Mr Starkey, firstly May I say I appreciate your work very much, personally I don’t think you can have enough English history, truly fascinating and connecting. However, I wanted to let you know that I too am from Kendal, I went to Kendal Grammar School and I lived on the Sandylands estate. A very lovely dinner lady who served me my excellent school dinners was a Mrs Starkey, was she a relation of yours? Lastly like, I couldn’t wait to leave the town soon as I reached my twenties. Robert
Thank you kind sir for your enlightening sharing! :>)
Jane Seymour; was she really that naive innocent as she's long been portrayed, and how was she groomed by her ambitious family (especially her brothers)?
After all, she was a full decade older than most aristocratic brides of her era, not a young girl. (And why was that?)
Thank you for your consideration.
I don’t believe she was particularly innocent, no. She definitely flirted with Henry and badmouthed Anne to him. She wasn’t particularly bright or attractive, either, which I think explains why she was still unmarried. I guess the family had a hard time finding a groom for her. So what did Henry see in her? Maybe she was just the right woman at the right time, and cultivated herself to be submissive which after two strong willed wives he maybe liked the idea of. I have a feeling he would eventually be bored to tears with her, but she died before that could happen.
@@graphiquejack I agree with all your points. Jane supposedly could only write her name and was certainly an intellectual comedown from Catherine and Anne, who were steeped in the New Learning. Nor was she attractive. I too, believe that boredom would have set in, and that Jane died at just the right moment, having delivered Henry's long-awaited son.
@@graphiquejackI don’t think Jane Seymour was especially attractive, but I think, despite her lack of education, she had a great deal of common sense.
Mr. Starkey: Please be aware that there is no link to merchandise from your website's main page. I looked, because I was interested in a t-shirt, and there's nothing there, except a request for a donation.
Funny how Henry could father a bastard son but every son he had with his first two wives didn’t last full term
I would like to do Gunboat Scholarship with respect to Russia. Raid the KGB files.
Could it be that the word miscarriage could have had a different meaning. For example, that she had usurped the Queen and was acting as a Queen against public and popular desire.
Professor, what type of psychopath was Henry the Eighth?
Many types.
Beethoven. Eyebrows. History!
Interessante
Can’t believe there are people out there that would take romes version of events over British versions Jesus didn’t they even try and claim Anne had 6 fingers and Elizabeth was a man
👑
Dear Dr. Starkey,
You are my and my husband’s favorite historian of all time and we have listened to you for years and will continue to do so. I am not the type of person who is easily put off by a casual comment made by a person. I know you do not have any hesitation in voicing your opinions regarding certain issues and neither do I. That is one of the reasons I respect you. I think that the University of Cambridge “cancelling” you for one of your comments on a podcast , of which I was watching at the time, was unforgivable and ignorant. I must disagree with you regarding your putting every person who has chosen not to get the Covid gene therapy injection as as an “anti-vaxxer” and a disseminator of false information. I have no statistics,but I am sure, that there are many people in the worldwide community with post-graduate degrees who have researched the Covid vaccine and have decided for whatever reason, be it medical reasons or otherwise, not to be vaccinated. Many people who have chosen not to be vaccinated for Covid-19 are not blind, ignorant barbarians, anymore than a person who has chosen to have the Covid vaccine are blind sheep lining up for the shearer. Thank you for your channel. I enjoy it very much and will continue to be a subscriber and a listener.
It turns out that those who didn't vax are avoiding the stroke clusters that are now being seen by the CDC and FDA in people 11-21 days after the bivalent boosters. Maybe it pays to be a "blind, ignorant barbarian" after all. ;-)
TRUST THE SCIENCE. TRUST ANNE BOLEYN.
I think the miscarriage was abt a week later, so prob Henrys fall didnt cause it
David stick to history do not start bringing in politics to your talks.
Agree
Agree.
I disagree. I do not think it possible to talk about history without consideration of the political context. The two are intertwined.
Dr Starkey is entitled to his opinion, just like you are. How about we get back to the point where we allow others to have an opinion without thinking we have a right to bully them if we don't agree? In the old days, we accepted that we don't have to agree 100% with people to get along or admire them. Maybe we should strive to return to that.