Well I know Henry VII really loved his wife Elizabeth of York and from my understanding he had no mistresses. I mean their marriage in the beginning was all about contract but when he married her he really did fall in love with her. He certainly wasn't the same after she died its like he gave up on life and on his kingdom. Its really sad. But when I think of Royal mistresses yes France comes up but man I think of Nell Gywn, that lady was awesome and very intelligent. 😅
I think one of the main differences between a royal mistress in the Western world and the concubines in the Eastern world is that concubine’s sons could be the next emperor/king. Which gives a whole new aspect to the concubine’s social power
Actually the French King on his death bed that Janega was talking about was not a Louis, it was Henri ll and his long term mistress Diane du Poitiers, who was his mistress for 20+ years. Diane was 18+ years older than the King, so an interesting woman to read up on.
@@Witnessmoo While the French do appreciate a woman of experience, Henri ll was one of the few that had a mistress that much older than himself. The French monarchy elevated the role of a mistress to an official position that was an anomaly in Europe. Apart from Charles ll of the UK, who had a bevy of mistresses at the same time, most English monarchs were a bit low key with their other women. Many young princes were introduced into the art of seduction when they were in their early teens by older woman at court, to learn the ropes so to speak. Sometimes this would lead to long affairs. In terms of the current French President, I believe his wife is 25 years older than him. It seems unseemly since she was his high school teacher, but they both maintain that no relationship began until he graduated from school. However, grooming can begin years before one becomes intimate. So, it is definitely problematic, but they've been married for years. However, it was common in the Medieval era to have marriages between 14-year old girls and men 40+ years old.
@@Job-y8o That may be true for many in the US, but if one has a particular interest in any era of history there are plenty of source material. As an American I knew more about certain periods of UK history than my ex-husband who was a UK citizen.
Paramour is the term that is usually applied to the women's (Queen) lover. One of the terms used for both the King and Queen is a "favorite". That doesn't necessarily connotate a sexual but clearly an intimate one.
As an Brit that lives through the lunacy of 'Royal Reporting' in our media, the explanation towards the end of this excellent discussion by two Americans absolutely nailed the garbage we hear daily - brilliant!
One thing you can always count on is American Bluntness! As an American that did not appreciate this when I lived in the USA...however now having lived in passive aggressive Canada for a few years I totally miss bluntness!
Royal mistresses actually way predate Medieval Europe. For example, we know about several royal mistresses of Ptolemaic kings who at times held quite significant amounts of power. (These were not wives or concubines. Ptolemaic kings only ever had one wife at a time.) One of Ptolemy II's mistresses, Bilistiche, was even deified after her death (she also apparently won two Olympic chariot races, though I'm not sure if that means that she was actually driving the chariot or just that the horses and charioteer were in her ownership/employ). Their background can also vary. For example, Ptolemy IV's mistress Agathokleia came from one of the most noble families of Alexandria (her brother was the king's closest advisor), whereas another of Ptolemy II's mistresses, Myrtion, was an actress (which was basically just one step up the social ladder from prostitutes and slaves). There are in fact surprisingly many parallels between the French court as established by Louis XIV and the Ptolemaic court at Alexandria almost two millenia earlier. For example, the Ptolemies, too, had a "getting up" ceremony where courtiers would wake the king and be present for his morning routine. I imagine that that may be a case of convergent evolution, as it were. Different people in different cultures finding similar solutions to similar problems (because at Alexandria, too, you had the nobility and the royal family living in the same place and thus it was important to manage access to the king).
Royal mistresses tended to come from the aristocracy and their manners would be beyond reproach - there have been exceptions - Nell Gwyn for instance, but a royal mistress would be at ease at court and a trend setter rather than a misfit.
I very much enjoyed the conversation the two of you had. Further, I am grateful that you touched on the modern royal family. Diana may have been naive however, as I recall it, she was part of the nobility. Perhaps the Spencer parents did not talk much about the institution of nobility and monarchy?
This is all part of the Diana myth that has sprung up. Charles had dated her older sister for some time, so she knew more of what was going on. The aristocracy in the UK is a relatively small group of people, so Diana certainly knew of what was going on in the RF. In fact when she was growing up, she grew up on a royal estate and played with Prince Andrew who was closer to her in age. So, she was definitely in the inner circle. While Charles & the RF in general are blamed for her, she came from a highly dysfunctional background. Her father physically abused her mother. Her mother had to leave her children behind. She married a polo player & later divorced him. Diana's own brother has been married 3 times & he refused to let Diana live at the family estate when she was going through a divorce with Prince Charles. Diana's last BF was Dodi Fayed, he had a mistress on his yacht, while he was dating Diana. So, Diana continued to make poor choices throughout her life. It is quite common in the aristocracy due to land holdings, for people not to divorce but to have other relationships on the side. Even in the US this is not unheard of. Gordon Getty, the 89-year old Billionaire, that Meghan, DOS, was trying to cozy up to, the family shut down that relationship. Gordon had a "second family" with a long term mistress for around 20 years. He had 3 daughters with her, gifted her about 10 homes over their relationship. He never divorced or even officially separated from his wife.
@@mtngrl5859It was Sarah, Duchess of York's mother. Susan- who married an Argentinian polo player, Hector Barrantes. They were married until Susan died in a car accident in Argentina. Diana's mother, Frances married Peter Shand-Kydd who was an English wallpaper heir who had homes in Australia and Scotland. They eventually divorced and went their seperate ways.
@@gnostic268 Thanks for the correction. However, my general points still apply with respect to the "Diana Myth" still apply, the aristocracy is a relatively small club and anyone born within the ranks understands the pecking order and how things work. It was laughable when Prince Harry had the "mind blowing" interview where he seemed astonished to reveal that there was a hierarchy within the monarchy. No shit, Sherlock. How stupid does he think the public is? If there is anyone who tries to stand on protocol its him and his rapacious wife.
"there are certain rules, they're just ignored." Are you talking about the Republicans in the US House of Representatives? The machinations of power and their patterns hardly ever change.
Some important points were missed, that could have given a deeper context to the information. The mistress to the king in the French royal court actually had an established title, "maitrese-en-titre". This went back at least as far as Francis I, contemporary of Henry VIII. The English court never had such a position or title but Henry offered to make the title for Anne Boleyn. She declined to be Henry's mistress under any conditions. On a side note, discussing Anne Boleyn's noble but non-royal background, Henry's next wife who gave him his son, was Jane Seymour. Jane's family background, I think, may have been less illustrious than the Boleyn family. Jane was not Henry's mistress but she had been one of Anne's ladies in waiting. She was engaged to Henry 2 days after Anne was beheaded and they married two weeks later. No one knows what to make of this since Jane is whitewashed for giving Henry his only living, legitimate son. But in the line up of women acting....um....unconventionally, Jane is more interesting than many mistresses. Another factor with royal mistresses is based upon medical beliefs of the day. One belief on male sexuality was that they had to release their fluids fairly regularly. If the queen was heavily pregnant or in seclusion after a birth, the king needed an outlet. Heaven knows there is the pseudo-religious idea that if a man spills his seed upon the ground, he will go to hell or something. Maybe he will just be cursed, since most of the bible isn't real specific about hell. If this was a basically accepted idea, I wonder what peasant men did when their wives were heavily pregnant, giving birth, etc. A peasant was unlikely to be able to support more than one family whereas a king could educate, support and provide care for a lot of illegitimate children. Maybe peasant men were too tired to have sex after a very long day working in the fields. My point is, in some courts, the role of mistress was an established position, perhaps to keep the king healthy, and not cursed by God, for spilling his seed. This is a very simple background for the subject.
To set the record straight, Melania wasn't the "other woman". DT found out that his second wife Marla Maples was having an affair in 1997, they separated right after this. They were finally divorced in 1999. Melania met him around 1998-99 before his divorce was final, so she had nothing to do with his marriage. In fact, when DT met Melania at a party he was with another woman. He tried to pick her up then, she blew him off thinking it was very rude to hit on another woman, when he already had a date. He pursued her by calling her agent, to see if he could meet her again. This took weeks of him pursuing her, so Melania made him work to get her.
Work? She posed nude and did soft porn. He already knew what she had to offer. Being a crafty gold digger who lied about her Einstein scholarship doesn't give her some imaginary moral high ground. Lmao
What's so interesting to me is that the notion of "royalty" survives into modern times, especially since it serves no real purpose. In ancient times, I can see that it did, but now, not at all, yet people hang onto it as if it's real, when, in fact, it's a man-made construct that has outlived its usefulness. I suppose it's the fairytale ideas that we subscribe to and hang onto for dear life, wanting it to be real.
@@naithom Having the king or crown prince as your wife's lover was either welcomed or endured by most men. However ... Most royals were generous with their designated/favorite mistress. Not only with jewelry, but with real estate and expense accounts/lines of credit. Alice Keppel (Queen Camilla' great-grandmother) was made a wealthy woman by Edward VII. Charles enriched Camilla too. btw: It is rumored that Alice Keppel's second daughter, Sonia Rosemary Cubitt (b.1900) was Edward VII 's daughter. It is also rumored that her older daughter Violet Trefusis (b. 1894) was the daughter of " William Beckett, subsequently 2nd Baron Grimthorpe, a banker and MP for Whitby" -- Wikipedia "Keppel's husband (m. 1891) once said of her: 'I do not mind what she does as long as she comes back to me in the end.' Her affairs were conducted with his knowledge, and despite a deep affection for his wife, he also had affairs. 'Very fond of women himself, he raised no objection to the prince's friendship with his wife', wrote the historian Christopher Hibbert. Despite affairs on both sides, one of her daughters described her parents' marriage as a "marriage of companionship of love and laughter". -- Wikipedia
Just found this interview. I love Eleanor! Modern sensibilities seem to still be heavily Puritanical/Evangelical in their morality (which was rebranded in the Victorian era), in particular with regard to defining masculine power structure and how women are perceived. At least this seems very true here in America, but I think there are strong vestiges in the UK as well.
For the host, she should be aware that there was no relationship between Prince William & Rose Hanbury. The person who spread this rumor admitted he did it & there was no truth to it. Where it comes from is that Rose was seated next to Prince Harry & Meaghan, Duchess of Sussex, was jealous because she wasn't invited & had her friend Giles spread a rumor about Prince William. Rose is happily married to a Marquess who is far wealthier than the entire royal family combined & have children together. Further, Catherine's sister Pippa's last child-born last year- was named Rose. Obviously, if there was an affair she wouldn't have named her child that name.
I thiml the point many miss is that it's not like the mistresses themselves have a choice. He's the friigging KING. She doesn't have the option to say no. Especially Ann Boylene, she wantted to Marry Henry Percy but was prevented from doing so because she "caiught Henry's eye". Same as with Kathryn Parr, she didn't want Henry, but had no choice.
Apparently Harry never loved his aunt, female cousins, sister-in-law because he never made a fuss about anyone being mean to them. It is his mother and his wife who are off-limits, anyone else in his family is a fair game, apparently.
Funny how you had this discussion and Camilla Parker Bowles didn't come up. I suppose the distinction is she was mistress to the heir rather than the king; but still, it's an interesting modern example considering she eventually became queen.
As far as Melania Trump goes, one really doesn't know her politics if she has any. She's married to a former President, that's it. When she married him, he was a Democrat and loved by all the liberals. Was she a Democrat when she married him, then turned Republican? She's likely apolitical & married him for a secure future. I give her props for making DT having to renegotiate their pre-nup agreement, since being FLOTUS wasn't part of what she signed up for, before she moved on to Washington, DC. That's a power move.
Being apolitical to the extent that one would need to be to countenance that man if one didn't concur, I'm not sure that wouldn't be worse than going along with it because you thought it correct
@@natashadavies9569 Your political biases are showing through which is impacting your ability to view things objectively. When Melania married DT he was a feted by all the Democrats, they went to all of his parties. Remember that Bill and Hillary Clinton attended their marriage. Only once he became a Republican, did support for him change. Women have always been attracted to powerful men. Not all women, but a rich, powerful man will always have women looking to be their partner of some sort. Look at Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez. Lauren fits more into the side piece scenario, where she knew Bezos's wife and began a sexual relationship w Bezos while still being married to her then husband. Now 4-years later they are engaged. Also, 89-year old Gordan Getty was being pursued by Meghan Markle. Getty had a second family with a nearly 20-year relationship with his mistress before they broke up. He & his wife never divorced. Same happened with another married Getty member who had an affair with the actress Sienna Miller. The woman in the family closed ranks & he dropped Miller.
No, she was Catherine 1. Although as I type this, Ivan the Terrible rings a stronger bell. I think Peter the Great was succeeded by his daughter Elizabeth.
Interesting conversation but there's too much current politics in it. You can't judge the past by our current standards. When it comes to queens having lovers it was a real threat that they would have a child with their lover, which could disrupt the succession of the crown. How would you know the child was the child of the king and not the lover? It could potentially cause massive problems. That's why it was more accepted for kings to have mistresses and not the other way around.
The host uses the word misconception several times when speaking about Mistresses when, I believe, a more accurate term would be idea. If mistresses did throw money around and act as party girls then, Then, people thinking of them in that way, even if not all mistresses acted in that way is not a misconception. It is, rather, a preconception/ prejudice
That's why we are british people can bad mouth it but we love it, the world is interested in that family, plus we have such a long history. And I think you should be slagging off the media . Its not what real people of Britain think about the royal family that's the media stirring the pot.
I really do love all things medieval and this is a good actually a very good it's actually so bizarre and interesting how people survived and lived through these and again this is a awesome subject but one of my favorites songs from My favorite Time of History in England during and before and after the war of the Roses there's so many different characters at this time in history in England anyway my favorite Mistress of all time is Ann Shore I think you went by another name I have to read the book again I think she had an alias I'm not sure right now and I'm half in the bag anyway I just thinking I was just she had such a tragic time about it Miss Jamaica is someone I can sit down before hours unlimited to talk about The war of the Roses she really knows her sh*t !!! And she's pretty hot too LOL. If I could afford it I would ask her to . Or I should say hire her to take me to some of the places in England where the war of the Roses took place because she knows so much about it and being an American it would be easier for me to communicate I think LOL. But back to Ann Shore she is so interesting King Edward IV and others just adored her not because she was obviously very attractive and hot . But she could engage in all conversations and stay right with anybody she was dealing and it is terrible what they did I mean the king's brother Richard the 3rd . And others who robbed her and probably raped her . After King Edward the Fourth died but anyway I hope there is this podcast arm and the others where she talks about The war of the Roses and Ann Shore. I look forward to more from Miss Jenaga !!! Keep up the rock solid work LOL !!!!
The danger of the Queen having a lover centers around her ability to give birth to a child who isn't the King's child, so the lineage can be disrupted. I disagree with Eleanor, its not misogyny, because the King's bastards are not in line for succession. I'm referring to the concept of Kingship, where the King is the ruler and his wife is his consort. With Catherine of Great she was regnant. Her chief lover-who likely killed her husband the rightful ruler- was Count Orlov. She had a child with Orlov after becoming Empress. That child was removed from court and was not acknowledged by her, but was well provided for and given a title.
One can clearly see how the prejudice still exists with the present Queen Camilla & King Charles lll. Some people just can't get over it, even though they've been married for 20 years. Even when Charles was married to Diana, he had 1 woman & Diana had many, many men during their marriage. Diana is held up as a paragon of wifely virtue, that was harmed even though Diana herself while married had affairs with married men.
Even in modern business conversations, it is expected that wives insult their husbands and husbands insult their wives. If everyone is talking about their spouse and you say, "I love my wife, she is hot!" Conversation will die out and everyone will say you are a weirdo.
Why do you call ANNE Boleyn a Royal Mistress? She didn't sleep with Henry VIII until they had been married. And he gives her a Coronation. Anne Boleyn was not a party girl. And I'm not sure these women even wanted to be mistresses but who can tell the King "no."
@@nevaeht1645 - They waited SEVEN YEARS to have sex... Anne returned from France in 1522. Henry petitioned for divorce from Catherine of Aragon in 1525. Anne doesn't fall pregnant until December 1532 and Elizabeth is born in September. Neither she nor Henry wanted to risk the baby being born out of wedlock. That's not a mistress. That's a patient woman.
Did you listen to the video? Many of these mistresses were with the king longer than Anne Boleyn. She started as a mistress… and supposedly let the king see her undressed. So that sounds like a mistress to me.
She 100% slept with Henry before they wed. They slept together during their trip to france in 1532. Anne getting pregnant is why Henry had to rush a secret wedding to Anne and also why he rushed her coronation.
@@wcfheadshots240it is a well established fact that Anne slept with Henry after the pair met with the French king. Having the French King's approval of their relationship made them feel comfortable enough to go ahead. It is unlikely that Henry would have risked marrying Anne until he was certain she was actually fertile. You can be offended all you want, but historians are pretty much all in agreement on this one.
I agree that the comment about the former First Lady’s character was out of line (although I wholeheartedly agree with her statement on the hypocrisy of the criticism), but that was the guest rather than the host. I also see how they came off as a bit chatty. Other than that though I think this episode was really informative. I also think they were quite empathetic and respectful when talking about these women.
Agreed. The comments on Melania really weren't necessary. That would be like bringing up the rumors that Michelle Obama is really a man. It's nonsense and disrespectful. No one knows if she was a social climber or not. She actually had her own successful career before she met trump. I get so tired of these political attacks everywhere, from the right and the left.
It's not chatty, it's relevant. Just because some rightwinger is butthurt about reality doesn't mean we should avoid talking about it. Trump loves to pretend to uphold family values, but he has left two wives to be with newer, younger women. Melania is no different than Anne Boelyn in that way. Not calling it out would be intellectually dishonest. Stop letting your fear of fascists censor your discissions. Let them cry and reeee about their own hypocrisy. Call it out.
Re: having a king in 2023. While it is certainly not the best way, every country need a head of state to represent the people in times of celebration and sadness and in contrast to the American system with its political divisions, it is nice to have that person be politically neutral. And the Windsors (mostly) seem to try very hard to do right by the role they’ve been given. (Except for the youngest son - he acts like an arsehole which is why he is not liked (not because he loves his wife -lol) Even Melania acted better in her similar role)
As someone from the US, I admire a constitutional monarchy. IMO, its the best system. If one even looks beyond the UK, most of the well run countries in Europe: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain have one. Personally, I think its too much pressure to put an elected officials family under as much focus as they get in the US. It's better to have a RF whose image is a national identity, so the elected people get to work and actually run the country. Since Eleanor lives in London and the King is Head of State, I think its rather dismissive on her part to render her own opinion of they system of government. It's not too far from Prince Harry calling our 1st Amendment "Bonkers", that is the essence of our government. Typically when one speaks about Kingship, people are often thinking of the absolute ruler concept, which doesn't exist to any real extent anymore.
The only arsehole is you for your critique of Harry and Meghan and Camellia for not staying away from Charles until he divorced Diana. As Di said, there were 3 in her marriage. For her and Charles to be the head of the Commonwealth is revolting to me.
It is truly amazing how uninformed Eleanor Janega is regarding present day royal history. She definitely needs to stay in the Medieval sphere. The criticism of Prince Harry and his wife is that they are so deceptive. If they truly wanted a "private life", most people would have understood that. They could easily have retired to a lovely estate or actually moved to Africa which Harry loves, and do good work there. Instead, their grasping way of making money is to trash the RF, so they are viewed negatively not just in the UK and the USA plus many other countries. Now that they lost most of their deals and positions, people watch them because they are a "train crash" or "car wreck", its a form of morbid curiosity. We've all seen South Park and now the Family Guy, roasting them. So, its not simply the UK public. The FG was more tame since the creator is actually represented by the same agency that represents Meghan. Oh, well. The fascinating thing about them is that it's a textbook case of Narcissism on display. Harry has been going through the devaluation process, bringing futile lawsuits where the only reason they are presented in court is due to his link to the RF. One of his suits, he actually had zero evidence.
Of course you can, that’s the whole point of history and analysis and retrospection. You should compare, that’s how we understand progress. What you shouldn’t do is impose modern standards on medieval people.
You are talking about historical figures, but things have not changed. Charles married Dianna, and had his mistress hidden away until the "sudden accidental " death of Dianna. Eleanor asked "why do we have a king ?" Simply because without a king we would have the same sort of rubbish that is happening in America. God save the King.
I disliked this podcast. Why do the British attach "Royal" to everything. Pure gossip, yuck, talking about this as if it's some sort of high culture. All they did in reality was spread their "royal" legs, when his majesty needed a "royal" shag. Look at these comments below, most of them speak admiringly about this podcast. PS: The characters of these people can be guessed from their ambitions. For e.g King Charles lV th's ambition is to be born in his next life as Camilla's panties!🤦
Exactly!!!! This guest was not my cup of tea at all. Public speaking is not her strong point. Shame because it’s an interesting topic but I learned zero and got agitated. Turned off 20 minutes in…
I love Dr. Eleanor, but can we please keep politics out of it? I'm so sick of hearing it. Why don't you talk about how Hilary Clinton is supposedly a lesbian? Because its nonsense and disrespectful, just like referring to Melania as a social climber. So much for not attacking women. For that matter, Jill Biden IS a social climber just as much as Melania is. Actually, Melania had a very successful career before she met trump which is how he met her. I'll stop. I'm just so over it. I thought we were supposed to be supporting women and not denigrating them or pitting them against each other. Guess I was wrong.
You totally missed the point. They actually spoke in defense of Melania, saying any criticism against her shouldn't be based on her sexuality or using it for social climbing. It sounds like you only want them to "keep politics out of it" when it doesn't align with your politics. 😀 History is full of politics.
100%. It’s always open season on conservative women. Not a mention about a lefty like Jackie O who was ENGAGED to another man. Ditched him for JFK because she thought JFK would have a higher ROI. Too bad he was also womanizer.
I really admire Dr. Janega for her knowledge, but I don’t appreciate her sharing her politics and vilifying others for their politics on this video. I understand she is a doctor of education and her left leaning politics were assumed. What I don’t understand is turning off 50% of the population who watches these videos by not having all the viewers in mind. It was quite irritating to see how condescending she became when she talked that way. Do better doctor because it was not a good look on you.
@CampCanine13622 I felt the same way. I admired Dr. Janega until she started displaying her "leftism" and disparaged Melania Trump for her "reactionary politics" when I doubt if Melania has any political leanings at all. It's amazing how far reaching Trump Derangement Syndrome extends.
@@avandoren1 shut up Melania pushed the birtherism lie the same way her husband did they have the exact same politics. You all keep trying to pretend like she's some damsel-in-distress that her husband pushed into the spot like and that's a lie their compatible and similar there's a reason why they got married.
“Reactionary Right.” You just lost my patronage. You don’t want to view historical figures in any sort of moral light, yet you are happy to pass moral judgment on Melania Trump????? Hypocrite much, Eleanor?
Prof. Janega you referred to Eastern courts (for example the Mughals in the 16th and 17th century) with their numerous concubines. It's interesting that in Eastern courts spaces were gendered and they had 'Harems' which were unique, courtly love as outlined in European courts did not exist. Royal women were behind veiled palaces, only heard not seen. You must read about Qudsia Begum who was a hindu dancing girl, converted to Islam, married the Mughal king, sired the next heir and became the Queen Regent. She was reviled in her time for her profligate ways and so was her son. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qudsia_Begum
Dr Eleanor Janega is the bomb diggity!! She needs one or two BBC series!!
yes her Politics' would blend seamlessly in the BBC
Typical from an American
@@Job-y8o we aren’t all nuts.
Dr. Eleanor makes history fun!
Yes, she does.
Well I know Henry VII really loved his wife Elizabeth of York and from my understanding he had no mistresses. I mean their marriage in the beginning was all about contract but when he married her he really did fall in love with her. He certainly wasn't the same after she died its like he gave up on life and on his kingdom. Its really sad. But when I think of Royal mistresses yes France comes up but man I think of Nell Gywn, that lady was awesome and very intelligent. 😅
I think one of the main differences between a royal mistress in the Western world and the concubines in the Eastern world is that concubine’s sons could be the next emperor/king. Which gives a whole new aspect to the concubine’s social power
I wrote my senior capstone paper on this topic! I’ve been debating going to grad school, and stumbling upon this video is a sign!
Loved this! A fun discussion nothing to study and stilted this was a fun chat the first time I've listened in, I will do so more now!
Actually the French King on his death bed that Janega was talking about was not a Louis, it was Henri ll and his long term mistress Diane du Poitiers, who was his mistress for 20+ years. Diane was 18+ years older than the King, so an interesting woman to read up on.
French rulers have been bedding grandma’s for centuries then.
Current French President has a wife that’s 20 years old 😂
@@Witnessmoo While the French do appreciate a woman of experience, Henri ll was one of the few that had a mistress that much older than himself. The French monarchy elevated the role of a mistress to an official position that was an anomaly in Europe. Apart from Charles ll of the UK, who had a bevy of mistresses at the same time, most English monarchs were a bit low key with their other women.
Many young princes were introduced into the art of seduction when they were in their early teens by older woman at court, to learn the ropes so to speak. Sometimes this would lead to long affairs.
In terms of the current French President, I believe his wife is 25 years older than him. It seems unseemly since she was his high school teacher, but they both maintain that no relationship began until he graduated from school. However, grooming can begin years before one becomes intimate. So, it is definitely problematic, but they've been married for years. However, it was common in the Medieval era to have marriages between 14-year old girls and men 40+ years old.
@@Witnessmoo 20 years OLDER, you mean. Not 20 years old.
I always assume ignorance from Americans discussing our history.
@@Job-y8o That may be true for many in the US, but if one has a particular interest in any era of history there are plenty of source material. As an American I knew more about certain periods of UK history than my ex-husband who was a UK citizen.
Excellent video thank you both.Dr.Janega is both very cool and an outstanding academic and presenter.
Paramour is the term that is usually applied to the women's (Queen) lover. One of the terms used for both the King and Queen is a "favorite". That doesn't necessarily connotate a sexual but clearly an intimate one.
I wonder, were there any mistresses and queens who were smart enough to join together to wield power?
Dr. Eleanor is so funny! And she's right, they've learned nothing over the years. Love her podcasts!
As an Brit that lives through the lunacy of 'Royal Reporting' in our media, the explanation towards the end of this excellent discussion by two Americans absolutely nailed the garbage we hear daily - brilliant!
One thing you can always count on is American Bluntness! As an American that did not appreciate this when I lived in the USA...however now having lived in passive aggressive Canada for a few years I totally miss bluntness!
@Computra at least there is clarity with bluntness 😅
I loved this, Eleanor is so entertainging. Thank you so much!
This was an interesting, entertaining discussion. Dr. Eleanor Janega always makes for a good listen -- at least everything I've seen of her thus far.
Oh she will never disappoint - believe that!! ❤
I wished to be a royal mistress, since I was a young boy.
I enjoyed this a lot! Thanks!
Royal mistresses actually way predate Medieval Europe. For example, we know about several royal mistresses of Ptolemaic kings who at times held quite significant amounts of power. (These were not wives or concubines. Ptolemaic kings only ever had one wife at a time.) One of Ptolemy II's mistresses, Bilistiche, was even deified after her death (she also apparently won two Olympic chariot races, though I'm not sure if that means that she was actually driving the chariot or just that the horses and charioteer were in her ownership/employ). Their background can also vary. For example, Ptolemy IV's mistress Agathokleia came from one of the most noble families of Alexandria (her brother was the king's closest advisor), whereas another of Ptolemy II's mistresses, Myrtion, was an actress (which was basically just one step up the social ladder from prostitutes and slaves).
There are in fact surprisingly many parallels between the French court as established by Louis XIV and the Ptolemaic court at Alexandria almost two millenia earlier. For example, the Ptolemies, too, had a "getting up" ceremony where courtiers would wake the king and be present for his morning routine. I imagine that that may be a case of convergent evolution, as it were. Different people in different cultures finding similar solutions to similar problems (because at Alexandria, too, you had the nobility and the royal family living in the same place and thus it was important to manage access to the king).
Camilla went from royal mistress to queen
Yes she did 😆
Sometimes it's goid to be the side chick!!
@@rebeccablackburn9487except for your self respect
@@rebeccablackburn9487it is? Camilla humiliated Diana for years. Doesn’t sound like a good person to me.
@@francisaugistino701Diana was no angel. Read the house keepers diaries!!??
Royal mistresses tended to come from the aristocracy and their manners would be beyond reproach - there have been exceptions - Nell Gwyn for instance, but a royal mistress would be at ease at court and a trend setter rather than a misfit.
I love that Eleanor has changed her name to that of her favorite queen of all! Yay! One of my favorite historians.
Shhe was born as an Eleanor
Excellent. A thought provoking discussion of mistresses over the centuries. Thank you!
Thanks!
I very much enjoyed the conversation the two of you had. Further, I am grateful that you touched on the modern royal family.
Diana may have been naive however, as I recall it, she was part of the nobility. Perhaps the Spencer parents did not talk much about the institution of nobility and monarchy?
This is all part of the Diana myth that has sprung up. Charles had dated her older sister for some time, so she knew more of what was going on. The aristocracy in the UK is a relatively small group of people, so Diana certainly knew of what was going on in the RF. In fact when she was growing up, she grew up on a royal estate and played with Prince Andrew who was closer to her in age. So, she was definitely in the inner circle.
While Charles & the RF in general are blamed for her, she came from a highly dysfunctional background. Her father physically abused her mother. Her mother had to leave her children behind. She married a polo player & later divorced him. Diana's own brother has been married 3 times & he refused to let Diana live at the family estate when she was going through a divorce with Prince Charles. Diana's last BF was Dodi Fayed, he had a mistress on his yacht, while he was dating Diana. So, Diana continued to make poor choices throughout her life.
It is quite common in the aristocracy due to land holdings, for people not to divorce but to have other relationships on the side. Even in the US this is not unheard of. Gordon Getty, the 89-year old Billionaire, that Meghan, DOS, was trying to cozy up to, the family shut down that relationship. Gordon had a "second family" with a long term mistress for around 20 years. He had 3 daughters with her, gifted her about 10 homes over their relationship. He never divorced or even officially separated from his wife.
@@mtngrl5859It was Sarah, Duchess of York's mother. Susan- who married an Argentinian polo player, Hector Barrantes. They were married until Susan died in a car accident in Argentina. Diana's mother, Frances married Peter Shand-Kydd who was an English wallpaper heir who had homes in Australia and Scotland. They eventually divorced and went their seperate ways.
@@gnostic268 Thanks for the correction. However, my general points still apply with respect to the "Diana Myth" still apply, the aristocracy is a relatively small club and anyone born within the ranks understands the pecking order and how things work.
It was laughable when Prince Harry had the "mind blowing" interview where he seemed astonished to reveal that there was a hierarchy within the monarchy. No shit, Sherlock. How stupid does he think the public is? If there is anyone who tries to stand on protocol its him and his rapacious wife.
"there are certain rules, they're just ignored." Are you talking about the Republicans in the US House of Representatives? The machinations of power and their patterns hardly ever change.
Some important points were missed, that could have given a deeper context to the information. The mistress to the king in the French royal court actually had an established title, "maitrese-en-titre". This went back at least as far as Francis I, contemporary of Henry VIII. The English court never had such a position or title but Henry offered to make the title for Anne Boleyn. She declined to be Henry's mistress under any conditions.
On a side note, discussing Anne Boleyn's noble but non-royal background, Henry's next wife who gave him his son, was Jane Seymour. Jane's family background, I think, may have been less illustrious than the Boleyn family. Jane was not Henry's mistress but she had been one of Anne's ladies in waiting. She was engaged to Henry 2 days after Anne was beheaded and they married two weeks later. No one knows what to make of this since Jane is whitewashed for giving Henry his only living, legitimate son. But in the line up of women acting....um....unconventionally, Jane is more interesting than many mistresses.
Another factor with royal mistresses is based upon medical beliefs of the day. One belief on male sexuality was that they had to release their fluids fairly regularly. If the queen was heavily pregnant or in seclusion after a birth, the king needed an outlet. Heaven knows there is the pseudo-religious idea that if a man spills his seed upon the ground, he will go to hell or something. Maybe he will just be cursed, since most of the bible isn't real specific about hell. If this was a basically accepted idea, I wonder what peasant men did when their wives were heavily pregnant, giving birth, etc. A peasant was unlikely to be able to support more than one family whereas a king could educate, support and provide care for a lot of illegitimate children. Maybe peasant men were too tired to have sex after a very long day working in the fields.
My point is, in some courts, the role of mistress was an established position, perhaps to keep the king healthy, and not cursed by God, for spilling his seed. This is a very simple background for the subject.
Thank you for your information; I didn’t know much of what you said ☺️ This is so interesting 🧐
To set the record straight, Melania wasn't the "other woman". DT found out that his second wife Marla Maples was having an affair in 1997, they separated right after this. They were finally divorced in 1999. Melania met him around 1998-99 before his divorce was final, so she had nothing to do with his marriage. In fact, when DT met Melania at a party he was with another woman. He tried to pick her up then, she blew him off thinking it was very rude to hit on another woman, when he already had a date. He pursued her by calling her agent, to see if he could meet her again. This took weeks of him pursuing her, so Melania made him work to get her.
Don't worry. Dr. E isn't down on sex workers and there's nothing royal about either Trump or Melenoma.
Work? She posed nude and did soft porn. He already knew what she had to offer. Being a crafty gold digger who lied about her Einstein scholarship doesn't give her some imaginary moral high ground. Lmao
Melania is the opposite of "hard to get". She emigrated to the U.S. to be a golddigger.
Oh whatever, he cheated on all of his wives.
What's so interesting to me is that the notion of "royalty" survives into modern times, especially since it serves no real purpose. In ancient times, I can see that it did, but now, not at all, yet people hang onto it as if it's real, when, in fact, it's a man-made construct that has outlived its usefulness. I suppose it's the fairytale ideas that we subscribe to and hang onto for dear life, wanting it to be real.
I always wondered about the dynamics concerning children who may be the king's or may be the husband's.
Legally the woman's
husband is the father
Unless the husband
objects and declares
that his wife is an
adulterous.
@@here_we_go_again2571 And I would assume that the husband would assume there would be benefits to keeping his mouth shut.
@@naithom
Having the king or crown prince as your
wife's lover was either welcomed or
endured by most men. However ...
Most royals were generous with their
designated/favorite mistress. Not only
with jewelry, but with real estate and
expense accounts/lines of credit.
Alice Keppel (Queen Camilla' great-grandmother) was made a wealthy woman by Edward VII. Charles enriched
Camilla too.
btw: It is rumored that Alice Keppel's second daughter, Sonia Rosemary Cubitt
(b.1900) was Edward VII 's daughter.
It is also rumored that her older daughter
Violet Trefusis (b. 1894) was the daughter
of " William Beckett, subsequently 2nd Baron Grimthorpe, a banker and MP for Whitby" -- Wikipedia
"Keppel's husband (m. 1891) once said of her: 'I do not mind what she does as long as she comes back to me in the end.' Her affairs were conducted with his knowledge, and despite a deep affection for his wife, he also had affairs. 'Very fond of women himself, he raised no objection to the prince's friendship with his wife', wrote the historian Christopher Hibbert.
Despite affairs on both sides, one of her daughters described her parents' marriage as a "marriage of companionship of love and laughter". -- Wikipedia
I think part of the reason why these woman are condemned is b/c they made it to the top whilst doing the very thing that women are told not to do.
Be careful where you listen to this! 😅 I found myself LOL a few times and got some very strange looks. 😂
great insight and flow. ty
Just found this interview. I love Eleanor! Modern sensibilities seem to still be heavily Puritanical/Evangelical in their morality (which was rebranded in the Victorian era), in particular with regard to defining masculine power structure and how women are perceived. At least this seems very true here in America, but I think there are strong vestiges in the UK as well.
I just found out Elizabeth Blount is a grandmother of mine!
I can't believe that, when you were talking about Royal Mistresses and comparing the past to the present, didn't mention Queen Camilla!
For the host, she should be aware that there was no relationship between Prince William & Rose Hanbury. The person who spread this rumor admitted he did it & there was no truth to it. Where it comes from is that Rose was seated next to Prince Harry & Meaghan, Duchess of Sussex, was jealous because she wasn't invited & had her friend Giles spread a rumor about Prince William.
Rose is happily married to a Marquess who is far wealthier than the entire royal family combined & have children together. Further, Catherine's sister Pippa's last child-born last year- was named Rose. Obviously, if there was an affair she wouldn't have named her child that name.
20:56 England from 1351 to 1541: Am I a joke to you?
I thiml the point many miss is that it's not like the mistresses themselves have a choice. He's the friigging KING. She doesn't have the option to say no.
Especially Ann Boylene, she wantted to Marry Henry Percy but was prevented from doing so because she "caiught Henry's eye".
Same as with Kathryn Parr, she didn't want Henry, but had no choice.
Give me strength. Kings of England had Mistresses back to the Plantagenet era and probably before.
“Get a better criticism” 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Diane de Poitiers' garden at Chenonceuu is way better than the Queen who took it from her and the Chaumont-sur-Loire gardens are epic.
Its Mountbatten s fault he encouraged Charles 3 to fool around. Then I bet Charles told the boys the same thing.
Athena is does not even get mentioned and yet she helped Louis XIV create the Great Sun Court
Apparently Harry never loved his aunt, female cousins, sister-in-law because he never made a fuss about anyone being mean to them. It is his mother and his wife who are off-limits, anyone else in his family is a fair game, apparently.
Funny how you had this discussion and Camilla Parker Bowles didn't come up. I suppose the distinction is she was mistress to the heir rather than the king; but still, it's an interesting modern example considering she eventually became queen.
Also, it's pretty hard to say no to God's anointed king.
Elizabeth Woodville did, and became Queen of England as a result.
@@hotintxs
King Edward IV loved
her. His usual M.O.
was to demand
and get what he
wanted.
As far as Melania Trump goes, one really doesn't know her politics if she has any. She's married to a former President, that's it. When she married him, he was a Democrat and loved by all the liberals. Was she a Democrat when she married him, then turned Republican? She's likely apolitical & married him for a secure future. I give her props for making DT having to renegotiate their pre-nup agreement, since being FLOTUS wasn't part of what she signed up for, before she moved on to Washington, DC. That's a power move.
Incorrect. Melania is very much involved in DT's change in politics--not that the man has any true beliefs, beyond the desire for power.
@@christinajones8334 Where is your evidence. Melanie is as dumb as they come.
Being apolitical to the extent that one would need to be to countenance that man if one didn't concur, I'm not sure that wouldn't be worse than going along with it because you thought it correct
@@natashadavies9569 Your political biases are showing through which is impacting your ability to view things objectively. When Melania married DT he was a feted by all the Democrats, they went to all of his parties. Remember that Bill and Hillary Clinton attended their marriage. Only once he became a Republican, did support for him change.
Women have always been attracted to powerful men. Not all women, but a rich, powerful man will always have women looking to be their partner of some sort. Look at Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez. Lauren fits more into the side piece scenario, where she knew Bezos's wife and began a sexual relationship w Bezos while still being married to her then husband. Now 4-years later they are engaged.
Also, 89-year old Gordan Getty was being pursued by Meghan Markle. Getty had a second family with a nearly 20-year relationship with his mistress before they broke up. He & his wife never divorced. Same happened with another married Getty member who had an affair with the actress Sienna Miller. The woman in the family closed ranks & he dropped Miller.
Peter the Great's mistress didn't become Catherine the Great.
No, she was Catherine 1. Although as I type this, Ivan the Terrible rings a stronger bell. I think Peter the Great was succeeded by his daughter Elizabeth.
Interesting conversation but there's too much current politics in it. You can't judge the past by our current standards. When it comes to queens having lovers it was a real threat that they would have a child with their lover, which could disrupt the succession of the crown. How would you know the child was the child of the king and not the lover? It could potentially cause massive problems. That's why it was more accepted for kings to have mistresses and not the other way around.
Thank you. I came here to say the same thing.
My comment is for the algorithm.
Yes
The host uses the word misconception several times when speaking about Mistresses when, I believe, a more accurate term would be idea. If mistresses did throw money around and act as party girls then, Then, people thinking of them in that way, even if not all mistresses acted in that way is not a misconception. It is, rather, a preconception/ prejudice
That's why we are british people can bad mouth it but we love it, the world is interested in that family, plus we have such a long history. And I think you should be slagging off the media . Its not what real people of Britain think about the royal family that's the media stirring the pot.
Love you Janega! And Dr. Janega is anything but a valley girl.
It's always wise to learn the correct pronunciation of your guest's name prior to the interview.
Camilla living Diana's life
Poster girl for side chick's
Not my Queen
I don’t think that people are against Harry loving his wife. It’s that his wife is obviously not a nice person.
I really do love all things medieval and this is a good actually a very good it's actually so bizarre and interesting how people survived and lived through these and again this is a awesome subject but one of my favorites songs from My favorite Time of History in England during and before and after the war of the Roses there's so many different characters at this time in history in England anyway my favorite Mistress of all time is Ann Shore I think you went by another name I have to read the book again I think she had an alias I'm not sure right now and I'm half in the bag anyway I just thinking I was just she had such a tragic time about it Miss Jamaica is someone I can sit down before hours unlimited to talk about The war of the Roses she really knows her sh*t !!! And she's pretty hot too LOL. If I could afford it I would ask her to . Or I should say hire her to take me to some of the places in England where the war of the Roses took place because she knows so much about it and being an American it would be easier for me to communicate I think LOL. But back to Ann Shore she is so interesting King Edward IV and others just adored her not because she was obviously very attractive and hot . But she could engage in all conversations and stay right with anybody she was dealing and it is terrible what they did I mean the king's brother Richard the 3rd . And others who robbed her and probably raped her . After King Edward the Fourth died but anyway I hope there is this podcast arm and the others where she talks about The war of the Roses and Ann Shore. I look forward to more from Miss Jenaga !!! Keep up the rock solid work LOL !!!!
She is commonly known as Jane Shore.
The danger of the Queen having a lover centers around her ability to give birth to a child who isn't the King's child, so the lineage can be disrupted. I disagree with Eleanor, its not misogyny, because the King's bastards are not in line for succession. I'm referring to the concept of Kingship, where the King is the ruler and his wife is his consort.
With Catherine of Great she was regnant. Her chief lover-who likely killed her husband the rightful ruler- was Count Orlov. She had a child with Orlov after becoming Empress. That child was removed from court and was not acknowledged by her, but was well provided for and given a title.
🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤
WHY do you not "like" women achieving power through sexual relationship?
One can clearly see how the prejudice still exists with the present Queen Camilla & King Charles lll. Some people just can't get over it, even though they've been married for 20 years. Even when Charles was married to Diana, he had 1 woman & Diana had many, many men during their marriage. Diana is held up as a paragon of wifely virtue, that was harmed even though Diana herself while married had affairs with married men.
Even in modern business conversations, it is expected that wives insult their husbands and husbands insult their wives. If everyone is talking about their spouse and you say, "I love my wife, she is hot!" Conversation will die out and everyone will say you are a weirdo.
pump a door...
Why do you call ANNE Boleyn a Royal Mistress? She didn't sleep with Henry VIII until they had been married. And he gives her a Coronation. Anne Boleyn was not a party girl. And I'm not sure these women even wanted to be mistresses but who can tell the King "no."
She was pregnant with Elizabeth before they got married 😂
@@nevaeht1645 - They waited SEVEN YEARS to have sex... Anne returned from France in 1522. Henry petitioned for divorce from Catherine of Aragon in 1525. Anne doesn't fall pregnant until December 1532 and Elizabeth is born in September. Neither she nor Henry wanted to risk the baby being born out of wedlock. That's not a mistress. That's a patient woman.
Did you listen to the video? Many of these mistresses were with the king longer than Anne Boleyn. She started as a mistress… and supposedly let the king see her undressed. So that sounds like a mistress to me.
She 100% slept with Henry before they wed. They slept together during their trip to france in 1532. Anne getting pregnant is why Henry had to rush a secret wedding to Anne and also why he rushed her coronation.
@@wcfheadshots240it is a well established fact that Anne slept with Henry after the pair met with the French king. Having the French King's approval of their relationship made them feel comfortable enough to go ahead. It is unlikely that Henry would have risked marrying Anne until he was certain she was actually fertile. You can be offended all you want, but historians are pretty much all in agreement on this one.
If you are an intelligent woman. What other way can you go?
I agree that the comment about the former First Lady’s character was out of line (although I wholeheartedly agree with her statement on the hypocrisy of the criticism), but that was the guest rather than the host. I also see how they came off as a bit chatty. Other than that though I think this episode was really informative. I also think they were quite empathetic and respectful when talking about these women.
Agreed. The comments on Melania really weren't necessary. That would be like bringing up the rumors that Michelle Obama is really a man. It's nonsense and disrespectful. No one knows if she was a social climber or not. She actually had her own successful career before she met trump. I get so tired of these political attacks everywhere, from the right and the left.
It's not chatty, it's relevant. Just because some rightwinger is butthurt about reality doesn't mean we should avoid talking about it. Trump loves to pretend to uphold family values, but he has left two wives to be with newer, younger women. Melania is no different than Anne Boelyn in that way. Not calling it out would be intellectually dishonest. Stop letting your fear of fascists censor your discissions. Let them cry and reeee about their own hypocrisy. Call it out.
Re: having a king in 2023. While it is certainly not the best way, every country need a head of state to represent the people in times of celebration and sadness and in contrast to the American system with its political divisions, it is nice to have that person be politically neutral. And the Windsors (mostly) seem to try very hard to do right by the role they’ve been given. (Except for the youngest son - he acts like an arsehole which is why he is not liked (not because he loves his wife -lol) Even Melania acted better in her similar role)
As someone from the US, I admire a constitutional monarchy. IMO, its the best system. If one even looks beyond the UK, most of the well run countries in Europe: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain have one. Personally, I think its too much pressure to put an elected officials family under as much focus as they get in the US. It's better to have a RF whose image is a national identity, so the elected people get to work and actually run the country.
Since Eleanor lives in London and the King is Head of State, I think its rather dismissive on her part to render her own opinion of they system of government. It's not too far from Prince Harry calling our 1st Amendment "Bonkers", that is the essence of our government.
Typically when one speaks about Kingship, people are often thinking of the absolute ruler concept, which doesn't exist to any real extent anymore.
The only arsehole is you for your critique of Harry and Meghan and Camellia for not staying away from Charles until he divorced Diana. As Di said, there were 3 in her marriage. For her and Charles to be the head of the Commonwealth is revolting to me.
It is truly amazing how uninformed Eleanor Janega is regarding present day royal history. She definitely needs to stay in the Medieval sphere. The criticism of Prince Harry and his wife is that they are so deceptive. If they truly wanted a "private life", most people would have understood that. They could easily have retired to a lovely estate or actually moved to Africa which Harry loves, and do good work there. Instead, their grasping way of making money is to trash the RF, so they are viewed negatively not just in the UK and the USA plus many other countries.
Now that they lost most of their deals and positions, people watch them because they are a "train crash" or "car wreck", its a form of morbid curiosity. We've all seen South Park and now the Family Guy, roasting them. So, its not simply the UK public. The FG was more tame since the creator is actually represented by the same agency that represents Meghan. Oh, well.
The fascinating thing about them is that it's a textbook case of Narcissism on display. Harry has been going through the devaluation process, bringing futile lawsuits where the only reason they are presented in court is due to his link to the RF. One of his suits, he actually had zero evidence.
PH your cam shot is way too up close, shrink to a corner view, we're here to see Janega..
You cant compare medievial standards to 2024 standards its ridiculois 😂
Of course you can, that’s the whole point of history and analysis and retrospection. You should compare, that’s how we understand progress. What you shouldn’t do is impose modern standards on medieval people.
Why do Americans care so much about the royals. We couldn't on the whole give a shit about them, as long as they just get on with their jobs.
I think they secretly want a king again 😏
Love listening to you Eleanor but please say france 🇫🇷 not fronce. Really cringe. Very interesting to listen to. Good humour 😂❤
You are talking about historical figures, but things have not changed.
Charles married Dianna, and had his mistress hidden away until the "sudden accidental " death of Dianna.
Eleanor asked "why do we have a king ?" Simply because without a king we would have the same sort of rubbish that is happening in America.
God save the King.
More gossipy than academic in delivery
Get bent- it was good. Everyone is a critical...
I’m sure Dr. Janega would take that as a compliment.
And childish deliver.
I disliked this podcast. Why do the British attach "Royal" to everything. Pure gossip, yuck, talking about this as if it's some sort of high culture. All they did in reality was spread their "royal" legs, when his majesty needed a "royal" shag. Look at these comments below, most of them speak admiringly about this podcast.
PS: The characters of these people can be guessed from their ambitions. For e.g King Charles lV th's ambition is to be born in his next life as Camilla's panties!🤦
To much giggling and soooooos for me , previously loved your show , sounded like 90's valley girls.
Exactly!!!! This guest was not my cup of tea at all. Public speaking is not her strong point. Shame because it’s an interesting topic but I learned zero and got agitated. Turned off 20 minutes in…
I love Dr. Eleanor, but can we please keep politics out of it? I'm so sick of hearing it. Why don't you talk about how Hilary Clinton is supposedly a lesbian? Because its nonsense and disrespectful, just like referring to Melania as a social climber. So much for not attacking women. For that matter, Jill Biden IS a social climber just as much as Melania is. Actually, Melania had a very successful career before she met trump which is how he met her. I'll stop. I'm just so over it. I thought we were supposed to be supporting women and not denigrating them or pitting them against each other. Guess I was wrong.
You totally missed the point. They actually spoke in defense of Melania, saying any criticism against her shouldn't be based on her sexuality or using it for social climbing. It sounds like you only want them to "keep politics out of it" when it doesn't align with your politics. 😀 History is full of politics.
You guys can't even act normal when people are defending your side of things. Smh the internet had completely eroded yall's comprehension skills
100%. It’s always open season on conservative women. Not a mention about a lefty like Jackie O who was ENGAGED to another man. Ditched him for JFK because she thought JFK would have a higher ROI. Too bad he was also womanizer.
I really admire Dr. Janega for her knowledge, but I don’t appreciate her sharing her politics and vilifying others for their politics on this video. I understand she is a doctor of education and her left leaning politics were assumed. What I don’t understand is turning off 50% of the population who watches these videos by not having all the viewers in mind. It was quite irritating to see how condescending she became when she talked that way. Do better doctor because it was not a good look on you.
@CampCanine13622 I felt the same way. I admired Dr. Janega until she started displaying her "leftism" and disparaged Melania Trump for her "reactionary politics" when I doubt if Melania has any political leanings at all. It's amazing how far reaching Trump Derangement Syndrome extends.
@@avandoren1 shut up Melania pushed the birtherism lie the same way her husband did they have the exact same politics. You all keep trying to pretend like she's some damsel-in-distress that her husband pushed into the spot like and that's a lie their compatible and similar there's a reason why they got married.
Oh god, the head nodding! Just let Eleanor talk and keep your camera off
it's really not that serious calm down lol
This episode was awful - the way you degraded current living women is sad. Shame on you. 😠
“Reactionary Right.” You just lost my patronage. You don’t want to view historical figures in any sort of moral light, yet you are happy to pass moral judgment on Melania Trump????? Hypocrite much, Eleanor?
Prof. Janega you referred to Eastern courts (for example the Mughals in the 16th and 17th century) with their numerous concubines. It's interesting that in Eastern courts spaces were gendered and they had 'Harems' which were unique, courtly love as outlined in European courts did not exist. Royal women were behind veiled palaces, only heard not seen. You must read about Qudsia Begum who was a hindu dancing girl, converted to Islam, married the Mughal king, sired the next heir and became the Queen Regent. She was reviled in her time for her profligate ways and so was her son. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qudsia_Begum