American Reacts to the History of Great Britain
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ส.ค. 2022
- Check out my Patreon for more exclusive videos and to help support the channel: / tylerreacts
I have learned a great deal about the culture and geography of the United Kingdom and of Great Britain, but I recently realized that I still have next to no idea about their extensive history. As an American I am really looking forward to learning and reacting to the history of Great Britain, and I believe it will give me much more context needed to understand the UK as it exists today. If you enjoy my reaction feel free to leave a like, comment, or subscribe for more videos like this!
As an American anglophile it's always amazed me how a country as small as England has accomplished so much and has always been so mighty. England is more accomplished and has made more of a mark in history than many larger countries.
Hugs from 🇺🇲
A large reason for our success was a combination of the fact that we're an island nation, our navy, and that our island status meant we were able to stay out or get involved in European border squabbles and politics as we chose.
Our navy came into its own following the battle of the Armada and was also around the time that we decided to look outwards from Europe and set up trade posts and colonies around the world. We then steadily took land through tactics involving divide and conquer coupled with Europe's technological advantage (largely as a result of lots and lots of war and that Europe sits on the intersection between Asia and Africa).
We love ya too :) Our success came from our massive navy which allowed us to set up and defend trade routes, explore, move military units and defend from the sea more efficiently than any other colonial power. We used to maintain a navy at least three times larger than its closest competitor to ensure our dominance.
Sabrina Lennox - You mean the United Kingdom! Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland exist as well, mind!
It's a shame that we were so irresponsible with that power. . .
England is not GB or the UK & I can assure you England did not invent everything either , Yank
Portugal and England are the most ancient alliance in Europe. It’s worth to explore this issue
True, drawn together by the need to resist the Power of Spain. I think we pulled it off don't you?
@@OdeInWessex mhm they did have a slight punch up over slavery tho
oldest in the world actually
@@daquaviousbingleton9763 who doesn’t? There is still slavery in Africa and Asia today. Actually African slaves who came to Europe and America where sold by their own tribe kings. Ancient Rome had slaves from all over the world. So did Greece. That’s past, we mustn’t judge History through a 21st century perspective. IMO of course
@@OdeInWessex absolutely and also to repel the French
The main reason Britain was so powerful was because of its naval expertise. In those days, being able to command the seas was the main way to accumulate land and wealth. Britain (and before that, England) was an extremely powerful country long before the empire, and this was due to many factors, such as excellent government and taxation, and having always been an expert in outsourcing skills that it doesn’t have. Even when building its empire, the main focus was on creating first-class infrastructure (whose legacy still exists in many countries) and on educating locals in business and trade, so that everything ran like clockwork and money was generated, with British officers doing little more than overseeing operations. It was never about acquiring land for the sake of it, but about turning it into something useful that would translate into wealth. This is why feelings about the empire in those former colonies are so mixed, because we didn’t just come in and seize land violently, putting the locals under duress (as many of the other European colonisers did - eg the Spanish who were brutal) but we were much more constructive and canny in our approach. Indeed, the strongest testament to that (no matter what people say) is that after the empire disintegrated, the majority of the former colonies elected to be part of the new Commonwealth and to acknowledge the Queen as their head of state (even though they may have their own as well), and that other nations who were never conquered have also since joined. And then there’s the case with Hong Kong, which we gave back to China in the 1990s, and where there have recently been protests, with residents begging for the British to come back and rescue them and take over, because the Chinese government is totalitarian and essentially a dictatorship.
You state England has always been a powerful nation even before unification with Scotland well I put it to you England plundered Scotland & Ireland , you did to Scotland what the vikings done to yous don’t brag about it it’s shameful.
@@janice506 shameful? That's how the ancient world works. Call it plunder or heavy taxation, even the Romans did it. The Babylonians, and the Sumerians as well to their neighboring city-states. The whole world worked that way.
The Dutch started the original East Asia Company in the 1600's ... The British just copied the idea after the Dutch lost their grip on the trade routes 😂
@@janice506 every country plundered another even the Scottish you fool
@@janice506 most of Glasgow was built on colonial wealth 😂
You confused yourself with the James VI of Scotland part. England and Scotland were separate kingdoms, and James VI was already King of Scotland. He then inherited the English throne (as James I) simply by being the closest relative of Elizabeth I. So, he became king of both Scotland and England, but they were still separate kingdoms. James' heirs and successors continued to inherit both kingdoms until they were combined into a single kingdom, the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Aye, to bolster their "northern flank" against the bleeding "dons" who were trying to cut their trade off, all propped up by the filth in Rome, that was/is The Catholic Church. We, ( nominally "prods",) were seen as the "Heathens in Brittania". IT WAS ALL ABOUT WEALTH. There was abbeys here in Yorkshire where the Papish church deemed it ok to kick the people off the land, because sheep was more profitable..... That's just for you, ms Duncanson, put it in ya "thesis".
Queen Anne made the Union happen, in my opinion she was a much underrated monarch.
Yes and James VI and I of Scotland and England was a big proponent of uniting the two kingdoms, though it didn’t happen in his time. Although Scottish, he actually spent most of his time in England.
@@penname5766 no, actually he had already been a highly successful and well thought of king of Scots for 36 years when he took on the crown of England.
I know that technically in England you reckon his life in Scotland doesn't actually count.
Born 1566 annointed king of Scots 1567.
Died 1625.
Doing the arithmetic:
James VI was 37yo when in 1603 he also became James 1st of England, died aged 59, 22 years later.
At 58 years the longest reigning monarch in Britain until Victoria at 63 years.
Lived in England for 22 years.
@@gordonmurray3153 I didn’t say he wasn’t already King of Scotland. And why on Earth would I think that doesn’t count? You make an awful lot of assumptions about what English people think. I should’ve been clearer - I meant that after he became king of England he spent most of his time here. Evidently, he thought a lot of his home country or he wouldn’t have wanted to unite Scotland with England. I like the fact that he did. I’m not trying to claim favouritism. But of course from a purely practical point of view, when he did move here, the much milder weather may have swayed him, and for a king, our proximity to mainland Europe would’ve been a definite advantage. The reason I said “Although Scottish etc” was to make the point that not everybody hated us or saw us as rivals, or opposed the idea of a union, as the modern narrative would have you believe. Why would it bother me if a king born in Scotland preferred his home country? That would be natural. And Scotland is beautiful. As is England. Some of you may even have actually liked us - God, there’s a thought. It’s so ridiculous and ignorant the amount of animosity we receive from the Scottish, considering none of us (including yourselves) were even around for the events that you hold us responsible for - not to mention the fact they’ve been massively hyped by Hollywood, and accounts can be incredibly one-sided. The Scottish violently invaded England many times in our history, even as far back as the 11th century, before the Norman Conquest - and well before the events most people focus on, plus there was plenty of tribal in-fighting within Scotland itself. Not to mention the fact that we really have the Romans to thank for annexing the north in the first place when they built Hadrian’s Wall all the way across, because they found the land north of it too inhospitable and decided it wasn’t worth the trouble of fighting the various tribal factions for the sake of extending the empire. Obviously, this annexed portion of the island would eventually become Scotland. And let’s not forget that when the Romans did that, “England” was not yet a country itself, and was made up of Celtic tribes just like its northern counterpart, as this was long before the Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons, Jutes etc) settled in Britain. The majority of English people have Scottish relatives and ancestry - my surname is Scottish and I have Scottish heritage on more than one side of my family - and DNA tests have shown that most of us have Celtic genes and that these are surprisingly more prominent than our Germanic ones. Add to this the fact that many of us have Scottish friends, so to always imply that the English somehow have something against Scotland when we don’t is daft. We’re not trying to score points against you. It’s not an either/or situation. I love all of these islands and each nation and am incredibly proud of all aspects of our history - whether Celtic, Roman, Germanic, or Norman, but especially the Celtic, which I think gives our islands a unique and magical quality. The last thing I want to do is fuel any kind of divide. I’m a big advocate for preserving all our native languages and cultures. As far as I’m concerned, the Scottish, Irish and Welsh are our brothers and sisters and I’d defend them against any outsiders. But as an English person, I’m tired of Scottish people in the comments sections acting as if we’re trying to write off anything Scottish as less important. God knows what propaganda you’re being sold about us, but I’m sure many people are not even well versed enough in the history to be aware of what we’re supposed to have done, and even fewer people consider it to have any relevance on who we are today.
You also want to watch how Britain ended the slave trade its very interesting and a very proud moment in British history
Also very misleading as Britain was amongst the biggest slave traders and supported the confederates when America had their civil war.
Yes true, but the deal was that the slave owners were paid compensation for loss of free horrific labour. The last compensation payment to the slave owners and their relatives was in 2015. Yet no reparations for the slaves and their relatives😕
Yeah they should have been given the same
@@Dimpdimpz It was just realistic politics to compensate slave owners for the loss of their former 'property.' It meant that those who directly benefited from the slave trade, who otherwise would've put up the most fierce opposition, (begrudgingly) freed slaves they held and claimed their compensation. (Rather than staging a colonial rebellion, or voting down emancipation laws for example.)
In short it was a bribe, slave owner interests had considerable political power in the Britain of the 1830s, abolition of slavery simply wasn’t going to happen unless those interests were appeased. £20 million was the price, I consider it a bargain for freeing 800,000 people (and that just for starters).
However much the morality of it all pains our modern sensibilities, the compensated emancipation laws made emancipation actually happen. There's a reason emancipation took this form not just in Britain but everywhere else too, including America.
Agreed. 👍
The current Queen is Elizabeth the Second. Kind of gives the game away as to the total amount of Elizabeth's
Having just got my daughter's exam results , especially her maths result, I don't think he's the only one who struggles with simple numbers!
Actually it gets a little more complex. There are two Elizabeth’s who ruled as Queen Regnant, and who received a regnal number. There have been several Elizabeths to be Queen Consort, the wife of a reigning King. Indeed, the mother of the present Queen, Elizabeth II was also called Elizabeth. When her daughter ascended the throne, a courtesy title of Queen Mother was created to make it easier to identify the two Queen Elizabeths.
@@jameslinham2733 crowned monarchs/monarchs of succession are given a official number, they are the only ones we generally mention in monarch naming practices to be fair. And let's not forget a monarchs name may not actually be their actual name too, which can be confusing to people too.
@@dale897 Did you actually read my comment? I clearly mention reigning monarchs and regnal numbers.
And actually very few English/British monarchs chose a different regnal name from their birth name.
Be patient. It's confusing when there are as many as two!
The monarchs since 1066 comprise four Williams, eight Edwards, eight Henrys, six Georges, three Richards, two Charles, two James, two Marys, two Elizabeths, one Stephen, one John, one Ann and one Victoria.
And a partridge in a pear tree 😆
And one more Queen Elizabeth, consort to George VI (OK not a monarch, but relevant to his ramble nonetheless)
and one Louis
@@stirlingmoss4621 and a Philip if we're being strict, he was a King regnant.
You missed King Phillip of Spain and England (through Mary- yes he was given the throne as an equal 😂) and some…not many count Lady Jane Grey cause she was Queen for 9 days.
There's a hell of a lot of England prior to the date on this video. There's all the Viking and then the Roman occupation centuries prior to this. There's centuries of it prior to all that as well.
Tell this narrator that the British Monarchy is 1200 years old !
Americans should know that the American revolution, cutting away from
Great Britain, was actually done by the English settlers, who were THE
Americans at the time. They revolted against the demands of the British King who tried to get them to pay taxes to England ... "No taxation without Representation" was
the slogan. The Boston tea party etc. !So WE actually freed America, or our ancestors did, not "Americans" who did not really exist, other than indigenous peoples,
it was the British! I think that will surprise a lot of "Americans"!
@@marycarver1542 But that's nonsense. The BRITISH monarchy - formed by the personal union of the eEnglish and Scottish Crowns - dates from 1601, ie just over 400 years old. It's the ENGLISH monarchy that's 1200 years old.
and Angle, Jute and Saxon invasions
The Romans were not involved with England. This was not England then.
"Where the British Empire came from?" Britain would be a good guess 😂
The British Empire started with trading posts. Britain was the first country to have the Industrial Revolution.
To quote Al Murray - we invented work and are the reason everyone around the world gets up and goes to work 🤣🤣
@@TheRattyBiker The French had a revolution, the result many dead French - progress
If you want to know how important tea is to the British, consider that the UK Government purchased the entire available global tea crop in 1942 (none from China, as their production was almost zero, due to the war with Japan). Any left over was distributed to the Allies.
And that British army tanks and simmer vehicles have a hot water boiler inside, so the crew can make tea.
@@pureholy Yes, the famous BV or Vessel, Boiling, Electric"!
It was an English trader, Robert Fortune of the East India Company, who in 1848 first smuggled seeds of the tea plant out of China and successfully established plantations in India.
This video is the equivalent of watching the history of the USA starting from 1950 ! You need to start at the Neolithic or thereabouts. Here's a tip from my university history tutor. , Make life easy for yourself and study in sequence not dart back and forth!
the usa started with the death of kenedy when bankers and the cia created the shopping mall lol
Exactly correct. One must start at the beginning or early enough in time that one can piece together why we are where we are right now. What happened in the past impacts most things going on in the present.
@@darrylbrookes2780 Two Kennedys died. Well you mean JFK.
@@yvonneplant9434 the banks killed one the cia the other you work out which that way i dint grass on anyone
but its kinda obvious
lol
You seem to be discovering the limits of American education. Keep learning and spreading the word. I went to local public schools in Ontario and learned everything you have covered in class. I continued with history in university and in private study. I currently belong to a group that studies 15th century for pleasure - truly fascinating stuff.
Kids learn this in US public schools, at least in the 80's, but if you don't care and aren't really paying attention, there is no retention. No attention, no retention! I wish there were more history teachers who inspire students to learn more about history but my experience is that most just read from textbooks and then give multiple choice tests.
Great stuff, ms Duncanson, but you must know about "who's telling the history". We are all individuals ( Hopefully) Eric Blair springs to mind a lot. I mention him, purposely. Ya know who he was ?. Ya know what "particular book" he wrote? I threw than in, knowing ya like history..Needless to say, i do too. I'm 65, and learn something new every day.
Can I make a suggestion. If you want to know one of the reasons that the British had an empire. Look at the discovery of longitude. In the 17th century Britain was just another European Maritime nation (along with the Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese). All these nations had a problem, as soon as you lose sight of land, how do you know where you are?
After a tragedy, where a fleet returning from Gibraltar smashed into rocks and floundered. The King of the day put up a prize for anybody who could solve the longitude problem. Eventually, the man who solved the problem (and won the prize) was a Norfolk (county in the East of England) carpenter. His plan was to create a ships timepiece. This time piece (watch or clock) was set to the time at the port of departure (in other words Greenwich Mean time). Then by making meticulous observations using the sextant to establish midday were you were. That time was compared with the master time piece. This told the navigator where he was in the world relative to GMT. Also these same measurements with a sextant gave the latitude.
So anybody who went somewhere remote (to the UK), could, by keeping meticulous records leave instructions that could be followed by later ships. So when we started to explore the world, we could always find our way back to the place of interest. I think it was some 50 or so years later before the other maritime nations worked out how to do this.
Good point, and also Harrison and the ability to keep common time
We saw the Spanish Armada coming well in advance as it was first spotted approaching off the coast of Cornwall. From there, we had a system of beacons on the highest hills all along the south coast of England, and once the first one was lit to send out the warning message, the next one along was lit, and so on and so on, until the alert reached London itself in much quicker time than any message could ever have been sent by horse.
Possibly written into Lord of the Rings my tolkien?certainly this idea was included in the third film.
From Cornwall to London the message was passed in four hours.
An ancestor of the röle of radar and of the observer corps during the Battle of Britain on WWII
Watching this guy makes me glad I am Australian - we are taught a comprehensive history of the Commonwealth of Nations and American history - as well as our own and British history. I find it quite incredible that the US does not have the same levels of world history as other nations. What watching these reactions has done is confirm just how isolanist the US has always been.
Well I have lived in Australia and the UK, the UK schooling system does not teach a lot about Australian and US history. So I don't think the US is just isolationist and I have met Australians who do not know a lot about the UK. Also I have met Australians who cannot name every state in the US. I have met British people who cannot name every state in the US. So I think what you are saying here is quite superficial.
Also it seems that a lot of Australian actors and actresses are the darlings of the US (Hollywood) and this is not so with the UK actors and actresses, and there are very good trade deals between the US and Australia, so I think you should think about your oversimplification of things a bit more because if the US were isolationist the amount the US has invested into Australia would not exist!
Terrifying isnt it ! Americans are also the least travelled people in the world, and a majority dont even have passports. They more or less consider themselves
"the world"!
I have to say, I have developed a new found admiration for Aussies over the past year or so. It's not really that I had any specific stereotype before, but having subbed to a few Aussies on YT and having a few more Aussie shows here in the UK other than Neighbours and Home and Away I have noticed that you guys are really well educated. I see Aussies now as like Americans...but educated 😂 like, you have the loud, confident, and boisterousness of Americans but with the thoughtfulness, wit, and knowledge to not be obnoxious like Americans
@@jnel715 Nah ..I feel confident in my comment. Thanks for your opinion.
@@jnel715 Not sure how Australian actors working in Hollywood equate to the History and colonisation of Australia and the teaching methodology of teaching practices in Australia and the UK but the fact is that Aus and the UK have a similar set of principles of teaching the underpins the way the curriculum is applied. Australian teachers find it very easy to teach all UK subjects across the board because they are so similar. I perhaps should have been more specific. Australia is one of 54 Commonwealth of Nations countries. One of 16 who have the head of the Royal family as their head of state. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state of Australia ( and Canada, New Zealand etc I am sure you get the idea) Its quite a while since I was a school but not only did we learn the the succession lines of the Kings and Queens of England, following the Normans and Vikings; we also started the knowledge base at 1215 the signing of the Magna Carta. Moving on to the Cromwell and then the puritans who fled to Europe and then the US. Lots of information in the changing of society with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. We learned about the convicts who were sent to the US and the American War of Independence. The war of 1812 and the failed invasion of Canada by the US. That is when it got really interesting because within a few short years the colony of NSW was established. From then on the history of 3 nations start to criss cross. Gold rushes, world events, colonial wars, and so on. No I am confident that I am correct in my comments. Btw I have also lived in the US and lived and worked in the UK. Maybe it is a fact that the Commonwealth of Nations encourages us to understand and learn about the connectedness of the old British Empire. Getting back to your comment on Australian actors, I believe Nick Kidman is the only one with permanent home in the US the rest just go there to work. Nick to her credit does try to get back to Aus for Christmas which is really big of her don't you think.
The English Civil War is integral to understanding your own Revolutionary War, or at least putting it in a wider context, as often it seems that it’s taught as if it happened in a vacuum and all of the ideas came out of thin air. The Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia is really good though for keeping things in context
Fundamental to understanding US history should be British history from the end of the Wars of the Roses (including their impact on the aristocracy) onwards. But then, that would paint the Revolution in a slightly less noble light, among other things, so not likely to happen any time soon.
The French Revolution was inspired by the American revolt against Britain.
Indeed the English Civil war was our revolution, as is made clear by the Revolutions Podcast (an excellent history podcast by the guy who did the equally good Roman History Podcast).
Something that many people do not understand about UK history is that the UK is to a great extent a Scottish creation. James and the Stuart dynasty forged the foundation of Great Britain as a political entity and pursued the plantation of northern Ireland (nothing to do with plantations btw), which is also the basis for all the ensuing troubles there. There is a popular myth that England somehow conquered and subjugated Scotland. They tried that in the middle ages but it never worked.
Aye, and it'll no work this time either - take note, Liz Truss!
Ya happy aboot a Italian shirt lifer giving ya man "a seeing too". When will yo'use ever learn to be see history "as it was /is", rather than "what ya think ya ears wont to hear". T'old Leon found out. Stop embarassing " ya kin", Ken .
They did'nt have to, G/blues head, the Lairds did that. Ayeee, some may say a "plantation" of sorts". They were slave'ish already, to the bleeding clan chiefs, scrap for us, or "ya'r away. Come on Gordon face, t'is not good enough !
It didn't work for the Scots in1715, or 1745 either-made it as far as Derby!
@@sedekiman There is another misconception that the Jacobite uprisings were Scotland vs England. They weren't. The Stuarts had supporters of both sides of the border, as did the new dynasty. They were more like a mini British civil war.
Fifty years ago, I attended an American high school in Israel. I was asked if I wanted to study American history. I said "sure, you only have two hundred years, how hard can it be?"
James I and VI becoming king was complicated. You might find Elizabeth I and her complicated relationship with Mary, Queen of Scots (his mother) interesting. There's a lot there, especially religion.
Mary and Elizabeth both had royal family ties going back to Margaret Tudor, queen to king James V king of Scots.
Margaret Tudor was the elder sister of Henry VIII.
Queen Elizabeth's mother Anne Boleyn, had her marriage to Henry VIII anulled before she was executed, to allow the king to marry Jane Seymour.
This technically made Elizabeth born out of wedlock, ie illegitimate , thus barred from the royal line of succession.
The Tudor line of succession being truncated by the deaths of its heirs apparent, gave Elizabeth's cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, a stronger claim to the Throne of England, until Henry granted her legitimatecy by royal decree.
Elizabeth having no heir, King James VI King of Scots, following the forced abdication of his mother Mary, was the next in line of English royal succession.
Not withstanding that James had been monarch over England's old enemy for 36years, from 1567 until 1603, and for all of the years that his mother had been held prisoner by the Queen of England.
Dubbed by the English nobility 'the wisest fool in christendom'.
No doubt vexed by their new king importing his entire Scottish Court and Scots speaking royal retinue to London, putting Tudor English courtiers out on a limb.
James ruled England(&Ireland) with Scotland for another 22years, until he passed away in 1625.
He attempted to call his 3 kingdoms Great Britain & Ireland, but that was resisted by the nobility and never took off.
The longest reigning British monarch until the modern era.
A wee snippet not generally taught in 'British' schools.
@@gordonmurray3153 it's also a case that Henry VIII & Margaret Tudor's dad, Henry VII was born in Wales, his grandfather Owen Tudur was born in Wales too. His father Maredudd ap Tudur was the cousin of the Welsh patriot Owain Glyndwr, meaning they shared a grandfather.
Our history is very tied together between each of the home nations.
@@shininglightphotos1044 I read somewhere, quite a while ago, that the Tudor's actually originated in Wales.
Kinda ironic imo, since it was the Tudors who relegated the Cymry to being England's (&Wales) for the next 500years.
It amazes me how you can get to this age and understand so little about your ancestors past
It doesn't amaze me at all.
@@whattiler5102 I agree with sadly history is not taught in most schools, I loved history even on this video they just said Cromwell died he was murdered .
@@janolaful I was always under the impression that Cromwell died from a combination of residual effects of malaria, and kidney stones complications leading to a urinary infection!
His body was disinterred, hung and then beheaded two years later, at the beginning of the restoration (for regicide) but I imagine he was past caring at that point!
@@joyfulzero853 he did die that way I'm referring to he was Posthumously convicted of high treason, Cromwell's corpse was hanged and beheaded, and his head was impaled on a 20-foot (6-meter) spike outside of Westminster Hall.
Screw,
I like this chap. Very honest about what he does and doesn’t know and happy to learn more.
No need to apologise when you don’t know something about U.K. history, you’re American, you’ve got plenty of history of your own to remember.
At least you’re inquisitive enough to learn more - that’s great.
Half the people in the U.K. don’t even know which way up the Union Jack should be flown (or even that there is a right way up) so don’t beat yourself up Tyler.
It's called the Union flag when flown on land and Union jack when flown on sea.
@@nige4287 That’s a historical point and no longer the case. The flag/jack distinction hasn’t been made since the early 19th century. Either way, the post is about which way up it’s flown irrespective of what you call it.
Americans are possibly the worst informed about the rest of the world than any other country!
@@marycarver1542 Maybe. Difficult to justify stereotyping 350m people however. There are plenty in my own country who’d struggle to point to the U.K. on a map let alone be able to accurately define the U.K. vs GB vs England too.
I have met people from the UK and Australia who cannot name every state of the US and also do not understand how legislation differs in each state.
Be good to go back further, starting with Roman/Celtic Britain, then the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, then the Norman invasion of 1066. All this shaped the creation of England/Scotland/Wales and the English language.
Further back .. before the Irish invaded Britain .. before the Beaker people invaded .. before the Long Barrow people ..
Pretty sure the Irish colonised the west coast of Scotland where I’m from.
This is why English and Spanish is is spoken in so many countries 🇬🇧
It got to a point where it was most common therefore in order to join negotiations other nations adopted them as a second language
Wales becoming part of England is essentially why the Union Flag does not have a dragon in the middle. At the time of Union with Scotland, and later Ireland, Wales was not a separate country.
No offence but a dragon on the 🇬🇧 would look silly . The wales flag does look great though maybe we are just set in our ways
@@janice506 At what point did I say the dragon should or should not be added to the Union Flag. I simply explained why it is not.
And that was just the early British Empire... there was a saying "the sun never sets on on the British Empire". So said because there was always a country around the globe with sunlight that was part of the empire. It was... big. Not great (at least not for any natives of those nations) but it sure was big.
Love the old joke, why did the sun never set on the British Empire, because not even God trusts the British in the dark.
Actually many nations did benefit substantially. There was a definite dark side, but this isn't a black and white issue. India for example -the British brought roads, railways, sanitation. It is the same with all empires. Good and bad.
@@planetwatch0000 Thank you. I don't know why the Brits seems to always want to play down the good the empire did and over emphasize the bad. If not for the Brits, maybe Indian natives will still be burning down widows with their late husbands or still sacrificing humans to the goddess Kali or Nigerians will still be killing their twins. I am a Nigerian, in case you might want to think i am a racist or something.
It kind of still doesn't set on the Empire.
@ Yes; it still doesn't set on British dependencies. Much less on the Commonwealth of which we are a member.
Although you weren’t taught British history, I was impressed with how you connected a lot of things; such as why Spain and France helped the Americans in your revolutionary war, that is, not so much for the colonists, but to hurt Britain.
You'd really benefit from a popular video to react to that shows Every Country Britain has Invaded Visualised. I've seen many Americans react to it and it really does show how vast the Empire was and gives reasons as to how and why it happened
Are there also videos about how many countries Spain, France, Portugal, China have invaded?
Which channel does the invasion videos?
@@Anna_Key I can't recall the channel but type in Every Country Britain has Invaded Visualised and it should pop up
@@chrisellis3797 thank you
Yes it's an excellent and frankly astounding video. Well worth Tyler's attention.
Wales was already under English rule before Herny VIII. It's just Herny stripped it of its title as a country and made it just a region of England. This was followed by hundreds of years of the Welsh being "anglicised". Such as having the Welsh language outlawed. Britain is just England and Wales. Great Britain is England, Wales and Scotland. The "Great" means the whole island.
Great Britain is England, Wales Scotland and NORTHERN IRELAND but was once the whole of Ireland . The south is very Catholic, the North not! Southern Ireland fough to separate from Northern Ireland and there is still unease between them today.
@@marycarver1542 Great Britain is the largest island, you mean the British Isles!
@@marycarver1542 No, it isn't. Look up the Terminology of the British Isles. Ireland and Great Britain are the two largest islands in the British Isles. Northern Ireland is part of the Island of Ireland. Not the Island of Great Britain. Britain is just the English version of the Roman territory of Britannia. Britannia, aka Britain, was established by the Romans. From the South shore of England and Wales up to Hadrian's Wall, which separated Britannia from Caledonia, which the Romans named Scotland.
When the Romans left, many smaller kingdoms and territories formed all over the Island. Eventually, the three Kingdoms of Scotland, England and Wales were formed. When Herny absorbed Wales into England, he passed laws that made it one country that was all ruled by the same monarch and obeyed the exact same laws. This country was still called England but referred to as Britain by some people as it was the old Roman Territory of Britannia finally re-unified. And when the Acts of Union united Scotland and England (Or Britain when combined with Wales. As Wales wasn't considered a Kingdom anymore), Great Britain was the term used for this new country. One, to separate it from the French country of Brittany and two, the King wanted to one-up the Romans who never got Scotland. So Great Britain used to refer to the whole Island.
May I suggest Horrible Histories? It's the UK's national curriculum's history part, but presented in the form of sketches and songs, and it's good fun.
Great suggestion.
I couldn't agree more!! My childhood 👍🏼😍
The You Tube site " How the British Empire ruled the World" explains it all simply!
Fantastic video, I recommend having a look at it !
Horrible Histories is actually true but it has comedy and singing to get the children entertained.
@@hannahbell7420 obviously. If it weren't true, it wouldn't closely follow the national curriculum, and what did you think I meant by "it's good fun"?
Well you know what you are taught about the revolutionary war.
The hundreds of years prior to this was Englands creation under one king and the invasion attempts of Wales, Scotland and Ireland.
He should have said under English rule. The Welsh were like native Americans where we were many small individual settlements that didn't get on and therefore did not band together very well to defend the country (as back then there were no countries as we have now). If the Natives had grouped together they may have had better chances of stopping the colonists wipe them out.
You've got that mixed up. England has always wanted to trade. Our neighbours wanted to raid. As they wouldn't stop, our only possible solution was to invade and take over their govt. Same with the precursors of Pakistan. Same with Nazi Germany.
Henry VII and his dynasty (Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I) were Tudors and thus Welsh. The last monarch who can be said to be 'English' (near enough) was Richard III. The present Royals are mainly German.
The current Queen is English, both her parents were British, all four of her grandparents were British, five of her eight great-grandparents were British (of the other three, one was German, one Austrian, one Danish), ten of her sixteen great-great-great grandparents were British.
She's mainly British.
@@stormwreath Well, yes. But her ancestry is significantly German, by which I mean descended from a long line of Germans (and a Dane). If being born in a country is all there is to nationality (and at its most basic, it is) then she's British.
@@pabmusic1 ethnically is what I think you two are discussing. And "English" is an ethnicity. I would say ethnicity is gradually shaped, so after immigrating somewhere it take some generations and whether your family integrates culturally and whether there are marriages outside the ethnicity etc that will change the timescale of this gradual shaping. Is the queen ethnically English, as well as British nationality-wise? I'd say likely so. But she's obviously an edge case.
Those of us descended from the Angles or the Saxons are gonna be ethnically English by now, the kids of the 2000s Pakistani immigrants are not, the grandkids of the 1960s West Indian immigrants, is likely highly dependent on those factors I mentioned, so some will be and will feel English, some will feel ethnically different and will embrace their cultural differences etc etc.
I suppose a big changing point is when a child never meets a family member who was not always British, so like the great grandparents being the initial immigrants could be a major factor...but again it depends on how those households are.
@@miff227 I agree entirely that ethnicity (and thus 'Englishness') is entirely culturally constructed. Charles Darwin was the first to point out (in 1871) that H. sapiens belongs to one single 'race'. We now know through DNA that that is true, but at the time there were some scientists who believed there were as many as 63 different 'races'.
Henry7th’s mother was Margaret Beaufort a descendant of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swinford (I think) …so technically Henry was Anglo Welsh.
As a person from Northern Ireland, A COUNTRY INSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM, I am greatly infuriated how many times you forget our names lol, no offense ofc this is just a joke.
this guy is so clueless - but he is at least educating himself.
Just to let you know mate, I'm from the South of England
And I'm happy that you're with us (still!)
I am finding myself wondering if our host is taking note of some of our comments. I don't see any recognition from him, not even a thumbs up to acknowledge those that have responded to his questions and remarks.
@@robmartin525 And I am to!
@@dameinnoble3995 Yeah, I just noticed that too, if you're trying to learn you'd think you'd read comments from people who live there
7:13 - you mention recognising the name of Queen Elizabeth. You're more likely recognising it, not because of Elizabeth I, who is the Queen being mentioned at that point of the video, but rather because our current Monarch is Queen Elizabeth II.
16:10 - James had a claim on the English throne through his mother, Mary Queen of Scots. Mary was Elizabeth's cousin. I can't remember the exact specifics of that situation, but the British crown is inherited through blood, so if a monarch dies with no heir, it'll go to the next closest related person within the bloodline.
28:13 - Tea is DEFINITELY a national drink. Fun fact... there is a surge in demand on the electrical grid, during the ad breaks of popular UK TV shows, because everyone gets up and puts the kettle on for a cup of tea at the same time. Its called the "TV pickup" and there's a whole Wikipedia article on it!
30:20 - Did you know, there is a US state with the Union Jack still present on the flag? Hawaii!
British history is so wide and varied, that we often don't even scratch the surface in our school history classes, unless we go on to study it further in college / university (yes, the two are different things here in the UK!).
Mary's grandmother was Margaret Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII. Mary, Queen of Scots was Elizabeth first cousin once removed. James was protestant and Elizabeth with persuasion from Robert Cecil agreed for James to be her heir.
@@Anna-ou7or perfect! I couldn't remember the exact way it was agreed that James would be heir, so thanks for clarifying!
After the Portuguese and Spanish empires (=colonies) world trade and many colonies were taken over by the Dutch. After the English civil war Prince William III of Orange, head of state of the Dutch United Provinces, became King of the UK together with his wife Queen Mary II during the "Glorious Revolution" by chasing his father-in-law King James II to Ireland. (Btw: Ireland became independent in 1919.) The Dutch East India Company (the richest company that ever existed) had trading posts all around the globe (like in modern day South Africa, Indonesia, Sri Lanka (Ceylon), parts of India, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan, Japan, New York (Nieuw Amsterdam), South America (Brasil, Suriname) and discovered Australia (New Holland), New Zealand and more. It took 4 sea battles between the United Provinces of the Netherlands and England, plus a domestic power struggle in the Netherlands, which resulted in England taking over many of the Dutch trading posts, changing them into colonies and becoming the new global power, all the while copying the trade of the Dutch East India Company. You might also be interested in these videos: How the Netherlands helped America Gain Independence and Why Doesn't the U.S. Know About its Own Dutch Origins?
I love this guys enthusiasm for learning and how unintentionally funny he is. I could listen to him all day long. 👍
I couldnot.gave up after 5 minutes of interuptions
@@johnharper3909 Agreed, I get the impression he NEVER listens to what is being said.
It’s a reaction channel- interruption is both needed to avoid copyright and the point of the video is his thought process throughout him watching the video
16:05...mate you're only familiar with monarchs who come from England. The Normans came from Norway & the Angevins came from France, the Tudors (despite what some folks desperately claim) were Welsh, the Stewarts were Scots who originated in Brittany, the House of Orange came from France via the Netherlands, the Hanoverians & Saxe-Coburg-Gothas travelled over from German (although the House of Hanover were a branch of the House of Welf who I believe originally came from Northern Italy). The last English King of England was Harold Godwinson and even he was partially Danish. Waes Hael! 😉😊
well said
Hawaii still has the Union Jack on it's flag, so we still own it technically. Might be needing it back soon.
Yes, Northern Ireland was filled with Scottish and English settlers. Part of the reason it stayed loyal to the British and remained part of the UK when the rest of Ireland left in the 1920s.
The settling of Ireland, Scotland and Wales is rather confusing because settlers seemed to ferry back and forwards between the countries over the centuries. Case in point: The West of Scotland was settled by a tribe of Irish called the Scotii where the Scots actually derived their name. The genealogy is so mixed up with Viking, Irish, Celtic, Welsh and some Angles and Saxons I'm surprised anyone can make sense of it.
Tbf Scotland was settled by Irish settlers
The England we know of today really began at the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Invasion of 1066. That said England was first united into one whole Nation State by Alfred The Great some 200 years earlier. Prior to Alfred what is now England was comprised of several competing Viking and Saxon states such as Wessex, Northumberland, Anglia, etc. Beyond that we go to the brief period we were part of the The Roman Empire, some 400 years from 43AD. The lands have been continuously settled for millennia. Stone Henge is some 5000 years old.
Re: Britain vs. Spain = Armarda (cough, cough)!
Actually, the England we know was united under Aethelstan. Alfred certainly began the reconquest but our land had to put up with the Danelaw for quite a while.
Britain vs Spain... the war for Independence too! Damn Spanish and French blockades🤣
England started in 927 not 1066, 1066 was an important date but it is not the creation of England date.
@@maxdavis7722 a good program to watch is The Last Kingdom although it’s a tv show you really get a lot of historical fact from watching it
Where do you think your 13 colonies and your founding fathers came from? They were British
Have you seen Tudors or even Braveheart? Although Mel Gibson poetic licence was abused in the movie it was totally wrong history.
Enjoyed your reaction. Brits have tea running through our veins & drink (approx) 100 million cups every day, that is hot tea with milk and sugar (if wanted). It is offered to a guest, we may come home from work & say 'put the kettle on' which is the phrase to initiate making a cuppa, when we hear bad news we are made hot sweet tea - & on & on. Check out 'afternoon tea' and it's history.
It’s not your fault you don’t know this history. We’re British but my kids went through high school in Texas. It was so boring , there was no asking of questions or discussion. Facts were learnt and then a test at the end of the week. Even the Teachers were bored having to teach in the same way year after year. I had to spend hours filling the blanks of what they hadn’t covered when they got home. Not a chore as I love history.
UK Monarchy is a fun subject of itself. The current Royal Family are Germans. We imported them back in 1714 when the last lost we imported from the Netherlands failed to maintain the upkeep of their dynasty (no surviving heirs).
They changed their name to surname Windsor when we had a couple fairly public arguments with German about 100 years ago.
English is a Germanic language. That started before 1066. Especially Northern Germany. Scandinavia history as well. Anglo-Saxon England. If you want to know what old English and Middle English learn German.
@@christineperez7562 The saxons came to Britain in approx 5th & 6th century AD ..1066 is when the Saxons of England were defeated by the Norman's ( the normans were originally Vikings who had settled in north western France !! The saxons had come & settled in England from areas of Germany !!! So living in England were tribes of Saxons & Angles that some opposed each other but were brought together by king Alfred the great who later defeated the Vikings ,the word known as Angleland then England /English was created from the joint tribes of saxons & angles .so any true English person would have Germanic blood ancestry in their heritage ! So when people say ! the Royal family is German so are the English which is where the saxon tribes come from ...
I'll be honest, I thought there was a little bit of trolling when this channel started. However, I've come to really enjoy this particular take on 'American reacts to British...' genre. That Tyler reminds me of a cross between the Snagglepuss cartoon and the Sebastian "Bash" Howard character in GLOW doesnt hurt in making for a strong USP too. Looking forward to tomorrow's journey from bafflement to enlightenment!
The Act of union was a financial agreement between England and Scotland. England Agreed to pay Scotlands Debts in payment for security of the Border between the two countries. much more to this story than at first seems.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!!!
the view on american history is a bit different from the british perspective, starting with the puritans all the way to the independence, the differences are quite interesting, for example, in american history, the puritans fled persecution, in british history, the puritans escaped prosecution... or this one, in american history, america won the war of independence, in british history, they let them go after giving them a proper beating and burning down the white house... it's all a matter of perspective.
The Puritans weren't being persecuted.
They were just very very disappointed that everyone who wasn't a Puritan weren't being persecuted.
@@Anna_Key Its in the name. PURitans.
@@Anna_Key During the 1660s and 1670s. Post-restoration Parliament enacted a series of penal laws, which persecuted various nonconformist groups, which included Puritans and Catholics. Enforcement of these laws unleashed a period of violent religious disturbances. MPs, Clergy, Masters and Students of Oxford and Cambridge, Coorporate Leadership and more, all had to swear to uphold the position of the King as head of the Church of England. Attending Catholic worship or nonconformist religious meetings was declared illegal and punishable by fine or imprisonment. Since they obviously still gathered, otherwise it would be quite impossible for them, to leave Britain together in any organized manner, so they were fleeing the law.
It's simple, the naming of the British monarchs. Subsequent monarchs with the same name adopt a subsequent number - e.g. Edward I (the first), Edward II (the second), Edward III (the third) and so on. There have been 8 Henrys, 6 Georges, 1 John, 3 Richards etc. We currently have Elizabeth II, the first being Elizabeth I featured in this video.
Succession of Kings and Queens are taken through the family line, so if a monarch dies childless, then tracing eligible hereditary back to relations through parents and grandparents to uncles, aunts and cousins. Such is the case with James - son of Mary Queen of Scots, great-grandson of Henry VII of England - that's why he was identified as next in line for succession. He was already King of Scotland, so an easy appointment to make.
The death of Oliver Cromwell wasn't the reason England returned to monarchy, although it was a significant moment in 'the tide turning'. Being a Republic brought much unrest and poverty, so Parliament were instrumental in reinstating the monarchy in line with the will of the people to alleviate the suffering and lack of stability. Charles (the son of Charles I) returned from exile in Europe to become Charles II. This period is known as 'The Restoration' and heralded a whole new age of culture and 'enlightenment', and revived the fortunes of England.
To clarify, the first monarch to reign with a unique name is not assigned the regnal number (the First) until the accession of the second monarch with the same name. The Tudor queen was known to history as Queen Elizabeth until Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 when it became necessary to distinguish between them.
@@hadge9628 Yes, agreed.
TEA: don’t forget that clean drinking water wasn’t easily available to the masses, so people drank tea (boiled water) as a safe beverage. Wine and alcohol were also drunk frequently, often watered down for children snd women, which purified the water also.
Thanks for a fab Reacts - spent a fab evening watching and making notes for an essay on Tradition, Education and the Internet.
Love your channel and love the history vids you react to!
12:22 It might be worth pointing out that at this point in time Spain was the dominant global superpower with an enormous overseas empire while the wealth, power and influence of the British empire that you talked about did not exist yet. It was just England and the extend of their overseas power was really just however much they could steal from Spanish ships. England was very much the underdog and there was an army prepared in the Netherlands for a for a full scale conquest of England. Defeating this massive fleet stopped it from being able to carry the army across and kept England alive.
15:39. No, it wasn't common. Britain as a country/empire didn't exist yet and England and Scotland were totally independent countries with two different monarchies/royal families. There were connections through marriages between the two and so when Elizabeth died without any children, the next heir to the English throne just happened to already have the Scottish one. Think of it like if the prime minister of Canada won the US election and ended up running both countries simultaneously. They weren't the same country yet but they were ruled by the same person.
16:57. They didn't move everyone back out again, did you ever wonder why Northern Ireland is part of the UK while the rest of Ireland isn't? Scottish and English settlement had a massive impact on the cultural and religious identity of Northern Ireland that remains to this day. There are long lasting tensions between protestants (mainly the descendants of scottish/english settlers) typically favouring union with the UK and catholics (mainly descendants of the irish who were there before) usually wanting to leave the UK and join the rest of Ireland.
When Ireland went independent in 1922 there were a lot of people in the north who opposed it and so Northern Ireland was carved out as a region with a majority wanting to remain part of the UK. Of course you can't draw a border that cleanly separates irish nationalists and pro-british unionists and so many nationalists naturally found themselves on the wrong side of the border. Flash forward to about 1970 and you get about 30 years of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland as a result.
England used to be separate kingdoms…consolidation of these was started by Alfred The Great back in the 870AD , but the first king of England was his grandson Athelstan in 895AD. Athelstan is the great grand uncle 30 times over of our current Queen.
Our history prior to Athelstan is a heady mixture of waves of invasion/settlement Romans, Angles, Jutes & Vikings etc. Plus the Celts & The Picts (where did they come from I wonder).
However….just to put this in perspective….the most magnificent basilica Hagia Sofia in Istanbul was completed in 537AD….when we were all still in wood huts🤣
I like your reactions, lerning is so cool isn't it?! Oh and btw just watched your brother reacting to some Aussie stuff lol
It's fun seeing you learn bit by bit.
The British Empire covered a third of the world at its height. Its flag, its laws, its language was universal, and those countries still remain only now they are voluntarily members of
the Commonwealth, 53 countries, many of whom still have our Queen as their Head of State/
Many know her famous personal oath:
"I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, will dedicated to your service and to the service of our imperial family to which we all belong."
Empire still existed when she said it.
I was born in England ( UK )🇬🇧 my mums dad was Scottish , my late husband’s best mates were Scottish & Irish !
England has loads of Scottish,Irish & Welsh living there,& not true that we don’t like each other !
Yes we do know other countries are part of the Commonwealth ! apart from the Olympic Games ! We have the Commonwealth Games too every 4 years!
We are rivals not enemies (coming from a half Scottish half English with a bit of welsh mixed in)
Hi Tyler love watching you keep going
The chatting along make your videos pretty fun, to me 😂.
Definitely check out the gunpowder plot, and the celebration we call bonfire night (Guy Fawkes night).
Remember, remember, the 5th of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Consider that putting the idea of the size of the island known as Great Britain into perspective. From the top then vertically down to the bottom of this island can be generously estimated as approximately 800 miles long. The area of the state of Texas is between two to three times the size of GB. So it’s only natural for you to be amazed that GB is made up of three nations.
Well no, the size of the nations of the UK are not that unusual when compared to those of the rest of the world Susan.
It's more though. English is the language of this planet no matter what the Chinese might think. That adds to how remarkable the British have been wrt their impact on the world.
@@timphillips9954 individually, the UK countries ARE unbelievably small in comparison with most other countries.
@@GBURGE55 Please do some research before you type.
Great joining in with Tyler on his Rnglish History journey 👍
History matters has a great series (which this video is a part of) that goes over the history of England from Roman times to after WW2
15:40 the British Empire didn't exist yet, since there was no United Kingdom. England had a few small colonies, and as the video mentioned Elizabeth I started the ball rolling on the East India Trading Company, but that's it. Neither England or Scotland were particularly major players in world politics, compared to the likes of Spain.
Until this point, England and Scotland had completely separate monarchies and were not unified in any way - the video kind of glosses over how historically important the crowning of James I / VI was, since he was the first monarch in history to be king of both England and Scotland - so no, it was not common. Bear in mind though that even then, the UK did not exist and wouldn't for about a century. James was King of both England and Scotland (Wales was already considered part of the Kingdom of England, and had been for several hundred years), but both were still considered separate countries. This in itself was not uncommon - monarchs were often the sovereign of different countries, but which weren't considered as unified (and still are - Queen Elizabeth II being a major case in point!).
I think there's a typo there. "Elizabeth II started the ball rolling on the East India Trading Company". I know that she was our longest reigning monarch but .......😁
@@reggy_h aha thanks for spotting that 😅
Amazing that you say you do not know much about Great Britain, your constitution is based on the Magna Carta. 60% of what the world takes for granted was invented by the British, even the language you speak
lil bro half of UK don't know what Magna Carta is
u mad
@@plamenpavlov9774 Well obviously you are rather an ignorant organism. Of what species it is hard to define
I know you have different channels for which country you react to. I think that's an excellent idea; it means people get what they subbed for. But I suggest having all your channels in the channel tab on each of your youtube pages.
I think you are actually a very smart fellow and just playing the part...but you pull it off very well....it makes for interesting viewing...and I am learning things I didn't know.
I did Modern History in Grammar school and that covered the period just after the industrial revolution up to WWII; this is very enlightening to me. Keep on keeping on.
Brian
Always so entertaining to watch as a brit loll
I am an American and a history nerd and he makes me laugh.
@@christineperez7562 he's hilarious
Hey Tyler! Found your channel yesterday, with your reaction to the differences between England / UK / Great Britain.
I'm just at the start of this video, but there's so many videos that I could suggest you take a look at, to learn more about British history. One I think you might be interested in, is a video from the channel "RealLifeLore" called "Every Country England Has Invaded: Visualized".
Missed your comment and recommended the same Visualised video
James I was Elizabeth I’s closest living relative able to accede to the English throne as her paternal aunt was his mother or grandmother (i dont remember which). It wasnt just a random “our monarch has died childless lets steal someone elses monarch” situation.
When they talk about the "plantation" of English and Scots to Ireland and Ulster specifically it isn't the plantations you think of like in the USA South, it is planting your nationals in a hostile country to take it over by slowly integrating it
I am not planting my natiionals there or anywhere else for that matter, thank you very much...
The English murdered the Welsh Royal family, claiming it was only a Principality. There were years of fighting, hence all the castles in Wales. The English even banned the Welsh language for 500 years, erased Welsh family names replacing them with English, Jones for example replaced the Welsh "Ioan"
Yes, we did. Sorry!
That's the way it was throughout history, the world over.. It's not unique. Nations, Tribes, Royals had to conquer or be conquered
I have watched you several times ,and did give you the benefit of my doubts,How ever,In my opinion you are one of the few Americans that really believe you invented Breathing!! and the world revolves around you, on the other hand I am pleased you have allowed yourself to be educated to some degree,your continual smirk is something that won't go down well with us Brit's.sorry mate but that's my view.
I love my cuppa tea. Great way to start the day 😄
I love your videos as you are so amusingly self deprecating. Please make many more videos as this Scot thinks you are very entertaining. Ta. From Graham.
It really isn't necessary to stop and comment every ten seconds
Yes it is if you need to.
@@MichaelJohnsonAzgard Why would he need to? To convey information to subscribers would be justified, but asking incessant rhetorical questions (as is the norm) is predominantly unnecessary, as the requisite information is often explained literally moments later. Listening and learning are, regrettably, scarce commodities in our social media age
@@Cruithneach because it's his channel.
@@MichaelJohnsonAzgard He's entitled to do what he wants, as are you and I. That doesn't mean his constant interruptions enhance the spectacle, quite the opposite in fact, but thanks for contributions all the same
James VI of Scotland was Elizabeth I cousin as he was a decendant of Margaret Tudor Henry VIII sister. I believe she was his grandmother or great grandmother. Therefore after Elizabeth died he was the closest living non Catholic heir to the Throne
James the 4th married Margaret Tudor and they produced James the 5th who was Mary Queen of Scots father. So that would make James the 6th , Elizabeth's first cousin , twice removed?
@@auldfouter8661 I knew they were cousins just didn't know what it was removed and that
Should reacted to the second part of this video series.
Hi! Enjoying your videos. It's interesting to see the reactions of someone unfamiliar with the history and the politics / Government Structure of GB. Are you familiar with the Commonwealth Games (the most recent games ended just a few weeks ago) and the Commonwealth? It's very interesting that ties between so many of the nation's from the former British Empire are still strong, despite the countries being independent. Maybe a subject for you to explore. 😊
One of those Spanish ships sank between Orkney and Shetland in the north of Scotland. While the Duke had the money to get home, he left his sailors behind. They married local women and their kids became the Westray Dons. People from the island of Westray are still genetically unique. My grandmother was from Westray, and my Dad was tall with curly black hair, and definitely showed the signs of Spanish ancestry.
How many channels do you have? They aren't linked. But I found your Canadian version. You should link them in the channels section.
Ha I just finished watching your video of the British monarchy. We have over a 1000 years of history
Hay Tyler. You are the first American citizen to acknowledge that America did do these atrocities against the indigenous people. I thank you sir. From UK 🇬🇧👍👍 b Safe take care where ever you are. PEACE ☮️🕊️ an old cockney gal. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you all. 🎄🕊️🎁🍷🍺🍾🍺🍷🎁
Our history starts much earlier.. For example, the town I live in is the ancient capital of Mercia. King Offa was declared King in 757.
Great video and I even learnt a couple of things and I'm English lol 😆
So fascinating that we consider this period in history both English and American, the people at the time still had strong ties to England and Scotland yet it is clearly taught as American history. Reading the past would be an excellent channel to react too a lovely UK historian takes you through specific subjects and explains things so well. Or there's crash course their videos are little more jam packed but lots of fun.
So to clarify your question about Wales, The Act of Union (1536) saw Wales annexed to the Kingdom of England, where Wales was brought under the English legal system and there was a period of English dominance over Wales; however, Wales' distinct identity was never erased and in 1707, the Act of Union that united the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, into a single political entity, the Kingdom of Great Britain, Wales in turn also became part of the larger political entity of the Kingdom of Great Britain.
A further Act of Union in 1801 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which in 1921 became United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to which Wales remains one of the four constituent countries.
In 1998 the Government of Wales Act was enacted granting Wales a degree of self-government, and in 1999 the devolved Welsh Parliament, known as the National Assembly for Wales was established. Over time, Wales has asserted its separate cultural and national status within the United Kingdom, leading to the establishment of the devolved Welsh Parliament, and furthering the devolved powers, as well as being recognised as a distinct country within the UK.
I don't know if there is a second part, but could you watch it if there is? This stops short of when the Empire was at its peak. The Empire didn't start breaking apart till the early 20th century.
Thanks for your honesty in these videos. I like the cut of your jib. 🙂👍
The importance of tea is greatly overstated. It was a commodity like any other, it just so happened that the British ship that was sunk in Boston that started the war of independence was full of tea.
28:40 Tea was substantial in American history during a little known event known as the Boston tea party... 🤣🤣
Bonfire Night was a big thing over here in England, UK, when I was a kid; I'm not sure now. Bommy Night, as it was said in my area, was on the 5th of November. You went around houses with a man figure which you made by using old clothes, some sort of stuffing and a hat; most residents would give you either money or sweets etc (Penny (money) for the guy, you would say to them). The figure was called a Guy (Fawkes), and at the end you put it onto the fire before burning it (You collected wood by going around the neighbourhood a couple of weeks before and asking residents whether they had any wood for the bommy. You would also put raw potatoes in the bommy before lighting it, as when the fire was burnt and small you took the cooked potatoes out and ate them.
Guy Fawkes was the person they caught in the Gunpowder Plot with the gunpowder ready to blow up Parliment, and was sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered. I think he actually fell off the gallows and died before they could hang him, but I didn't know that then. They caught him on the 5th of November, hence the date.
It's still celebrated, though not as much as I when I was a child in the 70's/80's
Very informative - I award you a 'like' haha
mostly, here in england whether you drink it or not you have a box of tea bags somewhere.
Yes it was very common for noble families across the now UK and Europe to inter marry so when a Scottish or English monarch died a close relative could succeed them, in those says with the Reformation it helped of the successor was not Catholic
You should look into the succession of sovereigns. James Vl of Scotland was directly related to Elizabeth and therefore her heir. There are other transitions that you might find surprising.
You might not miss as much if you waited for the narrator to finish his sentence before pausing and injecting another point - or rewind 5 seconds when you resume playing. You end up only getting the end of his sentence, which sometimes doesn't make sense by itself.
king john actually did exsist and is my direct ancestor hes also the king who's royal seel is on the magna carta which is also in the us bill of rights
Indentured service was more like joining the military but doing civilian service such as farming or industry. It was for a contracted period with an agreed reward, such as land or transport to a location. Or in some cases a penal penalty for a criminal act.