I know my history as well, I want to start writing things about Queen Elizabeth I (1533 - 1603). I wish i had took GCSE history in year 11

I agree I think with the spirit of your indignation. I think though that we might have hoped for a middle and meaningful ground for her public life - something between babies, hubris and fantasy. The Queen's private secretary Sir Edward Young did try to define a role or context suitable to her personality, whatever that may ever have been and strengths, such as they ever were. As for babies, it's her children I feel badly for. Let us return to our program ... Elizabeth R ... dim the lights.

@@CaruthersHodge More like elation, knowing that waster who had t marry into the Monarchy in a shameful attempt to become a somebody, while failing to understand what the monarchy is actually all about, will never be Queen, in the same sense that her undeserving wastrel of a husband will never be King. It's not something you marry into. You don't put a ring on your finger, say "I do", and become Queen over night. It's something that your born into. It's a line, a lineage. Megan was never in that line. Even if she was, she was in no position to leap frog over William & Kate, because she married the spare. No, not indignation. Elation. The public of the time hated Margaret Of Anjou, for basically the same reason, because she was another outsider, who plotted and schemed her way through Royal life, without ever actually having done anything to deserve what she'd got, while she flaunted her wealth in the faces of a destitute public.

@@cadderley100 Thank you for the very spirited and fulsome assessment of the Sussex disaster. I couldn't agree more on the subject of the Duchess. Although she has a cunning, animal kind of shrewdness, she simply has no understanding of English public life rather like Wallis Simpson in the 1930s and at least the Windsors had the good sense to melt into the background and occupy a world of endless cocktail parties and tanning holidays. Margaret of Anjou was brighter than the mad Duchesses. I'm sure the Monarchy will outpace and overcome this problem. The intense concentration of emotion and appreciation with death of the late Queen, as well the transformation of the King and the very real bonds of ancient meaning and heritage have, I feel, blown the Sussexes out of the water.

I believe so. He was not fond of Anne, which is understandable considering that he worked for Catherine's nephew!

A curious side step in subject matter and so where do we stand ? Shame on the step father and shame on the BBC. You should both be ashamed of yourselves and pay. And Seymour at least did, although for different reasons. Should a BBC script forbade mention of Seymour's naughty advancements ? I imagine we need another documentary and another presenter.