Mary Stuart was done absolutely no favors being married to the future heir of the French Throne and being sent away to live in France at the age of six. She didn’t understand the politics of Scotland or England or who she could trust and no doubt made lots of errors based on what her inner circle was telling her or disregarding their advice because she was the queen.

You know what's disgusting about this? I had to come to KZbin, to learn our history by myself, because High Schools, going as far back as 1995, don't teach English history in School anymore. I have to teach myself my own countries history. I was filling in a job application earlier today. The employer asked for my "Ethnicity". They had White Irish, White Scottish, White Welsh, and then White British. I'm like WTF? Where's White English? Why is my nationality being excluded from job application forms? It actually quite offended me. Am I supposed to be ashamed, because of my heritage? I ended up actually selecting "White Other", because I did not want to be referred to as "White British", because England is NOT entirely Britain. By that rationale, there shouldn't be Scottish, Irish or Welsh either. We should all be British, by that logic. Ask a Scottish, Welsh or Irish person if they see themselves as being "British", see what they say. Yet, I cannot call myself English? And it's people like Alfred the Great who paved the way for England, and Britain, to become the country that it is today.

Did they really have horse armor like that, is it just fantasy filler footage? 37:36

Were any royals really more important than the tens of thousands of the wretched, the enslaved and the less fortunate who would die in their endless wars, starve in their grand estates and be worked to death in the pursuit of royal wealth? I think not. Royalists are a stain on the whole of human history 🤢

Enjoyed this. Thank you.

Richard is my least favorite king of England and was definitely among the worst of them. Henry II on the other hand was one of the best if not the best. I'll never understand why he does not have a more deserving legacy

Plus you now got a free camera lady 📸

My great grandfather came from Canada to England ....met my g / grandmother and stayed in the Hythe in WW1 ....so Canada ....has to be visiting soon 🎉

Simply perfect!!! I devour anything to do with King Alfred. I’m sure he had some flaws, but I’ve never heard of one. Definitely on the very short list of history’s greatest leaders. Somehow though, your show fascinates us with otherwise unknown details. Lastly, I really enjoy seeing the locations and historical sites as they are today. Really adds perspective.

Second video I’ve watwatched on this channel. Subscribed before the first video was finished. Great work!!! I’m very much looking forward to more!! I feel that you go into more detail than many others.

Ruling Over Territory??....For Resources...Riches and...Power ! What Other Purpose Could Possibly Hold Endearment For Protecting.......Masses Of People ?

Constant commercials occasionally interrupted by the video.

Alfred, Tolkien's inspiration for Turin? Alfred didn't have some of Turin's massive character flaws, however. Well done, very well familiar with this tale. Well done.

The fragile, flickering flame. Try saying that 3 times quickly.

You are right. He was perhaps unique in history for truly being a Christian king. And I say that as one who values the teachings, even as I don't worship. I have watched several Alfred docs, and read a few books. Yours is my favorite. Thank you. I have 'liked and subscribed'.

Always the homosexual accusation. I haven’t researched every king of England just yet but have researched many and most of them have had the accusation thrown at them. People of recent history are so jaded by their own degeneracy that they cannot help but to project it onto everyone else.

My ancestors AEthelrede De Rede my ancestor

Once the Anglo-Saxons came to Britian didnt they ever travel back to the mainland? If Anglo-Saxons came from just south of Denmark wouldnt tgey also travel to other parts of Scandinavia? Just 2 questions that never made sense to me

Very brave wise man.

This is a very good video. It's easy to follow. The look of the reenactors/ actors depicted appear to look like they're from that specific era. I give it a thumbs up!

Who will save England now?

Have listened to this whilst exercising in a park in North London. Loved it. Will listen again.

I can’t tell you how stoked I am for this upload!

Reparations from the Swedish are in order.

A couple of fortunate storms saved England from being conquered , the same as happened in Japan ! God's will ? Me thinks just pure luck , Ceaser worshipped the goddess Fortuna , Napoleon said "I'd rather have lucky generals than good ones ! " 🤔😉😁

👏 👏 👏

Hmmm.....didn't want conflict? Or just picked on the little guy who was unable to defend himself?🤔🤔

My family, as far as we can find out, have always been in Somerset, our surname means mighty/brave spearman, first recorded in the somerset rolls in 1200AD. I do wonder if some distant relative fought at Edington under Alfred.

Alfred had wise advisors. It seems this was one of the rare times in history where a king with wise men advising him has the wisdom to listen and see further than his own bloodline. Indeed, Great.

Wait, did the romans got out? Yes darling. Pack it up kids, to britannia we go.

First time I've come across a full life history of King Alfred. He has only risen in my estimation. Very informative and well presented video. Thanks for your time and effort.

Thank you for a great and informative video! I always look for new content from your channel!

2.14: "Stephen was said to be attractive", Are you sure about this .. ?

Such a well produced, informative production, thank you so much ☺️

Fantastic thank you .

Catherine was an exceptional human being. However, I think that she made a big mistake by not retiring to a monastery because she knew that Henry required a son. Her refusal to aid Henry in this manner resulted in her daughter not acquiring a husband at a young age, as well as her being declared illegitimate by Henry. A marriage between princess Mary and a prince of the Holy Roman Empire would have been advantageous for both England and the HRE. Would England have stayed Catholic if Catherine had stepped back? Who knows. The destruction of the monasteries resulted in a huge gaping hole in the social fabric of England (medicine, social services). It also destroyed a system that helped to support "spare" sons and daughters, who (for whatever reason) could not get married. Henry could have built Catherine a large addition (mini-palace) attached to the monastery of her choice with sufficient land to support it. In addition, Catherine could have been given a position to educate young noblewomen in the arts, music and language. (Being thrown into a court, like the Boleyn girls was not helpful to shaping young women with high standards of moral behavior)

Poor Edward’s been maligned

Henry III was outshined by Edward, before Edward ever ascended to the throne. This isn't even Edward's video!

Was he , he hated nobels

I have to admit, the Late Medieval world of Plantagenet (the ruling royal family of England, dating all the way back to Henry II, and now divided into two related “branches”--the Lancastrians and the Yorkists--descended from different sons of Edward III)--the Late Medieval World of Plantagenet England was so brutal, and medieval cities were such crowded, absolutely filthy places (people daily threw their “ordures,” or “household excrement and waste” INTO the STREETS) that --though I am a decisive, organised, tenacious person--I am not certain that even *I* would have had the courage Queen Margaret showed in choosing to REMAIN IN THE TOWER (a fortified royal residence *and* prison at the time) **while a full-scale rebellion of discontented and homicidal commoners were taking over the streets of London.** Clearly, rather than be a Queen *Consort,* Margaret had all the abilities of a Queen *REGNANT.* unfortunately, Fortune did not shine on her…

Isn’t King Henry VI the *sole* English monarch to have been crowned “King of France” in Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, when he was just 10 yrs old, upon the death of his maternal grandfather, the insane King Charles VI? Rather than characterising the pious, meditative, and sensitive Henry VI as “feeble and weak,” wouldn’t it be more appropriate to say that “Henry VI was unfortunately born into a role for which he was ENTIRELY CHARACTEROLOGICALLY UNSUITED, becoming King of England at just nine months old, and disputed King of France at just 10 years old. Henry was a quiet, introspective, shy, timid, pious, and spiritual person, afflicted by some of the serious psychological problems passed down to him from his mother and maternal grandfather King Charles VI, problems such as a tendency to be shocked quite easily, and to fall into prolonged catatonic states in which he neither spoke nor moved nor seemed to be at all aware of the world around him. He would probably have made a better monk in a cloister, or even an anchorite than a King expected to operate simultaneously in the battlefields of France in the Hundred Years War, *and* within the often cutthroat, violent world of the grest English dynastic struggle known as the Wars of the Roses.”? Isn’t that a more accurate and humane way to describe a man struggling against serious, inherited, psychiatric handicaps, and who--after his death--was and is revered as a saint by many Christians? After all, there would be no Eton had Henry VI not given it snd many other educational institutions his royal patronage. Warriors such as the very short-lived Henry V are not the *only* kings with virtues. Possibly had Henry VI lived and reigned in a less violent era when the Crown had not been so destabilised by the deposing of the childless Richard II, his patronage of the arts and education would have made him a “great” monarch.

Why Do We Fall, Sir? So That We Can Learn To Pick Ourselves Up.

Kinda surprised Knox was never mentioned since he was behind some of the conspiracies.

me in paris:

This is one of the better documentaries I've seen on the topic. However, a few important things are missing or glossed over in it. 1) Isabella did not hate Edward II. There is plenty of evidence that she was very close with Edward II, even as he was simultaneously enamored with Gaveston. As you say, she got along well with Gaveston in spite of their little love triangle. They understood eachother and certainly there was true mutual affection between Isabella and Edward. The dynamics changed when Despenser came in between them and for the most part denied Isabella access to her husband. Isabella would hate Despenser with a passion for the rest of her life, but this hate did not extend to her husband. Even as Edward II was imprisoned at Berkeley Castle, she would write him affectionate letters, sending him gifts, food, small luxuries and asking about his health. There was no political reason for doing this, only love could explain this. She wanted to see him, but was denied these requests by Roger Mortimer, who had everything to lose if they would be reconciled. Isabella, more than anyone else, cared about Edward II. She knew him better than anyone and understood his vices and virtues and accepted him for who he was, with all his flaws. It's very sad that their relationship is so deeply misrepresented still today. 2) Edward II was (most likely) not murdered. The chroniclers who recorded these events were no more informed about what really happened than the average man on the street. Many people who would have been very well informed about the true state of affairs were certain that he was alive well after he was rumoured to have died. There is some evidence that he was later att Corfe Castle, and from there moved on to Ireland and thence to the continent, finally ending up in a peaceful Italian convent. As crazy as this does sound it is the most likely scenario considering all the actual facts we are aware of. I won't get into it too deeply, but the Fieschi letter is of great significance, as is the fact the a man claiming to be the father of Edward III met with him in Koblenz, Germany years after. In those days, royal impersonators would regularly get executed, but this time... the man was allowed to live and was not persecuted in any way. He didn't even ask for anything, which is telling. Why, then, would Edward II not have tried to regain the throne, had he remained alive? Because of his personality. Kingship was forced upon him, and he had no interest in government. He enjoyed the company of lowborn people. He must have been painfully aware that his reign had been a disaster. He was pious and had always found the company of priests, prelates and monks very pleasant. In his teens, he faced criticism for staying much longer in their company than he would have needed to. He was always criticized for ignoring matters of state, always preferring to do hard work with his own hands. Now he was finally at peace, enjoying a blissful existence in a scenic Italian convent in a mountainous setting. He was among like minded people, an equal to them, allowed to fill his days with physical labour and piety, activities which had always given him joy. Why would he have wanted to return to the hellish existence he endured as a king? This is what I imagine he told his son in Germany, and was thus allowed by all to continue his peaceful existence. He was officially declared dead, but allowed to stay alive far away from England and its politics. It was a win-win situation for everyone.

That beginning sound and echo, shows reverberation and great acoustics. What a neat place to enter.

Really good video! Love your channel!❤

Come on, be honest about Darley- he was in separate housing because he had an STD- Syphilis. Mary didn't want him anywhere near her!!!!

King James V and Mary De Guisse had two boys that could of been poisoned. They died within days of each other. Mary was their 3rd child. King James V had two other boys with Margaret Erskine, The Earl of Mar's lovely daughter. He wanted to marry her more than anyone but needed to preserve and uphold the Auld Alliance with France.

I hate all this romanticising of Mary. She made terrible, terrible decisions. And her nemesis was as cunning as a fox-she was out played!