American Reacts Rating Royals With David Mitchell

[@ratowey]

A Stag night is the British equivilent of a Bachelor party

[@martynnotman3467]

The Normans were actually vikings too. The French king gave Rollo the area around the mouth of the Seine in the hope putting one lot of vikings in the way would stop other vikings raiding Paris.

[@grantjohnston7972]

What could go wrong? 😂

[@anta3612]

The Celts were a collection of tribes with origins in central Europe and inhabited the British Isles in pre-Roman times. They shared a similar language, religious beliefs, traditions and culture. Picts were a Celtic tribe that lived in Scotland while the Gauls were a group of Celtic people that inhabited the areas that encompass present-day France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and parts of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Northern Italy.

[@ladykaycey]

What a treat for a Saturday afternoon. Loved it!

[@lena-mariaglouis-charles7036]

Learning and understanding - which will make You remember what You've been taught/studying is way more satisfying than simply memorizing a bunch of facts.

[@jamesdignanmusic2765]

"Made very old bones" = lived to a great age. "Stag night" = bachelor party. Quick summary: The last vestiges of Roman rule ended in Britain in about 500. For the next five centuries Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians had lots of warring kingdoms across what is now England, slowly merging into one kingdom. 1066, Normans arrived. Then Plantagenets, which split into two warring sides. Tudors from 1485. In 1603, England and Scotland combined their thrones under the Stuarts (so 1603 makes sense as an end point). And if you want some in-depth history of England that is interesting to watch, hunt down some of Simon Schama's documentaries.

[@joshua.910]

Saw this video last night and wondered how long it would take you to find it😂

[@sbjchef]

normans arrived 600 years after the romans left

[@MrNathanDJNGGiles]

the norman land or those that would become norman lands were part of the roman empire

[@Roz-y2d]

@@MrNathanDJNGGileswrong

[@sbjchef]

@@MrNathanDJNGGiles the romans were kicked out of what became france in 486ad and normandy was part of england until 1204

[@grantjohnston7972]

They did invade Italy at a point

[@ChrisPopham]

you should watch Time Team the old one with Tony Robinson (Boldrick from black adder)

[@adamcashin4021]

1603 is when the English and Scottish thrones united in personal union under the Scottish King James VI (and I of England). It marks the beginning of Britain as opposed to England, and the Stuart dynasty further marked the decline of the Kings authority, by the end of the Dynasty a century later the monarch was just a figure head. Thus the pre-1603 monarchs are comparable as absolute rulers of England, or at least wanna be absolute rulers, the post 1714 monarchs are constitutional monarchs of Britain; and in the middle you have a transition period which doesn't even compare well to its self.

[@leehallam9365]

Kennedy did inspiration and image well, and his reputation is largely based on what he might have achieved if he didn't get killed. Of course in reality he would have been blamed for Vietnam if he had lived.

[@andreathompson7896]

I didn't learn much about Kings and Queens at school. We all knew 1066 and the Battle of Hastings though I don't ever remember being taught it. It's almost as though it was just absorbed throughout childhood. I only took history until I was 14 years old (in English schools we were allow to drop subjects after 14 years old) but the history we covered before then were Romans, 2nd World War, and the industrial revolution. We had a compulsary humanities subject from 15-16 years old and covered Hitlers rise to power and the American civil War. I picked up what I know about history from 3 sources - Simon Schama TV series history of Britain, David Starkey's TV series - The Monarchy, and some historical fiction novels which told stories around the history from particular eras and brought characters to life. Makes it so much easier to remember things when a story is woven around them, these books were written by an American novelist Sharon Penman. I can also recommend Andrew Marr's two series The Making of Modern Britain and the History of Modern Britain. Explains how we went from a victorian class system, through two world wars and became as we are now.

[@Jrf-1884]

I went to see David Mitchell doing a Q&A with Alan Davies to promote his book a couple of weeks ago. But that was fairly lighthearted and didn't go into much detail. I learnt a lot more by watching this video.

[@lynseyh8876]

Stag night is the night before a wedding for men , hens night is for a bride and her friends

[@leehallam9365]

Dan has a bit of an obsession with Elizabeth I and her penny pinching over the sailors wages, it has come up in other videos, one bad decision in four decades shouldnt be the decider on her record. David is half right, she was very cautious, she had very little money to play with and no natural allies. She achieved the stability that David rightly says was vital, and though not having an heir prevented war with Scotland as James waited his turn, that led to the uniting of the crowns and another generation of stability until Charles proved a fool. She created the religious compromise of the Church of England, its hard to see what more she could have done to prevent the discord of the 17th century. She kept Spain busy in the Netherlands and her privateers kept them busy at sea. She was very effective with the very dodgy situation.

[@jeanniewarken5822]

Henry VIII created the British Navy, during a review of the fleet (of over 1000 ships) at Portsmouth(my home town which is still today the main home of the Royal Navy) The Mary Rose sank.. and its remains are on display in the wonderful Mary Rose museum.

[@williambranch4283]

One little thing changes all of history. Thanks to royal descent from the 1500s, an event 500 years before those, changes everything. Hastings. I am descended from both Harold and William, and without that lucky arrow ... I wouldn't be commenting on this video.

[@squirepraggerstope3591]

Vikings in Roman Britain? No, the viking age still lay several centuries in the future BUT In later Roman times there were early contacts between Roman Britannia and the earlier Germanic group of peoples who eventually did become invaders of these islands. Namely the Jutes/Angles/Saxons/Frisians who collectively became the English. As early as the reign of Constantine I, a senior military officer was designated as "Count of the Saxon Shore" to deal with their incursions.

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

Absolutely wonderful. I love these two. This was so very entertaining, and I particularly enjoyed all the subversive asides. I enjoyed your enthusiasm too, Connor. David Mitchell was right when he said that the easiest way to learn English history is to hang it on the thread of its successive monarchs. His book 'Unruly' (great name) therefore deals with the Kings and Queens of what was specifically England, from the reign of Aestelstan to that of Elizabeth I. After her death, the English Crown merged with that of Scotland in 1603.....therefore no longer just England. In the 1950s we were still taught a lot about pre-Norman Conquest Kings, largely from Victorian very jingoistic history books, but thereafter, our history was often given the starting point of 1066. Normans, Angevins, Plantagenets, Lancastrians, Yorkists, Tudors.....all refer to dynasties of English monarchs. Merovingians and Carolingians refer to the great Frankish Empire in Europe, which was dominant for centuries after the collapse of the Roman Empire. You will have heard of Charlemagne (Charles the Great), its evangelising warrior Emperor. Get a list of the kings, Connor, and check out two or three at a time in order. You can build up from there. Once you have this linear frame in place, you can just add new detail on to the right period. Best wishes from UK. 🤩🇬🇧🤗

[@trailerman2]

Great video, thoroughly enjoyed that. :-)

[@leehallam9365]

I think Alfred can be said to have kicked off the creation of a united England, it was a three king process, Alfred, Edward the Elder and Athelstan.

[@danielferguson3784]

Edward the Confessor didn't call himself that. It came only after his death. The Celts were a group of peoples, with their own language, who lived on the Atlantic coastal area of Europe, from the Iberian peninsula, through western France, into Cornwall, Wales, Ireland, into Scotland. They were mixed with, & have been wrongly equated with, the Gauls, also variously Gaels, Gallic, later becoming the Welsh etc. All of Britain was NOT celtic or Gallic. The east, including most of what became England, was inhabited by peoples related across the English Channel & North Sea, so Belgic, germanic & Scandinavian, so likely spoke a proto- germanic tongue. The Picts were not mentioned until the late 3rd & early 4th century, as causing trouble in the north. The Scots are not talked of until the late Roman period, as raiders from Ireland, & some were recruited into the Roman army & posted elsewhere in Europe. A group of Scots spread into western Caledonia, which afterwards became Scotland. At the same period various groups crossed from northern Europe, mostly from what is now Denmark, the Angles & Saxons & Jutes. These came to dominate the Britons, eventually creating several 'kingdoms' , though some British 'kingdoms' remained. By the early 6th century, with conversion to Christianity, their Kings gained a sort of legitimacy. Then began a power struggle by the rulers of these Kingdoms, until Wessex came to dominate. The 'viking' attacks, from the 8th century, by further Danes, caused Wessex to organise, to eventually become the basis for expansion to the whole of England, & as a single Realm. Further struggles with the Norse, or Northmen, ended with English victory in the later 9th century. Then in 1066, after defeating a Norse army near York, King Harold went south, only to be beaten, & killed, at Hastings, by the Norman-French army of Duke William. Who became King William the Conqueror.

[@stephanstreet2160]

Yes “Made old bones” just means long lived.

[@revbenf6870]

The Norman's didn't exist during Rome's rule; they were descended from a Viking warlord in c 900ad who moved south and conquered Normandy. Fast forward 150 years or so and you have William the Bastard/Conquerer.

[@michael_177]

Oh, so he's literally Mark Corrigan IRL, too 😂

[@paulbromley6687]

Stag night is a bachelor party

[@eruantien9932]

Roman and post-Roman Britain was raided by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes; these groups then conquered much of Britain, and were subsequently raided and partly conquered by viking Scandinavians, and then fully conquered by the Normans (who were formerly vikings themselves).

[@jonochristian2256]

hi the romans at the end of there ocupation had to deal with saxon raids hence the saxon shore forts

[@vaudevillian7]

The rise of the importance of Parliament happens roughly around 1603, and the monarch becomes less and less important as he says; and with 1603 you also get James I of England and the Union of the Crowns. It’s a very convenient cut off to make Elizabeth I / Tudors the end point.

[@0x2A_]

I picked up his book a few days ago, it's been a very good read so far!

[@MrBulky992]

No, it was not Longshanks: they were talking about Edward III. Edward I did not make the grade.

[@MrBulky992]

In my opinion, the first king of England could only exist if there were no other rulers calling themselves "king" in the territory we now call England. So if there was more than one king of any of the following then there could be no king of all England: Cornwall, Mercia, East Anglia, Northumbria, Wessex, Wicca, Bernicia, Deira/York, Kent, Sussex, Essex, Surrey, etc. The first king who fits those criteria was Aethelstan of Wessex - he was the only king in 927 in what we now call England so, for me, he was the first king of England (and he thought he was too as he styled himsrlf "King of tge English"). He was also overlord of the Scots and Welsh but they still had their own kings. After his death, there were more viking raids and it took another thirty years to get rid of them but no one was in any doubt that it was a single indivisible kingdom with one king. King Edgar the Peaceful was crowned as king of England in 973, putting the final seal on the process which had happened in the decades leading up. [I exclude Cornwall south-west of the Tamar and also Cumbria, part of tge Kingdom of Strathclyde, because it did not become part of England for another couple of centuries whilst the neighbouring province of Northumbria stretched right up beyond Edinburgh and up to the Firth of Forth. If we kept strictly to modern borders, the first king would be Edward VI in 1552!]

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

I totally agree. Aethelstan was the first King of England.

[@austinfallen]

Stag night in uk is a bachelor party in the US

[@michaelcrowhurst3722]

1603 was when the union of the crowns of Scotland and England took place. There are therefore no monarchs of England after this.

[@informedchoice2249]

I haven't seen this, thanks.

[@GoldenKaos]

1603 is when Elizabeth I dies and the Tudor dynasty comes to an end. After that, the Stuart dynasty hold the throne, who were already the ruling dynasty of Scotland. So, James VI of Scotland, who had already reigned in Scotland for 36 years by that point, was crowned as James I of England, and there doesn't exist such a thing as an "English" monarch from that point on, as the monarch would be the sovereign of the mutually independent and separate countries of England and Scotland in a "personal union" until the Acts of Union in 1707 joined them as political entities and Queen Anne became the first "British" monarch. But the Stuart dynasty is also when the monarch loses a lot of their poltical power and Parliament and the House of Commons gains a lot more sway in the running of the country, especially after the English Civil War and the resulting execution of Charles I, James VI/I's son.

[@carolinekofahl8867]

You really need to draw a time line ☺ A simple line with year belove and above you write e.g. name of kings, or who conquered what area. With a few time lines you will remember more easily 🤭 They are not necessarily very intelligent because they know a lot 🤔 Could just be hard work

[@tonybaker55]

The vikings came about 500 years after the Romans left. Saxons were making raids during Roman times, as they saw the weakening state of Britain. Normans were Vikings that settled in Normandy after they raided Paris and were granted lands in return for not attacking Paris. Normans turned up in Britain about 200 years after the first Viking raids. Picts occupied NE Scotland, whereas Celts were on the western side, in Ireland, Wales and Briton and Brittany. No Gauls in Briton as far as I am aware.

[@valeriedavidson2785]

Stag night is the night out before the man gets married.

[@paulbromley6687]

Dan’s dad was a presenter broadcaster news reader Jon snow who during elections throughout my life had his predictor swingometer showing which way the voting public were swaying during the campaign period and on the night of the count of votes exit polls etc

[@patrickcooper7869]

For Jon,read Peter 😀

[@adamcashin4021]

You know nothing Jon Snow

[@Otacatapetl]

@@patrickcooper7869 Yeah, Jon's his brother.

[@paulbromley6687]

Interesting fact Chatsworth house is a large stately home about fifteen minutes drive from my house the family seat of the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire who still live there to this day. They had a JFK family connection back in the middle of the twentieth century JFKs sister was married in to the family and is buried there the Kennedys have all visited occasionally privately over the years. Just thought you would be interested.

[@leehallam9365]

The ethnic groups of British history. There were Gaelic celts in Ireland and Brythonic celts on Great Britain, sometimes called Britons. They were destict from one another and seem to have arrived seperately. The Picts were the people of what is now northern Scotland, they were probably bythonic speakers, so like the Welsh, but we don't know, they are a mystery. The Scots were Gaelic celts who invaded from Ireland around the same times as the Anglo Saxons arrived. The Angles were from modern Schleswig-Holstein, and traditionally dominated in Northern and central England and SE Scotland. The Saxons were from a little south of there and dominate southern England. The Jutes were from mainland Denmark, but were not Danes (who came there from Scandinavia). One theory is the Jutes had already migrated to northern Netherlands, which would explain why they were first in, and dominated Hampshire and Kent. The Gauls were the celtic people of France, till the Germanic Franks arrived. The celtic people of Brittany though are the result of migrating Britons, fleeing the Saxon invasion. The vikings were not a problem for the Romans, but the Saxons were, doing much the same thing. That is why they built costal forts like Porchester, they called it the Saxon Shore.

[@Cameron_RS]

Longshanks was Edward I

[@construct3]

"My, my wet dream of a video to watch. [cringe, twitch] Didn't mean to get gross." Well, that ejaculation was startling. I don't think I've heard anyone say that since, what, eighth grade? Anyway, the video/reaction progressed by fits and starts, a little jumpy, but I got the idea. Good job. I've been obsessed with the Anglo-Saxon period, too. He's right that it's very confusing. I find the names and kinship among Wessex royalty hard to keep straight. And I could definitely use a series of maps showing the state of affairs--geography, boundary changes, important towns and places--during the reign of each successive king. I guess there's no skating by without some sort of organized exploring, making notes, and just sitting still and learning it, is there? I have such a hard time with that.

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

There's no other way.😕

[@debbywillan5165]

Henry 2nd was awesome.

[@binkieinkisham2519]

Charles the II for me, beought stability to the country and loved fun

[@robertcreighton4635]

David is probably my favourite English comedian 🤣

[@vloghogdj]

made old bones means lived a long time/old age

[@austinlondon3710]

Connar, in 1603, King James VI of Scotland, became King James I of England, following the death of Queen Elizabeth I of England. This event united the thrones of Scotland and England under a single monarch, together with Ireland, simultaneously. As part of his accession to the English throne, Parliament in London took away much of his powers. So he could not rule as a near absolute monarch. As Queen Elizabeth I of England his predecessor had. This was the beginnings of the subsequent ‘dilution’ of the powers of the monarchy in Britain. Which was dramatically marked by the two English Civil Wars of 1642 to 1651. Which resulted in his son, King Charles I, being executed by Parliament on 30th January 1649, charged with treason. The parliamentarian High Court of Justice found him guilty of treason for, attempting to “uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people”. Powers were further taken away from the monarch, when King Charles I son, King James II, tried to overthrow the Protestant settlement of the Church of England, and convert Britain to Roman Catholicism. This would have taken the country to Civil War again, so Parliament forces him from the thrown, and he fled to France where he later died there. From this point forwards, Kings and Queens, were not Crowned to ‘rule’ in Britain, they were Crowned to ‘serve’. This is why during the Coronation of King Charles II, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, elicited two things: 1. A public declaration of an oath pertaining to the Protestant Succession to the Thrown, and the Protestant settlement of the Church of England, as the established official church in Law. 2. The declaration by himself and the High Bishops of the Protestant Churches of Scotland, Wales, England, and Northern Ireland that, “We are here to Crown a King, and we Crown a King to SERVE. What is given this day, is for the benefit of all”. From 1603 onward, marked the end of the power of the British monarch, “uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people”. The whole sale transfer of powers from the monarch to Parliament, when Parliament required every new monarch (King or Queen) to hand over to Parliament their ‘Hereditary Rights of Rule’, in exchange for a ‘Grant of Maintenance’: - that is, the monarchs ‘hereditary Rights, to raise Taxes and rents from the population, and spend the money as they please. This means the monarch does not have to funds the cost of running the country and government. This is also termed ‘The Crown Estate’. Parliament raises Taxes, and determines how those Taxes will be spent, by the election of political representative of the people, formed into political parties of government. This also shifted blame for bad policy, taxation, and spending, from the monarch, to the Government. King Charles III signed over these ‘Hereditary Rights of Rule’, to Parliament, in his Accession Ceremony. This was on 10th September 2022. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

[@paulbromley6687]

Section 8 , Platoon= 20- 50 company=120- 200, Battalion = 600-800, Regiment 1600, Brigade 3000-4000, Division 10,000-15,000

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

Big thank you for this. Really good to know. 🤩

[@TheWalrusWasPaul23]

I haven’t finished the video yet, so I don’t know if you got it in the end, but he stopped the book in 1603 because after that it stopped being King’s and Queen’s of just England because other nations came under their rule too (David mentions Scotland here).

[@stewartmackay]

Actually the Scottish king, King James, took over the English throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth I. For the first time, the separate countries of Scotland and England had the same monarch.

[@paulbromley6687]

First overlord of all England was King Ecgbert

[@xKynOx]

Just like how you get different groups of native americans. Pict's are just natives that spoke and wrote in pictish, celts spoke and wrote celtish,

[@johnp8131]

When it comes to Roman Britain, most incursions came from Ireland and what became Scotland. The Angles and Saxons etc....came later but......take a look at where 'most' of the Vikings came from that attacked Southern Britain a couple of hundred years later. So perhaps the question should be, were the Saxons and others related to the Vikings?

[@valeriedavidson2785]

Making old bones means living to a very old age.

[@claudiavictoria3929]

0:37 " ... bastards" my name is Connor if you're new LOL

[@paulkennedy6386]

Make-old-bones means living to an old age, and also the other way "he will never make old bones" might mean he is not long for this world. By the way men's hairstyles through the ages would be interesting ! You might qualify although hard to tell as you always have a hat and headphones (kidding)

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

Think this must be a southern expression.....? Never heard it used in northern England.

[@AndyRossism]

I'm on with the book now, just got past 1066.

[@0x2A_]

I just got to 1066 :)

[@gary.h.turner]

First night of honeymoon conversation... Bridegroom: Me and the lads had a great stalagmite! Bride: I bet it wasn't as good as my Hindu! 😂

[@CM-ey7nq]

If you don't pray enough, vikings happen. Thar's a good life rule I guess.

[@valeriedavidson2785]

The Norman's were Scandanavians, not French

[@davedrex01]

I agree with some of the previous comments - a real treat to see this conversation...and Connor, don't be so down on yourself, you're anything but "a monkey". Your vids are some of the most thoughtful.

[@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej]

Yep, and you choose by far the most varied and interesting subjects too. 🤩🇬🇧

[@jerryjudge2476]

Please. Love e the comments bu halve the number

[@MrBulky992]

I too like you, Connor, have had too much of the Tudors.

[@catwoman2582]

Old bones = lived to an old age

[@valeriedavidson2785]

I am English but I would say that Reagan was the best. JFK was not in office long.

[@Thisandthat8908]

knowing stuff especially in special history niches, isn't really the same as being intelligent. I guess it overlaps a bit.

[@nathan_hassen]

Just search the British empire, origin or better yet the British crusade or Britain ended slavery

[@johnallen5879]

Thanks Connor, loved your reaction 😊

[@Jessy-cs1jz]

Stag night = batcholar party Hen night = batcholret party

[@valeriedavidson2785]

Queen Elizabeth died in 1603.

[@grahamsangster1042]

Wish people would stop using the word agency for power

[@lukespooky]

he didn't

[@vaudevillian7]

They’re not the same thing and that’s not how he used it

[@lukespooky]

a hard watch

[@sbjchef]

Connor you have telegram scammers in your comments 😢

[@artrandy]

Another comedian whose comedy has run out of steam, now utilising his celebrity status to lecture the rest of us about history, which he's no more qualified to do than any other history graduate, of which there are just too many in this country. It used to be that comedians went on until the end, but since the arrival of the C21st, they simply can't transfer onto the 'famous for being famous' circuit of panel shows quickly enough. Expect his book to be commissioned by the BBC for a tv series, as this video looks like it might be a foundation stone to a more comfortable and cosy career selling history, rather than appearing on stage to make people laugh, with all the inherent stress of potential public failure that entails. And he and his wife, who's already following a divergent course to her so called comedy, have the right (sorry left), political credentials to please the Beeb.........

[@vaudevillian7]

Why would he appear on stage when he’s never been a stand up

[@artrandy]

@@vaudevillian7 My comment never mentioned stand up buddy. And if you had one ounce of gumption (sorry, Im pre decimal), you could have Googled David Mitchell starring in Ben Elton's comedy 'The Upstart Crow" at the Apollo, as it "returns to the West End stage". Please stop wasting my time, and do your own research...😀... edit sp: ounce

[@grantjohnston7972]

Is there something wrong with loving history? He wrote a book and he's promoting it. I think he's funny and I love the history of the monarchy. I'd love to hear his take

[@artrandy]

@@grantjohnston7972 So glad you're so easily satisfied. I love history too, but Im only interested in being lectured about it by people qualified to do so, which is not every elitist whose been to uni, and thinks there could be a good career move in it now his celeb status gives him elevated attention..........

[@artrandy]

@@grantjohnston7972 Glad you're so easily pleased..........