Not English but one of the most dramatic, real life Cinderella stories in history is Catherine I of Russia. She was born a peasant in Prussia, was captured in war and sent to Russia to be a domestic worker, became the mistress of the czar, married him in secret, became his official queen and then inherited his title and ruled Russia after his death.
@ayefuh5 ай бұрын
i’d love a feature video on her!!
@tapeshsharma92545 ай бұрын
for a sec i thought you were talking about Catherine the Great and was flabbergasted as you mentioned her as peasant
@billcipherproductions17895 ай бұрын
Yeah. She may have come from humble origins as in terms of aristocracy from her father's side, but her mother was from the House of Holsten-Gottorp@@tapeshsharma9254
@tinabraxton49065 ай бұрын
Which czar did she marry?
@user-qk5mm1yw7y5 ай бұрын
@@tinabraxton4906 Peter the great of Russia, Catherine was probably of Polish descent
@uchiwasasuke81695 ай бұрын
if only charles married camila first , diana would have been still alive and happy...both the parties would have been happy instead of going through all that trauma.
@andreeagaita87804 ай бұрын
Unfortunately, Camila was not seen as a good option for the royal family due to the virginity question and other issues. Diana was perfect from every angle, especially for Charles who thought would get a submissive wife. I agree with you , however I think it was destiny. This world needed Princess Diana and like all great women in history, she suffered. It is truly sad what happened to her
@CherokeeBird4 ай бұрын
Royal marriage isn't about happiness, but duty 😢
@clairemercer30994 ай бұрын
@@andreeagaita8780 Considering it was the 80's virginity shouldn't have been a qualification. I mean throughout history Kings have married women who clearly weren't virgins.
@Levacque4 ай бұрын
@clairemercer3099 the funny thing is that on occasion in history, they deliberately married women who were so far from virginity that they had children already, specifically choosing those women because they had proven their fertility. Doesn't make it any better at all, but it certainly adds to the tapestry of hypocrisy.
@user-fm5jk8gc9n4 ай бұрын
@@andreeagaita8780 without Diana, we would not have William and also Camila would not have Tom and Laura
@danielsantiagourtado34305 ай бұрын
My favorite has to be Elizabeth Woodville. She survived the wars of the roses and while she lost her precious boys she managed to make her daughter Elizabeth Queen of England by marriage to henry VII to help the Tudor dynasty and her blood remains on the family to this day! Bravo! 👸👸👸👸
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
Same!
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
Her son Richard Grey (from her 1st marriage) was also executed by Richard III.
@FireCat345 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville was 1st Queen consort of England born in England since Edith of Wessex the wife of Edward the Confessor the last Anglo Saxons King of England.
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
@@FireCat34 You are correct about the queens but incorrect about the king. King Harold Godwinson was the last Anglo-Saxon king.
@FireCat345 ай бұрын
@@LJB103 True Harold was King but not for long his reign few months and his reign was high disputed I called Edward the Confessor the last Anglo Saxons King because was the last undisputed Anglo Saxons King
@mrsbluesky84155 ай бұрын
Charles unfortunately felt he had to do what the family wanted. Remember at that time Diana had to be examined by a dr to verify she was a virgin ! That’s how antiquated they were. I was horrified for her. She was in love, he wasn’t, and he made her very unhappy. Rest in peace Princess ❤
@olgicamiljkovic61135 ай бұрын
Dijana kraljica❤❤❤❤❤
@umitencho5 ай бұрын
She was from a family that caused the rf grief for generations, of course they blocked her.
@olgicamiljkovic61135 ай бұрын
Aktuelni kralj najružniji kraljevski par u istoriji Sramota
@Lostinamomentillnevergetback5 ай бұрын
A person being only good for incubators for kings is a discovery of the culture that has made children possessions and their families subject to scrutiny even when you leave…
@shramanadasdutta30065 ай бұрын
I am too young to have seen things unfold first hand. But from what i understand, Charles the person had made it verry clear that he wasnt into Diana. But the system forced him into it. Charles should have been allowed to marry who he loved. Who cares if she is divorced or ugly. Those are not criterion of love for godsakes. And while Diana was lovely, her never being the Princess off Wakes could have spares the family so much scandal and herself so much unhappiness if not also her life.
@avaglennon98735 ай бұрын
Katherine Howard is my favorite of Henry VIII's wives. She truly deserved so much better. She was just a teenager manipulated and hurt by so many powerful men.
@TheRealJaneSeymour5 ай бұрын
I agree. Katherine is amazing
@AisteOsinskyte5 ай бұрын
All Henry VIII wives deserved so much better, except maybe Anne of Cleves, who got to be rich and independent.
@autumnnash23445 ай бұрын
I’m 100% behind the theory that Kitty was coerced into the affair with Culpepper. The men in her life played on her love and wanted to try and make sure she got pregnant somehow since everyone knew Henry was impotent
@cindchan4 ай бұрын
I feel the same! She was used again and again.
@kerimarthaanderson28594 ай бұрын
@@AisteOsinskyte except for Anne boleyn
@justinmager79845 ай бұрын
If we are counting Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon as aristocratic, Anne neville and Katherine Howard should be counted as nobles as well one was a male line granddaughter of a duke and the other was the daughter of an earl
@williethomas51164 ай бұрын
Especially Anne Boleyn who was both. Daughter of a double Earl (Ormond and Wiltshire) and granddaughter of a Duke.
@SwimmerPrince3 ай бұрын
Anne Boleyn was born 'technically' a commoner, her father Thomas was elevated to peerage after Henry became enamored with Anne
@williethomas51163 ай бұрын
@@SwimmerPrince True but he would have inherited his grandfather's Earldom Ormond (Which was later returned to him)had it not been a York king in the throne at the time. He was a big backer of Henry VII. I believe he was his standard bearer at Bosworth.
@ruyfernandez5 ай бұрын
I would not call Catherine Howard a commonner. She might not be the daughter of a peer, but she was still the niece of a duke, and a member of the ancient and noble Howard dynasty.
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
But her father still had no title. So, commoner.
@ruyfernandez5 ай бұрын
@@blahblahblahblah729 her father was no peer, but still a lord by title.
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
@@ruyfernandez Didn't matter. If either her father or mother was not a ruler, she was a commoner to the royals.
@simplystreeptacular5 ай бұрын
@@ruyfernandez Doesn't matter. It was a courtesy title and doesn't count. In England, unless you held a title *in your own right,* you were a commoner.
@EllieDaisy4 ай бұрын
And don’t forget her connections to the previous Queen Anne 😅 x
@anubratabit30275 ай бұрын
None the queens mentioned here can be called commoners. This term is meant only for the peasants who didn't had any luxury of having a family coat of arms. All of the queens listed here came from the lower ranks of aristocracy, which isn't enough to classify them as commoner. A marriage of an aristocrat with a true commoner would have been considered as a morgnactic marriage in medieval era.
@yuisakamaki97105 ай бұрын
What I'm saying. Still very interesting video tho.
@jshipp54695 ай бұрын
Camilla could be considered a commoner given her great mother was a mistress of Edward vii and was basically exiled from the royal court after his death.
@skaisnotdead5 ай бұрын
They're not royal or ruling class, so at many points in history considered "common" even if most of them were still born wealthy or even to minor nobility.
@bbybella99375 ай бұрын
Esp the Queen mother? She was the daughter of an Earl.
@bbybella99375 ай бұрын
@@skaisnotdeadSure but that’s only technically. Most of these women’s fathers were peers of England or even their grandparents. They aren’t common.
@caitlinmarie82614 ай бұрын
I like the way you framed Catherine Howards story. I've watched many Tudor documentaries and they never show enough sympathy for her. She was taken advantage of and abused by most of the men in her life. She was so young and has such a tragic tale.
@ray1018925 ай бұрын
Elizabeth woodville's background is being scrutinized more because the yorkists won. Her mom Jacquetta was married to Henry V's brother so she was Henry VI's aunt and her sister is married to Margaret of Anjou's uncle so she had close connections to both the Lancastrian King and queen of England. The sticking point is her second husband who is ranked lower. The Woodvilles are somewhat similar to the Tudors. The female matriarch had the name and prestige (catherine of valois, margaret beaufort and jacquetta) and their Tudor husbands and Richard Woodville were somewhat ranked lower than them. The fate scripwriters were on point when the Woodvilles and Tudors agreed to unite and take down Richard III.
@danielsantiagourtado34305 ай бұрын
I just love getting the historical "tea" from you lindsay. The ammount of information you manage to convey is AMAZING! Your story telling skills are incredible. British history always seems so much more interesting than ANY other!. Keep the tea flowing. I'm here for it.
@andreamiles93255 ай бұрын
You've picked a common misconception about Henry VIII's break from Ronme. It was nothing to with Protestantism, he just refused to see the Pope as head of the church and made himself head of the Catholic church in England.
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
Right. It was his son, Edward VI, who took England Protestant.
@LisaSchnettler4 ай бұрын
There's a few thousand monks who would care to differ.
@HR-nl7fc3 ай бұрын
His main argument with Rome was the denial of an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Prior to that, he was a religious Catholic.
@r3ptil3srcool5 ай бұрын
I read the title as “Common Queers of England” and got so excited lmao
@emilybarclay88315 ай бұрын
Oh man, Lindsay made a video on me?? 😂😂
@Andytlp5 ай бұрын
Read it as Cum on Queens of England. Granted i just woke up with a morning wood and im half asleep still. Nowhere near as a big slip up as news anchors saying something like big juicy cock instead of chicken.
@hunniboop15 ай бұрын
Justice for Princess Dianna 👑
@cloudburstlia4564 ай бұрын
I would argue Camila is not more popular at all but Charles has done a great job keeping her name out of the press negatively and instead throws his sons and their wives to the wolves.
@HR-nl7fc3 ай бұрын
Disagree about Charles throwing his sons and their spouses to the wolves. William and Catherine appear to be (deservedly) very much in favor. The Sussexes ran head first into the den of wolves. Their problems have been, unquestionably, self-inflicted..
@danielsantiagourtado34305 ай бұрын
Just by seeing the title already i'm excited! Your english history videos are My favorites lindsay! Im a proud anglophile and a HUGE fan of yours❤❤❤❤❤❤
@joannabaparileszczynska5 ай бұрын
I always found it funny that a marriage could be called void if the couple actually never did the deed. Even if a priest blessed them, no sex= no marriage 😂
@andreamiles93255 ай бұрын
Still the case in some countries.
@emilybarclay88315 ай бұрын
@@andreamiles9325in fact, it’s the case in almost all countries. You can get an annulment today provided the marriage hasn’t been consummated and hasn’t lasted more than a certain amount of time
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
@@andreamiles9325 true! Here you can annul unconsumated marriages.
@jackiegillyard7585 ай бұрын
Its still the case if the marriage is never consummated it can be annulled
@GizmoOnyett4 ай бұрын
Proving weaving families together is far more important to the human psyche than any religious ceremonial frippery.
@tabithatrimm-hooson45854 ай бұрын
I feel so much for the Charles, Camilla, Diana circle. Privileged aside no one deserves to be in such a situation. Let people marry who they love.
@iTsEfFiNsTePhh5 ай бұрын
Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard, and Jane Seymour definitely were NOT commoners (that's a common misconception especially with Anne- i'm pretty sure most of the other women on this list weren't either but my main area of expertise is in the Tudor period)- commoner implies that they had no royal ties and came from humble/poor beginnings but that couldn't be further from the truth (to even be a guest at court you had to have royal ties and/or wealth and be on good terms or at least not bad terms with the monarch(s) and have some connection to someone there plus keep in mind that the monarchs during that time period spent almost of their time at court or other properties (the rare times they didn't was battle) were actual commoners other then those working for them wouldn't even be around it's not like the movies where royals are going around average every day people they were only surrounded by other royals and/or the rich and powerful in their palaces so of course they're only going to interact with those types of people not unless it's a fluke meeting like Elizabeth Woodville but that's the exception not the rule). Catherine Howard came from the old well known powerful Howard family on top of being a cousin to Anne Boleyn, Anne Boleyn had ties to the Howard family through her mother's side (her uncle her mother's brother was Thomas Howard 3rd Duke of Norfolk) and her father's side could be seen as commoner but not recently generations back her ancestors amassed great wealth and her father was trusted by Henry VIII and the court in general long before Anne was on the scene (the fact that he married a Howard speaks volumes about that), and Jane Seymour was a descendant from a king was related to Henry VIII and to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard. Almost everyone back then during that time was related in one way or the other so it's very easy to debunk. The only outlier would be Catherine Howard because of her horrible upbringing nothing like the standard royal but even then she was still related to royalty. Them being a commoner or not sadly isn't the issue but the fact that they had the great misfortune of marrying that evil POS Henry VIII 😕 I'm really passionate about the Tudor period so couldn't help myself 🤣
@simplystreeptacular5 ай бұрын
That actually doesn't matter a whit. Under English law, if you don't hold a title *in your own right* (i.e. not by courtesy through marriage or a parent), you are a commoner. All of these women were of aristocratic blood, but they weren't titled.
@StevvieD5 ай бұрын
@@simplystreeptacularAnd not Cinderellas either 🤷
@TerriKnight-x3s4 ай бұрын
Same here
@octavianpopescu47764 ай бұрын
@@simplystreeptacular Thanks for explaining. I didn't know that. I was wondering how would the niece of a duke be considered a commoner.
@Dunsapie4 ай бұрын
@@octavianpopescu4776 Even a duke is a commoner, as anyone who is not of the royal family is regarded as a commoner.
@XFD420695 ай бұрын
Last time I was this early Anne Boleyn still had her head.
@TheRealJaneSeymour5 ай бұрын
Don't lose your head!
@ezekielbertrand8095 ай бұрын
@@TheRealJaneSeymourGrew up in the French court…
@TheatreNutMeggie5 ай бұрын
@@ezekielbertrand809 oui oui, bonjour
@TheRealJaneSeymour4 ай бұрын
@TheatreNutMeggie life was a chore so (she set sail)
@ezekielbertrand8094 ай бұрын
@@TheRealJaneSeymour 1522 went straight to the UK
@jaclinecarter3684 ай бұрын
While they have no royal titles of any sort, I would still say they are more then commoners because they had enough money and reputation to have connections to get into the eye sight of a royal. I would say a commoner would be more along the lines of Edward's wife Sophie. She didn't come from any kind of money and worked her way through life. If Edward didn't have an interest in television and film, those 2 never would have met by any chance. Now THAT is a Cinderella story of finding your prince charming. Lol
@bbybella99374 ай бұрын
Thank you. Most of these women had fathers or grandfathers who were peers and peers aren’t commoners.
@livingincaptivityIIIАй бұрын
Sophie descends from King Henry IV of England and is related to the family of the Viscounts Molesworth through her grandmother, Margaret Patricia Rhys-Jones (née Molesworth; 1904-1985), who was the great-granddaughter of the Rev. John Molesworth, himself the father of Sir Guilford Molesworth and a great-grandson of Robert Molesworth, 1st Viscount Molesworth.
@shirleytrenche78525 ай бұрын
Queen Camilla has grown on me and I’m a big Princess Diana fan. The fact she is supporting King Charles during his cancer diagnosis and taking up his responsibilities shows her dedication. 😅
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
So, she is doing the bare minimum? Like, doing the events is her obligation. Literally her job. What else would she do with Charles? Give him the middle finger? Ppl's standards for royals are so low omg
@shirleytrenche78525 ай бұрын
@@blahblahblahblah729 she is taking on his outings on top of hers.
@olgicamiljkovic61135 ай бұрын
Camila je rezorila dve porodice Veštica
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
@@shirleytrenche7852 Yeah, because she's a conselour of state. It is her job, along with 6 other people, to do the kings duties and events when the king is unable to
@Faceon67905 ай бұрын
Eww a big no to housewreckers. She will be always shamed even if she saved the world! Period !
@meitalt33014 ай бұрын
50% were all married to the same guy 😂 ohh henry
@alexanderturner72745 ай бұрын
Jacquetta of Luxembourg wasn’t the daughter of the duke of Luxembourg, she was the daughter of Peter I de Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol. They are called “of Luxembourg” because they were members of a distant branch of the House of Luxembourg which originated in Luxembourg but went on to rule Bohemia, the HRE, Hungary and many other states.
@alexrafe25905 ай бұрын
Edward IV belonged to the upper nobility before he became king. His father was Duke of York and Edward was directly descended from Edward III.
@YaaaaanSapnu5 ай бұрын
Can't wait for Catherine, Princess of Wales' time as a Queen Consort.
@esta86515 ай бұрын
Oh, is she a friend of yours?
@Creolista5 ай бұрын
@@esta8651because we the people are ready to move past looking at the atrocity of who we have to call “queen” consort ….we’ve suffered enough
@ChiNguyenHaiHa5 ай бұрын
@@esta8651 Why that question? Catherine really acts like a true Queen, any speeches she gives are straight-to-the-point and very interesting to listen to, children seem to love her, which indicate so much for children have this sense to recognise good people. I understand why people like her very much, considering the other daughter-in-law of the King is Meghan Markle...
@olgicamiljkovic61135 ай бұрын
Kamila zmija
@wmverk5 ай бұрын
I can wait. She's boring as heck. Even with all the conspiracies. ;P
@redessa015 ай бұрын
I've never even thought about Prince William's children's future spouses before. But now that I have, I feel strongly that William and Catherine will do a wonderful job of... not vetting exactly... but making sure any prospective spouse (especially Prince George's) fully understands the expectations of royal life and feels prepared to take on that role.
@anitagorse92044 ай бұрын
Only Prince Georges bride will be under scrutiny and pressure. Other two can marry whomever they want....khm, like Meghan Markle.
@glen73184 ай бұрын
@@anitagorse9204 I dont think htey want any more people like Markle even if she was marrying the 12th son.
@ofeliasantoshistory4 ай бұрын
Idk what the algorithm did but I haven’t seen your videos on my feed in a while. I love your content so much. ❤️❤️❤️❤️
@katsmith33695 ай бұрын
Queen Mathilde of Belgium was not born a commoner. Her father was a Belgian count (and her mother hailes from Polish aristocracy).
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
But they didn't rule anything (= commoner in royal eyes).
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
On your family tree, the photo of Queen Victoria's "gay wife" Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz bears a striking resemblance to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha.
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
Charlotte of Mecklenburg- Strelitz was Victoria's grandmother
@LJB1034 ай бұрын
@@pedanticradiator1491 I'm not the only one who commented on the flub.
@ShannonStevens-gl7le5 ай бұрын
I've always had a soft spot for camilla, the heart wants what it wants, and she was vilified for gaining the love of and loving the wrong man.
@joannabaparileszczynska5 ай бұрын
I understand people disliking her but the true “villain” was whoever told Charles that she was not god enough. What a medieval way of thinking
@bluelasagna72235 ай бұрын
Tbh I feel like if Camila was also conventionally attractive like Diana, she wouldn't be hated as much. Also I feel like Charles+Camila love story is like a fairy tale - this man was loyal to her through everything and at the end made her his Queen. It's literally every classic Disney princess story.
@emilybarclay88315 ай бұрын
@@bluelasagna7223Charles had multiple other girlfriends and other mistresses during his marriage other than Camilla
@heikefrank49095 ай бұрын
There were probably two... The Queen mother and Lord Mountbatten! Ironically, the two persons, Charles adored very much😉😉
@akaLaBrujaRoja5 ай бұрын
@@bluelasagna7223nah, if he was loyal, he would’ve married her even if it cost him his title, like his great-uncle did. Instead, he marries a teenage girl he doesn’t love and gets her pregnant while cheating on her the whole time, all so he can keep the power, prestige, and riches from being the next king.
@rhodvalenciaga27433 ай бұрын
If the royal family allowed Charles to marry Camilla in the first place, none of the drama with Diana and the eventual tragedy could have taken place.
@suzyfarnham31652 ай бұрын
She had too many previous boyfriends. Britain was not ready for a Queen with a 'past'....look what they ended up with. ..................The Mistress
@livingincaptivityIIIАй бұрын
@@suzyfarnham3165 A loyal royal mistress, which is more than can be said for the disloyal former wife.
@emilybarclay883124 күн бұрын
@@livingincaptivityIIIplease explain how she was loyal when she was married to another man while she was knobbing Charlie?
@kaloarepo2884 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville actually had a lot of noble and royal blood in her veins -mainly through her mother Jacquetta of Luxembourg -the house of Luxembourg was very royal and members of this house even attained the rank of Holy Roman emperors -the highest possible rank of European royalty. She was even descended from English kings via the Italian part of her ancestry (The Balzo) family who were descended from an exiled Englishman who took refuge in Italy.
@historyismyplayground18274 ай бұрын
I have never understood why Charles and Camilla were forced apart. The two of them and poor Deanna were made miserable because the Royal Crown insisted the bride had to be a virgin? How medieval…
@glen73184 ай бұрын
tehy were not forced apart. Camilla didn't want a royal marriage and her sexual past would have counted against her in the 70s.
@pedanticradiator1491Ай бұрын
Who was Deanna?
@DarkLadyJade4 ай бұрын
As for Anne if Cleves, Henry did NOT reject her because of her looks. Basically what happened is that when they first met she didn't recognize him as he was in disguise and no one told her he liked to do this. He flirted with her, some accounts say he kissed her, and she rebuffed him, not knowing he was the king. He was embarrassed and left and then she was told that the man she had rejected was actually the king. The king returned, dressed as a king but by then it was too late. She had wounded his ego. So in order to save face he said not so flattering things about her (but he never said she was ugly or looked like a horse!).
@antisocialal47994 ай бұрын
Wow, what a dick. Wouldn’t you want your wife to reject a stranger’s advances?
@JenInOz3 ай бұрын
About the time that then-Prince Frederik of Denmark met Mary, who is now his Queen, there was a movie calked The Prince & Me about an American university student who meets a fireign exchange student from Denmark and falls in love and it turns out he's the Danish prince (heir to the throne etc). The timing of the movie was interesting because Mary was constantly in the news here in Australia at the time!
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
Dorothea Jordan (Bland) never was married to William IV. While they had 10 children together, she was just his mistress. He married Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen only when the "heir to the throne" sweepstakes started after Princess Charlotte's death (same for Edward of Kent and Victoria of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha who won the contest). Also, when William married in 1818, his father was in his final mental breakdown and Prince George was Regent. The Royal Marriage Act of 1772 was prompted by the marriage of Henry, Duke of Cumberland (brother of George III) and not George's son(s). Queen Mary's father was not considered a royal as he was the product of a morganatic marriage, and she was not thought suitable for even the most minor German royal. Sorry, but you seem to be missing one important thing in this video: to the royals it didn't matter if you were an aristocrat or a laborer, you were a commoner (royals or commoners with nothing in between).
@StevvieD5 ай бұрын
Except the peerage. A title peer is not a commoner.
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
@@StevvieD They are to royals. If your family does/did not rule a country (of any size), you are a commoner regardless of any aristocratic titles.
@StevvieD5 ай бұрын
@@LJB103 that's not true. Where are you getting this info? I can tell you don't know
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
@@StevvieD 65+ years of reading almost nothing but history and biographies.
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
@@StevvieD Maybe you should also look at the fact that I'm pointing out that when it comes to marriage, royals do not give any more preference to an aristocrat than they do to what most people would consider a commoner. Claudine Rhedey de Kis-Rhede was a countess but a morganatic wife, Her great-granddaughter was not considered a royal able to marry into any German royal house. She married King George V instead.
@Floortile5 ай бұрын
It is so rude of many mainstream media outlets to refer to The Princess of Wales as “Kate Middleton”. If she had wanted to retain her maiden name, she would have done so - but she didn’t. The only conclusion one can draw is that this is a slight, because she was not of Royal - or upper class - birth.
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
A lot of other queens consort are called by their maiden name. Most of them are. It isn't just Kate. They all are, because their first names often repeat. Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon for instance. Calling her Elizabeth Windsor would just be confunsing, cuz there's two of them.
@ledam26545 ай бұрын
Lol.
@seafoxx7775 ай бұрын
I think it’s because they don’t give a fuck about the royal family… It’s not a slight because she isn’t Royal her self.
@gillianrimmer77334 ай бұрын
@@blahblahblahblah729, that's why she was known as ' Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother 'after her husband died. She was never called Bowes-Lyon, or Windsor after her marriage. She was the Duchess of York after her marriage until she became Queen. Which Queens, or Princesses of Wales were known by their maiden names after marriage?
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
Her name isn't Kate either
@ladyv56555 ай бұрын
Pretty much all of these women were from aristocratic families, even if they were lower level or aristocratic through only one parent. I think the first truly commoner queen will be the current Princess of Wales.
@StevvieD5 ай бұрын
Not exactly. Catherine is descended from the Olivia Lupton who in turn is descended from a noble house and this previous kinds of England. In fact every single royal spouse to ever marry into the family is a descendent of Edward III. Even Megan Markle. That would make for a much more interesting video!
@StevvieD5 ай бұрын
*thus previous Kings of England
@catazoe75355 ай бұрын
@@StevvieDthat's fascinating! could you explain how meghan markle is a descendant of Richard III please?
@ladyv56554 ай бұрын
@catazoe7535 , he said Edward III, not Richard III. If the Duchess of Sussex is a descendant of Richard III, then she would also be a descendant of Edward III. Richard had a son with his wife who died at age 10, but he also had 2 illegitimate children who wouldn't be eligible to inherit the throne. Not much is known about what happened to them after Richard's death. They could well have had children and if the Duchess is a descendant, it would probably be through her father. But a lot of Americans of English descent will find Edward III as an ancestor. I do, and I am most certainly not royal. He and his queen had 14 kids. Many kings had illegitimate children, too. Only the firstborn legitimate son was eligible to inherit the throne, so as the generations passed and he had more descendants who were not eligible for the throne, more and more of them married non-royals and fewer and fewer had royal titles. Eventually, many of these descendants had no idea they had royal ancestors. Face it, in the U.S., most Americans know little about their ancestors past their great grandparents, not even their names. Mostly they know things like, "They were from Italy", or "Grandma said that her Grandma was Cherokee.", but no evidence of specifics.
@charmainelamont20204 ай бұрын
There hasn't been a King or Queen of England for over 300 years and King Henry I of England married Princess Matilda of Scotland. Also, anyone not born within the royal family is considered a commoner, even if they are aristocracy.
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
If you hold a peerage in your own right you are not a Commoner
@Dunsapie4 ай бұрын
@@pedanticradiator1491 That's not so. The late Queen Mother was regarded as a commoner. Edward VIII had wanted to marry her, but because she was aa commoner she was not regarded as good enough to marry the heir to the throne, but was fine for a prince who was never expected to become King. If you didn't have royal blood you were regarded as a commoner.
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
@@Dunsapie yes the Queen Mother was a commoner but her father being an Earl wouldn't have been
@glen73184 ай бұрын
@@Dunsapie absolute nonsense. Edward did not wnat to marry the QM, and there would have been no problem iwht him marrying an Earls daughter if he had wanted to
@2000sBarbie5 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville was such a smart woman
@areiaaphrodite5 ай бұрын
Aka "Started from the Bottom, Now We're Here." 😅
@tae_5165 ай бұрын
😂😂😂
@thickymcchicky69875 ай бұрын
I didn’t know queen Victoria married her grand mother! Lol 19:04
@ImperialAtlantis5 ай бұрын
Might have just been a slip of the tongue but I just wanted to clarify: Diana's father was the Earl Spencer not the Earl OF Spencer. I don't actually know what the difference is but apparently there is one.
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
The only difference is in the name the earldom does not include the "of" as it is named for their family name not a place
@glen73184 ай бұрын
most Earldoms have Of... but lower ranks of the peerage dont.
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
@glen7318 some Scottish viscountcies use "of"
@MalaPalabra-zr6wg5 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Bowes Lyon was born into a noble family.
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
Yeah, she says it. Still commoner to royals. As they are their subjects
@MalaPalabra-zr6wg5 ай бұрын
@@blahblahblahblah729 with that logic Diana Spencer was another commoner
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
@@MalaPalabra-zr6wg She was.
@sharonharris97825 ай бұрын
@@MalaPalabra-zr6wgshe was a commoner. She wasn't royal.
@daphlynndnnn4 ай бұрын
@@sharonharris9782she was a daughter of an earl, so like the Queen Mother, noble.
@DakotaFord5925 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville was the daughter of a royal duchess.... I wouldn't necessarily call her common. Yes I know it was with Jacquetta of luxembourg's second husband but she was still a duchess, far from being "common" What this means is that she was an extended member of the Royal family.
@TheQueenVic4 ай бұрын
Can you do a video on royals with cancer? Including The King The Princess Of Wales Queen Mother George VI?
@glen73184 ай бұрын
no evidence that the qm had cancer.
@thaisgregorio27344 ай бұрын
Lindsay, please make a video detailing the wars of the roses!
@berkeleyfarm5 ай бұрын
Edward had actually married an Englishwoman before Elizabeth, which is what made his marriage to Elizabeth invalid. Eleanor Talbot was the daughter of a great family and much more similar in rank to her cousin Anne Neville although she was not the heiress that Anne was. It would have been a very suitable marriage for Edward as Earl of March. She would have also been a good "Unity Candidate" for queen as well; a number of her family were Lancastrians and her father "Old Talbot" was the most celebrated general of his era in the French wars and well-beloved nationwide. Although Warwick the Kingmaker may have objected, because Eleanor's mother and aunts were in a property dispute of grand scale with Warwick and his wife.
@emilybarclay88315 ай бұрын
Edward and Eleanor weren’t married, only engaged. And she had both married another man (with zero objections from anyone) and had also died by the time Edward’s sons were born.
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
@@emilybarclay8831 this
@berkeleyfarm5 ай бұрын
@@emilybarclay8831 Stillington said it was a marriage, but even an engagement that had not been properly broken ("Pre contract") would have counted. Eleanor was a widow when she met Edward. She entered a convent after he abandoned her and did not remarry. By her lights she would not have been free to do so. Eleanor was dead when Edward's sons were born but by the rules then in force Edward and Elizabeth would have needed to remarry and that was canonically impossible.
@SomePerson_Online4 ай бұрын
20:52 Everyone in that room looks like cousins 😭
@DarkLadyJade4 ай бұрын
Richard III did NOT consider marrying his niece. In fact he actually outright denied any intention of marrying her. We also don't know if he was behind the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower (but likely not). These are rumors first started by Tudor propagandists that persist to this day. The Princes in the Tower had already been declared illegitimate by the time Richard took the throne, and Richard himself didn't even have them declared illegitimate, there were a whole bunch of advisors/politicians/nobles who didn't like the Woodvilles, THEY had the princes declared illegitimate because of years long rumors of Edward IV marrying in secret before marrying Elizabeth Woodville. It's because of this that the princes were declared illegitimate. This declaration made Richard the ONLY remaining legitimate male heir and so the crown was given to him and he was declared King. But some Lancastrians were still secretly plotting against the Yorks, it's likely they who had something to do with the Princes in the Tower going missing, then after Richard was killed in battle they quickly blamed him for the princes' fate. Henry Tudor was a Lancastrian so having people scheming behind the scenes on his behalf and making Richard an easy scapegoat seems far more likely.
@emilybarclay88314 ай бұрын
Rumours that Richard killed the princes were all over England and Europe as a whole during Richard’s reign. It was not Tudor propaganda, it was the obvious truth. The Titulus Regius was commissioned and approved BY RICHARD. Do not lie. There was not a single source before the TR that suggested that Edward’s children were illegitimate. It’s funny that you ignore the fact that Henry was not intending to take the throne in 1483. It wasn’t until AFTER the prince’s disappearance and Richard’s usurpation that Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort began plotting to remove the usurper
@willhovell90195 ай бұрын
Woodville ambitions got in the way
@colleens110718 күн бұрын
Elizabeth Woodvilles grandpa was a Duke….i don’t know if you could really call her a commoner…
@leeirish14155 ай бұрын
I'm not sure if Prince Albert's name is suppose to be Charlotte's at 19:09????
@tackcolin66454 ай бұрын
Lol you are right!!
@Lion_Heart_334 ай бұрын
I love all these queens. I have always had a great fascination with Elizabeth Woodville and her daughter, Elizabeth Of York. I feel great compassion and empathy for Anne Boleyn, Katherine Howard and the other wives of Henry as well. Proud to be a commoner myself.
@oceantears3 ай бұрын
I love how 4 of them were king henry viii’s wives
@HR-nl7fc3 ай бұрын
I’ll bet they didn’t!
@sgillespie9644 ай бұрын
I think this may be an American point of view. None of these women would be considered commoners in England. A commoner queen would be if Nell Gywnn got crowned
@han94884 ай бұрын
right! upper class cannot equal commoner, doesn’t matter if they’re not titled. even Kate Middleton won’t be considered a commoner queen consort because she’s from the landed gentry
@Homerun1534 ай бұрын
I must correct those who say these ladies were not commoners. Within the British monarchy system any woman who marries into the RF IS a commoner if she is not already of royal blood (e.g. Katherine of Aragon was a Spanish princess). All the aristocratic titles in the world would not make you royal if neither parent had royal blood. Ergo, you are a commoner. Not a peasant, but still a commoner in the eyes of royalty.
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
In English law a commoner is someone who does not hold a peerage or a Royal title
@glen73184 ай бұрын
@@han9488 I dont think she is. She may have some connextions but she's from a business family
@han94884 ай бұрын
@@glen7318 yeah they are, this is directly from her father’s wiki page ‘Michael Francis Middleton was born in Leeds on 23 June 1949 into a wealthy family with connections to the landed gentry. He spent his early years in Moortown, Leeds.[1][2][3][4] Royal historian Robert Lacey describes the Middleton family as having aristocratic kinship, with Florence Kitson, Baroness Airedale (1868-1942) being Middleton's distant relative.[5] The Middleton family, including Michael's grandfather Richard Noël Middleton and his wife Olive, had played host to members of the British royal family in Leeds from the 1920s’ she went to a private prep school and partially boarded there, the fee for which would be now £22k per year, and then boarded at Marlborough College- one of the old ‘public’ schools, costing £47k per year. nobody who is normal or a ‘commoner’ goes to a £47k a year secondary school.
@piratesswoop7255 ай бұрын
28:25 Not quite true. The heir to the principality of Liechtenstein is married to Duchess Sophie of Bavaria, the heir to the grand duchy of Luxembourg is married to Countess Stephanie de Lannoy, and the King of the Belgians (whose heir is currently unmarried) is married to Mathilde d’Udekem d’Acoz, the daughter of a baron (now a count).
@queencailo5 ай бұрын
Coburg is not pronounced like the animal "bear." It is pronounced like "burger" minus the "-er."
@matthewmacpherson50714 ай бұрын
Queen Elizabeth II was not 24 when she became Queen, she was 25 when she succeeded her father and became Queen.
@jenihansen72015 ай бұрын
My favorite is Elizabeth Woodville.
@danna7368yojfe5 ай бұрын
Richard never tried to marry his niece
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
Maybe he was really a Habsburg; they did it all the time. And you see what a mess that became!
@danna7368yojfe4 ай бұрын
@@LJB103 There is no proof to claim that, in fact Richard was planning to make an alliance with Portugal and marry Elizabeth to some member of that house.
@LJB1034 ай бұрын
@@danna7368yojfe If you read history, it was a rumor of the time that Richard was (wait for it..) FORCED to deny.
@jennifervillanueva84535 ай бұрын
😍❤❤😍 I'm so excited every Tuesday!! Thank you so much 💓 💗 ❤😊
@EricsIdle5 ай бұрын
EBL (QEQM) held out because she wanted to marry Edward... G asked her at least 5 times before she "accepted".. and by time 5, she was "knocking on" & it was obvious the life she'd have. Turned out OK for them in the end.
@anweshabiswas14835 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville and Anne nevile are my favourite ❤❤❤❤
@SandyShuraMartin3 ай бұрын
I'm not British and don't understand the difference between noble and commoners here. All these women were from upper class, from gentry. Why do you not consider them noble? Does it depend on the title? For example Eluzabeth Woodville's mother was very noble
@pedanticradiator14913 ай бұрын
In Britain unlike some other European countries a person who does not hold a Royal title or a peerage in their own right or by marriage is by law a commoner even if they are from an aristocratic family
@TheLizKirkland5 ай бұрын
Hopefully if George will grow up and marry a royal of his own age bracket (ex. Princess Estelle, etc.), there will be a possible another ala "William and Mary" reign (co-rulers)
@StevvieD5 ай бұрын
Lol not gonna happen. I hope he doesn't marry so Charlotte will be Queen. She has great potential
@TheLizKirkland5 ай бұрын
@@StevvieD Why? Don't you like the possibility of George becoming king and the William and Mary-esque reign?
@anitagorse92044 ай бұрын
Princess Estelle is second in line to Swedish throne, after her mother Victoria. I don't think anybody will push for this marriage to happen...
@TheLizKirkland4 ай бұрын
@@anitagorse9204 If her mother becomes queen, Estelle will be the heir apparent and her siblings will be pushed back, if Estelle will marry and have children. Is it BAD to have another "William and Mary" reign again?
@StevvieD4 ай бұрын
@@TheLizKirkland YES, Brexit, remember? 😅
@GizmoOnyett4 ай бұрын
To be fair, the Woodvilles were a scheaming bunch of social climbers, and not poor, defenseless victims.
@chynagrl884 ай бұрын
Why is Kate Middleton not considered a commoner? Her parents worked
@DarkSHadowI84 ай бұрын
She is no Queen yet
@tahneyhuiet3 ай бұрын
She is not a commoner. She is of royal decent. I am related to Camilla, Diana, and Charles. And their parents.
@pedanticradiator14913 ай бұрын
In English law a commoner is someone who does not hold a Royal title or a peerage in their own right. Diana and the late Queen Mother both held courtesy titles or styles of Honourable and later Lady before being married but they were still considered commoners by law
@emilybarclay883124 күн бұрын
Pretty much every average John of English descent has royal lineage.
@Emma881782 ай бұрын
I didn't realize just how complicated the whole system of being a commoner was. What I mean is that seeing Elizabeth Woodville on this list surprised me. Her mother Jacquetta was the daughter of a Count, and because of that I thought she would be considered noble, or at least of noble ancestry therefore she wouldn't be a commoner. But since in those days it didn't matter who your mother was since your station in life was seen from your PATERNAL side and her father was born a common knight, that makes her commoner. Interesting!
@leonelchavira70004 ай бұрын
Make one About King cosort😊😄
@matthewmacpherson50712 ай бұрын
It would be a very short video as there were only 3 King Consorts in the entire history of the UK and its predecessor states. King Philip (who was the King of Spain) husband of Queen Mary I. King Francis II (who was The King of France) the first husband of Mary, Queen of Scots King Henry the 2nd husband of Mary, Queen of Scots
@aeroTnz5 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville is legend
@eleanorshakespeare84774 ай бұрын
Wait wait wait... Where did this story about Anne Neville becoming a cook come from? Yes George Duke of Clarance kept Anne out of sight but Anne escaped into sanctuary and married Richard. Richard got Anne's half of the Warwick fortune as Midlham Castle was part of Anne's portion of the inheritance.
@nataliapanfichi99335 ай бұрын
princess diana used to work as a teacher before getting married.
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
It was actually a preschool assistant. She didn't have a college degree to be able to be a teacher
@Dunsapie4 ай бұрын
Diana wasn't very well educated and didn't have the qualifications to become a teacher. She was a nursery assistant.
@glen73184 ай бұрын
no, she was a helper at a nursery school
@MrNatethraB5 ай бұрын
So was the Queen Mother a good person? Or was it more like compared to Walis (a Nazi collaborator) she was better by comparison?
@blahblahblahblah7295 ай бұрын
Good or bad is too reductive. Sure she had her flaws, but she also stood up to the firm when they wanted to fire the gay staff, for being immoral, and said without them, the households would drown. She wasn't all evil and not all good. Like everyone else
@olgicamiljkovic61135 ай бұрын
Svi su oni bili uz naciste SVI
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
It seems that she made lots of problems for Prince Philip: she wanted to keep the same position as close advisor to her daughter as she had been to her husband. That meant belittling the Mountbattens and convincing Elizabeth to "talk to mommie, not your husband."
@chrisgeenadriver16315 ай бұрын
I thought William IV was guilt tripped down the aisle after Princess Charlotte died and George III had no legitimate grandchildren. Although he and Adelaide did have a contented companionship.
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
They also had 2 daughters, but they both died as children. It wasn't so much a guilt trip as a sweepstakes for who could produce the heir. Edward of Kent won although their brother Ernest Augustus and his son George would also become the Kings of Hanover.
@ladylianhua16 күн бұрын
None of them are commoners, especially The Queen Mother and Elizabeth Woodville.
@nikitahollym4 ай бұрын
Only last week I discovered that the Earl or Warwick is my 17th great grandfather, Queen Anne was our great aunt 😂 so extremely random!! Me and my sister have been gathering our family tree and it turns out that we’re related to both the Yorks and the Lancasters.. 😅 (ew) It’s truly fascinating stuff! I’m just annoyed that I grew up a peasant without a castle 😂
@kaylynhewell80464 ай бұрын
0:34 figures On brand for those two... RIP Diana 🌹🕯
@jefflisondra85555 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville is the maternal grandmother of Henry viii
@queenbess0015 ай бұрын
Thank you so very much Lindsey Holiday I definitely appreciate some interesting content to watch because I’m an Anglophile and appreciate almost all things British 🙌🏾 !!!!
@AliSakurai4 ай бұрын
I can't tell you how much my grandmother did not like camilla. She could not stand charles and camilla was only added to that. She didn't care that they got married. But she only said that they both knew better than to in her words, ' Sneak around like a prostitutes and a philanderer'. Honestly I don't like her either. But it's mostly because of certain attitudes she's displayed during royal business.
@glen73184 ай бұрын
what are you on about?
@suzyfarnham31652 ай бұрын
I loathe Camilla. I also loathe Charles...
@hannytierlierblaauw1924 ай бұрын
Stop telling that the young sons of Elizabeth were locked up in the Tower. The Tower was the palace from which every king went to be crowned.
@sabrinastratton19914 ай бұрын
Thats where theybwere locked up tho. It wasnt just a place royals went prior to their coronation but also a place were nobels were jailed
@hannytierlierblaauw1924 ай бұрын
@@sabrinastratton1991 The two princes were not locked up in jail. They lived in the royal apartments in the Tower. Under the Tudors the Tower became more a jail. There is no evidence at all that Richard III killed the two boys. There is no evidence that the boys were killed either. Even Henry VII never told that this had happened.
@elizamccroskey17084 ай бұрын
I’m amused that Elizabeth I gets just a few seconds mention here🤷🏼♀️
@Jonnmichelle5 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@michellecrocker24855 ай бұрын
Catherine parr is always a win for me
@Lkydo81654 ай бұрын
FYI Queen Elizabeth II became Queen on February 6, 1952, and was crowned the following year on June 2, 1953. Queen Elizabeth II was 25 years old when she became Queen of England
@pedanticradiator14914 ай бұрын
Queen of UK not England
@VeracityLHАй бұрын
I very much enjoyed this video. Question: When did the future William IV marry Dorothy Bland? I know they had 10 children but had never heard that they married.
@pedanticradiator149129 күн бұрын
They never actually married not even illegally
@pebble_soup90955 ай бұрын
I would love a video just about mary the second, i dont know too much about her and its only entertaining when its you talking about it 😂
@pebble_soup90955 ай бұрын
Or queen ann!!!!!!!
@katiewright46364 ай бұрын
Wait a second back me up: if the queen was on the throne first and she married a king wouldn’t that him a hing consort?
@nuckelaveez50294 ай бұрын
Elizabeth Woodville is my favorite
@LollipopLozzy4545454 ай бұрын
Camilla's grandfather was literally a baronet, she's about as "common" as caviar.
@emilybarclay88314 ай бұрын
Baronets are not peers or considered nobles
@LollipopLozzy4545454 ай бұрын
@@emilybarclay8831 Baronets are considered lesser nobility.
@glen73184 ай бұрын
@@LollipopLozzy454545 no, the title is not noble -.
@LollipopLozzy4545454 ай бұрын
@@glen7318 lesser nobility.
@diannewheatleygiliotti85133 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@lilina_who19 күн бұрын
Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard were NOT commoners. Especially Anne Boleyn has royal blood through both parents, tracing her line back to Edward I. Catherine was the granddaughter of the Duke of Norfolk, just a bit unlucky that her father was the third son and thus didn't get the title. Still doesn't take away from her heritage (Anne Boleyn also was a granddaughter of said duke, just on her mother's side). One can discuss the odd position Elizabeth Woodville was in given that her mother was a princess and only because of the low social standing of her father she was seen as what we today would call upper-middle class. To be fair, Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr also trace their lineage back to Edward III. Even Camilla has multiple royal ancestors, including Charles II of and Robert III of Scotland ... So when do we say "commoner", when "not so commoner" and when "close enough to be part of nobility or royalty"? The video should make clear where the criteria are set.
@66bayouboy5 ай бұрын
The only commoner is Camilla. The others came from lower ranked noble families
@NintenGamer5 ай бұрын
Queen Consort in waiting Catherine is also a commoner.
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
Nobles were commoners to the royals. Their families didn't rule anything.
@StevvieD5 ай бұрын
Not exactly Camilla is the granddaughter of an Earl and descendent of King Charles II. It's also rumored that since her great grandmother had an affair with Edward VII she could be his descendent as well.
@pedanticradiator14913 ай бұрын
@@StevvieDCamilla's has a distant cousin called Judith Keppel who looks a lot like her. Judith's great or great great grandfather was the brother of the husband whose wife had an affair with Edward VII. Judith was the first jackpot winner of the UK quiz show Who Wants to be a Millionaire and used to appear on the TV programme Eggheads
@isabellajones-hyde91943 ай бұрын
William IV never married Mrs Fitzherbert, they just lived together
@pedanticradiator14913 ай бұрын
You mean Mrs Jordan. Mrs Fitzherbert was George IV's mistress whom he did marry in sn illegal ceremony
@isabellajones-hyde91943 ай бұрын
@@pedanticradiator1491 You are right
@michellecrocker24855 ай бұрын
Elizabeth woodville had 2 sons from a previous marriage. What was in it for the boys from royal stepdaddy?
@LJB1035 ай бұрын
Thomas became Marquess of Dorset (and great-grandfather of Lady Jane Grey); and Richard was executed by Richard III.
@robinturner11384 ай бұрын
Should Elizabeth of York be considered a co monarch rather than a consort. She had a legitimate claim to the throne through her father.