The Monarchy with David Starkey

With Dr. David Starkey. More than the biographies of the kings and queens of England, this lecture is an in depth examination of what the English monarchy has meant, in terms of the expression of the individual, the Mother of Parliaments, Magna Carta, the laws of England and the land of England. The importance of the rich heritage of the Anglo Saxon kings is featured but it does not stop there. This is the history of ideas and ideals, as well as colourful characters.

[@antidisenstable]

Dr David Starkey is fantastic. I wish he'd been our history teacher when I was at school. Long live Dr Starkey.

[@kimlennard1024]

⁹

[@evehawasinare228]

It is his humour that makes it so interesting to watch a lesson in history from him.

[@Mike-tb5gj]

Whenever I watch this amazing and "I don't really care what anyone thinks" man, I can come up with only one word: fascinating!!

[@MadMonarchist]

There is an important point here: monarchy is a universal constant -you cannot get rid of it, you can only replace one with another. Britain and other monarchies should appreciate what they have. Germany lost the Kaiser and got Hitler, Russia lost the Czar and got Stalin, China lost PuYi and got Mao etc, etc.

[@stewisolfo4622]

David Starkey is an absolute legend. I am a singer/solo artist and I write many songs about historical events and characters. I have all Mr Starkey's DVDs and in a way, he's provided the lyrics and ideas for me

[@ShiceSquad]

Would like to hear them.

[@mc.8391]

the man is brilliant... such a joy to listen to...

[@jeffzekas]

Dr Starkey is smart and funny. As he notes, there will always be kings or queens, whether you call them Czar, or Communist Supreme Leader, or President.

[@Patrick3183]

The diva at his best!! Love u Starkey

[@IsaacWebers]

Great lecture, love reading about the monarchy.

[@davidperi2646]

I have enjoyed his Monarchy series.

[@balthasarEF]

There we have it, monarchy is universal and if the monarchy were abolished it would just be another step closer to absolute monarchy albeit with a President instead of a dignified King or Queen. God bless the monarchy and may it endure forever.

[@johnadedoyin6866]

I have just recently come across this. Another excellent clusterbomb from Dr Starkey. Watching this 10 years on, he is accurate about the future of the Monarchy and spot on with regards its purpose (or lack thereof)

[@ericfisher1360]

Monarchy is not about Lords, that is what feudalism is, Monarchy is about the Monarch.

[@fishintheflow]

Royalty is a living flag in a way no "bribe the proles" president ever can be.

[@kendahke]

@Fightosaurus if you ever get the chance to attend one of his lectures, do so. I really enjoyed one he gave a few years back out in Los Angeles.

[@Popperite]

32:06 He talks about the Teck's here, but they were already morganatic before they came to be a part of the UK monarchy.

[@qwe07]

Great video! I wish it kept going.

[@5756catherine1]

Love listening to David Starkey. He has the gift of the gab. Must be careful not to abuse it though. Sometimes I hear laughs coming from the audience, but you can tell that the laughter sometimes comes from shock or ambarassment. Well he has survived into old age whatever comments he has ever made, so I doubt he will keep himself in check now :)

[@theonlylampshade]

The United Kingdom has a monarchy, England hasn't been a soverign state for centuries. Why does the UK have a monarchy? Because it wants one. There are elected heads of states, such as those in Germany, Israel and Ireland and who perform similar roles to that of the Queen. Infact the US system where the President, is head of state and head of government - holding all the power, is far less common than ours in the UK, where head of state is ceremonial and head of government holds the power.

[@Eternaldream00]

The way He speaks ....He could be speaking about home decoration and I would still listen. I do hope it means He's great and not that I'm an impressionable moron....no it can't be.

[@jamescarlton6016]

amazing

[@montsealonsodublin.1789]

Well done 👏

[@lord.onk99]

Brilliant

[@Prairielander]

The problem with the monarchy is that it rarely intervenes into politics because without the will of the people it can no longer legitimately govern. This is true in Canada with its representative the Governor General and is basically a rubber stamping puppet of the Prime Minister. The same goes for our appointed Senate. It is another rubber stamp of the PM who also in turn stuffs it full of people favourable to him. But it cannot function as a check or balance because of this democratic deficit

[@destroyerinazuma96]

As Peterson would put it a vertical structure draws a more comprehensive hierarchy where most people feel less stress due to knowing their place and how to rise (and fall from grace). My economy teacher said that a very horizontal small company may run a single restaurant but they will never launch a satellite into space.

[@JamesR1986]

@ljpmusic09 Uhmm Teddy Roosevelt was a great president because he took on corporate trust (monopolies), established public land for conservation purposes, won a Nobel peace prize for negotiating the end of the Russian Japanese War, and used American military might to build the Panama Canal (I know, I know)

[@aaaatttt101]

most interesting bits of media since chomsky

[@lindoncoffee]

But we can get rid of Senators if we had the will. Can you get rid of a Lord?

[@PinkoPapist89]

David Starkey just reminded me why I'm interested in the British monarchy. Been spending far too much time on that Catholic Church lately...

[@SaintDL]

Try look in English commercial law and also British law reforms. There has been several attempts to study the american system and implement the functioning parts into English law.

[@Popperite]

When he talks about equal marriages as oposed to morganatic ones he mentiones that very few German royal families are protestant. That's nonsense. He also mentiones that this is the reason why the Teck's emerge in the ancestry of the British Royal family. Actually the Teck's weren't of equal status where the German rules were conserned.

[@MatthewDavidAlbritton]

The difference between the Laws of England and the Laws of America lie in the differences in their respective corpus' of Common-Law : British Admiralty Law is cited frequently by American Judges, but British Judges hardly cite American Common-Law cases (if they do, someone please give me an example -- I've been looking!!!) The judiciary branches in England and America also provide an important lens to look at Anglo-American legal systems that deserves more attention.

[@MrNinjaFish]

I seem to have this odd belief that some form of direct democracy as well as land and property reform could be put in place by the monarchy, since the monarchy isnt political. A divine right to pay off mortgages and prevent rent seeking, enabling subjects to own property, individually and collectively. A divine right to own the means of production?

[@Rotebuehl1]

@brettl84 2)- ...nowadays Royalty is about cultural continuity, absolute commitment, constant willigness, constitutional spotlessness! It's state ritual, identification, unbowed tradition! It's national identification & devotion! Royalty is NOT about having a happy live in your private, modest singularity, letting your feelings get away with you in the worst of cases! Now, it's true, the Royal Family's younger...

[@mothermovementa]

2:20 humans beings are monarchical

[@Rotebuehl1]

@brettl84 3)- ...adult generation supposedly failed in fulfilling these criteria, but actually they didn't! They are all of what is expected from a British Royal Family! Honestly, they were even very candid with their "private" lives, weren't they? Diana had a different perspective of & attitude towards life! Although a born aristocrat, she was bourgeois in spirit, aiming to have some kind of average private happiness, like Mrs. everybody-in-the-neighbourhood! Nothing wrong about that,...

[@logansowers1674]

God save the Queen!

[@piushalg8175]

In Switzerland we do not have a monarchy. The Swiss Federation is run by a council of seven members who are totally equal. This has been the case since 1848,, and since then there has also been universal suffrage, of course only for male citizens until 1971.

[@Zeki161]

You may not 'have' to be rich to be a British PM, but I rather place my faith in a privately educated individual who went on to shine at Oxbridge than somebody who considers themselves to be 'street-smart'.

[@Rotebuehl1]

@brettl84 4)- ...but then don't marry into the Royal Family!!! But she wanted it, KNOWING Charles loved another one, as acknowledged by spotless people above reproach in "their" environment AND herself! The conflict was preprogrammed! And wonderful Diana couldn't put up with the situation: she wanted love & cootchy-cootchy, when it wasn't the point! Sara Ferguson's just the same!

[@JamesR1986]

that's your argument, George V was a great king because he could hunt and sail? I don't get it, maybe it's cause I'm American

[@mothermovementa]

21:00 😂

[@aarongallant4280]

Hardwired for monarchy sounds like Loki's speech in the avengers. The one where the bad ass german man stands up and says "There are always men like you". if you don't know what I'm talking about you probably won't appreciate an avengers reference anyway.

[@joselinbogarra]

why should someone, because of being born in a certain family, has more rights and privileges than everybody??

[@Rotebuehl1]

@brettl84 6)- ...On top of it, you would be condemned to apologize publicly at your own expence & pay a high indemnity - that is, if they didn't run you in! But because the Royals are such mean & cold & criminal people, nothing of that happens or will ever happen to you, right?! You might not like them, not like monarchy, not like anything & you're free to say it publicly. That is your unchallenged right as a free person!

[@cittiavaticano]

speaking ill of the Holy Father, in true English tradition isn't it, like divorce.

[@Gabrael777]

Im a Catholic... I take offense to these verbal passive-aggressive attacks on the Holy Father! We are NOT amused! D:

[@055697]

An even bigger queen than queen Elizabeth is David Starkey. LOL.

[@34roberees]

What's the use of having monarchies especially in "1st world" countries in which they preach democracy and freedom for all to the world? Isn't monarchy so medieval and backwards? I'm just asking I think everyone should be equal and leaders should be elected democratically.

[@tomsega]

I've never particularly enjoyed Starkey's documentaries as he tends to describe the monarchy like long complicated soap opera, rather than putting things in economic or sociological context, or in relation to technology and science. He always seems to discuss the institution from the inside, not from the out, like a sociologist or political scientist. I know he is NOT a political scientist, but it'd be awful to think history were such an inherently conservative discipline.

[@gcirc]

@bygeorgeous foolish

[@hagbard72]

British monarchy? The lizard people? LOL!

[@AURORA08A]

Starkey is amazingly erudite and penetratingly perceptive on most matters. But his ludicrous idea that whatever a Pope gets into his head and pronounces is automatically dogma, displays at the least a terribly superficial understanding of Catholic theory. Only proclamations Ex Cathedra (of which there have been precisely 2) in accordance with the magisterium and the deposit of faith as understood in all ages are considered infallible. Yes the Pope is the most absolute of monarchs, but a pope may be posthumously anathematised and his errors corrected. This has happened before, and by the grace of God may soon happen again after the present blind and stubborn shepherd and the diabolic concilliar revolution of the 60s. The learned Mr. Starkey might consider how the same forces that have vandalised the Apostolic Church have utterly destroyed the schismatic and heretical Anglican denomination, and how whilst it retains some devout and God fearing clergy at least in Africa, there is no Angican SSPX, nor Athanasius Schneider etc. etc. to lead the faithful against the wiles and deceptions of modernists. The best and most faithful of the anglicans have ever had to tread the path of John Cardinal Newman and recently Dr.Marshall. May we be blessed soon with a monarch able to undo the tragic errors of Henry VIII and restore this beautiful blighted island to the course set by Aelfred and Aethelstan, but failing that may we see restored, under the scourge of our tribulation, a pious republic, built on the faith of our fathers and the unrivaled treasure of the common law (healed of it's recent mutilations). If Coke or even Cranmer could see where their path had led, to this pagan age against man and God, they would have repented all. Though Britain profited more by the vernacular Bible, it's first testament a manual on the necessities and pitfalls of nation building, than any nation excepting the USA, the rot of the false 'reformation' has led us ever more swiftly astray. Yes we needed checks on absolute monarchy, Bellarmine and Suarez theorised them, and the common law tradition was apt for their instantiation, but we got nominalism, indifferentism and the duplicitous underhanded rejection of the one true Kingship of Christ. In this we exceeded the caeseropapism of the eastern empire, and for this we may yet soon share it's fate.

[@fabrizio483]

What a confusing lecture.

[@blueguitarblue]

How dare he diss the Queen of Hearts, Lady Diana. rrrrrrrr...

[@leahcimolrac1477]

I'm pretty sure we only reference Roman history and gov't in the US as the basis for our system is because it lay the foundations for British gov't, too. Obviously we're most directly influenced by England, but England was a confederacy of illiterate tribes and kingdoms until Roman conquest.

[@malma1]

Starkey's style is a celebration of his own vanity. Unfortunately his attempt to portray himself as an academic stand-up comedian detracts from the substance of his theses.

[@Rotebuehl1]

@brettl84 3)- ...adult generation supposedly failed in fulfilling these criteria, but actually they didn't! They are all of what is expected from a British Royal Family! Honestly, they were even very candid with their "private" lives, weren't they? Diana, although a born aristocrat, she was bourgeois in spirit, aiming to have some kind of average & refined private happiness, like Mrs. Smith or Mrs. everybody-in-the-neighbourhood! Nothing wrong about that,...