Do you love British History? Then you're in the right place! Welcome to this history channel with weekly live shows plus monthly historian interviews. . Join Philippa live at 3pm (London time) every Wednesday for 'Tea Time History Chat Live', a relaxed history chat. . Philippa entertains thousands each week with her videos and stories from across the UK and British History.
Thank you - I learned so many new details about their relationship and the time it took place in. (Yes they were in love, no they didn’t “go all the way…”)
how many matildas... the original one... 1066 - 1083 queen Matilda of flanders...queen consort of england... is the HBO series, a copy and paste of the *anarchy*
After the tyrannical government responses to covid, are we entirely sure we don't want to just give the king back a handful of unusual punishments? Asking for a friend.
Your guest mentioned that the reason why there's only a few surviving religious clothing items still surviving is because all of the rest were destroyed. Why were they destroyed? Were they destroyed as part of the "Dissolution of the Monasteries" that took place under H8's reign?
Thank you for your question. Without knowing specifically which pieces it’s hard for me to say. However, what I can say is there were a number of changes in the church which could have resulted in the destruction of this type of clothing. As you rightly say, the dissolution but then also Edward VI’s reformation, changes under Elizabeth I and the Puritan run ‘Republic’ of the mid-seventeenth century. So, those pieces which did survive, did so through multiple time periods which would have seen them destroyed if those in charge had has their way.
Interesting talk. Newbie here to your channel. One suggestion though for future videos and your interviews is that as your guests are talking and or mentioning certain things rather than having the slide or thumbnail picture perpetually stuck in the upper corner of your video it would be better instead for the audience to incorporate pictures or illustrations of what the invited guests are talking about. Just a suggestion not a criticism other than that I enjoyed the video immensely.
@@BritishHistory Thanks much for your response. Also, thank you for inviting me to watch your other videos. I am certainly doing just that I'm making my way through a few other topical videos that you have created. So far everything I've seen is great content all around.
'Cold case' just implies an unsolved crime of some sort. Re looking into the case when new technologies or possibly new evidence would be viable, when you have adequate manpower. But, even if there were questionable reasons to destroy the historical documenation.... There are also different sides with different reasons to keep their narrative alive. It's also difficult to determine what information needs to be removed or replaced now ...to support a future narrative.
@@BritishHistory unfortunate source. But there is cryptid videos have shown... there's no point in solving anything....just the constant rehashing and introduction of new barely viable data keeps the concept going and the old videos still viable. If they ever prove Nessie exists ..a whole bunch of videos can be thrown out.
king consort: henry lord darnley .. Duke of Albany Earl of Ross : was certainly bisex... it is rummoured that henry lord darnley, shared a bed with rizzio and spoke italian with him, also both of them were catholic...,almost certainly were *lovers at some point*, or the very best of friends with many shared intrests... the actual motive for the murder of rizzio..., maybe a very desperate ploy by the protestant faction.... to *entrap lord darnley and feed him with jealousy...false news and even claim that james VI or I was rizzio child...not lord darnley... also it is suggested that, henry lord darnley was pushed into action or violence, by the stewart & lennox families, in honour of his reputation., or more likely the earl of lennox or lady magaret douglas family honour or repuation by means of force. as rummours of sodomy at court or the king consort being a cuck, or a *whore to many men*, including david rizzio,,, were rife, also the protestant faction, Archibald Campbell, 5th Earl of Argyll main ambition was to manipulate the scots parliment for expansion of the protestant cause, if that meant using rizzio as a catholic italian sodomite...also whipping up a hysterical xenophobia of vatican & italian catholic influence over scotland... as referenced in the book by rosalyn .K.marshal.. the motive for italian...catholic david rizzio and the various *high factional politics of scotland*... during a religious conflict across europe... with its largest neighbour england and the protestant ELIZABETH I tudor... with baron cecil of burghley house as chief minister... the situation in scotland, was very different... james the earl of moray..protestant.half brother to mary I stewart was prominent magnate..., but certainly not the only one in a very unstable and divided kingdom.. scotland had established system of regents for many years., James Hamilton, 1st Duke of Châtellerault, 2nd Earl of Arran (c. 1519 - 22 January 1575), was a Scottish nobleman and head of the House of Hamilton. A great-grandson of King James II of Scotland, he was heir presumptive to the Scottish throne (1536-1540, 1541-1542, 1542-1566 and 1567-1575) his political dancing around catholic & protestant scotland, including england, france, was worthy of one better than even machieveli ... based at hamilton castle in lanarkshire... scottish catholic & protestant nobility were in conflict, john knox at the high kirk.., also the stewart & stuart families , various clans.. Henry Lord Darnley, then either tried to suggest he was not responsible or had no part in rizzio murder, or that he regreted it more likely, this is most probable not his idea or intention, did henry lord darnley just want rizzio temporarly banished by earlier agreement. with his father the earl of lennox men, or was he actually forced to sign letters ? ,then at the last minute , this would suggest that darnley was never the *mastermind of the murder, also never ever wanted it in the first place , either rizzio was his lover or intimate close friend, this would def explain his later regret to mary ?
king consort :henry stewart lord darnley & queen regnant mary stuart... share a common english ancestor.. who became scottish... Joan Beaufort : Queen of Scotland from 1424 to 1437 as the spouse of King James I of Scotland. joan was the granddaughter of EDWARD III... also a plantagenet descendant of EDWARD I.... During part of the minority of her son James II (from 1437 to 1439), she served as the regent of Scotland.
Sharon is very knowledgeable and so fun to listen to. Matildas strength and patience is admirable. Stephen wasted 19 years like a brat. Thank you both.
Love the longer form video. So much more time for you to show and tell! Thanks, and please do more longer videos. You could even go live if you don't have time to bother with editing
Bad clickbait…Didn’t actually address what went wrong….just her last few days…I thought you were going to address how Henry turned on her in more detail
This was a great discussion! The Anarchy is a fascinating period that I feel gets overlooked or mentioned only in passing in reference to the rise of the Plantagenets.
If Richard III didn't kill his nephews, Henry VII would certainly have done it. His motive would have been much greater as his claim was so poor. It's possible that they might have been released. Especially after Richard's death, if they were still alive, and before Henry arrived. It's also certain that we don't really know who the pretenders really were. The whole history was controlled by Henry VII and his agents. But the stories all seem unlikely to be accurate.
Philippa, thank you for this and every interview you’ve done on your channel. I could comment on each of them (and will try to from now on) but I would say the same thing - I have learned SO MUCH! The experts and authors are engaging and fascinating, and their knowledge is astonishing. And you are a thoughtful, engaging interviewer. I’m so glad I discovered you (and the HAD crew too). If dreams come true, I will one day join you on an Anne Boleyn tour.
Amy thank you so much! I’m so pleased you are getting so much out of the interviews. Love that you watch HAD too. 😀 It would be so good to see you on an Anne Boleyn Tour one day 😀❤️
There are some buildings left, those built in stone like abbeys or chapels but their domestic and civic buildings were made from natural materials and so have rotted and disappeared.
@BritishHistory Yes I agree that before 1000ad there is quite a few abbeys, churches, monastery and cathedrals. But no castles. There is fort ruins, hill forts and roman forts all destroyed. Thing is that bugs me is all the buildings that were built in the dark ages seem to have not survived. If you look at the history of the churches,abbeys etc all of them have been massively restored and rebuilt over the years. Only an original wall, or foundation, gable window frame etc remains of these buildings. The romans had huge forts, viaducts, baths, buildings. None of them are still standing in the uk. All of them are deeply buried. Nearly all roman stuff in the uk has been excavated from underground. Yet many of the roman buildings still stand in different countries.... We have none, only bits of rubble on the surface. I know a lot of roman buildings supposedly were taken down and new rubbish buildings built from the bricks instead. But we have nothing left from the roman period and the dark ages that still standing. However there are many buildings that were built at the end of dark ages that are still standing strong over a 1000years later. Not buried. But buildings from 500-600 years before 1000ad are 15feet underground. The reason for all this is that I'm questioning our history in the UK. I find a lot of things that don't add up. I feel like something happened during the dark ages in the uk that we aren't told. Possibly a flood or a meteorite.... Or am I losing the plot..? 😆🫣
I might have missed it so apologies if so but I think it is worth mentioning that there is a very persistent school of thought amongst historians that Mary was forced to leave with Bothwell and that she was raped which would have made it impossible for her not to marry him as was the custom at that time, especially as Queen. So we don’t know that she made a massive mistake as was described in this video . Also I don’t think Mary was obsessed with being the heir to English throne because she simply was, and legitimately, unlike Elizabeth, and as Elizabeth wouldn’t recognize her as such she rightly maintains her claim as anyone else would 😊. The thought process about the twins being Bothwell’s sounds a tad farfetched but thank you for sharing, thanks to both!
Hi! 😀 I thought I had said that the accepted narrative has been that she was raped by Bosworth and therefore had to marry him? Mary had a bloodline claim and was considered rightful heir to her cousin Mary I however the Scottish line of Henry VIIIs sister, Margaret, had been excluded from the succession. However, I refer to her “succession obsession” due simply to the way it comes across as her primary concern in her communications to Elizabeth, as described in multiple biographies on her. The observational argument about the twins basically boils down to, it is highly unlikely that the miscarriage could have been identified as one of twins without her being more pregnant than the rape story would support. Bearing in mind the implications of when she became pregnant affects our understanding of the forced marriage and consequently her potential involvement in Darnley’s murder. It raises interesting questions but i’m not suggesting we have solid evidence of it either way. But this is what makes history so interesting! 😀
Great discussion of the evidence. My thoughts on the whether Henry VII would have done a real thorough job of scraping up and destroying any and all documents that would have put his reign in jeopardy: absolutely - his life depended on it and such documents could be used to support a rival claimant. Also a question: have there ever been any other 'pretenders', either before or after Warbeck and Simnel? Or at least, those that we know about.
The 1707 Act of union was created to extract assets & taxes from Scotland, the same thing England does everywhere (stealing countries). The Scottish "nobles" were FORCED into signing the act via the Aliens act, bribes and threat of 20,000 English troops ready to invade if they did not sign it. The Darien scheme was a private business that was made impossible by trade barriers that England set up. The "union" was never about helping Scotland it was about robbing Scotland and it still is. It was effictively a government coup that was used to colonise Scotland. Once the public found out there was riots because people back then saw it for what it is... a fraudulent take over.
Comparing Anne and Henry’s relationship to Titanic’s voyage is a great analogy! I completely agree that Anne and Henry did not have “one of history’s great love stories”.
In popular depictions of Henry, he's always shown as the person driving events and his wives being passively driven by the them. Thus, Henry "offered" Anne generous terms and she gratefully "accepted" them. This excellent talk reinforces my belief that Anne was a lot quicker on the uptake than people give her credit for and knew how to play circumstances to her advantage. Keeping both Protestants and Catholics in her corner is no mean feat, not to mention keeping her head attached and her castles well-warmed. I've always thought her the most pragmatic of Henry's wives, and in that sense it's a pity they never had children. She did not repeat the mistakes of her predecessors.
