I had hoped that this podcas would’ve been a little more unbiased than it seemed to come across. At the end of the day it still sounds like Harry and Meghan are being blamed for making a decision that was safe for their family. He is the second son he didn’t have the same obligations as William if he felt that this was the right thing to do for him and his family Then so be it. They couldn’t win! Either they couldn’t take money from the royal family if they weren’t working for them, but then they were looked down at for making their own money. I’m sure there were shortcomings on both sides. I just wish there would’ve been a little bit more on this podcast about where the Royal family or the firm failed Harry and Meghan as well.
They are not receiving you taxpayer money. They are engaging in a very American way to generate money, it's called "WORK". Something your free loading welfare RF knows nothing about.
Harry and meghan didn't trash the royal family, they stated what had really happened to them instead of letting the palace and the uk media trash them by saying this is what had happened. They stood up for themselves and I'm proud of harry and Meghan!!
I don’t think we accused them of “trashing the Royal family” but I appreciate there’s sometimes a difference between how things are intended and how they come across. They do have every right to tell their story. In this case, they chose to earn considerable sums of money through telling it. I don’t think that’s wrong, but it is clearly going to invite scrutiny. However, it is possible to share your story without telling the world that your father does embarrassing exercises in his underwear. Or without saying that your brother no longer resembles your deceased mother. I think it is comments like this that will make rebuilding trust difficult.
What Charles used to desire is not important. If the first two mixed race children of the family are deprived of titles they were potentially up for, it looks awful. Optics matter, my sweet summer children. These people are too stupid to rule. That’s the problem with Royals. Merit has nothing to do with it, and these people are stuoid.
People in the UK can buy pseudo-tiles. People in American can buy various college degrees. Both types are no different than people who wear military honors without earning them in real military service. Fake titles; fake degrees; fake military service.
You’re basically describing a society too immature, as late as 2020, to handle a man moving for his wife. And it’s not actually much more complicated than that.
@@SuperStella1111 no one seemed to have a problem with Prince Philip moving for his wife in the 1950s. I think there’s a little more to the public reaction than that
I’m commenting as things are said: Dan Wootten was given the news that they wanted to leave (likely by his KP contacts, briefing against Harry - check out Byline Times) and was going to publish. That forced their hand.
I find the contention Harry and Meghan have “doors open” for being Royal is funny. Most Royals are not A-listers. HE IS THE SON OF THE MOST FAMOUS WOMAN WHO EVER LIVED. He will always have a platform BECAUSE OF HIS MOTHER, not the Royals. No one cares about the Remoaner Royals who don’t have a Diana connection. They are boring, unimportant. DIANA is the source of Harry’s prominence.
Don’t talk to me like I’m stupid, or patronize me. She married an adulterer in the family. That no longer matters. To say she wasn’t important in her own right is just misogyny. @@royalhistorygeeks6034
Not reallly. A woman went to do an interview, described terrifying partum depression, and they couldn’t even express empathy. It showed how unfeeling and racist they were. Harry was always going to bolt. That’s the only point that matters.
I was disappointed in her conclusions. She only provided evidence that supported her love of Richard III. She dismissed or ignored evidence to the contrary.
Plebs should not publish books on ideas Above Their Stations and leave history to the Proper People. Theoretical thought should only be provided by the Betters with proper educational credentials pushing the pre-approved subject matter carefully chosen to keep the Betters. 🤡
I strongly believe that Richard kill then I don’t believe she or her son had anything to do with it but i can understand why people believe that in a way but 100% Richard did something to them there is a small chance they died from sickness but why did Richard not say anything if that was the case sadly not many children survived to adulthood it would be tragic but not a shocked hopefully we get answers how they died I do believe they need the king permission to examine their bodies I believe idk I could be wrong great video tho lol
There's a new portrait of Richard III being displayed at the National Portrait Gallery. The curators there believe that although it is not contemporary it is based on a contemporary portrait. And in that portrait you can really see that Richard and Edward look like brothers.
MB was so obsessed with her son becoming king that she extended the War of the Roses instead of accepting peace under Richard's rule. She allied with Buckingham, she made an alliance with Elizabeth Woodville and she helped make it possible for her son to invade England, thus inciting another battle. If she did this don't think she couldn't have gotten access into the tower. Of course she wouldn't have personally killed them. And back then no one believed a woman was capable of anything. We don't know what happened but she is definitely a suspect. Things definitely worked out in her favor by causing people to suspect Richard, thus backing her son. Elizabeth Woodville would have never agreed to the marriage had she not thought her sons were dead so another point for Margaret. Her son legitimized his wife to strengthen his claim and in doing so, the princes had to be out of the picture or he would have had no claim. I believe M Beaufort, Richard and Buckingham are all three viable suspects. It's only my opinion but this video gave no strong evidence of her innocence. She was one obsessed woman with enough money and influence to make her dangerous.
💯 agree I believe MB convinced Buckingham into manipulating Richard - at any rate there is something so Lancastrian about it - I have the sixth sense and whenever I think about this I get chills in my body - my gut feeling the Lancastrians were involved with this - am still trying to figure out how
Great interview. I had the pleasure of meeting Alison this week for the Lichfield Literature Festival and she astounded me with her amazing knowledge and confidence on stage.
Wasn't Margaret's official reason for going along with the marriage of her son to E. of York to finally unite previously rival families? But could she have also realized that if the princes in the t. ever showed up later, that E. of Y. wouldn't have admitted to recognizing them because that would cause her to sacrifice her position as queen to become just another sister of a king?
Thomas More got his account of the confessions of Tyrell and Dighton from John Morton. Morton was a known and sworn enemy of Richard. Morton was also More's mentor; he had lived with Morton for several years when he was young. No copies of these confessions exist. Dighton was allowed to roam free for the rest of his life - odd for someone who had committed regicide. Also, Henry Vll never made any proclamation of these confessions which would have cleared up the mystery and secured his throne. In addition, the charge for Tyrell's execution was 'aiding Edmund de la Pole'. No mention was made of his conspiring to assassinate the young king and his brother, a royal prince. More never completed or published his 'History' during his lifetime. Instead, his nephew completed it, edited it, and rewrote portions of what More had written.
I really enjoyed this conversation, but I think I must've missed some of it...When the video starts, one gentleman is already talking and then it ends abruptly. Is it supposed to only be 8 minutes long?
I think part of the explanation as to why her extravagance was not really questioned was that it was collective gratitude of the country for her personal contribution to the war effort in maintaining morale but perhaps more importantly her obvious support and back-up of the King during this period without which he wouldn't have been so effective. To illustrate his commitment please read accounts of the King's gruelling and dangerous visits to the theatre of war in North Africa and Malta in 1943 after the victory at El Alamein.
I couldn't agree with you more.The Queen Mother was beloved by the people.To my eyes she was the power behind the throne. Thank God for her. I am sure she had faults as we all do. Strong willed and loyal she loved her country and the people.
It's an extremely perverse hypothesis. We know Richard killed their maternal uncle, their half brother, and Hastings in what looks like a planned coup. It is rational to assume he did it. The only other feasible candidate is Buckingham, I feel, and even that's an outlier.
We can infer she didn't enjoy sex with him for she asked in a a preserved book of hours or some such if it was sinful to dislike your marital duty. In her later translation of Thomas a Kempis, she mentioned 'lecherye' as something that was 'filthy' and best outgrown. It is possible she felt differently about him after his death though. As you say, even at the time he was considered a disgrace. But we do hear about trauma bonding.
Well, the famous painting shows that she wasn't ugly. If we're being judgy, her chin was big and she wasn't conventionally cute. That's a long way from being ugly.
What about the people who said they saw Arthur with an erection, what about the people who said Arthur said I've been in the midst of Spain, If that doesn't sound like somebody who did the deed
I never miss a chance to listen to Gareth Russell - such a knowledgeable and fascinating historian. I loved his book about Catherine Howard - in fact I have already read it twice and just today I was looking at it thinking I might read it again. Thank you for this - I have just discovered your podcast and am enjoying going through all your videos.
Hey very interesting chat guys, thanks. But I think you're missing something about the Crawford book. I agree that the revelation of intimate details of their family life must have felt like a real violation to all of them. Even without salacious or scandalous content. But the book also takes a subtly critical view of the QM's intelligence and her parenting. In particular the choices made around the girl's education. Which might have been a real sore point. In between the hugs and kisses, there were unflattering remarks about Princess Margaret too. That's crazy that the DoW asked to be ambassador to Argentina! And was Wallis not involved with Ribbentrop?
Ah, but she had no choice. She was a minor and his ward. It's not right but the king could sell the wardship of minor wards to whomever he liked. Edmund would have had complete control over her.You might see it as legal abduction and rape.
It cannot be demonstrated that his parents weren’t together at his conception because it simply might not have been documented that Richard was briefly back home.
She was assassinated. Harry and Meghan took advantage of her weak state and played games that cost the Queen's life. That's murder. People, let me tell you, guard your loved ones. When they get older they become fragile and can retreat into childhood fantasy. Like for QE2R, SHE JUST WANTED TO HANG OUT WITH HER FAMILY AND HAVE EVERYONE GET ALONG! Too much to ask. Died exasperated. I channeled QE2R and She says She would have been less embarrassed if she had been guillotined in a public square. Then She quips that She's talking about what's happened to Her legacy since She was assassinated.
