Welcome back to "Brief" History ;) *Please note that the comments towards the end of the video related to Ireland were meant to be more generalizations than anything. The comments were meant to reflect the laying of the foundation of the tension between northern and southern (Republic of) Ireland and the civil unrest that came about after 1922 although I recognize now that referring to it as a "Civil War" between northern and southern Ireland is misleading as the actual "Irish Civil War" was fought in the southern Irish Free State between pro-treaty and anti-treaty factions prior to Ireland being declared a republic in 1949 and well before "the troubles" that came about decades later, which was actually a northern/southern Ireland conflict. Nevertheless, Civil War did erupt after 1922 as a result of pro/anti British connections and northern and southern (Republic of) Ireland have had a tumultuous relationship through the modern day. I just didn't do a great job of distinguishing between these things in the video.
Please consider branching into other countries' monarchs after finishing with Britain, I'd love to see you do Louis XIV of France, Carlos II of Spain, and so many others.
The beggining of the house of Windsor. He was a good monarch managing to keep the throne through so much (fun fact, Windsor castle was the place of Birth of England's greatest king Edward III)
King George V was a very good monarch, arguably the greatest modern monarch. Under his reign, the british empire reached the highest peak. George V saved, modernized and strengthened the monarchy and brought it closer to common people. He reigned during very turbulent times such as the First World W.ar and faced numerous institutional crises in which he pIayed a cruciaI role to solve them. He was a flawed human but mainstream media has blown his flaws out of proportion giving him a bad rep fot no good reason, while also minimizing his many accomplishments. George V is not treated fairly by today's mainstream culture
Thank you for your work. I think George tends to get rather ignored, like his father. Victoria still looms large in contrast. Yesterday 6th March marked the elevation of Henry Grosmont, as you will know, from the Earl of Lancaster to the Duke of Lancaster by Edward III in 1351. *No dukedoms in England existed prior to the 14th century. The Duchy of Lancaster was a member of the A-List from the get-go only cemented further from 1399 when the Duchy has been contingent with being monarch. The Duchy is unique by having a representative, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the heart of government, as part of the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. The Monarch/Duke also owns some churches in their own right. They are few but one is Westminster Abbey. A lesser known one is the Savoy Chapel. This is on the site of the Savoy Palace, in London. It was the Palace of John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster. Sadly it was destroyed in the Peasants Revolt but as King & Duke of Lancaster, Charles III, counts them as his own. Much obliged. 🫡
Please make videos on Oliver Cromwell, Empress Matilda - the first Queen of the English (although it's controversial) and other monarchs who probably didn't stay on the throne for very long. It'll be so cool!!! Then you can go for the Scottish monarchs too. And the Anglo-Saxons before William the Conqueror, like Alfred the Great. Then the Irish monarchs too? They are the most neglected of all the monarchs in Britain (and pre-Britain). There are so many people you can cover. So many options. It's so exciting. Subscribed for more British monarchy history :)
I often wonder why George V was such a strict and mentally abusive father when his own father was so caring. I guess it's just his personality. He was apparently a good grandfather, so maybe he realised he was wrong and changed his ways.
George V was not mentaIIy a.busive, and there is nothing wrong with him being strict. His father was not caring, he neglected his children, he buIIied his oldest son Eddie and his daughters were so afraid of him that one of them, princess Louise fainted once at the sight of him. Edward VII was ''caring" with George only because George did as his father wanted. Its sad that George V suffers from rumors that he was b.ad father when he wasnt different from most fathers of his time. Instead of wondering, go read a book for George V by Jane Ridley or the one by Alexandra Churchill, then you will wonder no more
Absolutely obsessed with your history mini documentaries. I would very much like to see you cover the rulers of England before William the conqueror. Yes I realize before William the conqueror there are divided lands of England . Maybe you could pick up where you began and go backwards.
Are you gonna cover Edward VIII still despite his reign being only 11 months? Obviously there isn't much to discuss there but it'd still be interesting. I can understand if you just go straight to George VI though.
Why wouldn’t he? He could still spend a “brief” amount of time of the ins and outs leading up to the abdication. Things like how certain people like Tommy Lascelles hope he would die. And how there was collusion to remove him as king.
Charles I, Henry I, William II, Edward II, Richard I, Richard III, James VII & II, John, Edward VI, Edward IV, Henry VIII, William IV, George V and George VI were all younger sons
Apparently the history of "Eddie" may have been somewhat revised with Windsor propaganda in order to make George seem like the serendipitous heir after his brother's death. The truth of Eddie's ineptness and lack of direction could have been a post-humous story told by George and Mary to validate George's ascension. George was famously boring and lacking in interests and passions. Perhaps Eddie was done dirty to legitimize the 'crown falling on the right head'. Something to consider.
Interesting. I haven’t read much about him, but I remember there were some scandals and even suggestion he could have been Jack the Ripper (highly unlikely).
And why would they need to do that when George was going to be king anyway after Eddie's death?? The crown would fall on George's head anyway once Eddie died! Whether Eddie was perfect, interesting, charismatic or not, the moment he died it was over for him and George was going to be king anyway. Therefore George did not need propaganda to be king. He was the hereditary of the throne. George was not boring, he was simple but because he wasnt a rockstar like his father, the high society dubbed him as "boring". As for Eddie, since he was a child people including Queen Victoria, Eddie's father, their teacher Danton and even their cousins noticed in their testimonies and their letters that Eddie was mentally sIow and Iethargic. Do you think that was George's propaganda too since then, when George was a child too?
@@GoBlueGirl78there ks nothing interesting about zathanian's comment. Too many people who know nothing like to put the blame on George V for absolutely everything that happened during his lifetime. There were signs that Eddie was mentaIIy backward ever since he was a child as noted by queen Victoria herself, Eddie's own parents, his teacher and their cousins, in their letters. George was a child himself in that time, but according to zathanian its George's propaganda. George didnt need propaganda to become heir to the throne once his brother died. He was going to become king anyway with or without propaganda
Nothing to consider about your absurd comment. The crown falling on George's head was already Legitimate since George was the Legitimate Heir to the throne once his father and his brother died. George did no need any propaganda to "legitimize" the crown falling on his head, because the Crown would fall on his head anyway after Eddie died, and that was already legitimized. Eddie's rep already was down ever since Eddie was a child by all the people who witnessed his mentaI issues, there is nothing post-humous about it. George wasnt boring but even if he was, that has nothing to do with being a great monarch. What makes a great monarch is his sense of duty and devotion to the crown, not his interests and his passions which have nothing to do with the duties of a monarch! Read the other replies above
