At about 2:10 it sounds like you've said Queen Anne died in 1707. I'm sure what was meant was that the Acts of Union made Anne Queen of Great Britain in 1707, but the way it's phrased sounds like she died in 1707 when she actually died in 1714. I greatly enjoy your channel and look forward to each new video.
This will be the second British Monarch I will see ascend the throne in my lifetime. I was 7 when Elizabeth was crowned and I suppose I will be, by the time Charles is crowned, be 77. My mother woke me up and took me next door to a neighbor, who had a TV set, to watch and very fuzzy black and white live TV broadcast. I will probably have to remember to stay awake this time to see it.
Ditto: 1 was 4 at the coronation. My family was then living in Mumbles, South Wales (of first passenger railway fame) and father bought a 'Television' for the spectacle. The entire street (Park Street) came in to watch. Until recently I still had my 'silver' coach and horses that all kids were given!
I am a mere 74 years old, and my parents bought a television set in 1952 at the high price of 90 Guineas in readiness for the following year‘s Coronation. My recollection is non-existent but my mother told me that I did not actually see the TV broadcast in our living room full of people because I had gone next door with our neighbour who was a Roman Catholic, and in those less than ecumenical days it appears that he watched the broadcast until the Anglican religious part of the ceremony kicked off and then he had to withdraw. It was considered that at a couple of months short of five years old I might well be a little too fidgety and bored at a long religious service. I wish I could say that I watched it live. I could have done. I didn’t!
I've often said that the 2 most confusing subjects I've ever come across were quantum physics and British history, and when my British friends try to explain it there's always a voice in the back of my head that keeps saying, "You're making this up as you go along, aren't you".
I just grabbed my dictionary and looked up "fecundity", a word I have never known until you spoke it. Thank you for that extra bonus in daily learning!
Just a neat little extra note: years ago, the now late Queen Elizabeth II authorized the declassification of a large store of documents pertaining to King George III. These documents included personal correspondents from and to the king, as well as official government documents and so forth. Not only did her majesty order the declassification of this historic treasure-trove, but she also commissioned a team of university scholars and students to review and scan into digital form every document for online public viewing.
@Sky Den Wow, how interesting! Do you happen to know if the documents are available for the public to see online now? I did a search on Google but didn't find it. Thanks!
@@lisahinton9682 I don't know the specifics of the online availability. I actually learned of this not too many years ago while watching a British made RU-vid video, (the video may have been by/of Lucy Worsley, as I was watching a lot of her videos at the time I became aware of the declassification.) Also, at the time that the video was shot, the team assigned to the task was just getting started and it was stated that the process would take a great deal of time, as for one the documents have to be handled with delicate care. As well, every document needed to be thoroughly examined for content significance and context established. A lot of curating work needed to be done especially since the incredible number of documents were not well organized before being locked away. I'll look into my viewing histories and what-not to see if I can figure out which video covered this monumental task.
@@skyden24195 Thank you so much for your explanation and for looking again to see if you can find which video covered the declassification of all those documents. Very kind of you, indeed!
@@lisahinton9682 I found the video: George III: The English King Who Went Mad I Genius of the Mad King I Real Royalty link: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8Szzq13NzbI.html
Always fascinating! A minor error - Victoria reigned 63, not 67 years. And for those in Canada who may not know it, but in gratitude for his service to the Canadian colonies, Ile Ste Jean, split from the colony of Nova Scotia in 1769, was renamed Prince Edward Island in 1798 in honour of the Duke of Kent, Victoria's father. In 1873, it joined the Canadian confederation as the seventh province, during the reign of Edward's daughter.
P.E.I. seems to be too small in population, let alone size, to be a province. The same reason Northern Territory can't be a state of Australia as someone explain to me.
@@mjspeedzone5532 I was thinking of US states and representation in Congress. Looked up the Canadian system briefly and found out PEI is indeed overly represented as is MB, NS, SK, NL, NB.
Queen Victoria was also the first royal to pass the hemophiliac gene down to male members of the family, most notably to Tsar Nicholas' son Alexei (and for Tsar Nicholas II to consult Rasputin, which led to much bigger consequences). For some time it was thought that this was a result of Queen Victoria not being the child of the Duke of Kent but it now seems that because he was over fifty years at the time she was conceived that it might be a spontaneous mutation of the gene factor IX. ps Having lived in Germany, as a result of being a British Army 'brat', I always spell Hannover the German way
In my opinion, all these sterile marriages else were caused by an excess of inbreeding: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NRStCaAXvzY.html
To make this even more confusing... Charlotte's husband, Leopold, was the brother of Queen Victoria's mother. A few years after Charlotte's death Leopold was elected King of the Belgians. Leopold is the patriarch of today's Belgian royal family--and that's how the British and Belgian royals are related by blood.
Brilliant. Love thos episode. As a Canadian I am one who is proud of being a member of the Commonwealth and having a royal head of state. As they say now - God save the King.
A interesting piece of royal history is that, through his mother Princess Diana, when William becomes king he will be the first direct descendant of Charles II to ascend the throne. His mother was a direct descendant of the Duke of Richmond and the Duke of Grafton both illegitimate sons of the Merry Monarch. 👑👑👑👑👑👑
I'm glad I never had to learn English history in depth. If wars were won by feasting, Or victory by song, Or safety found in sleeping sound, How England would be strong! - Rudyard Kipling
This weekend at my niece's funeral her grandmother was there. My fellow classmates remember me speaking about her. As a child during the Blitz of WW2 she was in tunnels when Winston Churchill would come down with the people. The Princess came down in military uniform to inspire her she was 10 years older than the wonderful woman that I'm speaking about!
Hold on, may I know how old are you. If your niece was alive during WW2, and assuming that as her uncle you are around her paren't's age, you must be well over 80.
I loved Christopher Hitchens remark that the love Brits have for royals “takes the macabre form of demanding a regular human sacrifice whereby unexceptional people are condemned to lead wholly artificial and strained existences, and then punished or humiliated when they crack up.” One thing you can say for the late queen...she didn't crack 😂
"The love that the English have for the royals..." There, I fixed that for you. You may not have heard that the proclamation of ascension in Edinburgh was met by as many boos as there were cheers.
@@BornIn1500 Your irrational long winded rant exposes how little logic your opinion contains. Never before has anyobe wasted so much time by going on and on about nothing. You just can't help yourself, can you? Going on and on about other people and nit minding your own business. People who spew hatred like you deserve to be in prisonn because you can't even stand to have one comment posted you disagree without ranting sentence after sentence of pure drivel with no meaning except to unleash your pathetic hare speech with no true substance. You are everthing that is wrong with everyone, and you waste time by writing vacuous verbose statements of rage.
A quote, if I may from Hamilton An American Musical, as a message to the new King: "History has its eyes on you." And to paraphrase that iconic quote: "The History Guy has his eyes on history that deserves to be remembered."
Years ago I had a fascination with The Great War and in one book the author said that if Queen Victoria were still alive in 1914, she would have stopped the war. Interesting thing to ponder.
And remember... The Queen's funeral was at St Giles cathedral. Built in the 1200's...as a Catholic church.. And that is history worth remembering. May the Lord have mercy on her soul. "Grief is the price of love" My favorite quote from the Queen. God save the King.
All of that would be enough to make anybody's head spin plumb off, but you made it somewhat clearer. I always enjoy your videos & as a former history buff, much to my dismay, you make history much more digestible than most history teachers we Baby Boomers suffered thru. Although I did have a few remarkable history & government teachers whose names I can still remember some 50 years later: Miss Colley, 8th grade Georgia History, Mrs Jones, 11th grade US History & Miss Brown, 12th grade US Government & Constitution! They taught at Morrow Junior & Senior High Schools, in Morrow, Georgia.
We didn't realize at the time that we would know our history through many different history classes, know how our government and nation ran through civics classes, and have a rein on our finances through economics classes better than following generations. Why were some of these courses dropped when they have such a bearing on our lives? Now we are left to ponder where this will lead our nation. Of course it seems some of our own generation must of flunked some of these courses, the way the country is being ran right now.
Oh yes, who had a (highly disputed!) reign of only 9 days. Long story short, Henry VIII's son Edward VI died of an illness at age 15, in 1553. A staunch Protestant, he changed his will on his deathbed, to cut his sisters Mary and Elizabeth out of the succession -- because Mary was Catholic and Elizabeth kept her own religion close to her chest. Edward wanted a reliably Protestant heir, and Lady Jane Grey was the closest one he knew of in the family tree. But Queen Mary had (to use CGP Grey's phrase) "bigger army diplomacy" on her side, and deposed Jane after only 9 days. As Queen, Mary tried to take England Catholic again. ...And then died childless after only 5 years. Her sister Elizabeth became Queen after all, and took the country Protestant again under _her_ much longer reign (1558-1603). _(EDIT: typoed "5 years" as 6 at first; slightly better wording in 2nd paragraph)_
I don't see what is so complex or confusing....succession from George III seems to have gone in order as prescribed by various laws of the times - unexpected events at times, to be sure, but no coups, poisonings, mysterious disappearances, et a;, as happened upon occasions in the past.
I just listened to this again, and I learned a new word today! (I love words.) "Wastrel" is a word that, as far as I know, I had not been exposed to previously. Thanks, THG!
An item of trivia for you: King Charles, when he was 17, had part of his education in Australia, he was quoted as saying that "it was the best part". :)
Fascinating, and timely, as always. As a British citizen, I am always bewildered and amazed by the amount of Royal historical fact I still do not know. A lifetime study would be the only answer - too late!
Thank you kind sir. It's nice to get a history lesson, but how you kept the names and titles straight is amazing. I had no idea how confusing bloodlines could be. Well done sir
It has been pointed out to me that while George III sired 15 children, George Washington sired none, leading to the question as to who better deserves to be known as "The father of his country".
Imagine some poor fellows in London, writing on whatever predates a chalkboard, trying to figure all this out, with the speed of information, a herald runs in, stating the king has had another child. Ecstatic, they write it down, only then for another child to get married, so off goes the new kid. Marriage illegitimate, cross them off, what was that new kid’s name again? Another herald runs in, three died of dysentery. “oh for the love of…!”
I cant deny that i shed a fuw tears when i heard about the Queens passing. Mostly in sorrow for the UK but also when i realized that this was history in the makeing, the end of an era just like with Queen Victoria God save the King 🇬🇧❤️🇸🇪 Interesting side note is that on the 15th of september 2023 the Swedish King Carl XVI Will have served for 50years, the longest time for any Swedish monarch and on the same year as we also celebrate 500 years of autonomy
Some children are confused by maths or physics, but as a Brit, I was always completely bewildered by history! All these kings and strange successions. It is all just so confusing. Force = mass x acceleration, that’s easy to see, but the rule of succession? Completely gaga.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury said in "Henry V" after describing the convoluted path to who had a claim to the crown of France "So it is as clear as the summer sun."
We tend to learn Prime Ministers instead ! - Parliament tended to have more power and say after the Civil War . Though the main themes are - the role of the revolting lower classes, the problem with Europe, the Irish Problem, and the Corn Laws ( relating a lot to free trade/tariffs and inflation due to weather conditions )
I don’t know, do American kids have it any easier? Seriously - try to remember the presidents! I can get through the first couple and the last handful, but in between? And forget about Vice Presidents!
@@HM2SGT True. As for UK PMs, Most Americans can name Churchill and Thatcher....Major and Johnson only because of the greater and more recent info out. MAYBE Disraeli, but beyond that...no.
You know that feeling you get when you crawl under your desk looking for the power cord to your printer, and you're suddenly struck with the realization that there's, like, _A MILLION_ cords down there? Must be hard, being British royalty.
Excellent, thanks THG (from the UK). Makes me realise how lucky we are; Her Majesty died last week and instantly Prince Charles became His Majesty. Phew! No argument; no debate; no delay. Lots of ceremony, sure but only to affirm a "done-deal" as I think you say that side on t'pond. And, of course, we have Prince William to follow then Prince George and so on. Why did the 17th-18th century Royal Family have to make it so complicated... Great video, thanks.
I'm so glad you're making videos again, this year is the 175th Anniversary of the "Mormon Battalion" would you please consider doing a video on this subject? It's full of remarkable and forgotten history. Including the West Point grads who commanded them.
7:06 Picture of Princess Charlotte looks amazingly like the present day Charlotte. Or maybe I should say it the other way around. The present day Princess looks startling like this painting of (I presume) her namesake.
Having a little experience with old age, (I am only 77.),I have a few thoughts on the passing of ERII. Observation: ERII standing for the peaceful transfer of the office Prime Minister is potentially the proximate cause of death for ERII. Given that during this official (as official as leading the army in defense of the Kingdom) event, ERII stood for an extended period time, ERII possibly suffered the injuries and distress leading to her demise two days later. King Richard III was also directly involved in an official event leading the army on the field of battle when he suffered the wounds that were his proximate cause of death. Shakespeare gives words to King Richard III: “A horse, a horse; My Kingdom for a horse.” My response to the picture of ERII standing alone is a few words in the back of her head: “A chair, a chair; My Kingdom for a chair.” ERII did her royal duty in the face of certain death. Conclusion: FOR WANT OF A CHAIR, THE KINGDOM WAS LOST! God save the King!
This was very interesting and convoluted! I’ve been reading lately about John of Gaunt, Richard II and the machinations of the crown in the 14th century. Have you ever done a video about John of Gaunt?
There is a historical novel called Katherine which is the biography of John of Gaunt’s 3rd wife. It is probably the best place to find info about John of Gaunt than any history book. Despite it being fictional, it has more details about his life and English history of that time than any other source.
England has had 3 Queens: Anne Stuart, 1707-1714, (Alexandria) Victoria 1837-1901 and Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor) 1952-2022. Victoria and Elizabeth II both reigned over a nation and time that was in great change. They have also had three female Prime Ministers: Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May and currently, Liz Truss. And there are still Americans who say women are not intellectually and emotionally fit to be President.
Over the centuries the British Royals had many children who had children. A study done in 1920 by Stanford University, found that 300,000,000 people were the direct descendants of King Edward 111. Anyone born in the British Isles or had ancestors who did has royal blood.
*Poor Charlotte!* The woman was simply a breeding machine, & it appears that while everything went swimmingly for the first half score, once they got into the double digits the royal copier began having hiccups!
Imagine making a law that says who can and cannot become King or Queen based on religion. Yet there you go, it was done. This was very interesting. I am the American daughter of an English woman and so I came up learning British history. Yet, as always, I learned plenty today. Thank you! One small error that I noticed, however, is that Victoria ruled for 63 years (and 7 months), not 67 years. Anyway, thank you ever so much! I always appreciate the amount of research and work that goes into your videos.
The law was to protect England from bloody conflicts as had been endured under the Tudors, and protect the fledgling Church of England from being dismantled under a Catholic monarch.
I dont think it had been pointed out that CIIIR has been the oldest (male?) to ascend the UK (English?) Throne (Query any Scots ones older ?) In part this is due to early deaths of other previous contenders in war or disease.
King of the UK of GB began with the 1707 Acts of Union, it was 'and Ireland' that was added with the 1801 Acts. Ireland wasn't part of the UK, just like N.Ireland isn't today
Yeah, not much on the Royals. I'm gonna down a Bloody Mary, call my cousins to wish their children well, then binge watch some Deadly Men seems right. oh Danny boy. See ya in church.
