No matter what anyone might say, England, Ireland,Scotland and Wales are truly Great, our history is equal to any, if not more so, nation to exist since the birth of our nation, we have contributed to prosperity and the living standards of many nations, we have invented so many different types of engineering,scientific, economic and artistic products that any nation would be pushed to have done more, and the resilience and fortune of our people is legendary, that’s why we ARE Great Britain.
The loss of all those beautiful monastic buildings is an architectural tragedy that has robbed us of some of are greatest historical buildings, it is such a shame.
Fantastic! Our castle in Costa Rica is inspired by these wonderful buildings of England. Don't know if I can wait thirty years for it to be finished though, ha!
A lovely idea for a presentation -- all aerial view shots of these tremendous structures. Fascinating. How beautiful and strange that little triangular confection of Thresham. It surely does spek to a sense of security finally under QE I -- it would be as impossible to physically defend as it is to justify in all its Catholic symbolism, if that awful era of religious mania had not finally settled itself.
I think that the description of Mary, Queen of Scots as possibly most tragic figure of the Tudor age is rather a stretch. She was an intelligent and politically astute woman, who arranged the deaths of many around her, including her former lovers, and came to a sticky end as a result of her politicking. I would say that Lady Jane Grey was a very much more tragic figure. Queen Catherine of Aragon and Queen Katherine Howard would also be good candidates.
I wouldn't say Katherine Howard is a good candidate. After all, she did have an affair with another man while she was married to Henry. I agree with Catherine of Aragon and Lady Jane Grey as good candidates, though.
Yes, and Mary wasn't caught between England and Scotland as much as between the Vatican and England. The Pope continued to encourage her to rebel against Elizabeth, as a true Catholic.
The castle shown at 3:08 onwards is that in my old home town of Richmond in North Yorkshire (the one that all other Richmonds in the world are named after, either directly or indirectly). Whilst it is lovely to see it I do not understand its relevance to a documentary about the Tudors. It was built under the Norman dynasty, some 450 years prior to the Battle of Bosworth, and was never ever attacked in all its history. And that includes the Tudor period.
If you listen to the documentary, it doesn't state that it was attacked just that the families who lived in these castles lost the ownership as Henry claimed them into a royal real estate, Hence the relevance in a Tudor documentary.
+DarkLadyJade If you look at any map then yes england looks very small but it is still large enough to home almost 55 million people. Half the population is concentrated in the south meaning there is a bit more free space in the midlands and the north. Also the speed of modern transport makes the world seem smaller than it is, one mile is actually longer than you'd probably think and in tudor times when the fastest way to get around was by horse and cart, a small country like england wouldn,t have seemed small at all.
90% of England is rural. 98% of Scotland is rural. People get confused with proportion of the land that's rural and proportion of the population that is. The 2 things are very different. This is why, loosely speaking, people in Britain, even if urban dwellers, are 'in touch' with the countryside. We're never far from it, spend a lot of time in it, and may have lived in it or know people who do. We may be physically urban, but our psyches are still in many ways rural.
Yes, this is the age which follows castles - there’d just been a disastrous civil war and now the aristocrats were thinned out and under the king’s control. Castles weren’t much use to them, and gunpowder had made them too vulnerable to be relied upon.
I'm hoping to visit Anne Boleyn's childhood castle this summer, as it's close to where I live. Blickling Hall, Norfolk. I'll have to visit the abbey in Bury st Edmunds as well
Yes, but maybe this documentary is not the right place to discuss such a complex issue as the reasons for the English Reformation. Here the focus is on the architecture.
and I thought the Biltmore Estate in north Carolina was something! beautiful filming. wonder how long it took 2 build these castles-er-homes.would love2 see inside-the heat bill had to b high!
+dave h No. Brit aristos have to open their houses because of back taxes, bad investments, the loss of their agricultural assets and death duties, sometimes as high as 80%. Brits used to think of "winter heating" as an electrical heater, with 2 electric bars as the maximum needed.
. You can stay in one of the 13th Century Towers at Warwick Castle , we have stayed in the lodges on the grounds, the Tower Suites a night cost about £675 , they are beautiful .
The Tudors were not foreign monarchs. Well by alliance they may be but the founder of the dynasty was Owen Tudor a truly Celt from Wales. Here Mary Stuart was named because she was the grand (grand) daughter of Owen by the mother of her father James Stuart King of Scotland. Mary of Scotland was also the daughter of Marie DeGuise of France. (there's the mix). So when Henry VIII daughter Mary Tudor (The bloody Mary) died without an heir Mary Stuart was presumably 'the' heir to the throne. But the Parliement of London chose the 'bastard' Elisabeth (daughter of Ann Boleyn) because she was 'protestant' when Mary was 'Catholic' BIG problems!. So when Elisabeth (the virgin Queen) died James the son of Mary Stuart (grand,grand grand son of Owen) became King of England. And from then Scotland and England were united! Until now!
pjvail parliament didn't choose Elizabeth. Henry viii will which he put into law mapped out the line of succession. If you want to get technical Mary Queen of scots should have inherited the throne after Edward died as both Mary and Elizabeth were illegitimate. However like I said Henry viii will was law.
Ohferchrissakes! I'm sure there was little BO, if any.. To be completely emerged in water wasn't possible but you know they had sponge baths, followed by perfumes and oils....
Well, there was, really. You might want to check out Lucy Worsley's documentary on the Tudor period-she goes a week & does not bathe...it was a eye opener-you really felt for the woman!
It's largely a matter of what you are used to I suspect. Once a month might have seemed quite fussy to those whose parents only bathed every two months. If everyone smelt quite strongly, maybe it wasn't so noticable, if thats all you knew. I think people being so used to it would have sort of tuned it out.. After all there would have been a lot of other strong smells. Meat & fish going off, decaying veg', tanneries, dyers workshops, stables, human sewage. It was a smelly time. Some people beleived washing was bad for the health, it stripped all the natural oils from your skin & hair. All the same, I bet it was often a matter of circumstance. If you lived in a country place with a conveniently secluded stream, of a depth suitable, surely it would have been natural to get in the water & wash off the dust of the fields during a hot summer, just for personal comfort?
Wonderful video. Many houses and castles are in really good condition, even now.... The ones allowed to deteriorate to the points that they are in - is one of the major crimes in the world. All of them should be restored to their former glory... probably by the rich of that country... Those structures are an essential part of their heritage. And me an American should not have to even tell you this.... It should be obvious.
help me please! i speak english very bad. i need to know names of this castles and buildings here. can you wright it to me please?( burghley castle and another names
Yuck!!! Bathing once a month. They must of smelled so bad. I would rather bathe in cold water, then once a month. I actually do but only during summertime's since its so warm out, It feels really good, It's not always cold and not freezing but cold enough when its hot out. Its more of a cool off.
Bathing daily is a VERY recent invention. The body is, to a point, self-cleaning, although admittedly if you want to smell like lavender and jojoba you are still probably not going to find that in a Tudor setting. If a person smells the same smell (such as sweat, filth and sewage) for long enough, a phenomenon called "nasal fatigue" sets in such that your brain doesn't notice the smell anymore. If everyone stinks, nobody stinks. Add to that the sheer volume of alcohol consumed by people on a daily basis in these times, to the point that they were probably constantly drunk, and you have a situation where bathing becomes an afterthought.
While Tudor architecture is stunning, the Tudors themselves are probably the worst of the foreign dynasties to ever rule England - with Bloody Bess capping the deranged Tudor reign. But this is probably due, in large part, to the sheer number of Tudor structures that still stand. Henry 8th destroyed the countries infrastructure thru the dissolution of the monasteries (though the Church was hardly a paragon of virtue).
Brian Smith yes, I know, but what kings of England were English then and what is your definition of English? Normans and Plantagenets were french, stuarts scottish, then the Hanovers/Windsors from 1714 to present day are Germans. Even Harold was half Danish.
My point exactly - it appears that many refer to the Anglo-Saxon kings as the 'last' English kings - but both the Angles and the Saxons were Germanic. It seems to have to do with the Normans superimposing the sons of Norman nobility over their English subjects versus the amalgamation of the Angles and Saxons into the established population. There is a basis for the claim that there has been NO English king or queen since 1066 if not earlier if the House they are from originally determines their country of origin but even here the Houses of York & Lancaster are closer to being English than Tudor, Start or Hanoverians (at least I think they are). The same cannot be said for the nobility of England after the Normans. Of the ruling Houses though I find the fascination with the Tudors unexplainable for it was under that family that some of the worst atrocities were committed in England. I believe that this fascination has more to do with the existence of architectural wonders rather than the person themselves.
Willoughby house.. HUGE, and 8000 pounds. "in today's money 1.7 million". Really? You can barely get a 2 level house on a couple of acres in North Van for that...
And your point is? Just think of the "value" of paper money, when you need much, much more of it to buy something. Its not that the land & buildings are "worth" more. Far from it. Its because the money is "worth" far less.
For those who prefer the truth. They did not just empty their chamber pots from a window into the streets. There were strict laws against it! Gee, I wonder why?
Night soil men were around since much earlier than Tudor times. They collected waste to be brought out of town and used as fertilizer. Urine was collected and turned into ammonia, used for setting fabric dyes. I agree with you; truth is preferential to supposition.
1 thought.1 metres of oak plank 10 cm wide 1 cm height cost 30 pund.74 canon english ship cost 1 billion pund,and the spanish was much larger and better.
Very poorly made documentary. Hard to understand, skips around a lot, hard to know which building he is speaking of, the photography is pitiful and not in sinc with the narration. It wore me out by 26:48
