Видео

I was dreading covering the Fairie Queene for England because it’s so long; this definitely helped - thanks so much 🙏

I found quotes from "The Faerie Queene" in Philip Pullman's book "The Secret Commonwealth" and George Elliot's Book Middlemarch. Thanks for your explanation :)

Can't wait for the second part!🎉❤❤

Visiting scholar? Hope to see you again in China!!

🎉🎉

No... Firstly: cos there was never a group that called themselves 'Anglo-saxons'... There were Saxons, Jutes, Frisans and Angles and the groups that eventually unified 'Angleland' under Athelstan seemed to regard themselves as either Angles or Saxons, though by Aethelstan's time it was mostly Angles, hence the name 'Angleland'. Secondly: The Germanic migrants did not displace the extant population of the time, so there were still Celts around and the Danelaw had introduced a lot of Norse folks too. Third: Wales was only 'unified' with England by the Plantagenet king Edward Longshanks. Though the unification with Scotland kinda happened with James I/VI.. the final unifying act was the Scottish Parliament voting itself out of existence in 1707. Having said that: The migrant populations did establish political dominance in kingdoms such as Mercia, Wessex etc...at the expense of the Romano-celtic authorities that survived the formal end of Roman rule. Edit: Haplogroups also tend to refute the claim that they 'took over Britain'... Since the best evidence I have seen suggests only around 30% of pre 20th century 'english' DNA was derived from these Germanic migrants which btw... Does seem to have initially been elites, others came later... Lets not forget the migration took 3-4 centuries, and the biggest reason the Angles achieved dominance was because, basically the whole tribe arrived. A lot of Saxons stayed home, and the Jutes and Freisians were lese numerous. Though old English is more like Friesian than other languages.

Reference to the British anglo saxons in the war with Mexico and the United States in 1846 in an anti war review: The Anglo-Saxons, your British blood, have been apparently persuaded to think themselves the chosen people, the anointed race of the Lord, commissioned to drive out the heathen, and plant their religion and institutions in every Canaan they could subjugate! The idea of a “destiny," connected with this race, has gone far to justify, if not to sanctify, many an act on either side of the Atlantic; for which both England and the United States, if nations can be personified, ought to hang their heads in shame, and weep scalding tears of repentance! We had already done great discredit to our good name, by our violations of Indian treaties, our slavery, and our repudiation of State debts. But this attack on weak neighbors, to steal away their lands, is capping the climax of wrong and dishonor. See, says the monarchist, the aristocrat, your boasted government of the people can do as wicked and unjust things, as were ever perpetrated by the kings and kaisers of the old world! It is the same game of ambition, only it is played by different hands! It is the ancient spirit in a new form. The reality is the same, sugar it over with fair names as much as you please! War is war, and tyranny is tyranny, and human bondage is human bondage , - whether in the United States, or Rome, or England! Some men have attained the title and have been called great, but they have been great in crime and blood, a Peter, an Alfred, a charlamagne, a Caesar, a Herod, a Bonaparte, a Frederic. They have been willing to sacrifice any amount of lives and blood to be called the greatest. But how blood stained the glory, how much tears to water their garlands of victory, how much human gore to dye their purple robes of royalty? We want no more such great ones, we want the truly great. We want Catos , not Caesar nor syllas at the head of nations. We may deem ourselves to be a species of Israelites amongst the nations, but remember too that Israel did not escape the fiery furnace and punishment for all its transgressions and backsliding! There is a genuine Anglo Saxon destiny, of which we can conceive, that would be truly glorious in itself, and beneficial to mankind. But it is a destiny of liberty, not of license. It is a destiny of peace, not of war. It is a destiny of justice and noble ideas, not of invasions and violent annexations. It is a destiny whose emblems and implements are not the bomb and the bowie-knife, but the printing-press and the Bible. It is a destiny of raising up the fallen races, and administering wise and equal laws, wherever our dominion extends, not of trampling under the hoofs of the war-horse the prostrate red man, black man, or dark browed Mexican. If the Anglo Saxons have any other destiny than that, let them beware before they run upon the thick bosses of those bucklers of the Almighty, which have already drank up the blood of the proudest victors! -war with Mexico reviewed, Abiel Abbott Livermore, American Peace Society 1850

So who do I believe, someone who was writing at the same time that the anglo saxons were migrating into Britain or some bunch of left wing historians saying stuff that just so happens to fit in with contemporary societies politically correct ideas about immigration. oh and who are writing about 1500 years! after the event... At least we've moved on the 19th century view that we're all Germans (King George was German)....

Unfortunately yes.

At least their big mouths did. British royal family has been Viking descendants for a thousand years.

I have seen some well argued suggestions that Germanic tribes came to Britain in pre-Roman times, possibly about 300BC, who shared names with continental tribes, such as the Belgae.

England ended after 1066 and it's landowners all replaced. It survived as a name only.

it would be interesting to see if the Y Chomosomes in period where the domestic British males or if most of the found period bodies where Y chomosomes from the mainland

What the ‘no conquest’ lot can never explain is why there was such a huge exodus of Britons from Britain to Brittany in the 5th and 6th centuries? We’re talking big numbers here - enough to completely change the toponymy of the Armorican peninsula and it displaced the Latin language there. All evidence points towards a massive fleeing out of Britain, away from the Anglo Saxon invasion.

"True history is one of the best antidotes to ideology" - absolutely. Fair play man! 🙌

Oh please, post-structuralist literary criticism? Of a 6thC historian who was considerably closer to the action than you? And who's outlook was reinforced by events in the A-S Chronicle? And all this in a western Germanic tongue? You're a very strange and weird person

They slaughterred them.. and called them welsh.. meaning foreigner...the nerve

Those immigrants would have been refugees from the Hunnic invasion of the continent. Also, what most people don't know, West Jutish dialects of Danish merged the three Proto-Germanic genders into one, like English.

nice, loved it. What books do you recommend for a sort of commentary on the book?

I'm revisiting these a lot. I really appreciate the combination of summary and interpretation!

No, they only made a joke🤣

Mass MIGRATION does not necessarily mean mass INVASION.

Very interesting. Just one thing: a group of people left Africa and became the ancestors of the 92% of us who today who are not African. One lot of their descendants were the blue-eyed black-skinned people who moved into this empty island just before the Mesolithic and then almost certainly became our Mesolithic forebears. They were conquered by, and genetically subsumed by, slightly lighter-skinned people during the Neolithic. These people will very distantly have been related to them as they were also descended from those people who'd left Africa. Then even lighter-skinned people conquered this island and subsumed them - the Copper- and then Bronze-Age people. They will very distantly have been related to them as they were also descended from those people who'd left Africa. Then the equally light-skinned Celts arrived and intermarried with them. They will very distantly have been related to them as they were also descended from those people who'd left Africa. Then came the Romans... then the Anglo-Saxons... then the Vikings... then the Normans. They were all descended from those people who'd left Africa - and specifically the ones who'd travelled slowly through Europe. I'm just wondering... could it be that that's why they all appear to be related? I don't really understand the sciencey stuff so I may be way off but I was just wondering.

@mcgovernjon TRUE HISTORY? Dare you apply it to modern history? How about to the truth of the 'Windrush Generation' & the rubbish about the NHS & UK being saved by it etc.? This is history, yet because overlapping with politics it seems academic principles are thrown out of the window. Moral cowardice or mere pragmatism, or both?

Agreed. But the Jutes who were plundering raiders were not with the Anglo-Freisian and Saxons. They were enemies. The Jutes plundered the Freisian chieftain Fin's barn/warehouse in Freisia. When Fin returned finding them eating all his schtick, Fin killed the head man of the Jutes but in turn Fin was killed by Jutes Henga and Horsa who returned to Britain. So the Angle-Freisians gathered an army which included their friends the Saxons and went in pursuit of the Jutes. They found them in 'Hampshire' and gave battle. The Freisian and Saxons won. Leaving them with a land they could now inhabit. The Freisians first settled in Dorset(Thor/Dorstadt) named after a town in Freisia and Somerset so named after an attribute of their god Ing or Yngvi Freya. They would subsequently move into the West Midlands or Mercia. England of course is a derivative of ING; not from Angle which is a description of the shape of Freisia.

They did culturally.

Then over in 1066.

The modern scientific world is so full of it's own self importance and egos. Why do academia today think our ancestors where ignorant and illiterate.Our forefathers were no different to us and related things as they saw them. Modern ideas of down playing the past and how it was represented to us in historical manuscripts is arrogant. Modern man has no idea about truth as it is always watered down or hidden in favour of the theory of the day. The Angelcynn made this country great and would still be great if not for the treachery during the Battle of Senlac Hill.Thank's to the Norman conquest our true patron saint was replaced as was our national flag.St Edmund 20th November and the White Dragon on the red background.

My problem with this is does anyone take into account the disappearance of Doggerland? The British Isles have only existed as isles for a geologically short time. Could the haplogroups be affected by the fact you could walk from Denmark to England just over 10,000 years ago?

All the evidence points to a invasion and displacement of most of the Britains,, but a few modern historians have a theory with no evidence and it's already being taught in schools,ffs

Very interesting! Thank you.

From what I understand Smeaton (who was the only man who pled guilty) was the only man low enough on the totem pole to be able to torture. When and where these hook ups happened either Ann or the man in question were not in the same place at the time together. Lastly the swordsman would not have been able to get to Ann when he did unless he was commissioned ahead of the trials.

She was NOT GUILTY.

The 'science' has no test-retest reliability. Unlike exact science, upon which you can physically build your house. Sigh

"Poststructuralist literary criticism" is a posh euphemism for "you cant automatically trust what a posh twit (potential subconscious or conscious liar) writes, can you?" Even the criticiser is downplaying his critique. Its obvious Dont trust the posh, dig stuff up instead, and dont auto-interpret the findings in reference to posh writings.

Thank you for this introductive video! I've searched for "La Regina delle fate" by Spenser but no Italian videos were shown there on RUclips.

Very interesting video. I think there are two main lines of thought that dispute the Anglo-Saxon invasion. One would be a British, nationalistic approach. You use the word "elite" in the video but I have heard scholars describe the Anglo-Saxons as "an impoverished minority that made little impact on our DNA." Then there are those who, as you mention, refuse to consider themselves some sort of "ethnically pure people". Ideologically I sympathise with the latter, not the former, but I think both theories are baseless. The key is in the language. Come on, the country's called England. The other languages spoken on the island are so different. Can they prove that Welsh didn't mean "slave" and/or "foreigner" in old German? Is "Das ist meine Tochter" very far from "This is my daughter"? It's actually my study of the English language that's drawn me to this topic. Greetings from Madrid.

There was only one woman who accused Anne and Goerge Boleyn of adultery. That is hardly compelling evidence. She was a maid of Anne's I think. At his trial George Boleyn said "Am I to be found guilty of these monstrous accusations on the word of one woman?" (No those weren't his exact words. I can't remember his exact statement word for word but what I said is basically what he said). Anne and Goerge Boleyn were both very religious and pious. Anne knew her bible well. Incest would indeed have been a monstrous act to Anne and her brother George so I do not think it is possible that she committed adultery with him. She wanted to reform England's religion and help the poor. Why risk that by committing Incest or indeed adultery? As for Mark Smeaton he was not a gentleman and thus could be tortured so he may have given a false confession to avoid torture and a terrible death so his 'confession 'is suspect to say the least. He was not protected by being a nobleman or by his rank and birth. He had no status to grant him some immunity from torture. So anything he said is in my view unreliable. Yes it is possible Anne may have committed adultery but I do not think it's very likely. She also would really have never been alone to have had an opportunity to commit adultery. She was a very intelligent woman so I doubt she'd have been stupid enough to commit adultery.

I'm already in love with your depth of knowledge and understanding. Thank you teacher for making everything so easy for us .😊☺️

Interesting. I thought the "Anglo-Saxon" cultural group had their ethnogenesis in Britain after the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and others had already spent considerable time mixing with the preexisting Britons, Romano-Britons, etc, in the British Isles before later establishing the Kingdom of England hundreds of years later.

"poststructuralist literary theory" = 100% nonsense

There are continental accounts of the Saxon arrival in Britain- Zosiums, Constantinus of Lyon and the Gallic Chronicles speak about the Britons 'yielding to the Saxons'. It was no peaceful cultural movement!

For me, the issue is that historians have tended to look at this through a 20th or 21st century legal lens and forget the enormous importance of spiritual and cultural beliefs back then. She unequivocally did talk about someone else stepping into the King's shoes after his death. That was treasonous - even more so for a Queen. Also, Anne's inability to conceive a male heir and the deformed birth would have been taken as signs from god of her malevolence (whatever we may think today.) Also, Anne and her family were not stupid. Their whole house of cards depended on producing a son. She couldn't with Henry. Is it such a leap to imagine that the cunning Boleyns would have had other men have a go? The Dianafication of Anne Boleyn is just as much without foundation as anything else. She manipulated the king and usurped the rightful Queen of England. Hardly the actions of a shrinking violet.

I really enjoyed this thanks

It's good to see the DNA evidence backing up what really should have been obvious from what we already knew. Aside from the unprecedented level of cultural, religious and linguistic evidence, I think one should look at the psychology of sources like Bede. Although he was writing a couple of centuries earlier, he was drawing no doubt on written sources and oral traditions and was respected in his time. His account we must presume is likely to represent the view of their history by the English of that time. So if that is the case, why would they invent an origin story of not being indigenous to England? Here they were a Christian people identifying with barbarians and pagans. What sort of self respecting nationalist pretends to be from somewhere else? It's an origin story that they had no logical reason to invent.

Revisiting Hamlet I see what would have helped me with this play during school. Teachers set it up by saying "You are about to read the greatest thing ever written in English" and that makes it extra depressing when you slog through the 29,000 words. A better set up wold have been to simply say "Hamlet" embodies older Norse and Danish myths and picked up a bit from the French text of Belleforest -- as a result of these primitive influences Hamlet is just an interesting mess. Its 400+ year age and classism is apparent when $uic1dal melancholy is played for humor. Madness likewise is made fun of. And the play jumps from one genre to another instantly and without transition -- ghost story, humor, revenge tragedy, history, propaganda. The hero stews and pontificates rather than executes. His revenge solves nothing and a neighboring army randomly shows up just in time to take power after all the melodramatic and naive royals poison the heck out of each other. Despite the lack of plot (Hamlet seeks revenge against his step-father for the murder of his father) Hamlet is mindnumbingly long. Strangest of all, this play, that shows so many hands and has so many prior versions, including Thomas Kyd's, is touted as 'Shakespeare's best' when at best he did the incomplete rewrite. To any future Lit majors -- Fear not. They say a lot of stuff about Shakespeare just because they have to. You have to read it and they have to like it but it isn't "the best thing ever written". There is far better stuff out there -- unified, unique and relevant to us non-monarchs. There are writers who use fewer words to say much more than Shakespeare -- "Be true to yourself" instead of the more pompous-sounding "To thine own self be true." Kurt Vonnegut, Cormac McCarthy, F Scott Fitzgerald and so many more. Don't give up. Just learn enough of the Shakespeare jargon to get through. Pretend you think it is (very very) good and they will pass you.

More recent DNA research seems to confirm the Anglo-Saxon dominance was pronounced in the east and south

Just found this, very impressive.

De Fryske groep talen (dialekten fan deselde woartel) binne oant hjoed de dei noch te finen yn Nederlân, Noard-Dútslân en súdlik Denemarken. Dit is tige wichtich, om't de libbene taal it tichtst by dizze taal modern Engelsk is. Dat komt troch it feit dat de beide talen ôflaat binne fan ien komôf - it Aldfrysk. The Frisian group of languages (same-root dialects) is still present today in the Netherlands, northern Germany and southern Denmark. This is very significant, because the closest living language to this language is modern English. This is because both languages are derived from a single origin - Old Frisian. Le groupe de langues frisonnes (dialectes de même racine) est encore présent aujourd'hui aux Pays-Bas, dans le nord de l'Allemagne et dans le sud du Danemark. Ceci est très significatif, car la langue vivante la plus proche de cette langue est l’Anglais moderne. Cela est dû au fait que les deux langues sont dérivées d'une seule origine - le vieux frison. Oddly enough I don't understand a word of the Frisian text. By comparison, the French version is replete with English words or vice versa. Strange, knowing that English is a Germanic language and French a Romance language. Does this have to do with the Normans? Even weirder, these so-called Vikings (North Men) who spoke French! The history of Europe is really complicated. I no longer even try to know who my real ancestors were (DNA or not). Mission Impossible! But I worry about the future of my children and grandchildren, like many parents and grandparents.😕

If "Imagining the king's death" was treason, and it legally was, then Anne saying to Henry Norris, "You look to dead men's shoes, for if ought came to the king but good, you would look to have me" was technically treason. But, of course, it was certainly not intended that way, but as either flirtation (which was acceptable behavior) or chiding for not asking for Margaret Shelton to marry him. Anne knew that that utterance was dangerous because she asked Norris to go to a cleric (her almoner? I don't remember) to proclaim her a good woman before any arrests. But I can't see that Anne Boleyn committed adultery. None of her ladies were implicated (as Lady Rochford was with Katheryn Howard), then it is beyond imagining that she could have secret affairs when privacy wasn't a real concept then. And to imagine that Anne Boleyn would lie in her last confession is nonsense. She held a real, lively belief in God's judgement and Christ's redemption, signified by asking for the Host to be available to her in the Tower so she could pray for her soul. And "violating a king's consort" would make adultery treasonous for George, Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton, but not Anne. She was an anointed queen, which was a big deal.