We Asked the Public Who the First King of England Was… | History's First
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2024
- Alfred the Great? William The Conquer? King Arthur??? Just a few contenders for the title of First King of England - but of course there can be only one.
Join Louise as she sets out the help of Medieval Historian Matt Lewis to uncover who was the first King of England.
Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Lucy Worsely, Mary Beard and more. Watch, listen and read history wherever you are, whenever you want it. Available on all devices: Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video, Android TV, Samsung Smart TV, Roku, Xbox, Chromecast, and iOs & Android.
We're offering a special discount to History Hit for our subscribers, get 50% off your first 3 months with code RUclips: www.historyhit.com/subscripti...
#historyhit #kings #royalhistory
That guy in the yellow vest was very intelligent. He asked if she meant Saxon or Norman Kings and he even mentioned Canute, king of Denmark and England. Well done.
He said Norman the Conqueror at one point. He should learn his lines better.
Knut? They keep changing spellings!
@@therespectedlex9794what’s wrong with that? Nobody can slip up? Obviously he had his mind on the conquest. I doubt he had “line.”
That's nothing to do with intelligence, he simply remembered a GCSE history lesson.
'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''..
This is actually a tricky question, it all depends on how you define England. Alfred saved Wessex from becoming Danish, Aethelstan united the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and William the Conqueror established the English monarchy and succession via primogeniture.
Absolutely, well said!
I was surprised & shocked by the lack of underpinning historical knowledge, by our good public, bar a few...
Spot on! I am not English but am interested in history. The answers don’t come across as ignorant. In fact very insightful.
Iulius Gaius Caesar then His Beloved Son Octavianus Augustus
And the English ‘ruling class’ is still largely made up from the descendants of William 1 and his associates (mainly but not exclusively Norman vikings)
Thank you!
I love that the construction worker was most knowledgeable of people on the street.
He's not a construction worker. Veolia do waste management in the City of London (and many other local authorities), meaning he's either a binman, sorter or a road sweeper.
It's kind of interesting as society has long looked down on people with these sorts of jobs are being uneducated and unintelligent. I remember it being a common threat that if you didn't do well at school you would end up as a road sweeper, with characters such as simple-minded Trigger from Only Fools and Horses painting them as not being the brightest bunch.
The deacon at my church was a binman, and we used to see him once a week taking our bins. If he had no qualifications and lacked intelligence he would quite simply not be a deacon.
The pay isn't amazing, but is usually above minimum wage, and contrary to popular belief you do need qualifications including passes in Maths and English, which is better than a lot of jobs. Private sector pay a lot more and subsequently needs or provides better training.
@@rustledjammies8769 I bet you're real fun at parties.
@@ozarkscarguy540 bruh calm down mate
kinda wonder how many people did answer but werent shown here
Lmao, that's a lot of words for 'he isn't a construction worker'.
I'm an American, but I guessed Alfred. I thought he was the first one to unite all of England, but I guess I got him confused with Athelstan. I'm just happy to have guessed one of the top five contenders; I did better than some of the Brits you interviewed.
Me, too. I think I actually read that somewhere.
Theyre both good answers.
Alfred used the term "king of the English" so I think they could have counted that
Alfred is a good answer, Wessex was realistically.last Kingdom standing and he was King of the Anglo-Saxons in the end.
It's just his Kingdom wouldn't be the full one as the Danelaw was pretty big.
It's a sticky question if you want to be pedantic. King Alfred is often considered the first king of England but, the England that he ruled was only half the size of modern day England. But by the same token it could be argued that George Washington was NOT the first president of the USA because the USA, during his tenure, didn't include Alaska or Hawaii.
I think most Americans would agree that the USA was the USA even before it acquired Alaska and Hawaii. Using the same logic, Alfreds England was England even though it didn't include the northern half of current day England.
Kudos to the man in the hi-vis. He gave the most eloquent answer.
The least obviously educated actually knew the most. The story of modern education
@@user-ol8fn2dy8h he might be the most educated. Just did not have daddy's trust fund to depend on.
@@user-ol8fn2dy8h even after having the evidence shoved in your face you confused having a work class accent with being uneducated.
I want to see him on a history themed game show with some high ranking MPs
Yeah! But kudus to the other bloke for the big beard, even though it's not a forkbeard!!
I think it's great that the ordinary guy in a reflective jacket has the best understanding of the complexity of the answer !
That's the power of accessible knowledge for the masses
@@Lamya65 I am a bit of a self-taught history freak myself but I had the same thoughts. I knew it wasn't Arthur, if he existed at all, he was a Celt fighting to stop the English coming - ironic or what. I really like Winchester, shame I now live on the Scottish border, it's a long way!
The middle classes are just pushy idiots.
what makes the others unordinary ?
@@badda_boom8017 I give in, what does make the others unordinary?
My English school history lessons unfortunately went from Roman Britain to 1066.
The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Alfred the Great, Athelstan or Cnut were never mentioned.
The title of the "first king of England" is often attributed to Æthelstan. He was the first king to effectively rule over a unified English nation. Æthelstan reigned from 924 to 939 AD. Prior to his reign, England was divided into several smaller kingdoms, including Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria, among others. Æthelstan's successful military campaigns and political strategies enabled him to consolidate these territories under his control, making him the first ruler of a united England.
1st king of england is actually prince brutus of troy
@@jmensa9128The time that Brutus Of Troy was supposed to have come to Britain predates the coming of the English. There was no England for him to be king of. He’s also widely regarded as a mythical figure who probably didn’t exist.
But he didn’t rule over a settled nation. It was still very much a fragmented place…..
From this debate, it seems what makes a kingdom can be pretty arbitrary. Think about it: Athelstan was the first one to rule all of what we call "England," but it's made up of about 7 kingdoms: Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Mercia, Northumbria, East Anglia, and Kent. Why is that officially enough to be "England?"
Edward I conquered Wales and added it to his Kingdom, but somehow Wales is still Wales, it's not part of England even though it sort of was treated as such (which is why the flag of the United Kingdom has no Welsh symbol on it).
The first ruler of the "United Kingdom" would be James I/VI, who combined England and Wales with Scotland. And then there's Northern Ireland, but that's another story.
Athelstan was my best guess too.
I like how the guy who appears to be a street sweeper, knows lots of historical kings
Probably a CK3 player
Never put down the people you think are below you.
People who work for councils are from a very wide range of backgrounds, and knowledge.
@@cohort075. Very well said. Thank you.
yep, I get this all the time.. i work as a domestic cleaner and spend all my days listening to documentaries, science, history etc whilst I work.. "ooooh you are so intelligent for a cleaner" is not the compliment people think it is.
my brother is also a womble and he knows lots of stuff.
I love that the guy with the high visibility vest on had the most intelligent response of all the people to clarify "the first King." 1:27
'' Brutus( died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''...
@@Yahweh312obviously just a legend
Skilled tradespeople are usually more intelligent and better informed than modern arts & humanities graduates.
@@drahcirnevarc9152
Oi! Nothing wrong with the humanities! (Archival science graduate here). But I'd say that it varies, very much. Just like in all other areas of life.
Athelstan first king of England and William the conqueror was first norman king of England.
As a retired baker, I wanted it to be Alfred, but have always considered it to be Aethelstan.
That was fun! I immediately answered Athelstan, not because I'm an English history buff but because, as a Scot, I've always known that the Kingdom of Scotland is older than the Kingdom of England! The first king of all the Scots was Kenneth MacAlpin, who reigned from 843-858.
I wonder how many people would correctly answer Kenneth MacAlpin if the channel tried a similar vox pop in Scotland and asked, "who is the first king of Scotland?"
One more point of interest to me was the discovery that there was a time when the King styled himself as "King of the English" rather than "King of England". In Scotland, we've kept that subtle distinction between reigning over the people as opposed to ruling the land itself. We've never accepted the illogical notion that a monarch can ostensibly command obedience from the soil, the sea, the weather, the mountains, the animals, the flowers, etc. (Hence, "Mary, Queen of Scots" rather than "Queen Mary of Scotland." )
We also don't recognise English numbering of Kings and Queens of England who were also Scottish sovereigns. Whereas in England, the late queen was called Elizabeth II, she was just Elizabeth in Scotland. For example, you'll still see the letters "ERII" engraved on English pillar boxes but in Scotland, it's simply "ER".
As an Englishman I've never actually looked into the history of Scotland, outside of how Celts etc were pushed up and out and how Scots moved to Northern Ireland to seed it for British loyalists but you've got me interested in this old king. The way in which Scotland deliberately changes the wording for royals is great too. One thing I've always admired about the Scottish is their proud nationalism that isn't scared to be called racist by people who just hope to deny history to any indigenous peoples who aren't brown or black etc. I'd prefer to vote a King in if we still have to have one. Kings you would follow into battle, these days they're just figureheads and tourist attractions.
Scottish nationalism is far more diverse and inclusive than reactionary nationalism. Its not perfect but its much easier to be relaxed about being called racist when you're less racist than your neighbour
@@BenBebbington nice virtue signalling.
@@leonleeson5904 better than vice signalling
@@BenBebbington great comeback 🤡
American girl here and proud of myself that my first thought was Aethelstan!
Well done. Everyone in England can name the first president of the USA but hardly anyone knows the name of the first king!
I hope there will be a video about the first king of the Scots. That's just as tricky.
Same here!
@@MrBulky992 But that was yesterday by comparison.
Nicely done! You must like history.
Canadian guy here who considers himself well read and I never heard of Aethelstan. You got me beat big time girl. So do you really know who was the first Canadian Prime Minister. NO LOOKIN IT UP.
For all those in favour of Æthelstan, I thoroughly recommend you visit Malmesbury in Wiltshire this Summer for their Athelstan1100 event celebrating the anniversary of his coronation
This place has been on my must visit list for ages, didn't know there was a major anniversary coming up though, I will definitely check this out, thanks!
Not our only piece of interesting history, either! What with Eilmer, Thomas Hobbes, and Hannah Twynnoy...
I think my channel icon gives away my vote. I have always considered Aethelstan as the first genuine King of England.
Athelstan was crowned on the King's Stone in Kingston-upon-Thames. Lots of things in the area named after him. Many Kings were crowned there, until William the Conquerer moved the ceremony to Westminster Abbey.
@@frankieelen7238 Interesting.
The only lone listed to be a serious contender IMO is Æthelstan. However there is a case for Eadred: after Æthelstan died, the Northumbrians broke free from us again and became a nation in their own right once again. Once Æthelstan's successor, Eadmund, had died, HIS successor was Eadred. He closed Northumbria down forever as an independent country and England was re-born and she has remained united ever since. So we can trace a long continuous period of those old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms being united as one nation called England from Eadred's reign.
I think, though, that Æthelstan is the answer as he WAS the first king of a united England even if that nation later fell apart and even later got stuck back together again by another geezer.
Poor Athelstan, all those battles just to be forgotten about.
He is the Stan Mortensen of royalty, he (Mortensen)scored a hat-trick in the 1953 final and it is remembered as the 'Mathews Final'. Athelstan, from Wessex united all of the smaller kingdoms and is the true founder of England, yet he has been ignored by educators.
Just to be made gay in a Netflix show
@@dkwsu16 got to meet those diversity targets
We should bring Aethelstan back as a boys' first name. ; )
@@dkwsu16He may very well have been, he never married and fathered no known children.
The problem with the question isn't WHO it was, but rather what was ENGLAND at the time. You would have the same problem with France.
A unified kingdom. The idea of England was presented by Alfred the great, as he wanted to unify the kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumberland and East Anglia.
This wouldn't happen though until his grandson Aethlston took the crown.
@@bubba842 Fully aware. But you also had to Wales, which wasn't suppressed until Edward I, who also, at least for a time suppressed Scottish independence.
WHY is england ?
Yes indeed, or Sweden. A school textbook I inherited from my grandma (who grew up in the 1930s) declares that "the actual age of the Swedish kingdom is unknown, but of the states that are found in Europe today, Sweden is the oldest to have existed continuously". That was slightly fanciful, but only just: there may have been "kings of Sweden" already in the 7th/8th centuries, it's just that we don't know how far beyond the heart of the country their power extended. By the year 1000 at the latest, there was only one king in the country, but it's not as if he was running it like a boss. 😄
Same problem in practically all countries. I know it is for Sweden. It took time for Sweden to get the form it has today. For a very long time, the Northern part of the country (more or less half of the current country) just didn't count.
Athelstan, First King of England,
Grandson of Alfred the Great,
who was the King of Wessex.
And I'm Italian American. 🇺🇸🇮🇹
You have the opportunity of goggling the answer.
He was A king of many kings in England but not THE king of England.. William was the first to unite the kings under himself and became THE king.
@@helensimmonds5182 What about Canute? He turned the old kingdoms into earldoms.
Also you are mistaking the kings of Wales, Ireland and Scotland wih kings in England. There where no kings in England except for the house of Wessex. The vikings killed them all.
Athelstans coronation had him rowed down the river Dee by several kings, but they where not English. They where the kings of Ireland, Scotland,etc that I just mentioned.
So, a standard Yank
good for you sir
American here. Appreciate the video. Very interesting and interesting that many are knowledgeable and interested to put in comments.
Athelstan was the first King of all England. He reigned from 924 to 939 AD
Aethelstan was King of the English, The question was " who was the first king of England"? That would probably be William 1.
You're stupid. Aethelstan was the first King of England (at the time called Anglaland). He united it and gave it its name. @@khankrum1
@@khankrum1 - Athelstan was recognised as the 1st King of England
@@gnasher688 The standard title for monarchs from Æthelstan was "King of the English". In 1016 Cnut the Great, a Dane, was the first to call himself "King of England".
no way!
The guy who says Richard II is hilarious, especially as he then answered Athelstan
who said that? I missed that one haha
I know. What happened to Richard the first ?
You say this, but Charles VII of Sweden was, in fact, the first Swedish king of the name Charles, as they had included mythological Kings when counting. More specifically Charles IX of Sweden (really the third) decided that should be his number and so Charles VII received that number posthumously
@@EvieOConnorxoxo thats very interesting! However, Richard I is one of the most famous English monarchs who most people know was not even the first Norman king of England. Therefore, saying “Richard II” must have been meant as a joke. The guy who said it also knew Athelstan (most people do not) which showed that he is probably very aware that Richard II was not the first King of England, hence why it’s an absurd answer (and amusing).
I’m a yank and had no idea - but this was a fascinating ride! Well played, you kept me watching to the end!
A lot of Brits have no idea either. We are just taught the line of succession from William the Conqueror, who was originally 'The Duke of Normandy'.
Yay! I was going for Aethelstan... only because I did look up the early kings and queens of England a few years ago, and must have read up a bit about the various contending claims to be 'first'.
Why this isn't routinely taught in schools, along with the beginnings of the parliamentary system, as a foundational history unit, I don't know.
It's crazy that even people who were born here don't know these basic facts about our country's history.
I like that you showed the people who took the time to think and admitted when they didn’t know. Instead of how they do it on talk shows to make everyone look like and idiot.
I'd say Athelstan, Alfred's grandson, was the first undisputed king of all England. Alfred started off the process towards a united England.
He was King of the English, not King of England.
If England is defined as the land of the English, being King of the English is King of England.
@@AlunParsons Sort of ironic, because none of the earliest Kings spoke English or ruled people who spoke English and it took a very long time to even call the land itself England. 👍👍🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️
@playnicechannel they spoke English. Though it was very different than todays.
English has gone through several evolutions as a language being influenced by Latin, German, French, Norse and Danish.
@@Carpediem357 Well, the Norse kings who ruled the island did not speak any form of English Old, Middle or Modern. The Norman Kings did not speak any form of English. The residents of the island spoke a wide variety of languages including forms of English but the island was crammed full of languages and dialects. But the early Kings certainly didn’t refer themselves as English nor the island England until the 10th century (scattered use in very late 9th)
A very interesting discussian; I had never heard of AEthelstan, before today, and learned about the "committies" of barons voting on a King before 1066, also I had no idea that bad King William of Normandy had an Anglo-Saxon ancestor. NEAT.
The Wikipedia article on Aethelstan has substantial detail, lots of footnotes and shows him to be an incredibly interesting character. I agree with Matt that Aethelstan can legitimately be called "The First King of England", because he was the first to consolidate rule over the entire region. That consolidated rule may have been lost temporarily for about 15 years after Aethelstad's death, but was quickly reestablished by Aethelstad's half-brothers, plus a revolt by Northumbrians that drove out the last Viking control in 954. So Aethelstad as "First King Of England" appears to be a rock-solid claim.
In my understanding of what I read as a child 50 years ago, King Alfred of Wessex strove for a united England, ie the several kingdoms within England amalgamating and unifying into one Kingdom. But it wasn't until his grandson, Æthelstan, took to the throne, that there became a unified kingdom of England.
Bingo ! Without looking it up I gave the same answer . But couldn't remember the name of Alfred's Grandson .
@@landsea7332 😍
He was declared King of the Anglo-Saxons, but was not a king of a united England. Aethelstan was also King of the Anglo-Saxons, until crowned King of England
'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''..
I’d no more consider Brutus Of Troy than I would Arthur Pendragon. Both are most likely mythical characters.
Alfred was certainly the first king we know of to really push for the idea of a unified English identity. He felt that the best way to defeat an enemy (in this case the Danes) was for the people to unify behind a common religion, language and culture. It appears that the idea of a united English kingdom, as opposed to smaller, more vulnerable, kingdoms, was part of that. It’s a shame he never saw that idea through before he died, but good to know his grandson achieved it.
Æthelstan deserves way more respect in England 👏
He's in Walter Scott isn't he?
The pre-1066 English have been written out of history by the establishment.
I imagine he suffers from having a hard to spell out name. If only his name was something easy, like Alfred or George!
@@mikesaunders4775 They tried, but failed. Anyone who knows English history would have easily answered this question. 😂
@@mikesaunders4775Tell me about it! My own cousins didn't know we share a surname with the last Saxon King.
They know "King Harold" and 1066, but not Earl Godwin, his father
RUclips recommending me a decently academic and enjoyable video is surprising.
My guesses were Alred & Athelstan; I completely overlooked Cnut
There's another reason Arthur shouldn't have been in the running: even if he had existed, he was not only not English, he was a Romano-British Celt, _fighting_ the English (Anglo-Saxons) and trying to preserve Britain from them. Had Arthur existed, and succeeded in preserving sub-Roman Britain from being conquered by the invading Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, there never would have been the subsequent patchwork of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that later unified into the kingdom of England.
Well I didn't vote for him!
@@joycarlson2492 Strange women lying in ponds is no basis for a system of government.
This is my best comment of the day on any video I've seen @@joycarlson2492🔥
@@Hibernicus1968 Best film ever........
"If I walked around, saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"
Richard the 2nd? WTAF, how would that make Richard 1st come after the 2nd🤦♂️
People just don't think!
It could make sense of Richard I was a king of Mercia before England was a united monarchy and they kept up the numbering.
LOL
@@Siegbert85”before England was a united monarchy” meaning not the king
Do you know how many Edwards there were before Edward II came along?
@29:13 i'm glad to see you two FINALLY started to drink those beers 🤤
great episode 😀 thanks.
I grew up with a different king - not so often mentioned. Egbert - I only found out about Athelstan later on - google searches call him first king of England. Egbert managed to control as far north as the Humber - not as great a reach as Athelstan, but 100 years earlier. Emma of Normandy (died 1051) is key to all that happened in 1066 though.....
I love living in a country that has existed for so long that its early rulers are almost lost in the mists of time.
Hungary was established as a kingdom even before William the conquerer - in 1000, Stephen the Apostolic king of Hungary was crowned with a crown sent by the existing Pope in Rome. (just saying.....)
Thats basically every country man
@@adampica9815 It really isn't. Read some history of Germany, Italy, Poland, etc etc
I wonder what it would be like to be Egyptian. They remember the first pharaoh of Unified Egypt, Narmer, who lived in 3150 BCE. 5000 years ago.
And they have records of even more ancient mythological kings. Kings who ruled smaller disparate parts of Egypt. Going back to literal god kings.
And I honestly can't decide which is more romantic. Knowing your kings from 5000 years ago, or letting the mists of history make mythological figures out of them.
Um, Persia/Iran? Cyrus II aka the Great (unified empire 559-530 BCE). China? (Qin Dynasty 221 BCE).
How can that first guy answer Richard II? The SECOND?!?!?!?!
Yes, very funny.
He was being put on the spot and he WAS nervous.
Well I mean the 1st was just a duke
@@SaltyCorpsman he was also King of all England. Despite only ever having been here for 6 months at the time.
@Dimera09 you're thinking of The Lion Heart, Richard I.
Richard II reigned over the Peasants' Revolt, was a bad king, was usurped, killed, and later slandered for all time with a story about a really bad date with a hot poker.
Brilliant history lesson! Thanks!
I was in Kingston-upon-Thames last week where, of course, Æthelstan was crowned on 4th September 925. 548 years later, in 1523, my great grandfather (times quite a few generations!) died, and was buried at All Saints, Kingston.
1:45 this guy really knew his history, good on ya m8
He prob forgot aboot Iulius Gaius Caesar. First Pope. Conqueror of a sweet chunk of engaland 🌪️🐑
Norman The Conquer though
@@judgeaileencannon9607 which highlights the trickiness of the question. Is the question who was the first monarch to rule of what we now call England or who was the first native born 'English' monarch.
@@astoriacub Ilius Gaius Caesar wasn't even a monarch though, he was a tyrannical usurper.
@@quintuscrinis8032 The Caesers were very much monarchs, though. The Roman Caesers were the template for the Dark Age and Medieval Kings of England and France.
I like they found the most cowboy looking guy to be our representative from America.
I was a bit disappointed that he didn't remove his hat while talking to a lady, but he seemed pleasant.
@4362mont I attended a graduation ceremony at Methodist Central Hall where A Texan did not remove his cowboy hat upon entering the building. Wore that hat through the ceremony. Tres gauche
@@acustomer7216 Probably all hat & no cattle, aa some of us say.
Cowboy hats are removed when you go inside someone's house, a church (or other place of worship), and inside if it's a formal occassion. Let's say you're eating at a counter, you can keep it on, but a table, you keep it off. If it's casual, you can put it back on. When you put it down, you put it top up, and don't show the inside. Cowboy hats are considered a working hat, and cowgirls wear them, too. No one takes them off outside, but a polite nod, or touching the brim with a nod is a sign of respect or politeness.
@@4362mont That's not how cowboy hats (or hats in general, in the US) work. Outside, you can wear the hat.
Fascinating and interesting, Thank you...
You can’t actually get to that statue of Alfred the Great in Southwark. It’s in a locked gate park which is only accessible to residents of Trinity Park Square :(
Your expert must have misspoken. Harald Hardrada wasn't the King of Denmark. He was the King of Norway. He claimed the throne of Denmark but renounced the claim as he wasn't able to challenge the throne.
This Dane agrees. We know him as Harald Hårdråde, and he was never really our king. 😊
Yes. Double take here too.
Yes, and it should also be remarked that, by God, the man did get around! Some of his exploits: 'Harald distinguished himself in the Battle of Stiklestad, a battle between the Danish king Cnut the Great and Harald's half-brother, the later Norwegian king-saint Olav II Haraldsson (Saint Olaf). Being on the losing side, however, Harald had to flee. First he went to Kiev, where he found protection with Prince Jaroslav, a descendant of some of the Vikings who settled there. Then Harald moved on to Constantinople, where he fought in the so-called Varangian Guard. This was an elite unit in the Byzantine army, consisting of Vikings, Englishmen and Normans. As a commander in the Byzantine army, Harald fought in places as far apart as the Mediterranean, Asia Minor, Sicily, the Holy Land and in Constantinople proper.' And this is all before he got into the king business...
Just so you know, we called everybody that invaded at that time "Danes" dosnt mean they were nessecarilly Danish ...maybe hes getting mixed up
For England, Harold Hardrada was the Ralph Nader of the 11th century. He invaded England and got himself beaten by King Harold II (Harold Godwinson) who had to march his army straight away down to Hastings and take on Duke William, to whom he lost. By that time the Normans were speaking French, but they were really Vikings too, and William was a descendant of their founder "Rollo" (Hrolfr).
I've always believed it to be Æthelstan, Alfred's grandson.
You are correct.
It is, there's no debate just those who know this fact and those who are misinformed.
Quite right. The hair splitters have no good argument.
How did you do Æ ?
@@sidm3300 Alas I cheated. I copy/pasted it from a document I found online...I wish I could say I was some sort of genius, but I'm not.... Wishing you a good day.
Thanks! Really enjoyed the discussion over a hand pulled pint🎉
I have read that Ecgberht, Alfred the Great's grandfather, was the first to be "recognized by his fellow kings as King of all England" (829-839).
I always thought Athelstan was the first true king of England. I only know this because in the 1980’s I lived in a block of flats called Athelstan House.
'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''..
@@Yahweh312 he wouldn't have been king of England or of the English though because England as a nation didn't exist until Athelstan, and the English people didn't arrive in Britain until the late 5th century.
As a Canadian, I was thinking William the Conqueror. I liked hearing more about the earlier King's. 😊
There was life before that .
Well now you know! 🙂
There are a few Anglo-Saxon heroes and heroines that are worth talking about, such as, Alfred, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, Aethelflaed, Edward Ironside, etc. There wouldn’t be an England at all without them…
'' Brutus(died approx 1126 BC) , also called Brute of Troy, is the historical British king. He is described as a historical descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, known in medieval British legend as the eponymous founder and first king of Britain. This legend first appears in the Historia Brittonum, an anonymous 9th-century historical compilation to which commentary was added by Nennius, but is best known from the account given by the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae.''...
Me too and I grew up in England
Vortigern, ;)
High vis guy.. you know your stuff. Makes me proud to be English.
This vid was worth my time to watch.
Alfred united the Anglo-Saxons against the Vikings, however Athelstan conquered all areas commonly now referred as England. Cnut is the first to crown himself King of England.
Well, Æthelstan was my choice as well! Thanks for the video.❤
Iulius Gaius. Slayer of the Gauls and Celts.
How amazing! The contract worker knows MORE about UK history than the Posh Oxford types! What are they teaching people in elite universities....THAT contract worker should get an honorary degree.... Well done Sir!!!
The man on the street pays more attention than the posh elites for certain.
This is a wonderful piece on the First King of England.
I'm reassured that so many were aware of the answer. That said, Norman the Conqueror and Richard the Second were absolute standouts.
William the conqueror..was the Norman duke who became king in 1066
I want there to be a movie about Norman the Conqueror. Played by a black guy. Better yet, a black woman.
Hey John i could accept a movie where a good black actor played the role of William the Conqueror with lots of action at the Battle if Hastings .But as a woman ?? That is like putting a man in to play the role of Joan of Arc in a history of her life A bridge too far for sensible viewers.
@@JOHN----DOE William the conqueror! who was a Norman and he was not black..
@LauraRegaldoLiebermann why would you accept a black guy playing William the Conquerer but not a woman? You obviously don't care about historical accuracy, so how are you drawing the line?
It was me!
😆😆😆
We bow to your magnificence !
My liege 👑
America will want independence one day I reckon.
Sure, but Alfred was GREAT!
This was fun. Thanks
This was a fantastic discussion. As an American I've never really thought much about it. I certainly didn't know it was a debatable topic.
Now I've also learned what that unified AE letter is because of this.
Aethelstan jumped to my mind, but then, I read about these things. I'm American. Sadly, most Americans are abysmally ignorant of their own history. As a retired history teacher, I don't blame teachers. You can teach all you want, but it's up to the student to learn.
I learned more religious history as a kid than secular history in school. They didn't have many history lessons in school back in the 60s and 70s. I took an interest as an adult, so I am familiar with the topic of 1st king of England. I hope education has improved in California since my wild west experience.
They have to care. If you can tell a story about how the English stuggled for identity amongst various wars etc, then they might care enough to remember.
The lack of basic historical knowledge in our country is frightening. This was basic stuff that we learned at school decades ago!
It's unnecessary. Knowing how to source and evaluate information and detect disinformation is far more important.
I think they all got pretty good answers showcasing that it is indeed a question with(depending on definition) several answers.
Steady on, 279, it's made by a TV production company. They need this sort of thing to boost viewership. It's not particularily important to know such stuff a thousand years later, is it ?
It's not taught anymore but lgbt rubbish is 😂
Most people don't retain knowledge that poses no use for many decades - that's an inefficient use of brain-space.
Having said that, it's also a trick question - because it depends on your definition of literally every word in the sentence.
"who was the first king of England"
1st, define what you mean by England. Second, define what you mean by King.
Absolutely fascinating conversation to have. I was convinced (and a little cocky tbh 😆) that it was William the Conquerer! Shows what I know. I also knew of the other two main contenders but I really wasn't across the history of it all. Anyway, thank you for giving my first "you learn something new every day" experience for today.
Thanks!
The story of the syncronized pints on the table was also riveting
How are there not more people discussing Anglo saxons electing kings?
Good question. The Scandinavian countries elected their kings much of the time too. I wonder if it was the basis for the parliamentary system, in which the leader of the majority becomes PM.
We kind of still do this, but it’s only observed for formality reasons. I remember watching the privy council last year on TV, basically the new king had to watch the lords give their approval. Just as the Witan had before 1066, but of course then it wasn’t a mere formality.
It wasn't an election in the modern sense though, was it? All the kings of the House of Wessex were close relatives of one another:
Egbert
Ethelwulf - son of Egbert
Ethelbald - son of Ethelwulf
Ethelbert - son of Ethelwulf
Ethelred - son of Ethelwulf
Alfred - son of Ethelwulf
Edward the Elder - son of Alfred
Aethelstan - illegitimate son of Edward
Edmund - son of Edward
Edred - son of Edward
Edwig - son of Edmund
Edgar - son of Edmund
Edward the Martyr - son of Edgar
Ethelred II - son of Edgar
Edmund Ironside - son of Ethelred
...
Edward the Confessor - son of Ethelred
Harold II - no relation, the exception proving the rule
Edgar the Aetheling - grandson of Edmund Ironside, great nephew of Edward
So essentially the "election" was to decide whether to pass over the next in line by exclusive male primogeniture on grounds of age and instead to hand the kingship to a brother of the deceased king orelse confirming tge obvious successor in which case it was a mere formality. I doubt there were ballot papers or a show of hands.
I would say it was more akin to the modern Privy Council's accession proclamation at St James's Palace. Of course, the Witangemot were the king's advisors after the reign began.
It wasn't a democratic election, though, it was more akin to the way the pope is elected. And often the field of candidates was one person.
@@MrBulky992 Yeah, basically just a way for the Nobility to feel like they have a say. But essentially all it did was confirm what would have happened under primogeniture anyways in almost all cases. It was actually really bugging me that he made it sound as if it was akin to what we think of when we think of democracy. It was nothing of the sorts really.
Wow, I can't believe that's who I said before you started! But it was more drawn out with a question mark at the end, Fascinating talk!
IMHO, it would have been better as just a chat, without employing the quiz game conceit.
I was not especially surprised that many people on the street had no clue as to the answer, since not everyone has studied history, and many who have it was either a long time ago, or they may not have studied British history or that time period.
What did surprise me was those who took the question to mean: Who was the first person in England who was a king?
It's surprising how few English people (granted, in a small sample) really understood that 'England' and 'English' have not always existed. So, yes, various individuals have existed who were kings, queens, etc and ruled over various regions or peoples within the borders of what is now England or Great Britain. But that didn't make them the King/Queen of England - if they ruled in a time where there was no concept of either England or Englishness.
As an older Australian with an interest in history, but with no formal study of English history, I had some of the grand sweeps and broad strokes of background knowledge, but not king lists and so forth. I knew and ruled out William I, and knew names (Knut, Aethelred the Unready, Aethelstan, Harald Godwinson, Alfred the Great) but couldn't order them by date, and for most didn't know for sure whether they were Saxons, Danes, or English, and whether they ruled a Saxon kingdom of Anglia, a Danish kingdom (the Danelaw), or something they recognised as 'England'.
So, although this video is not a scholarly exposition or lecture, featuring only experts, I nevertheless learned quite a bit - and was entertained at the same time.
It's Athelstan!! Alfreds grandson...
So Alfred himself wasnt king? But his grandson was?
@@pheart2381just not king of all of england i think
@@pheart2381 Alfred was King of Wessex he was not King of Mercia or Northumbria
@@pheart2381 King of Wessex, but referred to himself as King of the English. But not king of England.
Funny the Sweaty Sock kings were always King of the Scots, not King of Scotland.
@@jcoker423 Alfred was King of Wessex and King of the Anglo-Saxons, but not King of the English. However, from 911 his daughter, Lady Æthelflæd, was Queen of Mercia and a close ally.
Having watched The Last Kingdom, I'm going for Aethelstan
Reading The Last Kingdom taught me more about English history than all my teachers 😁
@@colincampbell378 I agree, although I watched the series obviously rather than read the book. Watched Vikings as well which is set similar time but obviously a lot more glamorous. I enjoyed both, but Last Kingdom more.
@@Zippy66 , I have watched, read the books and also listened to the audiobooks... Cornwell is the number one.
If you're relying on Cornwell for historical accuracy you'll remain badly misinformed. He wrote fiction based on historical events.
Thankfully Bernard Cornwell sticks quite close to actual history with his books. So you can be sure that 99% of what you read/see is accurate. In essence it's an historical book with an added character or two to give a narrative/Stirling
This was fantastic. Not having been raised in the UK I was proud of myself to remember Aethelred, King Knut, Edward the Confessor and Harold Harefoot. But I didn't get it right. I am so impressed that over a thousand years ago people voted for their king. In comparison to that the War of the Roses was a bloodbath.
Well it wasn't the people, it was more like a council of the high ranked folks of the realm, the Witan. Basically the precursor of the Privy Council.
@@damianjblack you are right of course, not the common people, but still!
Well reasoned
It's a tricky question. Alfred was the King of Anglo-Saxons, Aethelstan the King of the English. If we consider all the parts of English identity (Britons, Anglo-Saxons, Danes and Normans), maybe the Conqueror. But Edward the Confessor was already a mix of all this, more or less.
I don't know which source names expressely the title King of England for the first time, actually...🤔
Normans weren't true English (Anglo-Saxon), they were French Scandinavian (i.e. Norman = North Men).
I want to put in one protest vote each for Math the Ancient & and for the emperor Claudius.
@@white-dragon4424 Edward the Confessor was half Norman (throught his mother Emma, twice Queen of England), and he Is definitely considered an English King, and even and English saint. During his reign, well before Hastings, Norman influence was quite strong, expecially in the Church. And at that point his subjects were absolutely not only Anglo-Saxons, but also Danes and Britons.
So I'm not so sure that Anglo-Saxon Is a synonimous of English. Not in year 1000, at least.
Canute the Great is the first to use the title of King of England. He also used King of the English that his predecessors used alongside a variety of other titles. Nonetheless he is the first to style himself as King of England and this title would be adopted by later rulers as well
That wasn't the question. You don't need to be from somewhere to be king of it.@@white-dragon4424
Stan Athel. His dad had a carpet shop by the old market on Bucks Road. Stan did very well for himself and was adopted by Eddie King after winning some pretty tough fights. The old man made him change his name.
Humour! I love it…….
@@carolwaugh5466 Thank you, Carol. Glad it made ya laugh.
So Glad i got that right....and taught my 4 true History 🏴❤️🇬🇧
Does anyone know where I might find more videos that Louise presents? I quite like her style.
I love the recycled statue. Very interesting
First trans statue?
@@user-it7lf7kk8m 🤣
@@user-it7lf7kk8mCan we just enjoy history.
Council budget cuts, you reckon?
13.40 for the sake of clarity Harald Hardrada was King of Norway he was joint ruler of Denmark
with Magnus but only for about a year.
There's a wonderful psuedo mosaic montage in Worcester (of our lineage) on the front of a Sainsbury's store.
Definitely learned something today. I don't think I've ever even hear of Athelstan, but, yeap, his claim sounds good to me.
King Athelstan is researched and presented extremely well in the BBC series 'King Alfred and the Anglo Saxons' . Thoroughly recommended viewing. Unfortunataly I cannot say the first King of England was Thrithelthroth of Ermintrude. That would have been fun.
It really speaks to the staying power of Norman propaganda that so few English know anything of the kings of England before the Norman Conquest.
Of course we should all know these things, it was only a thousand years ago, although all the photo's have disappeared.
Yep, pure propaganda that persists to the present day. First history lesson at my secondary school- The Norman Conquest, i.e. the worst thing that ever happened to 'the English'.
Lots of people said Alfred the Great though…who was a pre-1066 king.
You're just butthurt over the battle of Hastings when William gave Harold and ass whooping.
Not like anglo-saxons didn't use propaganda when they took over. They got a taste of their own medicine.
@@SorceressWitch Because the Normans resorted to the cowardly “feigned retreat” tactic, they would have lost the battle otherwise despite having greater numbers than the English and being fully rested.
Furthermore, I don’t see why we would be “butt hurt” over a battle that happened nearly 1000 years ago, that’s just daft! 😂
An account from Orderic Vitalis himself about the English at Hastings:
“The ferocious resolution of the English struck terror into the foot-soldiers and knights of the Bretons and other auxiliaries on the left wing; they turned to flee and almost the whole of the Duke's battle line fell back, for the rumour spread that he had been killed. But the Duke, seeing a great part of the opposing army springing forwards to pursue his men, met them as they fled, threatening and striking them with his spear.”
Really interesting. I enjoyed this very much. I'm Australian and was pretty happy that I picked Aethelstan.
Guy in the high vis has got his English history going on.
☮️
I watched The Vikings and Last Kingdom... It's based all during this timeframe of the "early England."
Wasn't that FUN. All history should that accessible and engaging. Well done.
Having a blast , got my two cents worth in . Don`t know anything about the subject , but , expressed my views anyway .
@@alanjones3874 Yes. it is fun to learn new things, and it is great to show interest and enjoyment in learning. It is also very good to say thank you to those who took the trouble and provided the knowledge in an interesting way. it is not easy to achieve.
I am a teacher. In the very first day I tell my students never to denigrate someone who asks a question or shows curiosity. Lack of knowledge is easily fixed. but lack of manners or lack of character ....
@@SharonOnTheNet You are so right. Never discourage curiosity! The person who asks a question is definitely more to be commended than the one who doesn't ask because they don't care to learn.
They should have watched 'The Last Kingdom', a drama telling the life of Uhtred, Lord of Bebbanburg, set in a back story of 'King Alfred The Great's' ambition of creating a united England from a number of smaller kingdoms. Alfred didn't succeed but his grandson Aethelstan became the first recognised King of a united England.
Oh god that guys accent got worse and worse ans worse untill I could no longer watch it. I really enjoyed the show but he sounded like a bag of squirrels by the end.
Athelstan wasn't it? There's an Athelstan School here in Handsworth, Sheffield. Need to watch it now 😂
I'm happy to see the camera and sound men got to take a draught of the beer sitting in front of them so long and only going flat.
I loved making this episode! Not sure what was better, quizzing strangers on the street or getting to chat about medieval kings with Matt Lewis. Are you an Athelstan Stan? 👑
I am an Aethelstan Stan. I am also a Matt Lewis Stan. 😁
Always have been.
Yep...Son of Alfred...
I'm a history guy; Military, American and European Medieval, Dracul-a, conflict w Islam, Richard the Lion Heart...
Arthur was Welsh, likely 5th - 8th century, wore chain and not plate armor. He has been co-opted by English/British and the French.
Merlin was also real, given the title of "General of General" before he was a Wizard.
There is a book written by two historians, one named Wilson. You can see their interviews on RUclips.
I'd love a copy of this book if you can find it. I'm sure you would enjoy the investigation of "the other history" of Arthur and Merlin.
If you find two copies of Wilson's book, I'd gladly reimburse you.
Thanks for doing the video.
Blessings upon you, in the Holy name of Jesus the Christ. Amen.
Thank you it was very interesting. and well done.
Terrific video, thank you! As an Australian, we were taught in school about Alfred, William and Cnut. Good old Aethelstan didn’t even make a mention in our English history classes! It’s only been through further reading as an adult that I’ve learned he existed. Also - very interesting point about William being the one to kick off the numbering system. It’s a bit bland, but I’d hate to be known through history as ‘the Unready’ or ‘the Bald’ etc. Medieval PR wasn’t so effective. Thank you for this doco 🙂👍
I love history. had the best teacher ever. He came from Wales.
How far back do you want to go? Which bits constitute England? What about the bits "acquired" from Scotland and Wales, and given back, and taken again, and given back again?
Guy in hi vis vest is a legend!
Excellent story History Hit ! Entertaining, genuinely interesting, and great information. I have always loved the stories of England, but I would NEVER have thought of Athelstan as the first King of England. Your historian was superb and your reporter handled it all beautifully. Well done. Thank You.
Brilliant
It is quite a fun question. Of England as we experience it now, was probably William III as he was the first one to be really subordinate to parliament with the crown being an organ of state, rather than the state being part of the body of the crown.
My answer would be Athelstan - grandson of Alfred the Great I believe - first to unite all the regional kingdoms ie Wessex, Cumbria, Mercia, East Anglia etc into one Anglo Saxon Kingdom “ AEnglaland “
So, I am from Iceland, so I maybe I should be rooting for all those invading Vikings ... but I would have guessed Alfred the Great. Mostly because in our history books he is famous as the King who united the English (against the Vikings) and won!
But now having watched all this, I must say, I think there is a good case to be made that Aethelstein is more deserving of the title "The First King of England"!
BTW, "Aethelstein, or Æðelstein, or Eðalsteinn, means "gemstone" in old Norse and modern Icelandic.
same in Danish Ædelsten
History hit. Turning the subject of history into a pub quiz
Absolutely Fascinating - or should I shout "Brilliant!" You win the Internet for the Day Award.