David Starkey: Henry the Great?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Filmed at Stanway House, September 2023. Dr David Starkey discusses the immense impact of the reign of King Henry VIII.
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon / davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribes...
Please do not re-upload any David Starkey Talks video without permission.
#Davidstarkey #Davidstarkeytalks #History
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks
Another edifying and fascinating talk from Dr Starkey. Thank you to RUclips for allowing him a voice when others would gladly see him silenced.
Ugh. Your obsession with “woke” is one of your only downfalls.
take that @TheSeenAndTheUnseen
It is a privilege to watch and listen to this lecture
Hearing Starkey talk about history is fascinating. We need more interesting speakers to enthuse our kids to study history.
I love David Starkey
He'll never get another job with the BBC because he's the wrong colour.
While Henry’s jousting accident didn’t change his personality I think there is a good argument that it amplified that personality’s negative traits. Traumatic Brain Injury is no joke.
Brain injuries are no joke, but I don’t think that is what he is arguing. My issue with the “Henry became wicked because of a jousting accident” argument is that it is such a simplification. I think what he argues here is that if we look at the broader context of events and focus on the intents and circumstances of the key players, a more realistic picture of what likely occurred comes into view.
Saying a random accident caused Henry to do what he did, not only fails on the timeline, but it also diminishes understanding of his reign and its repercussions. Effectively it boils history down to random chance. That’s not to say that that sort of thing does not affect history (I mean two different kings of France died but hit their head on a doorway) but it should be the last thing we look to to provide answers.
@@leeharamis1935 I agree with you for the most part. But this wasn’t hitting your head on a doorway. Not only is the physiological damage and trauma from such a fall, but there is the psychological element. This was probably the first time he was confronted in a serious way with his own mortality and it came at a time when yet again he is married to a queen that has failed to give him a male heir. Also such an event happening in front of the whole court in the course of sport that he boasts being an expert in must have struck at the heart of his enormous ego. A narcissist with power who has been publicly embarrassed is a dangerous thing ( just wait until doubts about his potency surface). Yes I get he was capable of brutality before the accident. But having two members of the court executed because they wouldn’t take an oath to support the royal succession is not quite the same as beheading a woman that just 3 years earlier you had anointed as God’s chosen queen crowned with St. Edward’s Crown.
A few days ago David Mitchell did an interview about his history book he's writing, in it he described Henry VIII as the start of self deprecating Britain. I wondered how long Starkey would let that nonsense stand xD
Self-deprecating Britain started after the war, nationalism, unionization, socialism, and decolonization. If not at the end of the war, certainly, after the Suez Crisis.
Guardian readers and journalists are nowhere near as important as they'd like to think.
I could listen to Dr. Starkey talk about history all day long, and I always learn something. The modern UK politics go right over this American’s head, so I skip those topics. I don’t follow politics even in my own country.
One of things that get forgotten with Henry viii, is that the wars of the roses was living memory for a lot of people. To avoid a repeat there must be a male heir.
Fascinating as usual .
How have I only just discovered this channel? A long time coming! Amazing stuff.
Reference to Henry but it’s not so great and many other Roman/European Statesman In comparison to the Mexican American war of 1846 remonstrance:
Have the ruin of Greek and Roman liberty consequent of the extension of domain by fire and sword no lessons for us? A score of names, perhaps, in the whole range of history, have been accounted, called “great”. But who are they? How poor are all the results they left on earth compared with his who repressed the ignoble strife of his followers, who should be greatest. They were from below, he was from above. Some good men have attained the title, an Alfred, a Peter, a charlamagne; but most have been great in crime and blood; an Alexander, a Pompey, a Caesar, a Herod, a Louis, A HENRY, a Frederic, a Charles, a Bonaparte. They were great in many things ; great, perhaps, in ability, great in resolution of will, great in means of influence, and striking in their results; but little in the elements of a truly great character ; little in honesty, in truth, in love, mean, selfish, crafty, cruel, and implacable. They have been willing to sacrifice any amount of human life or happiness, to secure their end, and be accounted the greatest. But how poor the honor, how blood-stained the glory! How many death-pangs it has taken to refine their thrill of pleasure, how many tears to water their garlands of victory, how much human gore to dye their purple robes of royalty ! What curses have loaded their names on earth, what awful memories must haunt them in the world of spirits! We want senators not swordsman at the head of nations and Christendom, a Cato not a Caesar, nor a syllas. War is for savages and barbarous nations, not gentlemen and Christian nations!
-War with Mexico reviewed, Abiel Livermore 1850 American Peace Society
You, Sir, are a great man ❤ we are privileged to have the benefit of your insights. Thank you 👏🏽
Brilliant, Dr. Starkey.
A brain wound like that which Henry may have received doesn’t change one’s personality from nice guy to mean man but rather takes some of the internal limiters off and the person becomes more of whatever they were before that may have been thought through before speaking or acting. Henry was ALWAYS capable of having people killed to get his own way.
There is a castle in my town (Saffron Walden) that was defenestrated hundreds of years ago during the tumultous reign of Stephen and Matilda. Can you explain why this was so tumultuous? I know almost nothing of this era, a video explaining what the political context was would be fantastic
An utterly new concept on royalty, nationalism and greatness,how beautiful and original.
15.38 '...as a historian, you must suspend hindsight.' That must I propose be the key. I'm off to read and listen to his other works.
You, my friend, are in for a treat!
David Starkey is a great man.
He is a women, he beleves.
Mr. Starkey`s personal fondness for Henry VIII is clearly clouding his judgment. First of all, Henry wasn`t some great and wise ruler as some try to portrait him. Quite the contrary, he was a deeply solipsistic man who was guided almost entirely by his basic instincts. Pleasures of the flesh are all that he craved for and the well being England was secondary to him. At the end of his reign his country was on the verge of bankruptcy due to useless wars and lavish court life, he had murdered some of the best and wisest people in his kingdom, England was deeply divided and his heir was a sickly young boy who was a mere puppet in the hands of the Seymour family. Those are the results that Henry VIII ``achieved`` everything else is just mythology and wishful thinking.
Starko is probably right whatever he says
He'd faint on hearing ,"Starko" !!!!
If you really can't pronounce Xi, just say "She" 😜
'Good to see that ex-Channel 5 cameraman back in work.
Incredible really. Better leave it to a 5 year old.
One does rather wonder what does he think he's doing.
would love to read a book that David writes making this case, would be sensational in how it reframes Henry
Unless you know the man, out of respect you should refer to him as "Starkey."
Do you know Who supplied the money to fund the Hapsburg empire ?
International intergovernmental Kabbala by helping each other to protect businesses, в Европе это перезагрузка
I reached the same conclusion about before and after Henry VIII. You could not imagine a unipotent, independent queen wielding the same power as her forebears prior to her fathers reign. After it she picked up the baton arguably more ably , more powerfully and more heroically than any other king or queen since.
Ницше сказал, что только носящий в себе хаос может родить танцующую звезду.
The “Great Man” theory of history might be unpopular nowadays, but it’s largely true. Until very recently, history was made by great, powerful, and largely aristocratic, men, like it or not. We little people, especially women, never had the access to, wealth for or education to make history in the past. The power of rhetoric, that is, the power to argue constructively and above all, to persuade, is always important and always will be. Without the cooperation of others, nothing important can ever get done.
I think not. Henry has not what it takes to pass muster of entry to that exclusive circle.
It sounds better than Henry the Consequential.
I could listen to this extraordinary man all day long.!!! Love him. My ancestor, Giovanni Sforza, was an ambassador to to England from Milan. I couldn’t believe it!! My long ago family in the court of Henry VIII! Hence my affinity to this period 😮😂. Bless David Starkey
He stammers a lot less in this one. I wonder if he’s had a change in his health.
If you really think that Henry regarded the birth of his sickly son Edward VI, as validation from God for his behaviour, then you must have a rather limited understanding of the religious mind of an intelligent medieval monarch.
At this stage in his reign Henry had lost his faith. He knew more than anyone in England that he wasn't party to any divine favours. The Mary Rose sank in front of him, battles rarely went his way and his flesh smelled as much as any peasant in his kingdom.
Nobody with any semblance of religiosity would have an innocent man boiled alive in Smithfield. Or execute the saintly Bishop Fisher, who was the close friend and confessor of his grandmother, the woman who singlehandedly founded the Tudor dynasty,
Henry was never trained to be king, he was the spare and was never treated kindly by his father.
There is a letter from an ambassador saying how he witnessed Henry VII, just before he died, beating the young Henry very severely.
Henry behaves like someone who experienced a traumatic childhood and is suddenly handed absolute power. He takes revenge on his family, rapidly executes his fathers advisers.
His busybody grandmother oddly, dies suddenly, just 5 days after his coronation.
She was the power behind his fathers throne, she was not going to be the power behind his throne.
Over the past 20 years we have come to understand more and more how adults with childhood trauma behave, one aspect of this is "Limerence". Becoming totally infatuated with someone. An infatuation often accompanied by delusions. This infatuation rarely lasts immersion in reality. And so it was with most of Henry's wives and lovers.
Про меркантилистскую школу экономики, которую Ленин и греки назвали хрематистикой
I think Starkey is guilty of retrospective pruning here. You should judge a monarch by the standards and challenges of his day, not merely by how much his legacy stretches to posterity. Henry certainly had the potential for greatness, due in part to reasons that Starkey explains. But the circumstances of his reign, as well as Henry's sometimes rash and tyrannical actions, prevented this greatness from being realised. In particular, the utter failure of Henry's foreign policy, which was understandable considering that England was a minor player on the European stage at the time.
There was plenty of paranoia among monarchs of that time throughout Europe, their claim to divine rights had waned.
@@joebloggs396 It was actually enhancing in this period due to the centralisation of feudal polities. In the early medieval period, a king was technically a first among equals, and could (and sometimes was) replaced by the nobility. Henry VIII, of course, supplanted the nobility by relying on the so-called 'new men' (burghers), as well as creating a new and pro-Tudor landed gentry from the confiscated monastic lands.
Есть шутка из разряда черного юмора, что будет такая "борьба за мир, что камня на камне не останется". 😅
Габсбурги на золоте предложили бы договориться
Atatürk and Cherchill were drinking guys
The only subject he is really qualified to speak on.
Israel and Palestine... I'm wondering about the history of the area. Is there any such thing as an objective perspective ? Where can I go to learn the truth ?
Nowhere that I can suggest: The Zionist Invaders of Palestine dominate all media, schools, Universities (so called) etc.
The best start is to recognise that not all Jews are Zionists, nor are all Zionists Jews.
Israel is not a Jewish State. It is a Zionist State.
Your reference to rhetoric and the like reminds me of the names of the classes in Jesuit schools. We, as a Grammar school, had a debating society, though I was not fluent enough to participate. The structure of a classic debate in turn reminds me of the way Aquinas presents his arguments. Is this the origin of it? I suspect Aquinas, in turn, may have taken his cue from Roman practice, though he writes quite a while before the rediscovery of classical texts, so again I am left wondering .....
Glad to see the silver play button approaches
Henry the dread (after Ivan IV Grosny)
When Dr Starkey sticks to his wheelhouse and talks about British History and the people who shaped it, he is top drawer. However, when he branches out and starts discussing these figures in the context of world history, he is, in my view, incredibly eurocentric - jumping from Rome to Britain like a 19th century imperialist, completely missing out the Islamic empires, the Mongols, the Chinese and others. Henry VIII is a fascinating central figure during a pivotal period of British History, but his legacy has more to do with luck, desperation, greed, pettiness, jealousy and bloody-mindedness than it does to him being any kind of architect of destiny. I would argue that even figures like Cromwell and Wolsey had more agency than Henry himself, who deserves the moniker 'the terrible' (as in creating terror) far more than 'the great'.
So he should be a Middle Ages imperialist?
The Muslims and the Chinese were not influential to the rest of the world because they pretty much cut themselves off from the rest of the world .
History would have applied the nomenclature by now if it were so.
Very interesting
Awesome. Brilliant content. Well said.
Please, did you mention Henry's legalisation of Usury?
In 1545, 'In Restraint of Usury': spin doctoring again!
For the first time in England's history.
Ah feel like ah British subject again.
Ain't felt that way for 248yrs. G.Davis
I too am a Grammar school boy. I want to define the end of the Medieval days not as the death of Richard at Bosworth, but the crowning of Eleizabeth 1.
We can validate a brittle hypothesis not just using inferential statistics but also qualitative pieces of evidence drawn from history.
The cameraman is certainly not great. Henry would have him beheaded.
I never realised Henry was above average height. 6ft 1in, I thought that I once saw his suit of armour some where where he was quite short and average height for the period.
Love everything you do!
The Best 👍🇬🇧
Love DS
👍🇬🇧😊
I like David’s presentation and enthusiasm but there is no thread to what he is trying to explain. Henry was great because what ? Because he sowed the seeds of 100 years of religious civil war , he isolated England from Europe , he killed 3 wives , he left the country quite bankrupt?
It all depends on how you define great . All leaders want to be considered that and try to leave some imprint on society to commemorate themselves . Few are , although some achieve some great feats, most are narcissistic megalomaniacs.
Killed two actually. I think we can blame that 'German' Martin Luther for the schism.
The worst king we ever had. Blood soaked tyrant who tore us away from the True Church and opened the door for the protestant heresies.
Let's not forget the millions of loyal catholics hunted to extermination in Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England and overseas by these monsters Tudors.
One day England will return to the fold 🙂. But, would a Catholic England have created the modern world 🤔?
No, the appalling Tydder was not "great".
Henry the 8th is the Joseph Stalin of British history.
Nonsense, the 16th century was a different world. People are just ignorant of elsewhere, or want to trash England.
I agree with Dr Starkey here regarding his point that to reject the old heroic model of history is sheer nonsense
Henry VIII was a BIG man, even a colossus.
and BIG MEN LEAD, and people follow, or react against them
But if Dr Starkey himself called Henry the English Stalin, then this monarch of gigantic stature can no more be called Great than Stalin
I would suggest, somewhat tentatively for i am only thinking on the fly as it were, that greatness must have some kind of moral aspect to it -that such a person be in some way good, even according to the vastly attenuated moral standards of sinful humans
and by this metric Henry Tudor was not great
He was quite a big man, but his ego was much bigger. He could not live up to his heroes in Henry V and Edward III.
I stopped at the point when you said "...when he conquered India". The 1st 6 minutes were well delivered though.
Starkey’s so rapped up in his own issues and current politics that he’s gone off the reservation into full blown presentism in his ‘history’ discussions.
I adore him, of course, but his views are too reactionary for me.
If all Starkey's complaining about current times were removed, would this go from 40 minutes to 35? 30?
Just read or see a few more 'woke' Indian bigots.
No.....Henry the c..t.