So consistent how societies go around smashing things that symbolize what they no longer espouse. I do wish more things were consigned intact to museums. Not the nature of human society, I suppose. Thank you for your always kind reading of the past.
People, sadly, being emotional creatures, destroy things they don't like. They don't think, "Gee, I don't like this. We should put it in a museum so others can hate it too!"
As soon as I saw the image of the crown with the "dangly bits" I thought it looked very Byzantine. It was good to have you confirm that. Very interesting report on the history of the crown. It was really a tragedy that the existing items of the regalia were destroyed after the Civil War.
Mr. Barton, it gives us great pleasure to observe an academically trained historian able to successfully disseminate their extensive knowledge to benefit anyone with access to the internet. Your videos are reminiscent of our favorite history professors, the few teachers capable of making history "come alive" through extensive yet relatable research, stunning visual references, and impeccable story telling.
Very interesting! I'm looking forward to part 2. I'm looking forward to the coronation, and I love that, thanks to your videos, I am going to understand what I'm watching in quite significant detail!
Hi Allen! What, at first glance, would seem to be merely a narative about a bit of symbolic furniture, within an ancient ritual, is actually a crossroads of British political, ecclesiastical, and cultural history. Additionally, I find it fascinating how each successive regime, in an effort to cement their own legitmacy, chose to venerate some aspects of their predecessors while at the same time casting down others. Thus, allowing the new rulers to rebrand the civilization in their own image while at the same time maintaining a mythological continuity with the glorious past.
Another fascinating and insightful slice of history somewhat overlooked and as you say, never given much consideration. It is so interesting what happens to crowns, how they interlock (or not) with previous history and even the fashion and styles of the times. It's always a treat to watch your videos!
Just fascinating and I'm looking forward to part 2. I knew the current crown was not the original, however I wasn't aware of the fact we have to imagine from reading what it looked like. I appreciate your efforts to share.
Always so exciting to get a notification that Allan has released a new video! I love that you are passionate about history & are happy to share what you discover with us. Your videos are always thorough and such a nice narrative style. Well done and keep it up.
What an informative, inspiring and generous undertaking your Coronation series has proved so far, to be! Enjoyed this one very much as it delved into the mystery that is Saint Edwards crown. What a wonderful thing it would be if the crown jewels lost in the coast of Britain by King John were discovered? Are you aware of any effort made in locating them by metal detection? Or, would they have been found and taken by someone traveling with the King, who knew exactly where they had been lost? Thank you very much indeed by your impressive efforts in regard to this exciting series.
I wonder if you might at a future point consider a video on the Imperial Crown of India - worn only once when George V was proclaimed Emperor of India at the 1911 Delhi Durbar. It is, I feel, the most beautiful, delicate, of all the crowns at the Tower of London (save for Queen Victoria’s small crown, which might provide the perfect crown for Queen Camilla, thus avoiding any controversy over the kohinoor diamond). I do hope you will have a Patreon account, before long!
Being only worn once and just a hundred years old I'm guessing there is not much to tell. But it's absolutely magnificent. It was in its own glass display case separate to the others and not on the conveyor belt so I transfixed by it and came back three times to see it.
I recall having a book by an Hungarian antiquary. She takes a view that St. Stephen's crown is a reworked woman's crown, also that the bands enclosing the crown are not original, were likely taken off a book binding and repurposed. Also, somewhat later than EtheC.
Out of curiosity how do Anglicans get declared saints as the pope is not head of English church is it the King himself or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury
They don't. In truth the Catholic mechanism is later medieval and before its introduction in the 12th-century saints were simply acclaimed by popular consent of the people and acceptance by the church
They follow whomever The Catholic Church canonizes as a Saint. This is the reason why they venerate St Thomas More, someone that the Church of England in its early stage killed for being Catholic.
In 7 realistic portraits of the last threes sovereigns before Cromwell, a specific crown reappears, albeit with modifications. Maybe you can identify it. Specifically, this crown appears in the portraits of: 1) Elizabeth I (the Parliamentary Robes portrait of 1585-90, and two of the Armada portraits (1588); 2) James I (two portraits by Paul van Somer (1618 and 1620, respectively); and 3) Charles I (two paintings by Hendrik Gerritsz Pot (1632)). What could it possibly be?
Too valuable to smash Jason, all the jewels from the regalia were taken out and sold - some to royalists who were only too happy to give them back at the Restoration to prove their loyalty. That is how the Black Prince's Ruby also survived.
@@Bus_Driver_Jay Smash the actual representations of the monarchy--the crowns, sceptres, etc., yes, but not the valuable stones or frangible gold that could be sold off by a money-strapped Parliament to pay the Army. After the destruction of both the Ancien Regime and the Second Empire, the succeeding republican governments of France also destroyed most of the crown jewels that represented the king and emperor respectively but they were canny enough to sell off individual precious stones for profit.
@@baraxor yeah. I guess that makes sense. I think in my mind I picture it as more hatred towards the institution and all it stood for, more than sense, similar to the Reformation where obvious gold was taken but the rest was just smashed up.
It's tragic what Parliament did to the regalia after the Civil War. The King being crowned with a 17th century crown is one thing, but a 10th century crown would be something else.
@@allanbarton Thanks. You seriously don't have to if you do not want to. If you feel pressured by my ask please tell me, I will delete the comment immediately.
@@isobellardner548 I have always been rather fascinated by Buckingham Palace - it would be great fun to do a series on all the royal palaces. Thanks for your suggestion.
Adding to what the ancient St Edward's Crown might have looked like, practically nobody has examined the representation of the crown shown above the shield of the arms of Great Britain and Ireland in Van Dyck's 1633 "Charles I and M de St Antoine". I suspect that most merely consider it a conventionalized heraldic crown not existing in reality, but there are to me so many idiosyncratic features, and such similarities with the St Edward's Crown created for the coronation of Charles II, that I find it difficult to accept that this was purely a product of artistic imagination, and is in fact at the very least the distantly recalled model for the re-created St Edward's Crown. I accept that the original crown has "two little bells" as so described by Spelman, and as Cyril Davenport (in A.C. Fox-Davies's "A Complete Guide to Heraldry") pointed out at least one version of the crown worn by Edward the Confessor on some of his coins was adorned with hanging pendants that could have been these bells. I will also note that the present St Edward's Crown has two little bell-shaped pendants hanging from the arms of the cross patee above the monde, although these could be baroque "pearls" created in gold, like the round "pearls" used elsewhere on the crown. Most interesting to me about the Van Dyck crown are the arches which curve slightly downward to create a slight depression in the center (less pronounced than in the present Crown), and that there are neither crosses patees nor fleurs-de-lys: instead the arches connect directly to the circlet's rim; and where one would expect the fleurs-de-lys there are instead pretty large examples of what appear to be gold foilage set with some gemstones. It's this foilage that may account for the "wirework" description, especially since the Van Dyck crown appears to have few colored stones (on the arches, unless these are only gold studs, and possibly the monde on top), only pearls and white gems that may have been crystal or paste...nowhere as impressive as the State Crown. I submit that while the State Crown of the Tudors had the well-known alternating crosses patees and fleurs-de-lys, the older St. Edward's Crown/King Alfred's Crown did not. When it became necessary to make a new St. Edward's Crown the opportunity was taken to include these ornaments that had become identified with the "crown" of England. There was a suggestion that St. Edward's Crown was set with ogive "Tudor" arches for the coronation of Henry IV, and these may have been replaced by the semi-circular arches during the sixteen century--perhaps for the coronation of Anne Boleyn--as being more elegant (compare with the similar arches on the Crown of Scotland as remodeled for James V in 1542) and better able to accommodate a fashionable Cap of Estate.
It’s a shame that Henry III’s fascination and reverence for Edward the Confessor didn’t extend to his preserving and recognising the history of other Anglo Saxon kings of England prior to the Norman Conquest. I have read that there was a vague realisation at the time that in England’s past there had been several King Edwards but no one was quite sure how many, so they just ‘reset’ back to ‘first’ for Henry III’s son, which was a bit silly since it disregarded the point that there was certainly more than one, as otherwise ‘Edward I’ wouldn’t have been named Edward at all. But surely that’s an untenable situation now? So far it hasn’t been a problem in terms of numbering other new kings, because no other Anglo Saxon king’s name has been given to potential future kings. But what if someone named Edmund became king? Or Harold, or Edwin? If we followed the current system would we just ignore that a new King Edmund would be the third one since England became one nation? If so, does it mean that our numbering somehow means that English kings are numbered not in terms of how many kings of a particular name England has had since it became one Kingdom, but rather arbitrarily by how many it has had since a great many 11th century knights, nobles, and their retainers from a province in another country across the Channel came over and took control of the country? While there’s no denying that that was a very important event it didn’t signal the end of England as a country, nor the beginning of it as a new one. Now that we are far better informed about England’s history preconquest, wouldn’t it make much more sense, since only one name is affected, to renumber the king Edwards, and thereby recognise the place of all England’s monarchs since Althestan was recognised as England’s first? Then Edward the Confessor could properly be recognised as Edward III, and Henry’s son be recognised as Edward IV.
Darn, I do wish they’d commission a new st edwards crown that would look more like the Hungarian crown, minus the pandella. It’s minimal. It could be very elegant in the hands of the right artist. I like Alex Surplus’ work for something like it.
First class relics are items directly associated with the events of Christ life Second class relics items are the relic associated by the saint who wore them 👑third class relics connected to the first and second class relics.. according to ,Catholicism..
You left out one important detail ,the saint was an english king who was part of the english church (which at that time was in communion with rome.Well regardless of what you think,Britain is the only place you will find that keeps many of the so called catholic traditions alive .no catholic monarch is crowned in such an elaborate manner.
Putting a monetary value on it, which the commissioners of the Commonwealth who were given the task of converting it into coin did in 1649, is helpful in giving us an indication of its weight, size and the lavishness of its decoration. That is useful historical evidence.
@Bluebell Flora I couldn't care less about the value people put on them now, they are impossible to value in any case. However, it is really interesting to have a historical record of the value in the past as we have with the Commonwealth inventory of 1649. In the absence of the objects themselves, it gives us solid historical evidence and an indication of their origin and significance.
So consistent how societies go around smashing things that symbolize what they no longer espouse. I do wish more things were consigned intact to museums. Not the nature of human society, I suppose. Thank you for your always kind reading of the past.
My pleasure, people are often by nature iconoclastic. I wish it were not so.
People, sadly, being emotional creatures, destroy things they don't like. They don't think, "Gee, I don't like this. We should put it in a museum so others can hate it too!"
i heard that it was napoleon's army that smashed the sphinx's face. they were supposedly practicing their rifle aim.
As a South American really interested on British history, I can't get enough of your videos. Thanks a lot.
Glad you enjoy it!
As soon as I saw the image of the crown with the "dangly bits" I thought it looked very Byzantine. It was good to have you confirm that. Very interesting report on the history of the crown. It was really a tragedy that the existing items of the regalia were destroyed after the Civil War.
@Alex Woland Interesting. I've often wondered what those strips of cloth are about.
Two videos this week! What a treat!
I'm spoiling you all!
Mr. Barton, it gives us great pleasure to observe an academically trained historian able to successfully disseminate their extensive knowledge to benefit anyone with access to the internet. Your videos are reminiscent of our favorite history professors, the few teachers capable of making history "come alive" through extensive yet relatable research, stunning visual references, and impeccable story telling.
Very interesting! I'm looking forward to part 2. I'm looking forward to the coronation, and I love that, thanks to your videos, I am going to understand what I'm watching in quite significant detail!
Thanks for watching Cheryl. Part 2 should be out by the middle of next week.
Thank you Allan, superb as ever
I watch these videos all the time. Simple but brilliant.
Glad you’re enjoying my channel!
What a fascinating story of an object still in use today, albeit only rarely. I can't wait for part 2!
Once more, such intriguing history. I look forward to Part II. Thank you, Allan!
Hi Allen! What, at first glance, would seem to be merely a narative about a bit of symbolic furniture, within an ancient ritual, is actually a crossroads of British political, ecclesiastical, and cultural history. Additionally, I find it fascinating how each successive regime, in an effort to cement their own legitmacy, chose to venerate some aspects of their predecessors while at the same time casting down others. Thus, allowing the new rulers to rebrand the civilization in their own image while at the same time maintaining a mythological continuity with the glorious past.
Fascinating, as always, Allan. Many thanks for these informative and interesting videos!
My pleasure as always.
I love to learn about history. Thank you and greetings from Finland 🇫🇮💙.
Greetings! Thanks for watching.
Another fascinating and insightful slice of history somewhat overlooked and as you say, never given much consideration. It is so interesting what happens to crowns, how they interlock (or not) with previous history and even the fashion and styles of the times. It's always a treat to watch your videos!
Just fascinating and I'm looking forward to part 2.
I knew the current crown was not the original, however I wasn't aware of the fact we have to imagine from reading what it looked like.
I appreciate your efforts to share.
My pleasure, thanks for your kind comment.
Another great video! We will all be coronation experts by May… maybe I can get a job doing the tv commentary here in the States..? :)
Always so exciting to get a notification that Allan has released a new video! I love that you are passionate about history & are happy to share what you discover with us. Your videos are always thorough and such a nice narrative style. Well done and keep it up.
Thank you, it is always a delight to share these things with people who appreciate them?
ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING video as usual, Allan!!👍💚💖👑
What an informative, inspiring and generous undertaking your Coronation series has proved so far, to be! Enjoyed this one very much as it delved into the mystery that is Saint Edwards crown.
What a wonderful thing it would be if the crown jewels lost in the coast of Britain by King John were discovered? Are you aware of any effort made in locating them by metal detection? Or, would they have been found and taken by someone traveling with the King, who knew exactly where they had been lost?
Thank you very much indeed by your impressive efforts in regard to this exciting series.
Well the place they were lost in is about thirty miles from where I live. Despite lots of effort they have never been recovered.
I remember the Late Queen said it was hard to wear, as it is heavy.. you can’t look down or it will fall off .
These videos are brilliant… so much detailed information which is difficult to find elsewhere👌
You're very kind, thank you. I'm glad you're enjoying my videos!
can wait to see the coronations
I can't wait to see it too, it will be wonderful.
Another informative & interesting video from Allan. Such beautiful precious objects. Thank you for making this and posting for us
My pleasure! Thanks for watching 😊
Can't wait for part II !!! 😊
I wish people would understand that the St. Edward's Crown and the Imperial State Crown are two separate crowns!
That's why I'm doing these videos.
Very interesting, I did not think there was anything to learn about Crowns, I see how wrong I was.
Welcome and thanks for subscribing.
I’ve been waiting for this.
Wonderful video as alway, thanks so much for sharing your knowledge
Glad you enjoyed it Danny, thanks for your comment.
Didn't know this,Thanks!
My pleasure Marie-Louise.
I wonder if you might at a future point consider a video on the Imperial Crown of India - worn only once when George V was proclaimed Emperor of India at the 1911 Delhi Durbar. It is, I feel, the most beautiful, delicate, of all the crowns at the Tower of London (save for Queen Victoria’s small crown, which might provide the perfect crown for Queen Camilla, thus avoiding any controversy over the kohinoor diamond). I do hope you will have a Patreon account, before long!
It was a gift. We know that. Don't be afraid of what woke folks think. This is how you lose your culture.
Being only worn once and just a hundred years old I'm guessing there is not much to tell. But it's absolutely magnificent. It was in its own glass display case separate to the others and not on the conveyor belt so I transfixed by it and came back three times to see it.
Most informative.
Fascinating. Look forward to Part Two!
Thank you for all your hard work. I am fascinated by this stuff 💖
I recall having a book by an Hungarian antiquary. She takes a view that St. Stephen's crown is a reworked woman's crown, also that the bands enclosing the crown are not original, were likely taken off a book binding and repurposed. Also, somewhat later than EtheC.
Love your work! Keep doing it!
Thank you very much Mary.
Love your channel, new subscriber.
Thank you yet again!
Thank you too!
Out of curiosity how do Anglicans get declared saints as the pope is not head of English church is it the King himself or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury
They don't. In truth the Catholic mechanism is later medieval and before its introduction in the 12th-century saints were simply acclaimed by popular consent of the people and acceptance by the church
They follow whomever The Catholic Church canonizes as a Saint. This is the reason why they venerate St Thomas More, someone that the Church of England in its early stage killed for being Catholic.
In 7 realistic portraits of the last threes sovereigns before Cromwell, a specific crown reappears, albeit with modifications. Maybe you can identify it. Specifically, this crown appears in the portraits of: 1) Elizabeth I (the Parliamentary Robes portrait of 1585-90, and two of the Armada portraits (1588); 2) James I (two portraits by Paul van Somer (1618 and 1620, respectively); and 3) Charles I (two paintings by Hendrik Gerritsz Pot (1632)).
What could it possibly be?
Considering the ‘power’ behind Edwards ring, I’m surprised it wasn’t smashed during the republic.
Too valuable to smash Jason, all the jewels from the regalia were taken out and sold - some to royalists who were only too happy to give them back at the Restoration to prove their loyalty. That is how the Black Prince's Ruby also survived.
@@allanbarton oh! I see.
I always assumed they just smashed anything to do with the monarchy. Was this not the case?
@@Bus_Driver_Jay Smash the actual representations of the monarchy--the crowns, sceptres, etc., yes, but not the valuable stones or frangible gold that could be sold off by a money-strapped Parliament to pay the Army.
After the destruction of both the Ancien Regime and the Second Empire, the succeeding republican governments of France also destroyed most of the crown jewels that represented the king and emperor respectively but they were canny enough to sell off individual precious stones for profit.
@@baraxor yeah. I guess that makes sense. I think in my mind I picture it as more hatred towards the institution and all it stood for, more than sense, similar to the Reformation where obvious gold was taken but the rest was just smashed up.
Please could you make a video about Imperial crown of India.... Cuz no body talks about it .....
That would be great - but I can imagine the comments box!!
Hi,does ur magazine post to Ireland? Great content keeps me company.I look forward to many more videos with ur great voice, so relaxing
Hello Karl, yes I do post to Ireland - I already post a couple out to there. Glad you are enjoying the videos.
You said, "A really lovely community of people has begun to gather here' TRUE
Brilliant recitation of history
Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed it!
When will we be getting part II? Eager to see the rest of the story
Coming over the weekend.
Sweet!! I love the great history lessons you provide here!
Thank you so much!
It's tragic what Parliament did to the regalia after the Civil War. The King being crowned with a 17th century crown is one thing, but a 10th century crown would be something else.
Thank you! I'm British who lives as a citizen of Britain. Could you do a video on the history of Buckingham palace? No pressure buddy!
That would be fun to do along the line. I will add that to my list.
@@allanbarton
Thanks. You seriously don't have to if you do not want to. If you feel pressured by my ask please tell me, I will delete the comment immediately.
@@isobellardner548 I have always been rather fascinated by Buckingham Palace - it would be great fun to do a series on all the royal palaces. Thanks for your suggestion.
@@allanbarton no problem, sir. Make sure to take a break in-between!
Adding to what the ancient St Edward's Crown might have looked like, practically nobody has examined the representation of the crown shown above the shield of the arms of Great Britain and Ireland in Van Dyck's 1633 "Charles I and M de St Antoine". I suspect that most merely consider it a conventionalized heraldic crown not existing in reality, but there are to me so many idiosyncratic features, and such similarities with the St Edward's Crown created for the coronation of Charles II, that I find it difficult to accept that this was purely a product of artistic imagination, and is in fact at the very least the distantly recalled model for the re-created St Edward's Crown.
I accept that the original crown has "two little bells" as so described by Spelman, and as Cyril Davenport (in A.C. Fox-Davies's "A Complete Guide to Heraldry") pointed out at least one version of the crown worn by Edward the Confessor on some of his coins was adorned with hanging pendants that could have been these bells. I will also note that the present St Edward's Crown has two little bell-shaped pendants hanging from the arms of the cross patee above the monde, although these could be baroque "pearls" created in gold, like the round "pearls" used elsewhere on the crown.
Most interesting to me about the Van Dyck crown are the arches which curve slightly downward to create a slight depression in the center (less pronounced than in the present Crown), and that there are neither crosses patees nor fleurs-de-lys: instead the arches connect directly to the circlet's rim; and where one would expect the fleurs-de-lys there are instead pretty large examples of what appear to be gold foilage set with some gemstones. It's this foilage that may account for the "wirework" description, especially since the Van Dyck crown appears to have few colored stones (on the arches, unless these are only gold studs, and possibly the monde on top), only pearls and white gems that may have been crystal or paste...nowhere as impressive as the State Crown.
I submit that while the State Crown of the Tudors had the well-known alternating crosses patees and fleurs-de-lys, the older St. Edward's Crown/King Alfred's Crown did not. When it became necessary to make a new St. Edward's Crown the opportunity was taken to include these ornaments that had become identified with the "crown" of England.
There was a suggestion that St. Edward's Crown was set with ogive "Tudor" arches for the coronation of Henry IV, and these may have been replaced by the semi-circular arches during the sixteen century--perhaps for the coronation of Anne Boleyn--as being more elegant (compare with the similar arches on the Crown of Scotland as remodeled for James V in 1542) and better able to accommodate a fashionable Cap of Estate.
I could swear I saw part 2 up a few moments ago??🤔
It is up.
It’s a shame that Henry III’s fascination and reverence for Edward the Confessor didn’t extend to his preserving and recognising the history of other Anglo Saxon kings of England prior to the Norman Conquest. I have read that there was a vague realisation at the time that in England’s past there had been several King Edwards but no one was quite sure how many, so they just ‘reset’ back to ‘first’ for Henry III’s son, which was a bit silly since it disregarded the point that there was certainly more than one, as otherwise ‘Edward I’ wouldn’t have been named Edward at all. But surely that’s an untenable situation now? So far it hasn’t been a problem in terms of numbering other new kings, because no other Anglo Saxon king’s name has been given to potential future kings.
But what if someone named Edmund became king? Or Harold, or Edwin? If we followed the current system would we just ignore that a new King Edmund would be the third one since England became one nation? If so, does it mean that our numbering somehow means that English kings are numbered not in terms of how many kings of a particular name England has had since it became one Kingdom, but rather arbitrarily by how many it has had since a great many 11th century knights, nobles, and their retainers from a province in another country across the Channel came over and took control of the country? While there’s no denying that that was a very important event it didn’t signal the end of England as a country, nor the beginning of it as a new one.
Now that we are far better informed about England’s history preconquest, wouldn’t it make much more sense, since only one name is affected, to renumber the king Edwards, and thereby recognise the place of all England’s monarchs since Althestan was recognised as England’s first? Then Edward the Confessor could properly be recognised as Edward III, and Henry’s son be recognised as Edward IV.
Excellent video!!!
Thank you.
When is Part 2 coming out?
Probably the middle of next week.
Darn, I do wish they’d commission a new st edwards crown that would look more like the Hungarian crown, minus the pandella. It’s minimal. It could be very elegant in the hands of the right artist. I like Alex Surplus’ work for something like it.
I wonder why the Queen and the black & white photo has a glove on a right hand but in the colorized photo she doesn't have a glove on.😮
❤️
Great info.. nothing Holy about a crown though.
Yes, and why does it
have the Flur de li of
France on it ?
DML
It is not primarily a symbol of France, it is first and foremost a symbol of the Virgin Mary.
What do scottland have a coronation for the kind
No, this coronation stands in for both. The last British sovereign to be crowned in Scotland was Charles II.
First class relics are items directly associated with the events of Christ life Second class relics items are the relic associated by the saint who wore them 👑third class relics connected to the first and second class relics.. according to ,Catholicism..
Indeed.
What happened to part 2?
Coming up this week.
Why does the king only have that crown once
Ok…. Where’s part 2
Coming on Friday.
...crowned with a Catholic relic in a purloined Catholic church near the shrine of a displaced Catholic saint...
The irony, the deep irony. Not that I have an axe to grind here, I'm Orthodox.
You left out one important detail ,the saint was an english king who was part of the english church (which at that time was in communion with rome.Well regardless of what you think,Britain is the only place you will find that keeps many of the so called catholic traditions alive .no catholic monarch is crowned in such an elaborate manner.
I don't see the crown as having a monetary value
Putting a monetary value on it, which the commissioners of the Commonwealth who were given the task of converting it into coin did in 1649, is helpful in giving us an indication of its weight, size and the lavishness of its decoration. That is useful historical evidence.
@Bluebell Flora I couldn't care less about the value people put on them now, they are impossible to value in any case. However, it is really interesting to have a historical record of the value in the past as we have with the Commonwealth inventory of 1649. In the absence of the objects themselves, it gives us solid historical evidence and an indication of their origin and significance.