Who Fought At Culloden? | QI
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 мар 2022
- Follow QI on Twitter ▶ / qikipedia
Follow QI on TikTok ▶ / theqielves
Follow QI on Facebook ▶ / officialqi
Follow QI on Instagram ▶ / theqielves
Subscribe on RUclips ▶ / theqielves
For more visit ▶ qi.com
This clip is from QI Series D, Episode 4, 'Dictionaries' with Stephen Fry, Alan Davies, Ronni Ancona, Rory Bremner and Phill Jupitus. 
Развлечения
She SO should have got a round of applause for that description of the battle.
I hope she did, but I bet it got cut for the broadcast. These early episodes were so packed and leant more to info than tainment. No XL in those days.
"Religion; Shit it" has for a long time been my favourite Stephen Fry quote
Hope Ronni got points for her answer.
POINTS?? your joking right?
They sacked the Elves after that episode and hired Ronni as cheif Elf in charge of facts!
I was waiting for the roaring applause after that, but it never came
I love Ronni's impressions. But I think her impressions sounded better without the visual aid. Much much better when I heard them on Radio/podcadsts.
Stephen’s comment at the end reminds me of the debate he and Christopher Hitchens had with Archbishop John Onaiyekan Ann Widdecombe about the Catholic Church being a force for good. Well worth a watch!
And a rewatch. Even though, spoiler alert, the answer is obvious.
Curious people, what are the chances this story is true;
Urgent please read this thoroughly!
I'm also trying my best to get this out to
Alex O'connor (Cosmic Skeptic)
Stephen Woodford (Rationality rules)
And Drew McCoy (Genetically Modified Skeptic)
Stephen Fry
Johnny Harris
Martin Van Beynen
Or anyone who I think are seekers of truth and kindness, and could help me and listen to the whole story.
Hi Sam Harris,
I've been a huge fan of yours for years and found your wisdom greatly helpful in my life. Please please read this ASAP
I read your book on lying recently and though it was brilliant. I have thought for a very long time that truth absolutely matters. And like you said that the only replacement for bad science, is good science.
To get to the point and give a bit of context, the night before last (now the 25th of February) I was away with 6 friends, we took some LSD, then they mistook my dark humour for real danger (I've long been a fan of comedians like Ricky Gervais, Bill Burr, Jimmy Carr, Jim Jefferies and the late Robin Williams and Christopher Hitchens)
They then tried coercing me into committing suicide, and if I didn't do it, they would kill me.
They were trying to build up the courage to do it themselves as time went on.
As they were scared for their own safety and thought this was their only option.
I tried my best to assure them I was absolutely harmless (which I know I am) but failed in the end to do so.
This lasted for well over 12 hours where I was terrified to move and try get out for help. I ended up getting family to call for help urging for police, but only an ambulance came, they refused to take me and insisted I went with the friends who wanted me dead. untill I ran myself for help.
I was absolutely terrified and still think there is a huge threat. No one really seems to believe me so far (but now my therapist and 2 of my best friends do) and I'm hoping so much that you may be able to hear me out and help me as to where to go from here. I'm now with family and terrified to go home or get back to work and normal life.
I'm scared that talking to police/lawyers/journalists will put me in more danger as I'm guessing they are unlikely to believe me at first, and I don't know the intricacies of the law surrounding their responsibilities.
So I'm hoping you will believe me, and I can prove it somehow. I also don't want them charged with anything or any bad to ever come to them in any form because I don't believe in free will, and think they are good people in a horribly misunderstood situation.
Another thing of importance is that I've had depression on and off for around 20 years. And after this experience where i thought I was certainly going to die, there is no way I'd ever think of suicide as an option again. and l still think the threat is active. So if I dissappear, or appear to commit suicide, I assure you this is not the case.
This is no kind of joke, please, please help me. I'm willing to send $1000 worth of BTC first to prove it.
I emphasize first, as money talks
You can reach me on +64 210624383
Pleading regards, Joel
Can someone please copy paste this message and sent it to Sam harris' waking up team before they delete my comments again
@@Maniakatus Forgive me but I need to clarify; you think the Catholic Church IS a force for good?
@@losttribe3001 No, it's the name of the debate ruclips.net/video/JZRcYaAYWg4/видео.html
Stephen absolutely spot on at the end as usual,he’s one of the best 👍
As someone who is religious but still am open to others opinions I enjoy it just as much, his delivery and just overall personality ( mind you I don't know him like his friends do of course) make him such a fun person to listen to. QI is like my favorite way of learning. Not the only way but when comedy and knowledge are combined it's hard for me to resist
Clever, clever girl. Stephen was very impressed.
Yes, and she didn't have the answer on a card in front of her.
The audience laughs at the idea of tartans being banned, but it's absolutely true.
Not so much tartan as "Highland dress" - kilts, crossbelts etc. Most tartans were invented after Culloden anyway. When Sir Walter Scott was preparing for the visit of the Prince of Wales he was alarmed to find that there were only about a dozen tartans and they were more regional than clan-specific.
Later on a couple of Polish brothers added Stuart to their name and claimed to have a book detailing all clan tartans. Oddly, they manged to "find" a tartan for everyone who visited their Edinburgh shop and paid up, but no-one else ever got a look at the book itself which must have been very large.
@@realhorrorshow8547 The Dress Act banned kilts, which is probably what Ronni meant.
Bagpipes were also banned. Mixed opinions on that.
After the ‘45, Scottish ministers/priests were expressly required to include a prayer in their sermons for the health and continued rule of King George or face prosecution.
*Sings*
"Everybody was Kung Fu fighting...."
*Hears disapproving cough from Stephen*
*grumble....*
😁
Yes, but he does have expert timing.
@@tarmaque and fought with expert timing :)
@@lilymarinovic1644 Sorry, was that a little bit frightening?
I forgot how long Alans hair was.
To quote Al Murray:
"Fair play to you jocks, you won Bannockburn fair and square. But, you say Bannockburn, I say Culloden. Because it's not the heats that count, it's the final..... Then again, far as I remember, you lot have never actually been in a final, have you?"
Ronni…lovely, talented and smart…great combo.👍
I miss Stephen Fry every single day.
He’s not dead
@@obamacare9755 I meant as a host of QI
He had a warmth and natural gift for this format, as if it was made _for_ him. I miss that.
@@InservioLetum nevermind I misunderstood
@@obamacare9755 Not to worry my friend, I think I may survive.
Buy a better rifle.
This is a bit more erudite than the BBC usually has. Was this up for a Montreux award or something at the time? I’ve watched TV in many countries and this bit is quite outstanding.
Why did I actually believe William Wallace was from Kenya
Yes, he was from Australia!
He was welsh, or at least was descended from the welsh as Wallace literally translates to welshman.
@@doctor_gibbo1392 My family name is either Irish or Scots, but I usually claim Scottish ancestry because I know there was a large influx of Scottish immigrants to the part of Texas my Grandfather was from. Then one day I did a bit of research and come to find that the Scots version of my family name is actually a transplant from England a couple of centuries before it arrived in the United States. My Grandmother on that side is a child of German immigrants, so I guess I'm 1/4 German no matter how you slice it.
The other side of my family is as English as cheese and bad teeth. "Hawkins" for dog's sake.
@@tarmaque I think you will find that the English have better teeth than Americans, check with the W.H.O. (just saying).
@@mikdavies5027 Possibly, but the stereotype is still funny.
Jamie McCrimmon.
I see a fellow Whovian in the comments! :D
@@intergalactic_butterfly You betcha Bonnie Prince Charlie I am ;-)
The answer about bayonets is NOT correct they were taught to bayonet the man to the left thus defeating the shield but the bayonet was around long before the first being plug bayonets which defeats the purpose of the rifle the musket used by government forces was the Brown Bess with slot bayonet
Why did the QI channel mute Stephen saying "shit"?
Not sure, but maybe England still has those idiotic blasphemy laws
@@DavidRexGlenn The UK is still a quasi-theocratic state because the monarch is not just the head of state but also the head of the Church of England. The last blasphemy laws were only repealed in the late 2000's.
It's not really enforced much but the BBC hosts are supposedly meant to maintain a respectful neutrality.
@@HermanVonPetri Stephen is most definitly NOT Neutral. He is a lovely guy with an amazing knowledge and sense of humour but neutrality NEVER!! He says it as he sees it! And the BBC knew that when they hired him for QI!
Perhaps RUclips required this?
@@rosiefay7283 It's said clearly in the original video from 10 years prior. ruclips.net/video/9cGJmxVYQ2o/видео.html
Learning is fun.
I didn't I had an alibi, I was at home watching MOTD wiv me mate.
“Will we never learn?”
Connor McCleod and The Kirgan as I recall.
It's Culloden, Stephen, not Colluden.
Why do they keep saying Colluden? It’s Culloden.
Outlander fans be like.........
Exactly! The book is reasonably clear about the motley crews on both sides.
Wait I'm confused. Stephen says that the Tories were "pro-Stuart, Catholic, high-church Anglican party". How could they be both Catholic and Anglican?
Because many of the English Tories were high-church Anglican, which is the closest form of Anglicanism to Catholicism, but were also supported by the remaining Catholic English. Tories also had some high-church support in Wales, but the picture is a bit different in Scotland and Ireland. Almost entirely Catholic support in Ireland of course, but in Scotland it depended on clan and geographic loyalties, as well as religious ones...with a bit of nationalistic loyalty thrown in as well...
Yeah, there's almost no difference between High Anglican and Catholic, other than who is head of the church (English Crown or Pope) There;s nothing about it that anyone else would recognise as Protestant.
@@freneticness2136 And what books make up the Bible, if the Immaculate Conception is a thing[1], if Transubstantiation is literal or not, if baptism is to be done at birth or in adulthood, (and if it requires immersion), is salvation through works or faith, etc.
[1] Not to be confused with the Virgin Birth.
@@freneticness2136 definitely not on which books belong in the Bible,or at leaat the Old Testament. Catholics accept several more than Anglicans.
@@freneticness2136
The Immaculate Conception, (i.e. that Mary was born free from original sin): You are simply wrong. Anglicanism does not have it as a tenet of faith although it is considered acceptable to have it as a personal belief. It is only doctrine for the Roman Catholic Church. (Protip: If you don't even know what a doctrine is, you probably shouldn't be declaring it's the doctrine of a particular faith.)
Yes, Anglicans do use non-immersive baptism at birth, this is not true for Protestantism in general.
Roman Catholics include the deuterocanonical books in the Biblical canon, Anglicans consider them apocrypha. (That's seven entire books and parts of three others.)
Roman Catholicism requires both faith and works, Anglicanism is purely faith and other Protestant churches vary when it comes to works, faith and grace.
Apparently I had an ancestor there, clan McLean of Duart, I don't know which side...?
He was your ancestor, do you expect me to tell you?
Why can't I find a wonderful woman like Ronni ? Unfortunately, I will never know.
They know quite a lot about what happened there, but don't know how to say it haha
I would like to point out that if Catholics and Anglicans were still that adverse to each other, three generations of my family wouldn't exist due to my paternal grandparents not marrying. It was close enough as was.
@Kevin L considering how religious people are known to persecute the LGBTQ community, I'm not inclined to say that of Stephen Fry.
That being said it just proves you can be a notable intellectual and still say rubbish like that, regardless of what you believe.
A lot of Scots in the Jacobite army were fighting for Scottish independence. Charlie had promised to reconstitute the Scottish Parliament and he would never have promised this had it not been a popular rallying cry. They were facing the British Army that day which has been omitted from the discussion.
I have been on Culloden, and I.m Scots, the Jacobite,s wanted to restore the Catholic Stuart's to the British throne, Charles Edward Stuart's father ,The Old Pretender was defeated on Sherrifmuir in 1715, he was James II who was defeated at the Boyne.
Catholic and banned by The Act of Settlement 1701.
Culloden was the Stuart last throw of the dice, and the Government army under William Augustus had Scots regiments too.
They fought to restore,but The Young Pretender had to flee, he was a fugitive with then £30,000.00 on his head.
Ran that through several times but I think:
(i) Its been distorted
(ii) Stephen was saying Religion - sh 1 t it?
(iii) Stephen's a soulless atheist .............. And hits the nail on the head.
Love his anecdote about his visit to a Mormon Tabernackle, including his priceless response to being told by a 'tribal elder' (?) that after death everyone's reunited with their families.
A question about war! I wonder why?
Will we ever learn?😂
This episode is from 2006. Many channel regularly re-upload clips. You need to ask yourself what you’ve been looking at that the algorithm chose to suggest it to you.
@@Chimera_Photography The point is that this clip may have been uploaded now specifically because of the war.
....Maybe because QI talks about historic battles on a fairly regular basis? It was either this or another question about animal genitalia.
Much to my shame i did not know who William Wallace was either, i was taught nothing about Scottish history or the clearances. Never taught about the Irish potato famine or the "Troubles", what they were and how that started. Welsh history was a complete blank as well. My history teacher was next to useless and my old school was bulldozed in 2000 to make way for a housing estate, oh, the first house i remember living in until i was seven has been demolished for a builders yard.
I don't think any English person knows much about irish history. When Theresa May used the DUP to prop up the conservatives in government i spent an afternoon explaining to Emglish people on facebook who the DUP are .
Religion was the propaganda poster, not the reason.
Brilliant but left out the Spanish.
I couldnt get what he said on religion at the end. Did any one catch it?
"Religion, s#@t it!" The s-word was removed for sensitive ears.
@@lilymarinovic1644 LOL yes those sensitive religious ears I would think.. Thanks Lily.
@@lordieshepherd well, unlike TV broadcasts there is no such thing as post watershed on the you toobz.
Stephen you're not wrong.
Here is a thought for all you History buffs:
Queen Elizabeth the Second is actually only Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland! and Second of England! Check your History.
Mary Queen of Scots was Elizabeth's Cousin and the True Heir to the English Throne, but Elizabeth couldn't have that so beheaded her, leaving her Son James the Sixth of Scotland as KIng of Scots, and when Elizabeth Died he became James the First of England and Sixth of Scotland, so This present Elizabeth is only The First of Scotland, and should be noted as such, not the Second!!
Another QI question handled this by asking "If a new James got on the throne, what would his number be?"
The answer is "one higher than whatever was the previous highest regnal number in any of the UK's predecessor kingdoms", as Elizabeth's ascension caused the problem you described. A new James would be numbered the same for both England and Scotland, and take Scottish numbering as leading.
The precedent was set by William IV to use the higher of the two regnal numbers in 1830, which has been followed since by Edward VII and Edward VIII before we reach Elizabeth II. Should Charles, for some reason[1], chose Robert as his regnal name he would be Robert IV even though England has never had a King Robert.
Remember that since 1707 it's a singular crown, not two held in personal union. EIIR isn't the Queen of England and the Queen of Scotland, she is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Contrast that with how she is Queen of Canada and Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[2] Although the Dominions have kept with the precedent of skipping numbers to have them all match.
[1] Not that there would be anything wrong with the name, it would just be a strange choice for him. Charles, George or Philip are all far more likely, (even if Charles does have issues).
[2] Yes that order is correct, you now know what country I am typing this in.
Mary Queen of Scots was not the true heir to the throne of England *WHATSOEVER* ....so that is *NOT* why she was killed!
I suggest you should check your history!
Elizabeth is daughter of Henry VIII, she gained the throne as his child. Her siblings Mary and Edward were already dead so I'm pretty sure as the last surviving child of England's former king, there was NO other truer heir to the throne than Elizabeth!
Mary was daughter of James V and his second wife, Mary of Guise. Her grandmother, (James V's mother) was Margaret Tudor, Henry's older sister.
She was therefore great-niece to Henry VIII, quite a bit LESS claim to Henry's throne than his own daughter!
James V was Elizabeth's actual cousin, Mary was her "first cousin once removed" or what most people refer to as a second cousin these days.
Elizabeth didn't WANT to have Mary killed, neither as her second cousin and definitely NOT as a fellow anointed Queen! She put it off for as long as she could and only eventually gave consent after years of badgering from her council.
Elizabeth's older sister Mary Tudor, had reigned briefly before Elizabeth and was a devout Catholic! Therefore her rule of England had been unapologetically Catholic and she was callous and cruel to all Protestants. They didn't call her Bloody Mary for nothing! She used the Protestants to vent her anger on, still bitter from her Father divorcing her Mother and forming the Church of England.
Elizabeth, as daughter of Anne Boleyn, was a Protestant, and she too had lived through even worse treatment of her Mother, who hadn't just been divorced, but beheaded! However, Elizabeth was not cruel like Mary, and although she declared England should be Protestant again, she didn't mind what people actually believed in the privacy of their own homes. It was because of how cruel her Father had been to her Mother, and to all six of his wives in general, that she vowed to never get married herself! Having been born a Princess, then demoted to a Lady, then cast aside as a bastard, then welcomed back into her Father's arms, declared legitimate again, growing up with no Mother, to then being put in the Tower of London by her own sister when Mary was Queen, Elizabeth was determined to live HER life, HER way, and that meant never marrying.
You make it sound like Elizabeth didn't want Mary Queen of Scots to inherit her throne, but she was the next in line to the English throne after Elizabeth, do you think Elizabeth didn't know that? She KNEW Mary was her heir, and furthermore clearly didn't CARE about it or she'd have had children herself...yes? From the very second a monarch's arse touches the throne the first thing needed to secure their own reign is to start knocking out legitimate heirs, preferably male ones!
It's easy to assassinate one ruler if they have no children, and switch to a different line of their family tree, it's not so easy to get rid of a ruler knowing they have 14 kids in line to inherit their parent's throne! A ruler is just one person to get shot of, a ruler with loads of kids is now a dynasty!
Elizabeth was England's true Queen with none before her. She deliberately CHOSE to one day die and leave her crown to her second cousin Mary, or in the event of her death, Mary's children. Just because they were Queens, they were STILL women, and hanging onto their thrones was a grim battle. They knew that despite the flattery and fawning over them, very very few of their own council actually stood by their reigns, simply because they were female!
Their "trusted" advisors were only interested in climbing the career ladder and having more lands, money and rights assigned to them. Both women were under no false illusion that they were truly loved as the Queens that they were! They were figureheads of a much bigger picture, and that much bigger picture was religious, and most importantly, MALE!
Mary Queen of Scots had already been shoved aside by her OWN people. She was no longer true Queen of Scotland let alone anywhere close to wearing England's crown! Her own son was taken from her as a very young child and HE was named Scotland's King while Mary was still very much alive! This was done purely so money grasping men could rule on behalf of the infant "King" whilst raising him to rule in the way that best suited themselves. Both Queens and infant King James ( later VI of Scotland & I of England) were no more than pawns in the game of their own lives, being used by others to carve out their own ambitious careers!
England had been Catholic under Queen Mary (Tudor) and were now Protestant under Queen Elizabeth. You can imagine how many disgruntled Catholics there were, at court and within the church, who were replaced with Protestant counterparts. Those angry Catholics used Elizabeth's decision to not marry, and therefore not bear legitimate children, as a device to secure their own return to favour. Their target, was Mary. CATHOLIC Queen Mary of Scots.
They told her the people of England was DESPERATE for her to take her place as their next Queen, because they wanted England returned to the one true Faith. They rounded up troops and supporters to gather on behalf of Mary, with the intention of knocking Elizabeth off her throne. It would mean Mary would rule England and her son would rule Scotland, and that was the ultimate Catholic goal. The plan was backed up by Spanish King Philip II. Phillip had been the former husband of Elizabeth's sister and predecessor, Mary! He was also Mary and Elizabeth's second cousin.
Phillip's father, was King Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.
Charles V's mother (Phillip's grandmother) was Queen Joanna of Castile and Aragon.
Joanna was Catherine of Aragon's sister!
Catherine of Aragon was Henry VIII's first wife and Mother of Mary - Elizabeth's sister!
Incidentally, when Mary died, he then proposed to Elizabeth! Of course she didn't want marriage in any case, but definitely not to her sister's former husband AND a Catholic to boot!
Throw in the support of the Holy Roman Church and anyone else willing to play along and gain favour whilst doing so, that made for a helluva lot of Catholic support for Mary Queen of Scots to take Elizabeth's crown!
Elizabeth was told of many plots along the way, some of which were no doubt true, but also a lot were rumours or highly exaggerated. Elizabeth's Protestant councillors knew that had to hold on tight to their positions in court, or they'd have their Queen thrown aside and themselves along with her if the Catholics got their way! She had Mary under house arrest for years and years in different Castles and Manor Houses, in fear of Mary's supporters being successful and taking her crown. Both women wrote to each other many times and were deeply loving and sincere with each other, but both were also aware of their respective roles that the men surrounding them demanded from them. They weren't allowed the luxury of familial ties and cousinly love and affection. They were both Queens first and foremost, of opposing countries, and MOST significantly, different paths of the same religion. They had a commitment to the people of their country, to keeping hold of their crown, and that is the price they paid as women and as Queens living in a divided land, thanks to their Father & Great Uncle, Henry VIII!!!
Phillip sent the Spanish Armada, and failed to take England. And at this point, with ordinary people's lives at risk from invasion, Elizabeth had no choice but to finally sign the consent to have Mary killed. All of this was done because of religion, and none of it done by either lady willingly. It got to a stage where one of them had to go, and Mary was the weaker link. She was not more entitled to England's throne than Elizabeth, and nor was she comfortably seated on Scotland's throne anymore! Her own son was much older by then and stood to gain the crowns of both nations when Elizabeth died! And so you can imagine many of his own councillors weren't going to prevent his Mother Mary's death! They wanted to be beside him when he ruled both countries! Elizabeth point blank REFUSED, multiple requests for Mary's execution, for YEARS! Any animosity between them was purely in reaction to the alarming stories they were being fed, and driven by their Royal position and public expectation - NOT jealousy or hatred or lack of respect.
(Although both women were quite vain, and wanted to know they were the prettiest, so there was some irritation in that respect. But hey, flirting was pretty much the only enjoyment they could get from their roles, it was still the men around them who really ruled!)
There ya go, that should set straight your version of events! 😘
PS: Queen Elizabeth II is not and never has been Queen of Scotland!
She is the *Queen of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland*
Yes, that role includes England, Scotland and Wales...but they are a united crown, not a combination of multiple crowns!
She is, Scotland's Queen.....but she is NOT Queen of Scotland! 😁
That’s numberwang.
Wrong QI, the Tory's last won an election in Scotland the year before I was born. 1955.
So exactly what he said, then.
Ah yes, religion…
It was less about religion and more about succession. The fight would continue in the 7 years war and beyond.
....Sh!t it.
Sorry, but in Scotland all we're taught is English history.
Well that is Scotland's fault, no? They never adopted the national curriculum when it was introduced and the differences have only increased since devolution. In fact the extent of Scottish history being taught is entirely up to local authorities and varies.
Lastly it may be worth that British history (it's sins as well as it's accomplishments) is very much Scottish history as well, despite the Scot's reluctance to accept this fact.
@@nathanthom8176 Only the last 300 years are British history. The 900 before that are Scottish.
@@AndrewWilsonStooshie and again it is Scottish education boards that need to deal with this. The UK and England is not responsible for what the entirely independent Scottish education system teaches.
@@nathanthom8176 It was when I was growing up/
@@AndrewWilsonStooshie well I believe the national education act was 1977 and that was the the point at which it split, technically at that point Scotland could have started emphasising Scottish history but it seems they kind of didn't really do much with that power until devolution and a renewed sense of Scottish patriotism. It is a shame it took so long and to be honest I can't attest to the current Scottish curriculum as I am English even considering my Scottish half (dad's family is from Arbroath and moved to Corby for work).
I'm feeling a bit chilled, would someone be so good as to throw another Catholic on the fire?
So basically the EU fought the EU, then?
What confuses me is, you say the rebellion was a tory/jacobite one and how scotland was tory for 100s of years and they will swear up and down they hate tories because of the last 40 yrs of history.
It's almost as if the group of people known as Tories has changed over the centuries.
Total Bollocks....
How?
@@projectilequestion read "Jacobites" a new analysis by Jacqueline Riding. 🙏🏴
@@StewartNicolasBILLYCONNOLLY Look in Australia, we dont exactly learn much Scottish history. Other than you probably wouldn't have democracy if the English didnt give it to you.
@@projectilequestion you still believe we have democracy in SCOTLAND?? RIGHT here's the deal...
1. At every general election since 1945, Scotland voted Labour - then we got what England voted for, including Thatcher, Cameron and this buffoon currently heading up the most corrupt government we ever had.
2. Scotland voted by a huge majority to remain in the European Union. Then we were dragged out by the voters in England still believing in "Rule Britannia" and send the immigrants back!
You should be here, mate, it's fuckin' hilarious!!! 🤪
William Wallace was from Kenya and his mother was African. Given the way things are going these days that will probably show up in an English textbook somewhere or at least on a BBC program.
Actually... well, actually... I think you'll find: iT wAs A DiFfErEnT tImE tHeN
So, we believe whatever we find most convenient about it
*la, la, la ,la, la, la* CANT HEAR YOU!
@@DeathlyTired If I may paraphrase you. Today people believe whatever is most Politically correct and I can hear you. What is written can be corrupted but it doesn’t make it correct.
@@leemarlin9415 Replace, 'Politically correct" with, 'Personally expedient'.
@@DeathlyTired You’re gonna have to help an old man out. Are you saying that I am seeing what I expect to see as opposed to what is actually there?
@@leemarlin9415 - Why not? It's what most people do these days. 😬
...or more correctly, they seem to see what they want to see and no more.
That was not exactly QI unless you really, really like British history.
And I really, really do!
I found Stephen's religion remark Quite Insipid, so I guess it's still QI =)
It's a British show, so you'd expect a bias towards British history. And it's QI because it's QUnexpected: most British people will think that the Battle of Culloden was fought between England and Scotland.
@@beeble2003 It's refreshingly different from most RUclips content, with a bias towards American everything.
@@gracewenzel as do loads of people, myself amongst them ...
Never heard of "Culludun" before.
Christ...how hard is it to find out the pronunciation before the show
Right?! I thought it was Cul-lo-den
@@TheAlps36 I live 5 miles from culloden and its either cul-lo-den or cull-od-en
@Adam An Anglophile friend once told me that they just can't handle foreign names & terms. They've been proving it to me ever since.
How they teach history North of the border is very small minded seen as though we share this tiny island and we now share an army!
Let's not pretend the teaching of history in almost all places is any less biased.
Yeah, because British history lessions are anything short of propaganda. Everytime there is some general ignorance question about history, the entire world watching goes "everyone knows that, it's just that you are narrow minded whitewashers who don't want to acknowledge reality".
@@jordivermeulen2519 Well for sure that's true -
In London 2/3 of the citizenry are being taught our great x n grandparents rounded up their great x n grandparents and brought them here against their will.
History is written by the Victors, so if the English say they won a battle, doesn't that give the Scots the right to refute it? After 700 years of forced enslavement and asset stripping, (Oil and Whisky Revenue!)
You do realize the Queen Elizabeth the Second is actually Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland! Check your History.
Mary Queen of Scots was Elizabeth's Cousin and the TRue Heir to the English Throne, but Elizabeth couldn't have that so beheaded her, leaving her Son James the Sixth of Scotland as KIng of Scots, and when Elizabeth Did he became James the First of England and Sixth of Scotland, so This present Elizabeth is only THe First of Scotland, and should be noted as such, not the Second!!
@@TheCelticSeer 'Enslavement'...'asset stripping'. Do you think you could extrapolate the oil without expertise and money from England? If Scotland was independent, the oil would still be underground.
What an oddly dull choice for a clip