Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
... thank you, David, for your continuance in sharing how to reach you & patron you ... I concur with your hearted 'Like' .. I would do likewise if I knew how to post a hearted comment ... ❤...well, I hope this heart will do ...
I do the same thing! Regardless of the subject, I'm going to enjoy it. I'm so glad he started this channel and I support him on Patreon for his members club!
I dare say Starky….It could be argued that the best thing that ever happened was you being cancelled. We would have never known all this detail otherwise. 👏👏Thank you 🙏
I need to rewatch this, I was trying to listen to it on the drive home but wasnt able to properly concentrate. David Starkey is most definitely "a man of his time".
In the old days, those attempting to cement their status would try to associate themselves with a figure of greatness. Alexander the Great said he was the son of Zeus. Julius Caesar said he was a descendant of Venus. Marc Antony said he was a descendant of Hercules. Henry VII said he was the heir to King Arthur. More recently, Stalin said he was the chosen successor to Lenin. However, we've now entered an upside-down reality where greatness is considered arrogant, or oppressive, so people claim poverty, disadvantage, and victimhood to paradoxically cement their status. Witness Keir Starmer highlighting his father's job as a toolmaker, or Joe Biden plagiarizing parts of Neil Kinnock's family history, to make himself into the descendant of coal miners.
Didn't Caesar refer to himself as the son of gods? Thank you for mentioning Biden's plagiarized speech from Kinnock. That was back in the later 80s. And believe it or not the mainstream media reported on that and he had to drop out of the presidential primary. Very few know this today because the media now protects him and that was before the internet so one has to do some work to dig that up.
@@lydiamalone1859 Augustus Caesar called himself "Divi Filius," meaning "son of a god" - namely, Julius Caesar, who was deified by act of the Roman Senate. Emperors were largely deified after death - hence Vespasian's dying epigram, "Oh dear, I think I'm turning into a god." Roman Emperors were happy to be worshipped as living gods (and this chiefly in the eastern empire), but Caligula's attempt to have himself worshipped as a living god by the denizens of Rome was not welcome and he was assassinated partly because of the attempt. Imperial succession worked largely through formalized legal adoption, so other emperors may have used the "divi filius" designation themselves. Augustus was legally adopted by his maternal great-granduncle Caesar, and it was the only reason he was a Roman political player. Julius Caesar claimed descent from Venus Genetrix through her son the demigod Aeneas, who was the father of Iulus, the (legendary) patriarch of the gens Iulii.
David, as someone who received a classical education, I have a deep respect for your work, despite the uninformed nonsense that you are subjected to. Henry V111 didn't create England but he made England into what it became. A great power that transmitted rule of law and a deep philosophy that emanated from ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome.
Mr. Starker I very much enjoy learning about all things British from your talks, to my American ears much of this is new and so interesting. I have heard you mention that you have experience in the states.
Bizarrely, I'm listening to this talk while building a model of the Mary Rose. It should be emphasised that Henry blew the wealth plundered from the monasteries, in fighting ultimately pointless wars with the French, and Calais was lost within a decade of Henry's death. That the Mary Rose sank in the Solent, barely off the English coast, seems symbolic somehow.
I bought an edition of Chaucer's works titled "The Student's Chaucer". edited by Rev. Walter W. Skeat. printed in 1897, when lived in England. It cost 7 pounds 50. I think I got it in Bath. There is a great antiquarian bookstore there. It is wonderfully annotated and has lots of supporting material. I also have a number of historical fiction books I got interested in England. I lived in Winchester, and some were based there. Chaucer appears as a spy for the king in several of them.
... Thank you, Dr. David Starkey for this truly remarkable Talk ... for me, I will be copying the Transcript & having a grand time of it, reading & researching all aspects of your in depth talk ... a 'picture' of history, is worth a thousand words & none of yours are superficial or spoken in vain ...
Henry VII may have been very fluent in French, Breton and Welsh, but his first language was probably English. He was in England-speaking parts of Britain more than long enough to speak English as a first language, his first 14 years. By six or seven years old, one’s first language is firmly established.
Haha yes I remember distinctly being able to speak English by the time I was 14. Perhaps ironically it is the other way round. Perhaps Henry found it difficult in Brettany because he had to learn a new language to integrate? Maybe he drifted into feeling isolated because he didn't belong, only to return to England and feel like he didn't belong there either? Could explain the seemingly extremely close relationship he had with his mother, the only true constant and anchoring force in his life? All rampant speculation of course but interesting to ponder or investigate.
The new research suggests that babies began to absorb language when they are inside the womb during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy -- which is earlier than previously held. Newborns can actually tell the difference between their mother's native tongue and foreign languages just hours after they are born.... therefor, that renders 'first' a bit murky in a household of mixed or even many enthnicities ... never mind developing the command of Latin ...as well, twins' especially have a birth language that is begun in the womb ... a kind of syncopated bubbly speaking that conveys real meaning as attested to by some parts of their 'conversation' is punctuated with laughter ... so, what is a 'first' language anyways, ... far worse is an 'only' language' ... everyone should work at second language acquisition as well as a classical language ... Latin was taught in High School just a generation before my educational journey ... it wasn't replaced by any meaningful course in the curriculum ...
@@peneloped.wenman4388 There is an area of the brain that is allocated to a first language. It's given primacy for all incoming language information, and our brains are heavily oriented toward learning language, very efficient about what is and isn't useful information. It's one of the most fascinating things about our brains. Our brains can sort out multiple languages and handle as many languages as are necessary or useful, even while we are infants, but whichever one we hear most from our mother or primary caretaker will typically be our "first" language. That's why it's commonly referred to as a "mother tongue". Brain scans have shown that languages learned in our teens or after are stored and processed differently. While it's known that knowing a second language adds a bit of 'elasticity' to human brain health and function, learning another language is a big task for relatively little payoff if it isn't useful in real life. As a mental exercise, it's not everyone's cup of tea. There's been a lot of research done for many decades on first language acquisition, multilingualism, etc. that you may enjoy looking into.
My Grandma grew up speaking Welsh as her first language till aged 13 she left home to work in England. She found it hard to remember her Welsh when in England, to the extent she wouldn't teach my Mum any Welsh because she couldn't remember it. When she returned to Wales though each year, she found that it came back to her. So it's not straightforward.
A request to the team that are managing the channel: Have you thought about releasing Dr Starkey's videos from the channel in an audio format/as podcasts?
This is the way historians should be. Old and fusty and utterly absorbed in their subject. That's who I want to hear from, not whatever's on the telly these days.
Since when do the first 14 years of life not count? Henry VII grew up in Wales with an English mother. His father kept a mix of English and Welsh men around. I cannot accept that his first language was French just on Starkey's say-so. It would only have been French if his nursemaids and governess and mother had spoken French to him as his daily language for the first several years of his life. Where's the evidence for that? Of course as a child in a noble family he had learned French, but that's different. As for being Henry Tudor's "formative years", Starkey should know that 14-year-olds in this period were considered young adults. Influential, yes; generally formative, no. Far from having a wandering childhood or even a peripatetic existence, Henry Tudor was unusual in that he stayed in his mother's or uncle's household until he was 13; most noblemen's sons were shipped off at 7 or 8 years of age to grow up under another noble's tutelage. As usual, Starkey stays too enamored of his unsubstantiated imaginings and desire to weave a dramatic story. It's really disappointing when I'm looking for interpretations based on solid scholarship.
An excellent piece that explains much. Please accept my humble appreciation for your effort Mr Starkey. But.....if I may ;) Surely it is with Henry VIII, that we also see the beginning of the search into documents of the Anglo-Saxon era? For in this effort to find justification of breaking with Rome and a search for some past evidence (a common theme to refer to some idealised long lost past 'Golden Age') that scholars must surely have encountered Anglo-Saxon texts? Did Henry VIII know of Alfred The Great, and that medieval king once so idolised, Athelstan?
King Athelstan, as far as I know made England one for the first time. I suppose we have always been religiously attached to Italy, via the Roman Empire though, up to Henry the VIII.
Alfred, Edward and Athelstan the dynasty that created England. But ultimately Europe took over again with William the Bastard. Henry 8th recreated it and launched it into the modern era as Starkey has brilliantly posed here. You could say that the Alfred dynasty and then later Henry are to England what the founding fathers are to the US. Tom Holland's brilliant book 'Athelstan - The Making of England' makes that conclusion. Yes, they were attached to Rome but then there was really only one church until the Reformation (excepting the Celtic tradition) and Britian was always somehow in charge of itself being so distant from Rome.
I think what David is saying is that since the Welsh gave fieldty to the Anglo Saxon monarchs, Welsh has never been more than a region of England. Why would the monarch of England identify more with one part of his kingdom than another?
Henry VIII , rather than William. Could have inspired Kipling: “…It shall have one speech and law, soul and strength and sword. /England’s being hammered,hammered, hammered into shape!”
I hear an echo in the American Founding Father's, in American Exceptionalism. The New Jerusalem. The Shining City on the Hill. The Rights and Privileges of English men that the Founders sought to further-protect in the Great Experiment of the American Republic.
I was under the impression that throughout Christendom even prior to the English Reformation, the idea was that God willed everyone to be born where they were, in fact, born. Also that God had appointed the kings, that they were his elect for temporal matters, they were the chief representative of their respective countries, and therefore people owed them allegiance and service, i.e., patriotism. How is this incorrect? Disagreement over where the dividing line between church and monarch/state/patriotic duty lay was the essential cause of the problem between Henry II and Becket, as well as between Henry VIII and Thomas More. edit: typo
National Christian churches predate the English church. All of the Orthodox churches are national churches. I grew up in the Greek Orthodox Church. I converted to the Episcopal church when I got married, because of my wife. I was an Anglican when I lived in England (Winchester). The Anglican communion consists of a number of "national" churches. Actually, I was once in Conwy. There was a Church of Wales there. It was mostly deserted, and the grounds were overgrown. When I let that happen in my yard the city slaps me with a violation.
There has been a national Greek Orthodox Church for only 100 years. Before that, Greeks called themselves "Roman Orthodox" (by Rome, they meant the Eastern Roman Empire - Byzantium). The Orthodox in Istanbul still call themselves "Rum Ortodox".
@@AndrewGould-NewWorldByzantine You are, of course, technically correct. The fact is that the nation state has only existed for a couple of hundred years in its current form. In the area of the world where the orthodox church is present, they have been around for even less than that. I am referring to "nation" in the sense of an ethnic and cultural identity.
Res Publica means 'the people are the King'. But republics are unnatural reactions to war, insurrection, famine, repression etc. Ireland should leave the EU and get back its monarchy, the High Kings of Ireland.
I don't disagree, but "res publica" does not mean what you think it does. You're confusing rex (king) with res (thing, matter, affair, deed, etc). Res publica translates into something like "public affair" or "public thing".
@@lydiamalone1859 Could it be your irish republican side speaking ? Ireland should get back its monarchy, the High Kings of Ireland. Monarchies are so much more dignified and Interesting than tacky republics such as France, Germany or Ireland.
I wonder at what point all these European countries began to look at England as "English"? Was there a first European state or monarch who officially recognized "England?"
Erm, it was 'England' from Edgar in mid-tenth century and Charlemagne's line certainly recognised England and William the Conqueror certainly knew it was England. In fact England is the first 'modern' European Nation State. It became part of the Angevin Empire and it was the defeat of that which creates France as a nation, as different land to that of the King of England, but is attacked again by Henry V.
Welsh and Breton are not 'Gaelic' - 'Welsh Gaelic' is nonsensical Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx are Goidelic; Welsh, Breton, Cornish and Cumbric are/were Brythonic 'Gaelic' and 'Celtic' are not synonymous
The picture of Henry VIII is why I thought I had probably already watched/listened to today's 'lecture': I wonder why DS chose that picture? Pictures of both father and son would have been a better indication of content.
@@3rdager I've got a lot of time for Starkey as an historian (though perhaps less so as a social commentator), but it does irritate me the way he seems to think England was in some sort of total Dark Age under the Plantagenets. History did not begin with the Tudors, and his endless propaganda for them is extremely tedious.
@@mandead it isn't propaganda though. He acknowledge history didn't start with the tudors. he's mentioned the importance of magna carta multi tude of times. David just has a fixation more on the tudor dynasty and Henry VIII in particular because well it's true henry VIII left the most longest lasting chain and impact on English History.
England wasn't an invention of any one individual, it's name derives from the English/Engle("Angles"). Before Hengist, it was the name of central Jutland for that is where they dwelt and can only ever truly apply to those lands we inhabit. Starkey is pedalling a statist narrative however that is trying to disconnect ancestry from heritage, which is impossible. You also see this with his claim that English is a new language rather than a continuation of Old English in previous videos, which is farcical. Governments don't define us, contemporary or historical. They are political constructs that often act against our people. Your attempts to low-key subvert/undermine us for the sake of the newcomers is typically "conservative" of you. Our nation predates Christian Sectarianism. It also precedes Henry VIII by over a millennia and goes back to the times of King Eomer/Angeltheow of Anglia(Engla land).
I understood his comment on the English language to be the language after Old English, French and Latin ceased to be the languages of the plebs and the elites exclusively and the emergent fusion of those languages became codified and championed in literature and at Court? Governments may not define us individually but they certainly chart the course and steer the ship of nationhood. I would agree the soul of England and Englishness is in the common folk but the mechanisms of the are moved by those at the top and pretty much always have been.
Was England an later invention of historians, poets and writers? Or did the English refer to their lands as England from a specific point? I actually can't seem to pinpoint when 'England' became referred to a such. You have the 'King of the English' but that refers to the King of the English people so is it just implied that whatever lands English people inhabited was England? If you know can you recommend some source material where I can read up on it? Cheers.
@@docwhat8370 "England" in the political sense has existed since it was united by king Athelstan, however in the sense of "English Land" it has existed as long as the Engle/English have. I can't think up a book that only discusses the nomenclature, but a good read on ancient English history is Hector Munro Chadwick's "The origin of the English Nation", which does discuss such things to a degree about the confusing effect Latin-derived terms (such as "Anglo-Saxon" have had).
@@Theaverable Thanks I'll give that a look 👍 Yeah I am able to trace the 'English people' far easier than 'England'. It's hard to pinpoint when it's use came into being. Athelstan was the first King of the English after uniting the other kingdoms but did he declare this new unified land 'England'? Or did the name 'England' come into being later and was retrospectively applied to the historical unification of the English people? It's only a minor point but I just found it an interesting little curiosity in the story of the nation.
My dear Doctor: Much as I *love* your talks and their line of thought, I do wish that you and others like you would get over your acceptance of the pernicious *myth* that, in the two great wars of the last century, 'England stood alone'. She did *not* ; nor even did Britain. You always had with you the young nations that you had spawned in every quarter of the globe; and you would *never* have won through without them.
Foolishly sycophantic to announce that you 'like' an argument before you've heard it, whoever is presenting it. Surely this is channel about historical arguments and not a fanboy site?
Relax man, they just like David and the subject but probably don't have a great enough background in it to know if he's wrong or not in the details he's presenting. Same goes for me... subject fills me with joy and imagination, I like how David delivers it, exactly as I expected
@@jtzoltan Well, clearly. I'm not saying you need to have enough subject knowledge to evaluate Dr Starkey's argument in order to 'like' the video. But 'liking' before he's even finished reading out the question he is going to address is ludicrous. 'Fans' of the good Dr clearly come here wanting to hear him and, from experience, expecting to enjoy it. I suppose they just can't hold in their excitement long enough to wait and hear what he actually has to say.
@@3rdager Men prefer to put their inner child behind them... Somebody has to fix jet engines... Women never grow up which suits them to nursery school work.
@@andythompson7456 I just don't see a problem with someone enthusiastically "liking" a video even before they've watched it. They enjoy the content in general and want to show support. I'm sure if David were to then say something that deeply offends them, or it turns out to be a very substandard video, then they could "unlike" itof course. I just don't mind there being a subset of viewers who like David a lot and/or are in an especially good mood that they would "pre-like" a video. They're not deserving of contempt anyway.
Did Art Bezrukavenko screw Owen Jones yes he the King woke England politically Thomas. Only you could done that politically Thomas. Art Bezrukavenko screwed Owen Jones yes. The King England Owen jones the woke is dead politically Thomas.
watching you wiggle around is disturbing. Sit still, stop moving in and out of the camera's focus, moving your shoulders & head, constant movement. Just talk, and make it short.
@@derekparsons4 My computer lost sound so I am forced to 'watch' subtitles. I've learned a lot of people's character by reading what's actually said. Sad.
@@derekparsons4 Blunt? Perhaps so. Wouldn't have been an issue if the vid had been edited. A professional-minded person would have seen for himself that changes needed to be made in order to come across pleasing and efficient. Throwing out any old thing, taking up people's time, deserves 'blunt'.
Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.
David. Its impolite to love your own comment! Do you know nothing of current norms man!
... thank you, David, for your continuance in sharing how to reach you & patron you ... I concur with your hearted 'Like' .. I would do likewise if I knew how to post a hearted comment ... ❤...well, I hope this heart will do ...
Of course, several of us hit Like before the video even started! We know we will find any of Dr. Starkey’s talks fascinating.
How right you are. I love listening to him and rereading his books again and again.
I do the same thing! Regardless of the subject, I'm going to enjoy it. I'm so glad he started this channel and I support him on Patreon for his members club!
Bad idea..gets you married more than once
I agree!
Absolutely!
I dare say Starky….It could be argued that the best thing that ever happened was you being cancelled. We would have never known all this detail otherwise. 👏👏Thank you 🙏
Dr David Starkey is a genius !
I need to rewatch this, I was trying to listen to it on the drive home but wasnt able to properly concentrate.
David Starkey is most definitely "a man of his time".
Tudor a level exam Tommorow! I’ll be using knowledge I’ve gained from Dr Starkey
In the old days, those attempting to cement their status would try to associate themselves with a figure of greatness. Alexander the Great said he was the son of Zeus. Julius Caesar said he was a descendant of Venus. Marc Antony said he was a descendant of Hercules. Henry VII said he was the heir to King Arthur. More recently, Stalin said he was the chosen successor to Lenin. However, we've now entered an upside-down reality where greatness is considered arrogant, or oppressive, so people claim poverty, disadvantage, and victimhood to paradoxically cement their status. Witness Keir Starmer highlighting his father's job as a toolmaker, or Joe Biden plagiarizing parts of Neil Kinnock's family history, to make himself into the descendant of coal miners.
We do have Boris Johnson who seemingly believes he's the second coming of Churchill! 😂
@@docwhat8370 Boris is the descendant of King George II, I don't think he'll campaign on that though 🤔
Didn't Caesar refer to himself as the son of gods? Thank you for mentioning Biden's plagiarized speech from Kinnock. That was back in the later 80s. And believe it or not the mainstream media reported on that and he had to drop out of the presidential primary. Very few know this today because the media now protects him and that was before the internet so one has to do some work to dig that up.
@@lydiamalone1859 Augustus Caesar called himself "Divi Filius," meaning "son of a god" - namely, Julius Caesar, who was deified by act of the Roman Senate. Emperors were largely deified after death - hence Vespasian's dying epigram, "Oh dear, I think I'm turning into a god." Roman Emperors were happy to be worshipped as living gods (and this chiefly in the eastern empire), but Caligula's attempt to have himself worshipped as a living god by the denizens of Rome was not welcome and he was assassinated partly because of the attempt. Imperial succession worked largely through formalized legal adoption, so other emperors may have used the "divi filius" designation themselves. Augustus was legally adopted by his maternal great-granduncle Caesar, and it was the only reason he was a Roman political player. Julius Caesar claimed descent from Venus Genetrix through her son the demigod Aeneas, who was the father of Iulus, the (legendary) patriarch of the gens Iulii.
@@evacope1718 And David Cameron is the descendant of William IV (via one of his numerous illegitimate children).
David, as someone who received a classical education, I have a deep respect for your work, despite the uninformed nonsense that you are subjected to. Henry V111 didn't create England but he made England into what it became. A great power that transmitted rule of law and a deep philosophy that emanated from ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome.
Well done David
I am really enjoying these talks!!!!
Mr. Starker I very much enjoy learning about all things British from your talks, to my American ears much of this is new and so interesting. I have heard you mention that you have experience in the states.
Bizarrely, I'm listening to this talk while building a model of the Mary Rose. It should be emphasised that Henry blew the wealth plundered from the monasteries, in fighting ultimately pointless wars with the French, and Calais was lost within a decade of Henry's death. That the Mary Rose sank in the Solent, barely off the English coast, seems symbolic somehow.
Thank you Dr Starkey - a tremendous lecture, much appreciated.
Absolutely excellent, as usual. Thank you, David.
Wonderful. How amazing to have such insights on tap.
Super talk David. Thank you. G Ire
I bought an edition of Chaucer's works titled "The Student's Chaucer". edited by Rev. Walter W. Skeat. printed in 1897, when lived in England. It cost 7 pounds 50. I think I got it in Bath. There is a great antiquarian bookstore there. It is wonderfully annotated and has lots of supporting material.
I also have a number of historical fiction books I got interested in England. I lived in Winchester, and some were based there. Chaucer appears as a spy for the king in several of them.
I have always thought that More was saying in Utopia that there never an be a perfect society on earth, hence 'utopia'.
... Thank you, Dr. David Starkey for this truly remarkable Talk ... for me, I will be copying the Transcript & having a grand time of it, reading & researching all aspects of your in depth talk ... a 'picture' of history, is worth a thousand words & none of yours are superficial or spoken in vain ...
Henry VII may have been very fluent in French, Breton and Welsh, but his first
language was probably English. He was in England-speaking parts of Britain more than long enough to speak English as a first language, his first 14 years. By six or seven years old, one’s first language is firmly established.
Haha yes I remember distinctly being able to speak English by the time I was 14. Perhaps ironically it is the other way round. Perhaps Henry found it difficult in Brettany because he had to learn a new language to integrate? Maybe he drifted into feeling isolated because he didn't belong, only to return to England and feel like he didn't belong there either? Could explain the seemingly extremely close relationship he had with his mother, the only true constant and anchoring force in his life? All rampant speculation of course but interesting to ponder or investigate.
The new research suggests that babies began to absorb language when they are inside the womb during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy -- which is earlier than previously held. Newborns can actually tell the difference between their mother's native tongue and foreign languages just hours after they are born.... therefor, that renders 'first' a bit murky in a household of mixed or even many enthnicities ... never mind developing the command of Latin ...as well, twins' especially have a birth language that is begun in the womb ... a kind of syncopated bubbly speaking that conveys real meaning as attested to by some parts of their 'conversation' is punctuated with laughter ... so, what is a 'first' language anyways, ... far worse is an 'only' language' ... everyone should work at second language acquisition as well as a classical language ... Latin was taught in High School just a generation before my educational journey ... it wasn't replaced by any meaningful course in the curriculum ...
@@peneloped.wenman4388 There is an area of the brain that is allocated to a first language. It's given primacy for all incoming language information, and our brains are heavily oriented toward learning language, very efficient about what is and isn't useful information. It's one of the most fascinating things about our brains. Our brains can sort out multiple languages and handle as many languages as are necessary or useful, even while we are infants, but whichever one we hear most from our mother or primary caretaker will typically be our "first" language. That's why it's commonly referred to as a "mother tongue".
Brain scans have shown that languages learned in our teens or after are stored and processed differently. While it's known that knowing a second language adds a bit of 'elasticity' to human brain health and function, learning another language is a big task for relatively little payoff if it isn't useful in real life. As a mental exercise, it's not everyone's cup of tea.
There's been a lot of research done for many decades on first language acquisition, multilingualism, etc. that you may enjoy looking into.
@@peneloped.wenman4388 Did you delete your reply? YT shows me the beginnings of it in my notifications, but I can't find the whole thing anywhere.
My Grandma grew up speaking Welsh as her first language till aged 13 she left home to work in England. She found it hard to remember her Welsh when in England, to the extent she wouldn't teach my Mum any Welsh because she couldn't remember it. When she returned to Wales though each year, she found that it came back to her. So it's not straightforward.
A request to the team that are managing the channel: Have you thought about releasing Dr Starkey's videos from the channel in an audio format/as podcasts?
A national treasure ....
Makes one wonder: if Arthur survived, would we have England with Malory, not Chaucer, as the most important old author.
Superb content, greatly appreciated.
IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING
King Edward the Elder 👑 created England. Henry 8's primary contribution was breaking the power of Rome in Albion and the creation of its Royal Navy.
Not Aethelstan?
@@Incandescence555 No it was his father's decision to march North from the safety of Wessex that forged England. Aethelstan primarily extended it.
This is the way historians should be. Old and fusty and utterly absorbed in their subject. That's who I want to hear from, not whatever's on the telly these days.
This was awesome
That was interesting. Thanks.
Since when do the first 14 years of life not count? Henry VII grew up in Wales with an English mother. His father kept a mix of English and Welsh men around. I cannot accept that his first language was French just on Starkey's say-so. It would only have been French if his nursemaids and governess and mother had spoken French to him as his daily language for the first several years of his life. Where's the evidence for that? Of course as a child in a noble family he had learned French, but that's different. As for being Henry Tudor's "formative years", Starkey should know that 14-year-olds in this period were considered young adults. Influential, yes; generally formative, no.
Far from having a wandering childhood or even a peripatetic existence, Henry Tudor was unusual in that he stayed in his mother's or uncle's household until he was 13; most noblemen's sons were shipped off at 7 or 8 years of age to grow up under another noble's tutelage.
As usual, Starkey stays too enamored of his unsubstantiated imaginings and desire to weave a dramatic story. It's really disappointing when I'm looking for interpretations based on solid scholarship.
I think anyone born in Wales would want to hide the fact if possible!
Hello, good point. I was the one who wrote and asked David the question about Arthur and Britain:)
An excellent piece that explains much. Please accept my humble appreciation for your effort Mr Starkey.
But.....if I may ;)
Surely it is with Henry VIII, that we also see the beginning of the search into documents of the Anglo-Saxon era?
For in this effort to find justification of breaking with Rome and a search for some past evidence (a common theme to refer to some idealised long lost past 'Golden Age') that scholars must surely have encountered Anglo-Saxon texts?
Did Henry VIII know of Alfred The Great, and that medieval king once so idolised, Athelstan?
King Athelstan, as far as I know made England one for the first time. I suppose we have always been religiously attached to Italy, via the Roman Empire though, up to Henry the VIII.
Alfred, Edward and Athelstan the dynasty that created England. But ultimately Europe took over again with William the Bastard. Henry 8th recreated it and launched it into the modern era as Starkey has brilliantly posed here. You could say that the Alfred dynasty and then later Henry are to England what the founding fathers are to the US. Tom Holland's brilliant book 'Athelstan - The Making of England' makes that conclusion. Yes, they were attached to Rome but then there was really only one church until the Reformation (excepting the Celtic tradition) and Britian was always somehow in charge of itself being so distant from Rome.
@@BrexitMapMan I sent away for the book, thanks.
Laying it on a bit thick with the Henry VIII associations, but, I guess it makes sense when he is your area of expertise.
I think what David is saying is that since the Welsh gave fieldty to the Anglo Saxon monarchs, Welsh has never been more than a region of England. Why would the monarch of England identify more with one part of his kingdom than another?
I want to live to see this self-reform take place. At the mean time i pray to God lead us to the right reform.
VERY good. Thank you.
Henry VIII , rather than William. Could have inspired Kipling: “…It shall have one speech and law, soul and strength and sword. /England’s being hammered,hammered, hammered into shape!”
Can I just check with you Dr Starkey, that Henry VIII did make a law that protects herbalists, in perpetuity? Thanks.
The Destroyer of The most Beautiful Churches , monasteries in Europe .
Why doesn'the clock on your mantel run?
He was cruel- he killed a lot of good men especially from the North. He never stopped pleasing himself.
I hear an echo in the American Founding Father's, in American Exceptionalism. The New Jerusalem. The Shining City on the Hill. The Rights and Privileges of English men that the Founders sought to further-protect in the Great Experiment of the American Republic.
I did.
English exceptionalism? Sounds like American exceptionalism. Another thing we inherited from the English.
I was under the impression that throughout Christendom even prior to the English Reformation, the idea was that God willed everyone to be born where they were, in fact, born. Also that God had appointed the kings, that they were his elect for temporal matters, they were the chief representative of their respective countries, and therefore people owed them allegiance and service, i.e., patriotism. How is this incorrect?
Disagreement over where the dividing line between church and monarch/state/patriotic duty lay was the essential cause of the problem between Henry II and Becket, as well as between Henry VIII and Thomas More.
edit: typo
National Christian churches predate the English church. All of the Orthodox churches are national churches. I grew up in the Greek Orthodox Church. I converted to the Episcopal church when I got married, because of my wife. I was an Anglican when I lived in England (Winchester). The Anglican communion consists of a number of "national" churches. Actually, I was once in Conwy. There was a Church of Wales there. It was mostly deserted, and the grounds were overgrown. When I let that happen in my yard the city slaps me with a violation.
There has been a national Greek Orthodox Church for only 100 years. Before that, Greeks called themselves "Roman Orthodox" (by Rome, they meant the Eastern Roman Empire - Byzantium). The Orthodox in Istanbul still call themselves "Rum Ortodox".
@@AndrewGould-NewWorldByzantine You are, of course, technically correct. The fact is that the nation state has only existed for a couple of hundred years in its current form. In the area of the world where the orthodox church is present, they have been around for even less than that. I am referring to "nation" in the sense of an ethnic and cultural identity.
Res Publica means 'the people are the King'. But republics are unnatural reactions to war, insurrection, famine, repression etc. Ireland should leave the EU and get back its monarchy, the High Kings of Ireland.
Ireland voted for gay marriage and abortion they have abandoned their catholic faith so that sounds highly unlikely its's very sad indeed
I don't disagree, but "res publica" does not mean what you think it does. You're confusing rex (king) with res (thing, matter, affair, deed, etc). Res publica translates into something like "public affair" or "public thing".
I don't think there's anything more "unnatural" than believing someone has magic blood anointed by God
@@lydiamalone1859 Could it be your irish republican side speaking ? Ireland should get back its monarchy, the High Kings of Ireland. Monarchies are so much more dignified and Interesting than tacky republics such as France, Germany or Ireland.
I wonder at what point all these European countries began to look at England as "English"? Was there a first European state or monarch who officially recognized "England?"
Erm, it was 'England' from Edgar in mid-tenth century and Charlemagne's line certainly recognised England and William the Conqueror certainly knew it was England. In fact England is the first 'modern' European Nation State. It became part of the Angevin Empire and it was the defeat of that which creates France as a nation, as different land to that of the King of England, but is attacked again by Henry V.
Welsh and Breton are not 'Gaelic' - 'Welsh Gaelic' is nonsensical
Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx are Goidelic; Welsh, Breton, Cornish and Cumbric are/were Brythonic
'Gaelic' and 'Celtic' are not synonymous
Then whàt was England?
Ou est le yacht
Cromwell invented England with the New Model Army
Why call him the inventor of England and not Elizabeth I? It was under her that England became a great naval power and defeated the Spanish Armada.
True!
"The inventor of England" --> sees picture of Henry VIII.
No. Just no.
The picture of Henry VIII is why I thought I had probably already watched/listened to today's 'lecture': I wonder why DS chose that picture? Pictures of both father and son would have been a better indication of content.
@@3rdager I've got a lot of time for Starkey as an historian (though perhaps less so as a social commentator), but it does irritate me the way he seems to think England was in some sort of total Dark Age under the Plantagenets. History did not begin with the Tudors, and his endless propaganda for them is extremely tedious.
@@mandead No different to soccer supporters, he's promoting his team.
@@KRthe4 LOL. Now that's a superb way to stifle debate. Well played. All hail the intellectual élite.
@@mandead it isn't propaganda though. He acknowledge history didn't start with the tudors. he's mentioned the importance of magna carta multi tude of times. David just has a fixation more on the tudor dynasty and Henry VIII in particular because well it's true henry VIII left the most longest lasting chain and impact on English History.
England wasn't an invention of any one individual, it's name derives from the English/Engle("Angles"). Before Hengist, it was the name of central Jutland for that is where they dwelt and can only ever truly apply to those lands we inhabit.
Starkey is pedalling a statist narrative however that is trying to disconnect ancestry from heritage, which is impossible. You also see this with his claim that English is a new language rather than a continuation of Old English in previous videos, which is farcical. Governments don't define us, contemporary or historical. They are political constructs that often act against our people. Your attempts to low-key subvert/undermine us for the sake of the newcomers is typically "conservative" of you.
Our nation predates Christian Sectarianism. It also precedes Henry VIII by over a millennia and goes back to the times of King Eomer/Angeltheow of Anglia(Engla land).
I understood his comment on the English language to be the language after Old English, French and Latin ceased to be the languages of the plebs and the elites exclusively and the emergent fusion of those languages became codified and championed in literature and at Court?
Governments may not define us individually but they certainly chart the course and steer the ship of nationhood. I would agree the soul of England and Englishness is in the common folk but the mechanisms of the are moved by those at the top and pretty much always have been.
Was England an later invention of historians, poets and writers? Or did the English refer to their lands as England from a specific point? I actually can't seem to pinpoint when 'England' became referred to a such. You have the 'King of the English' but that refers to the King of the English people so is it just implied that whatever lands English people inhabited was England? If you know can you recommend some source material where I can read up on it? Cheers.
@@docwhat8370 "England" in the political sense has existed since it was united by king Athelstan, however in the sense of "English Land" it has existed as long as the Engle/English have. I can't think up a book that only discusses the nomenclature, but a good read on ancient English history is Hector Munro Chadwick's "The origin of the English Nation", which does discuss such things to a degree about the confusing effect Latin-derived terms (such as "Anglo-Saxon" have had).
@@Theaverable Thanks I'll give that a look 👍 Yeah I am able to trace the 'English people' far easier than 'England'. It's hard to pinpoint when it's use came into being. Athelstan was the first King of the English after uniting the other kingdoms but did he declare this new unified land 'England'? Or did the name 'England' come into being later and was retrospectively applied to the historical unification of the English people? It's only a minor point but I just found it an interesting little curiosity in the story of the nation.
My dear Doctor: Much as I *love* your talks and their line of thought, I do wish that you and others like you would get over your acceptance of the pernicious *myth* that, in the two great wars of the last century, 'England stood alone'. She did *not* ; nor even did Britain. You always had with you the young nations that you had spawned in every quarter of the globe; and you would *never* have won through without them.
Not helping much in the blitz though, which could have been the beginning and end, but wasn't.
No doubt another very bourgeois historian alright, but nevertheless well-versed.
Foolishly sycophantic to announce that you 'like' an argument before you've heard it, whoever is presenting it. Surely this is channel about historical arguments and not a fanboy site?
Relax man, they just like David and the subject but probably don't have a great enough background in it to know if he's wrong or not in the details he's presenting.
Same goes for me... subject fills me with joy and imagination, I like how David delivers it, exactly as I expected
@@jtzoltan Well, clearly. I'm not saying you need to have enough subject knowledge to evaluate Dr Starkey's argument in order to 'like' the video. But 'liking' before he's even finished reading out the question he is going to address is ludicrous. 'Fans' of the good Dr clearly come here wanting to hear him and, from experience, expecting to enjoy it. I suppose they just can't hold in their excitement long enough to wait and hear what he actually has to say.
@@andythompson7456 Release your inner child honey-child, don't condemn so easily.
@@3rdager Men prefer to put their inner child behind them... Somebody has to fix jet engines... Women never grow up which suits them to nursery school work.
@@andythompson7456 I just don't see a problem with someone enthusiastically "liking" a video even before they've watched it. They enjoy the content in general and want to show support. I'm sure if David were to then say something that deeply offends them, or it turns out to be a very substandard video, then they could "unlike" itof course.
I just don't mind there being a subset of viewers who like David a lot and/or are in an especially good mood that they would "pre-like" a video. They're not deserving of contempt anyway.
Did Art Bezrukavenko screw Owen Jones yes he the King woke England politically Thomas. Only you could done that politically Thomas. Art Bezrukavenko screwed Owen Jones yes. The King England Owen jones the woke is dead politically Thomas.
watching you wiggle around is disturbing. Sit still, stop moving in and out of the camera's focus, moving your shoulders & head, constant movement. Just talk, and make it short.
That's rather blunt! Often with online talks, not just those by DS, I prefer to listen rather than watch, as it can be distracting, as you say.
@@derekparsons4 My computer lost sound so I am forced to 'watch' subtitles. I've learned a lot of people's character by reading what's actually said. Sad.
@@derekparsons4 Blunt? Perhaps so. Wouldn't have been an issue if the vid had been edited. A professional-minded person would have seen for himself that changes needed to be made in order to come across pleasing and efficient. Throwing out any old thing, taking up people's time, deserves 'blunt'.
We never saw the title of the book Mr Starkey showed