Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org We have recent history, old history, ancient history, debates, reviews, quizzes and much more. You might even consider contributing something of your own! See you there!
That was the bbcs original being able to make make good content on low budgets like doctor who now the video quality may have gone up but the writing quality has gone down
Great video about a PM who was undoubtably one of the best and influential people in British politics. He helped to shape the country and way of thinking we have today! Respect Lloyd George.
Being from Wales and living in China i found this documentary very enlightening. One can only imagine the lives he both helped and also the people who were hurt by his lifestyle and choices.
You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.
A cracking documentary I can never understand why he's not spoken of in same awe as Winston Churchill who called him the wizard to his apprentice probably because he comes from a lower class than most politicians and political writers I'm pleased the presenter tries to put him back at the top of our historical giants
Another excellent BBC documentary. Lloyd George's place in the consciousness of the British public probably suffers as a result of the greatest part of his career occurring prior to the innovation of film recorded sound and rudimental gramophone recording techniques. There are very few examples of him speaking in public and certainly no such record of him at the height of his powers. He was a flawed character but then so was Churchill, like LG a very controversial figure. There is a wealth of film documenting Churchill's war years and those iconic speeches. Churchill also lived on until 1965 and remains as a figure who was present in the lives of many citizens still living today. Also important to remember that the Second World War dominated the 2nd half of the 20th Century, relegating much of what had happened in the 1st half of the century- including the Great War- to a supporting secondary place in national consciousness.
Many historical figures didn't have the benefits that Churchill had. For example, people remember the speeches of Abraham Lincoln, yet they only survive in print. The predominant reason for Lloyd George's relative obscurity in the public consciousness is due to the fact that WWI has been massively overshadowed by WWII in the minds of the general public.
Moutton Noir It should also be noted that Churchill was a noted author.... and speaker. So there was much more material for the historians to analyze. Still, I am amazed as I learn about these great men; Lloyd George, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Churchill. They all displayed levels of Will, Strength, Courage, and Character that is far above anything that our generations can ever imagine. These men not only attempted but they succeeded in guiding us out of the the darkest evil that humanity has ever known. The great challenges humanity faced, came suddenly and without any instructions!” I am 66 years old and my greatest accomplishment is that I was able to quit smoking!!! (besides having a great wife, 2 wonderful, educated daughters and 3 fun grandkids) We are all very blessed that these men took up the challenges and, with sheer determination, led us toward a greater civilization. !!
@@tmryan4759 Assuming you’re speaking here of Woodrow Wilson, rather than Harold, his character was something of a mixed bag at best. His superciliousness kept the US out of the League of Nations and guaranteed its eventual failure, and his position on civil rights for blacks was backward and cruel for 1920, let alone 2020.
Huw Edwards cheery account of Lloyd George does hide the fact as far the Irish were concerned that Lloyd George was a crafty and duplicitous politican. He effectively bullied the Sinn Finn delegation into signing the peace treaty, through threats of an all out assault on Ireland. Lloyd George in the words of Diarmud Ferriter was always speaking out of both sides of his mouth to both James Craig and Michael Collins. Lloyd George's duplicitous behaviour was also apparent when he persuaded Greece to invade Turkey in 1922, which resulted in the massacre at Smyrna when Kamal Ataturk crushed the Greek invaders.
If you are interested in learning more about Lloyd George's career, check out this article at The History Room: historyroom.org/2018/12/01/the-british-general-election-of-1918/
@@aclark903 ..... l understand your question....and as someone from Ireland lam not sure those from either the North or the South would look favourably on Lloyd George’s contribution to the division of Ireland.... perhaps it was a short term solution for him..... l have great respect for him because he introduced the National Insurance which was a great boon to the elderly and the infirm....and also despite being a pacifist, once Britain was at war he was an instrument for good in bringing Britain through it successfully .....l also admire him because from being a child left fatherless at a young age, educated at a village school and cared for and mentored by his uncle Lloyd a village cobbler, he rose to be prime minister .... no small achievement ....having said all this l am not a historian...just a fan of Mr Lloyd George.
The dissertation probably is not. Honestly, the man would have been so much greater if he had not been such a @#£% in marriage (I know many political men have fell to this vice but honestly it really crosses a line for me.). Furthermore his Irish policy seems so out of character for the man, it was overly brutal. His Budget that one time was good so we should not discount his monumental achievements (Ironically Britain was decades behind Germany, Switzerland and even Austria-Hungary. ).
David Llord George was one of the very few politicians who was genuinely interested in improving the lot of the working poor and reducing the ability of the Tory land owning toffs in the HOL to derail bills intended to help the working class. In his time as Chancellor of the E he proposed a radical bill which could mean for the first time working people would have a pension when they got old, would have access to healthcare and a safety net if they became ill and unable to work.
Alan Brown Thanks, it was a bit hard to try and even summarize a fraction of what he did in his long lifetime in politics but despite his reputation as a bit of a cad and the scandal surrounding favours (which modern politicians seem to take for granted as being rewards for their favourites) I think that overall he was a good politician who genuinely did a lot to help the working class.
I personally look at LG this way: - His achievements before he became PM were monumental in terms of looking after the average person - He did win the war - Unfortunately, he split the Liberal party to do it. This is why he relied on the Tories after the war. The Liberals simply didn't trust them His legacy unfortunately includes the death of the Liberal Party - or central politics and an opening to only right-wing tories and left-wing labour
That, and the lack of charismatic leaders of the sort like Lloyd George lead to the Liberals being reduced to the status of a minor party. Too bad that when they entered into the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in 2010, they didn't become powerful enough to reestablish themselves as a major political force in Britain, nor did they have the leadership to do it. They need better leadership(meaning better party leaders) and a reconfigured political ideology that is cohesive and coherent, as well as reflective to the political and social realities of the moment.
@@dariowiter3078 l really wish they would seize the opportunity that is afforded at the moment....in my opinion the Tories are doing a better job for Labour than Labour could do for themselves....we have no opposition!
The answer is not 'strong' 2 party politics but MMP. Appoint commission this year, research it, do it - gives real alternatives, realistic compromises, less cynicism re politicians (only 22 % trust them, less than 60 % vote?! Joke!)
Impeccable sources ! : 38th president of the us of a , Gerald Ford hit his head and fell down at every door frame when visiting Lloyd George's birthplace home . Since this was an everyday occurrence for Ford , He was unfazed .
Good documentary, however I feel it is spoilt by the slight bias in favour of Lloyd George shown by the narrator, and thus it failed to mention events, such as the Chanak affair, which also led to the downfall of Lloyd George.
Good documentary since Lloyd George doesn't exactly have many current biographies floating around. That said, little disappointed WW1 and Versaille are kinda rushed through and the narrator's clear bias about certain topics kinda irritating
I am 75 yrs.my mother was welsh my father English. Paternal grandfather an oxford don of English liturature at christ Church oxford. Politics were part of my life at a very Young age And i can assure you Lloyd George,was always spoken of with respect in regard of the social achievements he put in place; The summary is excellent. No one is infallable Clemenceau and Winston shared ,many of the same human failings. And were equally great Politicians.
Thank you very much for those thoughts. I look at politicians today and think, 'Where have all the statesmen gone?' By that, I mean I see many men and women who wish to enrich themselves and jump ship at the slightest threat of adversity, but I do not see people who fight for what is right anymore. As James Clarke said, "a politician thinks of the next election, a statesman thinks of the next generation.'
@@oasis6767what a great quote. ‘A politician thinks of the next election , a statesman thinks of the next generation’… it is now 2023….there are very few statesman left in Parliament…it is a cause of great disappointment to me!
As a distant cousin of his, I am pleased that more of a justice has been done on DLG's behalf. Much mud-slinging toward his handling of Irish policy and his long affair with his secretary. Instead, this focuses better on his achievements on behalf of those less fortunate. Diolch yn fawr.
What an honour to be a relative of Lloyd George.... l like you, find it upsetting that he seems to be remembered only for his philandering ( which l question) he was a wonderful statesman and we, as a British nation owe him so much.
David Lloyd George / Ex UK Prime Minister / 1937 "There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. .....One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic, dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart. He is also securing them against that constant dread of starvation, which is one of the poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of a repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him unchallenged authority in modern Germany. As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular Leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and degradation.
Hello. The full title is _Lloyd George: The Peoples' Champion_, produced and directed by Jeff Morgan for Green Bay/BBC Wales. It was first broadcast in 2006.
This video touches upon some things I have been wondering about lately: 1. How exactly was political power in 19th century Britain divided amongst the HOL, HOC, and the monarch? 2. How exactly was the power of the HOL and monarch ultimately phased out? I see from the video that the Parliament Act of 1911 played a large role in reducing the HOL's power, but was that the final end? Does the HOL still have any power today? It would seem as though the king was still exercising some authority at that point. At what point did the monarchy become completely symbolic?
A little late to answer but here we go. You are right about the monarchy losing power over time ( it was not a mere push of a button like some people think) The monarchy had its first blow when queen anne died(the crown passed to the house of hanover, from today germany, that simply didnt have that much "contacts" in uk, lets put it that way, to try to exert personal powers like the 3 royals before them had. Not only that, Anne's sucessor didn't even speak english. This guy died, his son died,then George the 3rd came in. Kings before him did have the power AND precedent (precedent is extremelly important) but simply chose not to use it. George was different. He started doing what their predecessor didn't do (in large scale at least). He started using his power as king to appoint his pals into powerfull offices, granting titles so they could vote on the house of lords, etc. It was called the Kings party. Well, before that, lets remeber sir Robert Walpole was considered the first Prime Minister (altought the office was informal for at least 100 years later) back in the day. This is important because it highlights the fact that the monarchy wasnt willing to expose itself to the controversies of politics and was beginning to "outsource" the job. The thing is, this stuff Geroge 3rd was doing did not go well. After the american colonies gained independance, and with George 3rd falling health, his influence was curbed a lot. The houses agreed that the king should not have this kind of meddling capacity, so they introduced most of the legislation preventing the king indirectly giving money to MPs (offices and such) to prevent conflicts of interest. Thats why Gladstone couldnt be a diplomat and a MP at the same time (this kind of office is appointed by the king). But they could still veto bills (as of today) and nominate peers(still today). The thing is, the power of the kings declined mainly for 2 factors: Personal Inepcy Precedent laid down by such inepts There were some time they tried to revert the trend, but when Quenn Victoria came along, the monarchy was already decorative (the only power the king exerted in the houses was the power to give peerages, but Victoria wasnt that much into politics to bribe people with peerages in exchange for influence) There's the other fact( the king had basically no reason to veto legislation since the HOL had often the same interests as him) For the house of lords now: They had brutal influence until 1832 bcos the rotten boroughs (straight up buying votes). This was done with in 1832. They were the country economic elite until the 2nd Ind Rev. This was curbed. Specially after Corn Laws reppeal. The cracks are showing, arent they? They still had the HOL and they had veto power tought. Most of their power was still there. But then, a chain of events (1870-1911) changed that radically. They lost their power in the HOL in the stroke of a pen actually. 1910 HOL could veto anything. 1911 HOL could only delay them. After this point, the HOL was nothing more than a shadow of what it was. When 1965 hit, with the passage of the Life Peers act, the HOL slowly became what it is today, a Glorified Debate Hall with nothing but former politics, party donators, former judges and the like. The final blown came in with Tony Blair, who restricted the actual Lords in the HOL to 32 hereditary peers (choosen by voting amongst all the hereditaries) The reason it is still a thing is that it does not do anything of importance, and, since there are no special privilege in being a peer anymore (parliamentary immunity) and they dont receive salary, no one bothers to remove it.
@@RicardoBachdoCarmo Thanks for the reply. Couple of thoughts: 1. It's interesting how English history worked. If John were not such a bad king, there wouldn't have been a Magna Carta (at least not so soon). Henry VIII was a selfish bastard, but the result of this was the rise of England's educated middle class. Had George III not done such a bad job, the powers of the monarch might not have been curbed at that time. I guess England has been blessed with bad monarchs. 2. Still, you have to give the Windsors some credit. While other European monarchs desperately clung to power, the Windsors were perfectly willing to defer to Parliament, stepping in only when necessary. I guess you could call it enlightened self interest. 3. There is another thing I was wondering about. When Henry VIII created the Church of England, he was the head of the church, wielding some authority on theological matters. I guess King James had some influence over religion as well. However, I know of no instance over the past 300 or so years of a British monarch making any sort of religious or theological pronouncement. Does the Queen still have any official role in the Church of England, i.e. related to its teachings?
@@unadin4583 Yes ofc, the monarchy did the right thing stepping out of politics. Just imagine if Queen Elizabeth th 2nd took a side during "The Troubles" ? Or Thatcher's premiership? - the result would be catastrophic for them. One of the main reason republicanism was not a thing in the UK for a very long time (while monarchs were being ousted) was mainly because of that. And yes, they still nominally have a say on all religious matters, but, since we know how royal power works today, you can bet they dont use it for anything other than invest some bishops and such (precedent plays a big part here, in the sense that they are adviced by other bishop and arch-bishops). The main reason the anglican church is a thing in the first place was for political purposes, not "the adequate interpretation" or whatever. Differences in liturgy and doctrine eventually became a point, but the initial reason Henry 8th kickstarted it was mainly political power. You can look to that in detail in the Oversimplified channel. After these controversies have been solved to differentiate them from the Catholic Church, there was no greater reason to change it further. And so, thats why monarchs didnt do much. You are partially correct if you think the monarchy did not do much on liturgy and religious dogmas after a certain point. The thing is, after George the 3rd and his Royal Marriages Act 1772, there have been no major/radical changes in the Anglican Church coming from Kings themselves. The thing is, after 1820s, there was an increasing movement for political reform that was also related to religion. For example, Catholics disabilities and the like. And so, kings have been reluctant to expose themselves to a touchy subject like that, so it was not common for kings and queens to enact Encyclicals like Popes and such. The last major changes i remember happened in the 18th century. Well, i never heard of anything like that after George the 3rd passed away. If this helps you, notice that, this guy (george the 3rd) was a really watershed. He was a turning point in the relationship between the monarchy and society. Victoria also did this, and Elizabeththe 2nd was the last nail in this coffin. If you want to understand how the monarchy and parliament evolved, these 3 are the ones you should read about. If you add the time they spent as Monarchs, its almost 2/3 of the monarchy since the Act of Union (Which united England and Scotland). Their personalities and capabilities basically shaped how the monarchy evolved. The thing about the Anglican Church is that parliament had a big influence on it - Queen Victoria, for example, alongside Disraeli, pushed softly for changes in doctrine relating to "catholic elements" in communion and such. And changes such as these were usually formalised in Acts of Parliament. For more info on that, read the link and the paragraph i took froom Q. Victoria page on wikipedia down below. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritualism_in_the_Church_of_England In the 1874 general election, Disraeli was returned to power. He passed the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, which removed Catholic rituals from the Anglican liturgy and which Victoria strongly supported.[149] She preferred short, simple services, and personally considered herself more aligned with the presbyterian Church of Scotland than the episcopal Church of England.[150 If you want to know precisely about the state of the uk monarchy and why it behaves the way it does, read up on Edward the 8th (there were other factors involved, i know, but still)- the guy tried to get a more active role, and he was done for. Its not that a better monarch might try to do the same and get a bigger influence than expected ( And not being a Nazi simpatizer like edward the 8th would help too) - but they are not inclined to do so. Not rooting for that to happening, just pointing out how it would play out.
@@RicardoBachdoCarmo Thanks again. When you replied to my first comment, you basically confirmed and filled in some detail on what I had already pieced together. It wasn't a surprise. However, your reply to my second comment is a surprise. As an American, I find it remarkable to think that as late as 1874, Parliament (with the Queen's encouragement) actually passed a law determining religious practices in the Anglican church. I'm not trying to sound superior or anything. I'm just pointing out how this is a significant difference.
@@RicardoBachdoCarmo I saw this video in the search function and decided to revisit it. One surprising thing I learned recently was how late in time universal male suffrage came about in the UK. Was there a reason for that? Again, not criticizing, just wondering. I am also wondering how this affected Ireland. From what I understand, Ireland did have MPs. Would I be correct in guessing that they were wealthy protestants who were not concerned about their Catholic neighbors? Did Ireland have any seats in the HOL?
You cannot understand LG or this period in politics without understanding the great land reform movement and the influence of Henry George and land value taxation.
Excellent doc except near the end. Churchill died in 1965. I hate it when that happens as you start to doubt everything else even though it’s quite minor.
I want to share this story, how do i do that? David Lloyd George is a big Hero, yes he made stupid mistakes, but is the main course of life changing decissions
I'm one of many great grand daughter's of David Lloyd George. My great grand mother had an affair with him and fell pregnant out of wedlock, during his many extra marital affairs. Politics, law, economics and social science talents run through bloodlines in my family since his lineage, including myself being an Political Science and Psychological economics academic researcher. If my great grand-father could see the mess of politics and economics 2019 in Great Britain and the Globalist and flexible Labour Markets creating corporatist precarity, with falling wages and less access to welfare and services among today's old working class and precariat underclass below them he would change his mind about being a liberal socialist. Granted that the global and flexible slave labour markets today are born out of the socialist democrats and neo-liberal types of my great grand father's style of economics. His Keynesian and socialist style economics, much like Jeremy Corbyn of today simply wouldn't work up against these global corporatists. Only balanced Capitalist free markets, with small government and less government interference and regulations can save the UK of today with or without a Brexit. Unfortunately, we are on a trajectory much like Venezuela. It's very interesting reading comments about my great grand father.
It was until the last major reform in the 90s, now its a croney box for the big parties to stock up and rubber stamp legislation. It isn't anything other than a rubber stamp passing things as adequate for task despite failings.
@G M The House of Lords needs to abolish life peers sitting in the chamber and bring back all hereditary peers including this time Irish Peers. Take away the role of the Prime Minister or government from making new peers only allow the King personally to make new hereditary peers except for Speaker former PMs and leaders of the opposition from having automatic opportunities to be elevated.
Hi Branwen. He made the speech on July 11, 1931 at a cross-party meeting in the Albert Hall attended by 11,000 people. It was attended by all three main party leaders and was held in advance of the World Disarmament Conference in 1932.
Bit of a cheek for the vermin in ermine Lord Kinnock to be criticising Lloyd George's betrayal of the miners by dismissing the recommendations of the Sankey report. He sold them down the river during the 1984-85 Strike and was hand in glove with Robert Maxwell's scribblers attempt at a character assassination of Arthur Scargill around 1990, gleefully giving them a press award for reporting that turned out to be as false as Maxwell's accounting (see Seamus Milne's book "The Enemy Within" for the full story and much more regarding the miners strike).
During the darkest days of World War II, when it looked as if Britain might be defeated, he nourished plans to be the British version of Marshal Petain.
This video has it BACKWARDS: it suggests that Lloyd George’s founding of the welfare state was his greatest achievement (the presenter agrees with Neil Kinnock, et al., that Lloyd George’s only flaw here was that he was not socialist enough, but at least he was more socialist than Tony Blair) and suggests that his role at Versailles and in settling the Irish question were his biggest failings-it’s as if the presenter has been asleep the last half century and not seen the folly of socialism and as if he is unaware that Lloyd George, more than Woodrow Wilson, tried to prevent humiliating the Germans at Versailles. Likewise, this video wrongly suggests that Lloyd George’s pervasive financial corruption, not his persistent unfaithfulness to his wife nor his embrace of Hitler and push for disarmament on the eve of WW II, were his biggest failings outside of office.
The documentary misses another great achievement, that goes back to his boyhood chapel Sunday school. The war came alive for him when Britain took the Holy Land. He said that at last he heard names that he recognised. He was determined to keep the Mandate from the French. And when Britain were expelled, Israel came into being.
Totally biased, everything begins from the point that Llyod George was great and everything he did was great and there is no real discussion or critique of his policies.
ty - interesting set of booken pm's in lloyd george and churchill. they were results oriented first - more like ceo's - than just catering to the polls. their drive for success only made their policies more popular.
Thanks for that, Doug. Some politicians are simply too 'big' to be mere party apparatchiks; they transcend the mundane world of simply ideology and are, in effect, islands in the sea of politics. No party can hold them, and their force of personality is so great that they can be brilliantly right or totally wrong in equal measure. Both Churchill and Lloyd George fit that description, I think. LG in his later career was far more interested in his own position than that of the Liberal Party which withered and died beneath his feet. Churchill too was capable of seeking out the best options for himself rather than following party unity. Still, as it has often been said, 'A politician thinks only of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.'
The war in Ireland from about 1919 to 1921 wasn't a civil war - it was a war to overthrow centuries of violent and oppressive British rule. Lloyd George should have more had more understanding of the Irish people as the narrator tells us he himself grew up in the village with a minority of impoverished and oppressed Welsh people and a small minority of wealthy ruling English people. The 'Black and Tans' were a military force of men recruited mostly from jails (criminals and ex-criminals) which was deliberately raised and sent to terrorise the people of Southern Ireland (regularly burning houses, villages and even towns). In this Lloyd George was very unfortunately acting completely in the interests of the English aristocracy and upper classes and totally against people who were very similar to his own.
if so he is then your great great grandfather your great great grandfather ruled over the most powerful empire in history and arguably he was the most powerful person in history.
Iv been told since I was a little girl that he is an ancestor. My Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather. My Great Uncle Emlyn was a serious man and he was adamant. My father was named after him too. I wish there was a living relative who I could speak to about this
@@rosannageorge8422 That would be very easy to find out. Assuming you’re descended from legally legitimate relationships, the records you would need to check that are available online for a small fee.
He undoubtedly was instrumental in welcoming the young Hirohito to Britain shortly before he became the Emperor of Japan. When the whole of the white world was so much more condescending to the coloured race, that decision must have been monumental.
David Lloyd George. Wasn't he a lawyer? Didn't he know the meaning of void ab initio for...ahem..."stuff signed under duress"? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law) Ah, I see. He was a politician....
I am a conservative, but have always admired LG. One look at Francis and it is obvious the man was lonely, not horny. Give him a break! I also hold the Hapsburg's, the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs in high esteem. Eamon DeValera fascinates me to this day. LG was one of many awesome personalities of that time. That so-called War to end all wars, however, has wrecked the moral fibre of this world ever since.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org We have recent history, old history, ancient history, debates, reviews, quizzes and much more. You might even consider contributing something of your own! See you there!
The BBC used to be so cool in the 2000s! Such a mysterious and understated minimal style. Like discovering some educational artifact.
That was the bbcs original being able to make make good content on low budgets like doctor who now the video quality may have gone up but the writing quality has gone down
Great video about a PM who was undoubtably one of the best and influential people in British politics. He helped to shape the country and way of thinking we have today! Respect Lloyd George.
This documentary goes some way to establishing fairness to Lloyd George's reputation. A very good programme.
Being from Wales and living in China i found this documentary very enlightening. One can only imagine the lives he both helped and also the people who were hurt by his lifestyle and choices.
I wish someone would make one of these on McMillan, Home, and Eden, whilst there are still some who remember them!
If you want one about Anthony Eden “the other side of the Suez” is a good one
You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.
A cracking documentary I can never understand why he's not spoken of in same awe as Winston Churchill who called him the wizard to his apprentice probably because he comes from a lower class than most politicians and political writers I'm pleased the presenter tries to put him back at the top of our historical giants
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk know??? Mustafa kemal pasha borned.Lloyd george died.Year:1922 turkish-greece war.Big leader Mustafa Kemal Pasha.
Another excellent BBC documentary. Lloyd George's place in the consciousness of the British public probably suffers as a result of the greatest part of his career occurring prior to the innovation of film recorded sound and rudimental gramophone recording techniques. There are very few examples of him speaking in public and certainly no such record of him at the height of his powers. He was a flawed character but then so was Churchill, like LG a very controversial figure. There is a wealth of film documenting Churchill's war years and those iconic speeches. Churchill also lived on until 1965 and remains as a figure who was present in the lives of many citizens still living today. Also important to remember that the Second World War dominated the 2nd half of the 20th Century, relegating much of what had happened in the 1st half of the century- including the Great War- to a supporting secondary place in national consciousness.
+knockshinnoch1950 Excellent analysis, thank you.
Many historical figures didn't have the benefits that Churchill had. For example, people remember the speeches of Abraham Lincoln, yet they only survive in print. The predominant reason for Lloyd George's relative obscurity in the public consciousness is due to the fact that WWI has been massively overshadowed by WWII in the minds of the general public.
Moutton Noir
It should also be noted that Churchill was a noted author.... and speaker. So there was much more material for the historians to analyze.
Still, I am amazed as I learn about these great men;
Lloyd George, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Churchill.
They all displayed levels of Will, Strength, Courage, and Character that is far above anything that our generations can ever imagine. These men not only attempted but they succeeded in guiding us out of the the darkest evil that humanity has ever known. The great challenges humanity faced, came suddenly and without any instructions!”
I am 66 years old and my greatest accomplishment is that I was able to quit smoking!!! (besides having a
great wife, 2 wonderful, educated daughters and 3 fun grandkids)
We are all very blessed that these men took up the challenges and, with sheer determination, led us toward a greater civilization. !!
@@tmryan4759 Assuming you’re speaking here of Woodrow Wilson, rather than Harold, his character was something of a mixed bag at best. His superciliousness kept the US out of the League of Nations and guaranteed its eventual failure, and his position on civil rights for blacks was backward and cruel for 1920, let alone 2020.
Huw Edwards cheery account of Lloyd George does hide the fact as far the Irish were concerned that Lloyd George was a crafty and duplicitous politican. He effectively bullied the Sinn Finn delegation into signing the peace treaty, through threats of an all out assault on Ireland. Lloyd George in the words of Diarmud Ferriter was always speaking out of both sides of his mouth to both James Craig and Michael Collins.
Lloyd George's duplicitous behaviour was also apparent when he persuaded Greece to invade Turkey in 1922, which resulted in the massacre at Smyrna when Kamal Ataturk crushed the Greek invaders.
If you are interested in learning more about Lloyd George's career, check out this article at The History Room: historyroom.org/2018/12/01/the-british-general-election-of-1918/
The presenter of this doc really really really likes Lloyd George.
Jack Slater because he was Welsh!!
He's a well-known Welsh BBC news anchor.
Yes....and with good cause!
@@churchviewwishart8873 Do the Irish remember him quite so fondly?
@@aclark903 ..... l understand your question....and as someone from Ireland lam not sure those from either the North or the South would look favourably on Lloyd George’s contribution to the division of Ireland.... perhaps it was a short term solution for him..... l have great respect for him because he introduced the National Insurance which was a great boon to the elderly and the infirm....and also despite being a pacifist, once Britain was at war he was an instrument for good in bringing Britain through it successfully .....l also admire him because from being a child left fatherless at a young age, educated at a village school and cared for and mentored by his uncle Lloyd a village cobbler, he rose to be prime minister .... no small achievement ....having said all this l am not a historian...just a fan of Mr Lloyd George.
An excellent biography. Very informative and enjoyable
I did my undergraduate dissertation on Lloyd George, incredible man who truly was a man of the people
Is it available for the public?
The dissertation probably is not. Honestly, the man would have been so much greater if he had not been such a @#£% in marriage (I know many political men have fell to this vice but honestly it really crosses a line for me.). Furthermore his Irish policy seems so out of character for the man, it was overly brutal. His Budget that one time was good so we should not discount his monumental achievements (Ironically Britain was decades behind Germany, Switzerland and even Austria-Hungary. ).
@@MiguelRomero-zd3nb yes it is! On the Academia website! I can find the link if you're still interested!
@@LexTheSteeler i would appreciate it.
David Llord George was one of the very few politicians who was genuinely interested in improving the lot of
the working poor and reducing the ability of the Tory land owning toffs in the HOL to derail bills intended to help the working class. In his time as Chancellor of the E he proposed a radical bill which could mean for the first time working people
would have a pension when they got old, would have access to healthcare and a safety net if they became ill
and unable to work.
John Brown Good post. Thanks, John.
Alan Brown Thanks, it was a bit hard to try and even summarize a fraction of what he did in his
long lifetime in politics but despite his reputation as a bit of a cad and the scandal surrounding
favours (which modern politicians seem to take for granted as being rewards for their favourites) I
think that overall he was a good politician who genuinely did a lot to help the working class.
@@JohnBrown-pp7sl well said!
Nonsense
I have to watch these more than once,,,, Thank You again for sharing these Video's
+SGTDuckButter Thank you! I'm glad you enjoy them! Regards - Alan.
" more than once " ! good god man ! are you that thick ?
William Butler No SGTDuckbutter is not thick but you are rude!
I personally look at LG this way:
- His achievements before he became PM were monumental in terms of looking after the average person
- He did win the war
- Unfortunately, he split the Liberal party to do it. This is why he relied on the Tories after the war. The Liberals simply didn't trust them
His legacy unfortunately includes the death of the Liberal Party - or central politics and an opening to only right-wing tories and left-wing labour
That, and the lack of charismatic leaders of the sort like Lloyd George lead to the Liberals being reduced to the status of a minor party. Too bad that when they entered into the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in 2010, they didn't become powerful enough to reestablish themselves as a major political force in Britain, nor did they have the leadership to do it. They need better leadership(meaning better party leaders) and a reconfigured political ideology that is cohesive and coherent, as well as reflective to the political and social realities of the moment.
@@dariowiter3078 l really wish they would seize the opportunity that is afforded at the moment....in my opinion the Tories are doing a better job for Labour than Labour could do for themselves....we have no opposition!
The answer is not 'strong' 2 party politics but MMP. Appoint commission this year, research it, do it - gives real alternatives, realistic compromises, less cynicism re politicians (only 22 % trust them, less than 60 % vote?! Joke!)
Mr. Brown, thank you for your excellent uploads. The programs are very interesting and well done.
therealniksongs Thank you very much; I'm glad that you enjoy them.
Yes thank you, all the uploads I have watched so far have been very enjoyable and informative.
Excellent documentary, thanks for posting.
I believe the narrator as minor as it may be quoted the death of Sir Winston Churchill death as of 1966 correct year was 1965.
I 🖤 BBC! A GOOD DOCUMENTARY ON SOMEONE IN HISTORY THAT DESERVED IT. 🏅
this is one of my favourite DLG docs.
Our second greatest liberal prime minister after Gladstone
Thank you for sharing this. I learned a lot.
It's quite sad that this documentary will no longer be used to educate future generations about DLLG because of the actions of the presenter.
Impeccable sources ! : 38th president of the us of a , Gerald Ford hit his head and fell down at every door frame when visiting Lloyd George's birthplace home . Since this was an everyday occurrence for Ford , He was unfazed .
A decent documentary on the whole. Well presented. Sir Winston died in 1965.
Really outstanding biography...
Good documentary, however I feel it is spoilt by the slight bias in favour of Lloyd George shown by the narrator, and thus it failed to mention events, such as the Chanak affair, which also led to the downfall of Lloyd George.
Agree... missing the 'warts n all'
great documentary. much of the information was new to me.
mjr
tokyo
This wasn't just a Welsh experience. It sounds like he's describing Cumbria and probably most of the uk other than southern England at the time.
A great and fair tribute.
good work
Good documentary since Lloyd George doesn't exactly have many current biographies floating around. That said, little disappointed WW1 and Versaille are kinda rushed through and the narrator's clear bias about certain topics kinda irritating
More recent one is by Roy Hattersley.
Dale Coleman it was recent ones he was going on about the ones I've read were both old
HAM 0064, has he done one I've read most of his not seen a Lloyd George one though,
HAM sorry I was getting my Roy's. Mixed up its Jenkins whose books I've been reading ill look out for that one cheers
this man once ruled the biggest empire the earth had ever seen
Very informative and concise
I am 75 yrs.my mother was welsh my father English. Paternal grandfather an oxford don of English liturature at christ Church oxford. Politics were part of my life at a very Young age And i can assure you Lloyd George,was always spoken of with respect in regard of the social achievements he put in place; The summary is excellent. No one is infallable Clemenceau and Winston shared ,many of the same human failings. And were equally great Politicians.
Thank you very much for those thoughts. I look at politicians today and think, 'Where have all the statesmen gone?' By that, I mean I see many men and women who wish to enrich themselves and jump ship at the slightest threat of adversity, but I do not see people who fight for what is right anymore. As James Clarke said, "a politician thinks of the next election, a statesman thinks of the next generation.'
@@oasis6767what a great quote. ‘A politician thinks of the next election , a statesman thinks of the next generation’… it is now 2023….there are very few statesman left in Parliament…it is a cause of great disappointment to me!
All of England LOVES the BBC because it continually produces the finest documentaries. England says in unison : "BBC is the BEST"!
Tony Benn sounds so authoritative!
Very interesting and informative video-Thanks for posting it!
Great documentary
As a distant cousin of his, I am pleased that more of a justice has been done on DLG's behalf. Much mud-slinging toward his handling of Irish policy and his long affair with his secretary. Instead, this focuses better on his achievements on behalf of those less fortunate. Diolch yn fawr.
What an honour to be a relative of Lloyd George.... l like you, find it upsetting that he seems to be remembered only for his philandering ( which l question) he was a wonderful statesman and we, as a British nation owe him so much.
They threw away the very institution of monarchy in 1919! Hohenzollerns, Ottomans, Habsburgs, Romanovs were the ones who lost most terribly in 1919
If Gladstone was remembered by the Liberals like how the Tories remember Disraeli
thank u for the info for my report
Shaylynn Pett You're welcome, Shaylynn. Good luck with the work.
Is there any Attlee or Wilson documentaries
David Lloyd George was truly a great man & should be held in the same regard as Winston Churchill.
David Lloyd George / Ex UK Prime Minister / 1937
"There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. .....One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic, dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart.
He is also securing them against that constant dread of starvation, which is one of the poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years.
The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of a repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him unchallenged authority in modern Germany.
As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolise him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular Leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and degradation.
I first heard his name used
as a joke in Hard Days Night, on Paul's Grand-dad.
Oh dear, poor old sod lost his marbles after such a marvelous career. You really need to know when time has passed you by, God bless him and keep him
He really shook the establishment up !!! and he was a fallible human being, like us all.
Was Balfour standing beside LG in 1:02:13?
Can I get the references for this? I tried looking it up on the bbc 4 archives, but couldn't find it... I need to know which year it's been released
Hello. The full title is _Lloyd George: The Peoples' Champion_, produced and directed by Jeff Morgan for Green Bay/BBC Wales. It was first broadcast in 2006.
Sexy
Didn't know Margaret MacMillan was LG's great great grandaughter. She writes well on the period.
Justice for Lloyd George!
Too bad the narrator got a Churchill fact wrong...he died in 1965, not 1966.
You're right, Will. That should have been spotted at the editing stage.
January 24th 1965
Spot on Will, I was a very young teenager and I remember it well.
This video touches upon some things I have been wondering about lately:
1. How exactly was political power in 19th century Britain divided amongst the HOL, HOC, and the monarch?
2. How exactly was the power of the HOL and monarch ultimately phased out? I see from the video that the Parliament Act of 1911 played a large role in reducing the HOL's power, but was that the final end? Does the HOL still have any power today? It would seem as though the king was still exercising some authority at that point. At what point did the monarchy become completely symbolic?
A little late to answer but here we go.
You are right about the monarchy losing power over time ( it was not a mere push of a button like some people think)
The monarchy had its first blow when queen anne died(the crown passed to the house of hanover, from today germany, that
simply didnt have that much "contacts" in uk, lets put it that way, to try to exert personal powers like the 3 royals before them had.
Not only that, Anne's sucessor didn't even speak english. This guy died, his son died,then George the 3rd came in. Kings before him did have the power AND precedent (precedent is extremelly important) but simply chose not to use it. George was different. He started doing what their predecessor didn't do (in large scale at least). He started using his power as king to appoint his pals into powerfull offices, granting titles so they could vote on the house of lords, etc. It was called the Kings party.
Well, before that, lets remeber sir Robert Walpole was considered the first Prime Minister (altought the office was informal for at least 100 years later) back in the day. This is important because it highlights the fact that the monarchy wasnt willing to expose itself to the controversies of politics and was beginning to "outsource" the job. The thing is, this stuff Geroge 3rd was doing did not go well. After the american colonies gained independance, and with George 3rd falling health, his influence was curbed a lot.
The houses agreed that the king should not have this kind of meddling capacity, so they introduced most of the legislation preventing the king indirectly giving money to MPs (offices and such) to prevent conflicts of interest. Thats why Gladstone couldnt be a diplomat and a MP at the same time (this kind of office is appointed by the king). But they could still veto bills (as of today) and nominate peers(still today).
The thing is, the power of the kings declined mainly for 2 factors:
Personal Inepcy
Precedent laid down by such inepts
There were some time they tried to revert the trend, but when Quenn Victoria came along, the monarchy was already decorative (the only power the king exerted in the houses was the power to give peerages, but Victoria wasnt that much into politics to bribe people with peerages in exchange for influence)
There's the other fact( the king had basically no reason to veto legislation since the HOL had often the same interests as him)
For the house of lords now:
They had brutal influence until 1832 bcos the rotten boroughs (straight up buying votes). This was done with in 1832.
They were the country economic elite until the 2nd Ind Rev. This was curbed. Specially after Corn Laws reppeal. The cracks are showing, arent they?
They still had the HOL and they had veto power tought. Most of their power was still there. But then, a chain of events (1870-1911) changed that radically. They lost their power in the HOL in the stroke of a pen actually. 1910 HOL could veto anything. 1911 HOL could only delay them. After this point, the HOL was nothing more than a shadow of what it was.
When 1965 hit, with the passage of the Life Peers act, the HOL slowly became what it is today, a Glorified Debate Hall with nothing but former politics, party donators, former judges and the like. The final blown came in with Tony Blair, who restricted the actual Lords in the HOL to 32 hereditary peers (choosen by voting amongst all the hereditaries)
The reason it is still a thing is that it does not do anything of importance, and, since there are no special privilege in being a peer anymore (parliamentary immunity) and they dont receive salary, no one bothers to remove it.
@@RicardoBachdoCarmo Thanks for the reply. Couple of thoughts:
1. It's interesting how English history worked. If John were not such a bad king, there wouldn't have been a Magna Carta (at least not so soon). Henry VIII was a selfish bastard, but the result of this was the rise of England's educated middle class. Had George III not done such a bad job, the powers of the monarch might not have been curbed at that time. I guess England has been blessed with bad monarchs.
2. Still, you have to give the Windsors some credit. While other European monarchs desperately clung to power, the Windsors were perfectly willing to defer to Parliament, stepping in only when necessary. I guess you could call it enlightened self interest.
3. There is another thing I was wondering about. When Henry VIII created the Church of England, he was the head of the church, wielding some authority on theological matters. I guess King James had some influence over religion as well. However, I know of no instance over the past 300 or so years of a British monarch making any sort of religious or theological pronouncement. Does the Queen still have any official role in the Church of England, i.e. related to its teachings?
@@unadin4583
Yes ofc, the monarchy did the right thing stepping out of politics. Just imagine if Queen Elizabeth th 2nd took a side during "The Troubles" ? Or Thatcher's premiership? - the result would be catastrophic for them. One of the main reason republicanism was not a thing in the UK for a very long time (while monarchs were being ousted) was mainly because of that.
And yes, they still nominally have a say on all religious matters, but, since we know how royal power works today, you can bet they dont use it for anything other than invest some bishops and such (precedent plays a big part here, in the sense that they are adviced by other bishop and arch-bishops). The main reason the anglican church is a thing in the first place was for political purposes, not "the adequate interpretation" or whatever. Differences in liturgy and doctrine eventually became a point, but the initial reason Henry 8th kickstarted it was mainly political power. You can look to that in detail in the Oversimplified channel. After these controversies have been solved to differentiate them from the Catholic Church, there was no greater reason to change it further. And so, thats why monarchs didnt do much.
You are partially correct if you think the monarchy did not do much on liturgy and religious dogmas after a certain point.
The thing is, after George the 3rd and his Royal Marriages Act 1772, there have been no major/radical changes in the Anglican Church coming from Kings themselves.
The thing is, after 1820s, there was an increasing movement for political reform that was also related to religion. For example, Catholics disabilities and the like. And so, kings have been reluctant to expose themselves to a touchy subject like that, so it was not common for kings and queens to enact Encyclicals like Popes and such. The last major changes i remember happened in the 18th century. Well, i never heard of anything like that after George the 3rd passed away.
If this helps you, notice that, this guy (george the 3rd) was a really watershed. He was a turning point in the relationship between the monarchy and society. Victoria also did this, and Elizabeththe 2nd was the last nail in this coffin. If you want to understand how the monarchy and parliament evolved, these 3 are the ones you should read about. If you add the time they spent as Monarchs, its almost 2/3 of the monarchy since the Act of Union (Which united England and Scotland). Their personalities and capabilities basically shaped how the monarchy evolved.
The thing about the Anglican Church is that parliament had a big influence on it - Queen Victoria, for example, alongside Disraeli, pushed softly for changes in doctrine relating to "catholic elements" in communion and such. And changes such as these were usually formalised in Acts of Parliament. For more info on that, read the link and the paragraph i took froom Q. Victoria page on wikipedia down below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritualism_in_the_Church_of_England
In the 1874 general election, Disraeli was returned to power. He passed the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, which removed Catholic rituals from the Anglican liturgy and which Victoria strongly supported.[149] She preferred short, simple services, and personally considered herself more aligned with the presbyterian Church of Scotland than the episcopal Church of England.[150
If you want to know precisely about the state of the uk monarchy and why it behaves the way it does, read up on Edward the 8th (there were other factors involved, i know, but still)- the guy tried to get a more active role, and he was done for.
Its not that a better monarch might try to do the same and get a bigger influence than expected ( And not being a Nazi simpatizer like edward the 8th would help too) - but they are not inclined to do so.
Not rooting for that to happening, just pointing out how it would play out.
@@RicardoBachdoCarmo Thanks again. When you replied to my first comment, you basically confirmed and filled in some detail on what I had already pieced together. It wasn't a surprise. However, your reply to my second comment is a surprise. As an American, I find it remarkable to think that as late as 1874, Parliament (with the Queen's encouragement) actually passed a law determining religious practices in the Anglican church. I'm not trying to sound superior or anything. I'm just pointing out how this is a significant difference.
@@RicardoBachdoCarmo I saw this video in the search function and decided to revisit it. One surprising thing I learned recently was how late in time universal male suffrage came about in the UK. Was there a reason for that? Again, not criticizing, just wondering. I am also wondering how this affected Ireland. From what I understand, Ireland did have MPs. Would I be correct in guessing that they were wealthy protestants who were not concerned about their Catholic neighbors? Did Ireland have any seats in the HOL?
Very interesting 🤔
Campbell-Bannerman also got a lot of heat for his stance on the Second Boer War
Celtic charmer! and effective politician!!
You cannot understand LG or this period in politics without understanding the great land reform movement and the influence of Henry George and land value taxation.
Excellent doc except near the end. Churchill died in 1965. I hate it when that happens as you start to doubt everything else even though it’s quite minor.
I want to share this story, how do i do that? David Lloyd George is a big Hero, yes he made stupid mistakes, but is the main course of life changing decissions
I'm one of many great grand daughter's of David Lloyd George. My great grand mother had an affair with him and fell pregnant out of wedlock, during his many extra marital affairs.
Politics, law, economics and social science talents run through bloodlines in my family since his lineage, including myself being an Political Science and Psychological economics academic researcher.
If my great grand-father could see the mess of politics and economics 2019 in Great Britain and the Globalist and flexible Labour Markets creating corporatist precarity, with falling wages and less access to welfare and services among today's old working class and precariat underclass below them he would change his mind about being a liberal socialist. Granted that the global and flexible slave labour markets today are born out of the socialist democrats and neo-liberal types of my great grand father's style of economics. His Keynesian and socialist style economics, much like Jeremy Corbyn of today simply wouldn't work up against these global corporatists. Only balanced Capitalist free markets, with small government and less government interference and regulations can save the UK of today with or without a Brexit. Unfortunately, we are on a trajectory much like Venezuela.
It's very interesting reading comments about my great grand father.
What's the difference between justice and social justice?
The House of Lords is like the estates general of the ancien regime
It was until the last major reform in the 90s, now its a croney box for the big parties to stock up and rubber stamp legislation. It isn't anything other than a rubber stamp passing things as adequate for task despite failings.
@G M The House of Lords needs to abolish life peers sitting in the chamber and bring back all hereditary peers including this time Irish Peers. Take away the role of the Prime Minister or government from making new peers only allow the King personally to make new hereditary peers except for Speaker former PMs and leaders of the opposition from having automatic opportunities to be elevated.
Does anyone know what the speech at about 1 hour 21 minutes in is called? x
Hi Branwen. He made the speech on July 11, 1931 at a cross-party meeting in the Albert Hall attended by 11,000 people. It was attended by all three main party leaders and was held in advance of the World Disarmament Conference in 1932.
What would Lloyd george make as prif weinidog of Cymru
Hopefully Idris Elba will play Lloyd George in a proper biopic.
😂🤣😂
Honestly far better than any Englishman
@sydmccreath4554 clearly 🤔
The rise & fall..
Bit of a cheek for the vermin in ermine Lord Kinnock to be criticising Lloyd George's betrayal of the miners by dismissing the recommendations of the Sankey report. He sold them down the river during the 1984-85 Strike and was hand in glove with Robert Maxwell's scribblers attempt at a character assassination of Arthur Scargill around 1990, gleefully giving them a press award for reporting that turned out to be as false as Maxwell's accounting (see Seamus Milne's book "The Enemy Within" for the full story and much more regarding the miners strike).
32:00 William Pitt the Younger was simoutaneasly Prime Minister and Chancellor........for 17 years.
Not a prime minister in the way we think of one
1:24:32 Churchill died in 1965 NOT 1966
During the darkest days of World War II, when it looked as if Britain might be defeated, he nourished plans to be the British version of Marshal Petain.
He refused to join the coalition or be a head in it right?
Rose tinted glasses ?.
I hear that Huw Edwards is suing his VPN provider
This video has it BACKWARDS: it suggests that Lloyd George’s founding of the welfare state was his greatest achievement (the presenter agrees with Neil Kinnock, et al., that Lloyd George’s only flaw here was that he was not socialist enough, but at least he was more socialist than Tony Blair) and suggests that his role at Versailles and in settling the Irish question were his biggest failings-it’s as if the presenter has been asleep the last half century and not seen the folly of socialism and as if he is unaware that Lloyd George, more than Woodrow Wilson, tried to prevent humiliating the Germans at Versailles. Likewise, this video wrongly suggests that Lloyd George’s pervasive financial corruption, not his persistent unfaithfulness to his wife nor his embrace of Hitler and push for disarmament on the eve of WW II, were his biggest failings outside of office.
Wasnt he the guy who told winston churchill he was being paranoid of nazi germany building a military in violation of the treaty of Versailles?
Very good PM I'd say better than Churchill
The documentary misses another great achievement, that goes back to his boyhood chapel Sunday school. The war came alive for him when Britain took the Holy Land. He said that at last he heard names that he recognised. He was determined to keep the Mandate from the French. And when Britain were expelled, Israel came into being.
Not sure that promoting the colonisation of another people's land by a bunch of extremist European nationalists is much of an achievement.
@@simonw1313 Well said.
The bell rang 12 times, not 11.
Hes, George, born 1889s 1898s.
Keir Hardy was the first working class politician
Totally biased, everything begins from the point that Llyod George was great and everything he did was great and there is no real discussion or critique of his policies.
The only prime minister born in Wales? Australia's Julia Gillard
He was born in Manchester. When his father died he moved back to Wales with his Welsh mother I think
More's.the pity. Thanks for nothing Wales!
What a great man.
ty - interesting set of booken pm's in lloyd george and churchill. they were results oriented first - more like ceo's - than just catering to the polls. their drive for success only made their policies more popular.
Thanks for that, Doug. Some politicians are simply too 'big' to be mere party apparatchiks; they transcend the mundane world of simply ideology and are, in effect, islands in the sea of politics. No party can hold them, and their force of personality is so great that they can be brilliantly right or totally wrong in equal measure. Both Churchill and Lloyd George fit that description, I think. LG in his later career was far more interested in his own position than that of the Liberal Party which withered and died beneath his feet. Churchill too was capable of seeking out the best options for himself rather than following party unity. Still, as it has often been said, 'A politician thinks only of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.'
Churchill died at the beginning of nineteen sixty FIVE - not in '66.
The war in Ireland from about 1919 to 1921 wasn't a civil war - it was a war to overthrow centuries of violent and oppressive British rule. Lloyd George should have more had more understanding of the Irish people as the narrator tells us he himself grew up in the village with a minority of impoverished and oppressed Welsh people and a small minority of wealthy ruling English people.
The 'Black and Tans' were a military force of men recruited mostly from jails (criminals and ex-criminals) which was deliberately raised and sent to terrorise the people of Southern Ireland (regularly burning houses, villages and even towns). In this Lloyd George was very unfortunately acting completely in the interests of the English aristocracy and upper classes and totally against people who were very similar to his own.
At least Keynes hated him, so I guess he is not ALL bad.
And today politicians are shredding the welfare state - shame on them!
You can’t promise what you can’t pay for.
Damn my great great grandpa was actually kind of good
if so he is then your great great grandfather your great great grandfather ruled over the most powerful empire in history and arguably he was the most powerful person in history.
Iv been told since I was a little girl that he is an ancestor. My Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather. My Great Uncle Emlyn was a serious man and he was adamant. My father was named after him too. I wish there was a living relative who I could speak to about this
@@rosannageorge8422 That would be very easy to find out. Assuming you’re descended from legally legitimate relationships, the records you would need to check that are available online for a small fee.
He undoubtedly was instrumental in welcoming the young Hirohito to Britain shortly before he became the Emperor of Japan. When the whole of the white world was so much more condescending to the coloured race, that decision must have been monumental.
Japan was condescending to everyone. Apparently you have forgotten your own countries racism.
The white world was nowhere near as condescending as the Japanese world in the early 20th century.
In Ireland he is considered a war criminal.
Lol ireland used to take slaves from where he's from
@@teiloturner2760 St. Patrick yes, with the distance of a 1000 years or so. But Loyd George unleashed the infamous black and tans in Ireland.
@@kevinmccarthy4794 idc irish people are rich as f compared to us so stfu
David Lloyd George.
Wasn't he a lawyer?
Didn't he know the meaning of void ab initio for...ahem..."stuff signed under duress"?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(law)
Ah, I see. He was a politician....
Churchill died 1965. Was not 1966.
Wrong
He failed to solve the Irish question it still dominates British politics since 1886.
So it was all his fault as he has been in power throughout all time since then
One of the most important Welshman of all time. Who is not a rugby great.
Really good doc, but I do kinda wish they went more into the fall of the Liberal Party
I still feel that we should collect money not from the wealthy of this country but foreigners!
Weltschmerz WTF??? What a incredibly stupid thing to say!!
I am a conservative, but have always admired LG. One look at Francis and it is obvious the man was lonely, not horny. Give him a break! I also hold the Hapsburg's, the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs in high esteem. Eamon DeValera fascinates me to this day. LG was one of many awesome personalities of that time. That so-called War to end all wars, however, has wrecked the moral fibre of this world ever since.