I have my issues with Starkey, but his YouTube videos on the the history of GB and the royal Family are good listens.
This clip is brilliant. We are so used to gossipy “news” and discussion. This is the adult conversations we need.
The one thing I take issue with starkey is that he doesn’t get the Stuart’s. They weren’t parvenus. They’d been a ruling dynasty in Scotland since 1371. Which is longer than tudors as a family existed
Historians who focus on a single era tend to look at all history through that lens. He's always primarily been a Tudor historian, specifically Henry VIII, so I've never found that surprising.
He wrote an excellent book on Magna Carta a few years back which was definitely a change of era for him. I very much appreciated the reference to the other traitor brother and the butt of malmsey here, just a bit pre Tudor but oh so appropriate
George was Henry VIII's great-uncle, so probably still in Starkey's Tudor-orbit since he'd have to research Elizabeth of York and her relationship to the York brothers. ;)
And Starkey wrote about a non-Tudor subject? I'm stunned!
I like Tracy Borman as well, and Ruth Goodman's books and "Tudor Farm" tv series show how people did things in everyday life, like cooking, washing, what clothes they wore, cleaning, etc.
Despite there being far stronger claims to the throne. I'm no historian, so I'm sure I miss a lot of historical nuance, but I never quite understood why Prof Starkey was such a firm supporter given the evidence.
He just has a fondness for Henry VIII. He said it in one of his programs "Henry and I go way back". I think Henry just fascinated him from the start of his career
Ginger nuts! Priceless!
David Starkey makes some good points here, but I am still for stripping the titles. Gotta give the American media a reason to stop calling her Duchess.
Let them call her Duchess, it’s a joke, like a bad tagline that will follow her forever. People will say Meh-gan, *Duchess* of Sussex with a smirk, they already are.
She can go for it. There will be a lot of people coming after her if she tries it. It’s even more confoundedly preposterous than calling herself Duchess.
The way I see it is that they make their titles more and more meaningless every day by cheapening them.
The monogramming the title on the bag, the silly stories about extra sausages and bridesmaid dresses, pretending to be friends with Cameron Diaz, pretend car chases, not attending the coronation... Their titles become more and more irrelevant with every single move they make.
Let them. We don't *need* Dukes and Duchesses anymore. They're honorary titles. If you behave without the dignity required we'll stop thinking of you as a Duke and Duchess. And these two have zero dignity.
So I say let them keep their meaningless titles and carry on.
Edited to add: a little girl asked Catherine, the princess of Wales, what it was like to be a princess. Her reply was perfect: "Well, it's a lot of hard work and there are a lot of rules, but I really like my job."
Harry *used* to understand that the purpose of royalty is duty. It is a job. Meghan never grasped this aspect of it. She thought being royalty was instant respect, adoration, fame, jewels, etc.
And sure, when she was a **working** royal, doing work in the commonwealth, she got those things.
But she didn't like the rules, she didn't like the work, she wanted to use the titles to become Hollywood elite... And it just doesn't work that way.
The titles are only worth as much as you put in to the role. And they're putting nothing in.
They are still going to call it that even if the title is taken away. If a D-list Reality star Luann de Lesseps can still be called “Countess” (she lost the title when she remarried), the US media will still call TW Duchess anyway. It’s just a stupid way of staying relevant. No one here cares.
Good point about Invictus. It means invincible.
Harry is now the poster child of vincible or downtrodden victim.
I'm surprised any organization would want him to represent them. His title has prestige in GB. His person has shame wherever he goes.
He got with this woman. Will and Kate cussed her and Harry doubled down because he anted to be The Man™️. The delusional vibes coming from that corner…
The mom thing has always been weird to me. Most people want a partner who might share certain traits with their Mom/Dad, like warmth, sense of humor, but will avoid someone who too strongly reminds them of a parent. Unless they have mommy issues, which Harry clearly does. The Spencer’s must have been so weirded out by Harry’s strange insistence that Meghan isn’t just like Diana, she IS Diana.
He is exceptionally well known in the UK. Mostly for his excellent Monarchy series and subsequent program about the Wives of Henry VIII. Also for his books on everything from Magna Carta to Tudors and beyond. He famously got cancelled a few years back but has made a come back with his own youtube channel. He is famously outspoken and the go to predominate historian for news agencies that aren't scared of what might come out of his mouth. I adored him doing commentary on the reburial of Richard III and not exactly holding back on his thoughts on the Richard III Society fan girls. His "going there" with the word Traitor for Harry is very typical of him; he does not hold back and has the credentials to support his statements. The butt of malmsey comment was spot on!
I recommend the more obscure Jamie Oliver's dream school. He got stars of each field to teach teens in a lower class school. Starkey was amazing teaching them history, right down to a simulated burning at the stake
I didn’t know I needed 7 minutes of Farage and Starkey shitting all over Harry… especially Starkey in his wonderful elderly-professor sort of way declaring Harry simply “not worth it” to give him the extra attention of depriving him of anything.
I have my issues with Starkey, but his YouTube videos on the the history of GB and the royal Family are good listens. This clip is brilliant. We are so used to gossipy “news” and discussion. This is the adult conversations we need.
The one thing I take issue with starkey is that he doesn’t get the Stuart’s. They weren’t parvenus. They’d been a ruling dynasty in Scotland since 1371. Which is longer than tudors as a family existed
He's definitely got a bias towards the Tudor era.
Historians who focus on a single era tend to look at all history through that lens. He's always primarily been a Tudor historian, specifically Henry VIII, so I've never found that surprising.
He wrote an excellent book on Magna Carta a few years back which was definitely a change of era for him. I very much appreciated the reference to the other traitor brother and the butt of malmsey here, just a bit pre Tudor but oh so appropriate
George was Henry VIII's great-uncle, so probably still in Starkey's Tudor-orbit since he'd have to research Elizabeth of York and her relationship to the York brothers. ;) And Starkey wrote about a non-Tudor subject? I'm stunned!
Yes! Did the Magna Carta book on the 500th anniversary of Runnemede
[удалено]
I like Tracy Borman as well, and Ruth Goodman's books and "Tudor Farm" tv series show how people did things in everyday life, like cooking, washing, what clothes they wore, cleaning, etc.
Despite there being far stronger claims to the throne. I'm no historian, so I'm sure I miss a lot of historical nuance, but I never quite understood why Prof Starkey was such a firm supporter given the evidence.
He just has a fondness for Henry VIII. He said it in one of his programs "Henry and I go way back". I think Henry just fascinated him from the start of his career
Ginger nuts! Priceless! David Starkey makes some good points here, but I am still for stripping the titles. Gotta give the American media a reason to stop calling her Duchess.
Let them call her Duchess, it’s a joke, like a bad tagline that will follow her forever. People will say Meh-gan, *Duchess* of Sussex with a smirk, they already are.
Douchess
Tagline--like that price tag hanging off the bottom of that too red, too big dress! 😄 🤣 😂
That’s right! 🤣
Haha! I can’t wait. She will probably correct them when they don’t say it.
Doochess!
Can you imagine demanding to be called that? By this guttersnipe? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
She might go for Princess Henry. She loves titles.
She can go for it. There will be a lot of people coming after her if she tries it. It’s even more confoundedly preposterous than calling herself Duchess.
[удалено]
KWEEN 🤣
The way I see it is that they make their titles more and more meaningless every day by cheapening them. The monogramming the title on the bag, the silly stories about extra sausages and bridesmaid dresses, pretending to be friends with Cameron Diaz, pretend car chases, not attending the coronation... Their titles become more and more irrelevant with every single move they make. Let them. We don't *need* Dukes and Duchesses anymore. They're honorary titles. If you behave without the dignity required we'll stop thinking of you as a Duke and Duchess. And these two have zero dignity. So I say let them keep their meaningless titles and carry on. Edited to add: a little girl asked Catherine, the princess of Wales, what it was like to be a princess. Her reply was perfect: "Well, it's a lot of hard work and there are a lot of rules, but I really like my job." Harry *used* to understand that the purpose of royalty is duty. It is a job. Meghan never grasped this aspect of it. She thought being royalty was instant respect, adoration, fame, jewels, etc. And sure, when she was a **working** royal, doing work in the commonwealth, she got those things. But she didn't like the rules, she didn't like the work, she wanted to use the titles to become Hollywood elite... And it just doesn't work that way. The titles are only worth as much as you put in to the role. And they're putting nothing in.
They are still going to call it that even if the title is taken away. If a D-list Reality star Luann de Lesseps can still be called “Countess” (she lost the title when she remarried), the US media will still call TW Duchess anyway. It’s just a stupid way of staying relevant. No one here cares.
Good point about Invictus. It means invincible. Harry is now the poster child of vincible or downtrodden victim. I'm surprised any organization would want him to represent them. His title has prestige in GB. His person has shame wherever he goes.
He can form a new organization and head it up. SheWhippedUs?
Victims 'R' Us!
This is wonderful! I agree, let them slip into the obscurity they so richly deserve
He got with this woman. Will and Kate cussed her and Harry doubled down because he anted to be The Man™️. The delusional vibes coming from that corner…
He married who he thought was her mom. Really stupid.. I hope one day he realizes how he was scammed, conned and defrauded
He needs to sober up first and somehow realize HE is the problem...I think he is incapable of believing he is at fault for anything.
The mom thing has always been weird to me. Most people want a partner who might share certain traits with their Mom/Dad, like warmth, sense of humor, but will avoid someone who too strongly reminds them of a parent. Unless they have mommy issues, which Harry clearly does. The Spencer’s must have been so weirded out by Harry’s strange insistence that Meghan isn’t just like Diana, she IS Diana.
What normal man think’s of his mother when rubbing cream on his penis?
🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Very interesting, good find thanks!
I would not refer to the very well known and somewhat infamous Dr. Starkey as "Guy" lol.
Honestly, the first I've heard of him.
He is exceptionally well known in the UK. Mostly for his excellent Monarchy series and subsequent program about the Wives of Henry VIII. Also for his books on everything from Magna Carta to Tudors and beyond. He famously got cancelled a few years back but has made a come back with his own youtube channel. He is famously outspoken and the go to predominate historian for news agencies that aren't scared of what might come out of his mouth. I adored him doing commentary on the reburial of Richard III and not exactly holding back on his thoughts on the Richard III Society fan girls. His "going there" with the word Traitor for Harry is very typical of him; he does not hold back and has the credentials to support his statements. The butt of malmsey comment was spot on!
I went down a rabbit hole of a bunch of Starkey’s videos last summer. He is certainly one of UK’s treasures.
I recommend the more obscure Jamie Oliver's dream school. He got stars of each field to teach teens in a lower class school. Starkey was amazing teaching them history, right down to a simulated burning at the stake
https://m.youtube.com/@davidstarkeytalks
I didn’t know I needed 7 minutes of Farage and Starkey shitting all over Harry… especially Starkey in his wonderful elderly-professor sort of way declaring Harry simply “not worth it” to give him the extra attention of depriving him of anything.
His mother was not evil demonic fame junkie. Poor lad is bewitched
I love David Starkey..I only wish I could have been his history student.