If teachers would teach history in this manner, we'd have a little historian - or two - in every household 😁

Thank you so very much for not blasting music while you are talking 🙂.

Queen Anne was the stuart's last monarch in 1714 when she died

@k.schmidt2740

7 ай бұрын

Why? The Winter Queen of Bohemia was directly in the Stuart line and the mother of the Electress of Hannover, the mother of George I. Both were granddaughters of James I. What is the difference?

@dylanthepickle6428

7 ай бұрын

@@k.schmidt2740because King George I was from the House of Hanover. He started the Hanoverian line. Queen Elizabeth is a defendant of the Hanoverians, but her grandfather started the House of Windsor in 1917. Sophia was the Electress of Hanover by marriage and her male son was a Hanoverian, not a Stuart. This is all about titles.

@sonnylambert4893

6 ай бұрын

1714 or 85 or 13…

@boulevard14

6 ай бұрын

​@@k.schmidt2740I don't think you know how houses and family names work. Descending from someone doesn't mean you're part of the same house. It's unlikely that you share the same last name as your mother's father.

@k.schmidt2740

6 ай бұрын

@@boulevard14: Only because the family names are a patriarchal inheritance. And why is that??!

The best series on the topic.

Always an awesome job! LOVE LOVE LOVE history. ✌️&❤️

@puppylove422

8 ай бұрын

oh.

Love the history teller, his voice is resonant and nice to listen too. He tells the history of the Stewarts with great interest and sarcasm - thoroughly enjoyed !

These are my ancestors on several limbs of my tree. I know nothing much of European history, but I'm trying to learn. Very fascinating.

A great historical narrative video！

Great Plauge & Fires of London! 1665 & 1666.

Another great video

i always thought charles i was french 🤦‍♂ yoo the way these videos are put together is 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 also the narrating and the acting both 10/10 ... thanks for sharing

Very interesting

Lucy Worsley has a very different take on Queen Annie which really made me notice the contempt in your opinion of her.

@LadyCat183

Ай бұрын

Lucy Worsley is not a very accurate historian

Crazy 🤪 history ❤

42:11 I have a 5th great grandma on my mother's side, whose maiden name was Lucy Churchill.

“The story of a nation deciding to abolish the monarchy and become a republic, and then without any outside pressure, overthrow the republic to become a monarchy again! That never happened anywhere else!” It kinda did in Spain.

@TungaroPlau

2 ай бұрын

didnt france reinstate monarchy after napoleon? Rome started monarchy ended empire. words

@Hwje1111

2 ай бұрын

@@TungaroPlau I’d say the monarchy truly ended with that other Napoleon, who was defeated by Prussia.

James seems to been ahead his time what comes dangers of tobacco.

Unfortunately picture quality on my TV is very blurry

@spideywhiplash

8 ай бұрын

It's not your TV. I'm on my Samsung Tablet and at 720p almost everyone looks deformed. I thought it was my eyesight. So I came to see if I wasn't alone with this problem.

Great Fires of London. Fireman Sam.

What??? James plead for his Mother’s life? Absolutely not so, this already makes me doubt the rest of this documentary

Good afternoon people interrupting right 😮😮😮😮😮100%

😢❤Green azoto

Long live our royal family

Whats the different between reaisance and others

What’s the music piece played at 4:58 ?

@ivycsy

3 ай бұрын

bach violin concerto A minor 1st movement

I kindly ask all politicians presidents to pay attention to the criminal Timur Kulibayev who is a son in law of ex-president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. Timur Kulibayev together with his team actually was robbing the whole population of Kazakhstan. They have been raiding businessmen and natural resources of the country for more than 20 years. His wife Dinara Kulibayeva, his partners Raushan Sagdiyeva, Umit Shayahmetova are criminals that have escaped the punishment. And now they need to be punished at last. Their accounts and property should be put under sanctions. The money and the property they own are of criminal origins and can’t be used by them. International law should prevent the laundering of illicitly obtained funds. All of the activities of above mentioned persons should go under due diligence procedures. Many countries have these laws that should work to seize assets acquired through corrupt and criminal practices. This is exactly what Timur Kulibayev and his team did. It’s essential to fight against these cases!

@cplmpcocptcl6306

8 ай бұрын

I haven’t heard of any of this. But now I will be researching it. So sick of people like that.

A good read is Forever Amber, historical fiction

@LilNicole89

8 ай бұрын

Who is it by? I'm deeply interested in the history of the monarchy. Normally I read about the Tudors or Queen Victoria, but I haven't found anything on the Stuarts that's interesting

@lolawaara9132

8 ай бұрын

Author is Kathleen Winsor. Published in the 1940’s, a movie was made too, but the book is a fun read. Very risqué for the time. Lol! She goes through the great fire , the plague and King Charles 2. The book goes into detail about Charles’ mistresses, and his wife.

@LilNicole89

8 ай бұрын

@@lolawaara9132 and added to my wishlist. Thanks for the recommendation!

@angeladiane5026

8 ай бұрын

My mom’s favorite!

A very Anglice History. The constitution of England up to the Treaty of Union is presented as the constitution of the whole UK ‘polity, monitory and trade’ Union (just like the European Union). Scotland’s constitution might as well never have existed. Scotland and England did not become the United Kingdom of Great Britain with the personal union of the crowns in 1603 (even though James VI of Scots and I of England styled himself thus). Like the English common law, the Scots Constitutional law tradition is not an ossuary. The Claim of Right Act explicitly enacts and establishes: • a ‘fundamental constitution’ in Scotland by which the power of (any) government is legally limited, • the final authority of the people of the nation to grant or remove power from the ruling government • the protection under the Constitution of civil rights and liberties • and the debarment of the government from any right to alter or rescind these or to claim an ‘absolute’ sovereignty over the laws and rights of the people on pain of forfeiture. Constitutional Application of Claim of Right 1699 - Popular Sovereignty, Scottish Constitution: Used in 1699 to prevent William II of Scots (III of England) breaking his contract and trying to limit the right to petition in Scotland. The Privy Council (of Scotland) refused to sign the king’s ‘act’, parliament (of Scotland) reminded him of the oath he had taken to uphold the “Claim of Right” (Act 1689) and 21,000 people signed a petition in support of the Company of Scotland. It was thus well understood as a binding Constitutional document whose applications were to uphold the legal and civil rights of the people (of Scotland) quite as much as the privileges of the Presbyterian Kirk. 1703 High Treason and Ratification of Convention of the Estates: Act ratifying the turning the meeting of the estates in the year 1689 into a parliament - Popular Sovereignty, Scottish Constitution: William’s (II of Scots, III of England) attempts to have the “Claim of Right” amended were directed through the 'Court faction’ which began arguing from 1699 onwards that: a. The Convention of the Estates wasn’t a parliament so the Act didn’t really count as binding and b. the Convention of the Estates was a parliament and so parliament could just rewrite it. A year and a half after William’s death, the parliament of Scotland ‘put a period on the end of that sentence’ by passing an act which recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made it high treason to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of Right. Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions quite as much as for its religious provisions. “Our sovereign lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratifies, approves and perpetually confirms the first act of King William (II of Scots, III of England) and Queen Mary’s parliament, dated 5 June 1689, entitled act declaring the meeting of the estates to be a parliament, and of new enacts and declares that the three estates then met together the said 5 June 1689, consisting of noblemen, barons and burghs, were a lawful and free parliament, and it is declared that it shall be high treason for any person to disown, quarrel or impugn the dignity and authority of the said parliament. And further, the queen's majesty, with consent foresaid, statutes and declares that it shall be high treason in any of the subjects of this kingdom to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking, or other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the “Claim of Right” or any article thereof. The insertion of the 1706 Act for the securing of the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government into the conditions of the (International) Treaty, to be ratified along with the Articles, thus securing the continuation of Scotland’s unique Constitution, one that is entirely incompatible with that of England, after the Union. Today, 533 Anglice Seat “Democratically Disproportionate” Westminster proclaims its sovereignty as the highest authority in the UK, the supreme law making body with the power to make or alter the constitution and to amend any of the Articles of the (International) Treaty of Union (1706) at will, including those clearly intended to be unalterable. The constitution of England up to the Treaty of Union is presented as the constitution of the whole UK ‘polity, monitory and trade’ Union. Scotland’s constitution might as well never have existed. If Westminster were truly the lawful, sovereign power in Scotland, then it might have a lawful, reasonable and ethical case for its absolute authority over the governance and the limits of its accountability in our nation. But if it is now ‘sovereign’ it is so by false argument, by disguise and by the promotion of heavily partisan and convoluted legal opinions to the stature of constitutional principles, principles now upheld by the entire Court system in the UK, in order to legitimise its abandonment of the clear and binding commitments on which the Union was founded. “…the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law”, (obiter of Lord Cooper in McCormick vs the Lord Advocate 1953) www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28

31:17 33:06 35:08 36:25 37:48

poor job ,very very poor , the Stuarts were scotlands glory !but you turn them into englands soft wool, you miss out the rising of 1689 to restore king jamie the 7th in scotland , bonnie dundee let his men to victory at killiecrankie , but he was killed , the stuarts destiny , could have changed ,if he had lived .you miss out an awful lot! like the act of security in scotland in 1704 ,an act allowing scotland to choose is own monarch ,potentially james 8th in scotland and george 1st in england, hence the act of union

@JonniePolyester

8 ай бұрын

Indeed- 27 July 1689 A stunning Jacobite victory against a much larger government force led by Gen Hugh Mackay

A BAS LE CAPITALISME!!!🚩