Comments by "ʃuðɼinga ƿeoɼc" (@uingaeoc3905) on "David Starkey Talks" channel.

  1. Not just Labour has lost the Working Class - it is that it now despises them.
    554
  2. What amused me about Ms Langley was she spent her whole career in the 'defence' of RIII as 'not a hunch back' and as soon as the (admittedly sterling work she did in locating RIII's body) archaeologists discovered a skeleton with its major deformed spine she immediately gasped "aahh, ... it's Richard!".
    224
  3. 'Good Warrior King' ? Who did he fight apart from his own family, the Barons and Henry?
    28
  4.  @shirleylane131  It was readily apparent and inthe mediaeval period I don't think they used exact medical terminology. The young man who they modelled RIII's armour on in the Leics Uni documentary was clearly disabled to an observer. 'Scrunch' Back and 'Crouch-back' was also used of RIII and the latter in perticular was a double en'tendre.
    17
  5. I think Dr Starkey, without getting in any way too 'Freudian' about it, that Myths contain essential beliefs and truths about a society and culture.
    16
  6.  @l.plantagenet2539  I can't be bothered with your silly conspiracy theories and peddling the same old stories which have been revived and recycled by R3 apologists for decades. I read most of these many years ago. I certainly don't have any adulation of the Tudors so I don't come to the issues from a partisan viewpoint - unlike yourself. You are of course completely irrational to claim BOTH that Henry VII had the Princes murdered and at the same time one or both survived. Warbeck was a fake and puppet and nothing more. Starkey is a great historian of the period and he has NO particular axe to grind for Henry VIII. Again, you make an assumption that Henry VIII was somehow culpable in your fantastic belief of somehow conniving with his father about events that not only happened before his parents met but that he was in fact the second son. It is typical of your sort that you accuse others of your own mindset in relation to these issues. R3 was a thoroughly bad king and a poor one too. He failed at being even an effective tyrant.
    13
  7.  @l.plantagenet2539  I saw the 'trial' , it proved nothing of the sort - it was a fixed outcome from the start. Starkey is a great historian and his period is that of the Tudors following from his own tutor Elton. Langley is a hobby-horse rider. Granted her application to detective work paid dividends in that the body was found in the location of where the chapel of the monastery was sited. Frankly, if the entire site had been excavated and no body discovered ot if lots of bodies had been and none showed any sign of difference (the 'Ricardianss3' always denied the deformity was real, only a Tudor slur) then where would her theories be then,? Well nowhere!. I really do think Starkey is engaging because he has made 'children' cry because they are the jerks! I love to disabuse jerks of their ignorance.
    12
  8.  @tobiasbourne9073  RIII was described as 'Crouchback' which has numerous connotations and is also a double-entendre for cowardice.
    11
  9. Dr Starkey identifies as MALE - what's with the 'lady' epithet?
    9
  10. Erm, it was 'England' from Edgar in mid-tenth century and Charlemagne's line certainly recognised England and William the Conqueror certainly knew it was England. In fact England is the first 'modern' European Nation State. It became part of the Angevin Empire and it was the defeat of that which creates France as a nation, as different land to that of the King of England, but is attacked again by Henry V.
    8
  11. By ignoring them. these are self adopted constraints.
    8
  12.  @LexMewthor  NOBODY, least of all Starkey, say's that they are!
    7
  13. Starkey's little survey from Trafalgar Square, statues of James II (overthrown), William III (overthrower), Charles I (beheaded), Cromwell (beheader) could have included in the same perspective George Washington (rebelled) also in front of the National Gallery and just a little further down Pall Mall East is George III (rebelled against).
    7
  14. Total and complete drivel.
    6
  15. Henry had a penchant for 'foreign' headgear it seems - take a look at how he is represented in the Chronicles illustrations, especially when he is standing beside the ''vacated throne' among the Peers and Bishops. He is clearly wearing a 'Muscovy' or fur hat, presumably adopted from his time in the Baltic. This must have been so depicted because of first hand knowledge of him as it is unlikely to have been invented by the artist.
    6
  16.  @tobiasbourne9073  How is your comment contrary to mine ?
    6
  17. Now it is the Basket Case of Europe.
    6
  18.  @lapitop4206  You haven't made any point - you just disappear up your own backside.
    5
  19.  @laurenjeangreenbean6301  The Founding Fathers were NOT influenced by the Native American Indians. I would have thought that was so obvious as to not need explanation. One certainly does not need a PhD in Social Anthropology to understand the differences. The tribal system of the Amerindians was not a 'model of democracy' but in fact a communal animist-theocracy based on Elderlaw. As Dr Starkey has pointed out the American Revolution and its Constitution were founded EXCLUSIVELY on English Politico -philosophical principles which were both directed by the radicals of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution eg Milton and John Locke and the later Enlightenment theorists who were contemporaries of the Founding Fathers eg Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
    4
  20. The Russians know nothing of the Holodomor, including Putin, which is why they do not understand why the Ukrainians are so hostile to them.
    4
  21. This is why there is the current legislation because of DLG's behaviour. There was a mixture of money for himself and his cronies and his party supporters.
    4
  22. Nope - just John Locke. The point of the Senate was to balance the States but it was also a revising chamber as the Lords became. The hybrid was because the FFs wanted a democracy based on population - the House - and the Senate to represent the States. Montesquieu thought he was describing the British constitution.
    3
  23.  @tobiasbourne9073  nevertheless he was s described by contemporaries.
    3
  24. DS slipped also by calling the regime of Nap III as the 'Third Empire' when it was the 'Second'. But he does not have a written script.
    3
  25. Pity you are in a minority on that.
    3
  26. Get back on your meds will you.
    2
  27.  @SeanSmith-f3t  yes it is. Counsel's of Despair is an excuse to do nothing. Wholesale sacking of the senior civil service , put them on gardening leave, ask them to resign for retirement. When they sign a document their pensions can be cancelled. That is legal.
    2
  28.  @HarryWolf  This comedy series is a warning on how to deal with administrative obstruction. I had to deal with many Sir Humphreys in my time as a representative in Whitehall and would never allow these games, much to their aggressive annoyance when it caused a Minister to Direct them otherwise.
    2
  29.  @HarryWolf  Exactly - the whole point of a Ministerial Directive is to ensure the political policy is carried out. Priti Patel had to use this on several occasions when Home Secretary - she did so because her informal instructions were subverted and when she challenged this behaviour she was accused of 'bullying'. 'Bullying' is telling a civil servant to carry out government policy they are avoiding to do. Time and again the CS claim that they object because of 'international obligations' making interpretations of law that it is the strict responsibility of the Minister to decide, not to be second guessed by the CS. The whole farrago of avoiding Deportations was based on vague reliance of what an Appeal to the ECHR might result in.
    2
  30.  @lydiamalone1859  I think he is referring to the role of the Lords-Senate being a 'revising' chamber and that it represented another 'interest' of the nation, in both cases 'land' ie aristocratic domains or States as opposed to people.
    2
  31. Which would entail the Abolition as that intention was why the South seceded. May I add 'you numpty'.
    2
  32.  @jwadaow  It was not the UK Parliament , it was the Executive Monarchy.
    2
  33.  @Ruckduck72  She did make it up.
    2
  34.  @Helena-ny1cm  Twaddle - what are you saying? Let's go through this logically:- 1) Did RIII have a deformed back as held by Tudor propaganda? a) Yes, b) No , 2) If 1a then he had a deformed back and Tudor propaganda was correct.. If 1b then RIII did not have a deformed back., 3) Did RIII have a deformed back but nobody noticed this? a) He had a deformity and nobody noticed it. b) He had a deformity and it was common knowledge. 4) Your position is 3a which is flatly contradicted by 1b which you and Langley support.. Are you sure you understand what you are saying now that the body of RIII shows a deformed spine? Otherwise you and Langley are holding self contradictory opinions. I argue for 1a and 3b which are mutually supporting.
    2
  35. Musk endorsed Biden in 2020, he switched to Trump after the first assassination attempt - as he said "Do you want a President who cannot walk up the stairs or one who stands up after being shot and shouts 'Fight, fight, fight'!"
    2
  36.  @katakauchi  Utter trash - Woodville did accept that the boys were dead and that Richard was responsible . You cannot peddle this conspiracy nonsense and ignore what the facts state. If she could not stop the boys being taken by RIII how could she stop the daughters being taken by him? You also seem to think that there was an incident were the Irish did not recognise Simnell - they did not because he was ten years older,, you think they actually believed he was EdV at the time/ Simnell was a pawn. The reasons for the 'derieiction' of Woodville were stated at the time .
    2
  37.  @katakauchi  No you buffoonn I do not 'use Starkey' and any form of language I uae is my own - but as a fool you think there is a conspiracy tto create a conspiracy. Wheever I come across dolts like you - and academia has a lot of the - it is always that they - you- start from a ridiculously partsan position. A proper historian such as Starkey seeks to uncover the facts and does not take sides. What possible benefit could he r I have by simply analising this silly story of 'Ed V survival' and demolishing it? But half wits like you try to make out you have some arcasne knowledge which the rest of us somehow miss, in fact you just have embroidery and supposition based on your stupid conspiracy. I note you make NO attempt to engage with Starkey's points. This is why I insult you - incidentally, I do enjoy insulting self styled 'experts'.
    2
  38. The Argentine.
    2
  39.  @tuckerbugeater  What could you do with a brain?
    2
  40.  @samcad-ho3ze  Oh yeah - which includes the SNP leaders as well?
    2
  41.  @bookaufman9643  Anglo-Saxon or 'Old English' script. 'Suthringa Weorc' now 'Southwark'.
    2
  42.  @davidpnewton  Putin claimed that Ukraine had no separate history of its own and he took the dates of the UA-SSR as its creation. I don't support Putin, I am pointing out what he said a few days before the invasion. Starkey was referring to the 'modern border, ie Post Potsdam of 1945 which created Ukraine's expansion into the area of Lweow, previously Austrian Lemberg as Lvov-Lviv. None of the Eastern nations have boundaries older than 1945, Romania lost Besserabia - Moldova, Poland was shifted West to the Oder-Neisser Line for both UA and Belarus and of course the detached East Prussian capital of Konigsberg-Kalliningrad. So that Starkey is saying something similar to Putin without agreeing with his reasoning. The culprit for the current mess in deeper history is of course Stalin with a deliberate fracturing of 'ethno-linguistic' groups into patchwork quilt boundaries similar to the statelets of the Holy Roman Empire to cause internecine trouble and also exporting Russians into them to cause yet more problems. The Donbas republics and Transnistria are a fraction of it.
    2
  43. #@£F-VV1T.
    1
  44.  @lapitop4206  P!$$ 0## D!C4HE@D
    1
  45.  @lapitop4206  How do you know what decline is you having nothing to aspire to.
    1
  46.  @lapitop4206  By analising you drivel.
    1
  47.  @lapitop4206  I can only argue with logic and factoids - an idiot like you just pumping out guff cannot be argued with.
    1
  48. NO - that is part of the attack on the UK as proposed by Blair-EU and the so called 'devolution' assemblies..
    1
  49.  @paulgrieve7031  As little as possible. Wales was not a united nation until the Normans-Plantagenets conquered it.
    1
  50. More drivel.
    1
  51.  @danielkrcmar5395  It is not a question at all - it is drivel.
    1
  52.  @danielkrcmar5395  Ill educate aren't you! Just because something is in the form of a question , ieg drivel, does not mean it is one. "How do you know this is a question?" - "I know it is a question as this is the answer!""
    1
  53.  @danielkrcmar5395  I have explained everything with the proper use of the English language and clearly you are too ignorant to understand the explanation. there is NO question posed. You just display your historic idiocy. Now STOP POSTING here as you are out of your depth.
    1
  54. Devolution was an EU policy to destroy the nation state. Massive packing of Appointees to the Lords, to stop the elected Chamber doing anything . Making elected Local Mayors and Cabinets turned Councillors into just pressure groups against the Executive bureaucracy of the Council. Politicisation of the Judiciary with changes to the Lord Chancellor and Supreme Court - we saw this over the Brexit debates in the Commons. the LC could have become the Head of the SC. Finally, the love affair with supranational organisations which are an excuse to not allow accountability or responsibility at national level.
    1
  55.  @docwhat8370  Nope - in fact less accurate! On the macro-economic point you are wrong because Slave Labour is the most inefficient system of production - as no less a person than Marx pointed out in detail - not a form of 'competition' with the North at all. The tension in and between the States over Slavery was the distinction between it and the 'Free Soilers'. The latter was the new population growth moving into the virgin lands of the mid-west to expand their independence and freedom (that is the actual background sense of 'the American dream'). The arguments were that the Territories and New States being formed if allowed to have Slavery would in fact enslave ALL labourers and their could be no freedom for anybody. It was not even racial in this sense. That is the moral opposition to Slavery of the Free Soilers - or as Donald Trump put it "It isn't me they are coming after, it is you!".
    1
  56.  @docwhat8370  Nope - the row over the new Territories was over Free Soil and Slavery being the principal point. There would have been no 'South' developing anything, nothing could be so developed. This had nothing to do with 'competing economies' it was different social models which the South did not want to have any competition in. What tipped the South into Secession was the anti-Slave Free Soil Republicans nominating Abraham Lincoln as Presidential candidate whom was fully expected to win the Election. The war started when the Confederacy decided to attack federal properties. I suggest you look at the history of Sam Houston to understand the dynamics.
    1
  57. One Hundred and Eight Thousand Pounds of SILVER!"
    1
  58.  @LexMewthor  I see you have fallen for the White Boar propaganda.
    1
  59.  @LexMewthor  You are a f00£. great mediaeval prince's last more than 18 months in the job.
    1
  60.  @Helena-ny1cm  The point of your comment is what exactly?
    1
  61.  @lastladylancastrian1380ommh  Agreed on all points. Just what is her fixation with the shortest reign Monarch in English history - his own father in law, Stanley, deserted him.
    1
  62. There was no Dutch invasion - it was a glorious revolution because bloodless. You may as well say there was an invasion by the City of London and the House of Lords. They gave a formal invitation to William and Mary to reestablish constitutional norms and James ran away as nobody would fight for him.
    1
  63.  @garymitchell5899  Approved by the Dutch presumably. People who make remarks like this are unaware of the family relationship between Charles I, James II and William and Mary.
    1
  64.  @katakauchi  Only a half wit can believe Woodville had any power to withhold anything from RII. I am not 'pro-Tudor so do not describe me as on of its 'bunch' which proves to me you are not a serious historian but an ignorant story spinner. You are also a total ignoramus to think that the retinue the Tower were in a position to do anything in regard to its inmates when they were also handpicked confederates of RIII. Do you think they had the same status as the current staff of Historic royal Palaces or that having a job which included free bed and board is not an inducement to do as told? It is dolts like you that turn so many people off historiography.
    1
  65.  @katakauchi  I always insult idiots who pretend they are historians.
    1
  66.  @katakauchi  You are a blithering idiot - I do not 'follow Starkey' in your asinine sense, nor is H8 his 'hero', you are incapable of understanding historical analysis.. As for the R3 'Mock Trial' you seem incapable of comprehending what 'playing Devil's Advocate is either -.
    1
  67.  @nbenefiel  I have read your posts. You write twaddle. Why would Henry VII know the identity of Warbeck as that of Edward but not inform his son? Essentially you fall into the ignoramus's trap of thinking there was strict primogeniture for succession when it was perfectly possible to skip claimants who were unfit. In fact apart from RIII so did HIV and even HVIII ignored his own illegitimate issue. All could have as easily 'legitimated' them is they wished. You are just a fourth rate fantasist with no real historical knowledge.
    1
  68. However, we surely do not want the vast majority of our American cousins to identify as 'Anglo-American'?
    1
  69.  @jbloun911  Xenophobe.
    1
  70.  @nicholasevangelos5443  By the fact that NOBODY else can say they exercise it.
    1
  71.  @david6532  Who have a diseased mind you mean.
    1
  72.  @elainebutterworth8051  really snide, because Dr Starkey does not 'identify' as Gay either.
    1
  73.  @DS9TREK  It only identifies what he does sexually. It does not define him as a person.
    1
  74.  @davidpnewton  Putin said the same thing. 'Ukraine was no separate status', in his speech a few days before the invasion.
    1
  75.  @danielkrcmar5395  Drivel.
    1
  76.  @paulgrieve7031  Utter incoherent nonsense you mean?
    1
  77. No. The Putney Debates did not result in any constitutional changes. All that was settled by the Civil War and Treaty of Breda was the limit of monarchical authority. Even then both Charles II and his brother James II tried to push back with a Bourbon model and James II was removed in the Glorious Revolution to reassert the Civil War settlement. However, Monarchical Executive power was ended by the American War when opposition in Parliament to it resulted in the end of 'supply' unless the king appointed a Minister who could carry the Commons for budgets. That Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury. Once that point was conceded we had Cabinet government of Parliament rather than Privy Council government of the Monarch. So the American Revolution caused one in Britain along the same lines. but it was based on Parliamentary representation, whereas France simply exploded.
    1
  78. There has been a merger of ideologies - Corporatist-State Globalism. There is no longer 'Right and Left' as the Globalists have adopted the Vocabulary of the Left . The Left think they have got Socialism granted by Mega Corporations. Working People who pay taxes and have the temerity to complain about low wages and high taxes through a distortion of the labour market caused by these policies are then attacked from the Left and Woke Right that we are racists.
    1
  79. Unlike all the other pompous bores who sound off in those interviews.
    1