I have just watched The game of Crowns: The Tudors expecting to see the next one about King James 6th and 1st, no such luck. I'd be interested to know more about the Stuart and Hanover Royal Family.
I was wondering the same thing. In the paintings of the time that they showed on here they were not wearing 18th century wigs and those huge dresses that look like they are 2 miles wide
Low budget documentary series would be my guess. This popped up on my suggested videos for UA-cam so I don't know the whole story to be honest. They expect that no one is going to guess what's what. They use footage from other episodes in the series.
QV had 9 children in 20 years and suffered from postpartum depression . Because of the Kensington System she was emotionally needy for a male companion - hence Lord Melborne , Prince Albert , John Brown , Benjamin Disraeli and Abdul Karim . Prince Albert pushed for huge improvements ( Prince Consort to the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and for the Civilization of Africa , pushed for the repeal of the corn laws , was appalled at the poverty in Britain and pushed for 4 reforms education for their children, industrial training; good dwellings; the granting of allotments; and savings banks and benevolent societies , pushed for the first World's Fair - creating the Chrystal Palace . He also pushed for advances in science , technology and the arts and museums ) .
That's really interesting and good to know about Albert, thank you! I had no idea. As for Victoria and the tenor of these accounts overall, well I find them to be contemptible in their glossing-over of her crimes. It's astonishing how self-centered this woman was, and how woefully tolerant her country was of it. Nowhere else in the world is anybody able to go on a fifteen year State-funded vacation from their JOB, living lavishly in obscene amounts of wealth and excess, just because their spouse died, and then get treated in history like some sort of deity instead of as a parasite feeding off the system while contributing nothing. As with every failed monarch, their childhood is always sympathetic, because the system of raising aristocrat children was fundamentally toxic and mentally ill in every sense of the world. So of course, by the time one of them rises to power, they have a tormented psyche. Sad as that is, it does not excuse the ways in which they take it out on their country. Victoria was a terrible mother and grandmother. Just the statement she made to Leopold about intending to drown her child if it was born a girl and that babies are nothing more than plants tells you everything you need to know. But then there is the way she treated "Bertie," scapegoated one of her children to the Germans, and disappeared the disabled grandson nobody even talks about. Then there's her failure to make life any better for women. In her own words, she didn't want to be owned or controlled by a man, which means she knew full well how the system in her country worked. Yet she only cared about having her own autonomy rather than using her power to change that system for all of the other women who were her subjects. But worst of all is the sin of imperialism. There's nothing good to be said about empires, especially not the British empire, nor about the monarchic system of governance as a whole. In fact, she chose to support the racist, colonialist prime minister Disraeli and his reprehensible agenda for the country over the humanist Gladstone who wanted to make peoples' lives better, all because Disraeli flattered her ego and made her feel good about herself. Every British documentary on the monarchy loves to make excuses for and glorify the empire, skating right over the genocidal human rights abuses and exploitation of labor and resources that happened all over the world at the hands of the Brits every single day. In fact, the entire history of European monarchies is a categorical failure if you measure it by the one and only metric that should matter: Did they make the lives of the working classes and the poor better, or worse? From one English ruler to the next, the answer is always "worse." Just keep in mind how bourgeois these documentarians really are. They are useful to some extent if you're interested in history, but their ultimate aim is always to uphold and propagandize for colonialism, empire, and the power of the ruling classes.
@@worldadventuretravel - Its complicated . During the late 17th Century , in England and Scotland we see the the ACCEPTANCE of Enlightenment Values . The acceptance of the scientific method over religion , the acceptance of Democratic Rights * & the Rights of the Individual , legal rights , labour rights , the phasing out of child labour by making schooling mandatory , the phasing out of slavery , improvements in public health , water and sanitary to end Cholera . Very importantly during Victoria's and Albert's life time the creation of a national transportation system ( railways ) and a national Communication System ( telegraph and mail system ) . Advances in glass and metal technology led to green houses and prefabricated metal frame buildings like the Chrystal Palace - the pre runner to the modern skyscraper . Then over a 300 year period , these Enlightenment ideas were exported to the US , France , Canada , NZ and Australia . But at the same time we see the abuses of imperialism . Real Science - Darwin's Theory was used to create a quackery called Social Darwinism . This lead to Disraeli and the Berlin Conference where EU powers agreed how they would carve up Africa . However , its important to view the Enlightenment as a 300 year period , where each group slowly, by protest and violence , gained rights . * During the Glorious Revolution , William of Orange and Mary II , during their Coronation Oath , Swore to Recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament - however , at the time only land owners had the vote . But this is still the beginning of Democracy in the modern World . Then the 1689 English Bill of Rights influenced the US Constitution . . .
king william and victoria's mother hated each other and so victoria's mother made sure to keep her away from the king as much as possible so that he couldn't turn victoria away from her mother. except that victoria already disliked her mother because of the kensington system so it didnt really matter that she stayed away from court in her youth.
@@britanniacreationsbut he was king and his niece lives in his country. Just send a bunch of gaurds to escort her to her uncle. He must of been a timid man not to use his power to bring his heir to him to raise and teach
@@Myrcella_Rykker that's a traditional accusation. if you look at his actions, it was the most rational as a leading figure up until his death. other than the already mentioned facts of him and her mother's personal dissatisfaction, and the seclusion event, if he insisted with coercive methods on raising his niece, he is simply digging his grave for a potential shifting in power for Victoria's mother and Conroy, as they can directly emotionally influence the young teenager queen who was unaware of their intentions. additionally, for both thriving political actors, this can also influence England and Ireland's attention, that his personal reign is more of an elder monarch waiting for his death, and thus might not even respect and legitimize his personal orders from then on. he fulfilled his personal wishes of transferring the throne directly on the 18-year old queen, and for the most part, i think that it was the most favorable choice for the both of them.
What the heck? I am Nigerian, and even I realize that the dress code used in this video is completely wrong. Queen Victoria was born around the time of French Emperor Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I of Russia. This is not how they dressed. The costumes used here are similar to the ones used in the late 17th or early 18th century. Around the time of George I or Frederick Handel. You guys need to do some research before putting out these videos.
Who did the costumes for this piece? Clearly little care was taken for the period in question...whether 18th century background or early 19th century. Many were off by more than a century. I'm afraid this carelessness greatly detracts from the seriousness...and enjoyment...of the piece. 13:04
One misassumption that is repeated here: Victoria was NOT an 'only child', she had two half-siblings who lived with her for most of her childhood. The 'poor suffering child' legend of Victoria's youth has been much exaggerated. For a royal child, her childhood wasn't so bad, at least not until she was eleven or twelve and her guardians started to get overly ambitious and afraid of losing their positions. I don't doubt she had a traumatic experience overcoming her difficult position in adolescence, but so had many others.
You are not an 'only child' if you have half siblings, that you know growing up and have a relationship with. Her half siblings were from her Mother's first marriage.
It's astonishing how self-centered this woman was, and how woefully tolerant her country was of it. Nowhere else in the world is anybody able to go on a fifteen year State-funded vacation from their JOB, living lavishly in obscene amounts of wealth and excess, just because their spouse died, and then get treated in history like some sort of deity instead of as a parasite feeding off the system while contributing nothing. As with every failed monarch, their childhood is always sympathetic, because the system of raising aristocrat children was fundamentally toxic and mentally ill in every sense of the world. So of course, by the time one of them rises to power, they have a tormented psyche. Sad as that is, it does not excuse the ways in which they take it out on their country. Victoria was a terrible mother and grandmother. Just the statement she made to Leopold about intending to drown her child if it was born a girl and that babies are nothing more than plants tells you everything you need to know. Had birth control existed then where she could have enjoyed her sex life with Albert without the predictable outcomes, it is certain she never would have had all those children. But then there is the way she treated "Bertie" as mentioned here, scapegoated one of her children to the Germans and let him take the fall for it, and disappeared the disabled grandson nobody even talks about. Then there's her failure to make life any better for women. In her own words, she didn't want to be owned or controlled by a man, which means she knew full well how the system in her country worked. Yet she only cared about having her own autonomy rather than using her power to change that system for all of the other women who were her subjects. But worst of all is the sin of imperialism. There's nothing good to be said about empires, especially not the British empire, nor about the monarchic system of governance as a whole. In fact, she chose to support the racist, colonialist prime minister Disraeli and his reprehensible agenda for the country over the humanist Gladstone who wanted to make peoples' lives better, all because Disraeli flattered her ego and made her feel good about herself. Every British documentary on the monarchy loves to make excuses for and glorify the empire, skating right over the genocidal human rights abuses and exploitation of labor and resources that happened all over the world at the hands of the Brits every single day. In fact, the entire history of European monarchies is a categorical failure if you measure it by the one and only metric that should matter: Did they make the lives of the working classes and the poor better, or worse? From one English ruler to the next, the answer is always "worse." Just keep in mind how bourgeois these documentarians really are. They are useful to some extent if you're interested in history, but their ultimate aim is always to uphold and propagandize for colonialism, empire, and the power of the ruling classes.
She's the reason half of Ireland died! They starved while she grew fat. The population has just recently reached the number it was around when the potatoe famine started. She was horrid.
The costumes for the men, long curling wigs and all, are 17th century not 19th, and utterly inappropriate. Regency men did not wear wigs and long coats. It's irritating! to see such inaccuracy. If the brothers did wear wigs, they would have been short with ponytails and heavily powdered white until around 1800 when men and women took on a more natural look from Paris during the Napoleonic era.
Highly interesting and informative, would love to hear stories of medieval times, with king s like William the first, or Richard the lionhearted those would be great, 👍👍
Dear filmmakers, to me, Victoria's signature flashing across the screen at every cut is getting annoying, like an overly repetitive popup. Others may love it.
It would be a fantastic video, if there wasn’t for the annoying writing that scrawls across the screen every few seconds. I gave up watching it after 15 minutes
Allowed?! It was the norm. Royals only marry royals. If you really want to be grossed out look at the Hapsburgs in Spain and Austria. There was a king who was the uncle, first cousin, first cousin once removed and 2nd cousins twice over to his second wife. They had a son and a daughter together. His name was Philip IV. Look at the family tree of his son/nephew Charles III of Spain.
it is still allowed in many countries but back in the day it was more common, people didnt travel as we do now, in fact many people never left the area around their own little villages, at least marrying a cousin you know what the inlaws are like and in the case of 'moneyed' families (alas not mine) it kept money and land within the family my own family were off the first ships to colonize my city, there just wasnt a lot of available woman to marry in the new world back then, so a cousin was sent for, this actually happened on both sides of my family, not just my NZ side but Mum's family from Tasmania also you know i think cousins marrying cousins is probably common in most people's family trees if you go back far enough, my husband was born in Birmingham UK and his grandparents were cousins, finding this out made me quite grumpy because his family were always laughing that my family was inbreed but mine were like 170 years ago ! sometimes we need to stop viewing history through a modern lens
It's funny how these experts talk as if they were in that era. "She might have a crush on him, he is very good looking!". Gurl, you've read letters and seen only paintings of the guy, it's bo different from photoshop. Lol
Victoria determined to be independent?..wasn’t albert running the show for her before he died? And then she pretty much lived in seclusion as a widow most of her remaining reign
You should adjust your history And tell the truth that there was actually food in ireland being shipped to the uk through Irish ports and how the monarchy turned down aid from the king of Persia because they didn't not offend queen victoria
King George the 3rd and Queen Charlotte did have many children though, but their sons wouldn’t marry and have children, which led to panic over the succession and eventually, to the birth of Queen Victoria.
Now, if only the _'background music'_ in this documentary *actually BE IN THE BACKGROUND, instead of utterly overwhelming the narration and interviews.* What is it with the sound mixing or whatever scientific process causes this cacophony, that *almost every f***ing documentary in the last 15 years or so that the speaking is almost unintelligible?!*
The B-roll really took me out; why keep showing over and over again scenes that are completely unrelated to what is being said? Plus the clothing/wigs are not even from the period that is being talked about (1820s-1830s)
I have just watched The game of Crowns: The Tudors expecting to see the next one about King James 6th and 1st, no such luck. I'd be interested to know more about the Stuart and Hanover Royal Family.
What is the hand written word that they keep flashing on the screen?
The wigs and costumes are from a different century LOL.
Excuse me, why are the men wearing late 17th century wigs and the woman looks renssaince af in 1819?
i was wondering the same thing
I was playing Crusader Kings so I had this on in the background and didn’t see it right away. Then I did a double take and was very confused.
I was wondering the same thing. In the paintings of the time that they showed on here they were not wearing 18th century wigs and those huge dresses that look like they are 2 miles wide
Low budget documentary series would be my guess. This popped up on my suggested videos for UA-cam so I don't know the whole story to be honest. They expect that no one is going to guess what's what. They use footage from other episodes in the series.
They hope that you wouldn't notice maybe 😉 ^^
QV had 9 children in 20 years and suffered from postpartum depression . Because of the Kensington System she was emotionally needy for a male companion - hence Lord Melborne , Prince Albert , John Brown , Benjamin Disraeli and Abdul Karim .
Prince Albert pushed for huge improvements ( Prince Consort to the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and for the Civilization of Africa , pushed for the repeal of the corn laws , was appalled at the poverty in Britain and pushed for 4 reforms education for their children, industrial training; good dwellings; the granting of allotments; and savings banks and benevolent societies , pushed for the first World's Fair - creating the Chrystal Palace . He also pushed for advances in science , technology and the arts and museums ) .
Prince Albert was a great asset to Britain. Pity he died so young 😢
That's really interesting and good to know about Albert, thank you! I had no idea. As for Victoria and the tenor of these accounts overall, well I find them to be contemptible in their glossing-over of her crimes.
It's astonishing how self-centered this woman was, and how woefully tolerant her country was of it. Nowhere else in the world is anybody able to go on a fifteen year State-funded vacation from their JOB, living lavishly in obscene amounts of wealth and excess, just because their spouse died, and then get treated in history like some sort of deity instead of as a parasite feeding off the system while contributing nothing.
As with every failed monarch, their childhood is always sympathetic, because the system of raising aristocrat children was fundamentally toxic and mentally ill in every sense of the world. So of course, by the time one of them rises to power, they have a tormented psyche. Sad as that is, it does not excuse the ways in which they take it out on their country. Victoria was a terrible mother and grandmother. Just the statement she made to Leopold about intending to drown her child if it was born a girl and that babies are nothing more than plants tells you everything you need to know. But then there is the way she treated "Bertie," scapegoated one of her children to the Germans, and disappeared the disabled grandson nobody even talks about.
Then there's her failure to make life any better for women. In her own words, she didn't want to be owned or controlled by a man, which means she knew full well how the system in her country worked. Yet she only cared about having her own autonomy rather than using her power to change that system for all of the other women who were her subjects.
But worst of all is the sin of imperialism. There's nothing good to be said about empires, especially not the British empire, nor about the monarchic system of governance as a whole.
In fact, she chose to support the racist, colonialist prime minister Disraeli and his reprehensible agenda for the country over the humanist Gladstone who wanted to make peoples' lives better, all because Disraeli flattered her ego and made her feel good about herself.
Every British documentary on the monarchy loves to make excuses for and glorify the empire, skating right over the genocidal human rights abuses and exploitation of labor and resources that happened all over the world at the hands of the Brits every single day.
In fact, the entire history of European monarchies is a categorical failure if you measure it by the one and only metric that should matter: Did they make the lives of the working classes and the poor better, or worse? From one English ruler to the next, the answer is always "worse."
Just keep in mind how bourgeois these documentarians really are. They are useful to some extent if you're interested in history, but their ultimate aim is always to uphold and propagandize for colonialism, empire, and the power of the ruling classes.
@@worldadventuretravel - Its complicated .
During the late 17th Century , in England and Scotland we see the the ACCEPTANCE of Enlightenment Values . The acceptance of the scientific method over religion , the acceptance of Democratic Rights * & the Rights of the Individual , legal rights , labour rights , the phasing out of child labour by making schooling mandatory , the phasing out of slavery , improvements in public health , water and sanitary to end Cholera . Very importantly during Victoria's and Albert's life time the creation of a national transportation system ( railways ) and a national Communication System ( telegraph and mail system ) . Advances in glass and metal technology led to green houses and prefabricated metal frame buildings like the Chrystal Palace - the pre runner to the modern skyscraper .
Then over a 300 year period , these Enlightenment ideas were exported to the US , France , Canada , NZ and Australia .
But at the same time we see the abuses of imperialism . Real Science - Darwin's Theory was used to create a quackery called Social Darwinism . This lead to Disraeli and the Berlin Conference where EU powers agreed how they would carve up Africa .
However , its important to view the Enlightenment as a 300 year period , where each group slowly, by protest and violence , gained rights .
* During the Glorious Revolution , William of Orange and Mary II , during their Coronation Oath , Swore to Recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament - however , at the time only land owners had the vote . But this is still the beginning of Democracy in the modern World . Then the 1689 English Bill of Rights influenced the US Constitution .
.
.
actually they had 9 children in 17 years, but I get your point.
I don’t understand why the king wasn’t more involved with Victoria’s upbringing since she was the heir
king william and victoria's mother hated each other and so victoria's mother made sure to keep her away from the king as much as possible so that he couldn't turn victoria away from her mother. except that victoria already disliked her mother because of the kensington system so it didnt really matter that she stayed away from court in her youth.
@@britanniacreationsbut he was king and his niece lives in his country. Just send a bunch of gaurds to escort her to her uncle. He must of been a timid man not to use his power to bring his heir to him to raise and teach
@@Myrcella_Rykker that's a traditional accusation. if you look at his actions, it was the most rational as a leading figure up until his death. other than the already mentioned facts of him and her mother's personal dissatisfaction, and the seclusion event, if he insisted with coercive methods on raising his niece, he is simply digging his grave for a potential shifting in power for Victoria's mother and Conroy, as they can directly emotionally influence the young teenager queen who was unaware of their intentions. additionally, for both thriving political actors, this can also influence England and Ireland's attention, that his personal reign is more of an elder monarch waiting for his death, and thus might not even respect and legitimize his personal orders from then on.
he fulfilled his personal wishes of transferring the throne directly on the 18-year old queen, and for the most part, i think that it was the most favorable choice for the both of them.
A position as equerry to Victoria’s father went to Conroy’s head. He became power hungry and corrupt.
Very interesting to watch:)! Thank you for up loading
Wow the similarity between the actress and the queen is uncanny!
I think of a lot of words to describe Conroy. Manipulative, narcissistic, corrupt, ambitious etc.
Yeah he belonged in the court of Henry 8TH
Victoria’s childhood and the ‘Kensington method’ used to raise her was nothing less than isolating, controlling and cruel.
Oh please. She had a better childhood than 99 percent of other children
What the heck? I am Nigerian, and even I realize that the dress code used in this video is completely wrong. Queen Victoria was born around the time of French Emperor Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I of Russia. This is not how they dressed. The costumes used here are similar to the ones used in the late 17th or early 18th century. Around the time of George I or Frederick Handel.
You guys need to do some research before putting out these videos.
I thought the very same thing. It totally ruined the whole program for me.
Who did the costumes for this piece? Clearly little care was taken for the period in question...whether 18th century background or early 19th century. Many were off by more than a century. I'm afraid this carelessness greatly detracts from the seriousness...and enjoyment...of the piece. 13:04
THANK YOU! I'm a fashion historian and this was a glaring mistake. It's awful.
I know! The men are prancing about in Charles II wigs and the women in Restoration frocks. For some reason I'm finding it really irritating 🙄
@carolannemckenzie3849 For real! It's not hard to find Regency styled costumes, so this is just weird.
I had to switch off 😂
It’s because the videos are all from different creators
Great video! If you want a good read - any of Elizabeth Norton's books are wonderful!
One misassumption that is repeated here: Victoria was NOT an 'only child', she had two half-siblings who lived with her for most of her childhood. The 'poor suffering child' legend of Victoria's youth has been much exaggerated. For a royal child, her childhood wasn't so bad, at least not until she was eleven or twelve and her guardians started to get overly ambitious and afraid of losing their positions. I don't doubt she had a traumatic experience overcoming her difficult position in adolescence, but so had many others.
They mentioned that she had half siblings.
They said that she was “essentially” an only child.
She had no full siblings- thus she is described by some as an only child.
You are not an 'only child' if you have half siblings, that you know growing up and have a relationship with. Her half siblings were from her Mother's first marriage.
Ah lads! Footage of Charles the 2nd???? 😂😂😂
That "cursive signature" transition is used so much, it distracts from the actual content of the video
It's astonishing how self-centered this woman was, and how woefully tolerant her country was of it. Nowhere else in the world is anybody able to go on a fifteen year State-funded vacation from their JOB, living lavishly in obscene amounts of wealth and excess, just because their spouse died, and then get treated in history like some sort of deity instead of as a parasite feeding off the system while contributing nothing.
As with every failed monarch, their childhood is always sympathetic, because the system of raising aristocrat children was fundamentally toxic and mentally ill in every sense of the world. So of course, by the time one of them rises to power, they have a tormented psyche. Sad as that is, it does not excuse the ways in which they take it out on their country.
Victoria was a terrible mother and grandmother. Just the statement she made to Leopold about intending to drown her child if it was born a girl and that babies are nothing more than plants tells you everything you need to know. Had birth control existed then where she could have enjoyed her sex life with Albert without the predictable outcomes, it is certain she never would have had all those children. But then there is the way she treated "Bertie" as mentioned here, scapegoated one of her children to the Germans and let him take the fall for it, and disappeared the disabled grandson nobody even talks about.
Then there's her failure to make life any better for women. In her own words, she didn't want to be owned or controlled by a man, which means she knew full well how the system in her country worked. Yet she only cared about having her own autonomy rather than using her power to change that system for all of the other women who were her subjects.
But worst of all is the sin of imperialism. There's nothing good to be said about empires, especially not the British empire, nor about the monarchic system of governance as a whole.
In fact, she chose to support the racist, colonialist prime minister Disraeli and his reprehensible agenda for the country over the humanist Gladstone who wanted to make peoples' lives better, all because Disraeli flattered her ego and made her feel good about herself.
Every British documentary on the monarchy loves to make excuses for and glorify the empire, skating right over the genocidal human rights abuses and exploitation of labor and resources that happened all over the world at the hands of the Brits every single day.
In fact, the entire history of European monarchies is a categorical failure if you measure it by the one and only metric that should matter: Did they make the lives of the working classes and the poor better, or worse? From one English ruler to the next, the answer is always "worse."
Just keep in mind how bourgeois these documentarians really are. They are useful to some extent if you're interested in history, but their ultimate aim is always to uphold and propagandize for colonialism, empire, and the power of the ruling classes.
She's the reason half of Ireland died! They starved while she grew fat. The population has just recently reached the number it was around when the potatoe famine started. She was horrid.
The costumes for the men, long curling wigs and all, are 17th century not 19th, and utterly inappropriate. Regency men did not wear wigs and long coats. It's irritating! to see such inaccuracy. If the brothers did wear wigs, they would have been short with ponytails and heavily powdered white until around 1800 when men and women took on a more natural look from Paris during the Napoleonic era.
Highly interesting and informative, would love to hear stories of medieval times, with king s like William the first, or Richard the lionhearted those would be great, 👍👍
Dear filmmakers, to me, Victoria's signature flashing across the screen at every cut is getting annoying, like an overly repetitive popup. Others may love it.
Long live the Queen
what is that word that keeps popping up onscreen ?????
Im staring at it and still cant tell.
Historically….Victoria something..
Dunno, weird.
It is her signature, Victoria RI (Regina Imperatrix)
Queens and Kings have been crowned, even so they still are like us. Use the loo like us, need oxygen like us, etc etc etc.
No shit
Where can i find widows weeds similar to Queen Victoria’s?👀
You cant
It would be a fantastic video, if there wasn’t for the annoying writing that scrawls across the screen every few seconds. I gave up watching it after 15 minutes
It is Victoria's signature but I agree it's a weird visual device for them to use.
Agreed
Ahh, so I am not the only one! Is this supposed to be a lame attempt at subliminal messaging.?
So annoying the constant flashing up of her signature!!!!!
Yes, very annoying and distracting… completely unnecessary
I turned it off
Absolutely gorgeous.♥️♥️♥️
Beautiful
I can't imagine marrying a first cousin. I'm really surprised that it was allowed.
Allowed?! It was the norm. Royals only marry royals.
If you really want to be grossed out look at the Hapsburgs in Spain and Austria. There was a king who was the uncle, first cousin, first cousin once removed and 2nd cousins twice over to his second wife. They had a son and a daughter together.
His name was Philip IV. Look at the family tree of his son/nephew Charles III of Spain.
it is still allowed in many countries but back in the day it was more common, people didnt travel as we do now, in fact many people never left the area around their own little villages, at least marrying a cousin you know what the inlaws are like and in the case of 'moneyed' families (alas not mine) it kept money and land within the family
my own family were off the first ships to colonize my city, there just wasnt a lot of available woman to marry in the new world back then, so a cousin was sent for,
this actually happened on both sides of my family, not just my NZ side but Mum's family from Tasmania also
you know i think cousins marrying cousins is probably common in most people's family trees if you go back far enough,
my husband was born in Birmingham UK and his grandparents were cousins, finding this out made me quite grumpy because his family were always laughing that my family was inbreed but mine were like 170 years ago !
sometimes we need to stop viewing history through a modern lens
In ancient Egypt, pharaohs married their sisters and daughters. King Tut was married to his half-sister.
@@williethomas5116that’s why they had those Hapsburg chins/jaws was because of all of the incest
The royals are all related to each other. Even QE2 and Philip were related.
It's funny how these experts talk as if they were in that era. "She might have a crush on him, he is very good looking!". Gurl, you've read letters and seen only paintings of the guy, it's bo different from photoshop. Lol
these are based on contemporaries and the queen herself. She literally gushes over him in her diary lol
Victoria determined to be independent?..wasn’t albert running the show for her before he died? And then she pretty much lived in seclusion as a widow most of her remaining reign
You should adjust your history And tell the truth that there was actually food in ireland being shipped to the uk through Irish ports and how the monarchy turned down aid from the king of Persia because they didn't not offend queen victoria
We don’t have an “English Monarch “ We have a British Monarch!!! Please get it right!!!!
Very interesting
Why is this series called “the Victorians” - there’s only one Victoria?
Because that’s the name given to the era so people living during that time were Victorians
Wasn’t princess charlottes black and her and Goerge had many children? Why did the go to Goerge’s brothers?🤔
The charlotte and George you’re thinking of aren’t the ones portrayed in this video.
King George the 3rd and Queen Charlotte did have many children though, but their sons wouldn’t marry and have children, which led to panic over the succession and eventually, to the birth of Queen Victoria.
Now, if only the _'background music'_ in this documentary *actually BE IN THE BACKGROUND, instead of utterly overwhelming the narration and interviews.*
What is it with the sound mixing or whatever scientific process causes this cacophony, that *almost every f***ing documentary in the last 15 years or so that the speaking is almost unintelligible?!*
If I was to see her Autograph across the screen one more time,,,,,bye. Terrible
Background music is soooo annoying !
Our country is still Great x
Horrible execution of history! Don't waste your time
She had to be smart and tough and top of her game
Wrong period costumes
The B-roll really took me out; why keep showing over and over again scenes that are completely unrelated to what is being said? Plus the clothing/wigs are not even from the period that is being talked about (1820s-1830s)
Lovit
Raise the age of majority. What does an 18 year old know?
किंग ऐक फादर होता हाय
the costumes are horrible, not correct for the time period