@bravesnipz Longshanks was about as devout a Christian as they came in those times. He had been on both the 8th and 9th Crusades and regularly worshiped in Christian temples to the Christian God. He recognized the Pope as the ultimate authority on Earth as every good Catholic did and sought the Pope's blessings in his deeds. There was nothing Pagan about him.
@muiebozgorilor ...I wish i knew !! Haven't dug that far yet.....So may different opinions about him. I was doing ancestory. com and found out that is where my blood line runs :)
Be careful, this episod is bad and completely misleading. It magically isolates Britain from the great events of Europe. The prof from Cambridge manages not to mention the 100 years war or the plague or anything aside this british-centric story. No wonder British people feel insular.
Also im sure in an open battle, the welsh armies would be incredibly "puny" is comparison to saladins army, but it wasnt like that. The difficult terrain of Wales, and the the super power beating guerrilla tactics used by the welsh meant they were a deadly foe on their own turf, using their terrain to their advantage.
@brieflycake Richard did not have the longevity to prove his mettle. Because of his total commitment to God and to the crusades. The Welsh, in comparison to a united Damascus-Egypt army lead by Saladin, is considered "puny". To fight away from home with very limited resources against a foe pissed off with Crusader genocide, is way more challenging. Richard, if he took Jerusalem, he would be the most celebrated English monarch. Without a doubt.
@ConstantineJoseph Im not comparing them as people, as i said, Edward was a vile subjugator of peoples. But it depends what you're measuring as greatness. As a person, im sure Richard was far superior in morality and the like, but in terms of lasting success and importance in terms of shaping britain, Edward outshines Richard by a long way. Richard's exploits may make for good stories, but he had very little effect or lasting success either in britain or in foreign lands in the long term.
Richard the Lionheart spent all but about 6 months of his reign abroad. Edward I did alot for England but I understand why Scots, Welsh and Irish despise him
@ToonandBBfan It is very understandable why they hate him. He was like an adolf hitler of the middle ages. All im saying is that he was incredibly significant.
Edward I like Richard the Lionheart? Richard charged head first into battle at Jaffa with only 50 knights. Richard could not be bothered about the British Isles and was focused on international stardom through Crusade. Richard Lionheart took on the toughest opponent Christianity can ever face in a 200,000 strong Saladin's army in harsh deseert.
Edward however, fought against comparatively puny enemies in the civil war, against the welsh and against the Scotts. He's a tyrant.
@ConstantineJoseph thats not an entirely fair description. He was incredibly important in the forming of britain as we know it today, and in terms of lasting success and significance, we out does Richard by a million miles. He wasnt called the "English Justinian" for nothing. He formed parliament as we know it, transformed the way laws are designed and administered, and fundamentally changed britain forever. Although u are right in as much as he was a vile man.
@brieflycake Yes, Richard was a man determined to create an iron rule because his formative years was forged by civil war, lead by Simon de montford. He knew that he had to secure a strong position and he instilled much order. However, to compare against the Character of Richard, I must say Edward falls short.
Richard may have been less successful in domestic matters but then again, he's more French than British. Also, Richard is far more chivalrous than Edward can ever be.
@ConstantineJoseph Richard I didn't spare one thought to the governing of England. He used England as his private bank and as a reserve of manpower to fund and to support his wars in the Holy Land and in France. Steven Runciman describes him best when he said: "he was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier." In terms of shaping England's future even John Lackland and the useless Edward II had more impact than Richard the Lionheart.
@ConstantineJoseph Edward Longshanks, by contrast, spent a great deal of time improving the way England was governed and administrated, and arguably had the largest impact on the English system of government until Oliver Cromwell. He was ruthless bastard formed into this by the Baron's dominance of his father and was highly competant soldier and general but he, unlike most people of the day, had no illutions of civalry having a place in war.
If Edward 1 had won the battle of stirling bridge the world history as we know it would be completely different and the usa and canada would not exist as two separate entities, they might just call themselves something like the united provinces of america, of simply New England, and their be no Nova Scotia of no New Scotland.and it would be called the english empire instead of british empire and the united provinces of america would have a larges english population bigger than now.
Edward III? Doesn't he mean Henry III? This is a fucking shit documentary, especially when the narrator can't even get a simple fact like that right. I mean he is even Edward I how is his Dad going to be Edwar III, i want to hit the producer........tit.
@mrmojohasrisen Dont know where you heard that but its not totally right.
Longshanks last orders on his death bed were to cut out his heart and send that for buriel in the Holy Land but to take his bones on campaign into Scotland and that Piers Gaveston should not be allowed into the Country. His tomb was to be plain until Scotland was conquered.
Edward II ingored all his father wished except for the burial in plain tomb.
Edward I invasion of Wales isn't a well know war to be fair. Its not taught in british schools anyway so the only way to find out about it is by the internet.
i come from wales and i thought that lylwen had survived and took back all of Wales. well guess its something that im not supposed to know in education
Llywelyn ab Iorweth - Llywelyn the Great - was defeated by the English King John who reduced his lands and forced him into subserviance but he survived and took over about half of Wales, retaking the land he lost and expanding his borders.
Llywelyn ap Gruffydd - Llywelyn the Last - was defeated by Edward I, his realm occupied, he was killed in the second of the two wars with England and Wales was absorbed into England after that.
At the same time, he is also often criticised for other actions, such as his brutal conduct towards the Scots, and issuing the Edict of Expulsion in 1290, by which the Jews were expelled from England. The Edict remained in effect for the rest of the Middle Ages, and it would be over 350 years until it was formally overturned in 1656.
Currently, Edward I is credited with many accomplishments during his reign, including restoring royal authority after the reign of Henry III, establishing parliament as a permanent institution and thereby also a functional system for raising taxes, and reforming the law through statutes.
Modern historians have been more divided on their assessment of the king; while some have praised him for his contribution to the law and administration, others have criticised him for his uncompromising attitude to his nobility.
Edward I was a tall man for his era, hence the nickname "Longshanks". He was temperamental, and this, along with his height, made him an intimidating man, and he often instilled fear in his contemporaries. Nevertheless, he held the respect of his subjects for the way he embodied the medieval ideal of kingship, as a soldier, an administrator and a man of faith.
At the same time there were problems at home. In the mid-1290s, extensive military campaigns required high levels of taxation, and Edward met with both lay and ecclesiastical opposition. These crises were initially averted, but issues remained unsettled. When the king died in 1307, he left to his son, Edward II, an ongoing war with Scotland and many financial and political problems.
Next, his efforts were directed towards Scotland. Initially invited to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty over the kingdom. In the war that followed, the Scots persevered, even though the English seemed victorious at several points.
Increasingly, however, Edward's attention was drawn towards military affairs. After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276 - 77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282 - 83 with a full-scale war of conquest. After a successful campaign, Edward subjected Wales to English rule, built a series of castles and towns in the countryside and settled them with Englishmen.
Edward's reign had two main phases. He spent the first years reforming royal administration. Through an extensive legal inquiry, Edward investigated the tenure of various feudal liberties, while the law was reformed through a series of statutes regulating criminal and property law.
Montfort was defeated at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and within two years the rebellion was extinguished. With England pacified, Edward left on a crusade to the Holy Land. The crusade accomplished little, and Edward was on his way home in 1272 when he was informed that his father had died. Making a slow return, he reached England in 1274 and he was crowned king at Westminster on 19 August.
In 1259, he briefly sided with a baronial reform movement, supporting the Provisions of Oxford. After reconciliation with his father, however, he remained loyal throughout the subsequent armed conflict, known as the Second Barons' War. After the Battle of Lewes, Edward was hostage to the rebellious barons, but escaped after a few months and joined the fight against Simon de Montfort.
Edward I (17 June 1239 - 7 July 1307), also known as Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots, was King of England from 1272 to 1307. The first son of Henry III, Edward was involved early in the political intrigues of his father's reign, which included an outright rebellion by the English barons.
I facepalm at the fact that half of Edward's army that invaded North Wales in 1277 consisted of Welshmen! I understand that they had grievances against Llywelyn (the last Welsh prince) who was taxing them heavily, but Llywelyn's rule was actually a lot fairer than Edward's rule. History has shown that when united, the Welsh were formidable and could resist much larger armies (look at Owain Gwynedd and the battle of Crogen). Trouble was they were rarely united and Edward took advantage of this.
We need a modern day guy like Longshanks to re-establish the British Empire of the 21st century. Sick and tired of hearing how shit our country has become over recent years. Everyone else seems to be ahead of us - its embarrassing!
@kyawwaiyan Every epire comes and goes.. the British have had their turn. However, I don't believe you have anything to be embarrassed about. It is still a nice country
I have been tracing my family Tree on Ancestry.com and was shocked to discover he is my 25th great grandfather..i stopped there to absorb this knowledge before going on to add more forfather Kings..its like being told i share the blood line of Hitler..sort of.
I have always stated that Sir William Wallace was my fav hero and he still will be, "sorry gramps...but You were a bad man"
@Saunn Howdy cousin, doing the same research, Old Eddy I was my 20th great granddad, William the Conqueror was my 25th. But if you go back down the line everybody is related. French to the English, English to the Scot's, Scot's to the Irish, throw in some German's. A little of Rome, The Danes very early on. So you are Plantagenet. Some say that can be traced back to the house of David. You are Dragonblood. I will leave you with that bit of research.
@odinsblood333 You must be my blood kin. My family the Bowens ( Owain ) through my Grandmother and my Great Grandmother trace along the same lines as you mention to Don Anna verch Mathonwy, "The Phophetess of Arimathea" who was my 38th great grandmother! William the Conqueror was my 24th GGpa. I'm proudest of my Welch heritage more than the Norman and European by far however. You might consider starting a Family tree at Geni. I have traced branches of my family back to 450 BC
@CAMEYx He was. He was a brutal tyrant who was prepared to stoop to any level to get what he wanted and maintained his control by scaring people to death - litterally in some cases. Doesn't make him any less of an effective king, organizer and warrior though. He was a product of his time and had the drive - due to the problems his father and grandfather had - to make himself the most ruthless and successful man of his era.
@millard27 Nobody asked for any bail out.And English banks have had them.But no Scottish club has had them.Scottish clubs go to the wall.And English clubs get bailed out.The next team will be Plymouth.While every other team just disapears.Another example of all things Scottish being put aside and left to die.So England and English get the help first.The expert below me,knows Jack shit about DNA.He just wants me to think ive English blood in me.Well my G knome is very much Norse not English FFS.
@legandrydirk look you are obviously a bit thick here is a fucking genealogical FACT! okay that means it is unequivocally true. Unequivocal means one cannot argue against it. So for once shut the fuck up and just take on board, then knock yourself out looking it up. We all are a mish mash of fucking nationalities on this continent. you are no further related than 40th or 50th cousins to every person in the UK Fact! you may well have some fucking Norse in you good for you you retard
@MDGravey15 How far back do you want to go?Take it back and you will end up in Africa.I dont need to read a shity book that you have read to know that dickhead.Now go and catch up on your reading.So you can go and bore the next person with your useless information.I am Scottish and I am proud.So get it right up you.
@legandrydirk what is English blood?theres no such ting if u wana get techinical, its all diluted including yours u moronic imbecile. why dont you try reading a fucking book and actually learn something. Its people like who who know nothing who try to preach to everyone else. and as for knowing nothing about DNA I dont think thats what Oxford University thought when they offered me a place 4 years ago, and since graduating from there I actually work in the field so like i said stfu
@MDGravey15 Oxford Uni so you could not get a good education then?What makes you think ive not got as good a education?Just cos of my bad spelling?Its called dyslexia,its not my fault.You sound a very in secure person.I never asked you about your education.It does not interest me.In fact anybody who has to come on YouTube,to tell everybody about how clever they are.Cant have anybody to tell them that they are in the REAL world.There is folk with degree<s working in Burger King these days FUCK OF
@MDGravey15 Oxford Uni so you could not get a good education then?What makes you think ive not got as good a education?Just cos of my bad spelling?Its called dyslexia,its not my fault.You sound a very in secure person.I never asked you about your education.It does not interest me.In fact anybody who has to come on YouTube,to tell everybody about how clever they are.Cant have anybody to tell them that they are in the REAL world.There is folk with degree<s working in Burger King these days FUCK OF
I don't know if Edward I was indeed a paedophile or not, but it is fact that his son Edward II was a victim of Edward's fits of anger often, and that he likely had sexual relations with Piers Gaveston. If Edward I was a paedophile and molested or did whatever to Edward I at a young age, I imagine that would explain why Edward I was homosexual. Maybe not though, but it would make sense.
@AndyGriffithBeatsAll There is no evidence to support any claim that Longshanks was a paedophile. The accusation comes from the myth that Longshanks had to do his sons kingly duty with Isabelle of France because his son was unable to but this is also unsubstantiated because for this to have happened Longshanks would have had to risen from the grave or Isabelle must have been pregnant for five or six years.
@JamalDOA He's my ancestor as well - though Henry "Harry Hotspur" Percy. In fact something like 7 out of every 10 people born of English Stock are descendants of King Edward I. Its just the way these things go. Just like most Europeans are descendants of the Emperor Charlemange. Once you get past a certain point there is everyone shares a common ancestor.
Only problem with this show is it doesn’t say why De Montfort and Henry III were fighting, De Montfort was the political heir to the men who had drafted Magna Carta and brought down Henry’s farther and Edward’s grandfather bad king John. Under Henry the king’s power was limited so much that the barrens got over mighty and Wales and Scotland started getting ideas above the station. That information is important to understand what was driving Edward.
@tribetng Scotland was here first,long before England ever was.We had our own Kings,long before England did.And Edward was from a long line of Plantaginate Kings,and there French not English.So in reality all the folk claiming to be this guys decentats actually are French deceandants.The Saxons had come from the Vikings.And there lines was through Vikings pirates.If Edward was so clever.How come he never saw Bruce,coming for the crown.When he changed sides to his?Bruce played him like a card.SNP
@legandrydirk Longshanks was King of England and his descendants were English Nobility so his modern day descendants are of English Stock. And the Plantagenets weren't French they were Angevin, the Angevin Empire was not part of France.
The Bruce was constantly swapping sides and he was seen as someone who's support could be bought so nobody trusted him. That the Bruce would murder another noble so he get the crown took Longshank's by surprise but his treachory didn't.
@11nytram11 And its part of France now,there for they and there lines still there.Bruce had to fight a civil war in Scotland after the Comyns murder to get the crown,after winning at Bannockburn.And he earned Edwards trust,as he was in service to him for 20 years when he last changed sides.Naw he played Edward its as simple as that.Edward must have been really nieve or just plain arrogant not to see it coming.Anyway he stole our wee magic stone.Or at least he thought he did.Stone he had wiz fake
@legandrydirk The Angevin Empire may have become part of France but that does not make the Plantagenets French. The Roman's conquered Egypt but that didn't make Ramesis Roman.
The Bruce got the crown only days after the Red Comyn's murder, he couldn't establish his power until after the Civil War and the reason he got to establish his power was because Longshanks was dead and Edward II left Scotland alone for three years. - Longshanks would never have done that.
@11nytram11 He died trying to invade Scotland again.And England did not leave Scotland alone.They just never sent there full strength up here,cos they were busy in France.Bruce could have had him,he was a weak old man.He was in his prime.The Bruce became a good tactision,cos he had been beaten so often.But we will never know now.But my money would have been on Bruce.His familly also came from France.Also over in Poland theres lot of them.There called La Bruce,or Di Bruce.Edward never took here.
@legandrydirk Longshanks had the track record of winning battles & the Bruce knew would never have risked a pitched battle against him (which puts him above Wallace in my books as a general) but if Longshanks had lived, say, 7 more years the Bruce would never have gotten any kind of popular support. The Scottish nobles had been humilitated & brought to heel too many times by the Edward to go against him anymore, they would wait for him to die, & 7 years would be enough to deal with the Bruce.
@legandrydirk How was Wallace meant to know about the new long bow anyway?He would have won at Falkirk if not for that.Scots were not as good at being spies.The english knew all about that.Just like they do now.With there phone lines all about stitching up your neighbour.Bruce was well tactical,as much as Edward.He would have chosen the right ground,and have had him.
@legandrydirk The English had used the Longbow against the Welsh and the French before Falkirk and it was fast becoming a main part of the English War Machine. Wallace based his battle plans on the outdated idea that the English Knights would be the main part of the battle and overlooked Longshanks' progressive views on warfare. Wallace risked the destruction of his army on a false pretense and justly failed for it, after that the Scots would not risk large scale open war against Longshanks.
@11nytram11 Bollox it was first used against us at Falkirk.You miss the whole point of Wallace.And what he represents to us.He was one of us.He never was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.He was one of the people.And Edward never gave him parly.When he did for the rest of the Scots who won the war.To me that shows you,and rightly so,that he must have been terrified of him.Wallace was a hero to every revolutionary around the world.His story was out there.Long before the movie Braveheart.ALBA
@legandrydirk The Battle of Orewin Bridge in 1282 saw the English use the Longbow to devastating effect against the Welsh. After the Welsh Wars Longshanks employed Wlesh archers because they were better Longbowmen than the English as a whole but they lack the organization of the English. This was 17 years before Falkirk and the Lowbowmen became an integral part of Longshanks' army during those years.
@legandrydirk I get that Wallace is a Scottish Icon and hero of the people but that doesn't make him infallable nor invalidate his mistakes. He was a good commander but not in the same league as the Bruce, de Moray, James Douglas and certainly not Longshanks.vWallace got all the fame for Stirling Bridge because of de Moray's death and Wallace was one of the few Scotsmen who openly opposed Longshanks - he had to be removed if Longshanks wanted to conquer Scotland. It wasn't a matter of fear.
@legandrydirk Longshanks was a cut above anyone the Bruce fought. What made Longshanks so dangerous was not just the fact that he was a ruthless & effeicent warrior but also that he was cold & calculating - tyrant he may have been but no one can claim he was fool. He was the most dangerous, the most formidable of Plantagenet monarchs & anyone who angered him soon found out that it was not a good idea. The Bruce once said "I am more afraid of the bones of the Father dead than of the living son."
@11nytram11 He might have said that.But that just sounds like a jibe to his enemy.To you think Bruce got to were he did,bye being Mr Nice guy?He never he invaded England and won in there back door.To stop them coming back up here.Bruce was as tough as Edward,tougher more so even.To have lived on the run for so long.And for that matter so was Wallace.And Edward could only catch him,bye bribing Monteeth God Father to Wallace son.Bet you never knew that story.His children could not stay with him
@legandrydirk The Bruce invaded England during the reign of the useless Edward II when the English barons and Earls were rebelling and England was in a state of civil unrest, even Civil War, not to mention bankruptsy. And even then the Bruce barely managed to raid into Lancashire and Yorkshire. And what of his Irish wars? Early success followed by dismal failure and expulsion. He was certainly not in Longshanks league when it came to conquering other nations.
@legandrydirk Toughness is indeterminate. The Bruce and Wallace lived on the run, off the land for long periods of time where as Longshanks escaped from capitivity at the hands of de Montfort, killed an assassin that came upon him in his sleep despite being stabbed with a poisoned blade and brought the unruly English nobles who had fought with his grandfather John and dominated his father Henry under his oppresive boot. Differnet kinds of tough characters displayed and not really comparable.
@11nytram11 He was not on the run as long.What about Wallace killing 2 english soldiors with there own swords,and the rest running?This is how he got made a out law.It was on the banks of river Irvine.How did they know it was a poisoned blade?Did they get someone to like it?It med evil times they would say that.To make out they were Gods.To a lot of un educated people that they ruled over.Superstisios people who would look apon the person like they had super natural powers.Only a King could doit
@legandrydirk USA are in Scotland protecting you. So who is knelling now. England has had enough of outside rule. If you had been keeping up with current events then you would know that tensions are building in England. The day of the monarchy are over, the queen will be the last. And England will have an English parliament. So bitterness will still remain with Scotland blaming England for everything. There will be a revolution in England and I look forward to telling Scottish people to go home.
@Ieteveryoneknow Piss off revolutionary! If all you are here to do is antagonize then you are not worth my spit! England will never be a republic! Never!...I'm a monarchist incase your wondering
@Ieteveryoneknow Scots dont blame England for anything.They blame them selfs for not voting SNP years ago.Your living in a dream world.The english dont want there own parliment.There is english NAT partys,and they have never gotten in anywhere.Unless your saying the BNP speak for England.There the only NATS ever to do anything in England.But whats new about that.Look at the support Moseley got bye the english.Your welcome to leave any time.Just like us Scots,the union is a sham anyway.
@legandrydirk Wallace did a lot of talking of himself. He was Scottish so there is no truth in his tails. Instead he raped and murdered little children. I wonder how Wallace felt when the English cut his belly open for him to see his own insides?
@Ieteveryoneknow Theres is nothing written about that,not about any children.You are talking out your backside.Ask the world who is more famous,WALLACE,or PEADO KING.And they will say WALLACE
@legandrydirk The poisoned blade was in the crusades,. Baibars, leader of the Muslim's forces, considered Longshanks an obsticle to the end of the war and wanted him out of the way. Longshanks killed the assassin but was incapacitated for week by the poison, and weakened for months.There is documentory evidence for it.
But as I said toughness is inderterminate and the types displayed by Longshanks, Wallace and the Bruce are not really comparable.
@11nytram11 I would love to find the bones of Wallace,and give him a proper heroes burial.I know its never gonna happen though.But thats the honour that great man deserves.Do you know a few years ago,the Labour party was pushing for a cememeration of the act of union.Dirty rotton unionist scum,full of there lies and bile.Dont even teach school kids about those great warriors.But want to celebrate the Royals,going against the REAL Scots to get it.The poor Scots,like WILLIAM WALLACE,Alba,s Martyer
@legandrydirk william wallace murderd and raped innocent people. A hero to Scotland but a bastard who got what he deserved to England. Do you think the Scottish men went home and celebrated together as brothers or did you know the Scottish would murder other Scottish familys to save of mouths to feed.
@Ieteveryoneknow He paid you back for your peado King doing that to Berwick.Thats what med evil armys did back then.You can hardly judge them bye modern standards.No my heads in history.And you lack any knowledge in it.Making up lies about Falkirk for a start.Why would the Scots not have one?The fore fathers forged this nation,on beating the southeners.The Northumbrian Viking decendants at the battle of Dunnichen in 6 85.Starting our nation first.And won many battles to keep it.EDWARD WAS A CUNT
@Ieteveryoneknow What you on about,murdering other people<s famillys?Every Scottish familly did that then did they?You have been reading to much Sonny Bean.But what your talking about,happened in London.With the demon barbour,turning people into pies.Every nation has its share of dark souls.England has lots of them,even in modern times.As does Scotland on a smaller scales,cos its a smaller place.At least Wallace never let a kid die on a boat.So he could become the King.Like your great hero did.
@legandrydirk England made a big mistake not killing all you inbreds off. I hope we get another chance to screw Scotland over for the mess you made of England.
@Ieteveryoneknow Keep up the hope,cos thats all it is.How times changed for you.Once you told us,we were the bitter ones.Now all I hear is winging from the English about the Scots MP<s they votied in twice.England cant touch Scotland no more.If Scotland ever went Independant,it would be part of the EU and UN.It would be in protection of the USA,who have dibs on the oil here.They also have Navy and air fields here.Like Marchrihanish,biggest run way in europe.England knells to anybody with power.
@legandrydirk I assume your refering to Margaret Maid of Norway when you talk about "letting a kid die on a boat". I was unaware that Longshanks had any blame in Margarets death. Is this what you're refering to and if so can you tell me what Longshanks' is accused of doing wrong?
@11nytram11 He send her over on the roghest time to sail,and never let them land for weeks knowing she would probably die.In short he wanted her dead,so he would get the thrown.Your knowledge of history,seems to be on the english side.But remember this from history.Its only the winners who record it.There is also good acounts of Wallace in history written bye the english clergy.Where he stopped his army from hurting them.The reason why is he,was gonna go into the church himself.When he was young
@legandrydirk I believe that Longshanks was kind of stalling. He wanted Margaret to land in Scotland so she could marry his son and unite Scotland and England and accomplish with one marriage what would otherwise take years of war. The problem was that the marriage was arranged by Longshanks and Eric II of Norway but the Scottish nobles didn't all agree to the marriage so Margaret was kept off shore while negotiations continued. Margaret was an unfortunate pawn of medieval power play.
@11nytram11 Sorry but thats pish,the Scots magnetes wanted her over before the sea was gonna be rough.They knew when the sea was gonna be high tide and rough.Peado King knew exactly what he was doing.He wanted war it was simple as that.War makes money in any centuary
@legandrydirk The Scottish Nobles wanted her to be Queen to bring some stability but they didn't agree to the proposed marriage to Edward II. The union of Margaret & Edward II would put the Scots under the control of the Prince of Wales & as a result under Longshanks & the Scots didn't want this. If the Scots could be brought under his control by a marriage rather than war then that would suit Longshanks - he'd prefer to war in France and protect the declining Angevin Empire then war in Scotland
@11nytram11 She was the last of Alexander the 3rd<s line.A King they really loved.They did not want her dead.Dont know how you can believe this crap.As you said earlier,he was manipilitive and would do anything to win.I would not even give him that.I would say he was just plain evil like Cromwell was or Thatcher
@legandrydirk Where did I say the Scottish nobles wanted Margaret dead? They didn't want her to marry Edward II because that marriage was aranged by the English & Norweagan Kings without their consent & it would see them come under Longshanks control. Longshanks used her as a bargining chip & kept her off shore to strengthen his own position but once he got the Scottish nobles to agree to the marriage he would have her let he land in Scotland. She died before the negotiations could conclude.
@11nytram11 He killed a kid,make no mistake about it.All the people in here being proud of being a decendiant.Are in fact putting there love in a kid killer.Thank God my linage comes from such a more purer clan.The most famous of them all,thanks to my Granny.The guy who was sacrifised of the alter of freedom.To show you all just one thing.It is better to burn out,and give your all with courage dignity and honer against tyranny.Than it is to live as slaves,even if its gonna take your life U gotta
@legandrydirk The Scots wanted Margaret to be Queen of Scotland becuase she was a Canmore &, despite being only a child, she would bring stability to a nation that had no monarch & many powerful, squbbling nobles who all had some claim to the throne themselves. But they refused to have her in Scotland is all that would happen was that their independence from England would be washed away by a marriage to the Prince of Wales. They wanted her to be Queen but not at the expense of their independence
@11nytram11 Independence from England are you joking?We had that allready,the country was never Edwards to take.Or for any English King to take.We had our own Kings long before England did.And our own laws and custems,coming from the Celts in Ireland.Edward tried to take it away from Scotland.But he did not look at the peasantry,he never thought that they were a threat to him.Un till he sent his army north,and met the guirilla bands of Wallace.Murray was noble and he died after Stirling,RIP 2 em
@legandrydirk You already had independence, yes, but had Margaret married Edward II you wouldn't have. Scotland would have become the property of the Prince of Wales, the Scots would have become people to use as Edward II or his father saw fit - and probably rebel eventaully. To get Margaret to be Queen the Scots had to sign away their indepdence and accept and Englishman as their King and liege lord and none of the Scottish nobles were prepared to do that.
@11nytram11 They were gonna keep her,and protect her.But the facts of the matter is.Edward wanted her dead all along.So he could manipulate the situation to become King her.Nobody knows what would have happened if she had lived.All that is written is Edwards side of events.Scots would not have written it.Cos if it was found,they would lose there estates in England Scotland and there lifes.All you have is a one sided biased account of it,written on the side of the english.And I dont buy it 1 bit.
@legandrydirk Lets call and end to this debate shall we. We're not going to agree on anything with this issue and I think we're both wasting our time.
@11nytram11 You are cos your protecting a peado and a kid killer,historical FACTS.And the baw bag who said Wallace did that has no evidence to back it up.I do cos ive read the history.Even Bruce had a adult wife,that peado King put in jail.I always back up my nations history,when ever I speak of it.Its a shame the english cant.And there is a lot more to english history to be proud off.Than that scum bag they worship.Ive a feeling that they could all be into satanic black arts.Not normal 2 at all
@legandrydirk I've given up because you have decided that any view but your own is worthless and any version of events that differs from the one you know is biased and distorted and you refuse to accept anything I've said as have merit.
And you continue to call Longshanks a peado without JUSTIFICATION! Longshanks was married to Elanor of Castille when he was 15 and she was 14, his second wife was 20 when they married. You know little of Longshanks and your you ignorance shows.
@11nytram11 You dont even know when Falkirk was,and what won the battle.So forgive me if you have allready proved to me that you dont know what your talking about.Your King was a beast
@legandrydirk I know when the fucking Battle of Falkirk was and I know what fucking won the battle! It was 1298 and the first battle where the Longbow was used in massed formation - not the battle where the longbow was used - and it was both the Longbow and Edward Longshanks' leadership decsions that won the battle.
@11nytram11 You only just found that out,cos I told you.You said it had been used to put down Wales and France.When that had actually happened 200 years later.I hope your a young guy.Cos if your not,you have wasted most of your life then.Cos its clear that you dont know what your talking about.And with the net at your hands,that is a crying shame.Time you put it to good use.Before you open your gob on subjects you have little knowledge off.I am no patriot,just a normal guy.I dont back terioists.
@legandrydirk Rubbish.I knew about Falkirk before you told me about it, you just dont want to accept it becuase I said that the Longbow was used against the Welsh & the French before it was used against the Scots. I did not mention Crecy or Agincourt which I asume your refering to, I mentioned Orewin Bridge which you have ignored. The Longbowmen were used as companies against the Welsh & French but not massed formations, you asserted that the Longbow was FIRST used against the Scots.
@legandrydirk Dont start accusing me of knowing nothing about the subject just cause you dont like what I've written. I haven't said you know nothing about the Scottish Wars of Independence, just that your knowlegde about Edward I is lacking. It's you attitude about this (being that must know nothing because I dont agree with you) that makes me want to wash my hands of you and just walk away. Cause, what's the point in having a serious debate with someone who wont give your vesion and credit?
@11nytram11 The long bow was first used in large formation against the Scots.Your version of history does not merit any.Its as simple as that.Not when it comes to Scotland.Would you take the French accounts of him as being valid?Of coarse not not cos they were his enemy.So why should I take your one sided accounts of him.When he was the enemy of the Scots?Wash your hands go on then.But you know I am right.Go read it all out a book.Dont use your brain,to apply any thinking to the truth of reality
@Ieteveryoneknow Walace never killed any kids,but Edward did.Wallace spared Monks from death.History written on your side of the boarder.Wallace was set for the preist hood.They dont kill any kids.Edward could not take Wallace alive.So had to buy his capture.What a shit King he was.Could not even catch a farmers son.Or stop Bruce for going for the crown.He could not have been to clever.
@legandrydirk That is actually incorrect, when he sacked York, he did indee spare the monks, but men, women and children were to be killed. To say he never killed any kids is ridiculous in those brutal times. Also you talk of history being written on our side of the border, well what border is that then, because during the middle ages the border between Scotland and England fluctuated greatly, for example at one point Scotland came into what is now north Lancashire. tbc . . .
@legandrydirk the buying of Wallaces captivity, well that was because he had fallen from favour amongst many of the Scottish nobles. Farmers son, aka Noble (albeit a minor one but a noble nontheless). Also what do you mean he couldn't stop Bruce going for the crown? Bannockburn happened in the reign of Edward II. Don't take your notion of Wallace etc from Braveheart, possibly one of the least historically accurate films ever. Anyway none of this is meant with disrespect at all.
@MDGravey15 I saw it it was OK.But ive 5 books on him.Know who he was through my Dad.All the kids did,cos we dont get taught about our patriots at school.So we dont grow up and vote SNP.Well it back fired with me.The film about him was 75 per cent true.I watched it near where he was born in Kilmarnock.When the first limb got lopped of there was cheers.Ive not saw that at a film before or since.It really caught the public imagination.And did a lot for our tourism industry.So am glad it was made.
@legandrydirk In those days if you were religious didn't mean you knew right from wrong, most of the people were quite pious yet comletely ruthless. And guess what, we are not taught about any of our English Heroes either, so your not on your own there, god forbid the English should feel proud of where they came from. And as for James Stewart VI and I, he was descended from Henry VII on his mothers side. And yeh fair enough it did good for the tourism industry! Anyway adieu
@MDGravey15 The English do get taught about there own history,40 years ago and now.Ive cousins who are English and they told me.Just cos I am Scottish does not mean ive no links with England.Be proud of your Country if you wish.I will be more prouder of mines,cos my ancestors won there freedom against your nations tyrany.His Mum was Mary Queen of Scots.His Dad was English Lord Darley,he got the chop chop.And his body was found down the Cowgate in Edinburgh.Near the old under ground vaults.
@legandrydirk We do not get taught fuck all mate, Thats is why there was a huge debate on newsnight the other week about the fact, due to the fact we have such a glorious history, the powers that be thik it is offensive to actually take pride in where we come from! and again I implore you to come to some sense of resoning, you say your country v my country! That is just so crap! Just because u may have been born within the modern border of scotland does not mean that so did all your ancestors.
@MDGravey15 It does ive done my tree,and are away back.And I know we came here from Norway through DNA.It should not be offensive,who is it going to offend?If you come and live here,you should respect this lands laws and cultures.And a lot of ones from India do.They class themselfs as Brit subjects.The Pakistani ones are a different story.I wish they would intergrate more into our society.And play our games like football.They could be for us what the Afro carabeians are for your England team.
@legandrydirk Your family tree in which u say u came here from Norway that is one strand of your family tree, read Humprhys work, if you go back 40 generations you have literally tens of millions of ancestors, and of course that is more people than lived in Nowray at that time, We all hail from everywhere!
@MDGravey15 It has just dawned on me that your an ignorant uneducated person, I have just noticed how many others have come into contact with your unlearned ways! Are you so thick you do not understand the concept that if you go back about 30 generations in ur family history you will have more ansectors than have ever lived in the whole of sandinavia. You are descended from Charlemagne you Idiot! It is a fact read it up type in google, am i descended from Charlgemagne! See what you learn
@legandrydirk it is a mathematical certainty that you have thousands upon thousands of ancestors from that period o histiry, and thousands of English, hence any man who claims he is proud of his scottish heritage and hate the english should first bear in mind the fact that he is a product of both nations amongst others. Look at mark Humphries work on family ancestry its pretty aweome, for example we are all descendents of Charlegemagne (those of us with western european heritage).
@MDGravey15 Scots dont hate the English,as much as you want to think.They hate the British state more.Personaly I dont really think about the English to much.You mean why would I.When they dont even have there on Gov but think there rulling the country.Big change is coming in Scotland,in the next 10 or 20 years.Mark my words the people are starting to get pist off.We are taking the flak through out the world,for the shit WESTMINSTER has done.Take the Lockerby bomber insident as a good example.
@legandrydirk I hope there is change but you know that Scotland had to rely on the Westminster aka the English taxpayer to bail out the RBS lol, I think you should be completely independent, it doesnt mean we would have to stop trading or anything, I think it is what most ordinary people on both sides of the border want. And when you say Westminster, remember that its filled with Scots lol! you say we dont rule the country, but we do more so than anyone else in the UK lol,
@MDGravey15 Tax payers bailed out Portsmouth football club FFS.At least we never asked for a bail out like them.There would be no Bank of England with out a Scot,or paper money.Adam Smith was the father of modern ecconomics a Scot.Both sides of my familly are from Norse decendants,proved through a messed up genetic gene that is the cos of tendisitis.Only found in Norway.So I am not English,and I am happy with that.Glad ive no Gerry DNA in there or Roman or Belgium or French like yours could be.
@legandrydirk btw i think on 4od there is a god docu on Wallace, he was obvs a hero but it is more informative than most about his character etc, Tony Robinson presents it. You should definitly watch it!
@MDGravey15 I know who Wallace is,was born were he was captured.Do you think Bruce just fought Bannockburn like that?He fought it after a civil war.He changed sides 8 times,while under Edwards rule.So Edward never saw his bid for the crown coming.The crown Edward had coveted.No English King took the Scottish crown.But the King James the 6th took the English crown to be King James the 1st.Wallace was going into the church.So he was a holy man know right from wrong.And would not have killed kids.
To hell with this Pagen bastard!
bravesnipz 1 week ago
@bravesnipz Longshanks was about as devout a Christian as they came in those times. He had been on both the 8th and 9th Crusades and regularly worshiped in Christian temples to the Christian God. He recognized the Pope as the ultimate authority on Earth as every good Catholic did and sought the Pope's blessings in his deeds. There was nothing Pagan about him.
11nytram11 1 week ago
One of England's greatest kings. Edward I <3
TalonMercenary 2 weeks ago 2
Edward I Longshanks, King of England ..Was my 21st great grandfather !
KittieKatbel 2 weeks ago
@KittieKatbel
how the hell did you end up in the peasantry then ?
muiebozgorilor 2 weeks ago
@muiebozgorilor ...I wish i knew !! Haven't dug that far yet.....So may different opinions about him. I was doing ancestory. com and found out that is where my blood line runs :)
KittieKatbel 2 weeks ago
He was a great guy Edward
SonofDurgesuth 2 months ago
Be careful, this episod is bad and completely misleading. It magically isolates Britain from the great events of Europe. The prof from Cambridge manages not to mention the 100 years war or the plague or anything aside this british-centric story. No wonder British people feel insular.
Mulindinu 2 months ago
@Mulindinu The Hundred years war and the plauge occured during the reign of Edward III not Edward I.
MultiAngryguy 1 month ago
Most disgusting human being!!!!!!!!!!
jellyjam1110 2 months ago
@jellyjam1110 Why are you watching a video on him then??? Go and watch a video about that savage William Wallace....
TalonMercenary 2 weeks ago
Also im sure in an open battle, the welsh armies would be incredibly "puny" is comparison to saladins army, but it wasnt like that. The difficult terrain of Wales, and the the super power beating guerrilla tactics used by the welsh meant they were a deadly foe on their own turf, using their terrain to their advantage.
brieflycake 2 months ago
Also the welsh werent exactly "puny". The romans, normans, saxons, and irish couldnt beat them, but edward did.
brieflycake 2 months ago
@brieflycake Richard did not have the longevity to prove his mettle. Because of his total commitment to God and to the crusades. The Welsh, in comparison to a united Damascus-Egypt army lead by Saladin, is considered "puny". To fight away from home with very limited resources against a foe pissed off with Crusader genocide, is way more challenging. Richard, if he took Jerusalem, he would be the most celebrated English monarch. Without a doubt.
ConstantineJoseph 2 months ago
@ConstantineJoseph Im not comparing them as people, as i said, Edward was a vile subjugator of peoples. But it depends what you're measuring as greatness. As a person, im sure Richard was far superior in morality and the like, but in terms of lasting success and importance in terms of shaping britain, Edward outshines Richard by a long way. Richard's exploits may make for good stories, but he had very little effect or lasting success either in britain or in foreign lands in the long term.
brieflycake 2 months ago
@brieflycake
Richard the Lionheart spent all but about 6 months of his reign abroad. Edward I did alot for England but I understand why Scots, Welsh and Irish despise him
ToonandBBfan 2 months ago
@ToonandBBfan It is very understandable why they hate him. He was like an adolf hitler of the middle ages. All im saying is that he was incredibly significant.
brieflycake 2 months ago
@brieflycake
Of course he was significant, he captured Wales and built several amazing castles. I like him but I'm English.
ToonandBBfan 2 months ago 2
@ToonandBBfan Exactly, that was the point i was trying to make all along
brieflycake 2 months ago
so this is the man that killed william wallace....damn english
pagola 4 months ago
Edward I was probably the greatest english king in history. He was like Richard the lionheart, but actually knew how to run a country
dmax631 4 months ago
@dmax631
Edward I like Richard the Lionheart? Richard charged head first into battle at Jaffa with only 50 knights. Richard could not be bothered about the British Isles and was focused on international stardom through Crusade. Richard Lionheart took on the toughest opponent Christianity can ever face in a 200,000 strong Saladin's army in harsh deseert.
Edward however, fought against comparatively puny enemies in the civil war, against the welsh and against the Scotts. He's a tyrant.
ConstantineJoseph 3 months ago
@ConstantineJoseph thats not an entirely fair description. He was incredibly important in the forming of britain as we know it today, and in terms of lasting success and significance, we out does Richard by a million miles. He wasnt called the "English Justinian" for nothing. He formed parliament as we know it, transformed the way laws are designed and administered, and fundamentally changed britain forever. Although u are right in as much as he was a vile man.
brieflycake 2 months ago
@brieflycake Yes, Richard was a man determined to create an iron rule because his formative years was forged by civil war, lead by Simon de montford. He knew that he had to secure a strong position and he instilled much order. However, to compare against the Character of Richard, I must say Edward falls short.
Richard may have been less successful in domestic matters but then again, he's more French than British. Also, Richard is far more chivalrous than Edward can ever be.
ConstantineJoseph 2 months ago
@ConstantineJoseph Richard I didn't spare one thought to the governing of England. He used England as his private bank and as a reserve of manpower to fund and to support his wars in the Holy Land and in France. Steven Runciman describes him best when he said: "he was a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king, but a gallant and splendid soldier." In terms of shaping England's future even John Lackland and the useless Edward II had more impact than Richard the Lionheart.
11nytram11 1 week ago
@ConstantineJoseph Edward Longshanks, by contrast, spent a great deal of time improving the way England was governed and administrated, and arguably had the largest impact on the English system of government until Oliver Cromwell. He was ruthless bastard formed into this by the Baron's dominance of his father and was highly competant soldier and general but he, unlike most people of the day, had no illutions of civalry having a place in war.
11nytram11 1 week ago
I'm related to Edward I. I'm 6'3.
therealuptheass 4 months ago
He loved his wife <3<3<3
Nicollie1062 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Edward 1 had won the battle of stirling bridge the world history as we know it would be completely different and the usa and canada would not exist as two separate entities, they might just call themselves something like the united provinces of america, of simply New England, and their be no Nova Scotia of no New Scotland.and it would be called the english empire instead of british empire and the united provinces of america would have a larges english population bigger than now.
shauntheassassin 5 months ago
Comment removed
shauntheassassin 5 months ago
Edward I longshanks is one of my favorites kings in history, and Patrick McGoohan plays a very good Edward I in braveheart 1995 film.
shauntheassassin 5 months ago
Edward III? Doesn't he mean Henry III? This is a fucking shit documentary, especially when the narrator can't even get a simple fact like that right. I mean he is even Edward I how is his Dad going to be Edwar III, i want to hit the producer........tit.
manicbabyshambles123 5 months ago
@manicbabyshambles123 1) See a psychologist. 2) Where does he even say that?
bobbydylanio 5 months ago
@manicbabyshambles123 he said Henry III not Edward
ebaysellerbarca317 4 months ago
Pride and ridiculousness.
Ariel62073 5 months ago
@Ariel62073 you clearly dont know the english do you
pagola 4 months ago
@pagola Only too well. I used to own a tin mine at Glastonbury. About the time of the Resurrection.
Ariel62073 4 months ago
Can this series be bought in the states?
Frostbyte380 6 months ago
Edward seemed to live a heroic life...
KrakenRouge 6 months ago
The banner of France and England quartered is shown frequently, but was only brought into existence by Edward III
llewev 6 months ago
@mrmojohasrisen Dont know where you heard that but its not totally right.
Longshanks last orders on his death bed were to cut out his heart and send that for buriel in the Holy Land but to take his bones on campaign into Scotland and that Piers Gaveston should not be allowed into the Country. His tomb was to be plain until Scotland was conquered.
Edward II ingored all his father wished except for the burial in plain tomb.
11nytram11 6 months ago
Edward I invasion of Wales isn't a well know war to be fair. Its not taught in british schools anyway so the only way to find out about it is by the internet.
MultiAngryguy 6 months ago
i come from wales and i thought that lylwen had survived and took back all of Wales. well guess its something that im not supposed to know in education
kfsryakunt09 6 months ago
@kfsryakunt09 You've got your Llywelyn's mixed up.
Llywelyn ab Iorweth - Llywelyn the Great - was defeated by the English King John who reduced his lands and forced him into subserviance but he survived and took over about half of Wales, retaking the land he lost and expanding his borders.
Llywelyn ap Gruffydd - Llywelyn the Last - was defeated by Edward I, his realm occupied, he was killed in the second of the two wars with England and Wales was absorbed into England after that.
11nytram11 6 months ago
wow this dud is cool! i like people that are good at war
realfunnythomas 7 months ago
At the same time, he is also often criticised for other actions, such as his brutal conduct towards the Scots, and issuing the Edict of Expulsion in 1290, by which the Jews were expelled from England. The Edict remained in effect for the rest of the Middle Ages, and it would be over 350 years until it was formally overturned in 1656.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Currently, Edward I is credited with many accomplishments during his reign, including restoring royal authority after the reign of Henry III, establishing parliament as a permanent institution and thereby also a functional system for raising taxes, and reforming the law through statutes.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Modern historians have been more divided on their assessment of the king; while some have praised him for his contribution to the law and administration, others have criticised him for his uncompromising attitude to his nobility.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Edward I was a tall man for his era, hence the nickname "Longshanks". He was temperamental, and this, along with his height, made him an intimidating man, and he often instilled fear in his contemporaries. Nevertheless, he held the respect of his subjects for the way he embodied the medieval ideal of kingship, as a soldier, an administrator and a man of faith.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Comment removed
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago
At the same time there were problems at home. In the mid-1290s, extensive military campaigns required high levels of taxation, and Edward met with both lay and ecclesiastical opposition. These crises were initially averted, but issues remained unsettled. When the king died in 1307, he left to his son, Edward II, an ongoing war with Scotland and many financial and political problems.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Next, his efforts were directed towards Scotland. Initially invited to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty over the kingdom. In the war that followed, the Scots persevered, even though the English seemed victorious at several points.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Increasingly, however, Edward's attention was drawn towards military affairs. After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276 - 77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282 - 83 with a full-scale war of conquest. After a successful campaign, Edward subjected Wales to English rule, built a series of castles and towns in the countryside and settled them with Englishmen.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Edward's reign had two main phases. He spent the first years reforming royal administration. Through an extensive legal inquiry, Edward investigated the tenure of various feudal liberties, while the law was reformed through a series of statutes regulating criminal and property law.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Montfort was defeated at the Battle of Evesham in 1265, and within two years the rebellion was extinguished. With England pacified, Edward left on a crusade to the Holy Land. The crusade accomplished little, and Edward was on his way home in 1272 when he was informed that his father had died. Making a slow return, he reached England in 1274 and he was crowned king at Westminster on 19 August.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
In 1259, he briefly sided with a baronial reform movement, supporting the Provisions of Oxford. After reconciliation with his father, however, he remained loyal throughout the subsequent armed conflict, known as the Second Barons' War. After the Battle of Lewes, Edward was hostage to the rebellious barons, but escaped after a few months and joined the fight against Simon de Montfort.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
Edward I (17 June 1239 - 7 July 1307), also known as Edward Longshanks and the Hammer of the Scots, was King of England from 1272 to 1307. The first son of Henry III, Edward was involved early in the political intrigues of his father's reign, which included an outright rebellion by the English barons.
SuperGreatSphinx 8 months ago 2
If he saw the monarchy today he would push them off a tower .... *reference*
zerker12568901 9 months ago
I facepalm at the fact that half of Edward's army that invaded North Wales in 1277 consisted of Welshmen! I understand that they had grievances against Llywelyn (the last Welsh prince) who was taxing them heavily, but Llywelyn's rule was actually a lot fairer than Edward's rule. History has shown that when united, the Welsh were formidable and could resist much larger armies (look at Owain Gwynedd and the battle of Crogen). Trouble was they were rarely united and Edward took advantage of this.
Tlevids 9 months ago
@Tlevids
The problem with most oppressed people is that they never unite to almost certain victory lol, nobody ever looks at the big picture.
eviilhomerr 8 months ago
We need a modern day guy like Longshanks to re-establish the British Empire of the 21st century. Sick and tired of hearing how shit our country has become over recent years. Everyone else seems to be ahead of us - its embarrassing!
kyawwaiyan 9 months ago
@kyawwaiyan Every epire comes and goes.. the British have had their turn. However, I don't believe you have anything to be embarrassed about. It is still a nice country
kempaku982 8 months ago
I have been tracing my family Tree on Ancestry.com and was shocked to discover he is my 25th great grandfather..i stopped there to absorb this knowledge before going on to add more forfather Kings..its like being told i share the blood line of Hitler..sort of.
I have always stated that Sir William Wallace was my fav hero and he still will be, "sorry gramps...but You were a bad man"
Saunn 9 months ago
@Saunn DAMN! You're related to him?! Maybe you could be an honorary prince/princess or something
Markalas 9 months ago
@Saunn Howdy cousin, doing the same research, Old Eddy I was my 20th great granddad, William the Conqueror was my 25th. But if you go back down the line everybody is related. French to the English, English to the Scot's, Scot's to the Irish, throw in some German's. A little of Rome, The Danes very early on. So you are Plantagenet. Some say that can be traced back to the house of David. You are Dragonblood. I will leave you with that bit of research.
odinsblood333 9 months ago
Me too! Though I suppose about a million people could claim that now... we can trace back to Harold Bluetooth @odinsblood333
FarseerOfPouiln 9 months ago
@odinsblood333 You must be my blood kin. My family the Bowens ( Owain ) through my Grandmother and my Great Grandmother trace along the same lines as you mention to Don Anna verch Mathonwy, "The Phophetess of Arimathea" who was my 38th great grandmother! William the Conqueror was my 24th GGpa. I'm proudest of my Welch heritage more than the Norman and European by far however. You might consider starting a Family tree at Geni. I have traced branches of my family back to 450 BC
peterb37 8 months ago
God Bless Longshanks. And God bless England
Thunor67 10 months ago
im scottish , and edward the 1st sound like a DICK
CAMEYx 1 year ago
@CAMEYx He was. He was a brutal tyrant who was prepared to stoop to any level to get what he wanted and maintained his control by scaring people to death - litterally in some cases. Doesn't make him any less of an effective king, organizer and warrior though. He was a product of his time and had the drive - due to the problems his father and grandfather had - to make himself the most ruthless and successful man of his era.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@CAMEYx Ha ha LMAO
BRUTUALTRUTH 11 months ago
@millard27 Nobody asked for any bail out.And English banks have had them.But no Scottish club has had them.Scottish clubs go to the wall.And English clubs get bailed out.The next team will be Plymouth.While every other team just disapears.Another example of all things Scottish being put aside and left to die.So England and English get the help first.The expert below me,knows Jack shit about DNA.He just wants me to think ive English blood in me.Well my G knome is very much Norse not English FFS.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk look you are obviously a bit thick here is a fucking genealogical FACT! okay that means it is unequivocally true. Unequivocal means one cannot argue against it. So for once shut the fuck up and just take on board, then knock yourself out looking it up. We all are a mish mash of fucking nationalities on this continent. you are no further related than 40th or 50th cousins to every person in the UK Fact! you may well have some fucking Norse in you good for you you retard
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 How far back do you want to go?Take it back and you will end up in Africa.I dont need to read a shity book that you have read to know that dickhead.Now go and catch up on your reading.So you can go and bore the next person with your useless information.I am Scottish and I am proud.So get it right up you.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk what is English blood?theres no such ting if u wana get techinical, its all diluted including yours u moronic imbecile. why dont you try reading a fucking book and actually learn something. Its people like who who know nothing who try to preach to everyone else. and as for knowing nothing about DNA I dont think thats what Oxford University thought when they offered me a place 4 years ago, and since graduating from there I actually work in the field so like i said stfu
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 Oxford Uni so you could not get a good education then?What makes you think ive not got as good a education?Just cos of my bad spelling?Its called dyslexia,its not my fault.You sound a very in secure person.I never asked you about your education.It does not interest me.In fact anybody who has to come on YouTube,to tell everybody about how clever they are.Cant have anybody to tell them that they are in the REAL world.There is folk with degree<s working in Burger King these days FUCK OF
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 Oxford Uni so you could not get a good education then?What makes you think ive not got as good a education?Just cos of my bad spelling?Its called dyslexia,its not my fault.You sound a very in secure person.I never asked you about your education.It does not interest me.In fact anybody who has to come on YouTube,to tell everybody about how clever they are.Cant have anybody to tell them that they are in the REAL world.There is folk with degree<s working in Burger King these days FUCK OF
legandrydirk 1 year ago
The hammer of the Scots.
EdwardTheLondoner 1 year ago
The hammer of the Scots
EdwardTheLondoner 1 year ago
I meant to type Edward II in those last two sentences by the way.
AndyGriffithBeatsAll 1 year ago
I don't know if Edward I was indeed a paedophile or not, but it is fact that his son Edward II was a victim of Edward's fits of anger often, and that he likely had sexual relations with Piers Gaveston. If Edward I was a paedophile and molested or did whatever to Edward I at a young age, I imagine that would explain why Edward I was homosexual. Maybe not though, but it would make sense.
AndyGriffithBeatsAll 1 year ago
@AndyGriffithBeatsAll There is no evidence to support any claim that Longshanks was a paedophile. The accusation comes from the myth that Longshanks had to do his sons kingly duty with Isabelle of France because his son was unable to but this is also unsubstantiated because for this to have happened Longshanks would have had to risen from the grave or Isabelle must have been pregnant for five or six years.
11nytram11 1 year ago
...back then... before the printing press... nobody read the bible... there was only one god and master... the KING
...his word was law
RealDogofGenius 1 year ago
@mrmojohasrisen Well, I can't control it. But I will not repudiate him either.
JamalDOA 1 year ago
My Great x 22 grandfather
JamalDOA 1 year ago
@JamalDOA He's my ancestor as well - though Henry "Harry Hotspur" Percy. In fact something like 7 out of every 10 people born of English Stock are descendants of King Edward I. Its just the way these things go. Just like most Europeans are descendants of the Emperor Charlemange. Once you get past a certain point there is everyone shares a common ancestor.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 Eventually everyone in the US will be descended from him.
JamalDOA 1 year ago
Thank you for uploading! Glad I caught this.
likepocketsjingling 1 year ago
Only problem with this show is it doesn’t say why De Montfort and Henry III were fighting, De Montfort was the political heir to the men who had drafted Magna Carta and brought down Henry’s farther and Edward’s grandfather bad king John. Under Henry the king’s power was limited so much that the barrens got over mighty and Wales and Scotland started getting ideas above the station. That information is important to understand what was driving Edward.
tribetng 1 year ago
@tribetng Scotland was here first,long before England ever was.We had our own Kings,long before England did.And Edward was from a long line of Plantaginate Kings,and there French not English.So in reality all the folk claiming to be this guys decentats actually are French deceandants.The Saxons had come from the Vikings.And there lines was through Vikings pirates.If Edward was so clever.How come he never saw Bruce,coming for the crown.When he changed sides to his?Bruce played him like a card.SNP
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Longshanks was King of England and his descendants were English Nobility so his modern day descendants are of English Stock. And the Plantagenets weren't French they were Angevin, the Angevin Empire was not part of France.
The Bruce was constantly swapping sides and he was seen as someone who's support could be bought so nobody trusted him. That the Bruce would murder another noble so he get the crown took Longshank's by surprise but his treachory didn't.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 And its part of France now,there for they and there lines still there.Bruce had to fight a civil war in Scotland after the Comyns murder to get the crown,after winning at Bannockburn.And he earned Edwards trust,as he was in service to him for 20 years when he last changed sides.Naw he played Edward its as simple as that.Edward must have been really nieve or just plain arrogant not to see it coming.Anyway he stole our wee magic stone.Or at least he thought he did.Stone he had wiz fake
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk The Angevin Empire may have become part of France but that does not make the Plantagenets French. The Roman's conquered Egypt but that didn't make Ramesis Roman.
The Bruce got the crown only days after the Red Comyn's murder, he couldn't establish his power until after the Civil War and the reason he got to establish his power was because Longshanks was dead and Edward II left Scotland alone for three years. - Longshanks would never have done that.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 He died trying to invade Scotland again.And England did not leave Scotland alone.They just never sent there full strength up here,cos they were busy in France.Bruce could have had him,he was a weak old man.He was in his prime.The Bruce became a good tactision,cos he had been beaten so often.But we will never know now.But my money would have been on Bruce.His familly also came from France.Also over in Poland theres lot of them.There called La Bruce,or Di Bruce.Edward never took here.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Longshanks had the track record of winning battles & the Bruce knew would never have risked a pitched battle against him (which puts him above Wallace in my books as a general) but if Longshanks had lived, say, 7 more years the Bruce would never have gotten any kind of popular support. The Scottish nobles had been humilitated & brought to heel too many times by the Edward to go against him anymore, they would wait for him to die, & 7 years would be enough to deal with the Bruce.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@legandrydirk How was Wallace meant to know about the new long bow anyway?He would have won at Falkirk if not for that.Scots were not as good at being spies.The english knew all about that.Just like they do now.With there phone lines all about stitching up your neighbour.Bruce was well tactical,as much as Edward.He would have chosen the right ground,and have had him.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk The English had used the Longbow against the Welsh and the French before Falkirk and it was fast becoming a main part of the English War Machine. Wallace based his battle plans on the outdated idea that the English Knights would be the main part of the battle and overlooked Longshanks' progressive views on warfare. Wallace risked the destruction of his army on a false pretense and justly failed for it, after that the Scots would not risk large scale open war against Longshanks.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 Bollox it was first used against us at Falkirk.You miss the whole point of Wallace.And what he represents to us.He was one of us.He never was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.He was one of the people.And Edward never gave him parly.When he did for the rest of the Scots who won the war.To me that shows you,and rightly so,that he must have been terrified of him.Wallace was a hero to every revolutionary around the world.His story was out there.Long before the movie Braveheart.ALBA
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk The Battle of Orewin Bridge in 1282 saw the English use the Longbow to devastating effect against the Welsh. After the Welsh Wars Longshanks employed Wlesh archers because they were better Longbowmen than the English as a whole but they lack the organization of the English. This was 17 years before Falkirk and the Lowbowmen became an integral part of Longshanks' army during those years.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@legandrydirk I get that Wallace is a Scottish Icon and hero of the people but that doesn't make him infallable nor invalidate his mistakes. He was a good commander but not in the same league as the Bruce, de Moray, James Douglas and certainly not Longshanks.vWallace got all the fame for Stirling Bridge because of de Moray's death and Wallace was one of the few Scotsmen who openly opposed Longshanks - he had to be removed if Longshanks wanted to conquer Scotland. It wasn't a matter of fear.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Longshanks was a cut above anyone the Bruce fought. What made Longshanks so dangerous was not just the fact that he was a ruthless & effeicent warrior but also that he was cold & calculating - tyrant he may have been but no one can claim he was fool. He was the most dangerous, the most formidable of Plantagenet monarchs & anyone who angered him soon found out that it was not a good idea. The Bruce once said "I am more afraid of the bones of the Father dead than of the living son."
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 He might have said that.But that just sounds like a jibe to his enemy.To you think Bruce got to were he did,bye being Mr Nice guy?He never he invaded England and won in there back door.To stop them coming back up here.Bruce was as tough as Edward,tougher more so even.To have lived on the run for so long.And for that matter so was Wallace.And Edward could only catch him,bye bribing Monteeth God Father to Wallace son.Bet you never knew that story.His children could not stay with him
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk The Bruce invaded England during the reign of the useless Edward II when the English barons and Earls were rebelling and England was in a state of civil unrest, even Civil War, not to mention bankruptsy. And even then the Bruce barely managed to raid into Lancashire and Yorkshire. And what of his Irish wars? Early success followed by dismal failure and expulsion. He was certainly not in Longshanks league when it came to conquering other nations.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Toughness is indeterminate. The Bruce and Wallace lived on the run, off the land for long periods of time where as Longshanks escaped from capitivity at the hands of de Montfort, killed an assassin that came upon him in his sleep despite being stabbed with a poisoned blade and brought the unruly English nobles who had fought with his grandfather John and dominated his father Henry under his oppresive boot. Differnet kinds of tough characters displayed and not really comparable.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 He was not on the run as long.What about Wallace killing 2 english soldiors with there own swords,and the rest running?This is how he got made a out law.It was on the banks of river Irvine.How did they know it was a poisoned blade?Did they get someone to like it?It med evil times they would say that.To make out they were Gods.To a lot of un educated people that they ruled over.Superstisios people who would look apon the person like they had super natural powers.Only a King could doit
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk USA are in Scotland protecting you. So who is knelling now. England has had enough of outside rule. If you had been keeping up with current events then you would know that tensions are building in England. The day of the monarchy are over, the queen will be the last. And England will have an English parliament. So bitterness will still remain with Scotland blaming England for everything. There will be a revolution in England and I look forward to telling Scottish people to go home.
Ieteveryoneknow 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow Piss off revolutionary! If all you are here to do is antagonize then you are not worth my spit! England will never be a republic! Never!...I'm a monarchist incase your wondering
11nytram11 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow Scots dont blame England for anything.They blame them selfs for not voting SNP years ago.Your living in a dream world.The english dont want there own parliment.There is english NAT partys,and they have never gotten in anywhere.Unless your saying the BNP speak for England.There the only NATS ever to do anything in England.But whats new about that.Look at the support Moseley got bye the english.Your welcome to leave any time.Just like us Scots,the union is a sham anyway.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow No you fool there protecting there oil.Also you UN is protecting UK.Your a fecking hypocrite
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Wallace did a lot of talking of himself. He was Scottish so there is no truth in his tails. Instead he raped and murdered little children. I wonder how Wallace felt when the English cut his belly open for him to see his own insides?
Ieteveryoneknow 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow Theres is nothing written about that,not about any children.You are talking out your backside.Ask the world who is more famous,WALLACE,or PEADO KING.And they will say WALLACE
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk The poisoned blade was in the crusades,. Baibars, leader of the Muslim's forces, considered Longshanks an obsticle to the end of the war and wanted him out of the way. Longshanks killed the assassin but was incapacitated for week by the poison, and weakened for months.There is documentory evidence for it.
But as I said toughness is inderterminate and the types displayed by Longshanks, Wallace and the Bruce are not really comparable.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 A King could do that.Anybody else would be killed for Witchcraft
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@11nytram11 I would love to find the bones of Wallace,and give him a proper heroes burial.I know its never gonna happen though.But thats the honour that great man deserves.Do you know a few years ago,the Labour party was pushing for a cememeration of the act of union.Dirty rotton unionist scum,full of there lies and bile.Dont even teach school kids about those great warriors.But want to celebrate the Royals,going against the REAL Scots to get it.The poor Scots,like WILLIAM WALLACE,Alba,s Martyer
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk william wallace murderd and raped innocent people. A hero to Scotland but a bastard who got what he deserved to England. Do you think the Scottish men went home and celebrated together as brothers or did you know the Scottish would murder other Scottish familys to save of mouths to feed.
Ieteveryoneknow 1 year ago 2
@Ieteveryoneknow He paid you back for your peado King doing that to Berwick.Thats what med evil armys did back then.You can hardly judge them bye modern standards.No my heads in history.And you lack any knowledge in it.Making up lies about Falkirk for a start.Why would the Scots not have one?The fore fathers forged this nation,on beating the southeners.The Northumbrian Viking decendants at the battle of Dunnichen in 6 85.Starting our nation first.And won many battles to keep it.EDWARD WAS A CUNT
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow What you on about,murdering other people<s famillys?Every Scottish familly did that then did they?You have been reading to much Sonny Bean.But what your talking about,happened in London.With the demon barbour,turning people into pies.Every nation has its share of dark souls.England has lots of them,even in modern times.As does Scotland on a smaller scales,cos its a smaller place.At least Wallace never let a kid die on a boat.So he could become the King.Like your great hero did.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk England made a big mistake not killing all you inbreds off. I hope we get another chance to screw Scotland over for the mess you made of England.
Ieteveryoneknow 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow Keep up the hope,cos thats all it is.How times changed for you.Once you told us,we were the bitter ones.Now all I hear is winging from the English about the Scots MP<s they votied in twice.England cant touch Scotland no more.If Scotland ever went Independant,it would be part of the EU and UN.It would be in protection of the USA,who have dibs on the oil here.They also have Navy and air fields here.Like Marchrihanish,biggest run way in europe.England knells to anybody with power.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Death and misery to all of Scotland.
Ieteveryoneknow 1 year ago
@legandrydirk I assume your refering to Margaret Maid of Norway when you talk about "letting a kid die on a boat". I was unaware that Longshanks had any blame in Margarets death. Is this what you're refering to and if so can you tell me what Longshanks' is accused of doing wrong?
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 He send her over on the roghest time to sail,and never let them land for weeks knowing she would probably die.In short he wanted her dead,so he would get the thrown.Your knowledge of history,seems to be on the english side.But remember this from history.Its only the winners who record it.There is also good acounts of Wallace in history written bye the english clergy.Where he stopped his army from hurting them.The reason why is he,was gonna go into the church himself.When he was young
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk I believe that Longshanks was kind of stalling. He wanted Margaret to land in Scotland so she could marry his son and unite Scotland and England and accomplish with one marriage what would otherwise take years of war. The problem was that the marriage was arranged by Longshanks and Eric II of Norway but the Scottish nobles didn't all agree to the marriage so Margaret was kept off shore while negotiations continued. Margaret was an unfortunate pawn of medieval power play.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 Sorry but thats pish,the Scots magnetes wanted her over before the sea was gonna be rough.They knew when the sea was gonna be high tide and rough.Peado King knew exactly what he was doing.He wanted war it was simple as that.War makes money in any centuary
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk The Scottish Nobles wanted her to be Queen to bring some stability but they didn't agree to the proposed marriage to Edward II. The union of Margaret & Edward II would put the Scots under the control of the Prince of Wales & as a result under Longshanks & the Scots didn't want this. If the Scots could be brought under his control by a marriage rather than war then that would suit Longshanks - he'd prefer to war in France and protect the declining Angevin Empire then war in Scotland
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 She was the last of Alexander the 3rd<s line.A King they really loved.They did not want her dead.Dont know how you can believe this crap.As you said earlier,he was manipilitive and would do anything to win.I would not even give him that.I would say he was just plain evil like Cromwell was or Thatcher
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Where did I say the Scottish nobles wanted Margaret dead? They didn't want her to marry Edward II because that marriage was aranged by the English & Norweagan Kings without their consent & it would see them come under Longshanks control. Longshanks used her as a bargining chip & kept her off shore to strengthen his own position but once he got the Scottish nobles to agree to the marriage he would have her let he land in Scotland. She died before the negotiations could conclude.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 He killed a kid,make no mistake about it.All the people in here being proud of being a decendiant.Are in fact putting there love in a kid killer.Thank God my linage comes from such a more purer clan.The most famous of them all,thanks to my Granny.The guy who was sacrifised of the alter of freedom.To show you all just one thing.It is better to burn out,and give your all with courage dignity and honer against tyranny.Than it is to live as slaves,even if its gonna take your life U gotta
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk The Scots wanted Margaret to be Queen of Scotland becuase she was a Canmore &, despite being only a child, she would bring stability to a nation that had no monarch & many powerful, squbbling nobles who all had some claim to the throne themselves. But they refused to have her in Scotland is all that would happen was that their independence from England would be washed away by a marriage to the Prince of Wales. They wanted her to be Queen but not at the expense of their independence
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 Independence from England are you joking?We had that allready,the country was never Edwards to take.Or for any English King to take.We had our own Kings long before England did.And our own laws and custems,coming from the Celts in Ireland.Edward tried to take it away from Scotland.But he did not look at the peasantry,he never thought that they were a threat to him.Un till he sent his army north,and met the guirilla bands of Wallace.Murray was noble and he died after Stirling,RIP 2 em
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk You already had independence, yes, but had Margaret married Edward II you wouldn't have. Scotland would have become the property of the Prince of Wales, the Scots would have become people to use as Edward II or his father saw fit - and probably rebel eventaully. To get Margaret to be Queen the Scots had to sign away their indepdence and accept and Englishman as their King and liege lord and none of the Scottish nobles were prepared to do that.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 They were gonna keep her,and protect her.But the facts of the matter is.Edward wanted her dead all along.So he could manipulate the situation to become King her.Nobody knows what would have happened if she had lived.All that is written is Edwards side of events.Scots would not have written it.Cos if it was found,they would lose there estates in England Scotland and there lifes.All you have is a one sided biased account of it,written on the side of the english.And I dont buy it 1 bit.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Lets call and end to this debate shall we. We're not going to agree on anything with this issue and I think we're both wasting our time.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 You are cos your protecting a peado and a kid killer,historical FACTS.And the baw bag who said Wallace did that has no evidence to back it up.I do cos ive read the history.Even Bruce had a adult wife,that peado King put in jail.I always back up my nations history,when ever I speak of it.Its a shame the english cant.And there is a lot more to english history to be proud off.Than that scum bag they worship.Ive a feeling that they could all be into satanic black arts.Not normal 2 at all
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk I've given up because you have decided that any view but your own is worthless and any version of events that differs from the one you know is biased and distorted and you refuse to accept anything I've said as have merit.
And you continue to call Longshanks a peado without JUSTIFICATION! Longshanks was married to Elanor of Castille when he was 15 and she was 14, his second wife was 20 when they married. You know little of Longshanks and your you ignorance shows.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 You dont even know when Falkirk was,and what won the battle.So forgive me if you have allready proved to me that you dont know what your talking about.Your King was a beast
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk I know when the fucking Battle of Falkirk was and I know what fucking won the battle! It was 1298 and the first battle where the Longbow was used in massed formation - not the battle where the longbow was used - and it was both the Longbow and Edward Longshanks' leadership decsions that won the battle.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 You only just found that out,cos I told you.You said it had been used to put down Wales and France.When that had actually happened 200 years later.I hope your a young guy.Cos if your not,you have wasted most of your life then.Cos its clear that you dont know what your talking about.And with the net at your hands,that is a crying shame.Time you put it to good use.Before you open your gob on subjects you have little knowledge off.I am no patriot,just a normal guy.I dont back terioists.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Rubbish.I knew about Falkirk before you told me about it, you just dont want to accept it becuase I said that the Longbow was used against the Welsh & the French before it was used against the Scots. I did not mention Crecy or Agincourt which I asume your refering to, I mentioned Orewin Bridge which you have ignored. The Longbowmen were used as companies against the Welsh & French but not massed formations, you asserted that the Longbow was FIRST used against the Scots.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Dont start accusing me of knowing nothing about the subject just cause you dont like what I've written. I haven't said you know nothing about the Scottish Wars of Independence, just that your knowlegde about Edward I is lacking. It's you attitude about this (being that must know nothing because I dont agree with you) that makes me want to wash my hands of you and just walk away. Cause, what's the point in having a serious debate with someone who wont give your vesion and credit?
11nytram11 1 year ago
@11nytram11 The long bow was first used in large formation against the Scots.Your version of history does not merit any.Its as simple as that.Not when it comes to Scotland.Would you take the French accounts of him as being valid?Of coarse not not cos they were his enemy.So why should I take your one sided accounts of him.When he was the enemy of the Scots?Wash your hands go on then.But you know I am right.Go read it all out a book.Dont use your brain,to apply any thinking to the truth of reality
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Excellent. Live in your delusions and I shall talk to you no more.
11nytram11 1 year ago
@legandrydirk They will say Muhammed is more famous and he married a 9 year old.
Ieteveryoneknow 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow I would say he was more famous to.He would have got on with Edward to,the sick fucker
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk And Wallis the hard man kiddie killer.
Ieteveryoneknow 1 year ago
@Ieteveryoneknow Walace never killed any kids,but Edward did.Wallace spared Monks from death.History written on your side of the boarder.Wallace was set for the preist hood.They dont kill any kids.Edward could not take Wallace alive.So had to buy his capture.What a shit King he was.Could not even catch a farmers son.Or stop Bruce for going for the crown.He could not have been to clever.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk That is actually incorrect, when he sacked York, he did indee spare the monks, but men, women and children were to be killed. To say he never killed any kids is ridiculous in those brutal times. Also you talk of history being written on our side of the border, well what border is that then, because during the middle ages the border between Scotland and England fluctuated greatly, for example at one point Scotland came into what is now north Lancashire. tbc . . .
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@legandrydirk the buying of Wallaces captivity, well that was because he had fallen from favour amongst many of the Scottish nobles. Farmers son, aka Noble (albeit a minor one but a noble nontheless). Also what do you mean he couldn't stop Bruce going for the crown? Bannockburn happened in the reign of Edward II. Don't take your notion of Wallace etc from Braveheart, possibly one of the least historically accurate films ever. Anyway none of this is meant with disrespect at all.
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 I saw it it was OK.But ive 5 books on him.Know who he was through my Dad.All the kids did,cos we dont get taught about our patriots at school.So we dont grow up and vote SNP.Well it back fired with me.The film about him was 75 per cent true.I watched it near where he was born in Kilmarnock.When the first limb got lopped of there was cheers.Ive not saw that at a film before or since.It really caught the public imagination.And did a lot for our tourism industry.So am glad it was made.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk In those days if you were religious didn't mean you knew right from wrong, most of the people were quite pious yet comletely ruthless. And guess what, we are not taught about any of our English Heroes either, so your not on your own there, god forbid the English should feel proud of where they came from. And as for James Stewart VI and I, he was descended from Henry VII on his mothers side. And yeh fair enough it did good for the tourism industry! Anyway adieu
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 The English do get taught about there own history,40 years ago and now.Ive cousins who are English and they told me.Just cos I am Scottish does not mean ive no links with England.Be proud of your Country if you wish.I will be more prouder of mines,cos my ancestors won there freedom against your nations tyrany.His Mum was Mary Queen of Scots.His Dad was English Lord Darley,he got the chop chop.And his body was found down the Cowgate in Edinburgh.Near the old under ground vaults.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk We do not get taught fuck all mate, Thats is why there was a huge debate on newsnight the other week about the fact, due to the fact we have such a glorious history, the powers that be thik it is offensive to actually take pride in where we come from! and again I implore you to come to some sense of resoning, you say your country v my country! That is just so crap! Just because u may have been born within the modern border of scotland does not mean that so did all your ancestors.
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 It does ive done my tree,and are away back.And I know we came here from Norway through DNA.It should not be offensive,who is it going to offend?If you come and live here,you should respect this lands laws and cultures.And a lot of ones from India do.They class themselfs as Brit subjects.The Pakistani ones are a different story.I wish they would intergrate more into our society.And play our games like football.They could be for us what the Afro carabeians are for your England team.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk Your family tree in which u say u came here from Norway that is one strand of your family tree, read Humprhys work, if you go back 40 generations you have literally tens of millions of ancestors, and of course that is more people than lived in Nowray at that time, We all hail from everywhere!
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 It has just dawned on me that your an ignorant uneducated person, I have just noticed how many others have come into contact with your unlearned ways! Are you so thick you do not understand the concept that if you go back about 30 generations in ur family history you will have more ansectors than have ever lived in the whole of sandinavia. You are descended from Charlemagne you Idiot! It is a fact read it up type in google, am i descended from Charlgemagne! See what you learn
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@legandrydirk it is a mathematical certainty that you have thousands upon thousands of ancestors from that period o histiry, and thousands of English, hence any man who claims he is proud of his scottish heritage and hate the english should first bear in mind the fact that he is a product of both nations amongst others. Look at mark Humphries work on family ancestry its pretty aweome, for example we are all descendents of Charlegemagne (those of us with western european heritage).
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 Scots dont hate the English,as much as you want to think.They hate the British state more.Personaly I dont really think about the English to much.You mean why would I.When they dont even have there on Gov but think there rulling the country.Big change is coming in Scotland,in the next 10 or 20 years.Mark my words the people are starting to get pist off.We are taking the flak through out the world,for the shit WESTMINSTER has done.Take the Lockerby bomber insident as a good example.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk I hope there is change but you know that Scotland had to rely on the Westminster aka the English taxpayer to bail out the RBS lol, I think you should be completely independent, it doesnt mean we would have to stop trading or anything, I think it is what most ordinary people on both sides of the border want. And when you say Westminster, remember that its filled with Scots lol! you say we dont rule the country, but we do more so than anyone else in the UK lol,
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 Tax payers bailed out Portsmouth football club FFS.At least we never asked for a bail out like them.There would be no Bank of England with out a Scot,or paper money.Adam Smith was the father of modern ecconomics a Scot.Both sides of my familly are from Norse decendants,proved through a messed up genetic gene that is the cos of tendisitis.Only found in Norway.So I am not English,and I am happy with that.Glad ive no Gerry DNA in there or Roman or Belgium or French like yours could be.
legandrydirk 1 year ago
@legandrydirk btw i think on 4od there is a god docu on Wallace, he was obvs a hero but it is more informative than most about his character etc, Tony Robinson presents it. You should definitly watch it!
MDGravey15 1 year ago
@MDGravey15 I know who Wallace is,was born were he was captured.Do you think Bruce just fought Bannockburn like that?He fought it after a civil war.He changed sides 8 times,while under Edwards rule.So Edward never saw his bid for the crown coming.The crown Edward had coveted.No English King took the Scottish crown.But the King James the 6th took the English crown to be King James the 1st.Wallace was going into the church.So he was a holy man know right from wrong.And would not have killed kids.
legandrydirk 1 year ago