Added: 5 years ago
From: Joshua12345
Views: 374,053
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (223)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • o legal de tudo é que os poderosos tambem morrem, vão pro saco, igual pobre.

  • @ludovico9vonz Tipico pensamento de pobre.

  • Recent poll show that 68% British born people want a weaker goverment & stonger crown, more power to the crown regarding military, status in europe. Many feel that the goverment are looking after themselves & not the people as once they term is up their move on. The queen as been our head for 60yrs, i am sure we would not be in europe or half the wars if she had more power. After all her children,grandchildren would fight with us. You cant say that for the goverments family.

  • and everybody on horseback!

  • Is anyone from this clip still living? Lol

    R u serious?

    This is like 110 years ago

    So i doubt it very much

  • Is anybody still living from this clip?

  • Comment removed

  • This was when Britain was a great nation. That ended at the funeral of Edward VII.

  • @Myles0Harcourt What is with King George V 

  • @ShovelHorse

    Nothing at all. I just think that Britain became more modern and went downhill after that.

  • @Myles0Harcourt I reckon England was great up until the government started getting more powerful. I mean is it just me, or was Britain in much better shape when we had a weaker government?

  • @ILoveCustardCreams2

    Weak government, strong nobility, that's how things should be. Whilst I beleive people should have a say in how the country is run, full democracy only weakens a country.

  • @Myles0Harcourt Agreed

  • @ILoveCustardCreams2

    All these damn "liberalists".

  • @ILoveCustardCreams2  I knew you were British when you said "I reckon" do you realize you got that from American western movies

  • @bobbollu No I didn't know that, I don't say it very often and it's the welsh that say it the most anyway. Well actually I don't know that for sure but it seems that way to me. Not trying to be rude, but what's your point?

  • @ILoveCustardCreams2 just an observation of mine as an American. I "reckon" was said a lot in our westerns popular in the 50's & 60's. Almost no one in the United states says that and I thought that, although you say it, you might not realize where the expression originated. That's my only point. B.

  • @ILoveCustardCreams2 Also I figured out you were British, without any other clue.

  • @bobbollu Ok you know I'm British, I wasn't trying to hide that fact, if you just keep telling me that then I'm going to ignore you because this conversation is entirely pointless.

  • @ILoveCustardCreams2 I was being polite and just making an observation, perhaps you are ashamed of being British?

  • @ILoveCustardCreams2 Ignore bobbollu - ignorant about the origins of the word reckon. Not Western movies at all

    Origin: Oxford English Dictionary

    Old English (ge)recenian ‘recount, relate’, of West Germanic origin; related to Dutch rekenen and German rechnen 'to count (up)'. Early senses included ‘give an account of items received’ and ‘mention things in order’, which gave rise to the notion of ‘calculation’ and hence of ‘being of an opinion’

  • @1867TrueNorth hey TrueNorth I think you're full of shite. How you like them apples?

  • @bobbollu LOL - your response was my "smile of the day". Thanks!

  • @bobbollu LOL - thanks, you're response was my "smile of the day". 

  • @bobbollu Ugh! Your ignorance is too much!!!!

    Origin: Oxford English Dictionary - NOT WESTERN MOVIES!!!

    Old English (ge)recenian ‘recount, relate’, of West Germanic origin; related to Dutch rekenen and German rechnen 'to count (up)'. Early senses included ‘give an account of items received’ and ‘mention things in order’, which gave rise to the notion of ‘calculation’ and hence of ‘being of an opinion’

  • they don't make queens like this anymore

  • 11 people are nazi humping communists

  • @MrMilkyMoustache Republicans

  • The guy on the white horse is Wilhelm II, the first and favourite grandson of Queen Victoria, the other one is her oldest son Albert, King Edward VII.

  • Haunting. 

  • What a treasure! I am glad it is a available for us to see. The Internet at it's best.

  • This footage is 110 years old. Cool.

  • Very cool to see this, and to her her voice in the related video! 

  • who wants to know how it came to war between kaiser (queen victorias favorite grandson) and king eduard should read ken follets book fall of giants.

  • There are three men on horseback at the end of the clip - HIM William II the German Emperor, HM Edward VII King of the UK and Emperor of India, and lastly HRH Prince Arthur, the Duke of Connaught. Edward and Arthur were the only two of Victoria's four sons to outlive her. As such they, along with her eldest grandchild the Kaiser were the lead mourners.

  • This footage is 110 years old. Cool.

  • Comment removed

  • Fascinating subject! She was a mere child when she ascended the throne,19,I believe.Mind you,where was she for most of her reign,lol,after Bertie had snuffed it?

    Gawd luv ya,ma'am.

  • as being the grand matriarch of nearly all of europes royal families, probably every living europran sovereign was there

  • I remember this, the queens carriage ran over my foot.

  • Are any of the people taking part identifiable - for example the two mounted hatless figures in heavy cloaks following the coffin ?

  • @HughJason There are many good historians on here, trouble is, I'm not one of them. But I am sure someone will eventually reply with the info on attendees in view etc. J

  • I cannot identify the two figures on horses directly behind the coffin as they go past too fast, but in the next row can be seen on the left (white horse) Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, Victoria's grandson and, right, Edward VII of the UK (black horse, beard, white feathers on hat) Victoria's son and heir.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • @faeriesoph Thanks very much. That's very helpful.

    Incidentally, there's a very much longer Pathe newsreel film of the funeral on the net. I can't post a link here, but if you want to see it google "QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL video newsreel film".

  • @HughJason German Kaiser Wilhelm II on the white horse.

  • @HughJason Sorry but the only 2 I know are the 2 on horse-back with hats on. On the right is Victoria s son King Edward the 7th and on the left Kaiser Wilhelm from Germany, Victoria s nephew. 15 years later we would be at war.

  • @HughJason

    They're not hatless, you can just make out the dragoon helmets and swords they are carrying.

    Has to be troopers from either the Life Guards or Blues & Royals.

  • Long live Her Majesity the Queen of England!! Godmother of my country's prince and princesses! And my country's gardian!

  • thanks for the footage

  • Comment removed

  • A short but amazing video.Queen Victoria had reigned for 64 years at the time of her death in 1901 so you can imgine what a shock this must have been for the whole nation at the time.

  • @independenceuk

    A similar shock will be felt when ERII pass on.

  • just look at them, it was so long ago.

  • amazing

  • The end of an era and the dawn of a new age. Is it me or does it occur to you that Queen Victoria's death looks like it's on cue?

  • @dasmysteryman12 9-11 occurs 100 years later n new age for the world came to be, looks like thats on cue too..

  • I am sure this was a very sad day, I think this one of the most Human Monarch's there ever was.

  • Actually I do believe Malcolm is correct, this is Edwards, because I know the Kaiser was in attendance

  • There were times, there were victories, there was a greatness, there was a great and mighty state. Only one memoirs

  • I viewed quite a lot of these videos while researching for my show. While this footage shows a historic moment from the death of Queen Victoria, in episodes 10 and 11 on my own channel you can view the other side of the "learning" coin. What happens when someone is hugely ignorant to learning about this subject. Hehe.

  • everyone of those people is dead

  • i know right...kinda creepy..and sad..its how they looked then and there..they have been gone for so long..its so odd...

  • @OneTrueCanine well everyone dies. Just gotta live with it

  • @goodygoody23 that is a very scary observation but i know that feeling. There is a youtube film also from 1901, which shows cricketers and spectators at Old Trafford, and it haunts me because the thought occured to me that everyone in the film is dead. If you are interested in seeing it google Arthur Mold and Albert Hornby.

  • @JuanMacready  Not so

  • Actually that's true. William IV was the last British monarch to have any power at all.

  • @andyrick123 Juan, if you're claiming sovereigns since William IV (1830-1837) have been without ANY power - that is not so. Victoria exercised considerable powers over her governments as have successive monarchs since Victoria.

  • This footage is 109 years old. Cool.

  • @WriterGirl2307 i knw hey!

  • I can remember my great grandmother, who was 7 at the time, telling me that the funeral procession seemed to take literally hours to pass by.

  • Sorry, 1901, just had to double check.

  • Did not Queen Victorial die in 1904?

  • No ... 1901.

    Succeeded by the Prince of Wales, who became King Edward VII upon accession.

  • the gun carriage with crown top it. idiot.

  • Hey Hey

  • where is the queen ??

  • In the coffin on the gun carriage covered by a white pall (she hated black at funerals) about 7s to 14s in the running time. Apparently the cameraman had a hell of a time: when the coffin appeared the crowd went completely silent and all you could hear was the clackety-clack of a handcranked movie camera. You can just see at the end of the clip that Edward VII signals a halt so he can get a clear shot - very forward-thinking PR!

  • the dvd extras to this really explained alot

  • Is this film the one directed by Cecil M. Hepworth or is it that one distributed by the Edison Company?

  • It's off the Beeb history section, so not sure on that, sorry.

  • The first known film in existence was filmed in Leeds in 1888, it's called the Roundhay Garden Scene and it's on YouTube somewhere.

    Look it up, it's only 2s long.

  • yes they had. as you can see.

  • This film is mindblowing

  • I didn't even know that this existed.well done for posting it a fascinating piece of history.

  • The Funeral of King Edward VII of the United Kingdom occurred on Friday, 20 May 1910. It was one of the largest gatherings of European royalty ever to take place, and one of the last before World War I ended the era of European royalty.

    Check Wikipedia Edward VII of the United Kingdom Funeral

  • What has that got to do with Queen Victoria's Funeral? Edward VII is seen at the end of the clip on his horse with Kaiser Wilhelm II

  • No it wasn't not even close

  • Comment removed

  • It is not that would be King Edwards funeral in 1910

  • You'd best tell the Beeb they have it wrong then, this was from the History section of the Beeb website.

  • MALCOMINTHEMIDDLEXI

    This is definately the funeral of Queen Victoria. If you watch this film on Pathe news, the new King Edward Vii can clearly be seen riding behind his mother's coffin. Plus, I'm sure the Beeb would not have got the two funerals mixed up.

  • everyone is this is DEAD! how creepy..

  • Does anyone have some of the footage of Australia's federation up here if so can you tell me?

  • There is a great deal of free silent film available on the Internet Archive, never know, some may be on there. Just Google Internet Archive, then click on the moving images tab, then put Australia in the search block, good luck.

  • WOW!

    that was a nice piece of history but it wasn't very long...do u have a longer film?

    i'd love to see it?

  • Sorry, although I believe there is more footage, this is all I have of this.

  • no worries!

  • cool!

  • lol they have funny hats

  • My grandmother was 11 at QV's time death. 12 yrs later she will move from Wallachian Mountains in Moravia, Austria (now Czech Rep) to Texas USA. She lived to see the first airplane to the first man on the moon.

  • @Yetti0 Zdravíme americké Valachy! :-) Greetings from Czech Republic to fellow-countryman :-)

  • @Yetti0 look up Jeanne Calment died at age 122, 25 years old when this event happened, prob already had kids, 5 years old in 1880 not much to do besides sewing and riding a horse didnt even have radio yet and lived till 1996, long enough to see the early stages of internet porn and space travel and stealth technology, her longevity pwns us all my god

  • @chicseeker Will do.... My grandmother lived to see the first man on the moon... and the first plane ....There was tons to do back in those days.. no modern things.. everything was handmade or home made which kept moms very very very busy.. like my mom and grandmother.

  • Yes 122 is amazing.... my MIL just passed away at 93 and mind in tact until the end... Her last words to me were "Thank you for marrying my son" I broke into tears.

  • Adena 539 you're related to the Romanovs?

  • somethings are better left unsaid. :) i has something to do with Nicholas's cousins

  • To think that I've only just discovered Queen Victoria is a distant cousin of mine. And it's amazing to see footage of her Funeral from 107 years ago!

  • And that, ladies and gentlemen...is the end of the 19th century! this chapter is closed.

  • I Know This Is Silent And Poor Quality..But It Is Fascinating, Because It Was 107 Years Ago..A Queen And A King Ago..Its Just Amazing!

  • King George, Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas were all descendants of Queen Victoria. Talk about a screwed up family. :(

  • TSAR NICHOLAS WAS NOT SCREWED UP! he was family to me....

    and btw Tsarina Alexandra was her grand daughter nicholas married into the family.

  • Nicholas II was not a descendant of Queen Victoria. Nicholas' wife, Princess Alix of Hesse, was Queen Victoria's grand daughter. George V and Nicholas II were first cousins through their mothers. George V's mother, Queen Alexandra of Great Britain, was the elder sister of Nicolas II's mother Empress Marie. Both women were the daughters of King Christian IX of Denmark.

  • Thats basicly what i said... i think i pretty much know my family!

  • Adena539. My response was to KountdownExpress not to your post. How are you related to the Romanovs. I have done extensive genealogical info on them and all royals.

  • oh sorry... i don't want to talk about it so everyone could see it because i shouldn't even have said that... i was just a bit angry

  • Are you daffy?

  • Daffy? whos that...

    im "lady royal" (its a nick name don't ask laugh out loud)

  • Oaky smarty-pants. Who then was your great, great, great, great, great grandfathers brothers sons name.

  • he only had one child(depending on which brother you mean:

    Grand Duke Louis II of Hesse

  • Amazing isn't it how pretty much all European Royal families are related to each other. I'm only related to Queen Victoria (Blood relation) through a distant ancestor called Margaret Beauchamp, Grandmother of King Henry VII.

  • Margaret Beaufort.

  • Your right. Margaret Beaufort is my Half Great x17 Aunt.

  • Wow? Do you have drops of Tudor blood?

  • @KountdownExpress. Not so entirely. The Kaiser's mother was Queen Victoria's daughter, but Tsar Nicholas II was the son of Tsar Alexander III and Dagmar of Denmark. Dagmar, renamed Marie Fyodorovna on conversion to the Orthodox Church, was a sister of Queen Alexandra, wife of King Edward VII.

  • So is that Edward VII and Wilhelm II riding on horses at the very end?

  • Im stunt to see footage this early on youtube.

  • Trouble is, it would be just the same without the monarchy. In the USA, for every Ivy Leaguer, there are 10 times the trailer park people. That's life though, and its been so since the moment William the Conqueror fancied a day trip to Hastings.

  • The problem with the USA political spectrum is that there is only a two party system, the Republicans and Democrats, albeit minor parties such as the Green and Libertarian parties, but people would like more choices in candidates with differing views and political platforms.

  • Honsstly

  • It's a rotten shame in this day and age when a country like the United Kingdom is incapable of electing their Head of State that represents the people and is for the people. What Brits fsil to realize is that the UK Government is not their government. It belongs to an 82 year old woman named Elizabeth who is supreme and better than all of her subjects. Notice I said subjects and not citizens. And that is because they are not equal to the sovereign. There is no equality or checks and balances.

  • by electing a head of state you do not get the person every one wants you get what a slight majority wants with the monarchy she is there for the people she public property she has no political leanings ir discrpencies for the people where a politition only helps his voters and supportes a monarch helps all her people

  • The problem is in the UK though, not everyone wants The Queen. There is a movement to become a republic. I have nothing really against constitutional monarchy. It just seems such a throwback to feudalism, especially if you live in a country like Canada or Australia that has a foreigner as their unelected Head of State and not a Canadian or Australian. But the Westminster System has worked well over the years with a Prime Minister. However, The Queen still does have power to dissolve Parliament.

  • there is a movenemnt to be a republic but this has about 7 memebers and it and its thoughts are no real importance or threat when the queen had her 80th birthday parade there 15 memebrs of this movement protesting and thier reasons for a republic were rubish you compare 15 people to hundereds of thousands who were in london and the millions watching it on TV from all over the world, and its not fudel at all as she is public property we have governments of all sorts local and national

  • and thats the main thing it is a constitutional monarchy absolut monarchy would be worng but we have the right balance and she is not a foreiner when she is queen of the commonwealth realms she is a citizen of each respective nation, the queen has the power to dislove parliment but if she did without the ministers concent then there would be problems unless it was backed by the people the last time a monarch took totla controll and disloved parliment we had a civil war

  • and due to the fact that we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years and we have had so many problems and trials it means over the years we have evolved the monarchy and government into a unique system of checks and balances its not perfect but its a constanly changeing thing and we move with it

  • I would never want to Take the queen from Canada. it is our hertaige and tradition and It hasnt hurt anything.

  • We'll First off, Canada and UK and Australia are not Going about spreading this thing about freedom and how free we are. Democracy isnt true Freedom Especaily if the media Decides if the media chooses not to Publize someone then that person has no hope. And You are wrong We have a 4 party political system where we elect prime ministers.

  • To JummyPhack: The Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper is not the Canadian Head of State. He is an elected Head of Government. there is a difference.

  • Yes But the Queen is politicly Netrual. She doesn't get to Interfere In Political Arangements.

  • The Head of Government rules the nation

    The Head of State reigns the nation

    ie, Government control the country Monarch stands back, gloats with popularity and does what they are told

  • To meroyn: Yes and in Commonwealth nations there are Governor-Generals who act as Head of State on behalf of The Queen when she is in absence.

  • you mistake commonwealth nation with overseas territory. India, Canada, Australia etc are commonwealth nations and do not have British government interfering, they are independant - only islands that we directly control have a governor, eg Hong Kong (until 1997) Faulklands and Carribean islands, there aren't many left - all are sparse islands which need British economic support to sustain them.

  • To meroyn: Canada most certainly does have a Governor General by the name of Michaelle Jean. She prepresents the Queen of Canada in her absence as head of State. The same rules applie to many other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Jamaica, etc. The British Parliament does not have government powers in the Commonwealth Nations, but many of those countries retain the Westminster system of a constitutional monarchy, a Parliament, and Elizabeth II as Head of State.

  • well said

  • meroyn: yes - because she doesn't rule anyone

  • As a foreigner i dont think your qualified to judge other nations elecectoral sysstems, particualrly ones that are older then you own nation - England, despite its monarchy, has always been seen as one of the most liberal in the world - the monarch has always been accountable to the people we have never had a tyrant ruling us, to our credit. Yes the Queen dissoves parliament every year, but its custom not a prerogative as you insinuate.

  • meroyn, not sure about the tyrant bit. Henry VIII did pretty much as he liked, and executed whom he chose, ( Dickens described him as a blot of blood and grease on the pages of history) and there were plenty of other homicidal creatures occupying the throne.

  • Victorian historiography has been completely discredited, not sure if you should trust the opinion of an author either. Henry abandoned the Amicable Grant Tax and gave in to popular demand for Mary to be made heir in 1536's Pilgrimage of Grace, he could not rule without the support of the tax payers and his comprimises after 3 major rebellions show this. Yes he executed people but that was the norm, Elizabeth killed nealry 1000 in her reign but few could call her a tyrant

  • Elizabeth was a moderate, and if I recall my history, it was only after 10 years of her reign that executions took place. I really don't think she had any choice with Mary Queen of Scots...

  • in 1569 she executed 400 people after the Northern Earls Rising and in 1571 killed 200 seminary preists from Europe, she was careful never to execute anyone on religious grounds though but used treason laws. In 1585 she made words carry the death penalty for the second time in history. She didn't do much in the first 10 years because she was politically secure, she was a popular and young queen but as soon as Catholics and Puritans became agressive things changed.

  • @coralarch Different era.

  • @YogaNate79 We tried republican government once (1649-1660) it decended into a military dictatorship.

  • Cromwell was far better than any powerless monarch like Victoria.

  • I put more trust in the monarchy than the bunch of traitors and crooks we vote for. Democracy in Britain is just a sham. The whole system just preserves the two party state.

  • i would vote liberal at the next election but no-one else will so whats the point, it will be a wasted vote, besides i dont like the Liberal leader very much

  • Well don't vote for them then!!

  • Its a rotten shame in this day and age when a country thinks itself to high and mighty as to belittle another, i notice you dont attack Russia and its growing authoritarian government, or China, or Zimbabwe, but a defencless country like Britain which is unreasonably and vicously attacked for all it stood for - perhaps when Britain shall fleet upon the ocean America and other nations will relaise what they lost in the world.

  • @YogaNate79 Rubbish! We haven't been 'subjects' for years (check our passports) get your facts sorted before throwing out insults. What 'equalities' are