Talk:Monarchy (TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I started editing Monarchy wth David Starkey, when I came across this one. I copied all my edits to this one (added series information) and changed Monarchy with David Starkey to just link here. I hope that's okay.

Show's & Starkey's pro-English leanings

The show claims: the Kingdom of Great Britain (later UK) is a successor to the Kingdom of England only (what about Scotland? for example). Many other historians would question this TV series' PoV. Is it possible to point out these things here? GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you watched it? It had a whole episode on the union and why is came about. As any historian will tell you, it came about because the Scots rejected the Hanoverian succession as decided by the English parliament in 1701. Not willing to contemplate a different monarch on the Scottish throne to that of England, Queen Anne - acting purely in English interests, refused to sign the Scottish act of parliament rejecting the Hanovers for a whole year, meanwhile England imposed a trade embargo on Scotland which bankrupted the country and caused its colonial enterprise in Central America to crash disastrously, bankrupting countless wealthy individuals who had invested in it. The English then bribed Scottish MPs, lords, and other members of the ruling class with huge cash handouts - "bought and sold for English gold" (Robert Burns) - until they finally agreed to the union and, even more importantly, the Hanoverian succession. And you think that England and Scotland entered into the union on equal terms? I suggest you read a bit of history GoodDay. Or at least read Starkey before you criticise him, because he is by no means pro-monarchy or even pro-English. His episode on the Windors, broadcast last night, was particularly scathing and also rather amusing. TharkunColl (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still suspicious of Starkey, but since I've no evidence against him? I'm dea in the water. Interesting, both Acts (Settlement & Union) insured a German would ascend the British throne, keeping in mind the Geman had mostly 'Scottish' royal blood. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George I's claim to the throne - such as it was - was indeed based on his descent from James I's daughter. But, James I's claim to the English throne was based on his descent from Henry VII's daughter. You might as well argue that they were Welsh, rather than Scottish. TharkunColl (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mixture of both to be sure, as Scotland's James V had a Welsh/English mother & a Scottish father. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the English/Welsh/Scottish element became successively diluted as each Hanoverian monarch married a German spouse. This trend only ceased when Charles married Diana, who was English. TharkunColl (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana had Scottish blood too, she's decended from two of Charles II's illegitmate sons. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has Scottish blood, or Welsh, or Irish, or whatever - in varying amounts. How come, in your opinion, Diana's Scottish ancestry from 350 years ago outweighs her English ancestry ever since? Is Scottish blood some sort of dominant gene? One would certainly think so, and especially with Irish blood as well, from census results in North America. Say anything at all except English, eh? TharkunColl (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's all intertwined, with no bloodline having prominance over the other. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the English outnumber the Scots, Irish, and Welsh put together by a factor of ten then its not difficult to determine the major ancestry of North Americans, Australians, etc. They seem to latch onto any Scottish or Irish ancestor no matter how distant and proclaim themselves Scottish or Irish. Do you know what that is? That is extremely offensive, and stupid as well.TharkunColl (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, since I've no sources to back my critisms of this program (though I enjoy watching it), I'm ending my part in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series 4

Does anyone know why Series 4, on the Windsors, was cut down to just one long episode broadcast last night, rather than the usual five or six shorter ones? Had Starkey received complaints from the Palace for his portrayal of the Queen and, especially, Diana? Or was this the intention all along? Because in his introduction he certainly seemed to be hinting that he was not happy that this was going to be the final episode, "for the forseeable future" as he put it (or words to that effect). Has his reputation as the rudest man on TV finally caught up with him? TharkunColl (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happend. Until we know for certain, it's best we don't add anything on that topic to the article. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

View for Free on Netflix

I am a little miffed only Seasons 1 & 2 are available on Netflix. I even checked Amazon Instant Video and you can pay for it, but again for only the first two Seasons. It seems the only way to see the remaining Seasons is by purchasing the complete DVD set. Very disappointing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazzler22 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]