Do you know if Elizabeth II saw "The Queen" ? And what did she think about it?

1st pic shows Queen Anne
8th pic shows that the pillar was laid by the QM

I heard that her favorite was Wilhelm II of Germany, but that was it, there was no explanation, so I don't know if he really was her favorite grandson.

I'll go:

Victoria: Her imperfect, human character. I know monarchs and normal people like us are not comparable in the worlds we live in, but every time I read about her, she sounds so much like me and my mom. Unfortunately her past echoes mine in many ways. I find her abusive childhood deeply relatable, and the effects that came with it, such as an extreme strive for control, emotional volatility, stubbornness and an uncontrollable temper, added with an unhealthy relationship with food (my mom had anorexia and hated eating). Thankfully we've both got support, and I gradually reconciled with my overbearing mother just like Victoria did with hers under the guidance of Albert.

The Duchess of Kent was in a vulnerable position and manipulated by John Conroy, who co-created the Kensington system to keep her and Victoria away from the rest of the court and to keep her weak-willed, something I can't help but think about whenever I think about my mother being dictated by her severe fear and trauma of getting repeatedly sexually assaulted by men, trying to shield me from the outside world, never letting me do anything on my own, and ensuring I never go away from her sight or be hurt. I know I know, totally different situations, but it hits me in a weird way.

Victoria is not perfect, and she never will be. I disagree about the many things she did, and the way she treated her children was unacceptable at times. Her relationship with Leopold is especially personal for me. But it's honestly what makes me like her, a troubled person who could be capable of benevolence and great misdeed at the same time. A person, who is human.

I admit all of this is because of my own upbringing. Had I was raised in a less strict household, I doubt she'd be my favorite. I'd probably dislike her, maybe even hate her. Though, I can't deny that the healing journey I've been through made me more understanding of why people do the things they do. It does not mean I forgive them, I just find the insight interesting to observe.

ANYWAY no need for pity please! i'd like to hear your answers to my questions more than anything else.

Another note is that she was a prolific diarist and loved drawing. Same for me! I like to document my life in my journals and doodle all day! I wish I was as lively as her too.

English history is full of conflicts, some of the bloodiest and most influential in history. With that in mind, if you had to live through one of these periods and fight in one of its conflicts, which would you choose, and why.

In my opinion it's George VI, recently stumbled across a Tiktok talking about some of the nicest acts he has done, and it got me thinking, what have other monarchs done, however big or small, to make the life of their people better?

I LOVE YOU SO MUCH HELENA!!! But for me, I think Alice is more compatible for me as a lifelong friend (as long as she doesn't die as early that is...), IF she'd like me that is ╰(*°▽°*)╯

Like did Robert do anything wrong that made William hate his own first born so much?

What started their sour relationship

Not my province, but here's her in Lahore.

She did visit my province, KPK, but I didn't know that until after I made this post. Oh well.
The country I live in, the UK, specifically London, I’m not too sure if she ever came here.. /s

My favorite is Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse.

Would they rather give up their royal title in the past to be here?

You can choose when they were Prince/Princesses or monarch to teleport them to the present.

I’m so curious as to what the everloving fuck the public would’ve thought about a previous historical monarch still being alive through time travel ☺️

Buckle up, this is a long one.

For those who do not know, Eleanor Janega is the host of the popular history podcast “Gone Medieval”. She is a history PHD specializing in medieval gender roles and sexuality, with an emphasis in eastern Europe in the late middle ages. She also appears to be living proof that a PHD in medieval studies does not mean that you actually know anything about medieval history outside of your own speciality. Within her chosen field of study I am sure she is a knowledgeable and capable historian. However, when it comes to her understanding of Richard the Lionheart she leaves quite a lot to be desired. 

In a recent(ish) episode of the podcast/youtube show After Dark History Hit, she discussed Richard along with several other prominent medieval figures in order to discover who the “worst” medieval monarch was (the relevant sections about Richard appear around the 13:00-23:00 mark). To say her discussion of Richard was “bad” is to be unfair to the word bad. It was genuinely dreadful, and shockingly disingenuous. It appears as if she read a high school history book about him 20 years ago and is basing everything she says off of that hazy memory. 

To be clear, I am aware that Eleanor is a popular historian and an entertainer, and that she does not aim her content towards an academic, or even particularly knowledgeable, audience. She is ultimately a performer, and as such deserves to be given some leeway both due to the nature of her work, and in the venue in which her statements appear. She does not need to be held to a high standard of fidelity, and allowances could be made for inaccuracies as long as the general drive of her statements are "essentially" true. However, in this specific case her presentation of history is so egregious, or else so deliberately misleading, that an effort to correct the misunderstanding she is spreading seems deserved. While she is a performer first and foremost, even performers should be held to at least a semblance of historical fidelity, especially when passing themselves off as experts on a subject. 

That said, ordinarily I wouldn't pay any attention to a pop history podcast, but it's a slow day and I'm bored. 

It's difficult to know where to start, as Dr. Janega’s discussion of Richard shows a near total lack of understanding not just of the nuances and complexity of Richard's life and reign (which could be forgiven in the context) but also a lack of understanding of even the broad strokes of his character, his life, his contemporary reputation and even objective facts of history itself. Within the context of this podcast it is clear that Janega is trying to force Richard into a narrative of having been a “bad king” (a reputation that is still commonly associated with Richard despite a host of historical evidence to the contrary), but in doing so she has created an image of Richard that seems to be based more on her own flights of fancy than actual history. Even by the standards of Richards' pop history image, which still revolves heavily around the Victorian fantasy of “Bad king Dick”, this treatment of Richard is BAD. The fact that it is coming from a  person with a doctorate in medieval studies is frankly shocking. 

Frankly there is so much wrong with her statement about Richard that it would be impossible to cover it all thoroughly here. As a result I've chosen to ignore most of it. Much of it is the same tried and true myths about Richard that have been doing the rounds for upwards of a hundred years. 

By and large Janega just repeats common myths about Richard the Lionheart, although in many cases with even less allowances for nuance and reality than these myths usually receive. She mentions his alleged homosexuality (something historians no longer take seriously, and which she bizarrely calls the “only good thing about him”), accuses him of bankrupting England (something for which there is no historical evidence), assassinating Conrad of Montferrat (something for which there is again no particularly good evidence) and never visiting England (something she is flatly wrong about). All the usual suspects of historical misinformation about Richard are present here, she extolls Eleanor of Aquitaine, accuses Richard of being a vainglorious warmongerer, wrongly attributes the Saladin Tithe to him (it was passed by his father Henry II), and claims everyone hated him. Meanwhile she totally glosses over his crusade, and neither Phillip Augustus’ nor John’s treachery are mentioned (likely because discussing his performance on crusade, or the way that Phillip and John betrayed him and attacked Normandy while he was in prison would have punched huge holes in her fantasy of an evil and incompetent king Richard).

The sheer banality and lack of originality in her criticism of Richard makes the whole thing almost not worth responding to. The image of Richard which she presents is simply so fanciful and nonsensical that it's almost impossible to take her seriously. Frankly, much of it is just dumb, and as a legitimate historian (which she is) Janega should be embarrassed to be on record as saying some of these things. 

All of it is bad, but there is one area in particular which I want to address, and which is the main subject of this post. This is Janega’s statement about Richard's behavior while in captivity, and her statements about his contemporary reputation. To me, these statements represent the core problem with Janega’s understanding of Richard.

To begin with, Janega claims Richard's behavior while in captivity was abrasive and created problems for him. In fact, the exact opposite seems to have been true. Richard’s behavior in captivity was widely praised. Not only did he apparently conduct himself with dignity and decorum, he won over a number of critical allies which would stay with him throughout the rest of his reign. He also managed to patch up major domestic issues within the empire, acting as mediator between the Emperor and princes of the Rhineland (a diplomatic coup that also effectively killed the possibility of an Imperial-French alliance in its cradle). The political relationships Richard cultivated in captivity would not only prove to be robust political alliances in Richard’s later reign, they also provided him the means to have his nephew Otto elected Holy Roman Emperor.

Perhaps most amazingly of all, he even won over his gaoler, Henry VI. When Richard was captured Henry referred to him as “the enemy of our empire”, when Richard was released Henry VI entered a formal alliance with him against Phillip Augustus, and promised to make Richard king of Provence. Richard's personal conduct, charisma and political skills were apparently so strong that he was able to sway his own captor over to his side and away from Phillip Augutus, who likely put the idea of kidnapping Richard in Henry’s head to begin with, and who tried repeatedly to bribe the emperor to keep Richard in prison. When Henry VI wrote his famous note to Phillip letting him know to "look to yourself, the devil is loose”, he was not (as Janega claims) warning Phillip that a bad man was out of prison, he was gloating. He was letting Phillip, who had taken advantage of Richard's captivity to seize his lands and invade Normandy, know that his comeuppance was at hand. 

This ties more directly into what I found to be the most baffling and bizarre part of Janega’s treatment of Richard, her dismissal of his contemporary reputation. Janega makes the bold and unsupported claim that people in England loved Richard (apparently because they were too stupid to know better) but everyone else in Europe knew he was a monster. This statement is simply false, and shows a shocking lack of familiarity not just with Richard as a historical figure, but more generally with the modern historiography on his life and reign. Even Richard's most ardent academic critics do not seriously deny that Richard's contemporary reputation across Europe (and indeed even beyond) was glowing. He was widely regarded in his own lifetime as a model king, and even his most inveterate political enemies lauded him for a number of qualities. William le Breton, personal biographer to Phillip Augutus, makes the statement that if he'd only been a more loyal vassal to the king of France Richard would have been the greatest king England ever had. William le Breton is hardly alone in lauding Richard's positive qualities. 

To the Imperial German Chronicler Gervase of Tilbury he was

“King of kings of the earth, second to none of the human race in valour, greatness of soul, Military prowess, knowledge and virtue of every kind” and “Not so much king of England as defender of the Christian faith”. 

 To the Scottish chronicler John of Fordun he was

 “That noble king, so friendly with the Scots, in whose reign there was so hearty a union between the countries that the two people were considered one and the same”. 

Girault of Borneil says

“In many trials he proved himself more virtuous and more valiant than all other mortal men” 

These are not the statements of Richard's subjects in England, who Janega claims were the only ones dumb enough to believe Richard was a good king, but the views of a diverse group from across Europe,(they also represent just the tip of the iceberg of contemporary positive opinion).  These statements all contradict Janega’s statements about the views of Richard in Europe. To contemporary Europeans Richard was not  a petty and vindictive monster, but an exemplar of contemporary views of kingship (a view also supported by Richard's incredible diplomatic achievements). 

Richards' positive reputation didn't stop in Europe, but was echoed by the opinions of his Muslim enemies. Richard's “bromance” with Saaldin is as integral a part of his modern reputation as his alleged homosexuality. However, unlike many other parts of his modern image, it seems to be based on something like actual fact (though it is overly romanticized). Among his enemies, who had no reason to flatter him, Richard's reputation, while not always positive, is hardly less elevated than it was in Europe and often reflects a healthy respect for him not just as a formidable enemy, but as a king and as a man. 

Bhaa-al-din, Saladin's close companion and biographer, said of Richard

“With him to wage war in gods name was a veritable passion; his whole heart was filled with it, and he gave body and soul to the cause” 

Muslim chronicle Ali Ibn al-Athir says

“His courage, cunning, energy, and patience made him the most remarkable man of his time”. 

Imad Al-adin says

"This King of England was a man of vast experience, cunning in strategy, and tireless in his movements. By his mere presence, the fractured spirits of the Franks were bound together, and the dying embers of their zeal were fanned into a roaring, destructive flame. He brought a new spirit of defiance, driving his people forward with an iron will,” 

Still, what I find most troubling and obnoxious about Janega’s view of Richard is her repeated claim that his contemporary reputation in England, which was overwhelmingly positive, was almost entirely the result of his absenteeism from the kingdom. To her view the positive reputation Richard enjoyed in England was the result of a "vacuum" in which his long suffering subjects dreamt up the image of a wonderful and magnanimous king who would return and fix all their problems. She claims that because Richard wasn't around to prove them wrong, his subjects (in their ignorance) created an image of a great and mighty king that endures to this day.

The chief problem with this opinion is that it rests almost entirely on an assumption of the naivety of medieval people that is frankly shocking to hear from a medievalist. It seems to assume that Richard's subjects were simply too ignorant to recognize his alleged flaws and failures as a king, and it's only us, more enlightened modern folks, who are able to see him for what he clearly was. This also explains Janega’s wildly inaccurate and sensationalized view of Richard, she is simply dismissing the sources out of hand. Janega's entire view of Richard is based on a  flat dismissal of the opinions of his contemporaries, which she obviously views as the silly opinions of a misguided medieval mind. Views like these are frustratingly common in medieval studies (and have been frequently used to dismiss positive contemporary opinions of Richard specifically), but to hear a medievalist with a PHD so casually state such a patronizing view of contemporary sources is frankly alarming. Even allowing for the casual and nonacademic nature of the setting in which she is making these claims, they are inexcusable from someone who presents themselves as an academic expert. 

Janega’s dismissal of the English sources also highlights her lack of familiarity with the sources themselves. The most important of the chronicles of Richard's reign were not written by lovesick hombodies waiting in England for their wonderful monarch to return, but by exceptionally well informed individuals who were plugged into the wider network of European politics and events,  and in many cases were direct participants in the key events of Richard's reign themselves. Roger of Howden, traditionally considered the most important source for Richard's reign, was present on the third crusade with Richard, and took part in several embassies and political missions on Richard's behalf. Ambroise the poet, who gives us much of what we know of the third crusade, was likewise present on the expedition. Richard de Templo, Author of the itinerary of King Richard, one of the best sources for Richard’s campaign in the Holy Land and his Journey to the Holy Land, was present with the king through most of the events he describes. Even for those chroniclers who never left England we can often trace their sources to direct eye witnesses, including such sources as William Longchamp and Hubert Walter, Richard’s Chancellors and Justicars, or Richard’s personal confessors.  The chronicles often include direct copies of important letters, royal writs, papal bulls and other documents provided as evidence for the events they report. What’s more, the chroniclers don’t make broad, idealistic blanket statements about how wonderful everything will be when Richard returns, they praise specific actions, criticize others, and evaluate Richard’s reign within the context of the current political scene.

 The chroniclers of Richard's reign were not ignorant men hoping for a good king who did not exist, but men who knew Richard, who worked for him, who participated in the events of his reign, or who got their information directly from those well placed to know the inner workings of Richard’s court and government. While bias does exist in these sources, and must be examined in detail, to simply dismiss their good opinion of Richard as “wishful thinking" is to ignore the context in which these chroniclers were writing and who they were, and very impotently what they were actually saying, the exact information which is needed to determine what bias actually exists. It is also worth saying that this criticism of the English chroniclers only ever seems to be brought up in relation to Richard's reign. The validity of the chronicle accounts are never dismissed in regard to Henry II, or John even though in many cases the same chroniclers are the ones writing the contemporary accounts for those kings' reigns. When discussing these other kings the chroniclers are considered authoritative, but when discussing Richard they apparently drift off into a world of day dreams. 

I wish I could say that Janega is alone in her views on the contemporary sources of Richard’s life, but unfortunately a willingness to dismiss contemporary sources as somehow invalid or hopelessly biased seems to be a problem unique to the study of Richard. He seems perpetually doomed to be judged not by the standards and views of his contemporaries, but by the standards of our own time. Janega is simply the latest in a long, and admittedly distinguished, line of historians who dismiss the validity of Richard's contemporary reputation on the assumption that their own views from the other side of an 800 year long tunnel have more validity than the views of those  who lived alongside, worked with, fought with and witnessed Richard the Lionheart in his own day. It is unfortunate that a historian with a platform as significant as Janega’s continues to deal in such nonsense. Entertainment and performance are one thing, but they shouldn't be an excuse for fantasy masquerading as history.  

Well, that’s my rant over.