Chat Ed : In a major television event, the greatest living authority on the subject, Dr David Starkey, presents a complete history of the British Monarchy. Over 20 episodes in four series, he tells the epic and bloody stories of our great Kings and Queens and charts the course of the oldest surviving political institution in Europe. Dr Starkey's perspective is controversial, well informed and very personal; he sees the story of our Monarchy as a crucial and sometimes violent dialogue between the people and the monarch, through which the very nature of our society was forged. The Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest are perhaps the most memorable events in English history. In this episode Dr Starkey followed the fortunes of the English and Normans alike as the direction of English kingship takes a radical new turn. From the devastation of the initial Norman conquest, through the intrigues and murder of King William II, to the civil war in the reign of King Stephen, "when God and his angels slept", Dr Starkey illuminated the experience of a turbulent time which changed the course of English history. And he joins us now to discuss the issues further…
David Starkey : Hello, David Starkey here. I'm pleased you have all been watching the programme. What I have tried to do is to use the history of the monarchs of England to introduce the history of England itself, but I'm happy to take questions on either the individuals or the broader themes.
nick : what was the idea in spreading the series out over so long a period?
Cinders : hullo David
Munt : Aye, four years?
David Starkey : This kind of television is immensely time-intensive. To make a single programme that you have just seen takes several months of my time, several weeks of two researchers' time and up to the three months of the director's time. In other words the only way that we can keep up the broad flow of the series is to spread it out. Otherwise I would have had to have started making it in 1995 and not broadcast it until 2002!
Callum : I might be dead in 4 years - i can’t wait - it’s so good i want it all now!
David Starkey chuckles at Callum
David Starkey : How old are you? I had the same email from a chap whose 80-year-old mother who was protesting that she would be dead before it was finished!
Callum : 29
David Starkey laughs, ok!
Michael Haseler : Was Matilda rejected as Monarch because she was a woman?
jimlad : what became of matilda?
David Starkey : Matilda was rejected as 'King' of England because she was a woman. However her son, Henry II became King of England and all subsequent monarchs descend from him.
Claire : Has David heard the story of what happened to Stephen's body at the Dissolution?
sweehoon : Claire, what did happen to Stephen's body?
David Starkey : The short answer is no, but most bodies were dug up and thrown on the dung heap, but I'd love to hear it....
Claire : The king's body was thrown into Faversham C reek, where it was rescued by local fishermen and buried in the parish church shown just now on the programme
David Starkey : Thank you, what a pity we can't do a re-take to include it!
Niffer : Dr Starkey, which English monarch do you believe has received the worst press?
David Starkey : Well that has to be King John but on the whole I think he deserved it.
Lousey of York : Richard III, easily! :)
David Starkey : Whereas with Charles I, who was hated by contemporaries, the fact that he was executed meant that people became very sentimental about him, both at the time and subsequently. However with John because he was neither dethroned nor executed there is simply the sense of raw political failure.
anthony hocking : It has to be Richard III, Thomas Moore’s history of the of the wars of the roses is pure Tudor propaganda
David Starkey : Anthony - Thomas Moore is not Tudor propaganda. Thomas Moore is one of the few men who thought it necessary to invent a new form of torture in the 16th century, but he is not a Tudor propagandist. He writes his history of Richard III to illustrate why the history of England cannot be a source for an ideal politics. Nevertheless, despite this, every single principal assertion of Moore's about Richard III can be documented from contemporary, or near contemporary sources. It is merely modern sentimentality that turned Richard into a hero. After all, if it hadn't been for Richard's stupidity the Tudor's would never have had a look in.
wiins : If Anglo Saxon England was so well organized and administered, why was there not a more organised resistance to William?
John Amans : Why could the old Anglo saxons and their potential allies like the Danes never mount a serious challenge to the Normans in England?
David Starkey : The resistance to William was intensely organised, after all you have to remember that Harold marched north to Yorkshire to see off one invasion and then had to march south to Sussex to deal with William. The result was that after Harold's death William stepped into a virtual power vacuum. Nevertheless the Anglo-Saxon structures of local government, central administration and the coinage continued and remained the basis of the Norman administration of England. The Doomsday Book for example was produced by Anglo-Saxon administrators and based on the Anglo-Saxon structure of local government. By the time of William's youngest son, Henry I, the Normans were so eager to identify themselves with England that Henry married a princess of Anglo-Saxon royal descent.
Richard Allan : Without the Norman Conquest, what would have happened to England? Incorporated into the Scandinavian world?
David Starkey : One possibility would have been that yes... On the other hand Edward the Confessor's England was perfectly able to stand by itself. There would have been continuing Norman influence on architecture, fashion and the organisation of the Church, but the language would have remained essentially German.
Llewellyn : What are the Anglo Saxon Chronicles anyway, and how can we rely on them ?
Jon London : How much of what we know of this era of history derives only from the doomsday book and the Anglo-Saxon chronicles??
Stythe : Hello. I am interested in how you would recommend I go about assessing the truth of historians?
David Starkey : The Anglo-Saxon chronicles are a series of records contemporary from the late 9th century that were kept in a series of monasteries like Canterbury and Peterborough. The various versions of the chronicle have a lot in common but they also reflect the specific interests of the compilers, their religious houses and the localities where they were produced. Everything however suggests that they are accurate, well informed and reliable. Certainly, in contrast with most later medieval monastic chronicles, the authors seem to be rational and politically aware. The result is, for example, that the reign of Ethelred the Unready late 10th, early 11th century, is the best documented so far in English history and one of the best documented in early European history also. Doomsday is obviously very important but it doesn't tell us directly about politics. As far as the period before the Norman Conquest is concerned it gives us information only about who held what land in 1066.
England Expects : Mr Starkey, when did the English language we know come into existence?
Valerie Bowker : Do we know when the English language was first used at court
David Starkey : The English language really only came into existence in the late 14th, early 15th century. You can see most of it there by the time of Chaucer who wrote under Richard II, but the kind of fluency that we are used to only appeared a hundred or so years later in the late 15th and early 16th century. But there is nothing very surprising about this because for most of the Middle Ages the vernacular languages, like English, were not used for sophisticated purposes or intellectual debate. What is striking however is that Anglo-Saxon is so used from the reign of Alfred until the Norman Conquest. This is one of the reasons why historians talk of Anglo-Saxon England as the first nation state.
Chairman Al : David, why have the monarchy lasted so long?
Cinders : David - what do you think a monarchy brings to Britain
David Starkey : I think it has lasted so long, basically because it has worked. As the series tries to argue, even bad kings have served their purpose. They have led to the kind of limitations on royal government that mean that England pioneered the idea of limited government, responsible government and guaranteed rights for the individual's life, liberty and property. These battles have all been won against the monarchy, the real problem now is that in the absence of a written constitution we have a Prime Minister and a government who threaten all these freedoms. Blair is now as much a threat as King John or Charles ever was, the only defences we have against him are Queen Elizabeth - we need something stronger. Nevertheless imagine what it would be like with a President Blair without a monarchy?
barcamaximus : well said david
Cinders : David - do you think there will ever be a king called Dave
David Starkey chuckles at Cinders - I've not applied for the job!
Claire : Do you mean in the way that Magna Carta limited King John's power?
David Starkey : Yes I do Claire. But what we need is limitations on the power of our government that are up to date. The Magna Carta worked very well in the 13th century and for about three centuries after that. Then we needed a new set of limits. It's time we recognised the same. What needs limiting now though is the Prime Minister, not the monarchy. We could simply copy the American constitution, which means that Bush has a far harder problem in getting his way than Blair. It's not perfect but at least it would be a start.
adam smith : Dr Starkey, when can we expect to see you on Question Time again, harrying those awful modern politicians?
David Starkey laughs at adam, well when I'm next invited! P.S. I won't travel too far from London - it's too much effort! On the other hand I'm in conversation with Channel 4 about doing a series of history-based current affairs shows in the run up to the next general election - whenever that is.
joanna : what single decision made by any king or queen do u think has had the biggest impact on Britain today?
David Starkey : I'm always a little hesitant about talking about Britain because it's such a diffuse and awkward idea but I think there are two: Henry VIII's decision to break the throne - that shapes the whole of our history and turns us from one of the loyalist Catholic countries into an eventually rabid Protestant one. And secondly, very important and much less noticed, is the decision that William IV in 1832 made to subordinate his own personal preferences which were high Tory and accept the 'liberal' format. If it hadn't have been for that the English monarchy would probably have gone the way of the French.
Callum : There is only one true historian and that is Dr David Starkey - He's sincerely the BEST!
Claire : Thank you very much for a brilliant programme, I'm really looking forward to watching the whole series
David Starkey : Thank you Callum but a good historian depends on a good audience ;)
Kev Hone : I guess in the next part Richard I 'the lionheart' will be covered. England’s most over rated King?
David Starkey : Kev - I agree on the being over-rated! If I remember correctly Richard gets a single line which says that he spent six months in England and did almost nothing.
Yan : Best of luck. David. Great Series!
Rik : Have you ever played Medieval Total War, its great fun?
David Starkey laughs
David Starkey : I prefer to be an observer rather than a participant! P.S I've worn leather but never chain mail!
lyralice : what would yo u do if you were made King tomorrow?
David Starkey : lyra - I would sack Blair! And then have a vote on a new constitution. What a terrific section of questions... I've tried to answer them all fairly but if we haven't been able to get round to your question or the answer has been a bit rushed please understand the shortage of time and please watch next week!
Chairman Al : good prog, very informative and unbiased (so far)
joanna : thanx for the chat ur very accessible and do wonders for the study of history in this country
lisa : i am just looking forward to when you get to Henry VIII!
Janine : Many thanks for sharing your extensive knowledge Mr Starkey
England Expects : Mr Starkey, you're too modest, you are a great historian and very inspiring
TSH : Thanks Dr Dave!
sweehoon : thanks dr starkey - twas wonderful!
anthony hocking : thank you david it was a pleasure arguing with you
Ted : Thanks
David Starkey : Thanks everyone, bye for now.
Jon London : thanks
Ben West : goodbye
David Starkey leaves the room.
