Chat Ed : Good evening everyone and welcome to our live webchat with Dr David Starkey – historian and presenter of the Monarchy series and the greatest living authority on the British royal rulers.
David Starkey : Hello, this is David Starkey here. I'll be delighted to answer any questions you've got either on tonight's show or on the whole of the current Monarchy series. I'll be particularly interested to see how far the ideas that I'm exploring - primarily the connection of religion and politics - have come across. But do feel free to ask on anything else.
ant from wolverhampt : Hi David, Brilliant show.....fantastic in fact. My question to you is.....do you see Cromwell as a hero or a villain? Do you think he deserves a statue outside the Houses of Parliament, when he treated the Irish so badly?? Thank you!
David Starkey : I would primarily see Cromwell as a hero. The issue of the Irish is a difficult one, but perhaps we should try to see it, at least in part, through his eyes. He saw the Irish as idolatrous (because they were Catholic) and as murderous rebels because they'd attacked English and Scottish settlements and murdered their inhabitants. Doubtless some today would call the latter (on the analogy of Iraq) justifiable acts of resistance against an alien occupier. But Cromwell of course didn't think like that. Instead we need to think of the sheer scale of the man's achievement. Coming from almost nothing he turned himself into arguably the greatest ruler that Britain has ever had. Certainly he is the only man ever to have conquered the whole of the British Isles and Ireland. The competition for the latter title is pretty intense, including both William the Conqueror, Julius Caesar - oh and Napoleon. Few statues have been so well deserved.
Kayosei : Who would be, in your opinion, the greatest monarch?
ethelredsmum : Who was the greatest monarch in your opinion. Who do you think achieved the most
David Starkey : I think the answer is, see above, in other words - Cromwell. That is to say Cromwell, in terms of personal achievement, probably takes the crown. Or, as I'll be pointing out in programme five, he actually gets the crown posthumously even though he rejected it during life. In terms of sheer political skill, however, the prize must go to Elizabeth - though James VI comes a distinguished second. But in terms of importance Henry VIII is the central figure not only of the 16th and 17th centuries but also of the whole one thousand year span of English history. Henry may not have been very nice but then which great leaders are!
Emerald : I have read in various places that Elizabeth was either sly and devious or that she was a woman who didn't know what she wanted, are either or both of these true?
David Starkey : Elizabeth, like most great politicians (especially when playing the weak hand of a woman) could be sly and devious. There were also moments when she didn't know what she wanted, or perhaps better realised that what she wanted was absolutely impossible and that what was on offer was totally undesirable (the problem of Mary Queen of Scots). But, when all is said and done, Elizabeth played her cards splendidly. She followed her father in deliberately seeking the middle ground in religion, which was the only way that the royal supremacy could be made to work without civil war. And despite the pressure of William and his friends she stuck to this position to the end, bequeathing James a workable, if difficult, religious settlement. James, unlike the foolish Charles I, had the wit to recognise the fact and to announce at the Hampton Court conference that he was happy to stick with religion in England as he found it.
Stephanie : was sir william cecil, in your eyes, the most influential individual to Elizabeth during her reign?
David Starkey : Yes. The relationship and the personal chemistry between Cecil and Elizabeth was unique. On the other hand, as I point out in both this week's programme and the beginning of the next, there was a significant gap in both religion and politics between them. Cecil was much more radically protestant than Elizabeth; he also saw the state as separate from and in certain circumstances superior to the monarch. Elizabeth disagreed violently both on the religion and the politics. This is what led to the disaster of Mary Queen of Scots’ execution, with which I ended this week's programme.
moogle301 : why do you think Elizabeth didn't marry?
David Starkey : The problem with Elizabeth and marriage was put brilliantly by the cleverest statesman of mid-Tudor England, William Paget, even before she had come to the throne. ‘There's nobody’, he said, ‘either at home or abroad that she could marry or would want to marry’. That might have been pitching it a bit high. Rather, the position was that anybody who was suitable, (like the King of Sweden, or at a pinch, the Archduke Charles) was personally unacceptable and anybody who was personally acceptable (Robert Dudley, or much later the Duke of Anjou) was politically impossible. Elizabeth, unlike her half-sister Mary, had the wit to realise this. Oh, the signs are that she was pretty doubtful about marriage in any case from the very beginning. She had lots of unmarried and sort-of-divorced women in her household; she also said that she would have one mistress and no master in England. Events finally justified her. But there were moments (as when she was dying of smallpox) within a few years of ascending the throne, when her unmarried childless state seemed like irresponsible folly.
FG : Is there any truth in the legend that Elizabeth had a son, Arthur, by Robert Dudley?
Gaynor : Was there a true connection between Dudley and Elizabeth?
David Starkey : No, FG.
Rachael : Would you consider giving talks at schools? (I know my history group would be very pleased if you did)
Kim : same here!
David Starkey : I do give talks in schools, but they are now rather few and far between because I am so busy. But the sensible thing is to email me with a request. If you email Channel 4 they will pass it on to me.
Said : Hi David, do you lecture anywhere?
David Starkey : Said, I still give a half series of lectures at Cambridge, where I have a nominal position as a by-fellow at Fitzwilliam College, but these lectures are, in principle, only open to Cambridge undergraduates. The easiest way of catching me is either at literary festivals - I've just done Edinburgh and Folkestone and am about to perform at Cheltenham in a fortnight - or at sixth form conferences, especially those organised by Sovereign Education. This is nothing to do with the Monarchy series and I haven't got a share holding in it!
Rachael : Does that imply I can sneak in to these Cambridge lectures?
David Starkey chuckles
David Starkey : If you are very sweet, very quiet and give me a coffee and kiss afterwards. P.S. The coffee has to be a double espresso, the kiss I'll leave up to you!
Sticks : What did you make of the Tony Robinson films where they said the line of succession was all wrong and that the true king today by the rules is an Australian guy.
David Starkey : The films were based on an ingenious but misconceived idea. Since that period an Act of Parliament has settled the succession: near legitimacy has got nothing to do with the matter (which bearing in mind Royal goings-on in our own time as well as previous ones is probably a good thing!).
pbster21 : are you a monarchist? if so, do you feel it needs major reforms to survive in the future?
metempsychosis : do you think ther will still be a place for the monarchy in say 100 years time?
David Starkey : I'm a kind of, if it's not a contradiction in terms, a rational monarchist. That's to say, I'm not sentimental about the Royal family and don't wet my knickers about every detail of their lives. But I do think that constitutional monarchies do make surprisingly effective heads of state. This isn't true of course only of Britain. All the Scandinavian countries are monarchies, so are Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain. Indeed, in the last few decades their monarchies have arguably performed better than Britain's. The reason is that they represent something. In Spain, the monarchy of Juan Carlos is the guarantor of democracy, in Scandinavia the Nordic Crowns, represent a passionate sense of small nationhood (within Denmark high-minded sort of fascist tendencies). In Belgium, of course the monarchy, in a country split down the middle between French and Flemish speakers, is the only thing that is Belgian apart from the Three C's - Catholicism, chocolate and child abuse. In Britain before the 1980s and Princess Diana, the monarchy used to have a similarly clearly defined role as the representative great British family. But that ended definitively with a car crash in a Paris underpass. Nothing so clear-cut has been put in its place. Nevertheless the Queen functions admirably as head of state and is an infinitely better option than the prospect of King Tony and the broadly grinning Queen Cherie. Indeed, it's the unpopularity of politicians of all parties that guarantees the future of the monarchy. A case, I suppose, of better the crowned devil you know.
darren : then why on earth is the next king of England not put to a public vote instead of it staying in the same bloodline every time
David Starkey : If it was a public vote the monarch would become another politician like the rest. Do you really want that?
girl_history : no!
Kumari : No way!
David Starkey : But don't get me wrong, when it comes to exercising power a ballot is the only acceptable way to choose. But the monarch isn't a power-broker but a symbol and that's rather different.
Ohajiki : What are your plans after Monarchy?
David Starkey : I've hardly begun to think because remember I've still got another half dozen programmes and three centuries to go. But I do need to re-visit Henry VIII in a very different kind of way in 2009. That's the anniversary of his ascension and when I will be publishing my major biography. But that, by definition, would require the sort of intensely biographical approach, which I deliberately avoided in this series. It might also, perish the thought, require a different broadcaster.
FG : NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It must be you!
William Cini : Blasphemy!
Elaine : Never!!! :o)
vicki : that sounds intriguing
david green : will the series be out on video or DVD?
David Starkey : David, as I understand it the series will be out on DVD and very soon. As for video, I don't know. But I do get the impression that it's nowadays regarded as a dying technology.
Chat Ed : Our half hour is now up so thanks for coming David, you were, as always, a wonderful guest.
Matt : Thanks very much!
David Starkey : This is David Starkey thanking you all for asking such an interesting and exciting series of questions. One of the pleasures of doing this kind of TV is that it's the next best thing to lecturing to a live audience. You really do have a sense of interaction and mutual involvement. Because after all, what joins us together is a shared interest in and commitment to history.
sp : Many thanks
Rachael : Thank you.
Adam : Thanks :)
Said : Thank you
Gaynor : Thanks, very interesting chat!
Lisette : Thank you
vicki : good point
metempsychosis : better than a bunch of dead monarch's eh?
David Starkey : Thank you, and as Sir David Frost would say, and goodnight.
David Starkey leaves the room
