I've never before heard the two theories cited about why Elizabeth refused to marry. Neither of those theories mentioned that she was disinherited and declared bastard by her father at least once while she was a child, during which she also saw her mother *beheaded* by her father after she was absurdly accused of having sex with, quite literally, everyone. To omit mention of her mother's sham trial and beheading as motivation for shunning marriage is simply gobsmacking. From her childhood she witnessed men trading women into marriage as cattle, with girls as young as 12 being married off to men decades older who'd they never before met. From her childhood, she witnessed her father twice declare her sister Mary a bastard while exiling Queen Catherine into abject isolation and poverty. The horrors she personally endured and witnessed of other women did not begin when her sister Mary became Queen, then abandoned by her consort Philip of Spain when she could not produce a child. She was privy to and the victim of this outrageous barbaric treatment herself from childhood. Regarding the theory about a sexual problem scaring her away from marriage, this is the first I've heard of this as well. She was not raped by Seymour and when he was beheaded years later, it had zero to do with Elizabeth's teenage encounters with him. He was executed for gross treason against the king of that time. The lecture also says Elizabeth never would countenance discussion of marriage, and again this is news to me. Her councilors nagged her constantly about needing to marry. Her councilors invited a half-dozen princes to England to court Elizabeth. She played along just to shut up Lord Burghley in particular, never committing to any one man they paraded in front of her but charming them all just the same. Her ultimate declaration of being married to England as the Virgin Queen was a brilliant move to once and for all get these men to stop hounding her about submitting her power and self-determination to a husband, which was standard operating procedure in those days.

Before my grandfather died in early 2008 I got him the King James Version of the Bible for what would sadly be his last birthday in 2007, and very recently I found out he shared the same birthday with King James I/VI: June 19. It was like it was meant to be even though my grandfather was Lutheran and James Stuart was Anglican.

You made a point of mentioning Lord Darnley as the progenitor of the Stuart dynasty. However the Stewart(Stuart) family had long been reigning in Scotland before James VI. In fact Mary was born a Stuart and married her relative Lord Darnley (Henry Stuart). I know it's "too fine a point", but I just thought I would clear that up.

6:04 - this is not quite true: Darnley was a member of the clan Stuart (or Stewart), but he was *not* the founder of the Stuart royal house. Mary was also a Stewart by birth, as were the kings of Scotland that preceded her.

After knowing modern day Puritans, reading Puritans (& Knox), studying your lectures, reading a 19th century Protestant trace the movement of dissenters through the ages, the Orthodox Fathers & hearing Cathar messages on KZfaq, I'm getting a feeling that there is a Gnostic, anti-physical element to Puritanism. That's really bad, if true. It's almost like the iconoclast idea that concerned St John damascene. We insist on Liturgy, "smells & bells", icons & crosses because Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. It seems to this Catholic that the Puritans were creating a liturgy devoid of the flesh, approaching a denial of God sanctifying flesh. In overthrowing the ancient paths, they replaced them with...their own ideas.

Excellent handling of a complex subject. Beautifully succinct.

Great video. Super clear. I'm studying English History from the Stuart age onwards and this was quite a summary of James I. Thanks.

The suppression, illegalization, and persecution of Catholicism should be mentioned alongside the "gunpowder plot." I realize that in light of those times "persecution" might not be the best word, but "it is what it is." I also think the colonisation and suppression of the Irish people might be a bit overlooked during the "Stuart England." Not trying to be overly critical though, I love these lectures. Thanks for putting them up.

Fantastic work. Thank you, Ryan, for putting this together.

Stuart England! Went to school with him. Wait til I tell him there's a youtube documentary on him. I already know what he'll say - "did they mention the newts I put in Miss Gatwick's desk?".

Thank you for posting this lecture.

The Puritans, like Calvin were over the top micromanagers. BTW, Ryan I like your prsentations.

thank u for sharing that

You say (@22:20) that James I wrote "The Book of Sports"; yet the title page says "as set forth by Charles I." Which king wrote the book?

Great Lecture as always. However being a typical half-Scottish male I was wondering if your picture of Christopher Lambert was an inside joke.

interesting because the 1611 king james Bible was barley being published as well

Chuckles included.

the Stuart monarchs ,from James I onwards ,were less successful than the Tudors ....

It seems that Mr Reeves excellent lectures are completely devoid of any mention of my people. As if we never existed in Europe . Very odd.שלום