or henry viii's love letters to anne boleyn. >> collins: the letters are certainly among the most bizarrenusual that you'd expect to find in the pope's archives. >> safer: there are 17 of them, handwritten by the king of england to the woman he would make the second of his six wives, and later have beheaded. >> adalbert roth: there's the little heart... >> safer: henry signs his name with a heart, like a smitten schoolboy. he tells of his "fervents of love", his great loneliness without her. "wishing myself," he says, "in my sweetheart's arms, whose pretty dukkys i trust shortly to kiss," "dukkys" being a term in henry's day for... well, use your imagination. what is that doing in the vatican library? >> collins: we don't know how they ended up here in the vatican. it may be that some spy, maybe one of my priestly predecessors, may have stolen these letters and brought them to rome to present in the case if a trial was made for henry's request for a divorce. >> safer: but the church refused to let henry divorce catherine of aragon so he could marry anne. he married her anyway, broke with

justice eddy may not share that view, but he was saying analyzing article viii of the convention, the concept of privacy means, and this is how the courts interpreted it, that you do not conduct a moral judgment of what is occurring in the domain of privacy. it is just off limits. you see that? >> i see that completely. it makes absolute sense. >> yes. i know of no case in strausberg or domestically that contradicts that part of the justice's reasoning. it is core to the inquiry. >> i think it is, and if i may say so, had he got that wrong, it would have been at the court of the appeals, and the fact it didn't go to the court of appeals, i think that strongly suggests that he got it right. >> well that's certainly a fair point since we know the case was not appealed. the only other point of principle that we gather from the judgment is, and this is paragraph 135 -- the point of who decides the public interest and the lordship makes it clear, and, again, this has to be right because it's the matter of the basic law that it's for the court to decide ultimately, if the cation come -- cas

and one who might have thought that for a man who closely resembles henry viii might possess a hady tou keep your collar from getting screwy? do you ever think when you're all worked up, just giving newt gingrich the business on tv just getting your collar like this or that? >> i wear what are called collar stiffeners. >> what about the tie? >> things are fairly tight here, and we keep things

henry viii's gang probably chucked them somewhere.ust a bit of, what, holy dust in there now? holy dust. ah, yes, that's good to hear. i can't begin to tell you the number of pearls that we see on the antiques roadshow, and i see an avalanche of simulated pearls. right. these pearls are natural pearls. completely natural. tell me what you know about the piece. well, the piece of jewelry used to belong to my husband's great-aunt, who lived in naples, in italy, and, um, they were made as a pair of earrings. and my mother-in-law gave them to me when i had my daughter, in 1970. when they were my husband's great-aunt's earrings, she had a bit of an adventure with them once because she lived in the apartment beneath maria pia of savoia, who was the daughter of the king of italy. right. they socialized together... ...and once when she was at a rather important ball, she saw maria pia in a pair that were very similar, and she rushed up-- well, not to the ladies, but she rushed somewhere and pulled her earrings out because she thought it was n

were as you study history and the british school and she leapfrogged hitler to henry viii to martin luther king, jr., and that's it. you're done. so you have no sense in the order in which things happened. the our host entries about which you literally see roe. that's something that scares me because it didn't seem to me that having a sense of time, knowing where we are located in the continuum of 4000 years in the history of civilization is important. the most important historical phenomena are unintelligent if they are studied and remembered in the wrong order. you have to know which order these things happened in. i frequently say as i'm talking to a young audience, tell me which order these things happened in. the renaissance, the reformation, scientific revolution, the enlightenment, french revolution, the industrial revolution, the first world war. i have just done them in the right order, but if you jumble them up and presented the average western teenager, with those things, a tiny percentage would be able to put them in the right order. because that is not the way we teach. and, o

you can study history in the british schools and leapfrog henry viii and martin luther king, jr. and that's it, you are done. so you have no sense of the order in which things happen and there are no centuries about which you've no literally zero. that that is something that scares me because it does seem to me that having a sense of time, knowing where we are located in the continuum of 4000 years of the history of civilization is important in most historical phenomena are unintelligible if they are studied and remembered in the wrong order. you have to know which order these things happened then and i frequently say if i'm talking to a relatively young audience, tell me which order these things happened in. the renaissance, the reformation, the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, the french revolution, the industrial revolution, the first world war. if you jumble them up and presented the average western teenager with those things, a tiny percent would put them in the right order. a tiny percent because that is not the way we teach history and of course we don't know the

prince rabono is a decentened of the john paul, ii viii including going to war with venus and two othery. >> they say there is an emergency and so we have to put it somewhere. that's the excuse. the reality is that rubbish, it's a big, big, big business. you make a lot, a lot of money. >> reporter: the city claims to recycle but italy's leading environmental group says 80% of rome's garbage still ends up in landfills. that lack of environmental concern has even turned an ancient center into a modern joke. everything official in rome bears the initial spqr short for [ speaking in foreign language ] the senate and people of rome. today, spqr is often translated as [ speaking in foreign language ] they are pigs, these romans. it wasn't always that way. ancient romans can clean water and carried by aqueducts that still function. this one is linked to famous roman fountains but the source is in the poor soil under the future landfill site and risks being polluted. a huge sway that farmlands will be endangered. one family productiving the finest cheese here for three generations. [ speaking i

[laughter] well, as henry viii said to one of his wives, i won't keep you long. [laughter] or as anthony said to cleopatra, i'm not here to talk, and she reportedly replied, well, i'm not prone to argue. [laughter] so let's think about that. come on, you're from ku. you're supposed to -- [laughter] you know, we get that out at k state, but anyway. /. [laughter] bob -- hold it down. [laughter] i'm just going to give some random chips off of the old russ townesly block and, rustle, just a couple of experiences. everybody else has waxed poetic and told the truth about you, so i think it's my turn. my first, my first meeting with bob dole was 1959. i was a lieutenant down at quantico in the united states marine corps, your 9/11 force in readiness ready to put cold steel on the enemy at anytime. [laughter] and at any rate, i walked in with my dad, wes, and pop leaned over to me, and he said you're going to meet the greatest potential candidate that you will ever meet. and bill katz was there, your longtime administrative assistant, and out came bob. and it was sort of

justice eddy may not share that view, but he was saying analyzing article viii of the convention, the concept of privacy means, and this is how the courts interpreted it, that you do not conduct a moral judgment of what is occurring in the domain of privacy. it is just off limits. you see that? >> i see that completely. it makes absolute sense. >> yes. i know of no case in strausberg or domestically that contradicts that part of the justice's reasoning. it is core to the inquiry. >> i think it is, and if i may say so, had he got that wrong, it would have been at the court of the appeals, and the fact it didn't go to the court of appeals, i think that strongly suggests that he got it right. >> well that's certainly a fair point since we know the case was not appealed. the only other point of principle that we gather from the judgment is, and this is paragraph 135 -- the point of who decides the public interest and the lordship makes it clear, and, again, this has to be right because it's the matter of the basic law that it's for the court to decide ultimately, if the cation come -- cas