Hello everyone! We've launched some new merchandise based on some of history's greatest scientists. Please support us by heading over to our store page and using promo code 16QES79P3X for 5% off. the-people-profiles-store-3.creator-spring.com
@@svensebastian2712 There was an interesting paper written a while back called the rebel ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II . Its about the Lyon side of the family that broke with support of the Stuart kings . Looks like I come from a long line of hell raisers , I also have an ancestor that was with Washington at Trenton during the war of independence. Same sir name . Another grandfather . Thank you for your kind words
Cromwell for awhile during the English civil war was living at Glamis castle so they say in Scotland , which has been the ancestral home of the Lyon family since the 14th century . My ancestor John Lyon married Robert Bruce's granddaughter . QE2 mother was born there .Her name was Elizabeth Bowes Lyon . Thats the connection
@@Grock66 Historical records both in Scotland , England and in the US. Because of the connection to the royal family lots of research has been done . I can’t take any credit for any of it .Most of it was all recorded centuries ago. Interesting to learn about the family that came before us and were there when history was being made .
Thank you for an Amazing program. I enjoyed your narrative n the way you explain things (wish you were my teacher at high school) . N thank you for saying " I hope you enjoyed the program " n I did.... You gave me a lift n smile
Thank you for a brilliant synopsis of King Charles I reign History has fragility Where would England be now if Charles I agreed to compromise with Parliament? Where would Europe be today? How different is Charles I from John of 300 years prior? English royalty is fascinating on so many levels, as it has survived till this day
Charles loved his time in newcastle lol he was enjoying his golf break in a fortified city so much he gave my city its motto -Fortiter Defendit Triumphans (Triumphing by Brave Defence . ❤🖤 ⚪
A superb pair of documentaries presenting this complex period of history, which I never had a chance to study at school. It is hard to get your head round Cromwell's level of religious zeal nearly 400 years after these events. It's almost is if he took pleasure in killing his opponents. It is a shame that some sort of compromise could not have been reached between Cromwell and the defeated King and the Royalists. Thanks for posting these fascinating history programmes.
Cromwell also banished thousands of Irish as, the first, slaves on the plantations in the Caribbean. The English will say that the Irish weren't slaves but were indentured servants and had signed contracts. The contracts have never been found.
Charles the second may have promised not to take vengence on those who killed his father, but many of those who signed his father's death warrant were hanged, drawn and quartered.
James VI of Scotland did not become James I of England, Scotland and Ireland. He remained King James VI of Scotland for his entire reign until his death, though he liked to style himself "James, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland".
My Ancestor Hugh De Hynton and John Hynton we’re close friends with George Villaries and also John I believe was the physician for Charles 2 pre exile.
The Virginia colony declared their loyalty to the king and offered him a crown which he turned down. Their loyalty however, put them in good stead when Charles II came into his own again. Ironic.
Well considering some of the basic principles of English common law that we hold dear came from the commonwealth its often overlooked just how much we owe to them...like the right to remain silent, the fact that kings are not divinely appointed and the principle that no one is above the law. And much of the principles that the founding fathers held dear came from Locke who based a lot of his whig philosophy on the state that cromwell, fairfax et al espoused.
@@AJCavalier I understand your point. However my understanding is that even after Magna Carta the idea of kings being divinely appointed and above the law was still widely accepted. If you read the defence that Charles I offered when he deigned to speak, it was all about the court having no validity as he was above such considerations. Unless i am incorrect that trial was the first time such a principle...i.e. even the monarch being subject to the law of the land was tested in the coursts?
@@colingradwell1939 the only two monarchs who really bought into the idea of divine right, and that used it as an argument, were Charles and James I. My point is, the rule of law, at that time, was an old idea, divine right was not.
I don't come away from this thinking all that highly of either man. Charles I seems to have thought that he could do whatever he wanted, because God put him in his position, leading him to do a bunch of stupid stuff. It sounds like he wasn't anywhere near as bad as someone like Richard II (who also thought that he could do pretty much whatever he wanted, because God made him king), but there isn't a lot good to say about him either - at least not based on this video. Oliver Cromwell, on the other hand, seems to have been a religious zealot who thought that it was okay to punish and kill those who didn't agree with his religious views, leading him to do plenty of terrible stuff too - and arguably worse than Charles I. That being said, it sounds like he was at least trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, he had some screwed up ideas about what the "right thing" was. Obviously, ultimately, we can't really judge them properly, because we don't fully understand them or their circumstances (that will have to be left up to God), so I don't want to be too harsh towards them, but I really can't think particularly positively about them based on what I do know either.
I would say that they were both religious zealots who allowed their faith's to dictate their actions, and history has not been kind to either of them. Trying to impose your religious beliefs, (or lack of them) onto others is always going to be a recipe for disaster.
What Cromwell's armies did in Ireland is not 'open to debate'. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands of the Irish, men, women and children. Castles and towns that resisted his armies were promised safety if they surrendered but were slaughtered as soon as they did so. The only 'debate' comes from the English denying the atrocities, as they have always done throughout history, right up to the 1920s and Bloody Sunday in 1972.
Studying the amazing size of the medical armies, it surprises me that there were enough citizens left to function in the countries. IF YOU TAKE THOUSANDS OF LOCALS TO FIGHT IN THESE CIVIL CONFLICTS, the populations would be constantly left with a shortage of farmers and craftspeople
This all points to the divisive power of religion and politics. How people can be united against what they see as a common enemy but once removed yhe in squabbling begins. Yhis proves man's inability to rule himself despite the good intention.
14:15 you say that like they’ve come up with adequate medical treatment for kidney stones. Surgically speaking this would be true. However, treating them is still a mystery. Preventing them is an enigma nobody can solve.
Cromwell was no better than Hitler, committed genocide, torture and invented concentration camps, where children, women and the elderly were tortured, abused and starved, a vile man, rats and vipers are better.
I must say that I have to strongly dislike Charles I for his shortsighted obstinance and arrogance because it resulted in so much death and misery. At the same time, even though I try to never hate, I come close to total hatred for Cromwell as well. Being of Irish descent I have to hate the racial/ethnic hatred of the Puritans that was directed at the Irish Catholics. Of course, both groups perpetrated atrocities against each other with great fervor. It is unfortunate that they were never able to arrive at a policy of toleration. But it required a modern sensibility for religious toleration to become reality. I can't contenance any faith that can excuse slavery and use it as a method of political control.
Cromwell 👹-Ordered ‘Cothelstone’ to be destroyed by ‘canon’ and ‘its’ owner imprisoned for supporting the crown 👑,part of my families history 😢.House Stawell .🏴
My family are decendants of the Royal Stuarts, Cromwell was no better than Hitler, committed genocide, torture and invented concentration camps, where children, women and the elderly were tortured, abused and starved, a vile man.
We were taught that The War of the Roses, also known as The Cousins' War (consisting of numerous battles) was the 1st English Civil War. Why is this Stuart Civil War referred to as the 1st Civil War? It's clearly not. English people turned on each other and killed each other in both instances. This is my definition of civil war.
Charles I entire record proves him to be, the 'Man Of Blood'. And even though Parliament were willing to work with him, he still retained his absolutist habits. And for all his cheating, plots against his own people, we STILL ended up with a form of state first suggested by Parliament.
It’s hilarious when people apply current states and ideals to periods of history that occurred hundreds of years ago 😂. There is no better way to show idiocy and ignorance.
@@kellyshomemadekitchen Oh I don't know have you looked at the state of the black community anywhere in the world, have you had a look at Africa? Lol use your brain woman.
In college I took a very interesting course: Irish History and also based on Irish Literature The Flight of the Earls (Catholics)where many true citizens lost their land, titles and many left for other areas. Cromwell started this battle between the Catholics and Protestants. Cromwell also had alot of Scotch Presbyterians come from Scotland to take over the Irish lands. I felt sorry for the innocent people. But Cromwell did some good improvements also. How he allowed the Jews to come back to England, education reforms, etc.
You must be a Trump supporter! Charles I was a fanatical tyrant believing in self supreme rule only! Just because other rulers may have followed this idea doesn't mean they were right. They were all tyrants. Charles I had every chance to save himself but was too pigheaded. He was a perpetual threat to the realms as long as he kept his head thus its removal was just. Too bad certain predecessors didn't get the same official state treatment (John I, Richard III, Henry VIII for starters)
Charles I was an awful king, who annoyed all three of his kingdoms. Cromwell was a great military leader and despite the Ireland campaign was a great man overall.
@@Trecesolotienesdos It was a conquest of land of a people who were belligerent towards us, besides whatever "atrocities" committed back then was the norm. Every great conqueror has committed atrocities of one kind or another, it's part of war.
There can be no doubt on which side God was: On the side of him who never lost a battle. Also, God bore witness to which is the true Christian faith, when he blew the Spanish armada ashore in 1588, when they were sent out to conquour Britain back under Anti-christ in Rome. I trust Christ will ever continue to give unto his people leaders and warriors to push back that rump king in Rome: such a warrior was he who cried out: ULSTER SAYS NOOOOOO!
First time I ve been dissatisfied with an episode.. the explanation of the political situation for the first time was poor. Bare bones parliament was completely different from the rump parliament. No mention of why parliaments kept exploding. Recruiter elections threatened to allow a parliament to self perpetuate. . To name but a few. However I will say it's truly a first and maybe not fair as I'm a postgrad history researcher. The biographies of 18 19 and 20th century figures was superb
Hardly impotent, Charles I had 9 children and his son Charles II had 16 children lol - Go back to being a little Bon Jovi fan boy, and leave the intellectual stuff to the educated.
Perhaps if he’d negotiated without his head up his backside , all would have Been well. Like Louis of France they were both too stubborn. A lot mo- sorry, can’t cope with cats 🐈⬛ help🙏🙏🙏👵🇦🇺
No he was not, that was proven to be a deliberate lie, spread by members of the Catholic church, because they didn't want him translating the bible into English, as it took away the power that they had over the people, who they could no longer manipulate with scripture if they could rear it themselves. James was deeply religious and implemented harsh lawas against homosexuality.
Hello everyone! We've launched some new merchandise based on some of history's greatest scientists. Please support us by heading over to our store page and using promo code 16QES79P3X for 5% off. the-people-profiles-store-3.creator-spring.com
Love your compilations!🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
this whole dam vid im agrivated with pparliUment
Thank you very much for making/posting this programme.
N he b
Thank you. Watching from Alaska.
Knowledge of history makes it so much easier to understand current events.
Our pleasure!
This was the clearest concise explanation of that time I've ever heard. I finally understand it all.
Thank you
Gripping as always!! The way you resurrect these long gone ages and the lives therein is astonishingly remarkable!
I enjoy immensely the film footage of the English country side !!!. The “White-cliffs” of Dover are truly a sight to “Behold” !!!.
When you cross the English Channel from France, it's quite a site to behold.
They certainly are Now!
Your “Camera-work” is truly to be “Praised” !!!.
ANOTHER ONE❤ JUST IN TIME AS SCHOOL IS GETTING READY TO START❤ BLESSINGS TO THIS CHANNEL ❤
Do you spend every day in real life shouting at everybody, or do you only do it on the internet ?
@@lukedaniels7750 Harsh
My ancestor Henry Lyon , fought with Cromwell and witnessed the beheading . He left after that and came to the colonies in 1649.
i am very proud of your grandfather
@@svensebastian2712 There was an interesting paper written a while back called the rebel ancestors of Queen Elizabeth II . Its about the Lyon side of the family that broke with support of the Stuart kings . Looks like I come from a long line of hell raisers , I also have an ancestor that was with Washington at Trenton during the war of independence. Same sir name . Another grandfather .
Thank you for your kind words
Cromwell for awhile during the English civil war was living at Glamis castle so they say in Scotland , which has been the ancestral home of the Lyon family since the 14th century .
My ancestor John Lyon married Robert Bruce's granddaughter .
QE2 mother was born there .Her name was Elizabeth Bowes Lyon .
Thats the connection
How did you find that out?
@@Grock66 Historical records both in Scotland , England and in the US. Because of the connection to the royal family lots of research has been done . I can’t take any credit for any of it .Most of it was all recorded centuries ago.
Interesting to learn about the family that came before us and were there when history was being made .
Good video, as always!😊
This was a “Superb” video !!!. I “Definitely” learned a lot !!!.
Thank you for an Amazing program. I enjoyed your narrative n the way you explain things (wish you were my teacher at high school) .
N thank you for saying " I hope you enjoyed the program " n I did.... You gave me a lift n smile
Thank you for a brilliant synopsis of King Charles I reign
History has fragility
Where would England be now if Charles I agreed to compromise with Parliament?
Where would Europe be today?
How different is Charles I from John of 300 years prior?
English royalty is fascinating on so many levels, as it has survived till this day
Charles loved his time in newcastle lol he was enjoying his golf break in a fortified city so much he gave my city its motto -Fortiter Defendit Triumphans (Triumphing by Brave Defence . ❤🖤 ⚪
A superb pair of documentaries presenting this complex period of history, which I never had a chance to study at school. It is hard to get your head round Cromwell's level of religious zeal nearly 400 years after these events. It's almost is if he took pleasure in killing his opponents. It is a shame that some sort of compromise could not have been reached between Cromwell and the defeated King and the Royalists. Thanks for posting these fascinating history programmes.
Nice voice, love the subtitle.
🎉🎉GREAT WORK !! Congratulations 🎉🎊
Enlightening, indeed to say the least. 🤔💭
“Lest” I forget I also enjoy “Immensely” the film footage of Ireland and the Irish coastline !!!.
Always fall asleep listening to him ❤
Bravo to the painters and artists of the time
Excellent explanation
Cromwell also banished thousands of Irish as, the first, slaves on the plantations in the Caribbean. The English will say that the Irish weren't slaves but were indentured servants and had signed contracts. The contracts have never been found.
Did you upload the video of King Charles II of England?
JESUS IS THE ONLY KING.
My newest proclamation would be that air-conditioning is the best invention.
Cromwell was a formidable leader who ruled the country with an iron grip, he was a total Beast!
You can be a beast when you have an army behind you pmsl
@@leeharwood9624what’s that suppose to mean? A country defends its king buddy
I doubt in those days there were a lot of Beta males leading anything, they wouldn’t have lived long .
@@leeharwood9624 You're a Beast when only you (and nobody else) control that army!
cromwell was dredged from the bowels of hell. he was pleasing to the devil.
Charles the second may have promised not to take vengence on those who killed his father, but many of those who signed his father's death warrant were hanged, drawn and quartered.
James VI of Scotland did not become James I of England, Scotland and Ireland. He remained King James VI of Scotland for his entire reign until his death, though he liked to style himself "James, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland".
My Ancestor Hugh De Hynton and John Hynton we’re close friends with George Villaries and also John I believe was the physician for Charles 2 pre exile.
Thank you 😊
When you introduce Oxford the visual is actually Cambridge around King’s Parade.
The Virginia colony declared their loyalty to the king and offered him a crown which he turned down.
Their loyalty however, put them in good stead when Charles II came into his own again.
Ironic.
Britain needed a cincinatus or Washington and they got a Sulla or Cromwell. Unfortunate.
Well considering some of the basic principles of English common law that we hold dear came from the commonwealth its often overlooked just how much we owe to them...like the right to remain silent, the fact that kings are not divinely appointed and the principle that no one is above the law. And much of the principles that the founding fathers held dear came from Locke who based a lot of his whig philosophy on the state that cromwell, fairfax et al espoused.
@@colingradwell1939??? The rule of law came from the Magna Carta, not Cromwell.
@@AJCavalier I understand your point. However my understanding is that even after Magna Carta the idea of kings being divinely appointed and above the law was still widely accepted. If you read the defence that Charles I offered when he deigned to speak, it was all about the court having no validity as he was above such considerations. Unless i am incorrect that trial was the first time such a principle...i.e. even the monarch being subject to the law of the land was tested in the coursts?
@@colingradwell1939 the only two monarchs who really bought into the idea of divine right, and that used it as an argument, were Charles and James I.
My point is, the rule of law, at that time, was an old idea, divine right was not.
To some degree to have to reflect on Charles the second to get it to get a clearer sense of Charles the first
I don't come away from this thinking all that highly of either man. Charles I seems to have thought that he could do whatever he wanted, because God put him in his position, leading him to do a bunch of stupid stuff. It sounds like he wasn't anywhere near as bad as someone like Richard II (who also thought that he could do pretty much whatever he wanted, because God made him king), but there isn't a lot good to say about him either - at least not based on this video.
Oliver Cromwell, on the other hand, seems to have been a religious zealot who thought that it was okay to punish and kill those who didn't agree with his religious views, leading him to do plenty of terrible stuff too - and arguably worse than Charles I. That being said, it sounds like he was at least trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, he had some screwed up ideas about what the "right thing" was.
Obviously, ultimately, we can't really judge them properly, because we don't fully understand them or their circumstances (that will have to be left up to God), so I don't want to be too harsh towards them, but I really can't think particularly positively about them based on what I do know either.
That sure was a heap o' words just to say they both sucked...just sayin'.✌️😎👍
@@sknowbyrd1 weird that you would point somebody out for being descriptive
@@sknowbyrd1 Why would you bother to spend your own time telling somebody else thast they have been wasting your time ?
I would say that they were both religious zealots who allowed their faith's to dictate their actions, and history has not been kind to either of them. Trying to impose your religious beliefs, (or lack of them) onto others is always going to be a recipe for disaster.
What Cromwell's armies did in Ireland is not 'open to debate'. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands of the Irish, men, women and children. Castles and towns that resisted his armies were promised safety if they surrendered but were slaughtered as soon as they did so. The only 'debate' comes from the English denying the atrocities, as they have always done throughout history, right up to the 1920s and Bloody Sunday in 1972.
Lord and Lady Fyvie are on my family tree, I had no idea they raised Charles 1.
Studying the amazing size of the medical armies, it surprises me that there were enough citizens left to function in the countries. IF YOU TAKE THOUSANDS OF LOCALS TO FIGHT IN THESE CIVIL CONFLICTS, the populations would be constantly left with a shortage of farmers and craftspeople
This all points to the divisive power of religion and politics. How people can be united against what they see as a common enemy but once removed yhe in squabbling begins. Yhis proves man's inability to rule himself despite the good intention.
14:15 you say that like they’ve come up with adequate medical treatment for kidney stones. Surgically speaking this would be true. However, treating them is still a mystery. Preventing them is an enigma nobody can solve.
Cromwell would be disappointed in the state of the UK parliament today a pit of rats and vipers.
Cromwell was no better than Hitler, committed genocide, torture and invented concentration camps, where children, women and the elderly were tortured, abused and starved, a vile man, rats and vipers are better.
I must say that I have to strongly dislike Charles I for his shortsighted obstinance and arrogance because it resulted in so much death and misery. At the same time, even though I try to never hate, I come close to total hatred for Cromwell as well. Being of Irish descent I have to hate the racial/ethnic hatred of the Puritans that was directed at the Irish Catholics. Of course, both groups perpetrated atrocities against each other with great fervor. It is unfortunate that they were never able to arrive at a policy of toleration. But it required a modern sensibility for religious toleration to become reality. I can't contenance any faith that can excuse slavery and use it as a method of political control.
where was askme while all this was going on
Cromwell 👹-Ordered ‘Cothelstone’ to be destroyed by ‘canon’ and ‘its’ owner imprisoned for supporting the crown 👑,part of my families history 😢.House Stawell .🏴
My family are decendants of the Royal Stuarts, Cromwell was no better than Hitler, committed genocide, torture and invented concentration camps, where children, women and the elderly were tortured, abused and starved, a vile man.
Lisa 🌹I agree with you100% .Every time I hear the name ‘Cromwell ‘ I get angry 😠.
We were taught that The War of the Roses, also known as The Cousins' War (consisting of numerous battles) was the 1st English Civil War. Why is this Stuart Civil War referred to as the 1st Civil War? It's clearly not. English people turned on each other and killed each other in both instances.
This is my definition of civil war.
Wasn’t he eventually drawn and quartered?
No.
Cromwell I cancel Christmas and May Day.
What goes around comes around! The King got his head chopped off,then Cromwell got his head chopped off.then it went walkabouts
Cromwell only had his head chopped off after he was already dead.
Who does Charles-I - at Trial - remind you of ?
Van Dyck and Rubens are Flemisch artists, not Dutch!😊
Maria Anna of Spain looks like a Hapsberg family member.
She was
rubens was a flemish painter, not a dutch
This channel is powerful proof that linear/terrestrial or paid subcription viewing is totally unnecessary.
Absolutely!
It's paid for by advertising, which is paid for by you, the viewer, who buys the stuff advertised. Unless you are somehow immune.
@@paulinnanjing I wouldn't say I'm 'immune' but I do use adlock which is a real blessing.
Charles I entire record proves him to be, the 'Man Of Blood'. And even though Parliament were willing to work with him, he still retained his absolutist habits.
And for all his cheating, plots against his own people, we STILL ended up with a form of state first suggested by Parliament.
The British people are living in poverty but they have this fantasy about the monarch. They still feel like slaves just like the ancient times
It’s hilarious when people apply current states and ideals to periods of history that occurred hundreds of years ago 😂. There is no better way to show idiocy and ignorance.
Stability since 1689:
Britain: 1 monarchy
France: 5 monarchies (3 kingdoms, 2 empires); 5 republics.
A black talking about poverty is hilarious
@@fyrdman2185why?
@@kellyshomemadekitchen Oh I don't know have you looked at the state of the black community anywhere in the world, have you had a look at Africa? Lol use your brain woman.
two things can be true at once
Perhaps three (or more)!
Personally im a leveler
In college I took a very interesting course: Irish History and also based on Irish Literature The Flight of the Earls (Catholics)where many true citizens lost their land, titles and many left for other areas. Cromwell started this battle between the Catholics and Protestants. Cromwell also had alot of Scotch Presbyterians come from Scotland to take over the Irish lands. I felt sorry for the innocent people.
But Cromwell did some good improvements also. How he allowed the Jews to come back to England, education reforms, etc.
No one uses the term Scotch in the Scotland or indeed any of the British Isles at all, unless you are talking about eggs... Scottish Presbyterians.
James was the VI of Scotland.
Yes, he remained James VI Scotland after becoming James I of England
Charles might have been the best king he should have not been executed just like mary queen of scotland
You must be a Trump supporter! Charles I was a fanatical tyrant believing in self supreme rule only! Just because other rulers may have followed this idea doesn't mean they were right. They were all tyrants. Charles I had every chance to save himself but was too pigheaded. He was a perpetual threat to the realms as long as he kept his head thus its removal was just. Too bad certain predecessors didn't get the same official state treatment (John I, Richard III, Henry VIII for starters)
Cromwell had no hope .Louie 14 th of France and west highland clans ( not all) had other plans .
Cromwell was a butcher
No, that was Thomas Moore’s father. 😂
Different Cromwell.
Charles I was an awful king, who annoyed all three of his kingdoms. Cromwell was a great military leader and despite the Ireland campaign was a great man overall.
Cromwell's conquest of Ireland is part of the reason why he was great
@@NinjaGrrrl7734 yes the Irish conquest was I said.
@@fyrdman2185 it was needless slaughter
@@Trecesolotienesdos It was a conquest of land of a people who were belligerent towards us, besides whatever "atrocities" committed back then was the norm. Every great conqueror has committed atrocities of one kind or another, it's part of war.
@@fyrdman2185 in war there are rules. Cromwell was at war with Scotland and never did the same thing. He was excessive.
There can be no doubt on which side God was: On the side of him who never lost a battle. Also, God bore witness to which is the true Christian faith, when he blew the Spanish armada ashore in 1588, when they were sent out to conquour Britain back under Anti-christ in Rome. I trust Christ will ever continue to give unto his people leaders and warriors to push back that rump king in Rome: such a warrior was he who cried out: ULSTER SAYS NOOOOOO!
Long live the Monarchy! 🤴🤴🤴🤴🤴👑👑👑👑
Nah
I can't relate. America is a republic 😊
No gods no masters. Off with their heads, french style!
First time I ve been dissatisfied with an episode.. the explanation of the political situation for the first time was poor. Bare bones parliament was completely different from the rump parliament. No mention of why parliaments kept exploding. Recruiter elections threatened to allow a parliament to self perpetuate. . To name but a few. However I will say it's truly a first and maybe not fair as I'm a postgrad history researcher. The biographies of 18 19 and 20th century figures was superb
Most non cringe monarchy lover
Long live The Holy Roman Empire
@@pedanticradiator
Surely the above statement smacks of disingenuousness?
Das kew
Oh yeah...the english importancy....and impotency
Hardly impotent, Charles I had 9 children and his son Charles II had 16 children lol - Go back to being a little Bon Jovi fan boy, and leave the intellectual stuff to the educated.
Possibly unfairly judged
Perhaps if he’d negotiated without his head up his backside , all would have Been well. Like Louis of France they were both too stubborn. A lot mo- sorry, can’t cope with cats 🐈⬛ help🙏🙏🙏👵🇦🇺
James 1 was gay.
No he was not, that was proven to be a deliberate lie, spread by members of the Catholic church, because they didn't want him translating the bible into English, as it took away the power that they had over the people, who they could no longer manipulate with scripture if they could rear it themselves. James was deeply religious and implemented harsh lawas against homosexuality.
Giving a sh.🤓😉
you gave a shit enough to comment 🤣
@ lol , very true;)
king of ireland, not in the eyes of the irish
All about religion, concerning a god that probably doesn't even exist. As usual. .🙄
Cringe atheist being cringe as usual.
@@fyrdman2185 I'm not necessarily an atheist, just open minded. However the likelihood of a creator of some sort is 50/50 at best.
@@rob5944 Cringe agnostic being cringe as usual.
@@rob5944what isn’t created from something before it?
@@ladyville3 ah, the eternal question. Who knows.
Scotland's bastard son?
*Against Catholics and Papists…🤔🧐😆
Cromwell is often cited as the father of American democracy .
By whom?
No he isn’t. No one has ever made that claim because it isn’t true.
Hmm interesting rewrite of what the British actually traded in Jamaica.😢
Omg.
Charles I was a Fifer.....
I didn’t know that either and Lord/Lady Fyvie are on my family tree.
Read/study the BIBLE, especially the New TESTAMENT.
dull video with a dull presentation.
dull minds who don't understand intelligent subjects, label everything as dull.
fyghiky❤❤❤
parliUment..there is no U in parliament
Nope, he's pronouncing it par-lia-ment, which is the correct way.
@@lisadowsett6836 par-liauu-ment lmao