A couple of comments are indicting that my reference to “last video” isn’t being heard in the way I intended - this is the last in a series of three (linked as a playlist in the card) - I will be back, same time and place, next week ❤️
Well good grief woman, you almost gave me a heart attack! ;) jk; but really, thank you for the clarification because yeah I definitely thought you meant "Bye Forever"! We just can't have that now, can we?
I knew nothing of Charles' sister. I think I vaguely knew she existed, but that was it. Could we have a video on her sometime? Why was she married to the future king of Bohemia, what happened to her after the deposition? I will be looking this up, but I'd love to hear your take on it all.
Her husband wasn't going to be the king of Bohemia when she married him. In fact her connection to the English throne was perhaps the main reason why bohemian protestant aristocracy chose Friedrich to be the king. They hoped that the king of England would intervene in their favour. They were wrong. 🤷♂️
It's basically how the Thirty Years' War started -- a major event in European history, and one, of which somehow British people seem to know almost nothing about.
Rightly you point out that Charles I had many opportunities to take a course which would have avoided his ultimate execution. But because of his deeply entrenched stubborn views he was incapable of taking any of them. Even if he had had many more such opportunities, he almost certainly would not have taken any of them. Thus in many ways he was the one who made his own ultimate execution inevitable. Sad, but I think true.
My thoughts are similar to yours. His path to the executioner seems to have begun in childhood, when he was raised to believe he could do anything he set his mind to. The fine line between confidence and arrogance was crossed at some point.
@@joy2bme Yes, there can be little doubt that Charles I was frequently over-confident and often recklessly so, and moreover incapable of learning from his mistakes. Like you I feel that the seeds for his ultimate destruction were sown in his childhood. What I find fascinating is that neither he nor his father James I were able to learn anything from the manner in which Elizabeth I reigned, and in particular the respect ( perhaps even fear? ) she had for her parliaments.
Given he strongly believed in his divine right to rule, I wonder if being forced to sign the treaty in Scotland made him less likely to make compromises in England. That inflexible approach means he wouldnt go into exile etc. That makes his execution much more inevitable.
@@leonardharris9930 Hmm, I have to disagree to an extent. Charles I gave up vast amounts of hereditary power - he even apologised to his eldest son at one point for how much he gave up. There was an episode on History rage podcast about this called Charles I & Parliament. I mean he had very obvious flaws and made bad, sometimes insensitive decisions (the Bishop's war for example) but I'm skeptical of the idea that he was mainly to blame for the civil wars.
Dr. Kat, I am compelled to thank you for your videos for no other reason that they tell us the stories that lie between the broad brushstrokes of history painted in the pages of schoolbooks. You articulate the facts of your subjects, explore what they must have felt, ask the counterpoint questions, and shine a light on humans who were victims of circumstance by birth - good or bad. Thank you for all that you do.
Thank you, Dr Kat. For some reason, though well versed in the Tudor period, I know very little about the Stuart era. That was very well done and very informative. I tended to check out early in Elizabeth's reign, have high interest in the '15 and '45 and then didn't check in until after Victoria. Maybe I tend to be, in many cases, a bloody-minded Scot. Thank you very much for your topics. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Wonderful video. I love how you 'flesh out' history on your channel. What I find amazing is that so many things that have happened before (attitudes, words, actions, ect.) are repeated in modern times. The cycles repeat.
Thank you so much for continuing with the Stewart history. Charles seems like a very interesting man who is completely unaware of the world outside of his sphere
So Charles lived in his own political echo chamber, believing in the Divine Right of Kings and unable to engage in dialogue with his opponents. Pity so many people nowadays are stuck in political echo chambers.
Glad you cleared the last video comment I think I nearly cried lol. I think Charles was full of his own self important and unable to see the bigger picture, compromise and have empathy.
Hi Dr. Kat! Thanks for this interesting video. Charles has always been a fascination for me. I just don't see how he wasn't deposed sooner than he was. The man was clueless of the world outside of his palace. I don't agree with his execution, but his removal from power was essential. Thanks again for the video ~~ stay safe and warm!
I was so excited to be #22 on the thumbs UP! So happy to hear from Dr. Kat again with yet another VERY INTERESTING HISTORY TOPIC! TY so much for sharing your knowledge with us!❤️
Thank you for another enlightening video. Is there any chance that you could discuss the life that Charles II lived between 1649 and his return in 1661? We’ve all heard the story if him darkening his skin with walnut juice and hiding in a tree. (Boscobel?) Was he well treated at Versailles? How was The Hague? Honestly, I have always been intrigued by the in between years.
Well, until Dr Kat makes a video on Charles II, I can reccommend a beautiful book, an historical novel, about CharlesII love story with his first wife, Lucy Walter, of Roche Castle in Wales. titled “The Child from the Sea” After the execution of his father, Charles is in hiding, trying to elude his captors and ends up at a remote fishing village on the coast of Wales. The girl Lucy Walter, lives in the castle with her father and brother. They befriend this strange teenage boy and after an idyllic time of sweet first love , spent in the beautiful countryside, they are married with her father’s permission in the local village church. Her family knows by now who he is and he must depart to escape to France where he lives in exile. Lucy decides to follow him to France.. However, because of the dangerous times, she must keep their marriage a secret. The story is delightfully written and it has been one of my favorite books, to read and re-read..
This was great. I now finally understand all the arguments and machinations. It all boiled down to hubris. How sad, but nonetheless interesting. And as usual, your humor tickles me to no end. It is so dry, clever and hilarious. Please keep it up. 🌸🌺
I'm so glad that I read your explanation about the "last video" before watching, or I would have been shaken. The play Charles III is fascinating, and I've seen it several times, each time marveling over the role intransigence can play in bringing down a monarch.
I enjoyed this so much. It also helped me with a series I've recently discovered. Stella Riley wrote a Roundheads and Cavaliers series involving historical fiction with romance thrown in. A lot of the political back and forth is present in the books and it is fascinating, but they are fiction so it's nice to get straight historical facts to add nuance to everything.
Dr Kat, hello from across the pond (I'm in the States). I wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your videos. They are like attending a really fascinating and thought provoking history lecture without having to worry about exams or tuition. ;) I'm always delighted to see that you've uploaded a new video. Thank you for sharing your time, knowledge and expertise. :)
The whole "monarchs in the House of Lords only" holds in other commonwealth countries too. Opening of Australia's new parliament house was opened in 1988 by the Queen. She was given the grand tour of the whole building, but didn't step into the House of Representatives (our House of Commons). She viewed it from the doorway.
It would seen that Charles was the last in a long line of king who believed in the "Divine Right of Kings". His isolation from the common people of England at that time of great developments in understanding the world around them could have been a component in guaranteeing his demise. Great video Dr K you're a lifeline in these difficult times.
Yes, but Kat, don't forget, that Charles had virtually given the game away by telling the Queen what he intended to do, and she mentioned it to one of her ladies, with questionable loyalties, and she tipped the commons off.
It's like watching a train wreck. One bad move after a bad move. Plus economic problems and let's not forget my personal pet peeve : politics mixed with religion. I cannot pin point the moment that would have saved the whole debacle. Could abdication have at least save him? It didn't help Nicholas II much. So I am back to the train wreck image. Will try to remember not to ask my children for any promises as we say goodbye. Great video! I am sure to think about it and your question the whole week. Thank you
Hi Dr Kat, I love your channel. Thank you so so much for all the stories that you share with us. Seems that Charles I belonged to those people who manage to annoy everybody around them. Not a very useful trait when you are supposed to rule a country. And it didn't end well for him.....
I'm very glad you "set the stage" for tbis. So much of my self imposed study has been on earlier periods so I knew very little on the topic. I leave it for now with a good sense of why and how it happened..and some great imaginings of his surroundings..thanks as always Dr. Kat. I hope you are all well.
I appreciate the sharp focus you apply to these historic events. My European History was a single credit in a single semester at age 19. It has been a while. This provided a broad (very broad. very shaky. very sparse) scaffolding upon which to hang studies in art history and geography. Frankly, it was this week that I finally got the kings George sorted properly in my useful memory! Since my English minor was focused on Shakespeare - I should have done better. Thank you for the work you do for us.
I think this might be my favourite of yours so far - not necessarily the subject, but it really feels like you had the time to explore in to further reaches. I don’t usually pay attention to the length of videos, but this felt shorter, when I’m guessing it was longer than normal!
Great video, as usual! I'm glad to hear this isn't your absolute last video ever, as well. 🙂 One thing I'd absolutely LOVE to see you do a video on is the good (if there was any?) that 👑 Henry VIII did. For example: I know he closed the public bath houses to protect the people from the plague. Whether or not that was the right 'solution' in retrospect, I have no comment, but at least it shows, I think, that he cared. What other examples of his good actions are there?
I enjoyed this video immensely! This particular subject, (the beheading of Charles 1), is one in which I have never had the greatest understanding of but now, I understand so much more about why he was deposed and eventually beheaded. Thank you so much for your keen insight into this subject. I can hardly wait for your next video! Also, I had an idea about a particular subject that I would love for you to make a video about. The subject is: Industrialization and the effects upon child laborers during the Victorian Era.
I like to think there is always a way out. However, given this King's beliefs/personality and his opponents and their personalities, maybe not. As you said, a game of chicken in which no one blinks because they can't. The one who blinks not only loses, but loses everything they believe in. When that happens, only tragedy results.
Thank you, Dr. Kat. I understand much better why some of my cavalier ancestors left England and came to Virginia (USA). These new colonists supported Charles I but not his son, Charles II. It seems distance and time had taken its toll and thus the seeds of discontentment were sewn between England and her American colonies. We know what happened next, don't we?
Charles was always sure he was in the right and this made any compromise with Parliament impossible for him so how could the outcome ever be different? I feel sad for him because he could have saved his life, but frustrated that he would not ( could not) change!! Just my opinion; thanks Dr Kat for giving us your scholarly review of this history❣️ much appreciated 🥰
I am so glad you did this. The story gets romanticized or else it gets hard to follow. We get facts from you. I think I wondered in another comment on a recent video, if King Charles would have been executed if Henry VIII had not started the trend by executing his queens. Then Mary I executed Queen/Lady Jane Grey and eventually Elizabeth I executed Queen Mary Stewart. Elizabeth worried about executing an anointed queen of the blood royal but at least she had some precedent behind the action.
Totally off today’s subject and sorry in advance for being off topic! Have you read or seen much information about the hearings conducted in Zaragoza Spain about Catherine and Henry VIII’s “Great Matter”? It was conducted almost simultaneously with the hearing in England. Since most of Catherine’s Spanish entourage had been sent back to Spain by then, I think it would be interesting in to hear what the Spanish witnesses had to say. Except for the ONE mention in Giles Tremlett’s novel I have seen nothing and would love to know more especially regarding papal brief sent around the time of queen Isabella’s death clarifying and strengthening the dispensation: a copy of this brief was found in ambassador De Pueblo’s papers . Would dearly love to know more but understand if this topic takes a back seat to others. As always, love your work!
Dr. Kat, I once read that Henrietta Maria hated Charles at the beginning of their marriage and that later on she stirred up a lot of trouble for Charles and that her meddling lead to his attitude towards parliament could you enlighten me? (love your history lessons)
Brilliant video. It´s very difficult to squeeze that mess into half an hour. I think Charles did what he thought was expected of him. He was very insecure as a man and being King he could hide behind the divine right to rule. It could look like arrogance or stubbornness but he genuine believed he´s right. The Buckingham´s situation didn´t help either, he was gorgeous and built his all career on it. Other wise totally useless with expensive tastes thus hated by everyone except of the King.
I wonder what would have happened if he had abdicated in favor of his son. Would it merely have postponed the civil war, or would it be prevented entirely, but with a severely weakened monarchy? How old was his son at the time? Could Charles I have kept power from behind the scenes?
Last video??? As in, "ever"??? I have so many topics I've been hoping that you cover! Maybe it's time for me to join some of the other platforms you are on, and hopefully I can get my history fixed there. You're the best, Dr Kat!!
I feel a great saddens for Charles - he believed devoutly inThe Divine Right of Kings (misguided doctrine of the time) and failed to learn that you need to consider the views of others even if you don’t agree with them. He stuck to his father’s beliefs and the unwise promises he made him. He loved his family and his unfortunately misguided wife who encouraged his outdated belief in himself as all powerful and omnipotent. He loved her and believed her! He died with his honour all about him believing to be right. He should have abdicated in favour of his son Charles thus saving his name and saving us from the self righteous hypocrite O. Cromwell of joyless and cruel religious intolerance and much corruption in high places. I know Charles and his cavaliers were far from perfect but I would prefer them any day to Old Cromwell’s hypocrisy. Miserable old so and so pretending not to want a crown or title. Lord Protector indeed !! .
Loved this video as always! BUT would appreciate some more information about how Charles received the information about his punishment, what about the rest of his family and what his final hours looked like for example. The story came all of a sudden kind of abrupt end without any personal touch so to say, and you ususlly add these! :-) Thanks anyway!
Can you explain the execution further? Why on earth did they break into the upper part of the wall to create scaffolding? I had the opportunity to visit England a few years ago and saw the Banqueting Hall. It was very confusing to me why they took such great pains to do this rather than just execute him at say maybe the Tower. Thanks!
This was a fantastic video, I knew that Charles had been beheaded, but did not know the whole story. Now I want to know the story of how Parliament then reached out and installed the king back into power. Is that Charles son? If so, he should have just abdicated his throne and saved himself.
How much residual frustration did the English public feel from the previous two monarchs that was finally expressed by Charles’s execution in 1649? If you were born in 1603 (the year Elizabeth died) and somehow dodged the plagues, and you survived through James’s death in 1625, you'd be around 46 and would have seen a lot of ill will toward the monarchy by the time Charles was beheaded. I’ve read that Elizabeth wasn’t nearly as popular as we think of her today, and James largely treated his subjects with disregard. If he was the recipient of pent-up public anger, was Charles "more sinned against than sinning" or was it mostly hubris that brought him down? Do you think his physical disabilities might have contributed to his downfall?
Yes Charles was arrogant but was Cromwell any different? Neither side wanted to budge an inch. And the Rump parliament sounds like a Kangaroo court. As Oliver Cromwell's gggranduncle was Thomas Cromwell; I always wonder if "one" of the many reasons he had the King executed was part vengeance. Because of what King Henry VIII did to Thomas Cromwell. Now he had the opportunity and a motive. He had all of the Crown Jewels sold or destroyed including The Tudor Crown; which was also known as Henry's VIII's crown. So who was the greater villain Charles or Cromwell?
I've often wondered bow Cromwell squared his "intense religious faith" when signing Charles' death warrant. In the end Cromwell put himself about as though he were a King in all but name, so I'm not sure he was any better a person than intransigent Charles - at least he had the Divine Right of Kings behind his thinking (not saying he was right, but that he thought he was).
I figure Charles was going to die the moment the war started - very few points of reconciliation would have been available after the beginning of war, though it is a testament to what the crown symbolized that he was able to hang on as long as he did. What's amazing to me is that the French had a front row seat for all this and simply didn't clock a lot of the same signs when their own demise was in progress.
Where to even begin with "where did it begin". The way I see history is a tapestry; woven threads, leading from one event to another. Where Charles I came to the point of no return is a tough question. Was it marrying a Catholic? Was it the promise he made to his father? The strength of his belief in the Divine Right of Kings? Or was it simply his absolute lack of awareness or politics? If pressed, I'd probably say the latter, because even Elizabeth I knew that if you were going to sign the death warrant of a queen, you should include a modicum of plausible deniability .
Ah, memories of student teaching. The teacher loved the lesson. The students didn't care much. Oh my Roundhead ancestors would be horrified to know that some of us are Episcopalian!
Thank you so much Dr. Kat. Edifying as always. Can you do a series on the evolution of democracy and the parliament e.g. the role of the parliament of the bats and the ways in which over the centuries power has been transferred from the monarch to the parliament.
As usual, Dr. Kat didn’t disappoint us. Unfortunately, Charles I was a disappointment. I think he had some sort of fatal flaw which prevented him from seeing the benefits of compromise. There were so many opportunities for him to take a different path.
Question: what did Parliament consist of, in those days? To understand the nature of the conflict between King and Parliament it is necessary to know what the interests were of the Parliament of the time. I assume that in those days in order to become a member of parliament you had to have the economic and military power to throw your weight around. I assume that in those days Pariament consisted ot members of aristocracy who were trying to increase their power and wealth. I assume this aristocracy resented any taxes demanded by the King, preferring that the revenue of their tax collecting would all go into solidifying their own local power, with the economic power used to build, for example, fortresses, in anticipation of war with neighbouring aristrocratic seats of power. (Or perhaps engaging in war with a bisshop.) That is, I'm assuming that in those days the only way to become member of Parliament was to force your way in with economic and military power.
Just google 'history of the house of commons'. Very different from the house of lords. Very typical of farming communities, and the Brits have a long history of selecting representatives and voting to support a Monarch and their rule by mutual consent . Yes male landholders usually and the Member of Parliament had to have his own means.
@@wendygerrish4964 Yeah, I proceeded to read the wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England The big contrast: in our time Parliament is about representing the population, but in those days it was about economic power. The house of commons: only those who were freehold property owners, with a wealth above a certain cut-off, were eligable to vote in their county. In the time of King Charles I some parts of the aristocracy sided with Charles, and other parts united in war against Charles, resulting in civil war. It was a close call. When Oliver Cromwell died the balance shifted back to support of some form of monarchy. The Royal house was reinstated (but those same aristrocratic powers took the opportunity to further curb the monarch's power) Oliver Cromwell's body was dug up, and his body was hanged, drawn, and quartered. It's relatively difficult to find information about the amount of power of the House of Commons. I encountered an interesting detail in the wikipedia article about Oliver Cromwell: "Lord Manchester [...] accused Cromwell of recruiting men of "low birth" as officers in the army". Cromwell chose as officers men who were strongly motivated to press on the war. So it wasn't all aristrocracy that was making the decisions.
Basically there was huge misunderstandings between factions within the aristocracy and the land-owning gentry that led to a series of fake wars and a revolution in England. Similar to what happened in France centuries later.
I get that people weren’t best pleased with his marriage to a Catholic French princess, but the previous potential match with Spain was even _more_ unpopular. As evidenced in the marriage of Charles’ sister, all those years before, there were always going to be conflict with whatever choice was made; her own mother wanted her daughter to become a queen, & thus she (among others) thought Frederick was too low a match for the daughter of the ruler of two kingdoms- & then there was the whole obvious religious aspect. The only reasons the match went ahead was that 1) the princess herself was dead keen on it; her late adored brother had approved of him- & all three had hung out a bit before Henry’s death & had become friends - & 2) James himself wanted the match, & he made Frederick promise Elizabeth would always be treated as a queen- which would make for a chilly relationship with her mother-in-law. We don’t necessarily know all the options for a potential spouse for Elizabeth in the 1610’s, nor for Charles in the 1620’s- but knowing he was a king not a princess, means that the dynamic of what made for a good match for England is somewhat different. Was there even a suitably high-ranked Protestant princess of age to marry at this time? If not, then there’s not a lot to be said... Sorry for the rambling, lol...
Wow. That must have been like watching a decades-long train wreck. 😳 Could you please do one about how to sensitively deal with... hmm... controversial or contentious historical figures? How do you decide what to mention when you tell students (or any other group) about these people? I'm a scientist, not a historian, but there are still some moments in science history which are important to mention. I've been warning my students for years that it's very heavy on the "dead white European males" side, but sometimes I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the person was racist, misogynistic, or otherwise held views we don't agree with today. Shakespeare can be somewhat controversial, especially with his apparent anti-semitic views, so how do you deal with something like that?
your last video? Please tell me you are joking! How will I have a wee cup of tea and hear a calming voice literally 'reading me the past'? I hope you and your family are ok xo
Charles believed in the Divine Right Of Kings. There was no way he would be able to imagine that his own parliament would condemn and execute him. There was also no way he would have felt he needed a potential "patsy", or fall guy, in case things went south. He felt, as King, that his word was inviolate and that if he named men as traitors it was Parliaments job to back him 100%, even if the accused were part of that body. By Charles understanding, he was correct. But too many powerful men wanted to lessen the monarchys power and invest it in Parliament itself, and those powerful men prevailed because Charles felt that All power was vested in him alone, and Parliament, or certain members, were traitors, and he had neither the numbers or the financial resources to back up his Kingship rule or accusation, so he lost it all, including his life.
Can you please make a video about the Civil War that followed the aforementioned events that you have discussed in this one? I'm really interested to know about this period and how the monarchy was reinstated in England. I know virtually nothing about these events because I noticed it's not usually discussed as regularly as for example, the War of the Roses or King Henry VIII and his wives. Thank you very much!
Interesting to hear this from UK perspective. I grew up in New Haven CT, USA - where the judges, Whaley, Goff, and Dixwell, fled after the execution. I grew up hearing how noble they were and how terrible Charles was. But how tyrannical was he? I don't know
I could be very mistaken but it seems to me that people from this era believed so strongly in the next life that they were more likely to accept that they would die. I think death was pretty common in all its forms and in all phases of life. And the rituals regarding death like preparing the body for burial that it demystified it to some extent. I don't think that they were as freaked out about it as modern people are.
I wish you would make your videos in a version without the music at start/ end. I sometimes like to listen to your videos to relax and fall asleep. The music always wakes me up. 😂 Love the content.
Apart from his exquisite taste in art and more importantly, unwittingly being responsible for planting the seed of parliamentary democracy, he was a disaster for this country, but then all the Stuarts were, in my opinion. Losing the Crown? the monarch is supposed to defend a country's interests not work against them. None so deaf as those who won't listen.
It would also be interesting to know more about court and local traditions for Eastertide (Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter itself), Pentecost, St. John's Eve (midsummer), All Saints and All Souls days, Christmas, Epiphany, and Lady Day. Also, is it true that Elizabeth I mandated that everyone should wear a hat and have a woollen shroud in order to help the weavers, milliners, and other guilds and industries?
Hello Dr kat thanks for the video this one had me wanting to explore more information about Stuart's they seem to me fair rulers it's just a shame they were not given a chance ps have you hear of Rebecca who has a history buff channel she is very good
![Hunxho - Ball Forever [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nki9ZTF9Uls/mqdefault.jpg)
A couple of comments are indicting that my reference to “last video” isn’t being heard in the way I intended - this is the last in a series of three (linked as a playlist in the card) - I will be back, same time and place, next week ❤️
Oh thank goodness!! I was very worried there for a bit. I look forward to seeing your latest video every Friday here in Texas, USA!! ♥️
Phew !
Thank goodness!! I love your videos and was a bit worried!!
Oh gosh, I had to stop the video and jump to the comments to see what was up. Phew!
Well good grief woman, you almost gave me a heart attack! ;) jk; but really, thank you for the clarification because yeah I definitely thought you meant "Bye Forever"! We just can't have that now, can we?
I knew nothing of Charles' sister. I think I vaguely knew she existed, but that was it. Could we have a video on her sometime? Why was she married to the future king of Bohemia, what happened to her after the deposition? I will be looking this up, but I'd love to hear your take on it all.
Her husband wasn't going to be the king of Bohemia when she married him. In fact her connection to the English throne was perhaps the main reason why bohemian protestant aristocracy chose Friedrich to be the king. They hoped that the king of England would intervene in their favour. They were wrong. 🤷♂️
It's basically how the Thirty Years' War started -- a major event in European history, and one, of which somehow British people seem to know almost nothing about.
She is the link between the Stuart and Hanoverian dynasties
Yay! It's Friday and Dr. Kat has a new video! Life is good
Rightly you point out that Charles I had many opportunities to take a course which would have avoided his ultimate execution. But because of his deeply entrenched stubborn views he was incapable of taking any of them. Even if he had had many more such opportunities, he almost certainly would not have taken any of them. Thus in many ways he was the one who made his own ultimate execution inevitable. Sad, but I think true.
My thoughts are similar to yours. His path to the executioner seems to have begun in childhood, when he was raised to believe he could do anything he set his mind to. The fine line between confidence and arrogance was crossed at some point.
@@joy2bme Yes, there can be little doubt that Charles I was frequently over-confident and often recklessly so, and moreover incapable of learning from his mistakes. Like you I feel that the seeds for his ultimate destruction were sown in his childhood. What I find fascinating is that neither he nor his father James I were able to learn anything from the manner in which Elizabeth I reigned, and in particular the respect ( perhaps even fear? ) she had for her parliaments.
Given he strongly believed in his divine right to rule, I wonder if being forced to sign the treaty in Scotland made him less likely to make compromises in England. That inflexible approach means he wouldnt go into exile etc. That makes his execution much more inevitable.
@@leonardharris9930 Hmm, I have to disagree to an extent. Charles I gave up vast amounts of hereditary power - he even apologised to his eldest son at one point for how much he gave up. There was an episode on History rage podcast about this called Charles I & Parliament. I mean he had very obvious flaws and made bad, sometimes insensitive decisions (the Bishop's war for example) but I'm skeptical of the idea that he was mainly to blame for the civil wars.
I was humming your theme tune earlier today and my husband asked what song it was. Had to admit to him where I got all my history knowledge from 😂
I just realized tonight that I always whistle Dr. Kat's theme song. Hahaha!
Dr. Kat, I am compelled to thank you for your videos for no other reason that they tell us the stories that lie between the broad brushstrokes of history painted in the pages of schoolbooks. You articulate the facts of your subjects, explore what they must have felt, ask the counterpoint questions, and shine a light on humans who were victims of circumstance by birth - good or bad. Thank you for all that you do.
Sassy Dr. Kat had me dying. "Psst. Psssst." Wonderful and informative video, as always!
Thank you, Dr Kat. For some reason, though well versed in the Tudor period, I know very little about the Stuart era. That was very well done and very informative. I tended to check out early in Elizabeth's reign, have high interest in the '15 and '45 and then didn't check in until after Victoria. Maybe I tend to be, in many cases, a bloody-minded Scot. Thank you very much for your topics. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Wonderful video. I love how you 'flesh out' history on your channel. What I find amazing is that so many things that have happened before (attitudes, words, actions, ect.) are repeated in modern times. The cycles repeat.
Thank you so much for continuing with the Stewart history. Charles seems like a very interesting man who is completely unaware of the world outside of his sphere
So Charles lived in his own political echo chamber, believing in the Divine Right of Kings and unable to engage in dialogue with his opponents. Pity so many people nowadays are stuck in political echo chambers.
Glad you cleared the last video comment I think I nearly cried lol. I think Charles was full of his own self important and unable to see the bigger picture, compromise and have empathy.
Hi Dr. Kat! Thanks for this interesting video. Charles has always been a fascination for me. I just don't see how he wasn't deposed sooner than he was. The man was clueless of the world outside of his palace. I don't agree with his execution, but his removal from power was essential. Thanks again for the video ~~ stay safe and warm!
I’m very excited for this.
I’d love to see a video from you talking about the history of people of color in European history.
Yes, I would love to see this as well! And I would like to see a video about Queen Charlotte being descended from the Black Portuguese Royal House.
@@jsrmusic1 Didn't Dr Kat already do one on that?
@@wendygerrish4964 If this is so, I must find it!
U-tube = Bridgerton: Finding Facts in Fiction? Jan 15th 2021 . Upon talking about "Bridgerton" a TV dramatized period history..i think.
@@wendygerrish4964 thank you! 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
I was so excited to be #22 on the thumbs UP! So happy to hear from Dr. Kat again with yet another VERY INTERESTING HISTORY TOPIC! TY so much for sharing your knowledge with us!❤️
Yea.. I've been waiting around for your video release today.
Hellooo from Arkansas USA!
Thank you for another enlightening video. Is there any chance that you could discuss the life that Charles II lived between 1649 and his return in 1661? We’ve all heard the story if him darkening his skin with walnut juice and hiding in a tree. (Boscobel?) Was he well treated at Versailles? How was The Hague? Honestly, I have always been intrigued by the in between years.
Well, until Dr Kat makes a video on Charles II, I can reccommend a beautiful book, an historical novel, about CharlesII love story with his first wife, Lucy Walter, of Roche Castle in Wales. titled “The Child from the Sea” After the execution of his father, Charles is in hiding, trying to elude his captors and ends up at a remote fishing village on the coast of Wales. The girl Lucy Walter, lives in the castle with her father and brother. They befriend this strange teenage boy and after an idyllic time of sweet first love , spent in the beautiful countryside, they are married with her father’s permission in the local village church. Her family knows by now who he is and he must depart to escape to France where he lives in exile. Lucy decides to follow him to France.. However, because of the dangerous times, she must keep their marriage a secret. The story is delightfully written and it has been one of my favorite books, to read and re-read..
Fantastic episode Dr Cat you are a magical history wizard. Five out of five stars
I'm watching this at 4:40am, getting ready for work and that little whisper just scared the shyt outta me!!!!!
This was great. I now finally understand all the arguments and machinations. It all boiled down to hubris. How sad, but nonetheless interesting. And as usual, your humor tickles me to no end. It is so dry, clever and hilarious. Please keep it up. 🌸🌺
I really appreciate this series. This is such a complex time in British history that it's often glossed over and not explained so well. Thank you!
I'm so glad that I read your explanation about the "last video" before watching, or I would have been shaken. The play Charles III is fascinating, and I've seen it several times, each time marveling over the role intransigence can play in bringing down a monarch.
I enjoyed this so much. It also helped me with a series I've recently discovered. Stella Riley wrote a Roundheads and Cavaliers series involving historical fiction with romance thrown in. A lot of the political back and forth is present in the books and it is fascinating, but they are fiction so it's nice to get straight historical facts to add nuance to everything.
Dr Kat, hello from across the pond (I'm in the States). I wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your videos. They are like attending a really fascinating and thought provoking history lecture without having to worry about exams or tuition. ;) I'm always delighted to see that you've uploaded a new video. Thank you for sharing your time, knowledge and expertise. :)
The whole "monarchs in the House of Lords only" holds in other commonwealth countries too. Opening of Australia's new parliament house was opened in 1988 by the Queen. She was given the grand tour of the whole building, but didn't step into the House of Representatives (our House of Commons). She viewed it from the doorway.
I've been looking forward to this part 3! I would love to see more series like this on your channel. :)
It would seen that Charles was the last in a long line of king who believed in the "Divine Right of Kings". His isolation from the common people of England at that time of great developments in understanding the world around them could have been a component in guaranteeing his demise. Great video Dr K you're a lifeline in these difficult times.
I suspect his son, James II and VII also held this belief, he lost his throne in the Glorious Revolution in 1689.
@@neilbuckley1613 As did Charles 2nd
Yes, but Kat, don't forget, that Charles had virtually given the game away by telling the Queen what he intended to do, and she mentioned it to one of her ladies, with questionable loyalties, and she tipped the commons off.
Taking my mind off current affairs thank you Dr Kat xxx
I love your channel!!! I love how you compare the real history to the “historical” fiction. Very much so with “The Tudors”
It's like watching a train wreck. One bad move after a bad move. Plus economic problems and let's not forget my personal pet peeve : politics mixed with religion. I cannot pin point the moment that would have saved the whole debacle. Could abdication have at least save him? It didn't help Nicholas II much. So I am back to the train wreck image. Will try to remember not to ask my children for any promises as we say goodbye. Great video! I am sure to think about it and your question the whole week. Thank you
What king would abdicate and live as a commoner? One ☝️ dude did it but he seemed like a selfish guy too.
Hi Dr Kat, I love your channel. Thank you so so much for all the stories that you share with us. Seems that Charles I belonged to those people who manage to annoy everybody around them. Not a very useful trait when you are supposed to rule a country. And it didn't end well for him.....
Pssst, it's a very good idea to watch your videos, Dr Kat!
I'm very glad you "set the stage" for tbis. So much of my self imposed study has been on earlier periods so I knew very little on the topic. I leave it for now with a good sense of why and how it happened..and some great imaginings of his surroundings..thanks as always Dr. Kat. I hope you are all well.
I appreciate the sharp focus you apply to these historic events. My European History was a single credit in a single semester at age 19. It has been a while. This provided a broad (very broad. very shaky. very sparse) scaffolding upon which to hang studies in art history and geography. Frankly, it was this week that I finally got the kings George sorted properly in my useful memory! Since my English minor was focused on Shakespeare - I should have done better. Thank you for the work you do for us.
I think this might be my favourite of yours so far - not necessarily the subject, but it really feels like you had the time to explore in to further reaches. I don’t usually pay attention to the length of videos, but this felt shorter, when I’m guessing it was longer than normal!
Great video, as usual! I'm glad to hear this isn't your absolute last video ever, as well. 🙂 One thing I'd absolutely LOVE to see you do a video on is the good (if there was any?) that 👑 Henry VIII did. For example: I know he closed the public bath houses to protect the people from the plague. Whether or not that was the right 'solution' in retrospect, I have no comment, but at least it shows, I think, that he cared. What other examples of his good actions are there?
I enjoyed this video immensely! This particular subject, (the beheading of Charles 1), is one in which I have never had the greatest understanding of but now, I understand so much more about why he was deposed and eventually beheaded. Thank you so much for your keen insight into this subject. I can hardly wait for your next video! Also, I had an idea about a particular subject that I would love for you to make a video about. The subject is: Industrialization and the effects upon child laborers during the Victorian Era.
I like to think there is always a way out. However, given this King's beliefs/personality and his opponents and their personalities, maybe not. As you said, a game of chicken in which no one blinks because they can't. The one who blinks not only loses, but loses everything they believe in. When that happens, only tragedy results.
Thank you, Dr. Kat. I understand much better why some of my cavalier ancestors left England and came to Virginia (USA). These new colonists supported Charles I but not his son, Charles II. It seems distance and time had taken its toll and thus the seeds of discontentment were sewn between England and her American colonies. We know what happened next, don't we?
When I was a girl I read that Louis XVI of France studied Charles I story and learn from it to do not fight the mob. It turns out really bad for him.
Charles was always sure he was in the right and this made any compromise with Parliament impossible for him so how could the outcome ever be different? I feel sad for him because he could have saved his life, but frustrated that he would not ( could not) change!!
Just my opinion; thanks Dr Kat for giving us your scholarly review of this history❣️ much appreciated 🥰
When you whispered into the mic I snorted and giggled 😂
Thank you for another enlightening video! You are the best 💙
That whispery bit is exactly why you're my favorite RUclipsr 😂
Whew, glad I read this note before I heard your comment in the video!
So excited about this one thank you so much. I will watch shortly.!!
Wow, there are so many important British figures with a stammer! There must be something in the determination and control over language...
I agree with you Kat. I've always thought his attempt at an arrest in Parliament was his downfall.
I am so glad you did this. The story gets romanticized or else it gets hard to follow. We get facts from you.
I think I wondered in another comment on a recent video, if King Charles would have been executed if Henry VIII had not started the trend by executing his queens. Then Mary I executed Queen/Lady Jane Grey and eventually Elizabeth I executed Queen Mary Stewart. Elizabeth worried about executing an anointed queen of the blood royal but at least she had some precedent behind the action.
Brilliant as usual! Cheers!
I look forward to seeing your videos each week. Thank you very much 😀
Totally off today’s subject and sorry in advance for being off topic! Have you read or seen much information about the hearings conducted in Zaragoza Spain about Catherine and Henry VIII’s “Great Matter”? It was conducted almost simultaneously with the hearing in England. Since most of Catherine’s Spanish entourage had been sent back to Spain by then, I think it would be interesting in to hear what the Spanish witnesses had to say. Except for the ONE mention in Giles Tremlett’s novel I have seen nothing and would love to know more especially regarding papal brief sent around the time of queen Isabella’s death clarifying and strengthening the dispensation: a copy of this brief was found in ambassador De Pueblo’s papers . Would dearly love to know more but understand if this topic takes a back seat to others. As always, love your work!
I enjoy how you explain the documented way events ….thank you …love learning from you thank you 😊 💖💕✨👍🏻✨
Dr Kat thanks for your elaboration (I'm not good at History) which is clear and insightful ❤️😇
Dr. Kat, I once read that Henrietta Maria hated Charles at the beginning of their marriage and that later on she stirred up a lot of trouble for Charles and that her meddling lead to his attitude towards parliament could you enlighten me? (love your history lessons)
Brilliant video. It´s very difficult to squeeze that mess into half an hour. I think Charles did what he thought was expected of him. He was very insecure as a man and being King he could hide behind the divine right to rule. It could look like arrogance or stubbornness but he genuine believed he´s right. The Buckingham´s situation didn´t help either, he was gorgeous and built his all career on it. Other wise totally useless with expensive tastes thus hated by everyone except of the King.
... was not expecting to feel this much sympathy for Charles I... this story is crazy.
I wonder what would have happened if he had abdicated in favor of his son. Would it merely have postponed the civil war, or would it be prevented entirely, but with a severely weakened monarchy? How old was his son at the time? Could Charles I have kept power from behind the scenes?
Last video??? As in, "ever"??? I have so many topics I've been hoping that you cover! Maybe it's time for me to join some of the other platforms you are on, and hopefully I can get my history fixed there. You're the best, Dr Kat!!
I feel a great saddens for Charles - he believed devoutly inThe Divine Right of Kings (misguided doctrine of the time) and failed to learn that you
need to consider the views of others even if you don’t agree with them.
He stuck to his father’s beliefs and the unwise promises he made him. He loved his family and his unfortunately misguided wife who
encouraged his outdated belief in himself as all powerful and omnipotent. He loved her and believed her!
He died with his honour all about him believing to be right. He should have abdicated in favour of his son Charles thus saving his name
and saving us from the self righteous hypocrite O. Cromwell of joyless and cruel religious intolerance and much corruption in high places.
I know Charles and his cavaliers were far from perfect but I would prefer them any day to Old Cromwell’s hypocrisy. Miserable old
so and so pretending not to want a crown or title. Lord Protector indeed !! .
Loved this video as always! BUT would appreciate some more information about how Charles received the information about his punishment, what about the rest of his family and what his final hours looked like for example. The story came all of a sudden kind of abrupt end without any personal touch so to say, and you ususlly add these! :-) Thanks anyway!
Highly anticipated video!
Can you explain the execution further? Why on earth did they break into the upper part of the wall to create scaffolding? I had the opportunity to visit England a few years ago and saw the Banqueting Hall. It was very confusing to me why they took such great pains to do this rather than just execute him at say maybe the Tower. Thanks!
Great video as usual. Thank you Dr Kat xx
How about a video on what lead to the Restoration?
This was a fantastic video, I knew that Charles had been beheaded, but did not know the whole story. Now I want to know the story of how Parliament then reached out and installed the king back into power. Is that Charles son? If so, he should have just abdicated his throne and saved himself.
How much residual frustration did the English public feel from the previous two monarchs that was finally expressed by Charles’s execution in 1649? If you were born in 1603 (the year Elizabeth died) and somehow dodged the plagues, and you survived through James’s death in 1625, you'd be around 46 and would have seen a lot of ill will toward the monarchy by the time Charles was beheaded. I’ve read that Elizabeth wasn’t nearly as popular as we think of her today, and James largely treated his subjects with disregard. If he was the recipient of pent-up public anger, was Charles "more sinned against than sinning" or was it mostly hubris that brought him down? Do you think his physical disabilities might have contributed to his downfall?
Great job as usual. Appreciate your efforts.
Yes Charles was arrogant but was Cromwell any different?
Neither side wanted to budge an inch. And the Rump parliament sounds like a Kangaroo court.
As Oliver Cromwell's gggranduncle was Thomas Cromwell; I always
wonder if "one" of the many reasons he had the King executed was part vengeance. Because of what King Henry VIII did to Thomas Cromwell.
Now he had the opportunity and a motive.
He had all of the Crown Jewels sold or destroyed including The Tudor Crown;
which was also known as Henry's VIII's crown.
So who was the greater villain Charles or Cromwell?
I've often wondered bow Cromwell squared his "intense religious faith" when signing Charles' death warrant. In the end Cromwell put himself about as though he were a King in all but name, so I'm not sure he was any better a person than intransigent Charles - at least he had the Divine Right of Kings behind his thinking (not saying he was right, but that he thought he was).
I figure Charles was going to die the moment the war started - very few points of reconciliation would have been available after the beginning of war, though it is a testament to what the crown symbolized that he was able to hang on as long as he did. What's amazing to me is that the French had a front row seat for all this and simply didn't clock a lot of the same signs when their own demise was in progress.
Where to even begin with "where did it begin". The way I see history is a tapestry; woven threads, leading from one event to another. Where Charles I came to the point of no return is a tough question. Was it marrying a Catholic? Was it the promise he made to his father? The strength of his belief in the Divine Right of Kings? Or was it simply his absolute lack of awareness or politics? If pressed, I'd probably say the latter, because even Elizabeth I knew that if you were going to sign the death warrant of a queen, you should include a modicum of plausible deniability .
Ah, memories of student teaching. The teacher loved the lesson. The students didn't care much. Oh my Roundhead ancestors would be horrified to know that some of us are Episcopalian!
Thank you so much Dr. Kat. Edifying as always. Can you do a series on the evolution of democracy and the parliament e.g. the role of the parliament of the bats and the ways in which over the centuries power has been transferred from the monarch to the parliament.
As usual, Dr. Kat didn’t disappoint us. Unfortunately, Charles I was a disappointment. I think he had some sort of fatal flaw which prevented him from seeing the benefits of compromise. There were so many opportunities for him to take a different path.
Brilliant Dr Katt thanks a million James
Question: what did Parliament consist of, in those days? To understand the nature of the conflict between King and Parliament it is necessary to know what the interests were of the Parliament of the time.
I assume that in those days in order to become a member of parliament you had to have the economic and military power to throw your weight around. I assume that in those days Pariament consisted ot members of aristocracy who were trying to increase their power and wealth. I assume this aristocracy resented any taxes demanded by the King, preferring that the revenue of their tax collecting would all go into solidifying their own local power, with the economic power used to build, for example, fortresses, in anticipation of war with neighbouring aristrocratic seats of power. (Or perhaps engaging in war with a bisshop.)
That is, I'm assuming that in those days the only way to become member of Parliament was to force your way in with economic and military power.
Just google 'history of the house of commons'. Very different from the house of lords. Very typical of farming communities, and the Brits have a long history of selecting representatives and voting to support a Monarch and their rule by mutual consent . Yes male landholders usually and the Member of Parliament had to have his own means.
@@wendygerrish4964 Yeah, I proceeded to read the wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England
The big contrast: in our time Parliament is about representing the population, but in those days it was about economic power. The house of commons: only those who were freehold property owners, with a wealth above a certain cut-off, were eligable to vote in their county.
In the time of King Charles I some parts of the aristocracy sided with Charles, and other parts united in war against Charles, resulting in civil war. It was a close call. When Oliver Cromwell died the balance shifted back to support of some form of monarchy. The Royal house was reinstated (but those same aristrocratic powers took the opportunity to further curb the monarch's power) Oliver Cromwell's body was dug up, and his body was hanged, drawn, and quartered.
It's relatively difficult to find information about the amount of power of the House of Commons. I encountered an interesting detail in the wikipedia article about Oliver Cromwell: "Lord Manchester [...] accused Cromwell of recruiting men of "low birth" as officers in the army". Cromwell chose as officers men who were strongly motivated to press on the war. So it wasn't all aristrocracy that was making the decisions.
Basically there was huge misunderstandings between factions within the aristocracy and the land-owning gentry that led to a series of fake wars and a revolution in England. Similar to what happened in France centuries later.
Dr. Kat, it would be good if you did a programme on Henrietta Maria
Great video Kat. Thank you
Could you do an in-depth series on Marie Antoinette please
I love the brain-rabbithole comment, mine has done some similar things especially when writing essays.... xD
I get that people weren’t best pleased with his marriage to a Catholic French princess, but the previous potential match with Spain was even _more_ unpopular.
As evidenced in the marriage of Charles’ sister, all those years before, there were always going to be conflict with whatever choice was made; her own mother wanted her daughter to become a queen, & thus she (among others) thought Frederick was too low a match for the daughter of the ruler of two kingdoms- & then there was the whole obvious religious aspect.
The only reasons the match went ahead was that 1) the princess herself was dead keen on it; her late adored brother had approved of him- & all three had hung out a bit before Henry’s death & had become friends - & 2) James himself wanted the match, & he made Frederick promise Elizabeth would always be treated as a queen- which would make for a chilly relationship with her mother-in-law.
We don’t necessarily know all the options for a potential spouse for Elizabeth in the 1610’s, nor for Charles in the 1620’s- but knowing he was a king not a princess, means that the dynamic of what made for a good match for England is somewhat different.
Was there even a suitably high-ranked Protestant princess of age to marry at this time?
If not, then there’s not a lot to be said...
Sorry for the rambling, lol...
Wow. That must have been like watching a decades-long train wreck. 😳
Could you please do one about how to sensitively deal with... hmm... controversial or contentious historical figures? How do you decide what to mention when you tell students (or any other group) about these people? I'm a scientist, not a historian, but there are still some moments in science history which are important to mention. I've been warning my students for years that it's very heavy on the "dead white European males" side, but sometimes I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the person was racist, misogynistic, or otherwise held views we don't agree with today. Shakespeare can be somewhat controversial, especially with his apparent anti-semitic views, so how do you deal with something like that?
Henrietta Maria, I have never been so happy by hearing an name other than: Mary. Elizabeth, and Anne... It's like the knew only a very view names...
your last video? Please tell me you are joking! How will I have a wee cup of tea and hear a calming voice literally 'reading me the past'? I hope you and your family are ok xo
Charles believed in the Divine Right Of Kings. There was no way he would be able to imagine that his own parliament would condemn and execute him. There was also no way he would have felt he needed a potential "patsy", or fall guy, in case things went south. He felt, as King, that his word was inviolate and that if he named men as traitors it was Parliaments job to back him 100%, even if the accused were part of that body. By Charles understanding, he was correct. But too many powerful men wanted to lessen the monarchys power and invest it in Parliament itself, and those powerful men prevailed because Charles felt that All power was vested in him alone, and Parliament, or certain members, were traitors, and he had neither the numbers or the financial resources to back up his Kingship rule or accusation, so he lost it all, including his life.
Delighted to see you're a Bill Bryson fan.
Can you please make a video about the Civil War that followed the aforementioned events that you have discussed in this one?
I'm really interested to know about this period and how the monarchy was reinstated in England. I know virtually nothing about these events because I noticed it's not usually discussed as regularly as for example, the War of the Roses or King Henry VIII and his wives.
Thank you very much!
Interesting to hear this from UK perspective. I grew up in New Haven CT, USA - where the judges, Whaley, Goff, and Dixwell, fled after the execution. I grew up hearing how noble they were and how terrible Charles was. But how tyrannical was he? I don't know
4:36 Why would restraining oneself to reason be pointing towards bloodymindedness? In theory, acting reasonably refrains conquest from being bloody
fascinating video!
I could be very mistaken but it seems to me that people from this era believed so strongly in the next life that they were more likely to accept that they would die. I think death was pretty common in all its forms and in all phases of life. And the rituals regarding death like preparing the body for burial that it demystified it to some extent. I don't think that they were as freaked out about it as modern people are.
Last video ? I’m hoping you just mean in this series!
Last video in a series of three, not last video ever! I’ll be back next week, same time, same place ❤️
@@ReadingthePast
I was about to make the same remark. Getting worried here. 😊 ❤️
Thank you Dr. Kat!!
I love your royal histories, can we have more?
The chief judge, Bradshaw came from my home town.
I wish you would make your videos in a version without the music at start/ end. I sometimes like to listen to your videos to relax and fall asleep. The music always wakes me up. 😂 Love the content.
Apart from his exquisite taste in art and more importantly, unwittingly being responsible for planting the seed of parliamentary democracy, he was a disaster for this country, but then all the Stuarts were, in my opinion. Losing the Crown? the monarch is supposed to defend a country's interests not work against them. None so deaf as those who won't listen.
At least he inspired the Cavalier poets, though the Parlimentarians ( puritans) had the best poet-
John Milton.
Royalty and the Arts in history would be fascinating.
It would also be interesting to know more about court and local traditions for Eastertide (Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter itself), Pentecost, St. John's Eve (midsummer), All Saints and All Souls days, Christmas, Epiphany, and Lady Day.
Also, is it true that Elizabeth I mandated that everyone should wear a hat and have a woollen shroud in order to help the weavers, milliners, and other guilds and industries?
Hello Dr kat thanks for the video this one had me wanting to explore more information about Stuart's they seem to me fair rulers it's just a shame they were not given a chance ps have you hear of Rebecca who has a history buff channel she is very good
A great video. So informative . Wish I could travel backwards as a fly on the wall.