American Reacts - The Trial of Charles I (1649)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- Original Video: • The Trial of Charles I...
Discord: / discord
My second Channel: / @mrmcjibbin6142
Link to my PayPal (please only donate if you think I deserve it and any amount is very appreciated) www.paypal.me/mcjibbin
Hi everyone! I'm an American from the Northeast (New England). I want to create a watering hole for people who want to discuss, learn and teach about history through RUclips videos which you guys recommend to me through the comment section or over on Discord. Let's be respectful but, just as importantly, not be afraid to question any and everything about historical records in order to give us the most accurate representation of the history of our species and of our planet!
Having a diverse perspective is crucial to what I want to achieve here so please don't hold back! I want to learn about all I can! Keep recommending and PLEAESE join my Discord :) ( / discord )
Also my TikTok :)
TikTok: @mcjibbin
#CharlesI
#Trial
#American
#KingCharles
#HistoriaCivilis
#McJibbin
#History
#AmericanReacts
#Reaction
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
When Charles II (Charles I son) restored the monarchy, the members of the High Court of Justice was indeed chased down and in many cases, sentenced for the crime of treason. They even went through the trouble of digging up Cromwell’s corpse (among others) and put them on trial posthumously. Their heads were eventually spiked among other “punishments”.
I believe John Downes (the man who spoke for the Kings request) was the only man who signed the death warrant that was not put to death.
The trouble with saying "they should have stuck to the laws" is that would literally mean the entire civil war had been fought for nothing, all those thousands of dead and they would just have been back to where they were before the war. They needed a resolution that removed Charles from power, this sham of a trial was the best they could come up with. Perhaps they should have just taken him outside and killed him when he was in the custody of the Army but it was a complicated situation. This was a kind of compromise solution.
I don't know if this answers your question, but, of the 12 monarchies in Europe, the monarchies of Liechtenstein and Monaco have significant political influence, and the Monarch of the Vatican (the Pope) has absolutely power.
To clarify, the structure of Commons -> Lords -> Monarch hasn't changed. You seemed to suggest that the Prime Minister was above the House of Commons and Lords, and was equivalent to the Monarch, this isn't correct. What you are describing sounds like a president. The Prime Minister is part of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has no legislative power above any other member of the Commons.
Specifically, like an American President, as there's many Westmister-style systems with Presidents where the President is only Head of State - in contrast to the US which gave one individual way more power
Unlike the USA, which votes for a President, Brits vote on who should be their local Member of Parliament in the House of Commons (650 in total). The Party with the most MPs then propose (through a ballot of that Party's MPs) one in their number to become Prime Minister. This name is then put to the Monarch who, technically, can name any MP for that role regardless of how the public voted in an election. The Queen has never appointed anyone other than the name proposed by the largest Party. As you know from the Jay Foreman video, no-one is elected to the House of Lords. This led to potential problems for democracy on the Brexit issue, because the public voted to leave the EU, but the majority of members of the (unelected) House of Lords were 'remainers'. Fearing abolition, the House of Lords eventually backed down and the UK left the EU in Jan 2020. Check out " What Powers Does the Queen of England Actually Have?" by Today I Found Out.
The phrase the King said under his breath ‘You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!’ is a quotation from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.
There is a film. It's called "Cromwell". It is very good too.
There is in fact a movie about this you can watch! Will send it on Discord!
You should react to how the House of Commons and House of Lords functions, you might find it quite interesting and useful!
Jay Foreman has done several videos on this.
I'll check some out!!
@@alancook politics explained is great
Watch the film Cromwell.
Question, who are the people? It was a small percentage of landowners. You asked the question about going to "war" it has to be signed off by the monarchy, Tony Blair tried to change it, but failed. The PM has a weekly meeting with the monarch.
This is also the root of the describing of King George III as a tyrant, he wasn’t particularly, but the English (really British) Civil Wars were very much in the popular consciousness still
While it'll be a rare day when you see the monarchy exert any overt power, they DO still have it, the PM has to visit them for the rubber stamp of approval to form the government after every election, and she has Veto powers people tend to forget about.
Politics was ever thus. Interesting fact the present Conservative Party had its roots in the Royalist faction. The House of Lords has over the years been in conflict with the Commons. If the winning political party has something in its manifesto that they want to legislate on, the Lords cannot refuse it.
Yeah it’s bad that he’s making up stuff, but quite simply he had no choice, the king is literally above the law.
The more things change, the more they stay the same!
JAY FOREMAN DOES GREAT VIDEOS ON HOW UK POLITICS WORKS CALLED POLITICS UNBORINGED!!! You know what that means Conor, its a perfect reaction idea. 😎
To some extent that’s like saying the Founding Fathers should have ‘stuck to the laws’
Hey, Jibbin boy where can I request videos? Here or your discord
It's best if you do it on the Discord. Has a much higher chance getting seen by us Marshals, who in turn pass on the recommendations to Connor.
I live in a country with pretty different system of law.
It is interesting to see that you see precedent as a source of law. You basically give a court an authority to make laws, and it is strange to me.
In our system parliament makes law and courts judge according to it. In a case when something isn't explained by law court is free to make decision according to it's own understanding of what is right and wrong (like in english system), but then this situation must be analysed by the parliament and law must be written (and that part is different). It can agree or disagree with court's decision. If parliament hasn't made any law about that situation and it happened again - another court is free to make their own decision agreeing or disagreeing with a precedent - they have equal authority to the previous court, so aren't bound by it.
I understand that precedent=law way has simplified law-making, but it complicates using it.
Law by precedent is a unique feature of the anglo-saxon ( = english speaking) law tradition. Most other law systems work more or less how you described it. The same is true for the jury system, which is a redult of the medieval english law tradition and pretty much only exists in english speaking countries.
@@panther7748 interesting! We also have jury, but it is pretty new addition, less then two centuries old.
Before it there was a thing with elected judges, but then it became a profession with highly specialised education - jury was added to represent the people
@@sodinc Your system seems to be quite interesting. :) From which country are you? I'm from Germany and we don't have juries at all. However in some courts there are non-professional "auxiliary judges" in addition to one or more professional judges. On higher court levels there is always a board comprised of several professional judges.
@@panther7748 That is a russian system, established during Aleksander II reforms, than broken in USSR and than remade again with some modifications.
We have juries for high-level crime everything else is decided by professional judges (1 or 3 in some cases). There is also a board system for the highest level of court
@@sodinc Thank you for your answer. :)
In the USA, criminal case are prosecuted on behalf of ‘The People’. In the UK, prosecutions are on behalf of the monarch so cases are currently listed as ‘Regina versus so and so’. In the case of Charles I, I guess the case should have been listed as ‘Rex v Rex’.
not quite correct. In England that is the case but Scottish courts do not run under Royal Ascent and Scotland does not allow Crown Courts. Northern Ireland do not follow that either... It is mostly because Elizabeth is not Queen of Scotland but is Queen of Scots so she cannot be the ultimate legal authority.
@@grantpaterson1016 thanks. Had assumed that prosecutions in Scotland were brought in the name of the Queen, as in England and Wales, but a quick Google shows that they are prosecuted by ‘Her Majesty's Advocate’.
@@chrismackett9044 it's a fascinating jungle to get in to tbh. Basically in England all are subjects of the crown, in Scotland the Monarch is subject to the people. English law prosecutes people on crown law on the crown behalf, Scots law has the monarch prosecute the peoples laws on their behalf.
Tower of London Tour guide - Interesting and funny - ruclips.net/video/zb5mtguwNjw/видео.html
Yes the British Army still looks to the queen as commander-in-chief (along with the _Royal_ Air Force and the _Royal_ Navy). If there was a situation where the monarchy and parliament were in conflict again, the loyalty of the military should be with the crown, although the reality is that in such a complicated situation who knows what would happen.
Something the US does do better than the UK when it comes to politics is having publicly elected upper and lower houses of the legislative which we do not; personally I would abolish the House of Lords in its current form and change its outdated name. And in my view, if a monarch has ANY input into the running of a country then it's non-democratic and should be changed.
The UK monarchy still holds more power than people think (although it is massively depleted from what it once). Their income comes from public taxes (but it's not a lot on a per-person level). They control the military, they have to sign every law parliament decide on, without which it isn't law. They can dictate what can and can't be discussed in parliament, and they even control the opening and closing of parliament overall. The monarch doesn't often use many of these powers but the fact that she has them in the first place is wrong in my opinion.