A riveting lecture by Dr. Kay. It brought a new understanding of the Commonwealth and how it contributed to modern Britain. Well worth listening to the end.
A very informative lecture on a period of British history about which previously I had had only a fairly superficial knowledge! I am definitely getting her book (“The Restless Republic: Britain Without a Crown”).
Great talk, the tides of history illumined by the personal. How we so nearly found and led the way! Abandoned through sloth and subservience and the treachery of Monck to settle for centuries of hypocrisy and contrivance masquerading as 'stability'.
I thought Dr Keay refuted the idea that the civil war was a class war. One of us wasn't listening with an open mind to an explanation of a puzzling period of English history.
Fascinating. As a native of Worcester, I was raised on the myth of the "Faithful City" which welcomed Prince Charles in 1651, prior to the battle there.. Her comments at around 46 minutes put this into perspective - I do not believe the residents of Worcester (or anywhere else) were happy to have his largely foreign (Scottish) army billeted there!
As a person many of whose ancestors came to North America in the early to mid 17th century, I am intrigued by both what and why they left and what impacts came across the Atlantic.
Interesting set of stories in this lecture, enjoyed it. Listened to her book too (which this lecture is based on), thought it was great - would recommend
I found so many things in this fascinating, but I felt it was very abstract. I kept asking the computer... but why, who, how many, where, when.... Not a criticism, just a thought.
During and following the US Civil War, the vast Centralization and strengthening of the state institutions North and South forever reformed the nation. In so many ads, the English Civil War pioneered the way in North America, however leavened by the flaws as well as successes of the 17th Century.
Fascinating. Let's look forward to the 2nd Republic, after Charles the last. There is a certain elegant symetary of the 3rd Charles , whom will finally unconsciously facilitate the end of monarchy. Excellent talk.
Yes: as acknowledged at the very beginning: "the new Commonwealth": the country wasn't a republic. Charles II automatically was King upon the death of his father, irrespective of the presence of the military dictatorship. it's worth noting that under the Treaty of Breda, at the Invitation of Parliament and almost immediately following the death of the dictator (Lord Protector), Charles II took up a lawful position as head of government with all Royal prerogatives intact.
We do need to think who was right and who was wrong since many of the issues are still with us and the English Civil War did not resolve them. We have as many divisions today. There is no authority above the secular state.
The "British Isles" is a geographical term, not a political one. Includes Ireland , Isle of Man , Northern Isles, Shetland . Didn't Ireland used to be called "Scotia" ? Isidore of Seville in 580 CE writes "Scotia and Hibernia are the same country" (Isidore, lib. xii. c. 6), the connotation is still ethnic.
@@bsastarfire250 it’s all political. I don’t live on a British island. And it originally comes from Greek, prior to Latin. Σκότος, Σκοτία (Scotos, Scotia)--dark. Not sunny like the Aegean.
@@chrislambert9435 not so. The first use of the term “British Isles”, recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1577. Albion (Ancient Greek: Ἀλβιών) is the oldest known name of the island of Great Britain. Judging from Avienus's Ora Maritima to which it is considered to have served as a source, the Massaliote Periplus (originally written in the 6th century BC, translated by Avienus at the end of the 4th century), does not use the name Britannia; instead it speaks of nēsos Iernōn kai Albiōnōn "the islands of the Iernians and the Albiones".[9] Likewise, Pytheas (ca. 320 BC), as directly or indirectly quoted in the surviving excerpts of his works in later writers, speaks of Albiōn and Iernē (Britain and Ireland).
The most boring lectures are those whose presenters do not know their facts by heart and have to read their scripts verbatim. Interesting history made dull.
I have never really understood what was really going on in that period and what it was all for. The interactions between English, Scottish and Irish affairs make it even more complicated and confusing.
Some, but many weren't, there was a weird sort of denial that people went into whereby the interegnum wasn't talked about in a sort of mass hysteria pretending the last ten years hadn't happened.
A riveting lecture by Dr. Kay. It brought a new understanding of the Commonwealth and how it contributed to modern Britain. Well worth listening to the end.
Anna Keay = anarchy?
Have you read her book on this period? I'm reading it now, very enjoyable.
Brilliant. Loved it! A fascinating period in British History.
Interesting and competently presented, thank you.
A very informative lecture on a period of British history about which previously I had had only a fairly superficial knowledge! I am definitely getting her book (“The Restless Republic: Britain Without a Crown”).
hi from Ireland excellent speech by that lady
Great talk, the tides of history illumined by the personal.
How we so nearly found and led the way! Abandoned through sloth and subservience and the treachery of Monck to settle for centuries of hypocrisy and contrivance masquerading as 'stability'.
Tyranny does not need a crown.
Hmmm, TW Anderson, I see you are a Roundhead.
Still, at least the Stuart Restoration brought back Christmas.
I thought Dr Keay refuted the idea that the civil war was a class war. One of us wasn't listening with an open mind to an explanation of a puzzling period of English history.
Fascinating. As a native of Worcester, I was raised on the myth of the "Faithful City" which welcomed Prince Charles in 1651, prior to the battle there.. Her comments at around 46 minutes put this into perspective - I do not believe the residents of Worcester (or anywhere else) were happy to have his largely foreign (Scottish) army billeted there!
Great upload and very informative of a peculiar time within the British isles !
Why are we not told at the start who this excellent speaker is?
Dr Anna Keay.
Edited out!
Simon Thurley's wife.
Simon Thurley's wife.
She's no beauty, that's for sure.
Excellent lecture. Thank you.
As a person many of whose ancestors came to North America in the early to mid 17th century, I am intrigued by both what and why they left and what impacts came across the Atlantic.
A study of revolutionary Britain by Anarchy. Nice one.
What a fantastic expert
Best lecture I have ever seen on this period.,
Interesting set of stories in this lecture, enjoyed it. Listened to her book too (which this lecture is based on), thought it was great - would recommend
Wonderfully balanced.
Fascinating.
I found so many things in this fascinating, but I felt it was very abstract.
I kept asking the computer... but why, who, how many, where, when....
Not a criticism, just a thought.
20:35 - I really don't mean to breach decorum, but could we talk for a moment about Sir Hamon L'Estrage's hair?
It came with the collar.
@@Gorboduc Lol!
Very interesting 👍🇬🇧
The levelers, the diggers, and the luddites? What about the enclosure of the commons?
Superb presentation
During and following the US Civil War, the vast Centralization and strengthening of the state institutions North and South forever reformed the nation. In so many ads, the English Civil War pioneered the way in North America, however leavened by the flaws as well as successes of the 17th Century.
Fascinating. Let's look forward to the 2nd Republic, after Charles the last. There is a certain elegant symetary of the 3rd Charles , whom will finally unconsciously facilitate the end of monarchy. Excellent talk.
Let's hope... from the USA
Did you know; its actually illegal to investigate Charles III personal wealth ?
Having been given a broad view of the inadequacies of the first "Republic" you look forward to a second?? We tried it, it didn't work.
Anna Keay is the host in the BRAR films on the Tower....and she is an absolute smoker😍🥰
It’s not often l learn things on RUclips
His mother named him Bulstrode???
He was named after his mother, and her surname was Bulstrode. I think her first name may have been Elizabeth, so not a lot of choice there.
Fascinating history that omits the experience of the majority of the population. Aren't they central to the life of republican Briritain?
I agree. I was expecting more on the life of the common people.
Rats sometimes do chase cats, when afflicted with a brain parasite.
Great.Simple untheatrical delivery~unlike pompous revisionist academics.
In the common wealth at that did many have papers and could they read?
Just like today where all the MPs are from a certain class or brought in just for the area vote ,and all out for themselves
This Lecture certainly was not told from the view-point of the Puritans or Non-Conformists
Yes: as acknowledged at the very beginning: "the new Commonwealth": the country wasn't a republic. Charles II automatically was King upon the death of his father, irrespective of the presence of the military dictatorship. it's worth noting that under the Treaty of Breda, at the Invitation of Parliament and almost immediately following the death of the dictator (Lord Protector), Charles II took up a lawful position as head of government with all Royal prerogatives intact.
Any beggar can wear a crown and every crown is hollow.
England was a Republic from 1649, first immediately after the execution of Charles II under the name of Commonwealth and then under the name Republic.
Surprised no mention was made of the 'Witch Craze'.
Gresham College without the help of numerous allies, the Britons would not have been able to create such a huge state on FOREIGN TERRITORY !!!
So what’s your point? It’s the result that counts not how you win.
We do need to think who was right and who was wrong since many of the issues are still with us and the English Civil War did not resolve them. We have as many divisions today. There is no authority above the secular state.
Interesting subject but the woman's stuttering made it hard to listen to.
Don't be ridiculous, you make it it sound as though she couldn't get a complete sentence out.
Stuttering?!?!?!?
There was no stuttering
British and Irish isles.
I’m not British.
The "British Isles" is a geographical term, not a political one. Includes Ireland , Isle of Man , Northern Isles, Shetland . Didn't Ireland used to be called "Scotia" ? Isidore of Seville in 580 CE writes "Scotia and Hibernia are the same country" (Isidore, lib. xii. c. 6), the connotation is still ethnic.
The Romans first called (them all) them the British Isles
@@bsastarfire250 it’s all political.
I don’t live on a British island.
And it originally comes from Greek, prior to Latin. Σκότος, Σκοτία (Scotos, Scotia)--dark. Not sunny like the Aegean.
@@chrislambert9435 not so.
The first use of the term “British Isles”, recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary, was in 1577.
Albion (Ancient Greek: Ἀλβιών) is the oldest known name of the island of Great Britain.
Judging from Avienus's Ora Maritima to which it is considered to have served as a source, the Massaliote Periplus (originally written in the 6th century BC, translated by Avienus at the end of the 4th century), does not use the name Britannia; instead it speaks of nēsos Iernōn kai Albiōnōn "the islands of the Iernians and the Albiones".[9] Likewise, Pytheas (ca. 320 BC), as directly or indirectly quoted in the surviving excerpts of his works in later writers, speaks of Albiōn and Iernē (Britain and Ireland).
The most boring lectures are those whose presenters do not know their facts by heart and have to read their scripts verbatim. Interesting history made dull.
The most uninteresting people are those who criticise but do nothing positive.
Did you watch the questions at the end? Seems to me that Dr Keay knows her facts very well.
Exactly! I found this talk fascinating. Anna Keay certainly knows her subject.
Yes, it was rather robotic . Not sure why stating that fact should
get anyone in a tizzy ?
Oh and of course you could have done so much better ! I bet you’re the most boring person in the room when you’re present anywhere
I have never really understood what was really going on in that period and what it was all for. The interactions between English, Scottish and Irish affairs make it even more complicated and confusing.
Weren't key figures in the execution of Chales I were themselves executed at the start of the Restoration?
post hummus execution
Didn't realise Greek food was so popular in 17 th century England.?
Some, but many weren't, there was a weird sort of denial that people went into whereby the interegnum wasn't talked about in a sort of mass hysteria pretending the last ten years hadn't happened.
@@tombrown407 Rather like the aftermath of Covid insanity.