Thanks for posting this. A great series in the finest BBC tradition. Before this was aired on PBS back in the mid 1980s, very few Americans knew anything about the English Civil War.
The greatest historical drama since the BBCs War and Peace in 1972. Sheer class in every respect, from the costumes, the performances, and the most realistic sword fights. Many thanks to ‘sle71r’ for presenting this superb drama.
Your assessment depends on only one view of sovereignty. More than 3 centuries before, Marsillius of Padua wrote the time Defensor Pacis affirming the sovereignty of the people. Your view rests on the opening verses of Romans 13 when demand that we be subject to rulers since authority is from God. Reading the rest however notes that they serve as servants of God and thus subject to his ordinances The accepted interpretation is that, where those ordinances are ignored, the actions are ultra vires, beyond the power of the principal, and may - must - be resisted. The rejection of Parliament breached the laws of God and human..Parliament acted legally, and there was never any possibility that diplomacy could have averted the lamentable bloodletting. I count Charles Stuart as a distant relative, but I am under no illusion as to the side that deserved victory.
@@alecblunden8615 What you have to say is interesting, but I wish you would rewrite it. It's a little hard to follow for someone who really wants to know what you're trying to say.
@@danawinsor1380 Dear Dana To address the first point, the government of countries has developed from personal or oligarchical rule to the modern concept of the "state" where, notionally at least, sovereignty is vested in the "people" and exercised by a representative assembly. This concept has nothing to do with democracy or autocracy- in my experience, the state's making the most extravagant claims are those most clearly autocratic in nature. The change from apersonal etc sovereignty to a popular one can be traced back to the Saxon Wittangemot via Simon de Montfort and Parliament, but only emerged fully fledged with the the Wars of the Three Kingdoms AKA THE ENGLISH CIVIL WARS and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The theoretical basis of the popular sovereignty concept was Marsillius of Padua whose Defensor Packs attacked the concept of personal papal secular authority. The result is that "states" began to emerge by the end of the 17th century, but personal sovereignty is still a thing even in the 21st. If you will excuse me, I will address the legacy of Romans 13 tomottoy. I am virtually blind , and can't cope with too much typing at any one time Regards Alec
@@danawinsor1380 Dear Dana If you have a Bible look up Romans 13;1-7. You can turn it up on the Internet if not. Until the 19 th century verse 1: has been preached in support of the divine right of kings or any governing authority - that of course is an example of proof texts gone Berzerk. However, if you read on , you learn those authorities you find in verse 3 that authorities are instituted "as a terror not to good conduct, but to bad" and to wield the sword in vain. However v 4 and 6 explain the true position - rulers are the servants of God or God'servants and sp subject to the ethos of divine government. This is stressed by the Greek words translated as "servant" - diakonos and leiturgious - both of which reflect ecclessuastic roles. Diakonos literally means a deacon and leiturgious, one who develops or manages the liturgy. In other words, they are ministers of the divine, at least equal to, if not superior io the clerics, but with a different function. Boil it all down and you have Servants of Go ruler by this command of God, not an absolute ruler. If a ruler does not live up to those standards said ruler is not a true ruler and rebellion is a possibility.
Great series, thanks for posting it. I'd read about the era of the wars, but seeing this brings a much more vivid picture of the times, people, and places.
Very moving final episode of this great series. Terrific speech from the dock by John Fletcher. It was sad to see him go. The King’s bestowing of honours brought the series to a wonderful close. The terrible war could have been avoided if men had turned to diplomacy instead of their swords, to execute the king was unforgivable and Charles II was justified in having revenge on those who signed the death warrant, a document which amazingly still survives to this day.
The lines that Fletcher is speaking are, I believed, based off the testimony from the actual trial of the regicides of Charles I. This series, whilst fictional, is still quite accurate.
As the series came to a close, I found myself wondering what ultimately became of various characters we saw throughout this long adventure. Squire Capel, Peter Crane, Matthew Saltmarsh, Goodwife Margaret, and even Susan Protheroe and Colonels Marsh and Leckie.
Charles II, the "merry monarch", was crowned April 23, 1661, and ruled until his death at age 54 in February 1685. He had at least twelve illegitimate children, but left no legal heir; the crown passed to his brother James. England never again had another military dictatorship, nor a monarch who ruled without Parliament.
AND that is that. England wanted a monarchy again, but not an unlimited one. No more Oliver Cromwells; he was dug up and posthumously beheaded; his severed noggin took on a bizarre life of its own thereafter. A constitutional monarchy. Has worked well ever since. Case closed.
However there are Stuart claimants who take precedence over the House of Saxe-Coburg/Gotha/Glucksberg/Battenberg, commonly known as Windsor. Franz von Wittlesbach - Herzog von Bayern/Duke of Bavaria is first amongst these - the heir of the Jacobite Succession. Other than Germany, there is the Yorkist heir in Australia, Simon Abney-Hastings.
Sir John Robinson (1615-1680) was a merchant who rose through London political ranks, culminating with the newly-created title of Baronet of London (1660-1680) during the Restoration. He was Lord Mayor of the city in 1662. He was also Constable of the Tower and Lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets (the latter a new office) from 1660 to 1675, in which capacity he visits the fictional John Fletcher here (59 men signed Charles I's death warrant). His reputation was mixed. From Wikipedia: Samuel Pepys wrote of Robinson as "a talking bragging bufflehead . . . . as very a coxcomb as I would have thought had been in the City . . . . nor hath he brains to outwit any ordinary tradesman". However an account of the aldermen in 1672 said "he hath been most industrious in the civill government of the cittie, watchfull to prevent anything that might reflect any prejudice or dishonour upon the King's government, happy in dispatch of businesse, to the great contentment of the people."
This was a superb series in every respect.
Man do I love these age progression historical dramas. We really need to do more of those nowadays.
Thanks for posting this. A great series in the finest BBC tradition. Before this was aired on PBS back in the mid 1980s, very few Americans knew anything about the English Civil War.
its sad that few americans know that the right to bear arms came from the english civil war and its aftermath
So disappointed this wonderful series had to end...thank you I enjoyed watching this again 💜
The greatest historical drama since the BBCs War and Peace in 1972. Sheer class in every respect, from the costumes, the performances, and the most realistic sword fights. Many thanks to ‘sle71r’ for presenting this superb drama.
Your assessment depends on only one view of sovereignty. More than 3 centuries before, Marsillius of Padua wrote the time Defensor Pacis affirming the sovereignty of the people. Your view rests on the opening verses of Romans 13 when demand that we be subject to rulers since authority is from God. Reading the rest however notes that they serve as servants of God and thus subject to his ordinances The accepted interpretation is that, where those ordinances are ignored, the actions are ultra vires, beyond the power of the principal, and may - must - be resisted. The rejection of Parliament breached the laws of God and human..Parliament acted legally, and there was never any possibility that diplomacy could have averted the lamentable bloodletting. I count Charles Stuart as a distant relative, but I am under no illusion as to the side that deserved victory.
@@alecblunden8615 What you have to say is interesting, but I wish you would rewrite it. It's a little hard to follow for someone who really wants to know what you're trying to say.
@@danawinsor1380 Dear Dana
To address the first point, the government of countries has developed from personal or oligarchical rule to the modern concept of the "state" where, notionally at least, sovereignty is vested in the "people" and exercised by a representative assembly. This concept has nothing to do with democracy or autocracy- in my experience, the state's making the most extravagant claims are those most clearly autocratic in nature. The change from apersonal etc sovereignty to a popular one can be traced back to the Saxon Wittangemot via Simon de Montfort and Parliament, but only emerged fully fledged with the the Wars of the Three Kingdoms AKA THE ENGLISH CIVIL WARS and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The theoretical basis of the popular sovereignty concept was Marsillius of Padua whose Defensor Packs attacked the concept of personal papal secular authority. The result is that "states" began to emerge by the end of the 17th century, but personal sovereignty is still a thing even in the 21st.
If you will excuse me, I will address the legacy of Romans 13 tomottoy. I am virtually blind , and can't cope with too much typing at any one time
Regards Alec
@@danawinsor1380 Dear Dana
If you have a Bible look up Romans 13;1-7. You can turn it up on the Internet if not. Until the 19 th century verse 1: has been preached in support of the divine right of kings or any governing authority - that of course is an example of proof texts gone Berzerk. However, if you read on , you learn those authorities you find in verse 3 that authorities are instituted "as a terror not to good conduct, but to bad" and to wield the sword in vain. However v 4 and 6 explain the true position - rulers are the servants of God or God'servants and sp subject to the ethos of divine government. This is stressed by the Greek words translated as "servant" - diakonos and leiturgious - both of which reflect ecclessuastic roles. Diakonos literally means a deacon and leiturgious, one who develops or manages the liturgy. In other words, they are ministers of the divine, at least equal to, if not superior io the clerics, but with a different function. Boil it all down and you have Servants of Go ruler by this command of God, not an absolute ruler. If a ruler does not live up to those standards said ruler is not a true ruler and rebellion is a possibility.
Great series, thanks for posting it.
I'd read about the era of the wars, but seeing this brings a much more vivid picture of the times, people, and places.
Great series! I remember watching it as a teenager in the 80s and loved it then and now. Thanks to sle71r for posting it. God Save the King!
Sorry to see this end. Loved every minute. Thank you.
Good to see Tom’s loyalty acknowledged by the king
Yes. Especially in these fickle times of ours, examples of such loyalty are hard to come by.
Very moving final episode of this great series. Terrific speech from the dock by John Fletcher. It was sad to see him go. The King’s bestowing of honours brought the series to a wonderful close. The terrible war could have been avoided if men had turned to diplomacy instead of their swords, to execute the king was unforgivable and Charles II was justified in having revenge on those who signed the death warrant, a document which amazingly still survives to this day.
There are things that people sometimes value more than life itself, so diplomacy isn't always an option.
The lines that Fletcher is speaking are, I believed, based off the testimony from the actual trial of the regicides of Charles I. This series, whilst fictional, is still quite accurate.
Wonderfull series. Sorry it had to come to its end.
As the series came to a close, I found myself wondering what ultimately became of various characters we saw throughout this long adventure. Squire Capel, Peter Crane, Matthew Saltmarsh, Goodwife Margaret, and even Susan Protheroe and Colonels Marsh and Leckie.
Charles II, the "merry monarch", was crowned April 23, 1661, and ruled until his death at age 54 in February 1685. He had at least twelve illegitimate children, but left no legal heir; the crown passed to his brother James. England never again had another military dictatorship, nor a monarch who ruled without Parliament.
AND that is that. England wanted a monarchy again, but not an unlimited one. No more Oliver Cromwells; he was dug up and posthumously beheaded; his severed noggin took on a bizarre life of its own thereafter. A constitutional monarchy. Has worked well ever since. Case closed.
However there are Stuart claimants who take precedence over the House of Saxe-Coburg/Gotha/Glucksberg/Battenberg, commonly known as Windsor. Franz von Wittlesbach - Herzog von Bayern/Duke of Bavaria is first amongst these - the heir of the Jacobite Succession. Other than Germany, there is the Yorkist heir in Australia, Simon Abney-Hastings.
@@AbuLaith1963they were catholics though,that being the problem.
Sir John Robinson (1615-1680) was a merchant who rose through London political ranks, culminating with the newly-created title of Baronet of London (1660-1680) during the Restoration. He was Lord Mayor of the city in 1662. He was also Constable of the Tower and Lieutenant of the Tower Hamlets (the latter a new office) from 1660 to 1675, in which capacity he visits the fictional John Fletcher here (59 men signed Charles I's death warrant). His reputation was mixed. From Wikipedia: Samuel Pepys wrote of Robinson as "a talking bragging bufflehead . . . . as very a coxcomb as I would have thought had been in the City . . . . nor hath he brains to outwit any ordinary tradesman". However an account of the aldermen in 1672 said "he hath been most industrious in the civill government of the cittie, watchfull to prevent anything that might reflect any prejudice or dishonour upon the King's government, happy in dispatch of businesse, to the great contentment of the people."
What would you say is more historically popular
Wars of Roses York VS Lancaster
Or English Civil War King Charles I VS Oliver Cromwell
would have been better if it had been more balanced - the Stuarts were a line of foolish monarchs
Tower of London cell at 11:20 I think same set as Davros' chamber in Dr Who - Revelation of The Daleks.
intresting tricorne that dude in teh court is wearing looks a he time traveled from the 1750s a hundred years in the future.
He was ahead of his time.Changing fashions for changing times.
I didn't realize they had time travel back then.😸
Anne weeping for her husband only because her lover was dispatched beforehand.
I still don't trust Parliament. At least you know where you are with a monarch.
31:08 😢
A good show. Makes me more a Republican
Makes me more of a Royalist
@@briandelaney9710 Enjoy