Ironically, it could be argued that the British monarchy was saved in the long run by being toppled so early. Otherwise, it may have met a similar fate to France or Russia and fallen alongside other monarchies in the 19th and 20th centuries.
That, and wider British class society. While the ruling classes made concession after concession over the centuries, Britain is today still more of a class society than almost any other in Europe.
@@florinivan6907 The example for republic wasn't England. It was the French revolution. But even without that, it would've happened either way after WWI and WWII, which saw many kings position themselves at either side of the political circus, and then get removed by the opposite side.
@@azaria_phd If you change the history of England in the 1650s then the types of wars you would have centuries later would be different. There's no way WW1 would be the same in a world in which England never had a king beheaded in 1649. Displace one thing and the world centuries later is fundamentally different.
@@florinivan6907 No, the enlightenment and the French revolution were not caused by the English revlolution, the English revolution is more of a clash between parliament and the king and *NOT* between the people and the goverment like the French revolution. Also WWI and II were caused by the French revolution (causes the rise of Napoleon and the post-napoleontic era).
Assuming Camilla had children with Charles, wouldn't they be excluded from British line of succession if Camilla stayed Catholic? Edit: I have checked. Since 2015 a person married to Catholic is NOT excluded (but before 2015 Charles could not inherit throne if Camilla stayed Catholic). But Catholics themselves are still excluded from the line of succession.
And to show how magnanimous he was, Charles II had Cromwell's body disinterred, hanged, drawn & quartered. His severed head was put on a spike on Westminster Hall until one day it blew off in a storm, and then got passed around to curio collectors and freak show operators for 300 years until it was buried in the 1960s.
@carltonb5102 Well, you've got me there, carltonb5102! Thanks for teaching me more history. It reminds of a story I read long ago with the line "Killing was almost too good for them, they said as they killed them."
Once watched a documentary that summed up the restoration of the monarchy to replace Richard Cromwell as “if we’re to have hereditary rulers might as well have one with the right credentials”
Nickname: 'Tumbledown Dick.' He'd never have imagined that today in Australia, on the road leading to Sydney's Northern Beaches, there's a 'Tumbledown Dick Hill', probably so-called because it's steep and you might have tumbled down while walking or riding on it in pre-car days.
Trivia: The colony of Carolina was named after King Charles I, and the gray squirrel now infesting Britain is officially named _Sciurus carolinensis_ in Latin, literally the "Carolina squirrel." So the King Charles squirrel has arrived in Britain, and it is having its revenge!
He left to keep his wife and children safe (the whole family left at the same time) - he wanted to arrest the Five Members because they were planning to introduce a treason charge against the Queen, and to take Charles' children away and hand them over to be raised and educated by Puritan priests. If someone were coming after my wife and children, I'd being doing more than just trying to have them arrested...
Honestly, "acting like a decade-spanning civil war, overthrow of the government, and execution of a head of state just...didn't happen" is probably the most British outcome of the English Civil War.
@sarasamaletdin4574 The established government has been working to reverse Brexit since the referendum happened. It's always been bad for them, that's why we want it.
There's also a fourth reason: Cliques within the military dictatorship. In particular General Monck, one of the most powerful Grandees in the army, and a turncoat who was quickly convinced to switch sides again by Haselrig. Monck had been the head honcho in the occupation of Scotland since Dunbar, and so had one of the largest divisions of the army at his command. Popular opinion had very little role in the Restoration. It was, in English tradition, the country's elite playing musical chairs.
I mean I feel like turncoat was a bit harsh on Monck - he was definitely a pragmatist who wanted to avoid another civil war, while having enough power to get that done. Still I think the video should have mentioned him
@@robinrehlinghaus1944 I'd expect so too, in so far as most of the populace were probably opposed to the execution of Charles I to begin with. But frankly, the opinions of the regular joe didn't matter at the time. They couldn't vote, seldom came close to holding office, or achieve much of note. Unless the joined the New Model Army, that is. Their opinions weren't printed and disseminated. So nah, we can't be certain. There weren't exactly regularly polls back in the day. All we have to go on are the writings of the gentry, clergy, aristocracy, and urban elites. Who I suspect were no more in tune with "the people" than they are today.
Some good things did unintentionally come from no-fun puritan policy like animal rights. *The Puritans passed animal protection legislation in England too. Kathleen Kete writes that animal welfare laws were passed in 1654 as part of the ordinances of the Protectorate-the government under Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), which lasted from 1653 to 1659, following the English Civil War. Cromwell disliked blood sports, which included cockfighting, cock throwing, dog fighting, bull baiting and bull running, said to tenderize the meat. These could be seen in villages and fairgrounds, and became associated with idleness, drunkenness, and gambling. Kete writes that the Puritans interpreted the biblical dominion of man over animals to mean responsible stewardship, rather than ownership. The opposition to blood sports became part of what was seen as Puritan interference in people's lives, and the animal protection laws were overturned during the Restoration, when Charles II was returned to the throne in 1660.[44]*
One of the MANY things I really like about this channel is that you don't do overblownglossy drama queen intro titles, but just crack on and BANG serve up the goodies. And then take the time to thank your funders. Great stuff.
@@christianweibrecht6555 As an Irish person when it happens by December and the Unionist flee (we won't hurt them they just will because they still have that whole protestant ascendency thing stuck in their heads), good luck with them, they are truly the most difficult people on earth to get along with. Also please take them we truly can't listen to DUP supporters any longer, they are bloody annoying (as the English are only starting to realise (we've had 400 years of them, that's too long for anyone)).
@@johnpoole3871 Yeppo, power has been in the hands of Parliament since then. What changed though, is the composition and interests of Parliament. It went from an assembly of the aristocracy and some of the bourgeoisie to an institution (mostly) free for all Britons.
Took my history final today, went pretty well. Your videos have been a massive help, especially the ones on the British empire, the 80 years war and the Weimar Republic. Thank you.
I like how we were so miserable under Cromwell, we kick-started a monarchy we tried our damndest to extinguise. The man got rid of football, I mean really...
The parliament and the kings relationship is like an abusive relationship it never ended well for everybody and somehow they ended up back together at square one.
Sadly, you skipped the fact that when the Church came to power the people lost their liberty and freedom. The bishops were warlords who at their manse were served by serfs, by slaves. Do you feel FREE?
this brought back nightmares from my A level history. the rump parliament, barebones parliament, all the different types of taxes we had to learn, the 5 knights case and habeas corpus and the scottish and irish uprisings and the first and second civil war battles, the levellers, puritans vs arminians, the new model army vs traditional militia, pride's purge, the protectorate (WHICH DEFINITELY WASN'T A MONARCHY...), his aim of healing and settling, the rule of the major-generals and finally General Monck - the dude key in restoring the monarchy.
@@howtoappearincompletely9739 I think from the Portugal one. Another one of my favourites is "workers of the world, embrace monarchy! Or not.", it's from the vommunist monarchy in Grenada video.
One thing to note is that a lot of parliament never even wished to execute King Charles. Many were fine with him being exiled. However, his performance during his trial and the refusal to recognize the authority of the court really cemented his fate. Charles the 1st had many chances to avoid his fate but he was ultimately, a very stubborn ruler.
It's fantastic that Charles I is still a Patreon to this channel, and today this video, even though it is about, in part, the separation of his head from his body. If I have one gripe it is that he wasn't elevated to the first of the thanked Patreons, in place of the ever popular James Bissonette.
Ok King Chuck wanted to send the Duke of Buckingham to be a bone head, and Chuck wanted parliament to raise taxes for Duke of bone head to be a bone head so parliament said no and well chuck told parliament to bugger off and that started the long list of parliament shut downs and the start of civil war
I still dont understand the western obssesion to hate monarchs and anything related to them but dictatorships or heredetary republics and democracies run by a few influential families is totally fine.
*some* of the west, spain still has it's monarchy. denmark,norway and sweden still have ours too (am swedish, and honestly? the day the monarchy is gone,if im still alive by then, is the day i move)
btw, technically every realm in the commonwealth (I.E places like canada) are monarchies aswell as they do have a monarch as their head of state (the head of government is the prime minister but the head of state is whoever sits on the english throne). belgium and the netherlands still have their monarchies aswell along with a bunch of the smaller european states (andorra, monaco, liechtenstein and luxembourg)
like, unless you got a headstart like russia and france with the removal of monarchies most of the ones that are gone in europe were removed during the world war periods usually by the influence and actions of countries like the USSR,US or like france.
Arrogant leftists that hate elitism-unless it is from them. I am an American but a monarchist sympathizer who is also for restoring monarchy to France, Germany, and Italy and many other nations.
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 leftism is just another flavor of elitism, just the rhetoric is different. Maybe token consessions. Monarchy is the natural system of governance for humans, though I can't support the hereditary version, elective monarchy all the way.
An interesting point about this is that I believe Scotland immediately recognised the new king, and while Cromwell and allies had the actual power, Charles II officially was still recognised in exile. Due to that while England was briefly a republic Scotland technically was not.
Yeah, Charles II even had a coronation in Scotland in 1651 (2 years after Charles I was executed) but was forced into exile later that year. The Monarchy was restored in 1661.
Cromwell essentially ruled Scotland from 1651. They'd been beaten at Dunbar in '50 and then Charles' failed invasion with Scottish forces in '51 after which Scotland was essentially under military occupation with support from a puppet Scottish Council of State.
It's the eternal childishness of the Scots. Whatever England does, they have to try and do the opposite, just out of principle, no matter what the subject is.
Just to add to that, Cromwell and his gang REALLY had to bribe, coerce and outright threaten those at the trial to sign the King's death warrant. Hence why they stopped after getting the simple majority.
Reminds me of how the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 was passed because one of its supporters was so fat that the other MPs jokingly counted him as 10 different people.
As always, this is quite a witty ("the separation of King Charles's head from his body" was humorous) and informative video! In short, the monarchy returned because Charles II would be a more lenient leader, and the realm would be less deadlocked with a monarch than with a republic. Because of these factors, a second Charles got his crown in 1660, and a third would get his crown only days before this video came out (good timing!). Thanks for the video!
Ironic also that those who hold up Cromwells military dictatorship as an example of a British Republic also forget it was a theocratic Puritanical regime.
@@Foxglove963 And yet the tribe from the levant (not going to name any names) are here to enforce back upon the European people Paganism. Huh interesting
@@mrsigmagrinder8737 i mean Hitler didn't surrender either. Stalin could ,in some way, "disappaer" and Stavka could choose to surrender if it ever cane to that level.
Not even remotely close. Even with the fall of Moscow I doubt any general would have had the guts to suggest to they surrender. Now a more intresting question is how would have Russia managed without the artic convoys.
2:07 This Puritan Christmas joke is hilarious because also Santa having a black eye is a reversal of the historical St. Nick who punched out the heretic Arius at the Council of Nicaea.
Outside Ely Cathedral is a captured Crimean canon on the green, which I think was gifted to Ely by Queen Victoria or gifted by Ely to Queen Victoria. Either way, Queen Victoria was involved with it because the important bit is that it is pointing directly at Oliver Cromwell's house (which was the Tourist information place when I was last there).
I'm surprised it survived. A lot of those old captured cannons were sadly melted down for the "war effort" during WWII. Made almost no difference beyond the symbolism
Imagine if the English preserved the head of Charles I, would have been a fine addition to thier future museum. The British were chopping off heads way before the French made it cool.
The British Isles have been chopping heads since the early medieval times, probably even before then. But also I think the ancient greeks chopped a head or two, if greek mythology is anything to go by.
A grave mistake many revolutions make is not thinking through how an alternative government would look. This is why historically revolutions against authoritarian regimes... most often just ended up placing a different authoritarian regime in charge when it was all over.
As an American I have a question. Why do so many Brits and Spaniards hate their monarchies in a way the Dutch, Belgians, Danish, Norwegians, and Swedes don't? Serious question.
Also, the Lord Protector was a hereditary absolute ruler so the difference between him and a king was hard to figure out. England could choose between a king and a “king” and decided that Charles II would do a better job.
Methinks that people came to realise their error. Fortunately a better balance between the King and the people was realised andd we kept our monarchy. Long may our King reign.
Well, sort of. They had a “Stadtholder” who was a sort of hereditary President of the Dutch Republic. When it became fashionable for most European nations to have a Sovereign, the title was changed to King. However, the Netherlands does still have a different style of monarchy to ours. For example, the King or Queen is not “crowned” but simply “invested” and sings along with the people when the National Anthem is played, as it is not sung to the Sovereign.
Thank you for talking slower in this video. I find it also easier when I don't try to read the slide text whilst you're reading out. Great explanation again. Thanks.
Could you do a short on the reaction of Scotland to the execution of Charles I? The history of the English Civil War is largely focused on England (hence the name) but I think it's worth bearing in mind that King Charles I of England was also King Charles I of Scotland as well.
Man, every single history channel REALLY took the opportunity to talk about the two Charles, the Commonwealth era of England, and the beheading of Charles I. ...Almost like they're giving us a message to do a French in modern Britain...
Welp.. That was a reference to a particular character-actor, however..: Yiikkeess! "Head Bids Adieu To the Torso" realised.. [Very ]French of the Brits.
The squints at 0:40 (40 seconds) are to narrow that I can't really tell where the pupils are. I know where they are because the characters are supposed to be angrily squinting at each other but it really just feels like their eyes are closed because there's so little space between their eyelids that I can't really perceive their pupils and it looks off even if I push my face right up to the monitor. I recommend broadening the width of the squint by a few pixels at least. In your other videos it's a lot easier to see the difference between the whites and pupils so it's a lot easier to understand "these people are narrowing their eyes while looking at something" instead of getting "these people are weirdly closing their eyes or trying to do an impression of Brock from Pokemon".
Cromwell's succession by his son flunked the smell test, then Richard ruled badly. The people decided that they preferred the Stuart dynasty, but James II almost made them reconsider.
Oliver Cromwell's reign of terror saw the deaths of 25% of the population of the British Isles through war, massacre and famine. His popularity was limited to the army and the puritan parties in parliament.
Yup, even lived in one of the Palaces I believe. The primary reason he didn't accept the many offers to become King was because he believed that God had chosen to punish the Monarchy.
So this is basically English and British history part 19 and 20 BTS and now I wanna see this series finally finished. I know it would be a task but it would be amazing to see the series finally finished properly.
What would be cool is a video on how the nations of Europe reacted to a major power removing the monarchy, a divine, powerful figure who had been in charge of every major country for hundreds of years, and the establishment of a functional dictatorship.
@@orion7763 The English weren't willing or able to then march across the continent demanding other countries do the same. Closest we came was attempting (and failing) to seize control of the Dutch, who were already Republic. So it wasn't exactly the same.
Most of the rest of Europe were pretty much uninterested because it had little impact on the continent, England really wasn't that major of a power at the time, and there were much more important things happening in the major European monarchies.
Cromwell's dictatorship was anything BUT functional - it was run at gunpoint by the New Model Army, so no wonder once Ollie was dead everyone wanted the monarchy back
The Dutch did that in 1581, leading to the Dutch Republic. This resulted in an 80-year war with Spain. What helped in international relations was not challenging the internation order of monarchs and nobles and it's principles with a republican ideology, but probably more important was not doing treason, as in coming with a different monarch without the (divine) legitimacy. What also helped later was having a noble as joined head of state, the meritocratic government of commoners of that of DeWitt was less influential in Europe than the previous and later government with a prince of Orange as stadtholder (an office appointed in by parliaments). But most help was dominating Europe's trade, dominating world finance, and being filthy rich, hire armies and do a lot of military innovation. But the Dutch stumbled on republicanism rather than promoting republicanism as the way to go for monarchies.
Cromwell: No more kings! Also Cromwell: I’ll prop myself up as a dictator, and when I die the title will be passed to my son. Again, totally not a king.
There's something ironic about the parliamentary rebels getting what they initially wanted not from the removal of the monarchy, but its restoration. Yet at the same time if they hadn't killed Charles I then they probably wouldn't have gotten long lasting concessions out of the rest of the Stuarts.
It has felt to me like the attitude of those from that time was like [with regards to Oliver Cromwell] "what's the difference? We've gone from one person ruling everything, or at least trying to, to one person ruling everything, or at least trying to. The only difference is that Cromwell isn't a King,"
I've studied Cromwell and this period extensively and some of what you summarized here had never been pieced together properly, thank you for your nutshell account. I thoroughly enjoyed the part about the Puritans opposition to Christmas, didn't know about that one though I should have.
Fun fact, when I was in Ely I visted his former home.... Which was covered in Charles III coronation flags and portraits with coronation merch inside being sold. Ironic.
This is what I know as an English person from Nottingham: The civil war started in Nottingham and when it ended, Charles I was executed and Oliver Cromwell became like North Korea’s supreme leader but for us. He banned Christmas and basically all fun and the rich loved it but everyone else didn’t so when he died, instead of his son succeeding him the people restored the monarchy through Charles II (Charles I’s son) and he loved to have fun and then yeah
Ironically, Parliament, having 'won' the Civil War, was closed by Oliver Cromwell, so England ended up with an absolute ruler. When there is so much talk about 'religious extremists' it's worth remembering that the Puritans imposed their own extreme version of 'Christianity' and came to be hated in consequence.
Oliver Cromwell wasn't a King or anything, just a head of state who served for life and was succeeded by his son.
Just like a Fascist dictator. But with a fixed successor
@@user-jf5qw6vg3h Well there is a communist monarchy in north korea, in all but name.
He's Lord Protector
@@thebandit0256 Lord Protector of the institution of hereditary succession of lifelong rulership
And lived in a palace
England: fears absolute monarch
England: ends up with hereditary military dictatorship
Cromwell: "I see nothing wrong here."
150 years later:
France: beheads absolute monarch
France: ends up with emperor
Napoleon: "What Cromwell said."
@@Elitist20 funny how history repeats itself
I think the Royal Kings are just hereditary military dictatorships that got entrenched over generations.
Russia: overthrows Tzar
Russia: ends with brutal totalitarian dictatorship
Lenin: at least I'm not gonna appoint my son
“Corporate needs you to find the differences between this picture and that picture.”
“They’re the same.”
Ironically, it could be argued that the British monarchy was saved in the long run by being toppled so early. Otherwise, it may have met a similar fate to France or Russia and fallen alongside other monarchies in the 19th and 20th centuries.
That, and wider British class society. While the ruling classes made concession after concession over the centuries, Britain is today still more of a class society than almost any other in Europe.
Alternatively in that universe without the english example monarchies as a whole proved far more durable.
@@florinivan6907 The example for republic wasn't England. It was the French revolution. But even without that, it would've happened either way after WWI and WWII, which saw many kings position themselves at either side of the political circus, and then get removed by the opposite side.
@@azaria_phd If you change the history of England in the 1650s then the types of wars you would have centuries later would be different. There's no way WW1 would be the same in a world in which England never had a king beheaded in 1649. Displace one thing and the world centuries later is fundamentally different.
@@florinivan6907 No, the enlightenment and the French revolution were not caused by the English revlolution, the English revolution is more of a clash between parliament and the king and *NOT* between the people and the goverment like the French revolution. Also WWI and II were caused by the French revolution (causes the rise of Napoleon and the post-napoleontic era).
English people: “you can do king stuff, just don’t marry a catholic.
Stuart Kings: “I’m marrying a catholic.”
Charles III married one, but we don't care so much about that these days.
@@Skorpychanreally?
Funny how life is, so many Englishmen had French wives, yet france was/is a Catholic kingdom I believe. England was protestant
Assuming Camilla had children with Charles, wouldn't they be excluded from British line of succession if Camilla stayed Catholic?
Edit: I have checked. Since 2015 a person married to Catholic is NOT excluded (but before 2015 Charles could not inherit throne if Camilla stayed Catholic). But Catholics themselves are still excluded from the line of succession.
English people: *OH MY GOOOOOOD!*
And to show how magnanimous he was, Charles II had Cromwell's body disinterred, hanged, drawn & quartered. His severed head was put on a spike on Westminster Hall until one day it blew off in a storm, and then got passed around to curio collectors and freak show operators for 300 years until it was buried in the 1960s.
What a nice king.
@@Epsilonsama I'd rather have a king who took out his spite on the dead rather than the living.
Cromwell deserved no less, for what he did to the Irish, although I'm aware Charles probably didn't care so much about that.
@carltonb5102 Well, you've got me there, carltonb5102! Thanks for teaching me more history. It reminds of a story I read long ago with the line "Killing was almost too good for them, they said as they killed them."
@carltonb5102 if you kill a king you need to be on the winning side
Once watched a documentary that summed up the restoration of the monarchy to replace Richard Cromwell as “if we’re to have hereditary rulers might as well have one with the right credentials”
Ah yes, the Alan Ereira series. Brilliant documentary and humor
Nickname: 'Tumbledown Dick.' He'd never have imagined that today in Australia, on the road leading to Sydney's Northern Beaches, there's a 'Tumbledown Dick Hill', probably so-called because it's steep and you might have tumbled down while walking or riding on it in pre-car days.
Yes, a British one rather than a German one
What a dumb summary
Better the devil you know.
Run without a king, but by Oliver Cromwell who was TOTALLY not a monarch
Just like Miklos Horthy of Hungary I guess
Idk it's not like Cromwell didn't try to avert that situation as much as possible, Charles I kinda forced everybody's hand
Or his son, who totally wasn’t assuming power because his father was king in everything but name only
Also after Oliver death his son became incharge hmmmm almost like a monarchy
He wasn't though.
Trivia: The colony of Carolina was named after King Charles I, and the gray squirrel now infesting Britain is officially named _Sciurus carolinensis_ in Latin, literally the "Carolina squirrel." So the King Charles squirrel has arrived in Britain, and it is having its revenge!
LMFAO "The Return of the Carolina Squirrel!"
see this kind of stuff is why im on the internet xD
The Grey Squirrels will only be repelled once the true King of England is restored to his throne.
This is my prophecy, it came to me in a Zinc dream.
The King Charles squirrel now once again in its natural habitat, under the benevolent reign of King Charles
That will show those Roundheads!
"The separation of powers and soon the separation of king Charles's head from his body." Always good to see the points are so excellently made.
As a person who learned this in AP European History, this got a chuckle out of me.
I learned this in 10th grade World History. In NC Public Schools.
I love cooky English humor
"He failed and so he bravely fled London."
Such a courageous man.
Reminds me of Sir Robin from Monty Python & the Holy Grail.
Sir Robin-approved.
Indeed, this is quite "courageous"!
His son James followed in those footsteps a little later on.
He left to keep his wife and children safe (the whole family left at the same time) - he wanted to arrest the Five Members because they were planning to introduce a treason charge against the Queen, and to take Charles' children away and hand them over to be raised and educated by Puritan priests. If someone were coming after my wife and children, I'd being doing more than just trying to have them arrested...
Honestly, "acting like a decade-spanning civil war, overthrow of the government, and execution of a head of state just...didn't happen" is probably the most British outcome of the English Civil War.
Look, we won't talk about it. But for reasons I chose to forget, the King can't enter the house of commons.
I assume that Brexit will be reversed in similar manner in a decade or two.
The only way civil wars can ever *really* end is if people try to forget about it. I think it was fairly similar in Spain hundreds of years later
@sarasamaletdin4574 The established government has been working to reverse Brexit since the referendum happened. It's always been bad for them, that's why we want it.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 Oue membership of the EU was the interregnum; Brexit the restoration of our sovereignty.
There's also a fourth reason: Cliques within the military dictatorship. In particular General Monck, one of the most powerful Grandees in the army, and a turncoat who was quickly convinced to switch sides again by Haselrig. Monck had been the head honcho in the occupation of Scotland since Dunbar, and so had one of the largest divisions of the army at his command. Popular opinion had very little role in the Restoration. It was, in English tradition, the country's elite playing musical chairs.
What luck that that isn't happening anymore...
I mean I feel like turncoat was a bit harsh on Monck - he was definitely a pragmatist who wanted to avoid another civil war, while having enough power to get that done. Still I think the video should have mentioned him
I'm pretty sure popular opinion still favoured Charles II
I read that as "one of the most powerful Grenades" and expected he to pull his own pin
@@robinrehlinghaus1944 I'd expect so too, in so far as most of the populace were probably opposed to the execution of Charles I to begin with. But frankly, the opinions of the regular joe didn't matter at the time. They couldn't vote, seldom came close to holding office, or achieve much of note. Unless the joined the New Model Army, that is. Their opinions weren't printed and disseminated. So nah, we can't be certain. There weren't exactly regularly polls back in the day. All we have to go on are the writings of the gentry, clergy, aristocracy, and urban elites. Who I suspect were no more in tune with "the people" than they are today.
"And cracked down on activities that they felt were immoral."
Not the flower field frolicking! 😱
I noticed that! Brilliant! 😜🤣
No skipping through daisies?! Ugh. Those Puritans were a bunch of no-fun killjoys!!
That has to be the saddest part of this video ...
That frolicking is _so_ History Matters now.
Some good things did unintentionally come from no-fun puritan policy like animal rights.
*The Puritans passed animal protection legislation in England too. Kathleen Kete writes that animal welfare laws were passed in 1654 as part of the ordinances of the Protectorate-the government under Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), which lasted from 1653 to 1659, following the English Civil War. Cromwell disliked blood sports, which included cockfighting, cock throwing, dog fighting, bull baiting and bull running, said to tenderize the meat. These could be seen in villages and fairgrounds, and became associated with idleness, drunkenness, and gambling. Kete writes that the Puritans interpreted the biblical dominion of man over animals to mean responsible stewardship, rather than ownership. The opposition to blood sports became part of what was seen as Puritan interference in people's lives, and the animal protection laws were overturned during the Restoration, when Charles II was returned to the throne in 1660.[44]*
1:23 - I feel the need to note that he was not in fact, executed with a Khornate chain axe.
I also noticed that
Somewhere in the warp - "Who in the everliving motherfucking cockbiscuits STOLE MY CHAINAXE!?!?!?!?"
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
You can't prove that!
There is no proof that he wasn't, though
England reminds me here of Spain, where the two strongest arguments for having a monarchy are the first republic and the second republic
Look at the fifth French Republic of France today, I’d say they should give monarchy a go again
To be fair the Second republic really fucked up during it's time
@@luketheunlucky7632 Language
@@riazortho Ah sorry, didn't knew i was talking to the King of England
@@luketheunlucky7632 I'm also King of Scotland
This can't be a coincidence that HM releases this video two days after Charles III's coronation
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." nudge, nudge
not a coincidence, but rather an announced event, and planning.
@@stevevernon1978 r/woosh
Mad props to Charles III for keeping them name, considering there is a Lord Cromwell currently in the House of Lords.
idk why they named him Charles in the first place. He was heir apparent yet they chosen a named with bad history
@razeric_ its possible he was named for his godfather King Haakon of Norway whose real name was Chatles or Carl
Yeah funny how nobody anywhere close to the succession has been named Richard, Henry, or Edward for a while lol.
@@ericbrown1101 or Arthur? why _NOT_ King Arthur?
In the business...
Your animations have gotten noticeably better over the years. Good job!
How? wtf
@@CommanderTavos99 They look a lot smoother and more detailed.
@@CommanderTavos99faster, more intense
@@Galahad_Du_Lac also colouring is more brighter and crisp
meh, his animations have been top notch since even before he stopped doing 10 min videos
One of the MANY things I really like about this channel is that you don't do overblownglossy drama queen intro titles, but just crack on and BANG serve up the goodies. And then take the time to thank your funders. Great stuff.
0:27 "be less alive"
fantastic phrase, i think ill use it from now on.
It’s because James Bisonette would become king
Over Skye Chappelle's dead (royal) body!
Never!
This nigga know he finna get hella likes with this comment
Kelly Moneymaker would surely overthrow him
@@jamesbissonette8002 yo
I hope the habit of a king of England named Charles having difficult time ruling doesn’t pass on this far down the road
Let's see how he handles the irish reunification later this year
No British King has done any ruling in two hundred years. Pretty sure Charles can handle not having to do anything.
@@christianweibrecht6555 As an Irish person when it happens by December and the Unionist flee (we won't hurt them they just will because they still have that whole protestant ascendency thing stuck in their heads), good luck with them, they are truly the most difficult people on earth to get along with.
Also please take them we truly can't listen to DUP supporters any longer, they are bloody annoying (as the English are only starting to realise (we've had 400 years of them, that's too long for anyone)).
@@christianweibrecht6555haha good joke
@@johnpoole3871 Yeppo, power has been in the hands of Parliament since then. What changed though, is the composition and interests of Parliament. It went from an assembly of the aristocracy and some of the bourgeoisie to an institution (mostly) free for all Britons.
Took my history final today, went pretty well. Your videos have been a massive help, especially the ones on the British empire, the 80 years war and the Weimar Republic. Thank you.
I like how we were so miserable under Cromwell, we kick-started a monarchy we tried our damndest to extinguise.
The man got rid of football, I mean really...
He was literally the Swatbot with the sign "No fun allowed"
Special Weaponry and Arms Team, "@@Toonrick12"?
Banning Christmas feels a bit like heresy.
In *England*, no less.
Oliver Cromwell succeeded by his son is like me saying "trust me guys, I am no king", after taking the imperial throne..
Your son "l'aiglon" died clutching a bird in his hand
Kim Jong Un doesn’t get called a monarch. I think a legitimate king has to come from a long line of monarchs, not just father and son dictatorship.
I dunno, given they immediately kicked him off again....
The parliament and the kings relationship is like an abusive relationship it never ended well for everybody and somehow they ended up back together at square one.
Sadly, you skipped the fact that when the Church came to power the people lost their liberty and freedom. The bishops were warlords who at their manse were served by serfs, by slaves. Do you feel FREE?
So unlike the TP one is fed about Afghānistān, then - "@@Foxglove963".
this brought back nightmares from my A level history. the rump parliament, barebones parliament, all the different types of taxes we had to learn, the 5 knights case and habeas corpus and the scottish and irish uprisings and the first and second civil war battles, the levellers, puritans vs arminians, the new model army vs traditional militia, pride's purge, the protectorate (WHICH DEFINITELY WASN'T A MONARCHY...), his aim of healing and settling, the rule of the major-generals and finally General Monck - the dude key in restoring the monarchy.
😅 It all just came back to me in a flash. Thanks.
😭😭😭 Thanks for the memo.. nightmares
talk about the protectorate
"Turns out getting rid of the guy with the crown doesn't solve the problems."
My favourite HM quote
@@LightgreenLP Which video is it from?
@@howtoappearincompletely9739 I think from the Portugal one. Another one of my favourites is "workers of the world, embrace monarchy! Or not.", it's from the vommunist monarchy in Grenada video.
"And soon, the separation of king charle's head from his body"
That had me.
One thing to note is that a lot of parliament never even wished to execute King Charles. Many were fine with him being exiled. However, his performance during his trial and the refusal to recognize the authority of the court really cemented his fate. Charles the 1st had many chances to avoid his fate but he was ultimately, a very stubborn ruler.
2:24 , bruh that was brutal 💀
It's fantastic that Charles I is still a Patreon to this channel, and today this video, even though it is about, in part, the separation of his head from his body.
If I have one gripe it is that he wasn't elevated to the first of the thanked Patreons, in place of the ever popular James Bissonette.
“Authority to tax” I’m sure the UK never had any problems regarding taxation ever again…
And its subsequent colonies like say........the US
It funny because the English Civil War was a big inspiration for the Revolutionaries in the US
Ok King Chuck wanted to send the Duke of Buckingham to be a bone head, and Chuck wanted parliament to raise taxes for Duke of bone head to be a bone head so parliament said no and well chuck told parliament to bugger off and that started the long list of parliament shut downs and the start of civil war
YEEHAW (Don't mind me, we just randomly do that)
@@CCNYMacGuyHappens to the best of us. YEEEHAAAWW!!!
1:24 A valuable skull for the Skull Throne indeed. It has brought many more with it.
2:07 the image of Santa with a black eye is now engraved in my memory thanks to this scene
I still dont understand the western obssesion to hate monarchs and anything related to them but dictatorships or heredetary republics and democracies run by a few influential families is totally fine.
*some* of the west, spain still has it's monarchy. denmark,norway and sweden still have ours too (am swedish, and honestly? the day the monarchy is gone,if im still alive by then, is the day i move)
btw, technically every realm in the commonwealth (I.E places like canada) are monarchies aswell as they do have a monarch as their head of state (the head of government is the prime minister but the head of state is whoever sits on the english throne).
belgium and the netherlands still have their monarchies aswell along with a bunch of the smaller european states (andorra, monaco, liechtenstein and luxembourg)
like, unless you got a headstart like russia and france with the removal of monarchies most of the ones that are gone in europe were removed during the world war periods usually by the influence and actions of countries like the USSR,US or like france.
Arrogant leftists that hate elitism-unless it is from them.
I am an American but a monarchist sympathizer who is also for restoring monarchy to France, Germany, and Italy and many other nations.
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 leftism is just another flavor of elitism, just the rhetoric is different. Maybe token consessions.
Monarchy is the natural system of governance for humans, though I can't support the hereditary version, elective monarchy all the way.
Cromwell was too serious to skip through the flowers.
He risked the wrath of Aslan when he abolished Christmas.
I cannot stop watching history matters. I binged it all a few months ago an now I am just scratching my neck waiting for the next one to release.
An interesting point about this is that I believe Scotland immediately recognised the new king, and while Cromwell and allies had the actual power, Charles II officially was still recognised in exile. Due to that while England was briefly a republic Scotland technically was not.
Most likely because the Stuart dynasty was Scottish and the states of England and Scotland were still separate at the time.
Yeah, Charles II even had a coronation in Scotland in 1651 (2 years after Charles I was executed) but was forced into exile later that year. The Monarchy was restored in 1661.
Cromwell essentially ruled Scotland from 1651. They'd been beaten at Dunbar in '50 and then Charles' failed invasion with Scottish forces in '51 after which Scotland was essentially under military occupation with support from a puppet Scottish Council of State.
It's the eternal childishness of the Scots. Whatever England does, they have to try and do the opposite, just out of principle, no matter what the subject is.
@@JD-wn3cc Tut Tut,what a cynic.Little knowledge of history between the two nations.
Charles was found guilty by only a difference of one vote in his trial...
Also, great video as always!
Only because those who voted against him feared retribution if they failed.
As Louis XVI would be much later.
Just to add to that, Cromwell and his gang REALLY had to bribe, coerce and outright threaten those at the trial to sign the King's death warrant. Hence why they stopped after getting the simple majority.
Reminds me of how the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 was passed because one of its supporters was so fat that the other MPs jokingly counted him as 10 different people.
You meant deliberately, "@@_blank-_"?
Thank goodness they got the sense to put monarchy back in place alongside the government
How fitting considering our 3rd King Charles has just been crowned
and will soon be beheaded
Civil war time!
Plenty of years left for regicide
Let's hope he keeps his head up
Indeed, it is fitting!
As always, this is quite a witty ("the separation of King Charles's head from his body" was humorous) and informative video! In short, the monarchy returned because Charles II would be a more lenient leader, and the realm would be less deadlocked with a monarch than with a republic. Because of these factors, a second Charles got his crown in 1660, and a third would get his crown only days before this video came out (good timing!). Thanks for the video!
All those from republic should really watch these videos
Ironic also that those who hold up Cromwells military dictatorship as an example of a British Republic also forget it was a theocratic Puritanical regime.
Religious rule is based, the problem is that it was protestant
@@iMakz07 Surely the very problem is that Abrahamism was enforced upon the European pagan peoples.
@@iMakz07 Religion is mythology so religious rules are by nature crap.
@@Foxglove963 And yet the tribe from the levant (not going to name any names) are here to enforce back upon the European people Paganism. Huh interesting
Oliver Cromwell: making it impossible for anyone to take seriously the idea of a British republic since 1658.
James Bissonette approved of the restoration of the monarchy.
Edit: plot twist he didn’t
Nah
@@jamesbissonette8002 Than what was your opinion on the monarchy's restoration, my good sir?
He only approved it so that History Matters could make a video out of it
Fun fact: No.
How close were the Soviets to surrendering during WW2?
I don't think Stalin would ever have surrendered
@@mrsigmagrinder8737
Sure, but at some point he would have been ousted.
The 3rd Reich wasn't particularly near to this point, though.
@@mrsigmagrinder8737 i mean Hitler didn't surrender either. Stalin could ,in some way, "disappaer" and Stavka could choose to surrender if it ever cane to that level.
Not even remotely close. Even with the fall of Moscow I doubt any general would have had the guts to suggest to they surrender.
Now a more intresting question is how would have Russia managed without the artic convoys.
same as Russia in the current war. Not even close.
2:07 This Puritan Christmas joke is hilarious because also Santa having a black eye is a reversal of the historical St. Nick who punched out the heretic Arius at the Council of Nicaea.
A very recondite joke indeed.
@@alanpennie nigga broke out the thesaurus I see, btw I love Online Etymology Dictionary.
Outside Ely Cathedral is a captured Crimean canon on the green, which I think was gifted to Ely by Queen Victoria or gifted by Ely to Queen Victoria. Either way, Queen Victoria was involved with it because the important bit is that it is pointing directly at Oliver Cromwell's house (which was the Tourist information place when I was last there).
I'm surprised it survived. A lot of those old captured cannons were sadly melted down for the "war effort" during WWII. Made almost no difference beyond the symbolism
I noticed the Khornate axe the executioner had. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!
Well, he did mention religious troubles...
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!
nice 40k comedy.
@@Siltarius MILK FOR THE KHORN FLAKES!!
Thanks, I wondered what was up with the axe! I get it now.
"and the separation of powers, and soon the separation of King Charles' head from his body"
Man whoever writes these scripts needs a raise.
Imagine if the English preserved the head of Charles I, would have been a fine addition to thier future museum.
The British were chopping off heads way before the French made it cool.
"This one we stole from King Charles I"
The British Isles have been chopping heads since the early medieval times, probably even before then.
But also I think the ancient greeks chopped a head or two, if greek mythology is anything to go by.
The Parliamentarians sewed his head back on his body then dumped the body in the grave of HenryVIII and Jane Seymour.
@@georgehh2574 ah cool mate
I was just talking about how Britian would brag about the worst things they did before the French did the same
i really wish he covered the glorious revolution/ fall of stuart on his British history playlist
up
A grave mistake many revolutions make is not thinking through how an alternative government would look. This is why historically revolutions against authoritarian regimes... most often just ended up placing a different authoritarian regime in charge when it was all over.
Because he loved the people and the people loved him
He was the king that brought back partying!🎉
As an American I have a question. Why do so many Brits and Spaniards hate their monarchies in a way the Dutch, Belgians, Danish, Norwegians, and Swedes don't? Serious question.
0:05 what happened to the Isle of Wight
Also, the Lord Protector was a hereditary absolute ruler so the difference between him and a king was hard to figure out. England could choose between a king and a “king” and decided that Charles II would do a better job.
It wasn't really established as hereditary, there was just nobody ready to take over.
Love the History Matters version of the Van Dyck painting at the end! Superb!
Methinks that people came to realise their error. Fortunately a better balance between the King and the people was realised andd we kept our monarchy. Long may our King reign.
Keep up the good work bro! Love your stuff!
The Netherlands had a republic and now they have a monarchy....just saying.
And who's the incumbent Opposition Leader over there?
Just asking.
Well, sort of. They had a “Stadtholder” who was a sort of hereditary President of the Dutch Republic. When it became fashionable for most European nations to have a Sovereign, the title was changed to King. However, the Netherlands does still have a different style of monarchy to ours. For example, the King or Queen is not “crowned” but simply “invested” and sings along with the people when the National Anthem is played, as it is not sung to the Sovereign.
Thanks, now I know about Charles I and Charles II. I wondered since the UK's current monarch is Charles III.
You can also see why there has been a noticeable dearth of kings named Charles in the intervening years.
@@edwardblair4096 You'll notice how every king between Victoria and Elizabeth II was either George or Edward.
Indeed, this is quite helpful right now!
@@edwardblair4096 The 1649-1660 events _do,_ indeed, explain why it took until just a few days ago for someone to be crowned "Charles III"!
@@prussianpolydactyl836 An interesting pattern!
Thank you for talking slower in this video. I find it also easier when I don't try to read the slide text whilst you're reading out. Great explanation again. Thanks.
Everyone that complains about monarchy in modern days secretly wants to be the monarchs themselves
Could you do a short on the reaction of Scotland to the execution of Charles I? The history of the English Civil War is largely focused on England (hence the name) but I think it's worth bearing in mind that King Charles I of England was also King Charles I of Scotland as well.
Charles the First helped sponsor this video. Apparently wanted his story told.
0:10 😂 I didn't aee that coming lmao. Love it
Man, every single history channel REALLY took the opportunity to talk about the two Charles, the Commonwealth era of England, and the beheading of Charles I.
...Almost like they're giving us a message to do a French in modern Britain...
lol the poor guy not getting to skip across the flower field.
More sophisticated and detailed historical thinking then (you would think) could be crammed into three minutes and nine seconds. Good show, chaps!
fun fact, Oliver Cromwell refused to take title of King for many reasons but was still referred to as “his highness”
Understandable.
@@maazkalim yeah the last guy calling himself King got his head chopped off.
Welp..
That was a reference to a particular character-actor, however..: Yiikkeess!
"Head Bids Adieu To the Torso" realised..
[Very ]French of the Brits.
The squints at 0:40 (40 seconds) are to narrow that I can't really tell where the pupils are. I know where they are because the characters are supposed to be angrily squinting at each other but it really just feels like their eyes are closed because there's so little space between their eyelids that I can't really perceive their pupils and it looks off even if I push my face right up to the monitor.
I recommend broadening the width of the squint by a few pixels at least. In your other videos it's a lot easier to see the difference between the whites and pupils so it's a lot easier to understand "these people are narrowing their eyes while looking at something" instead of getting "these people are weirdly closing their eyes or trying to do an impression of Brock from Pokemon".
Cromwell's succession by his son flunked the smell test, then Richard ruled badly. The people decided that they preferred the Stuart dynasty, but James II almost made them reconsider.
Oliver Cromwell's reign of terror saw the deaths of 25% of the population of the British Isles through war, massacre and famine. His popularity was limited to the army and the puritan parties in parliament.
Didn’t Cromwell pretty much act like a king? I took a class on English history but it was too long ago to remember anything with confidence.
More or less
Yup, even lived in one of the Palaces I believe. The primary reason he didn't accept the many offers to become King was because he believed that God had chosen to punish the Monarchy.
Pretty much the same as every military dictator does
@@bighamster2 Dictators rarely appoint their sons as successors or get called "Your Highness"
Cromwell was effectively king in all but name.
So this is basically English and British history part 19 and 20 BTS and now I wanna see this series finally finished.
I know it would be a task but it would be amazing to see the series finally finished properly.
Don't Charles 3 will make sure that happens 😏
Wow... Skipped right over Oliver Cromwell's retaliation on Ireland there bub
Thank you, Mr. Matters. I always enjoy and learn from your clear and succinct explanations.
I love that Charles I sponsored a video about his own beheading. I just hope James Bisonette doesn't lose his head next.
What would be cool is a video on how the nations of Europe reacted to a major power removing the monarchy, a divine, powerful figure who had been in charge of every major country for hundreds of years, and the establishment of a functional dictatorship.
Didn't the exact same thing happen with the French Revolution followed by Napoleon?
@@orion7763 The English weren't willing or able to then march across the continent demanding other countries do the same. Closest we came was attempting (and failing) to seize control of the Dutch, who were already Republic. So it wasn't exactly the same.
Most of the rest of Europe were pretty much uninterested because it had little impact on the continent, England really wasn't that major of a power at the time, and there were much more important things happening in the major European monarchies.
Cromwell's dictatorship was anything BUT functional - it was run at gunpoint by the New Model Army, so no wonder once Ollie was dead everyone wanted the monarchy back
The Dutch did that in 1581, leading to the Dutch Republic. This resulted in an 80-year war with Spain. What helped in international relations was not challenging the internation order of monarchs and nobles and it's principles with a republican ideology, but probably more important was not doing treason, as in coming with a different monarch without the (divine) legitimacy.
What also helped later was having a noble as joined head of state, the meritocratic government of commoners of that of DeWitt was less influential in Europe than the previous and later government with a prince of Orange as stadtholder (an office appointed in by parliaments). But most help was dominating Europe's trade, dominating world finance, and being filthy rich, hire armies and do a lot of military innovation. But the Dutch stumbled on republicanism rather than promoting republicanism as the way to go for monarchies.
I totally lost at "No fun allowed" 2:02
Cromwell: No more kings!
Also Cromwell: I’ll prop myself up as a dictator, and when I die the title will be passed to my son. Again, totally not a king.
No, not a king. But a dictator and, technically, "Lord Protector." Not all Heads of State are monarchs!
Gotta love the non-frolicking in the daisies scene.
I love the executioner with the kornite chainaxe at 1:24 😂
such a great easteregg ❤
There's something ironic about the parliamentary rebels getting what they initially wanted not from the removal of the monarchy, but its restoration. Yet at the same time if they hadn't killed Charles I then they probably wouldn't have gotten long lasting concessions out of the rest of the Stuarts.
1:24 the executioner is using a chainaxe from wh40k. As a funny reference I guess.
funny and informative ! also, the executioner really wants to please khorne with skulls it seems
It has felt to me like the attitude of those from that time was like [with regards to Oliver Cromwell] "what's the difference? We've gone from one person ruling everything, or at least trying to, to one person ruling everything, or at least trying to. The only difference is that Cromwell isn't a King,"
I've studied Cromwell and this period extensively and some of what you summarized here had never been pieced together properly, thank you for your nutshell account. I thoroughly enjoyed the part about the Puritans opposition to Christmas, didn't know about that one though I should have.
2:37 What event is being talked about here?
Glorious revolution
Proved government are worse, so got the monarchy back 😂 impeccable timing dude! Love this
Fun fact, when I was in Ely I visted his former home....
Which was covered in Charles III coronation flags and portraits with coronation merch inside being sold.
Ironic.
Inappropriate, really.
I love that Khorne reference there
I am so sad, we've been waiting for the 21st episode of British history for several years!
1:10 BRAVE, BRAVE KING CHARLES I
having a monarchy is better
Bootlicker.
This is what I know as an English person from Nottingham:
The civil war started in Nottingham and when it ended, Charles I was executed and Oliver Cromwell became like North Korea’s supreme leader but for us. He banned Christmas and basically all fun and the rich loved it but everyone else didn’t so when he died, instead of his son succeeding him the people restored the monarchy through Charles II (Charles I’s son) and he loved to have fun and then yeah
Reciting the crazy names of your Patrons is worth watching to the end.
Ironically, Parliament, having 'won' the Civil War, was closed by Oliver Cromwell, so England ended up with an absolute ruler.
When there is so much talk about 'religious extremists' it's worth remembering that the Puritans imposed their own extreme version of 'Christianity' and came to be hated in consequence.