Charles I & The English Civil War Documentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2024
- For early access to our videos, discounted merch and many other exclusive perks please support us as a Patron or Member...
Patreon: / thepeopleprofiles
Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/peoplepr...
RUclips Membership: / @peopleprofiles
or follow us on Twitter! / tpprofiles
Hello guys! If you like our work please subscribe to our second channel The History Chronicles / thehistorychronicles
The script for this video has been checked with Plagiarism software and scored 1% on Grammarly. In academia, a score of below 15% is considered good or acceptable.
All footage, images and music used in People Profiles Documentaries are sourced from free media websites or are purchased with commercial rights from online media archives.
#Biography #History #Documentary
For early access to our videos, discounted merch and many other exclusive perks please support us as a Patron or Member...
Patreon: www.patreon.com/thepeopleprofiles
Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/peopleprofiles
RUclips Membership: ruclips.net/channel/UCD6TPU-PvTMvqgzC_AM7_uAjoin
or follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/tpprofiles
Love your videos and work guys!😊😊😊😊❤❤❤❤
My farmhouse in Yorkshire was built in 1641, large and airy… Hard to believe that this was all happening, whilst it’s foundations were being laid, and the sandstone was being procured from local a quarry… Cheers guys…
You've been lied to, is cheap 20th century Tat with some mud slung at it and tea stains to give the appearance of age
I grew up in a Manor house that was finished in 1492 and was rebuilt several times over the centuries. Its main hall had the largest coats of arms in the country (with erect appendages still intact). Also had a 'Spanish room' which was used to host Spanish monarchs over the years.
Mad to think such a place was used as a boarding school for the care system.
I live in a van.
@@werbnaright5012 I’ve lived in a hedgerow, for 3 weeks, courtesy of her Majesty’s armed forces…
@@IRISHSALTMINER61 An historic hedgerow, no doubt.
I think both Louis the 16th of France & Czar Nicholas the 2nd of Russia really should have learned from the mistakes Charles the 1st had made during his reign. They might have actually had successful reins of their own if they had.
You would of thought we would have learned from the 20th century but we haven't.
@@McVet3 As George Will said: *HISTORY had returned from VACATION*
When you say “mistakes”, these could only be rectified by giving into Parliamentarian demands, such as a Presbyterian church and expanded franchise. Charles refused, and was Martyred.
The problem with that logic is royalty came back in the end so the message is do what you want the crown always comes out on top
@@ViscountWoodspringhe had plenty of opportunities to stop things escalating, just not trying to impose the same religious beliefs across all his kingdoms would have been a start.
He wasn't martyred he didn't die for his religious beliefs, he was executed for bringing suffering to his kingdoms which he could have avoided by negotiating after his defeat and not starting another war.
This channel is a joy to my inner history nerd!!! Thank you all for the brilliant programmes!!!
I’ve always seen Charles I as tragic figure, he seemed to be a good man who genuinely cared about his family and people, but he was also a stubborn and prideful man caught up in a rapidly changing world that ultimately left him behind
P
Was it changing for the better?
No he wasn't, he was a good socialist king.
"had the appearance of a show trial" because it was
A King who unknowingly caused a drastic change!
When your favorite channel uploads an hr+ video on your favorite monarch so you can paint your nails in peace ❤❤❤😂
Reason?
Ahh yes,, King Charles the first.. An interesting man for an interesting era in the history of the British monarchy.
Very well researched and informative.
The spectacular shots of the beautiful English countryside are a bonus.
Charles i is one of the best monarchs i think. Brilliant doc. The people's profiles always gives us best docs. Your huge fan from Sri Lanka ❤️.
I kept thinking of Henry VIII and how Parliament succumbed to his wishes. But, he didn’t take Parliament on, dissolving them for 11 years. They apparently resented that!
Although he had a habit of killing them when he got angry Henry has some really competent advisors some of whom were members of parliament and adept at managing it.
Henry VIII laid the foundation of the downfall of monarchy by converting to Protestantism.
Oh and awesome videos. It's hard to find history vides that have both solid quality & a fantastic narrator. Touché
It was worth the wait. Great job yet again guys and girls 👍👍👍
My maternal ancestors were Pilgrims and Puritans, whereas my paternal ancestors were royalists that fled England for the Colonies after their defeat in the English Civil War! While the circumstances of Charles 1's time as a monarch may have been challenging, his own obstinacy was the greatest factor in his downfall! He and Laud had been persecuting the Puritans and Presbyterians, who were angry about that, adding unnecessarily to his list of enemies...
Just found the channel while reading God's Executioner about Cromwell in Ireland. These videos have helped increase my understanding of this whole period. Keep it up, it's how history should be presented.
I've only recently found your channel these videos are spectacular! Superbly researched, easy to understand and with the best sources to provide us with the facts we need to make our own individual judgements on your subjects. I think Charles was highly misunderstood and really a casualty of his times for the most part. In the future could you please consider doing some videos on the following people?:
Georgiana Spencer, fifth Duchess of Devonshire,
Queen Charlotte, wife of George III,
Elvis Presley,
Priscilla Presley,
Lisa Marie Presley,
Maybe also the other eight children of Queen Victoria besides Edward VII I know it's a lot but your type of videos would be perfect for such topics!
This documentary on Charles I was excellent. I have particular interest since my ancestor fought in the New Model Army with Cromwell and was one of the 59 who signed the death warrant for Charles. Your presentation does a good job of shedding light on Charles's intractability, however it also shed light on how the religious reforms Charles was insisting on initiated so much of the trouble. I can't come down solidly on either side. Surely, as you so well present, Charles was responsible for his downfall. However, the formation of the Rump Parliament, with so many refusing, does seem like a kangaroo court. My descendants, from Vincent (who signed the warrant) on down, however, were mostly an arrogant, self-impressed lot. They did notable and laudable things, but were in many ways as headstrong, self-impressed, and as intractable as Charles.
I always thought that Alec Guiness did a wonderful job of portraying Charles I in the movie Cromwell, (one of my favorite movies), and your video totally reinforced my belief of that. Great job.
Equally..I didn't care for Richard Harris as Cromwell. Over acted in my opinion.
Yes he did
I have always found it fascinating that the war between parliament and King Charles is called the first civil war. As if the wars of the roses hadn't happened at all...
or the anarchy after the death of henry i.
@@rockingthemike Indeed..
The war of the roses is called the Cousins War, or War of the Roses, though. 🤣
@@CountessKitten exactly.if you went back in time to england a you referred to war of the roses he wouldnt know what you were talking about.they knew it as the cousins war.
@@CountessKitten Indeed, but it was a de facto civil war for the kingship of england.
Historians prefer to call it The Wars of the 3 Kingdoms nowadays as it was not confined to England
Makes it sound like something out of LOTR(sorry to lower the tone)
woke
@@RTD553 that's the 1st time someone's called me woke
@@RTD553😂😂 you prefer to pretend it was all about England and no other country was involved 🤷
Did you even watch the video?
Quite right, the English ego may not like the fact that it wasn't all about them, but history should be taught in the most accurately factual terms, so 'war of the three kingdoms ' it is.👍
Thank you again for yet another informative and wonderfully narrated documentary.
Brilliant! And read by an accomplished voice actor with the most beautiful Welsh accent, which always fills me with pride whenever I hear it. A true secondary source of historical fact.
Something to include during Charles’ Trial: the verbatim definition of treason on 17th Century England was “Violence against the King.” Charles was actually winning the trial of his life and called out how illegitimate the trial was, until they decided to put him in contempt of court.
His non cooperation was obstruction of justice
Charles was winning the case, legally. Unfortunately for him, we'd gone past legal by then. The unfortunate fact for Charles was that he was tried by a kangaroo court set up by a military dictatorship. The rules were all on his side. But Charles never realised that rules are only half the game.
A very interestig biography. It is hard to decide how really Charles I was, and the show respects this issue. Thanks.
Great video - very informative
It is interesting to see how each generation of the Stewarts differed from each other.
He certainly made a lot of mistakes during his rule, and he was too stubborn to be able to compromise.
Politics is about compromise but on the other hand, what parliament was effectively demanding from Charles, was for him to be reduced to a mostly decorative king and that at the time was not something understandable nor acceptable, so we shouldn’t view it in today’s terms, where we’re accustomed for the sovereign to be mainly a ceremonial figure.
OK, obviously parliament was the victor in the war, and the victor is the one who lay down the rules but their take it or leave it approach wasn’t gonna fly with a feisty man like Charles and they should know that.
Parliament’s biggest mistake was that they illegally put the king on trial and they executed him, an outcome that was pre decided by Cromwell and his people.
After watching the historia civilis video on the trial of Charles I i'm really interested in learning more about the life of the man himself.
If true he was brave at his execution, asking for a extra shirt, it was winter, so he didn't want to be seen shivering , from the cold or as some would think from fear .
There was a beginning of a Protestantism, started by Martin Luther, that swept across Europe at the time. It only became aware in the British isles, when the Scot’s rejected catholic rules. The movement spread to England and the inevitable clash culminated in civil war.
Thanks For these incredible videos guys!
Hearth please❤❤❤❤❤❤
Brilliant documentary, i find Charles I a fascinating figure, his stubborn character is ultimately what killed, not taking a compromise with parliament when he had the chance. He couldve taken a page from his fathers book, who tended to be more diplomatic in getting his way with parliament, instead of just dissolving it
Could you do a Playlist for all the English kings? I'm trying to figure out who is left! Charles II & James II?
Thank you for the interesting lecture
33:07 That's one of the castles used in the film Monty Python and The Holy Grail
Thanks for posting.
Can't wait for James II!
My favourite period this. Can’t wait for James 2nd and and William and Anne
Enjoyed this
very good video on Charles I of Scotland, England and Ireland . i don't think Charles was the brightest bulb in the box, he certainly lacked his father James VI/I shrewdness or political grasp and lacked the ability to compromise, which his son James VII/II also lacked, they fully believed in the divine rights of kings. Charles despite being born in Scotland, but raised in England, lacked i complete understanding of Scotland unlike his father James VI/I and behaved in a very autocratic ignorant manner. having said that the religious factions IN England in many ways did not help either , trying to impose their views on the population. The Parliamentarians did not wholly reflect the population view indeed they were controlled by a vey puritanical radical bunch who sought to impose their views on the people as much as Charles did . It is very interesting to note that the people regardless of Charles behavior were more sympathetic to him than parliament and as soon as possible restored the monarchy. Charles II was crowned King of Scots in 1651 nine years before he was restored to England's throne and Cromwell invaded Scotland and did exactly same thing they condemned Charles I for, imposed their view and a protective that Scotland did not want, as a separate independent Nation. Whilst Charles I was not the brightest bulb he was however the rightful King and rightly refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the court that condemned him, those who signed his death warrant were guilty of regicide. like his grandmother before him Queen Mary I of Scotland both were murdered by England who had no legal or moral right to do so, his grandmother more so.
I never new that parliament had a U in tt.
Most observers, British and foreigners, believe that Charles I was a man looking behind him to the past instead of forward to the future. Charles I wanted to remain immutable in a time of change. In hindsight, a different Charles I might have had to painfully swallow inevitable limitations to his crown authority but it didn't have to be as restrictive as it is today. A more adroit Charles I might have played to the strengths and weaknesses of Parliament, willing to cultivate enough supporters who would countenance less restrictions on the king's absolute authority than was originally demanded. In other words, Charles I might have to accept the lesser of two evils, taking two steps forward and one back, instead of being forced all the way back which is what happened. Yet Charles I did not possess that kind of political acumen nor willingness to accept the least of any limitation to his authority. In the grand scheme of things, you might have to agree that in a time of implacable change, Charles I was the engineer of his own downfall and still he never recognized that situation as the executioner's ax came swinging down.
He should have listened to the old saying,,when your ahead stay a head,,😂😂😂😂😂😂
fantastic! Would IT possible to Tell me what is the hauntingly beauthifull music in the background as the video starts
Thank you 🙏🏽 😍
We always appreciate your time and hard work to make these videos. Charles i is a brilliant documentary. We always appreciate your hard work and dedication towards these videos. Love and appreciation from Sri Lankan fan. 🇱🇰🤝🏴
It's interesting to me that of some of the most famous dispositions of kings in European History (Charles, Louis, and Nicholas), none of these kings could truly be considered bad men, with all three seeming to want what's best for their nations but caught up in changing times they couldn't really deal with.
Just some irony in that.
Huge episode 😊
Have you uploaded the video of King Charles II of England yet?
Magnificent
A man taking up arms against his own people believing himself to be above all, only to be reality checked. RIP.
Fascinating :)
Justice for Charles. We demand it now !
He got his justice
@@robertbruce7686 he did not get justice. He was murdered by a gang of thugs.
God safe the King !
A dictator who used ancient fairy tales to justify his tyranny
Cromwell was a dictator too.
can you add more dates for the events ,please
Is the video on Oliver Cromwell uploaded yet? The caption above all three of the thumbnails says 5 days, 3 videos.
The irony of killing each other over who's way of celebrating and worshipping the world's foremost pacifist is right, boggles the mind
The best summarisation of the documentary ❣️
Well put 👌🏻
Charles 1623 trip makes him look incredibly naive. Ouch.
i live at freedom fields plymouth .the turning point ofthe battle .most dont know why its called freedom feilds orwhy all the canons on the citidel point towards the city .
There was a debate as to whether the current king should change his name upon his accession to aviod any association with the previous two royals who bore his name before him. He has already gone through two prime ministers in his first year on the throne.
What is the music on the outro?
Can you provide details of music please ?
The man who dissolved parliament, and got killed for it, hopefully history doesn't repeat.
make one about cromwell
Prof. Richard Holmes made a documentary on Cromwell for the BBC series Great Britons. But sadly I can't find it anywhere
Thank you so much, actually I like the English history ❤
Probably a combination of both. I have no sympathy to the extremist Puritans but Charles definitely didn’t help his cause any. He definitely should have made some concessions on state and economic matters in order to get England moving again economically and financially to put down the extremist religious radicals.
Charles was by no means any worse than so many other kings.
Wasn’t Prince Rupert Charles’ nephew? His sister Elizabeth’s son. ‘Continental cousin’ doesn’t sound right.
Yes. Rupert was the nephew of Charles l and cousin to Charles ll. Continental cousin has never sounded right to me either. I also wish that Charles l life wasn't compared to the movie Cromwell all the time. That film was wildly simplistic and historically incorrect. Cromwell was no hero!
I am quite sure That if it would Not happened to Charles the revolution would have come later as seen in france. Hence Englands Parliament as it is now is a direct consequence of this Time. Only Charles was not aware of these consequences as they happened for the fiirst time for an english King (but not first time to a Queen) see Anne ❤
despite the union of the crowns in 1603 James retained his title as James VI of Scotland and not as James I of England Scotland and Ireland as the narrator has stated. Also all monarchs from 1603-1707 were king and Queen of both Scotland and England. Why cannot people reflect that instead of showing a very ignorant approach to the subject they are talking about. ie the heading of this video. The Stuarts were the Royal Dynasty of Scotland, indeed the present House of Windsor derive their claim to the British crown from the Stewarts/Stuarts. Also the monarchs in some cases had a different number in Scotland from England. James VII of Scotland and II of England, William II of Scotland but II of England. Its worth noting that our late Queen Elizabeth was not Elizabeth II in Scotland or indeed that of Great Britain, she was Elizabeth, despite what she as called etc and her coins depicted. Indeed our late Queen was the most Scottish monarch since the days of the Stewarts /Stuarts
If this was the first English Civil war - what was the war between Mathilda and Stephen, or the Wars of the Roses???
The Irish, as ever, call the series of conflicts "The Wars of the Three Kingdoms"
P.S. my family, the O'Kellys of Aughrane, were in Co. Roscommon, already in Connaught. So the Cromwellian sneer "They (the Catholic Irish) can go to Hell, or Connaught for all I care. Whichever is closer!"
@@christopheraliaga-kelly6254 its not only the Irish who call it that
31:24 Front row, gun doesn't fire, dude doesn't look happy about it.
Nobody had mentioned Bob.
I had no idea Charles had weak ankles.
I never got to know him and my father the way I would have like to
"Edinburgh or Holyrood House" - Holyrood house is IN Edinburgh.
Charles 1st was a small, weak, weedy little man with a club foot and a stammer.
If I really wanted to live up to the first half of my username then I could point out at the time Holyroodhouse was actually outside the Burgh of Edinburgh and was possibly (am not too sure of the exact boundaries) in the Burgh of Canongate but that would be like saying Whitehall Palace was not in London
Can you make a video of Queen Charlotte wife of George III and a lover of Nasal Snuff. :P
Rest in peace our Martyred King . We remember and know justice was done when the traitors were hung, drawn and quartered and your true heir male was restored.
My Firebrace ancestors was the courtier to Charles 1, 2 & James 2.
The Stuarts did not have a single Machiavellian bone in them. They were weak and spineless,(apart from James 1 who was the wisest fool in Christendom).
The Tudors would not have tolerated the rise of Puritanism and Cromwell. Had Edward the son of Henry the Eighth had a son,or Elizabeth an heir,the mess of a civil war would have been avoided.
However,the fall of the Stuarts and the rise of Cromwell and the generals was a good thing for England. It weakened the power of France and allowed for the formation of a fearsome army,(the New Model Army). They were properly trained and had the best weapons available anywhere in Europe.
As a French emissary wrote in his dispatches to the court in Versailles,: “ I have seen the English and they have the best troops possible “.
😊
I see him as a man who tried to go over the heads of legislature to enforce his absolute executive rule.
He’s Charles 2
He did not have the negotiation skills: war was avoidable, however, he chose to place his people in continuous peril. By today's standards he mixed religious law with civil law; by the 1600's standards he pushed the letter, and ultimately paid the price culminating in the loss of his head.🇬🇧
Harry will end up being King in the way Charles the First was.
It’s written in the stars.
No.
For Harry to become king, Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis and any children that the last 3 may have all need to die first
Always felt sorry for Strafford. Scapegoat.
Charles the first just did not have the diplomatic skills of his Father King James. And if Charles thought he could rule like the Kings in Spain he was grossly mistaken. Spain was united under Catholicism & was at this time quite wealthy. Charles was trying to rule multiple lands with very different cultural & religious views. He thought he could jam a square peg into a round hole with force of will,while showing little to no interest in the welfare of his subjects. Most people had never even seen the King. His antisocial personality was disastrous for a King. And he had several occasions to mend some of these rifts at the end but he was dubious in his intents and simply could not be trusted. He was a failure in his role as a King.
Most of the criminals to the British colonies such as India and Africa were be done by the parliamentary government. It’s always felt justified when the power comes from the people, even though the actions were the most inhumane and vicious.
in the documentary about king james the first it was explained, that he weas given the english throne because the english candidates were viewed as indifferent protestants. that turned out as tragically rigid thinking, since scotland should have had the wisdom to stay out of english affairs.
That's not true. James was given the throne because he was the closest living heir to Elizabeth. They directly descended Henry the 7th, James twice over. Scotland was a mess. Deposing their Kings, introducing Presbyterianism. Scotland was the most protestant country in Europe and their Stuart family were secret Catholics. It was England who inherited the problems of Scotland and their King.
Charles the Royal Martyr. He really deserved better. Long live the King.
He was no martyr. An absolitionist and he reaped the reward.
A dictator who used ancient fairy tales to justify his tyranny
He was a Traitor ... Please tell me this was a troll comment.
Not sure what an absolitionist is, but he paid for his errors.
He should have called help from the Turks.
I am a Bible believing Christian and I am strongly opposed to a powerful and dominating clergy. I am most certainly opposed to any government sanctioned church which Charles certainly supported. Conversely, I find many commendable aspects to the Puritan movement which began as an offshoot of the Anglican church in the 1500's. I regard as very commendable the position of the Puritan movement (a grassroots movement) to encourage each family to acquire a Bible of their own and to read it and study it daily. America's Christian heritage, which sadly is fading away, can largely be traced back to the Puritans. The Puritans were arguably the most Biblically literate people the world has ever known, and I believe that they largely exemplified what it means to truly be "Christian".
They say English Civil War. It actually started in Scotland. Charles 1st tried to force Catholicism on Scotland. The rebellion thus started what was called The English Civil War.
I think Charles and England simply fell victim to a perfect storm. An obstinate king, dogged politicians, implacable religious minorities, economic woes, and many more factors which, on their own, would not have been incredibly impactful, all together, proved disastrous.
Yurda-pee-ohn
The Stuarts were political neophytes and deserved everything they got.
King Charles was clearly a arrogant and deceitful monarch, however his trial was neither fair nor lawful.
Nor were the trials he subjected his political enemies to
He should think himself lucky that he wasn't murdered in captivity like most of his predecessors
Henry the 8th left big scars in England. People forget how tyrannical he was and generally feared. When any king there after displayed any characteristics like him the nobles shit themselves. Charles was removed and a system was put In place so those situations could never happen again
These events have nothing to do with Henry. Protestantism was well out of the bed irrespective of Henry and Scotland had already embraced. Presbyterianism / Puritanism during Elizabeth reign, independent of England. England inherited a Scottish King who brought their problems over.
First comment that's not from people profile
Isnt it strange weve had no comments on the colour of Charles's skin yet on videos about his father there are many