I bought this movie and I read the book it is based on by Antonia Fraser. You can say many things about Charles II, but the man was calculating and ballsy. You have to give it to him for being a master at not being manipulated and can make a situation turn to his advantage nearly every time.
I just watched the entire "power and the passion" mini-series. It was great. If you liked this clip and are interested in Charles II, I wholly recommend you watch the mini-series. Great king!
I'm no Royalist, but Charles the Second was a breath of fresh air... Style, and the disintegration of claustrophobic, and often cruel, backward religious issues and chauvenism all had their roots May of 1660. Only 15 decades later, we had the Napoleonic period and Industrial Revolution. Fifteen decades PRIOR to Charles....Early 16th Century and the glorified caveman.
Charles 2 did have the right to dissolve Parliament seeing in that time whatever the King or Queen said was the Law! as an American i say this proudly Long live the Royal Family and may God bless QE2 Prince Philip,Charles,Prince William and Prince Harry and the rest
Actually- whatever the King or Queen said was not law. Laws were made by the King in Parliament- neither could make law without the other. After 1689 the monarchs explicitly agreed this was the case, but it had been effectively been the case since Henry VIII, when Henry VIII empowered Parliament to make himself head of the Church of England. The irony is the American president probably has always more power than the English monarch has had for 100s of years.
RUFUS is Brilliant as Tom the builder in The Pillars of the Earth I vote him the worlds best actor.. Glad he doesn't have to play bad broody guys any more His choice! Bravo Rufus Bravo
Personally, i prefefered it when the wigs got shorter. from about 1740-1800 is just about my favourite time in fashion and up there in history. Of course, victorian era Britain (and her Empire) take the cake. :D
Charles I did it because some members were plotting to overthrow him, this led to the Civil war which ended with Charles being executed with the country becoming a Republic for the first and only time. However the country was run by Oliver Cromwell who became like a dictator with sole control over the military. After his death the exiled Charles II was returned to the throne to restore order. This is why we don't like to think about going Republic again, we tried and failed.
Yes it is if your interested in Charles 11 I dont know where you live but you should visit Mosely Old Hall in Staffordshire England the actual bed Charles slept in is still there and the oak back door that he walked through is also the very same door theres a letter Charles wrote to Jane Lane when he was restored to the throne at Mosely and all sorts of personal items that belonged to Charles. He rewarded Jane Lane with jewels and money for risking her life to save him and they remained friends
Yes Her Majesty The Queen has the same power and can use it in case of a state of emergency or civil-war. The Crown is important not so much for the power it wields, but for the power it denies others. Sir Winston Churchill
English with english subtitles, works for me :) When I saw the thumbnail I thought it was a Monty Python sketch I hadn't seen. I expected them to all burst into 'silly walks' when the speech ended :)
The Stuarts were descended from the Tudors through Henry VIII's older sister. Thus they can trace their lineage back to the earliest English kings of the Middle Ages. What celebrei is getting at is that over 50 technically senior claimants were passed over in favor of the Hanovers via the 1701 Act of Settlement, including the most senior of them, the Stuart son of the deposed James II. Ironically enough the current senior genealogical claimant is himself German.
At that moment, all the members of Parliament must have been thinking..."and to think we restored this asshole to the throne...he's no better than his father." Then their second thought was "and how did we rid ourselves of his father?"
@mackshayster Well at this time England was a Protestant nation, and James II being a very open Catholic, the country hated him for it. Therefore Parliament sought for a new monarch, and the nearest related one was the Dutch king William of Orange. He invaded, fought James II in Ireland and he went into exile. James also believed in an absolute monarchy, where the decisions of Parliament did not matter and the king decided everything, which naturally did not go down well. In a nutshell :)
@324wilson "I do not believe in the absolute rule of the Kings. I do, however, believe in the contitution of our "constitutional" monarchy." Which constitution is that and what does the constitution say?
I could be wrong here, but despite the flaws of Charles II or any of these monarchs it seems to be that Parliament thought only it knew what was best for a country and its people. If that is the case then what is the point in choosing a king when Parliament could have been its own king?
It would cause a crisis. We don't have the weapon-availability for a civil war, but there would be division and could be violence. I could see a hell of a lot of people supporting the monarchy, a lot more than common media output might suggest.
Well i recommend Tsar Peter the Great (there was a truly great man, he single-handedly dragged Russia into the modern world.) Also King Vercingetorix, King Alfred the Great, Alexander the Great, King Xerxes of Persia, Queen Bodicia, First Emperor of China (can't spell name), King Aleric of the Goths, Emperor Trajan of Rome, just to name a few.
One reason why I love monarchies! Depending on the monarchy, of course, but most of them know how to make things proper unlike republics! Though, depends on the republic, but I favor a democratic-style monarchy then a republic!
@kanenkitten Charles II could declare parliament dissolved but he had to accept the election of a new one forthwith. He couldn't reighn without parliament as his father could.
@shahideurope Personally i'd be happy to see Parliament dissolved and have her Majesty rule Kingdom and the commonwealth by herself. My loyalty is to the Monarchy not those corrupt fools in Parliament.
@Zeruel3 He must have been legally just and logically minded. And straight down the road compassionate and forward thinking . That's why I always find myself drawn to him.
@xyPERSON Britain needed a King back then. After the death of Charles I Parliament became so corrupt and greedy that they had the same people sit in office for six years without reelection. That is why Cromwell proclaimed himself Lord Protector and ruled as a dictator, he even tried to make that position heretical, and pass it down to his son. England needed a King to control Parliament and to command the people's loyalty. I think a constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government.
@ImperialGuard9001: Yes. Cromwell was king but in name. But in being dictator he enjoyed more power than the king, as he didn't need to respect the laws which limited the kings power in regards to the barons and Parliament.
@Pilaf1984 On the bright side, people who feel that way probably don't vote. I wish Power and the Passion had a John Locke cameo. He was Shaftesbury's secretary during this period and ran off to Holand when he thought he might be implicated (and executed!) for involvement in the plot, when he wrote the letter on government. Just think; no Charles II, no John Locke as a famous author, no Declaration of Independence. Wheels within wheels.
@AlphaOmega804 Also, I find bugs to be amazing creatures, Ants can lift 10x their weight they also farm cattle (Beetles) and clean the ground, Spiders are master architects spinning their webs, Bees make Honey, and Mantises, move like the wind, ever held one in your hand, watching it stare back at you with the same curiosity, or watch it stalk its prey... I love bugs.. So feel free to call me an insect, they are hardly pathetic, I admire them more then my fellow man at times.
Excuse me please, but I see that the question was already asked, but can anybody tell me what the song from 2:53 to 3:17 is called ? Or primary, what the soundtrek of this movie is ?
Have you ever lived under someone with absolute power? Even the Thailand monarchy doesn't have that. If you haven't, you might want to seriously reconsider the idea.
@tendrebarbare Looking back on history, a monarch who had truly loved the country and its people that he/she governed was probably much better than an elected parliament which produces politicians who represent special interests and only care about their political careers. Does Parliament REALLY care about the native British people? Does the US Congress REALLY represent the wishes of American citizens? The answer to both is a resounding no. It all depends on integrity-a rare trait nowadays
@DravenWolfe I am a Royalist but i can admit that Henry VIII was not perfect. Tell him Henry built the designs for the Mary Rose and there by the modern day warship. This was the first step to our unrivaled Navy. He also left England a very rich nation due to his religious reforms. Henry had his problems but he helped make England great!!
@AlphaOmega804 Thanks for the Help, and to show my apperciation I shall tell you a secret, i'm not 100% anti-Monarchist (Royalists), I 'm just against an absolute Monarch or Absolute Rule, government, in general.
This is what he wanted, but I'm not sure if this was simply to win respect for basically his whole family apart from himself (Mum, Wife, Brother, Sister) or whether it was a genuine belief that he would of held whether ot not they had been Catholic.
