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.
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).
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!
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.
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."
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]*
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.
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...
@@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.
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?
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
Pls debunk the 45 trillion loot story floating around Internet. Even if you calculate the entire GDP of India during the 190 years of British rule adjusted for inflation you wouldn't get 45 trillion dollars.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
0:23 "Why did Parliament and -the People- _the Aristocracy_ feel the need to restore the Monarchy?" Fixed that for you. The common people didn't get the right to vote in England until 1918.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I like that detail that the creator is a fan os Warhammer 40k due to Khorne styleed chainaxe at 1:24 Well played, heretic. Th Inquisition is on it's way.
It's fiction, of course, but I strongly recommend Robert Harris's Act of Oblivion which narrates how different Americans, and different colonies, reacted to the outcome of the Civil War and its aftermath.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The puritan restrictions on “immorality” were more of a reaction to the real or perceived elitism and excesses of the upper class than an expression of traditional authoritarian conservative religiosity. Remember that aristocratic parties and ornate holiday separations were mostly exclusively enjoyed by ruling classes, monarchs, nobility, and clergy. The traditional high-church Anglicans and Catholics were actually more authoritarian in the traditional sense than the low-church Protestants and Puritans, considering that it was the high-church that believed in divine right of kings and suppression of nonconformists, and considering that the low-church Puritans Presbyterians and nonconformists were the ones with egalitarian structures of church governance, as opposed to the hierarchies of bishops, popes, and episcopates. It may seem paradoxical to Brits and Americans in the modern day, when low-church Protestant moralism is more associated with the political right of center, but the Puritans’ ideas were the direct ancestors of modern liberalism and secularism.
The civil war wasnt really sparked as an anti monarchist revolution it was more because the king was too sympathetic to catholics, and the english were very puritan and zealous protestants at the time.
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.
I would've emphasize that the Finatticz threw out were the Puritans which eventually had a majority. The struggle between land ownership and power. Anglicans are not that radical and Charles had married Henrietta Marie the sister of the king of Catholic France to help calm down war like problems with Catholic France and Ireland. Too bad people we're not more flexible just like today ha ha
Long story short, life was worse without a royal family. We’ve seen that in most cases in history that what comes after is 10x worse. What the Uk has now works well imo, regardless if some people hate them
