Why Was King Charles So Hated? | Charles I | Real Royalty 

That's how they got rich and stay that way.

That's exactly what I thot. The beard looks like a cheap Santa Claus beard. 😅

That looks like his real hair compared to a wig

Where else would they find that? 🤣

😂😂

That's because the wigmakers for Spirit Halloween stores copy paintings of Charles 1.

I thought it was Wucy Wolthswey.

You should see Prof. Katt Williams. He's a real luminary

Mary Queen of Scots had a claim to the English throne. She was a descendant of Henry VIII through his sister. Therefore so did James.

I think she was referring to the Scottish throne

@@gus-vanover No she was NOT a descendant of Henry. He was her great uncle though.

You're beautiful Milady!

@@filipematias5127 thank you! 😻

@@diy_cat9817 🌹💜🎩😽

She truly is an excellent presenter, whom as mentioned earlier, cannot hide her passion for History; thus presenting it in an alluring way, to captivate the interest of others to her profession!

@@finnsmom1673 Not only that, with that hairstyle and that hair colour, she is truly english even in appearance.

I like King Charle's outfits, he had style unlike today

🤣

I just spat my coffee all over my iPad, stained my shirt and almost choked, coughing and laughing at the same time, after I read your astute commentary on men’s fashion of the era!!! Sincerely though, “Thank You,” I love to have genuine laughter at brilliant commentary and your’s just made my evening!!! 😂🤣🤗😅👏👏👏

🤣😹

C. Norbert Neumann I wholeheartedly agree .

disagree, royalty was different. most countries in europe had monarchs which had foreign blood. Louis XIV at the sametime had spanish,austrian and portugueuse blood... You should not forget the stuarts after Mary stuart descended from Henry VII. So xenophobia existed, but kings were apart in this. since everyone knew that there was advantages that your king had foreign blood in order to make alliances and stuff like that. If europeans monarchs could have married into chinese nobility for advantages they would have done it. He was put to the scaffold because he even acknowledged him and his dad that kings were "small Gods ' on earth. they literally believed that kings were gods, it was not even symbolic. so thats what put them in trouble.

@@philmuda King Henry VIII. and his daughter, Queen Mary I. ("Bloody Mary"), were very tyrannical English monarchs, yet there were never serious attempts to overthrow them, especially not by the parliament. Also Henry's other daughter, Queen Elizabeth I., ruled in an authoritarian manner, often violating the rights of the parliament and its members. Nevertheless, she was popular and nicknamed "Good Queen Bess". In the contrary, there was a hostile attitude against Kings James I. and Charles I. from the beginning, although they were not more tyrannical or authoritarian than their predecessors. King James II. was overthrown and forced into exile, just because his wife had born an heir. Something similar would never have happened under the Tudor monarchs. Throughout the 17th century, there was a fundamental dislike against the Stuarts in England, rooted in their Scottisch ancestry. (The German-rooted Hanoverian kings were very unpopular in England, too, but since British monarchs had already been disempowered by the time, they were not overthrown or forced into exile.)

@@c.norbertneumann4986 totally wrong. you never heard of the pilgrimage of grace with henry the VIII the whole north rised up. The duke of buckingham also tried to overthrow him. As for Mary, she had a huge rebellion from Thomas Wyatt and others as well. Lets not even talk about Elizabeth. I am not arguing with you that xenophobia and bigotry existed at that time everywhere. it simply didnt apply to kings who were seen as representation of the state. Charles being scottish had nothing to do with his execution. he lived almost all his life in London and alot of his ancestors were english and he descended from Henry VII.

I believe she still would today if she were to become Queen

Looks like times haven't change much. There are still many civil wars happening over religion and politics today.

Google Tony Buckingham, he had some shady dealings with pmcs

The Dukedom of Buckingham is extint!

CaptAin3 _Danger reeeereeeee

@@filipematias5127 Or even extinct!

Guitarist for Fleetwood Mac?

He just didn't cared. Also any expedition would be expensive, risky, and even if eventually successful and what he would gain in return?

King Louis XIV of France was a minor at the time. Cardinal Mazarin ruled France on his behalf. While Mazarin did pay lip service to Charles’s request for help, he didn’t do anything to help Charles. Possible reason for not helping Charles could be that France was caught up in a civil war of its own called The Fronde.

@@TurboMMaster I certainly do see some gain in such an expedition. For those who believe in royal government, letting a Monarch be executed by commoners would be setting a bad precedent.

In 1588 the most powerful nation in Europe, Spain, sent its Armada (and army) to defeat Elizabeth and conquer England. Spain was very wealthy, what with the plunder of the Jews & Moors and the loot stolen from the New World. Yet by some fluke, the English (and the sudden storms) destroyed the Spanish armada.) The Pope had promised the king of Spain 6 million gold ducats if he could defeat Elizabeth. The irony, when Elizabeth scceeded to the throne, she declared her intent to have religious freedom. "I want no windows on mens souls." The Roman Catholics would have none of it. Even as late as the Syllabus of errors they were still insisting on monarchism as divinely ordained. They railed against the Americanist heresy - and were horrified at the idea of freedom of religion. "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus." (Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.) Nowadays all that has changed. Catholics have even apologized to Jews. Pope Francis is truly open and progressive.

yes-it-is-him

@@MahaliaSilverStacker Thanks, I thought so.

elaine smith Charles Spencer, the 9th Earl of Spencer and brother of Princess Diana, wrote a book “Killers of the King” or Charles 1

elaine smith wow

Yes it is him, he is in alot of these videos for this channel

I got premium a few months ago, and the downloading alone makes it worth it. Esp when people upload movies full screen and great audio/picture.

Seriously I'm broke AF with many children. Health is in the toilet. Premium is surprisingly cheap and well worth it. Kinda nice not wasting life you can't get back on shitty ads 😎👌

The whole building then just explodes

@@Patrick3183 Guy Fawkes: “Hey, no fair stealing my ideas!” 🔥

If you are watching on a laptop or PC, download and use Adblock. If you are watching on a tablet or phone, fast forward close to the end (+ or - 15 seconds) and allow the video to finish. Then reload the video, the commercials will be gone. Once you learn to do it, it becomes easy. You can then watch commercial free.

In those years it COULD be. depended on who you disagreed with and what the argument was

"Immense legacy of the Tudors"...!?!? Which one? That's a joke right? Except for Queen Elizabeth I the other Tudor monarchs didn't exactly leave any legacy worth mentioning! Henry VII was an usurper and a regicide always paranoid about someone killing him, Henry VIII was a sociopathic murderer, a bigamist and a christian heretic, Edward VI was a child King and a pre-teen puppet with no real power and Mary I was a bitter woman and a fanatical catholic hellbent on revenge against those who helped her father abolishing catholicism and divorcing her mother!

@@filipematias5127 the tudors were the most powerful monarchs England ever had. They each ruled with unparalleled power and prestige and the complete devotion of Parliament which never happened before or after. What James I inherited from Elizabeth was an absolute monarchy with an almost rubber-stamp legislature that required little More than basic politeness and a show of respect from the monarch to support any war, any tax request, anything. They blew that all and couldn’t understand how simple it really was. Parliament would do ANYTHING the king wanted as long as the king wasn’t rude or dismissive. James and Charles both disrespected Parliament.

The guy who helped the king is welsh, hence the banter. And the king simply rolls with it

@@00_rei90 Ohhhhh! That makes sense. Right over my head. Thank you!

Isn't it because Richard Wynne's family Barony (Gwydir) was in Wales. Wales was then very poor but beautiful, and they were the original Britons, going back to King Arthur, and further to Glastonbury (where Jesus supposedly walked on "Englands green and pleasant land." Of course it was not England then. Supposedly young jesus went with his uncle Joseph of Arimathea (tin merchant) - to estsblish a reign of peace, a New Jerusalem. In William Blake's poem the enemy was cruel modern oppression of the workers in the factories. He merely invoked the ancient Welsh legend.

DK Phillips yes. The ads are excessive .

@Elizabeth Frantes Fair enough Milady! However it's still a fact that King Charles I had more than just a handful of supporters in Scotland (mostly among the highlanders), Wales, England (cavaliers and crypto-catholics) and Ireland (catholics) not to mention that after his execution some royalists followed the rest of the royal family into exile first in the Netherlands and then afterwards into France (after his death his son Prince Charles was immediately proclaimed King Charles II by the Scottish and even attempted to occupy the throne of Scotland in 1651-52 with help from royalist supporters to the Stuarts) It is ironic that history would partially repeat itself when in 1688 King James II fled into France with his 2nd wife Queen Mary of Modena and their infant son the Prince of Wales where they were followed by roughly ten thousand people from English and Scottish noble families along with their households which constituted his royal court in exile whilst still maintaining thousands of supporters dedicated to the legitimist jacobite cause back in the British Isles that carried on until the mid 18th century by supporting him, his son and grandson mostly in Scotland and Ireland and to a less degree also in England and Wales!

Wasn't it fairly evenly divided until the Scottish Presbyterians got involved? In the early period it was a tug-of-war. The big militay disadvantage of the old system of giving higher ranks of leadership to those of noble birth -- led to frequent examples of less effective generalship. The New Model Army elevated commanders based on merit and experience.

At first it's fine, but then you hear he "absolutely believed in a Kings divine rights".....

O Brasil é uma República desgraçada, como a maioria são.

You undermine your own argument by placing a question mark at the end of your defensive sentence. Very confusing. Is it a matter of record, or is it not?

@@prometheusunbound7628 If your best argument is that I made a typing error, your arguments are very shallow.

God isn't real

@@CountesssBathory God is but I don't agree this interpretation. He didn't wind the Universe up like a Great Clock and leave it just running.(i.e. Predestination)

So you don't believe in free will. So nobody is responsible for their actions?

If you are watching on a laptop or PC, download and use Adblock. If you are watching on a tablet or phone, fast forward close to the end (+ or - 15 seconds) and allow the video to finish. Then reload the video, the commercials will be gone. Once you learn to do it, it becomes easy. You can then watch commercial free.

Also, if you want to block a channel, look for the three vertical dots that appear in the right lower corner when you hover over the video (before you click to watch it). It will give you the option to have this channel "not recommended." Works pretty well, at least for a while.

Violating parliament and disrespecting the church (post-Reformation) is what ultimately set the people against him the most I think.

@@thunderbird1921 why was parliament so strong😂

@@plotarmour1471 an excuse of a kingdom thats why, a king with no authority

he is!

It's her terrible lisp and inability to pronounce the r, that's difficult for good sound production, they can't raise the volume too much because it'll not help. That's why it's difficult to hear her clearly.

Why the queen would name her son after such a man as this? Charles II is hated as well

@@SundayCookingRemix The late Queen named her third son "Edward" the same as her uncle who abdicated and forced her father to become King.

If you read the American declaration of independence (1776) very similar themes are raised. The King had been the legitimate lawful authority, but according to Jefferson's viewpoint, all authority ultimately derives from the consent of the governed. Partly as a result of the English civil war, the way was paved for a consitutional monarchy. The English Bill of Rights was made possible by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, And the English Bill of Rights (1689) set the stage for the American version of constitutionalism, almost a hundred years later. - PS in defense of medieval Catholicism, remember that few people (especialy in northern Europe) could read or write. Gutenberg's printing press, around 1440, enabled a HUGE advance.

@@robertshepherd8543 - The difference is that we Americans who revolted against the authority of King George III didn't chop off his head!

@@cyrilmauras4247 Thanks to the Atlantic Ocean! 😇

Yup. Because there isn't one.

Yes.

A woman of course

LMAO

Why?

An historian specialising in the Tudors and Stuarts.

@@noelfollett3486 thx!

There is no actual evidence of that

Nonsense! Read J.H. Newman on his conversion to the Church...

Angela Hartley in 2020 , is it that necessary to judge which philosophy of Christianity is the “ true” faith ? I’m Roman Catholic and have attended Protestant services . I have close friends who are Protestant and we speak freely about the similarities and differences in our religions . Along the long history of Catholicism there have been huge issues and corruption which fueled the Protestant reformation . Please don’t use the behavior of catholic hierarchy to criticize all of Catholicism . Those bad apples are a small part of the catholic congregation . I do not condone the corruption . The corruption is evidence that evil exists and that Satan is working overtime and enjoys watching we Christians killing each other in the name of God . Here in America we tolerate all faiths . It’s the basis of our constitution .

@@honey-feeney9800 i have my own opinions as you do!

Angela Hartley each person’s opinion has value . The point of my previous post is : we Christians have more in common, than not . Catholicism is not the enemy. Satan is the enemy and he lives to stir contention among God’s faithful.

@@honey-feeney9800 absolutely