Killing the King: Charles I
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- Was the fate of King Charles I inevitable? Did something in his character or biography set his ultimate downfall in motion? Or was there a point of no return that was crossed? Could it all have been averted if someone had changed course?
I hope you enjoy this video and find it interesting!
Please subscribe and click the bell icon to be updated about new videos.
Also, if you want to get in touch, please comment down below or find me on social media:
Instagram: / katrina.marchant
Twitter: / kat_marchant
Email: readingthepastwithdrkat@gmail.com
Intro / Outro song: Silent Partner, "Greenery" [ • Greenery - Silent Part... ]
SFX from freesfx.co.uk/...
#KingCharlesI #CivilWar #History
Images (from Wikimedia Commons, unless otherwise stated):
Screen recording of the parliament scene from the BBC adaptation of Mike Bartlett’s “King Charles III” (2017).
Screen recording of the State Opening of Parliament (2016).
Detail from a portrait of King James I and VI attributed to John de Critz (c.1605). Held by the Museo del Prado.
Portrait of Anne of Denmark attributed to John de Critz (c.1605). Held by the National Maritime Museum, London.
Portrait of Henry, Prince of Wales by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger (c.1603). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Portrait of Princess Elizabeth, aged seven, by Robert Peake the elder (1603). Held by the National Maritime Museum.
Portrait of a young Charles I of England by Robert Peake the elder (c.1610). Held by the Scottish National Portrait Gallery.
Portrait of Prince Henry Frederick, eldest son of James VI & I and Anne of Denmark by Robert Peake the elder (c.1608). Held by the Royal Palace of Turin.
Portrait of Henry, Prince of Wales after Isaac Oliver (c.1610). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Portrait of King Charles I in his robes of state by a follower of Anthony van Dyck (1636). Held by the Royal Collection.
Portrait of King James in state robes by Paul van Somer (c. 1620). Held by the Royal Collection. In the background is the Banqueting House, Whitehall, by architect Inigo Jones, commissioned by James.
Portrait of George Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham by Sir Peter Paul Rubens (1625). Held by the National Trust.
Portrait of Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia by an unknown artist (1613). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Portrait of Frederick V of the Palatinate from the workshop of Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt (1613). Held by the Royal Picture Gallery Mauritshuis, The Hague.
Portrait of Frederick V, Elector Palatine, as King of Bohemia by Gerard van Honthorst (1634). Held by the Kurpfälzisches Museum.
Portrait of Queen Henrietta Maria by Anthony van Dyck (1632). Held by the Royal Collection.
Charles I in Three Positions by Sir Anthony Van Dyck (1635 - Before June 1636). Held by the Royal Collection.
Portrait of Charles I on horseback with M. de St Antoine by Anthony van Dyck (1633). Held in the Queen’s Ballroom at Windsor Castle.
Portrait of King Charles I by Sir Anthony Van Dyck (June 1635). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
Painting imagining The Eve of the Battle of Edge Hill in 1642 by Charles Landseer (1845). Held by the Walker Art Gallery.
Portrait of King Charles I of England at his trial, January 1649 by Edward Bower (c.1650). Held in an unidentified location.
The execution of King Charles I, by unknown artist. See source website for additional information. Text: "The most abhorrent outrageous execution, performed on the most serene and most grandly powerful Carl Stuart, king in Great Britain, France and Ireland etc. in London before Whitehall Palace, Tuesday 30 January [Julian] / 9 February [Gregorian] in the year 1649, between 2 and 3 pm.” (c.1649). Held by the National Portrait Gallery.
A couple of comments are indicting that my reference to “last video” isn’t being heard in the way I intended - this is the last in a series of three (linked as a playlist in the card) - I will be back, same time and place, next week ❤️
Oh thank goodness!! I was very worried there for a bit. I look forward to seeing your latest video every Friday here in Texas, USA!! ♥️
Phew !
Thank goodness!! I love your videos and was a bit worried!!
Oh gosh, I had to stop the video and jump to the comments to see what was up. Phew!
Well good grief woman, you almost gave me a heart attack! ;) jk; but really, thank you for the clarification because yeah I definitely thought you meant "Bye Forever"! We just can't have that now, can we?
I knew nothing of Charles' sister. I think I vaguely knew she existed, but that was it. Could we have a video on her sometime? Why was she married to the future king of Bohemia, what happened to her after the deposition? I will be looking this up, but I'd love to hear your take on it all.
Her husband wasn't going to be the king of Bohemia when she married him. In fact her connection to the English throne was perhaps the main reason why bohemian protestant aristocracy chose Friedrich to be the king. They hoped that the king of England would intervene in their favour. They were wrong. 🤷♂️
It's basically how the Thirty Years' War started -- a major event in European history, and one, of which somehow British people seem to know almost nothing about.
She is the link between the Stuart and Hanoverian dynasties
Yay! It's Friday and Dr. Kat has a new video! Life is good
I was humming your theme tune earlier today and my husband asked what song it was. Had to admit to him where I got all my history knowledge from 😂
I just realized tonight that I always whistle Dr. Kat's theme song. Hahaha!
Rightly you point out that Charles I had many opportunities to take a course which would have avoided his ultimate execution. But because of his deeply entrenched stubborn views he was incapable of taking any of them. Even if he had had many more such opportunities, he almost certainly would not have taken any of them. Thus in many ways he was the one who made his own ultimate execution inevitable. Sad, but I think true.
My thoughts are similar to yours. His path to the executioner seems to have begun in childhood, when he was raised to believe he could do anything he set his mind to. The fine line between confidence and arrogance was crossed at some point.
@@joy2bme Yes, there can be little doubt that Charles I was frequently over-confident and often recklessly so, and moreover incapable of learning from his mistakes. Like you I feel that the seeds for his ultimate destruction were sown in his childhood. What I find fascinating is that neither he nor his father James I were able to learn anything from the manner in which Elizabeth I reigned, and in particular the respect ( perhaps even fear? ) she had for her parliaments.
Given he strongly believed in his divine right to rule, I wonder if being forced to sign the treaty in Scotland made him less likely to make compromises in England. That inflexible approach means he wouldnt go into exile etc. That makes his execution much more inevitable.
Thank you, Dr Kat. For some reason, though well versed in the Tudor period, I know very little about the Stuart era. That was very well done and very informative. I tended to check out early in Elizabeth's reign, have high interest in the '15 and '45 and then didn't check in until after Victoria. Maybe I tend to be, in many cases, a bloody-minded Scot. Thank you very much for your topics. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
Thank you for another enlightening video. Is there any chance that you could discuss the life that Charles II lived between 1649 and his return in 1661? We’ve all heard the story if him darkening his skin with walnut juice and hiding in a tree. (Boscobel?) Was he well treated at Versailles? How was The Hague? Honestly, I have always been intrigued by the in between years.
Well, until Dr Kat makes a video on Charles II, I can reccommend a beautiful book, an historical novel, about CharlesII love story with his first wife, Lucy Walter, of Roche Castle in Wales. titled “The Child from the Sea” After the execution of his father, Charles is in hiding, trying to elude his captors and ends up at a remote fishing village on the coast of Wales. The girl Lucy Walter, lives in the castle with her father and brother. They befriend this strange teenage boy and after an idyllic time of sweet first love , spent in the beautiful countryside, they are married with her father’s permission in the local village church. Her family knows by now who he is and he must depart to escape to France where he lives in exile. Lucy decides to follow him to France.. However, because of the dangerous times, she must keep their marriage a secret. The story is delightfully written and it has been one of my favorite books, to read and re-read..
Sassy Dr. Kat had me dying. "Psst. Psssst." Wonderful and informative video, as always!
I’m very excited for this.
I’d love to see a video from you talking about the history of people of color in European history.
Yes, I would love to see this as well! And I would like to see a video about Queen Charlotte being descended from the Black Portuguese Royal House.
@@jsrmusic1 Didn't Dr Kat already do one on that?
@@wendygerrish4964 If this is so, I must find it!
U-tube = Bridgerton: Finding Facts in Fiction? Jan 15th 2021 . Upon talking about "Bridgerton" a TV dramatized period history..i think.
@@wendygerrish4964 thank you! 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Yea.. I've been waiting around for your video release today.
Hellooo from Arkansas USA!
Wonderful video. I love how you 'flesh out' history on your channel. What I find amazing is that so many things that have happened before (attitudes, words, actions, ect.) are repeated in modern times. The cycles repeat.
Thank you so much for continuing with the Stewart history. Charles seems like a very interesting man who is completely unaware of the world outside of his sphere
So Charles lived in his own political echo chamber, believing in the Divine Right of Kings and unable to engage in dialogue with his opponents. Pity so many people nowadays are stuck in political echo chambers.
When I was a girl I read that Louis XVI of France studied Charles I story and learn from it to do not fight the mob. It turns out really bad for him.
I'm so glad that I read your explanation about the "last video" before watching, or I would have been shaken. The play Charles III is fascinating, and I've seen it several times, each time marveling over the role intransigence can play in bringing down a monarch.
This was great. I now finally understand all the arguments and machinations. It all boiled down to hubris. How sad, but nonetheless interesting. And as usual, your humor tickles me to no end. It is so dry, clever and hilarious. Please keep it up. 🌸🌺
Yes Charles was arrogant but was Cromwell any different?
Neither side wanted to budge an inch. And the Rump parliament sounds like a Kangaroo court.
As Oliver Cromwell's gggranduncle was Thomas Cromwell; I always
wonder if "one" of the many reasons he had the King executed was part vengeance. Because of what King Henry VIII did to Thomas Cromwell.
Now he had the opportunity and a motive.
He had all of the Crown Jewels sold or destroyed including The Tudor Crown;
which was also known as Henry's VIII's crown.
So who was the greater villain Charles or Cromwell?
I've often wondered bow Cromwell squared his "intense religious faith" when signing Charles' death warrant. In the end Cromwell put himself about as though he were a King in all but name, so I'm not sure he was any better a person than intransigent Charles - at least he had the Divine Right of Kings behind his thinking (not saying he was right, but that he thought he was).
Wow. That must have been like watching a decades-long train wreck. 😳
Could you please do one about how to sensitively deal with... hmm... controversial or contentious historical figures? How do you decide what to mention when you tell students (or any other group) about these people? I'm a scientist, not a historian, but there are still some moments in science history which are important to mention. I've been warning my students for years that it's very heavy on the "dead white European males" side, but sometimes I wonder if it's worth mentioning that the person was racist, misogynistic, or otherwise held views we don't agree with today. Shakespeare can be somewhat controversial, especially with his apparent anti-semitic views, so how do you deal with something like that?
Taking my mind off current affairs thank you Dr Kat xxx
Dr. Kat, I am compelled to thank you for your videos for no other reason that they tell us the stories that lie between the broad brushstrokes of history painted in the pages of schoolbooks. You articulate the facts of your subjects, explore what they must have felt, ask the counterpoint questions, and shine a light on humans who were victims of circumstance by birth - good or bad. Thank you for all that you do.
Hi Dr. Kat! Thanks for this interesting video. Charles has always been a fascination for me. I just don't see how he wasn't deposed sooner than he was. The man was clueless of the world outside of his palace. I don't agree with his execution, but his removal from power was essential. Thanks again for the video ~~ stay safe and warm!
I feel a great saddens for Charles - he believed devoutly inThe Divine Right of Kings (misguided doctrine of the time) and failed to learn that you
need to consider the views of others even if you don’t agree with them.
He stuck to his father’s beliefs and the unwise promises he made him. He loved his family and his unfortunately misguided wife who
encouraged his outdated belief in himself as all powerful and omnipotent. He loved her and believed her!
He died with his honour all about him believing to be right. He should have abdicated in favour of his son Charles thus saving his name
and saving us from the self righteous hypocrite O. Cromwell of joyless and cruel religious intolerance and much corruption in high places.
I know Charles and his cavaliers were far from perfect but I would prefer them any day to Old Cromwell’s hypocrisy. Miserable old
so and so pretending not to want a crown or title. Lord Protector indeed !! .
I was so excited to be #22 on the thumbs UP! So happy to hear from Dr. Kat again with yet another VERY INTERESTING HISTORY TOPIC! TY so much for sharing your knowledge with us!❤️
Glad you cleared the last video comment I think I nearly cried lol. I think Charles was full of his own self important and unable to see the bigger picture, compromise and have empathy.
Fantastic episode Dr Cat you are a magical history wizard. Five out of five stars
Yes, but Kat, don't forget, that Charles had virtually given the game away by telling the Queen what he intended to do, and she mentioned it to one of her ladies, with questionable loyalties, and she tipped the commons off.
Great video, as usual! I'm glad to hear this isn't your absolute last video ever, as well. 🙂 One thing I'd absolutely LOVE to see you do a video on is the good (if there was any?) that 👑 Henry VIII did. For example: I know he closed the public bath houses to protect the people from the plague. Whether or not that was the right 'solution' in retrospect, I have no comment, but at least it shows, I think, that he cared. What other examples of his good actions are there?
I agree with you Kat. I've always thought his attempt at an arrest in Parliament was his downfall.
Pssst, it's a very good idea to watch your videos, Dr Kat!
Question: what did Parliament consist of, in those days? To understand the nature of the conflict between King and Parliament it is necessary to know what the interests were of the Parliament of the time.
I assume that in those days in order to become a member of parliament you had to have the economic and military power to throw your weight around. I assume that in those days Pariament consisted ot members of aristocracy who were trying to increase their power and wealth. I assume this aristocracy resented any taxes demanded by the King, preferring that the revenue of their tax collecting would all go into solidifying their own local power, with the economic power used to build, for example, fortresses, in anticipation of war with neighbouring aristrocratic seats of power. (Or perhaps engaging in war with a bisshop.)
That is, I'm assuming that in those days the only way to become member of Parliament was to force your way in with economic and military power.
Just google 'history of the house of commons'. Very different from the house of lords. Very typical of farming communities, and the Brits have a long history of selecting representatives and voting to support a Monarch and their rule by mutual consent . Yes male landholders usually and the Member of Parliament had to have his own means.
@@wendygerrish4964 Yeah, I proceeded to read the wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England
The big contrast: in our time Parliament is about representing the population, but in those days it was about economic power. The house of commons: only those who were freehold property owners, with a wealth above a certain cut-off, were eligable to vote in their county.
In the time of King Charles I some parts of the aristocracy sided with Charles, and other parts united in war against Charles, resulting in civil war. It was a close call. When Oliver Cromwell died the balance shifted back to support of some form of monarchy. The Royal house was reinstated (but those same aristrocratic powers took the opportunity to further curb the monarch's power) Oliver Cromwell's body was dug up, and his body was hanged, drawn, and quartered.
It's relatively difficult to find information about the amount of power of the House of Commons. I encountered an interesting detail in the wikipedia article about Oliver Cromwell: "Lord Manchester [...] accused Cromwell of recruiting men of "low birth" as officers in the army". Cromwell chose as officers men who were strongly motivated to press on the war. So it wasn't all aristrocracy that was making the decisions.
Basically there was huge misunderstandings between factions within the aristocracy and the land-owning gentry that led to a series of fake wars and a revolution in England. Similar to what happened in France centuries later.
How about a video on what lead to the Restoration?
The whole "monarchs in the House of Lords only" holds in other commonwealth countries too. Opening of Australia's new parliament house was opened in 1988 by the Queen. She was given the grand tour of the whole building, but didn't step into the House of Representatives (our House of Commons). She viewed it from the doorway.
Hi Dr Kat, I love your channel. Thank you so so much for all the stories that you share with us. Seems that Charles I belonged to those people who manage to annoy everybody around them. Not a very useful trait when you are supposed to rule a country. And it didn't end well for him.....
I enjoyed this so much. It also helped me with a series I've recently discovered. Stella Riley wrote a Roundheads and Cavaliers series involving historical fiction with romance thrown in. A lot of the political back and forth is present in the books and it is fascinating, but they are fiction so it's nice to get straight historical facts to add nuance to everything.
Brilliant video. It´s very difficult to squeeze that mess into half an hour. I think Charles did what he thought was expected of him. He was very insecure as a man and being King he could hide behind the divine right to rule. It could look like arrogance or stubbornness but he genuine believed he´s right. The Buckingham´s situation didn´t help either, he was gorgeous and built his all career on it. Other wise totally useless with expensive tastes thus hated by everyone except of the King.
How much residual frustration did the English public feel from the previous two monarchs that was finally expressed by Charles’s execution in 1649? If you were born in 1603 (the year Elizabeth died) and somehow dodged the plagues, and you survived through James’s death in 1625, you'd be around 46 and would have seen a lot of ill will toward the monarchy by the time Charles was beheaded. I’ve read that Elizabeth wasn’t nearly as popular as we think of her today, and James largely treated his subjects with disregard. If he was the recipient of pent-up public anger, was Charles "more sinned against than sinning" or was it mostly hubris that brought him down? Do you think his physical disabilities might have contributed to his downfall?
Great job as usual. Appreciate your efforts.
LAST VIDEO ?????
I really hope she just means this series?
In the series. I’m getting the sense that this didn’t sound how I heard it 🙈 I’ll be back again next week 🌟
Charles believed in the Divine Right Of Kings. There was no way he would be able to imagine that his own parliament would condemn and execute him. There was also no way he would have felt he needed a potential "patsy", or fall guy, in case things went south. He felt, as King, that his word was inviolate and that if he named men as traitors it was Parliaments job to back him 100%, even if the accused were part of that body. By Charles understanding, he was correct. But too many powerful men wanted to lessen the monarchys power and invest it in Parliament itself, and those powerful men prevailed because Charles felt that All power was vested in him alone, and Parliament, or certain members, were traitors, and he had neither the numbers or the financial resources to back up his Kingship rule or accusation, so he lost it all, including his life.
your last video? Please tell me you are joking! How will I have a wee cup of tea and hear a calming voice literally 'reading me the past'? I hope you and your family are ok xo
Where to even begin with "where did it begin". The way I see history is a tapestry; woven threads, leading from one event to another. Where Charles I came to the point of no return is a tough question. Was it marrying a Catholic? Was it the promise he made to his father? The strength of his belief in the Divine Right of Kings? Or was it simply his absolute lack of awareness or politics? If pressed, I'd probably say the latter, because even Elizabeth I knew that if you were going to sign the death warrant of a queen, you should include a modicum of plausible deniability .
Totally off today’s subject and sorry in advance for being off topic! Have you read or seen much information about the hearings conducted in Zaragoza Spain about Catherine and Henry VIII’s “Great Matter”? It was conducted almost simultaneously with the hearing in England. Since most of Catherine’s Spanish entourage had been sent back to Spain by then, I think it would be interesting in to hear what the Spanish witnesses had to say. Except for the ONE mention in Giles Tremlett’s novel I have seen nothing and would love to know more especially regarding papal brief sent around the time of queen Isabella’s death clarifying and strengthening the dispensation: a copy of this brief was found in ambassador De Pueblo’s papers . Would dearly love to know more but understand if this topic takes a back seat to others. As always, love your work!
Last video ? I’m hoping you just mean in this series!
Last video in a series of three, not last video ever! I’ll be back next week, same time, same place ❤️
@@ReadingthePast
I was about to make the same remark. Getting worried here. 😊 ❤️
I love your royal histories, can we have more?
Could you do an in-depth series on Marie Antoinette please
When you whispered into the mic I snorted and giggled 😂
I'm watching this at 4:40am, getting ready for work and that little whisper just scared the shyt outta me!!!!!
Dr. Kat, it would be good if you did a programme on Henrietta Maria
I really appreciate this series. This is such a complex time in British history that it's often glossed over and not explained so well. Thank you!
... was not expecting to feel this much sympathy for Charles I... this story is crazy.
A little humility would have served Charles well.
I've been looking forward to this part 3! I would love to see more series like this on your channel. :)
It's like watching a train wreck. One bad move after a bad move. Plus economic problems and let's not forget my personal pet peeve : politics mixed with religion. I cannot pin point the moment that would have saved the whole debacle. Could abdication have at least save him? It didn't help Nicholas II much. So I am back to the train wreck image. Will try to remember not to ask my children for any promises as we say goodbye. Great video! I am sure to think about it and your question the whole week. Thank you
What king would abdicate and live as a commoner? One ☝️ dude did it but he seemed like a selfish guy too.
I think this might be my favourite of yours so far - not necessarily the subject, but it really feels like you had the time to explore in to further reaches. I don’t usually pay attention to the length of videos, but this felt shorter, when I’m guessing it was longer than normal!
Dr. Kat, I once read that Henrietta Maria hated Charles at the beginning of their marriage and that later on she stirred up a lot of trouble for Charles and that her meddling lead to his attitude towards parliament could you enlighten me? (love your history lessons)
As usual, Dr. Kat didn’t disappoint us. Unfortunately, Charles I was a disappointment. I think he had some sort of fatal flaw which prevented him from seeing the benefits of compromise. There were so many opportunities for him to take a different path.
I could be very mistaken but it seems to me that people from this era believed so strongly in the next life that they were more likely to accept that they would die. I think death was pretty common in all its forms and in all phases of life. And the rituals regarding death like preparing the body for burial that it demystified it to some extent. I don't think that they were as freaked out about it as modern people are.
I love the brain-rabbithole comment, mine has done some similar things especially when writing essays.... xD
Can you please make a video about the Civil War that followed the aforementioned events that you have discussed in this one?
I'm really interested to know about this period and how the monarchy was reinstated in England. I know virtually nothing about these events because I noticed it's not usually discussed as regularly as for example, the War of the Roses or King Henry VIII and his wives.
Thank you very much!
I love your channel!!! I love how you compare the real history to the “historical” fiction. Very much so with “The Tudors”
Interesting to hear this from UK perspective. I grew up in New Haven CT, USA - where the judges, Whaley, Goff, and Dixwell, fled after the execution. I grew up hearing how noble they were and how terrible Charles was. But how tyrannical was he? I don't know
Dr Kat, hello from across the pond (I'm in the States). I wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your videos. They are like attending a really fascinating and thought provoking history lecture without having to worry about exams or tuition. ;) I'm always delighted to see that you've uploaded a new video. Thank you for sharing your time, knowledge and expertise. :)
Wow, there are so many important British figures with a stammer! There must be something in the determination and control over language...
Ah, memories of student teaching. The teacher loved the lesson. The students didn't care much. Oh my Roundhead ancestors would be horrified to know that some of us are Episcopalian!
Thank goodness, we don't ever want to hear the last of you,
Can you explain the execution further? Why on earth did they break into the upper part of the wall to create scaffolding? I had the opportunity to visit England a few years ago and saw the Banqueting Hall. It was very confusing to me why they took such great pains to do this rather than just execute him at say maybe the Tower. Thanks!
I bet that was uncomfortable for all those involved....sitting on the navel commission...sorry Kat couldn't resist
I get that people weren’t best pleased with his marriage to a Catholic French princess, but the previous potential match with Spain was even _more_ unpopular.
As evidenced in the marriage of Charles’ sister, all those years before, there were always going to be conflict with whatever choice was made; her own mother wanted her daughter to become a queen, & thus she (among others) thought Frederick was too low a match for the daughter of the ruler of two kingdoms- & then there was the whole obvious religious aspect.
The only reasons the match went ahead was that 1) the princess herself was dead keen on it; her late adored brother had approved of him- & all three had hung out a bit before Henry’s death & had become friends - & 2) James himself wanted the match, & he made Frederick promise Elizabeth would always be treated as a queen- which would make for a chilly relationship with her mother-in-law.
We don’t necessarily know all the options for a potential spouse for Elizabeth in the 1610’s, nor for Charles in the 1620’s- but knowing he was a king not a princess, means that the dynamic of what made for a good match for England is somewhat different.
Was there even a suitably high-ranked Protestant princess of age to marry at this time?
If not, then there’s not a lot to be said...
Sorry for the rambling, lol...
It make do different what we think. There are no if in history. What happened and nothing we say about it changes the facts.
It would seen that Charles was the last in a long line of king who believed in the "Divine Right of Kings". His isolation from the common people of England at that time of great developments in understanding the world around them could have been a component in guaranteeing his demise. Great video Dr K you're a lifeline in these difficult times.
I suspect his son, James II and VII also held this belief, he lost his throne in the Glorious Revolution in 1689.
@@neilbuckley1613 As did Charles 2nd
I am so glad you did this. The story gets romanticized or else it gets hard to follow. We get facts from you.
I think I wondered in another comment on a recent video, if King Charles would have been executed if Henry VIII had not started the trend by executing his queens. Then Mary I executed Queen/Lady Jane Grey and eventually Elizabeth I executed Queen Mary Stewart. Elizabeth worried about executing an anointed queen of the blood royal but at least she had some precedent behind the action.
I wonder what would have happened if he had abdicated in favor of his son. Would it merely have postponed the civil war, or would it be prevented entirely, but with a severely weakened monarchy? How old was his son at the time? Could Charles I have kept power from behind the scenes?
I like to think there is always a way out. However, given this King's beliefs/personality and his opponents and their personalities, maybe not. As you said, a game of chicken in which no one blinks because they can't. The one who blinks not only loses, but loses everything they believe in. When that happens, only tragedy results.
Loved this video as always! BUT would appreciate some more information about how Charles received the information about his punishment, what about the rest of his family and what his final hours looked like for example. The story came all of a sudden kind of abrupt end without any personal touch so to say, and you ususlly add these! :-) Thanks anyway!
I think he just pushed the people too hard for too long, even engaging in civil war, until they were sick and tired of it.
In my opinion, the day when ex-king Charles Stewart was executed was a glorious one. The person whose life was taken on that day was a proponent of an awful ideology, namely that kings are only accountable to God, and that subjects must obey him in order to please God (and we all know that in Christianity, if you disobey God, you go to hell). The homicide of this person defiled, spat upon, and forever undermined the notion of the "divine right of kings", making it clear that the king was not above the law, and if he felt he could just override Parliament and bring war upon the land, he could be executed like any common traitor. In this way, the killing of a bad apple of humanity set a valuable precedent that was a link in the chain towards achieving modern democracy.
I believe Charles I was the most ill-prepared monarch to ever ascend the British Throne. I'm sure it didn't help that James I told his heirs they were "little gods on earth...put there to rule Britain and Scotland AS gods".
The only part of that statement James got right about Charles was the "little" part.
Also...he was a DISHONEST negotiator when, after the FIRST English Civil War, Parliament still had at least SOME control over the New Model Army. Charles did one of his double-deals and the ARMY took over. After Pride's Purge there was virtually nothing
left to do but try The King for Treason.
Charles was always sure he was in the right and this made any compromise with Parliament impossible for him so how could the outcome ever be different? I feel sad for him because he could have saved his life, but frustrated that he would not ( could not) change!!
Just my opinion; thanks Dr Kat for giving us your scholarly review of this history❣️ much appreciated 🥰
Many years ago I was told that there was a tradition that a Charles III would spell the end of the monarchy. Does such a tradition exist? Fingers crossed 😉
I hope so. It'd be the ultimate troll though if Charles waits all that time to be told "we don't want royalty anymore" 😂
Regnal names can be chosen. Charles could very well choose George VII as his ruling name when he comes to the throne.
Ah, memories of student teaching. The teacher loved the lesson. The students didn't care much. Oh my Roundhead ancestors would be horrified to know that some of us are Episcopalian!
Charles should have done whatever he could to please the Scots. But I don’t know enough about the particulars to fully support that.
I’m curious about the out the out of wedlock children and descendants of monarchs, especially Charles II and William IV because those two were known for a lot of little fitzes. Just looking at Wikipedia, it appears that most were given or married into propertied positions. Were their lives pretty much indistinguishable from other well placed people? Did any descendants have unusual careers or accomplishments? I just find this interesting because of the very specific mix of something that until recently was stigmatizing with something very prized, however deservedly or not.
Thank you, Dr. Kat. I understand much better why some of my cavalier ancestors left England and came to Virginia (USA). These new colonists supported Charles I but not his son, Charles II. It seems distance and time had taken its toll and thus the seeds of discontentment were sewn between England and her American colonies. We know what happened next, don't we?
That whispery bit is exactly why you're my favorite UA-camr 😂
Well done youtube algorithm plonking this on top of my feed today 06/05/23 of all days 😂😂😂
Charles's one good deed was his refusal to give up ultimate command of the militia when the Irish rebelled. Ultimate control of the armed forces by anybody but the official sovereign is a recipe for military dictatorship which they had under Cromwell and Napoléon.
4:36 Why would restraining oneself to reason be pointing towards bloodymindedness? In theory, acting reasonably refrains conquest from being bloody
Brilliant and informative video. Here are some of the voices of those who witnessed Charles' trial and execution ua-cam.com/video/mc0NGGSmhNQ/v-deo.html
I figure Charles was going to die the moment the war started - very few points of reconciliation would have been available after the beginning of war, though it is a testament to what the crown symbolized that he was able to hang on as long as he did. What's amazing to me is that the French had a front row seat for all this and simply didn't clock a lot of the same signs when their own demise was in progress.
Exactly the same thing happened to me.
Great history, some which you know and some you don't is always great. However some of the stuff I didn't know, Charles early life only confirms my own belief that the House of Stuart is the most cursed collection of incompetence in British history- A father who abandons his own kingdom for shiney new crown, a son never meant to rule (the Tudors got lucky with Henry VIII) who does not understand that rulership had ceased to be medieval absolutisim and failed to see what he needed to do to secure a throne for his son.
This was a fantastic video, I knew that Charles had been beheaded, but did not know the whole story. Now I want to know the story of how Parliament then reached out and installed the king back into power. Is that Charles son? If so, he should have just abdicated his throne and saved himself.
Dr Kat thanks for your elaboration (I'm not good at History) which is clear and insightful ❤️😇
I wish you would make your videos in a version without the music at start/ end. I sometimes like to listen to your videos to relax and fall asleep. The music always wakes me up. 😂 Love the content.
Henrietta Maria, I have never been so happy by hearing an name other than: Mary. Elizabeth, and Anne... It's like the knew only a very view names...
The language surrounding Charles ‘overcoming’ his speech and walking difficulties shows the problem with this language. The mental toll required to speak and walk the way society deemed normal led to civil war and his execution. He never overcame them, because it’s not possible to overcome disabilities, only to adapt the world around you so you can live the life you want. Overcoming really means making sure other people don’t notice them, it reduces disability to a performance for non-disabled people.
The chief judge, Bradshaw came from my home town.
He was dealing with the fallout of Henry VIII's -scheme to score more tail- reformation of the church.
Either he had horrible advisors, or Charles was incompetent idiot. I try hard to understand his thought processes, but I just can’t follow how he comes to the decisions that he does.
My husband and I love your videos. We are wondering, are there are any similar You Tube channels for American history that you or your followers would recommend? Thank you.
The History Guy is great! He does a lot of military history, but there's enough variety in his backlog that there's plenty to play with
Maybe I missed it, but why did he marry a Catholic princess? It seems like that was an early provocative move.
I've always felt sorry for Charles I. I would have joined the Cavaliers.