Was Charles I a murderer or martyr? | Was Charles I a bad king? | 5 Minute History
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 жов 2018
- In this video Bill Thisdell looks at Charles I's reputation, charged with being a murderer and tyrant at his trial and yet later hailed as a martyr. Which was it? Was Charles really a bad king? How far was Charles responsible for the outbreak of Civil War?
who else watching for history ?
Yea
Curiosity
How does this have so few views? This is very professional
It's the subject. We are in a postmodern world where finally people realize we don't need a monarchy, even a constitutional one. Bring on the Republic.
I think republics should be banned. Too unstable and prone to corruption. Sell the Whitehouse and use the money for a decent health system
Great video!!
Your videos deserve way more views. Thank you for making them.
no
A Very Fair Analysis. We must not forget it wasn't Charles who was originally to inherit the throne but his late elder brother Prince Henry who was athletic, cultured and showed a keen intellect. Henry's fatal flaw was going swimming in the Thames to prove his athletic skill, where all the sewage was being dumped, caught Typhoid and died. As some say the late Prince Henry could have been the greatest King of England we never had. Thus Charles was never groomed from birth to be King, but I think he did somewhat alright in coming into his own. Its just he was the monarch who faced the changing times of how Parliament viewed itself in relation to the position of King and the Country, especially with some of the more inflammatory members of Parliament such as John Pym goading Charles to assert his Royal Authority.
i am watchin it for history LMFAO
Music too loud and distracting
He had entitlement issues.
Well he was the king so that goes without saying
The questions are blunt and need reasoning. Charles1st knew all about the authority of kingship
and what that meant and was without doubt visually and comprehensively an English monarch.
What he lacked was statecraft which is something you cannot do without as many English kings have
discovered. The man simply had no ability to negotiate or understand the importance of his parliament.
Moreover his actions due to this beggars belief when faced with such critical issues. The result is war.
So the questions in my opinion. Murderer? Yes. A bad king? In terms of the consequences as this conflict
was severe in every respect Yes. Martyr? No. Only to his supporters and divine right for me is too far down
the list to give enough credence for it.
I like his sophisticated behaviour and think he genuinely wanted the good of his people.
@@amulyamishra5745 Thank you for your reply Amulya. Sadly sophistication doesn't equal
respectable kingship. Charles was directly responsible for not only the deaths of the
civil war but of other lesser known conflicts connected with it such as the Bishop's wars
an estimate of 190,000 people in total have been mentioned that figure is way to high for
me to suggest a particular desire to protect the people for which he had been sworn to do.
@@dr.leftfield9566 But in that way Even the monarchs of the age of enlightenment like Frederich the Great were responsible for deaths in wars.
And also, adding to the point, there's a saying in my country, "You can't clap with one hand". The other hand was Cromwell and Protestant fanatics of England.
I still feel, that it was unjust to behead the King.
@@amulyamishra5745 Thank you for your reply all be it a little baffling.
1. The subject matter is Charles 1st and nobody else.
2. There is no one hand clapping Charles, Cromwell and England were all Anglican. We have two hands.
{ Cromwell was Royalist before the inflammatory actions of the monarch }.
3. His method of death was never under discussion but if it makes you feel happier i would not have signed
his death warrant. There were other options.
@@dr.leftfield9566 _I would_ ?
A brilliant video clip. Clearly Charles 1st believed in his Divine Right of Kings, a piece of superstitious malpractice for those drunk on their own Egos. Caleb Williams in his novel gives excellent examples of The Monarchies assumption that they have a special cosmic connection to Divine Principles of Honour, and what constitutes Divine Right and Wrong, regardless of what others believe to the contrary.
'Caleb Williams' written by William Godwin.
My history exam is today 😭😭😭
What school of historians would hold this view? Sounds most like a revisionist way of looking at the civil war. I find it to be the best out of Whig, Tory, and Marxist interpretations. Religion, Politics, and Money are all good contributors to the civil war, and it’s best to not focus on one over the others.
Fully agreed. Blessed Charles the Martyr, pray for us! ✝️🏴
What is the meaning of MPs?
Members of Parliament
@@HistoryHub Thank you so much. Great video.
The elections in nazi Germany were rigged anyway
💖💖💖💖💖💖
CoNfUsInG
I’m not sure I agree that more British soldiers died in Civil War than in WW1. According to a simple Google search more than 200,000 soldiers were killed in the Civil War(s) vs 750,000 estimated military killed in WW1.
To clarify, we say as a proportion of the population, not overall figures.
Charles l will forever be known as the king who caused the English Civil War and his "11 year tyranny", as he failed with negotiations and placed his personal ideas over natural ones constantly. However, a murderous tyrant and an utter failure, he is not. Not once did he seek out blood because of personal enjoyment, and not once did he actively wish for pain and suffering in his people. He promoted many social factors in society and raised a considerable amount of wealth.
To rule over three entirely different kingdoms for 11 years without a parliament. He will be remembered as a flawed yet devoted king, who has left his mark on history, in good and bad ways.
I don't believe he was evil but he was a tyrant to the people. I think he was generally a nice king who could go to social events and play music etc. If anything it feels like he was born at the wrong period of time and by today's standards would have fulfilled his duty as a king. He was under an immense amount of pressure and was only following the actions of his predecessors. Pressure from Parliament, Friends, Advisors, His Wife, The People, Cromwell...
apparently according to the law of the time it was illegal to execute the king- therefore he was a martyr ? . It was also illegal for the allied forces of all the nations involved to actually invade Nazi germany in 1945 - how because the Nazi government was democratically voted in wasn't it . therefore once the allies had liberated the occupied countries they should have all disbanded and gone home and their may have been a democratically elected Nazi government continuing up to today in germany - why not? This is the reasoning of madness is it not - of course he was a mass murderer of his own people
He could have prevented the wars. He was too stubborn for any reform.
This is just opinion, you have no idea really.
You’re cute.
Charles ruled those countries single-handedly for eleven years. During that time, each and every decision made was his alone and his word was law. For eleven years. He must have been doing something right. Your shirt's wrong.
What a shallow analysis.
Saint Charles, the blessed king and martyr was no murderer. his life is a holy witness unto the lord worthy of imitation
TYRANT.
Martyr that what he was
A martyr, callously murdered by proto-leftist wretches, and murderous egalitarian ingrates. Blessed Charles I the Martyr, pray for us. Defend us from the godless ones, in Christ Jesus. ✝️ 🏴
You are 100% correct, god save the king