The significance of the trial and execution of Charles I | English Civil War
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2018
- In this video Professor Justin Champion explains the significance of the trial and execution of Charles I at the end of the English Civil War.
Professor Champion was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2014. He died on 10 June 2020, aged 59, in the Princess Alice Hospice in Esher.England.
RIP
This short video is a gem, well done Professor Champion.
It really is; I'm shocked to see so few subscribers here, relatively speaking.
Darn...just read that he's passed on.
This channel helps me so much with my preparation for my history exams. Thank you so much.
Brilliant analysis. Looking back, 1649 was indeed the most significant event in British history.
R.I.P Justin champion🙏
Thanks that will be super helpful for my significance of Charles I question tomorrow!
Good luck with your exam, we hope it goes well!
Good luck and thanks for commenting.
Lol same
Thanks for the information. Very clear !
This video is just amazing thank you
Brilliantly succinct explanation. Thank you.
Very informative! Thank ye
Thanks for the info
Very enlightening.
History is Awesome .
“Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. “ - DIDEROT.
... and when every bloviating, pretentious philosopher has breathed his last despite his affirmations that he was more than a mere mortal.
@@chrismusix5669 so do you want to live in a theocracy or a monarchy?
Lol, I've heard of Diderot. Apparently someone here thinks they have inspiration and knowledge above and beyond that of the aforementioned..
Where shall I find your musings published? Oh, they're not. I see. That's why I've never heard of....... ....
I feel like I've known about this incident since childhood, at least the basics of Charles I beheaded by Oliver Cromwell, but maybe not a full reason why. I think the legacy will live on as people look at the current royal family and wonder why they aren't dictators or behave like monarchs from centuries ago, well this is why. lol
Chalres III egged in the street...some things never change
can someone help me with my homework
Lol, I'm doing this rn
As an American I'm fascinated by the English Civil War! And how King Charles lost his kingdom and ultimately his head. I've read and watched,listened to this period a lot and wondered what could he have done differently. It's an interesting comparison to Charles 1 calling Parliament that last time ( the Long Parliament I think) and Louis XV1 being forced to call the estates general just before the French Revolution broke out. These Kings out of economic necessity needing their kingdoms political bodies to convene in order to run the state. But actually instigating the courses that would lead to their demise. And when he said Charles 1 was to arrogant or quite incapable of accepting defeat and a new form of Kingship. Like becoming a constitutional Monarch with reduced authority was simply not in his capacity to accept is a insight to the mindset of this pivotal English Monarch and the belief of the "divine right of Kings".Because it was actually a small amount of English that voted to execute the King. And England then welcoming back Charles II to resume his father's mantle & title is really a unique episode in western culture!
Yeah I can tell your an overexcited annoying American
If this is the case, why is there no consent between the people now in the United States and the government that represents the corporations ?
Death is Inevitable from our first breath.
history lesson
Charles Frayling
To be fair, the court had no power. And the rump parliament can hardly be considered a court anyway.
True
Practice always beats theory
Justice evolves. It can only evolve by breaking the established law
See, that's how deeply grained the natural order was/is, because all these centuries later, you're challenging the legitimacy of the court that tried Charles I. That Rump Parliament was still Parliament, and the king got a trial with more fairness than most of the people experienced at the time, especially when royal authority landed them in a dock somewhere--which was one of the big issues they were beginning to address.
Parliament is by its very nature a High Court.
The English parliament made the right decision, even though it appears those against the motion were excluded.Yes,I agree,if Charles 1st had agreed to obey the decisions of parliament,and it was supreme,not the King,he would not have been executed.After all,the power of parliament had already been decided at Runnymede in 1812 [Magna Carta] Ever since that earthshaking event,England and all the Commonwealth have been Crown Republics.That is to say,the monarch does not have any real power[Parliament has the power. In light of this,any talk in Australia that we should become a Republic is illfounded. I would agree that the position of Governor General is also superfluous and should be abolished,along with the State Governors,in light of the decision of the then Govenor John Kerr...I realise what I am saying may set off a debate,but I welcome that.....F.Francis
1-Samuel 8: 7-18. God does not like Kings.
big brain
I don't think Oliver Cromwell was any better. All it really came down to was who was the better military commander. If Charles had won the English Civil War, then most assuredly Cromwell would have lost his head. Years of religious persecution for not being a strict Puritan would not have followed.
The whole of this European era was full of religious conflict.
God bless Cromwell and Dukes of Monmouth and Argyle and damn James II!
And Long Live William & Mary and Anne
not forgetting Black Rod!
Half the people in England today barely speak English, let alone know about the Civil War.
The execution of Charles I was not the expression of popular sovereignty. A tiny fraction of the British people had the vote at that time. This was more a battle between elites and one of those elites won.
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
Killing the King was like killing God!! Can Champion really get away with such blasphemy?
The Court had no legitinacy anyway and the King died a marty because he re fused to countenance the abolition of the Bishops
Most people in Britain don't even know Charles 1"was executed according to Champion. What planet is he on ?
It does sound blasphemous but at the same time it accurately captures the divine veil mornachs and other forms of authority enjoyed at that time. I submit that your view of the entire event and the surroundings circumstances is rather too narrow. There was something much bigger that was happening beyond the legitimacy of the court, locus standi or regal authority. Champion's view is rooted more in the broader picture, to be precise he strips away the cosmetics to get to the basic social contract between the subject and the ruler.
You know he meant the back story is unknown?
who else is watching this
not me
Lmaoo
Did not the King say that England was never an elected state but a hereditary tradition of over a thousand years
That’s why the King said he was INCAPABLE of recognizing the Parliamentary Authorities as absolute
It was not arrogance
It was Divine Authority that the King was bound to
It was the arrogance of the Puritans that put their will above the Kings and capitulated Civil War in spite of the transgressions that the King may have been faulted for
Brutus methinks reminds afore
Charles time speaks of yore
GSK
He was a traitor to the English people. Deserved all he got. We should also never have allowed Charles the 2nd back in.
But Charles II agreed to sign away most of his powers. And I think the people still wanted to retain a part of the monarch tradition.
@@eli-nz8oe That's not true. You do realize that the Puritans loved alcohol and sports, and 99.9 % of everyone who is theologically descended from the Puritans today observe Christmas and have no issue going to see a play.
To kill a King is unnatural.
Linda Inglis having a king is unnatural
being a king is unnatural
@@denkikaminari6091 ya'll savages
If you were to tell one Vladimir Lenin that , he would beg to differ.
Interesting short history lessons unfortunately rendered very annoying and to me, unwatchable, by the unnecessary and irritating use of a second profile camera cutting into the interviews. Just so annoying and pointless.
KAN 8.19 UK
U good?