American Reacts to the English Civil Wars
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 вер 2022
- Check out my Patreon for more exclusive videos and to help support the channel: / tylerreacts
Imagine my surprise when I learned that not only did England (and basically the entire UK) have a civil war, but England in fact had THREE civil wars?! After learning about the history of the British Empire I knew one of the next things I had to react to was about the English civil wars. I am very interested in learning about this point in English history from an American's perspective in part because America experienced its own civil war as well. If you enjoy my reaction feel free to leave a like, comment, or subscribe for more videos like this!
Wales was part of the Kingdom of England at this point, that's why it wasn't mentioned separately.
Still is, so why does it have it's own parliament when it's a principality
Yes it was a principality not a kingdom - until 1542 when it was made part of England. It has its own parliament now because the UK parliament devolved powers to create it in 1999.
@@andyb7963 The change only occurred a few years ago - like less than 10 or so.
technically true but wales was never conquered or annexed by England so realistically never officially joined the kingdom of England
@@redf7209 no it was never a principality a principality is governed by a prince that never happend in wales
There is a whole other part to this story you have missed. Parliament won the civil wars but we still have a monarch today. The next part of the story will show how Parliament ended up restoring the monarchy but forever restricting its power.
There’s been a lot of ‘civil wars’ in Britain, most aren’t called that though because most are technically dynastic. Game of Thrones was heavily inspired by the Wars of the Roses here
Noooooo! It can’t end like that. They should have at least added another 10-20 seconds to explain that Cromwell was a terrible ruler, almost universally hated. And as soon as he died, the people brought back Charles II, and restored the monarchy.
To take that view of Cromwell and Commonwealth England you have to selectively accept the version of history told by the Royalist Historians of the Restoration. During the Commonwealth period England was relatively settled, prosperous and successful, it also enjoyed a degree of religious tolerance ( compared to comparable countries). Stories of Puritan religious suppression such as "Cancelling Christmas" an closing Theatres are overblown as they were likely temporary local matters (and had occurred under previous regimes) as were Recusancy laws, delegated down to Parishes were the local attitude reigned rather than an overpowering Central Government.
In regard to Cromwell and Ireland he only spent a few months of the conflict there but is held responsible for years of hardships.
The Commonwealth Government only really broke down after "The Lord Protector's" death, his son "Tumbledown Dick" did not have his authority. The Royal Party was invited back by Cromwell's fellow Generals on their terms.the
@@denisrobertmay875 Yes, Cromwell was generally benevolent & tolerant, having strong Christian values as we'd understand them today.
Though he did come down hard on those who threatened that & was a bit of a killjoy. The restoration was more of a coup than popular movement.
That doesnt fit the states view of being the first fighters of tyranny and the Evil Empire of Britain.
The real truth though is that they ( the British colonials or Americans) wanted to stay within the empire and they only had a revolution as a last resort.
If parliament had granted them just 2 seats in parliament. They'd be a part of our commenwealth to this day. That is the "representation" part of No taxation without representation.
Absolutely FK All to do with being ruled by a tyrannical King.
Eh Whatever ... Worse move they could have ever made ... restoring the monarchy I mean.
@@martinwebb1681 did you learn nothing from history about the civil war? Let me break it down for the dumb for ya.
Charles was an idiot and a tyrant, no 2 ways, he deserved his fate. But he was followed up by, you guessed it, an idiot and a tyrant who became a king in everything but name, ruled over the kingdom regularly by personal decree and was no better.
It wasn't until the glorious revolution where constitutional monarchy brought peace and harmony. No monarch, no revolution, no peace, just a random selection of nutters ruling with an iron fist. You think that would have been a good result? Give your head a wobble. If your such a fan of dictators, I can recommend a few you could go live with. North Korea would suggest itself, you'd love kim
One of king Charlie's supporters were a family of minor nobles called the Washington's. They removed to the colonies after Charles execution.
Generally these three "wars" are lumped together as "The Civil War". And England has actually had quite a few civil wars - one in the twelfth century between rival claimants for the throne, another bunch in the 15th century (usually known as the Wars of the Roses), the "Glorious Revolution" in 1688, the overthrow of Richard II in 1399, the war between Simon de Montfort's army and that of Henry III . . . A war between England and Scotland was not a civil war, as they were two separate countries, even though Charles was king of both of them. "Roundheads" was an insult referring to their short hair. "Cavaliers" = "knights" (from "cheval" = horse). "Berwick" is pronounced "Berrick" - it's right by the England/Scotland border. "Warwickshire" is pronounced "Worricksha" (sort of) "Isle of Wight" (pronounced "White"), not "Isle of Wright". Regicide (killing a king) was unheard of - unless there was someone else claiming HE was the legitimate king, so Charles was imprisoned rather than executed - until they decided they'd had too much. The concept of it being even *possible* for a king to be guilty of treason was totally new, and at his trial Charles refused to acknowledge that the court had the authority to try him, as he had a divine (God-given) right to rule. There's not too much attention on the English Civil War today - too long ago, too much other history, though they have some pretty good re-enactments - see ua-cam.com/video/WzAXVCK9C-8/v-deo.html (for safety reasons they don't "level" their pikes (spears) to point them at each other, and it looks like the same applies to the muskets).
You've forgotten the Baron's Wars against King John, resulting in the Magna Carta
@@coltsfoot9926 and the Great Anarchy of the 1140s, the war between forces loyal to King Stephen and Queen Matilda. Oh and one more pronunciation Devereaux is pronounce "DEV-uh-ro" not "dev-uh-ROO". Yet amazingly, they got Drogheda right!
@@jamesdignanmusic2765 Probs had to look that one up to even if attempt it 😏
Very well put , an excellent explanation !
@@jamesdignanmusic2765isn't that the 11th century one between rival claimants that he mentions.
It sounded like there was a mispronunciation of the Isle of Wight calling it the Isle of Wright. I never knew I owned an island in the UK!
=:oD
Certainly was a mispronouncing of Warwickshire
Isle of Wight, Warwickshire, Berwick, and Devereux all pronounced incorrectly. I was just amazed when they got Drogheda right!
If you do you’ll have to share it with quite a few others 😀
Can you share some with me im only a 10 minute hovercraft ride from it
You said you only know American history! So now is a perfect time to know British history because its just the extension of you'res. You'll find out about freedom of speech, democracy, trial by jury and all the other rights you have as an American, and where it came from.
All your laws, your court system, your style of govt, your flag, your national anthem, your claim of being the founders of liberty and much much more came from and is based on us!!
“You’res”? Wow!
It is interesting that you are viewing these events as if they occurred after the creation of modern democracy when in fact these events, to a huge extent, created modern democracy. Or at least laid the foundation.
The USA civil war was about property ownership, the property being slaves, so was internal to the USA, where as the English civil wars were about how our country (and by extension the USA and many other modern democracies) is run. How much power a monarch, someone who has inherited power, can hold vs how much power a parliament, the people, should have.
Ummm... At this time, Parliament was a *LONG* way from even representing, let alone *being*, "the people". It was basically "the Monarch's appointed advisory team", up until they collectively realised this *particular* monarch was incapable of accepting advice, no matter how many other people agreed it was correct!
Tyler, you must try and understand the mindset of England and Scotland at this time. They had no concept of a country without a 'Head-of-state' (King or Queen). The idea of electing one's head of state was unheard of at this time. The appointment of a 'Lord Protector' (Oliver Cromwell) only worked while Oliver Cromwell was alive. When he died, parliament did bot trust electing another head of state because parliamentarians where themselves too corrupt. They invited Charles the second to become their monarch (KIng) again but with severely restrictive covenants about his legislative powers.
a very important aspect of this is the Charles wife and his eldest son were either Catholic or Catholic friendly and the leaders for the Parliaments army were Puritans (yes those Puritans) Cromwell was very very anti catholic. Lots of people did not like the Puritans and did want to be ruled by them (they outlawed Christmas!!) - they recognized Charles as the legitimate ruler. TO THIS DAY - Oliver Cromwell is one of the most hated people in history in Ireland.
Cromwell was so anti Catholic that he went to Ireland to kill the population for absolutely no reason
I don't think Charles was very Cathloic friendly, despite his wife being Catholic. Catholic priests found to be in England in Charles' reign were executed I understand, while Cromwell would deport them with friendly despatches to be passed on to the Pope. I have seen at least one Irish historian say that 17th Century sources suggest though the Irish didn't want the English there, Cromwell was preferable to Charles. But do check.
Shame the video didn't go into the restoration of the monarchy. Technically the Parliamentarians won all 3 civil wars, but in the end their regime fell apart and Charles II came back to take the throne.
Wait wasnt it william of orange that was invited to invade the UK to become King after Lord protector Cromwell died
@@RK-zf1jm That was a couple of decades later.
Charles II became king, then when he died his brother James II took over. He was deposed and replaced with William of Orange.
It has a lot of parallels with the civil war. It was basically the same issues coming up again, except this time there wasn't much fighting (in England anyway), and rather than removing the monarchy they put a monarch on the throne who agreed to hand a lot of power over to parliament.
Not sure if Pennsylvania would have ever happened the way it did without the restoration of the monarchy.
@@Psyk60 William of Orange reigned with his wife Mary who, as you know,.was James II's daughter.
And centuries later we get stuck with Prince Henry (Harry) Wales.
This video fails to point out that Charles I was also king of Scotland, so he wasn’t “invaded by Scotland”, it was a rebellion by his own subjects.
This video really isn’t the best at explaining the situation, it’s left out a lot of important points.
Agreed... And the mispronunciation of names (including place names) is horrendous!
Yeah not many channels do the history justice, I think Kings and Generals channel does some really solid work however, and David Starky knows his shit when it comes to the monarchy
Yes, but Scotland had its own parliament and they were calling the shots. As the Scots army crossed the border of a foreign country (England) and occupied territory in that country and were fighting an army of mainly English recruits (for the cause of resisting imposition of an English episcopalian style of formal worship), their action is more accurately described as an invasion and not a rebellion.
@@MrBulky992 the 3 kingdoms were ruled by one King .. *Scottish one too... regardless of the fact each had their own assemblies, they were all under the rule of the sovereign. the borders were not manned or fenced off. the conflict was a complicated one , but with Charles closing the English Parliament it was left to the Scottish assembly to combat him initially.. the Catholic uprising in Ireland stretched Charles's army and with no Parliament to raise taxes, he could not raise or pay for an army , relying on militias who simply mutinied or outright deserted during the Bishop's Wars.
@@coling3957 Of course the borders were not fenced off: no borders in the world were fenced off in those days. The border between England and Scotland was porous and lawless long before the union of the two crowns and the people who lived there demonstrated fluid allegiances based on more local considerations.
The three constituent kingdoms had *parliaments* , not assemblies. Parliaments make laws, "assemblies" only talk and do not have the power to enact primary legislation (for reasons of political sensitivity, the NI Assembly does not call itself a parliament).
You are painting a picture of a single sovereign state between 1603 and 1707 with top-down devolution in England, Scotland and Ireland. It was nothing like that. The Scots remained fiercely independent until 1707. Scotland had its own separate privy council, parliament, legal system, church, coronation rites, officers of state (e.g. Lord Chancellor), peerage, rules of succession, currency, army and navy (the Royal Scots Navy), taxation and banking and finance systems. Scotland and England had conflicting imperial and trading ambitions and these were some of the reasons for the Union in 1707. English and Scots politicians were referring to each other as "foreigners" right up until 1707. Without James VII and II's adoption of catholicism and subsequent overthrow and the failure of Scotland's Darien scheme in central America, there would have been no union in 1707. Yes, the two countries had the same king in the same way as Great Britain and Hanover had the same ruler from 1714 to 1837 but that did not make Great Britain and Hanover a single state - they just happened to share the same king who could, to a limited extent, deploy the resources of both insofar as his powers allowed but severely constrained by the interests of the separate nations as represented by their internal politics.
In 1701, the Act of Settlement, determined the protestant succession in England, overriding male preference primogeniture. There was no equivalent legislation in Scotland - and serious opposition existed in the Scottish Parliament to the English Parliament's fait accompli and failure to consult with Scotland - so there was a risk that, after the death of Queen Anne, the two countries might have different sovereigns, hence the need to create a single kingdom that would be difficult to dissolve.
Being under one crown did not even stop England and Scotland going to war: the Scottish Parliament opposed the king's religious interference in Scotland and went to war against him in the Bishops' Wars in the late 1630s (before the English Civil War). None of this had anything to do with the King's problems with the English parliament - that came later.
There was briefly a Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland in the 1650s but it was shortlived, unsuccessful, half-baked and soon forgotten and the status quo restored.
"I wonder how it turned out" Since the UK is now a constitutional monarchy rather than a republic this should give a fair idea of how the Wars turned out in the long run!
This didn’t cause the uk being a constitutional monarchy, what did was after Charles II died the next candidate was a catholic so instead they offerered it to William of orange on the regards that parliament had power over the monarchy
@@ZPheenix The roots of constitutional monarchy in the UK date from Magna Carta which, for the first time, established that the King was not above the law. While that document was largely about the rights of barons rather than the common folk it established a principle that runs through to the current constitutional arrangements.
Nevertheless, if the Commonwealth had survived past the virtual dictatorship of Cromwell we would, presumably, now be a republic rather than monarchy, which is the point I was making.
If you would like to know more, there is a 1970 film (Cromwell) that goes through all the aspects. Also a 1980`s tv drama Series, called (By The Sword Divided) which consists of 20 50 mins long episodes, highlighting events through two different families.
Oh, the episode of By The Sword Divided where the poor, not too bright, servant boy discovers he's the bastard son of the Royalist protagonist is an absolute heartbreaker!
@@robertwilloughby8050 I can`t say I remember this offhand but then, it`s at least 3 decades since I last saw the program. I have the DVD`s now, so hopefully I can revisit it again soon. I will watch out for that storyline.
There have been 11 English civil wars "The FIRST civil war" was actually England's 9th and the first of 3 in quick succession, England was a very turbulent place back in time, I'm sure you have heard of "The War of The Roses" which started way back in 1455 and lasted 32 Long years
Oh yeah
Charles’s audacity to do the things he did stemmed from his extremely strong belief in the divine right of his kingship. Whatever he decided, he thought, was god’s will and so must be done.
The English Civil War was sparked by the Vicar of Trowbridge not offering the Bishop of Bath & Wells (sometimes known as the baby-eating bishop) a cucumber sandwich with his cup of tea. Such a breach of protocol was intolerable and thus began the internecine conflict of the century.
In all seriousness, the English Civil War, 1642-1648, was of the most radical and transformative events in world history. It ended with the English Parliament executing the monarch and declaring a republic. Although this was rolled back with the Restoration later, it is pretty likely that there would have been no French Revolution as French intellectuals were influenced by the events in England, and there definitely would not have been an American Revolution as the ideological bases of that revolution come from English texts written as a direct result of the English Civil War. The idea of a republic in the Western world today basically has its most formative bases in the English Republic, even though that republic was not typical of the ones that followed.
It included Scotland too ,not only England..
@@georgejob2156 certainly, and Wales and Ireland. But the most decisive battles were fought in England and it was the English Parliament that tried the King for treason. I am the first to remind people that England is not the be-all and end-all of history and life in the UK but in this instance it really was the events in England that were particularly transformative, though of course the events in Ireland were also very significant for the history of Ireland and the UK. But not as significant to world history.
The last battle in 1648 was at Winwick pass on the border with Newton-le-Willows then in Lancashire.
I've only recently discovered this channel and I _love_ it!
Tyler's 'rewind' game is strong (unlike so many other reactors who don't rewind when they pause to talk, and then end up missing vital parts of the video). I also like the Googling that he does to try to get context and background info (instead of just leaving questions unanswered).
I'm totally here for dollar-store Rob Lowe. 🤩
🤣🤣🤣 He is a cutie...lol
I, too, appreciate the Googling but not the constant and distracting inane chatter
@@stirlingmoss4621 I think the constant and distracting inane chatter is what makes his channel work. He verbally thought processess everything and I reallly appreciate that.
He has another channel where he does the same with Canadian stuff, Tyler Bucket is the name
@@louisemiller3784 I found that one, too. Ryan Was is better in my view.
Game of thrones is actually based on the English civil war called “The war of the Roses” George R.R Martin loves English history. The wall in Game of Thrones is also based on Hadrians wall in England that was built to keep the romans from crossing into scotland because they didn’t want to fight the celts. Also the new game of thrones show “House of the dragon” is also based on English history known as “The anarchy”
Clarification: *PARTS* of GoT are based on the War(s) of the Roses. Various different parts of GoT are based on all sorts of different bits of English/British/European history.
Thanks for pointing out that House of the Dragon is based on The Anarchy, for some reason I hadn’t noticed, but obvious now you’ve mentioned it! I should have known, I’m a direct descendant of Empress Matilda and have studied this period of history quite extensively. 😂
They didn't want to fight the Celts because the Celts lived in crap terrain and had nothing worth stealing ...and still don't., hence nothing worth fighting for.
not fully true about Hadrian's wall as the roman did occupy alot of the east coast of Scotland and around Stirling and Aberdeen.
@@bobfunkhouse8437 everyone remembers Hadrians Wall ... Noone remember the Antonine Wall which is a lot older
Wales was part of the Kingdom of England at this point, that's why there are only 3 kingdoms mentioned at the start.
There is definitely a north/south divide in England, but it's not particularly linked to the Civil War.
When was the Welsh 'renaissance'?
I mean, when did Wales return to being a politcal entity and not considered part of the kingdom of England?
@@robmartin525 Technically it wasn't until 1967. That's when the Laws In Wales Acts were (mostly) repealed.
The Laws In Wales acts effectively annexed Wales because they said any English law automatically applies in Wales too. So "England" was a single legal jurisdiction that included Wales.
But after the Welsh Language Act in 1967, the legal jurisdiction previously called "England" became "England and Wales".
Then in 1999 the Welsh Assembly was created, giving Wales the ability to make some of their own laws.
Although before 1967 Wales was still treated separately from England in some cases. There had been some laws which applied to Wales specifically. Notably, the Church of England was disestablished in Wales in 1914.
Wales is a principality, rather than a kingdom, hence the Prince of Wales.
@@chrismackett9044 That's not strictly true. There was an entity called the "Principality of Wales" back in the middle ages, but it didn't cover the entirety of Wales. It was abolished in the 16th Century by the Laws In Wales Acts.
After then Wales was mostly a normal part of England (legally speaking) up until the 20th Century.
I know there is a title "Prince of Wales", but he is not Wales' monarch, the Queen is. A principality is a country where the monarch is a prince, so Wales doesn't fit that definition.
Charles the II became King and the leaders of the parliamentarians were executed.
The King's supporters were known as Royalists or Cavaliers as they were also known. Whereas the Parliament forces were known as, not unsurprisingly, Parliamentarians or nicknamed Roundheads because of their helmets. Because Cromwell's army were mostly farmers they were beaten in battle a few times until Cromwell trained them and had them equipped better. This army became known as The New Model Army. Precursor to our modern Army.
The history is well known enough, but I've never heard anyone bring it up in casual conversation in the UK. Its not made a big deal of like I assume the American Civil War is in America. Having said that Oliver Cromwell's name does crop up every now and then.
reference " One of the ruins that Cromwell knocked about a bit" music hall song.
At that time there was no United Kingdom, there were three separate kingdoms but they had the same king. Charles 1 was born in Scotland as the son of the king of Scotland, hence he was actually Scottish. Many of the divisions between the sides and the people were based on religious beliefs. A few years ago there was a television programme were a British woman traced her family history back and it included a man who left Virginia to return to England to fight in the civil war.
The pronunciation is St Fag-ans not Fay- ans and it is further to the south and west near the coast of the Bristol Channel.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the King's horses and all the King's men,
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
Humpty was a massive civil war cannon, set up on a church wall beside Colchester castle by the Cavaliers to keep the Roundheads away. The vibrations destroyed the wall, and the canon irrepairably broke in the fall.
(There are other versions of explanations of the nursery rhyme!)
Charles I was his own worst enemy. He believed that the monarch had absolute power and refused to compromise on anything. He was constantly playing of one group against another behind their backs. He only appeared to negotiate to play for time. The video left out the major part played by Ireland. Which was mainly Irish Catholic, but with Old English Catholics and a large number of Protestant English settlers. One of the charges against Charles I at his trial was treason, because he was negotiating with the Irish Catholics to invade England. Which was not strictly true.
And now some regard him as a Saint...
The Irish did end up invading England though, or at least an Irish faction did, they could not stand that England might be come a republic and wanted to make sure that te Irish choice for King was put on the throne of England.
@@patbarrett9713 This is a 'revisionist' Church of England history. Charles I encouraged the centralisation of the CoE through Archbishop Laud. He also tried to reimpose Bishops on the Scottish Kirk. Essentially Charles was trying to 'Romanise' the Church under him. The Parliament of course was mainly non-Conformist. The CoE was abolished by the Commonwealth, Laud was executed.
So at the Restoration the CoE was resurrected - the myth is that Charles was trying to promote the CoE against the Non-Conformists, as opposed to trying to set up a tyranny and causing chaos and Civil War for his own ends. This is on a par with the Stalinist School of Falsification.
If you look at the statue of Cromwell outside parliament he looks directly at St Margaret's Church and over the east end staring back is a bust of Charles - appropriate as he was beheaded for all of this.
@@uingaeoc3905 Not for nothing was he described at his trial as "The man of blood", for the conflict that he had engendered. Had he been better acquainted with the Old Testament he would have been aware of at least two kings, Saul and Rehoboam, who were deposed for malfeasance.
tragedy is Charles was the second son of James and never meant to be king. his elder brother Henry died aged around 18 , and he was reckoned to be smart and much more amicable. his death put Charles in line as heir, a weak and rather dim boy - also Charles is shortest King of England ever , and that was before his head was removed
The War of the Three Kingdoms is the academic title for the "English Civil War(s)". It's a more accurate title, because the English Civil War was the first conflict in an interconnected series of overlapping conflicts that included a Scottish and an Irish Civil War, and wars between England and Ireland, and between England and Scotland.
The three Kingdoms being England, Scotland and Ireland (Wales was not a Kingdom, it was a Principality). Charles I was the King of all three Kingdoms, but as others have pointed out, there was not yet an Act of Union; the United Kingdom did not yet exist. England and Scotland were separate nations who shared a King. Ireland is . . . complicated.
Of course, the popular term for these interconnected wars is "the English Civil War", and so uploads aiming for decent views are not going to use "War of the Three Kingdoms" in the title. There was also a Chinese War of the Three Kingdoms, so "English Civil War" helps avoid confusion.
Wales was a kingdom till the English/Norman's invaded and over the course of 400 years murdered all the Royal Family, banned the language and destroyed the culture. Well they tried but it survived
You can only claim to have a civil war if it's war internal to a single country. Pretty obvious anything else is simply war. The wars of the Roses was civil war in England.
@@geoffreycodnett6570 Well, there *was* a civil war within England as a constituent part of the War of the Three Kingdoms. I wouldn't call the Wars of the Roses a Civil War, I'd call it a Dynastic War. It was a civil war within the House of Plantagenet, and within the English nobility & aristocracy, but - unlike the English Civil War - the majority of the public at large were not politically engaged in the conflict (outside of London, anyway).
Then again, based on the numbers of combatants at, say, the Battle of Towton, you could argue the opposite; c. 30k in each army for a total of 60k on the battlefield is a very high number for the Middle Ages. These numbers are probably exaggerated, but from what I've read (I'm quite a "fan" of the Wars of the Roses), not by much. However, these numbers are an effect of "bastard feudalism"; retainers would fight for their patron regardless of the rightness or wrongness of his cause, or whether or not it aligned with their own political views. In fact I'd argue that "political views" is really an anachronism in context, outside of the high echelons of the nobility (Richard of York [Snr.], Warwick, Somerset, etc).
In the English Civil War, from what I've read, it seems that the majority of the public at large had a political view (in the modern sense) on the issue, were partisan, and gave aid & succour to one side or the other. Even the "Clubmen" (armed neutrals - that is, armed to preserve their neutrality) and "Diggers" (proto-agrarian socialists) are indicative. The English civitas was at war with itself. In the Wars of the Roses, I'd argue that the civitas didn't even exist (civitas: a body of people constituting a politically organized community). "Britain in Revolution: 1625-1660" by Austin Woolrych is a great book on the subject - very long, very thorough.
A lot of GOT is based on British History such as the War of the Roses. The Yorks and Lancasters, sound familiar 🤔
Throughout a lot of history, "imprisonment" of a royal in the UK has often meant that they lived in a large home under house arrest, but were more or less given freedom within the home.
That map has Dublin and Drogheda in reversed positions.
These weren’t even the first civil wars in England - there was also The Anarchy, 1135-1153, and the Wars of the Roses, 1455-1485 (though there was only around 3 months’ actual fighting in 30 years). There was also the “Glorious Revolution” of 1689-90, which wasn’t particularly bloody in England but was in Scotland and Ireland, where it’s sometimes called the Williamite Wars. And there were the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745.
These wars aren’t relevant to us, since Catholic Emancipation in 1829, (except for the Williamite Wars which still cause problems every July 12th, the anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne in 1690), but they’re still of local interest - one of my nephews’ has as his middle name the name of the local Royalist commander who was an ancestor through his mothers’ family (he fortified the local castle and held it against a Parliamentarian siege, and only surrendered when he received written orders from Charles I).
I don't think the book "1066 and all that" can be bettered when it said that the Cavaliers were "wrong but romantic " and the Roundheads were "Right but repulsive "
"How's Your Father?"
We have so much history it's rediculous but I love it .
I love it too.
It's "rediculous" that you can't spell ridiculous. 😉
@@another3997 my spellings not great I'm afraid .
Charles 1, or Charles Stuart was basically Scottish and thought he had a divine right to rule and, him, and his father James, were hugely unpopular in England amongsts the rank and file.
The Civil War was not North v South. There was parts of each supporting the King and parts Parliament. The war was not geographic and divided families, towns and counties.
Then Oliver Cromwell appointed his son as his successor - yes, he took over because he didn’t want a king and then he acted like a king. His son was useless so Charles II became king after he’d agreed to become more like a constitutional monarch. He had loads of children by loads of mistresses but none legitimate. Charles II was succeeded by his brother James II, who became catholic and was deposed in 1688 via the Glorious Revolution …. And eventually you get to Bonnie Prince Charlie and more battles between England and Scotland. Da, daaaaah!!!
This video has passed over the great model army. Oliver Cromwell created the best modern army of its time, with a standing army - not recruited from the masses at times of war - drills, disciplined professional officers. Pretty much the same kind of success story of that of the Romans but with guns and cannon.
It's a shame that the video stopped when it did because the impact of this war was profound and it's ripples can still be felt today throughout the English speaking world including in the US.
Just think. A war was fought between the King and Parliament over the issue of who rules and Parliament won, if effect, and it didn't all happen at once, democracy won.
Ok, so you know how you mentioned that it sounded totally like ‘Game of Thrones’? Well strap in son!!! GRRM used The War of the Roses & other English/UK wars as his inspiration. And Charles I was a descendant of the Scottish King James IV & I.
The whole of the UK & Ireland have such a rich an interesting history. All the way to the time of the Egyptian empire with the Druids.
I’m a total history nerd!! Some awesome characters and events. Keep going on your history adventure! It’s great fun!
Just a few of the English then UK civil wars:
1138 - 1153 The Anarchy was a civil war in England and Normandy Between the Empress Maud and King Steven
1173 - 1178 The Great revolt an uprising by Henry II' s eldest sons and rebellious barons, supported by France, Scotland and Flanders.
1215 - 1217 First Barons' war against King John, lead by Baron Robert Fitzwalter
1264 - 1267 Second Barons' War led by Simon de Montfort against the royalist forces of King Henry III
1321 - 1322 Thomas of Lancaster rebellion
1453 - 1487 The civil wars, or now known as the War of the Roses
1642 - 1651 English Civil War
1688 The Glorious Revolution
1689 Jacobite rising
1715 Jacobite rising
1719 Jacobite rising
1745 Jacobite rising
1979 - 1990; The Miner's Strike.
Oh, and in the 1779 the town of Hastings in Sussex tried to join The USA because "No taxation without representation!" and Mad Jack Fuller was a crap MP in a rotten borough... So yeah, my hometown has a chunk that technically signed The Declaration of Independence leading to 100 years of royal commissions to workout it's ownership and legal status!
@@Tarantio1983 Really? Do you know the state of the UK economy 1979? Inflation double what is now. Interest rates 20% or more, THANK YOU George SOROS! THE MAN THAT BROKE THE BANK OF ENGLAND! Three day working week, rolling power cuts. A winter of discontent. THE DEAD NOT GET BURIED/CREMATED. Rubbish in the streets, like Scotland NOW! The IRA setting of bombs everywhere. The UK was the "SICK MAN OF EUROPE"! 40 years of a command ecomony! Whatever, party that was in control!
1990 - 2022 ANOTHER command economy. AND Politicians more interested in power than doing good for the country. Talk about rotten borough, we have had ROTTEN GOVERNMENT!
Romeo and Juliet, WIlliam Shakespear:
“A Plague on both your houses”
What we we have now, ANOTHER winter of discontent, 20% or more inflation, planned power cuts, winter of discontent, ISLAMIST terror attacks, possibly? Collapsing sewer system in London, it is VICTORIAN, no new resevoirs built since 1991. NO long term power development, in fact a complete screw up! THANK YOU Tony Blair AND Theresa May! Hell, Rolls-Royce are in a position to start production on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors this year! These are the MOST ECO-FRIENDLY and SAFE power sources available!
ASK these self gluers? Mostly funded by Russia and China! There want to reduce CO2 try causing problems for the Indian, Chinese and Russian. Then they will learn something.
1685 - Monmouth's Rebellion.
I love the mispronounciation of the place names eg. War - wick - shire . Great channel by the way Tyler .Checkout the film " Cromwell " with Richard Harris , Cromwell became Lord Protector of England (for that read dictator) not my favourite period of English history , but necessary. 🇬🇧
Yeah, and Burr-Wick.
He also said, Isle of Write. Just sayin
Hi from Brighton, UK, Tyler. Love your videos. I love your openness to other cultures, the UK in particular. Keep up the good work!
It’s a little known piece of history, but the English Civil War of the 1640s actually also saw fighting in America. The Southern Colonies were largely Royalist and New England stood for Parliament. But given the still relatively small population, American battles involved small numbers of men. That said the very last battle of the conflict took place in America, when in 1655 Parliamentary forces from Virginia attacked and defeated Royalists at Saint Mary’s City Maryland.
The Civil War settled our constitutional arrangements and gave us the the basis of democratic government which has served us very well for 400years. There is no residual animosity on either side. The Civil War is commemorated with The State opening of Parliament when the doors of The House of Commons are slammed shut in the face of The Queen's messenger, who must then be given permission to enter.
There was also the wars of the roses (Yorkists against Lancastrians)
To confuse matters further the Yorks v Lancs connection is actually the other way around.
Now you need to check out the Wars of the Roses
The small market town I live in was a Parliamentary supporting town, in an area controlled by the Royalists. In 1643 the Royalists sent an army of 4000, with canons, to capture our little town. The first attack was at The Drayton Gate, about 300 yards from my house. Despite the town being largely undefended, the Royalists were beaten back twice and the town remained under control of the Parliament. It coined a local saying ... " the women of 'Wem' and a few mustketeers, beat Lord Capel and all his Cavaliers." Never mess with the local women around here 🤣
Sound advice!! We can get nasty when we’re pissed off. 😋
@@AnEnquiringMind yeah, the women of Wem cause chaos in Shrewsbury on a Saturday night
Much like the Welsh women who fought off the last invasion of Britain by the French. Formidable.
Cumbrian women are also something to come up against!!
I was born in Plymouth Devon, which supported parliament, although pretty much all of Devon and Cornwall was Royalist. Plymouth was laid siege to by Prince Rupert of the Rhine for 3 years. I used to be a member of the Sealed Knot a Civil War re-enactment society. I was a Royalist pikeman (female) and later an ensign. Amazing fun, like playing Rugby with armour and a weapon!!
Charles was very sympathetic to the catholics, and was suspected of actually being a catholic. England was officially protestant. Scotland was also protestant ( though of a different kind) while Ireland remained Catholic. That’s why they joined in.
It’s difficult to say how people on the ground felt about the two sides. The nobility had their own armies largely made up of local people in the lands they owned. These armies would mainly fight for whoever their noble fought for and did not have a lot of choice in this matter. So armies in areas of land sided with whoever the local noble sided with. Sometimes local sentiment aligned with the noble and sometimes it did not. Many areas were split between the factions, sometimes with different members of families fighting on opposing sides
If you look at the old Cavalier basketball team logo from the 1970s, it features an actual an English Cavalier complete with stereotypical floppy hat and cape.
I am learning something new everytime with your series of videos, you make it fun.
5:05 It had more factors than that. The american colonists also wanted to expel the natives & expand west, the empire already had agreements to not do that with the native americans. This also created tension between the thirteen colonies and britain.
Loved this reaction lol, I live in Otley a small town in West Yorkshire. We have some of the oldest pubs in the county. One of our pubs called the black bull. It's listed and still has stone floors and log fires you have to bend down to get into the pub. It has an historical plaque on the wall. Oliver Cromwell during the civil War, brought the army to the pub and they drunk the pub dry. It has marks on the floor etc. So yes it is recognised, but we don't actually learn about it in the schools. We are taught the industrial revolution, and the 2 world wars lol. We just get taught a little local history. But we do love our history. Look into a guy called sir Titus Salt. You will find his history quite amazing. Forget Carneguie, Sir Titus took philanthropy to a whole new level. Another person who was friendly with Queen Victoria was Charles Dickens. His life was fascinating but he changed so much for the children. Stories about chimney sweeps led to Queen Victoria changing laws about children working and being educated. All these brought changes across the world. I just love your interest in Britain. Its heart warming. But America has so much more, the native American people have amazing monuments etc and stories. I'm waffling lol
this was so interesting to see you react to! it'd be cool to see you react to more british and irish history :) keep it up mate
I'm really enjoying these British history videos of yours, and learning something myself. At school I couldn't do history to save my life, and much of this stuff is just a barely visible blur! The Battle of Preston took place only ten miles or so from here (in a supermarket car park), and there is a bridge known as Cromwell's Bridge about the same distance the other way (supposedly used by Cromwell to get to the Royalist army at Preston, but that's probably not true) - it's only recently that I've started being interested in such things, so your videos are most welcome and enjoyable.
Wow, Battle of Preston, in a car park ... that must have upset the shoppers. Were there people going around offering to wash and polish the horses for a fiver?
An easy way to remember the sides in the Civil War is : the Royalists were wrong but romantic, the Roundheads were right but revolting!
Watch the film "Cromwell" (1970) it'll give you a good idea of the events and intrigue going on at the time.
The UK didn't exist until 1707, and the events are leading up to the civil war.
As someone from the Isle of Wight my skin crawled at how the video narrator pronounced us "Isle of Right". Also, "St Faegans" and "Warwichshier".
Also, back then prison for a royal was very different to prison for normal people.
Yeh the pronunciation of places was awful. Fairly informative video but tragic there was not a video actually made by brits
There was a James II setback, who carried on like Charles I. But he was run out of the country very quickly in the late 17th century.
The Thomas Fairfax you probably heard of was the 6th Lord Fairfax - who was a personal friend and mentor (and employer?) of George Washington. Often regarded as being responsible for forming and guiding Washington.
The Thomas Fairfax in this video is the 3rd Lord Fairfax and would have been the Granduncle (or possibly Great-Granduncle) of "Washington's" Fairfax
Looks as though the Fairfax family had a definite penchant for being on what proved to be historically correct side of an insurrection.
Really! Is it correct not to want to pay taxes that are legitimately owed?
As an annoying old pedant I have to say that Berwick is not Bur-wick but Berrick (rhymes with Eric) and there was one other error which being fairly old I have already forgotten!
I think this video serves another useful purpose as well which is to explain why we retain certain ceremonials and customs here which perhaps some less reflective Americans might consider quaint, crazy, or downright stupid, such as our State Opening of Parliament, where HMQ takes the throne in the House of Lords and sends Black Rod to summon the Commons to hear her speech. This is because the monarch is still forbidden to enter the House of Commons because the last monarch to do was Charles I who sought to arrest five members of that house. This is also why the open door of the Commons is slammed shut as Black Rod approaches and he/she has to bang on it three times to gain admission. He/she enters and after bowing respectfully to the MPs states that Her Majesty wishes them to attend her in the House of Peers. I believe that at some stage of each Parliament the Commons read out a declaration that they expect the monarch to continue to allow their house to retain its ‘undoubted rights and privileges’.
We have had many bloodthirsty turmoils in our history and have even been a kind of republic for eleven years under a fundamentalist Christian government which we found utterly repellent. Some people elsewhere in the world apparently think this would be no bad thing! We have had the results of religious strife made manifest to us over several centuries which have led us to where we are today, a country with a state religion which we can happily ignore and overwhelmingly do, and with a non-political head of state. Ideal - to me anyway.
War- wick - shire? as in Worrick shear
@@patbarrett9713 The very one! I give myself 5 out of 10 for remembering there was something.
@@johnkemp8904 We have a Berwick here in Victoria, Australia - pronounced Berrick as well.
I enjoyed this, please do more history reaction videos! So interesting
Watching you react to our history like a movie is great!
It's funny you mentioned things sounding like game of thrones, many of the events in game of thrones is based on British history, the map of Westeros is 2 British isles one on top of the other, with the top one upside down
There has actually been about 10 civil wars in England, starting with the revolt of the earls in 1088 and ending with the English civil war 1649
Then there are other little bits of things that happened various wars etc.
What about the Jacobite rebellions after the Union of England and Scotland?
23:56: I think that was basically the reasoning at the time. Charles had started one war, been defeated, and then rather than accepting limits on his power started another war (and lost that too). Fighting (and losing) two wars against his own people for his own ego was seen as unforgivable, and convinced people that he just needed killing.
I was very interested in this video on the English Civil War. I have studied this war and one of the main characters, Prince Rupert, for many years. Your video was so very interesting and I enjoyed it very much. I am addicted to these videos and now have to watch them all. Wonderful!!
As an ex member of the Sealed Knot regiment Prince Rupert's Blew regiment of foote, or Rupert's Bluecoats, I also have an interest in Prince Rupert, General, Admiral, and One of the founders of the Royal society the man had a fascinating life.
It is also worth mentioning that Cromwell was a Puritan, after King Charles the second took back power from parliament, he is remembered as the party king re-introducing things like Christmas! A number of Puritans left England as they hated the frivolity, on a well known ship called the Mayflower.
The period under Cromwell’s’care’ Introduced witch hunts and let loose monsters like Matthew Hopkins on the population.Puritans in America did their bit with the Salem witch trials!
You've got this wrong: the Mayflower left England in 1620, long before the Civil War and even longer before the Restoration.
Oohh the Burn. Even when it was before all that. Now i get it. Cromwells Puritanity Buddies.
Charles was a tyrant, an absolute monarch. He was excuted by parliament, it is why Britain was and is a parliamentary democracy.
George iii the king you call a tyrant in usa, wasnt. He was ruled by parliament.
Charles wanted to be an absolute monarch, but wasn't quite. His tax raising powers were limited, which is why he had to recall parliament.
the american revolutionaries called george III a tyrant because they paid taxes without representation, which is essentially the same argument that parliament made to the king - charles was a tyrant because he prorogued parliament, levying illegal taxes so that he could operate without parliamentary consent (attempting to arrest MPs made his intentions clear) aka taxation without representation - the two conflicts are actually similar in a lot of ways from a political perspective (the pronounced religious aspect of the english civil war distinctly differentiates the two) the underlying ideologies are very similar. many of the people living in america during the revolution were either directly related to english dissident protestants who emigrated after the civil wars or heavily influenced by their various parliamentarian-aligned ideologies
@@billder2655 The taxes on the American colonies were imposed by parliament, not King George III. All of the taxes were abolished but that did not stop the revolution.
Charles I was unable to levy enough taxes to operate without parliament, which is why he recalled it. He only had limited powers to tax and needed parliament to authorize more. Parliament were willing to grant him the taxes but wanted concessions in return. The King did not want to grant those concessions. "Taxation without representation" was not an issue. Parliament was representative (of a small section of the population) and controlled the major taxes.
There was a religious aspect to the American revolution, One of the "Intolerable Acts" the rebels objected to granted rights to Catholics in Quebec.
@@peterjackson4763 i never said they paid taxes to george, just that they were taxed without representation 🤷🏻♂️ also if the king refuses parliaments demands and they go to war over it then naturally parliament believes that they (the representative body) should restrict the kings access to taxation up to a certain point, and any concessions beyond which and their power would be threatened - that certain point was personal rule, which was unsustainable (so charles sought more control himself) - then it clearly is at least somewhat analogous to the ‘no taxation without representation’ argument offered by the american revolutionaries… the representative body contained the power of monarch, in the american revolution a new representative body replaced a previously undemocratic - at least locally- regime. clearly these things are analogous, i never suggested that people during the civil war thought in these exact means i was pointing out a few obvious ideological parallels (all the while noting how my response came nowhere close to explaining the whole picture, rather just highlighting an interesting parallel. furthermore i think you should do some research on radical military elements of the new model army because many people were in fact calling for enfranchisement extension’s etc, gerrard winstanley’s diggers went far beyond that point and john lilburne coined the phrase ‘freeborn rights’!!! i thought that was fairly basic civil war knowledge 🤷🏻♂️
@@billder2655 The point about taxes is that the revolutionaries were wrong to call George III a tyrant.
I don't need to research the parliamentary army further, I know about groups like the diggers. They were not the leaders of the parliamentary side and do not represent them. They were used and then suppressed Their ideas are interesting but had little effect at the time. Those who had representation (and wealth) did not want to share it.
The effect of the war was to replace one body that didn't represent many people with an even less democratic system, and then there was a return to the original with the restoration, though with the balance of power between the king and parliament changed.
In the American case it did become more democratic, but that's a difference not a parallel.
The King needed the support of parliament to collect many taxes as a practical matter. When Charles started to abuse the powers he did have he angered both houses of parliament and that led to the Petition of Rights.
Charles had actually conceded that, but then went back on it during the personal rule. The distrust that created was probably the major cause of the civil war that led to his death.
It didn't mention Cromwell anointed himself Lord Protector- in effect King, but was hated for being a corrupt dictator who actually banned Christmas. When he died Charles 2nd took over - known as the English Restoration. Charles 2nd being a colourful character different to his father and definitely a breath of fresh air after the puritanical Cromwell. Restored Christmas, parties and sports. (Also known for successfully hiding from the roundheads in an Oak Tree when he was on the run - becoming known as the Royal Oak and giving rise to a cool new name for many English pubs).
The Christmas that he restored,however,was no longer,if it ever was,a religious celebration,but more like a pagan celebration of midwinter,with drunkenness,excess,and debauchery.......whatever debauchery is.The modern Christmas evolved later,even in Victorian times
Didn’t learn any of this in school in Scotland, so I was learning along with you
Charles might of been a tyrant but so was Oliver Cromwell and a lot of people were more scared of a Puritan parliament especially Ireland
That’s very true!!
So you need to do a follow-up video to find out how we ended up having a monarchy again!
The film "Cromwell" Starring Richard Harris & Sir Alec Guiness portrays it quite well.
Tyler lm so impressed about you wanting to know about the British history also I love your sense of humour 😂
I love British history, more please! 👍
English people are almost universally in agreement that the power of the King had to be curbed, but what replaced the monarchy was a brutal religious totalitarian dictatorship, and the scars of Cromwell’s rule still run deep. The Irish suffered greatly under Cromwell…basically he was far worse than any King that preceded his rule or since. Hence why the monarchy was restored to power after Cromwell’s death. People trusted a monarch far more than the politicians.
I love this channel :)
You should check out Carisbrooke Castle Isle of Wight (where they kept Charles l ) the whole estate and surrounding area is gorgeous.
Tyler, this is fascinating stuff. You actually seem to think that you need to give us a quick history lesson about the US Civil War before you find out about the English Civil Wars. We probably know more about the US Civil War than you do 😁😉
By the way, there were not a lot of different unrelated wars. They were really unresolved wars/battles about the same issues that were split up by what were effectively periodic cease-fires.
And yes, the Scots were always happy at that time to join any skirmish that might piss off the English.
Especially as the King of England at the time was Scottish and born in Scotland.
But of course, this was way before the French, Russian, and US had their own little Revolutions/Civil Wars 😂
And of course, having executed/beheaded the King, and tried a Republic for a bit. We were then prepared to admit our mistake when Oliver Cromwell cancelled Christmas. That really was a step too far.
So we changed our minds and restored the Monarchy. 🤣😂🤣
We hold no grudges in the U.K.
The disastrous records of the Charleses made them so hated that a lot of Brits expected our current King to change his name when he inherited the Crown. Rumour was he was considering Arthur (it's one of his middle names) but either he changed his mind or it was just a rumour after all... /late
Lots of pubs in England royal Oak. Charles II hidden in an oat tree from Roundheads
Ther is no wales because wales is part of england and also the name is the war of the 3 kingdom so ther is only 3 not 4
3 kingdoms 4 sides
Charles II was actually a really good king and was well loved for being cheerful and a party animal
Also react to the unterregnum then you will know what happened after the civil war
I apologise for pedantry, but the word is *Interregnum* not _unterregnum._ He might get confused.
YES! that is the period for him to learn _"...what happened after the civil war"_ which is key.
Best Wishes. ☮
@@gbulmer Literally "between reigns", and not just that one, you could argue we're in one now.
@@ethelmini Interregnum also refers to the time between Vicars in a Parish. Try not to be a Church Warden when that happens!
I've read that these wars and power struggles were the inspiration for the series "Game Of Thrones"
For an American what you should be interested in is that Oliver Cromwell was as much an authoritarian as Charles the first, when the civil war was over a large group of the new model army wanted to change how the country was Governed and put forward a list of things they wanted to see become law, these people were called the ‘Levellers’ in a derogatory way as they wanted a fairer society, Oliver Cromwell issued warrants for their arrest and many were executed at his order, some of these Levellers travelled to the America’s for a new life, where their children, grand children and then great grandchildren were brought up to believe in what became your bill of rights, when you compare the ideas of the Levellers to the American bill of rights you can see the links, the Levellers were the very first ‘Socialists’ not to be mistaken for Communists, and in a strange way examining the US bill of rights and the constitution shows that America could be called the first ‘Socialist’ country, the statement All Men are Created Equal is the perfect statement for any truly equal society, but as with all things people may be created equal but money take you a long way beyond equality, one of the Leveller leaders was John Lilburne who’s works have been cited by the American Supreme Court.
John lilburne born in my home town.
My Nans family is from that area, when people ask for my political viewpoint always say I’m a Leveller, Lilburne and Overton being my influences, not Cromwell too tyrannical.
There was no UK then. He was a Scottish King on the throne, surname Stewart. He ruled the nations but there was no act of union then. Why do I think this video is rubbish, Berwick mispronounced, Nottingham moved to Derbyshire. Warwickshire is pronounced warickshur,. To keep life simple we just call it the civil war. The impact of the civil war was greater in Ireland. Oliver Cromwell went to town on them. We have had quite a few wars in UK, its just one of many.
James Stuart, James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603 on the Death of Elizabeth I (Tudor) of England. This was known as the Union of the Crowns. On his death 1625 his son Charles Stuart became Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland.
On a slightly different take, check out Oliver Cromwell by Monty Python which covers some of the same ground but to music. Under Oliver Cromwell the UK tried republicanism, but it didn't take. We invited Charles II to restore the throne and kingdom after the death of Cromwell in 1658 (September). The republic tried to ban such things as dancing, theatre, and even Christmas which were not met with total enthusiasm from the population.
13:39
That is one of the most American things I’ve ever heard about a 1600s helmet. They were made to deflect swords.
The narrator can say Drogheda but not the Isle of Wight, wasn’t expecting that
Also, parliament back then wasn’t really elected, they were all lords.
Incorrect. There were both Lords and Commons even then. The system of electing members of the house of commons varied from place to place, but in general only landowners could vote, and only wealthy people could serve as there was no pay for being a member of parliament.
Oliver Cromwell was a farmer and a member of the House of Commons, not a lord.
The reason why they didn't acknowledge Wales is because it wasn't one of tye kingdoms and was basically part of England up until recently. The legacy being that in some sports like cricket England and Wales still play as one team
The cartoon documentary is very good - but because voiced by an American has lots of mispronunciations of English place names.
Cromwell eventually becomes military dictator without Parliament for a decade afterwards.
all I can remember from school that it was the end of the Monarchy's divine right to rule, and the New Model Army was the forerunner of the modern professional army we have today. It also makes more sense, if they had actually mentioned religion, catholic/protestant/puritans - video wasn't great and pronounced so bad by an american! lol
Despite the economic downturn,I'm so happy☺️. I have been earning $ 60,200 returns from my $7,000 investment every 13days.
This must be an investment with Mr Gergely Korpos
They helped me recover what I lost trying to trade myself
Actually I trade cryptocurrency on a platform, with assistance from their top crypto experts. Gergely Korpos is my professional assistant,I have been trading with them for 8 months now... I've really made a lot from their strategies.
I think I'm blessed because if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as expert Gergely I think he is the best broker I ever seen
He is 24hours available on telegram 👇
The wars took place before the United Kingdom was created (1801) or even before the Kingdom of Great Britain was created following the union of England and Scotland (1707). At the time England, Scotland and Ireland were independent nations that happened to be in personal union with one another (they shared the same monarch). (Wales had been annexed by England in the 13th century so technically was regarded as part of England). I’ve always thought that the Wars of the Three Kingdoms was a better term given the impact in and the roles of Scotland and Ireland
The battleground of Edgehill is inside a military base. It is all still there, with a lot of war graves. It is inside one of the largest ammunition bases in the world, at a place called Kineton. The base covers 50 sq miles. I worked there for The Ministry of Defence.
Many people, including me, re-enact the English Civil War through the summer season as part of the English Civil War Society, look it up.
We did have other civil wars previously. The Wars of the Roses were fought over a very long period between two families over who would be king.
In answer to your questions, we don’t really think about this much. We are taught it at primary school and are very much aware of it as part of our history. However, it is no more significant than any of the other historical events we learn about as part of the curriculum. For example, Roman Britain, the Norman invasions, the tudors, the industrial revolution and so on. Also, it’s so far removed, we don’t even know which side our ancestors supported, so don’t really identify with either. Support for the royalists or parliamentarians wasn’t determined by geography at all. In fact it was commonplace for members of the same family to be divided. We are much more inclined to think about the world wars in the 20th century, where we do know what happened to our own ancestors. Particularly WW2, where there is a definite national pride in Britain standing alone for 3 years.
As a side note, Charles I certainly isn’t remembered fondly. However, general consensus awards king John the title of ‘worst king ever’.
Fairfax, Virginia is named for Thomas Fairfax. Maybe that's where you heard of him.
Most ordinary people HAD to fight for whoever they were told to. They had no say in the matter, most of them didn't know who the king was or what the fighting was about. Oliver Cromwell has always been villified in England as he took over as dictator to ensure England was governed for the people. he was responsible for a lot of what is good in English society and is the father of English democracy, hence his statue outside the houses of Parliament in london. Interesting aside, before the actions of Charles 1 Cromwell was due to set sail to live in America.
I don't know how you claim Cromwell was vilified in England. Understand his place in keeping Parliament as the authority in power not the Monarch.