The Stuarts: The Dynasty That Survived A Plague, Fire & Civil War | Kings & Queens | Real Royalty
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- With the death of Elizabeth I, 1603 heralded the beginning of the Stuarts; a royal house that was to last for over one hundred years. Here was a period that would see amongst other events; civil war, a great plague, the fire of London, the abolition and re-introduction of the monarchy and the gunpowder plot. James I and Charles I ruled until 1649 when Parliament took over during an eleven year period which came to be known as the Commonwealth and Protectorate. The monarchy was finally restored in 1660 with the crowning of Charles II, he was followed by James II, William III and Mary II and finally in 1702 by Queen Anne. 1714 brought England a new royal line with the coronation of George I and so ended another turbulent chapter of England's royal history.
From Elizabeth II to Cleopatra, Real Royalty peels back the curtain to give a glimpse into the lives of some of the most influential families in the world, with new full length documentaries posted every week covering the monarchies of today and all throughout history.
📺 Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code 'REALROYALTY': access.history...
Subscribe to Real Royalty: bit.ly/3tofGQL
Facebook: / realroyaltydocs
Tiktok: / realroyaltydocs
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
If teachers would teach history in this manner, we'd have a little historian - or two - in every household 😁
Great Plauge & Fires of London!
1665 & 1666.
Queen Anne was the stuart's last monarch in 1714 when she died
Why? The Winter Queen of Bohemia was directly in the Stuart line and the mother of the Electress of Hannover, the mother of George I. Both were granddaughters of James I. What is the difference?
@@k.schmidt2740because King George I was from the House of Hanover. He started the Hanoverian line. Queen Elizabeth is a defendant of the Hanoverians, but her grandfather started the House of Windsor in 1917. Sophia was the Electress of Hanover by marriage and her male son was a Hanoverian, not a Stuart. This is all about titles.
1714 or 85 or 13…
@@k.schmidt2740I don't think you know how houses and family names work. Descending from someone doesn't mean you're part of the same house. It's unlikely that you share the same last name as your mother's father.
@@boulevard14: Only because the family names are a patriarchal inheritance. And why is that??!
A great historical narrative video！
These are my ancestors on several limbs of my tree. I know nothing much of European history, but I'm trying to learn. Very fascinating.
Would that mean you’re technically royalty by blood?
“The story of a nation deciding to abolish the monarchy and become a republic, and then without any outside pressure, overthrow the republic to become a monarchy again! That never happened anywhere else!”
It kinda did in Spain.
didnt france reinstate monarchy after napoleon? Rome started monarchy ended empire. words
@@TungaroPlau I’d say the monarchy truly ended with that other Napoleon, who was defeated by Prussia.
😲 The old cult classic TV Series ‘ Dark Shadows ’ was actually more of a campy horror satire about England’s imperial history than anything else.
Very interesting
Long live our royal family
A good read is Forever Amber, historical fiction
Who is it by? I'm deeply interested in the history of the monarchy. Normally I read about the Tudors or Queen Victoria, but I haven't found anything on the Stuarts that's interesting
Author is Kathleen Winsor. Published in the 1940’s, a movie was made too, but the book is a fun read. Very risqué for the time. Lol! She goes through the great fire , the plague and King Charles 2. The book goes into detail about Charles’ mistresses, and his wife.
@@lolawaara9132 and added to my wishlist. Thanks for the recommendation!
My mom’s favorite!
Thank you so very much for not blasting music while you are talking 🙂.
Always an awesome job! LOVE LOVE LOVE history.
✌️&❤️
oh.
James seems to been ahead his time what comes dangers of tobacco.
Lucy Worsley has a very different take on Queen Annie which really made me notice the contempt in your opinion of her.
Lucy Worsley is not a very accurate historian
What??? James plead for his Mother’s life? Absolutely not so, this already makes me doubt the rest of this documentary
He actually did. There are a number of letters in existence (which you can find online) from James to Elizabeth on the subject. It would have given a very bad impression of him to his contemporaries if he hadn't done so.
I kindly ask all politicians presidents to pay attention to the criminal Timur Kulibayev who is a son in law of ex-president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. Timur Kulibayev together with his team actually was robbing the whole population of Kazakhstan. They have been raiding businessmen and natural resources of the country for more than 20 years. His wife Dinara Kulibayeva, his partners Raushan Sagdiyeva, Umit Shayahmetova are criminals that have escaped the punishment. And now they need to be punished at last. Their accounts and property should be put under sanctions. The money and the property they own are of criminal origins and can’t be used by them.
International law should prevent the laundering of illicitly obtained funds. All of the activities of above mentioned persons should go under due diligence procedures. Many countries have these laws that should work to seize assets acquired through corrupt and criminal practices. This is exactly what Timur Kulibayev and his team did. It’s essential to fight against these cases!
I haven’t heard of any of this. But now I will be researching it. So sick of people like that.
Whether you spell it Stuart or Stewart they are my ancestors. James is both my many-time Great Grandfather and my many-time Great Granduncle. The inbreeding of the Royals is still affecting my health today.
Unfortunately picture quality on my TV is very blurry
It's not your TV. I'm on my Samsung Tablet and at 720p almost everyone looks deformed. I thought it was my eyesight. So I came to see if I wasn't alone with this problem.
They blame "Rman Catholic Terrorists" but dont specify that they were Jesuits. Know your enemy.
42:11 I have a 5th great grandma on my mother's side, whose maiden name was Lucy Churchill.
Great Fires of London. Fireman Sam.
i always thought charles i was french 🤦♂
yoo the way these videos are put together is 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 also the narrating and the acting both 10/10 ... thanks for sharing
A very Anglice History.
The constitution of England up to the Treaty of Union is presented as the constitution of the whole UK ‘polity, monitory and trade’ Union (just like the European Union). Scotland’s constitution might as well never have existed.
Scotland and England did not become the United Kingdom of Great Britain with the personal union of the crowns in 1603 (even though James VI of Scots and I of England styled himself thus). Like the English common law, the Scots Constitutional law tradition is not an ossuary.
The Claim of Right Act explicitly enacts and establishes:
• a ‘fundamental constitution’ in Scotland by which the power of (any) government is legally limited,
• the final authority of the people of the nation to grant or remove power from the ruling government
• the protection under the Constitution of civil rights and liberties
• and the debarment of the government from any right to alter or rescind these or to claim an ‘absolute’ sovereignty over the laws and rights of the people on pain of forfeiture.
Constitutional Application of Claim of Right 1699 - Popular Sovereignty, Scottish Constitution:
Used in 1699 to prevent William II of Scots (III of England) breaking his contract and trying to limit the right to petition in Scotland. The Privy Council (of Scotland) refused to sign the king’s ‘act’, parliament (of Scotland) reminded him of the oath he had taken to uphold the “Claim of Right” (Act 1689) and 21,000 people signed a petition in support of the Company of Scotland. It was thus well understood as a binding Constitutional document whose applications were to uphold the legal and civil rights of the people (of Scotland) quite as much as the privileges of the Presbyterian Kirk.
1703 High Treason and Ratification of Convention of the Estates: Act ratifying the turning the meeting of the estates in the year 1689 into a parliament - Popular Sovereignty, Scottish Constitution:
William’s (II of Scots, III of England) attempts to have the “Claim of Right” amended were directed through the 'Court faction’ which began arguing from 1699 onwards that:
a. The Convention of the Estates wasn’t a parliament so the Act didn’t really count as binding and
b. the Convention of the Estates was a parliament and so parliament could just rewrite it.
A year and a half after William’s death, the parliament of Scotland ‘put a period on the end of that sentence’ by passing an act which recognised the standing of the Convention of the Estates as a parliament in its own right and made it high treason to impugn its authority or to so much as suggest attempting to alter the Claim of Right. Here is the Claim of Right understood and upheld for its secular constitutional provisions quite as much as for its religious provisions.
“Our sovereign lady, with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, ratifies, approves and perpetually confirms the first act of King William (II of Scots, III of England) and Queen Mary’s parliament, dated 5 June 1689, entitled act declaring the meeting of the estates to be a parliament, and of new enacts and declares that the three estates then met together the said 5 June 1689, consisting of noblemen, barons and burghs, were a lawful and free parliament, and it is declared that it shall be high treason for any person to disown, quarrel or impugn the dignity and authority of the said parliament. And further, the queen's majesty, with consent foresaid, statutes and declares that it shall be high treason in any of the subjects of this kingdom to quarrel, impugn or endeavour by writing, malicious and advised speaking, or other open act or deed, to alter or innovate the “Claim of Right” or any article thereof.
The insertion of the 1706 Act for the securing of the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government into the conditions of the (International) Treaty, to be ratified along with the Articles, thus securing the continuation of Scotland’s unique Constitution, one that is entirely incompatible with that of England, after the Union.
Today, 533 Anglice Seat “Democratically Disproportionate” Westminster proclaims its sovereignty as the highest authority in the UK, the supreme law making body with the power to make or alter the constitution and to amend any of the Articles of the (International) Treaty of Union (1706) at will, including those clearly intended to be unalterable. The constitution of England up to the Treaty of Union is presented as the constitution of the whole UK ‘polity, monitory and trade’ Union. Scotland’s constitution might as well never have existed.
If Westminster were truly the lawful, sovereign power in Scotland, then it might have a lawful, reasonable and ethical case for its absolute authority over the governance and the limits of its accountability in our nation. But if it is now ‘sovereign’ it is so by false argument, by disguise and by the promotion of heavily partisan and convoluted legal opinions to the stature of constitutional principles, principles now upheld by the entire Court system in the UK, in order to legitimise its abandonment of the clear and binding commitments on which the Union was founded.
“…the principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law”,
(obiter of Lord Cooper in McCormick vs the Lord Advocate 1953)
www.legislation.gov.uk/aosp/1689/28
Oh, yeah. Would have made the video much better and not boringly dry at all.
You survive all of these tragidies by starting the tragidies and controlling the outcomes of them!
poor job ,very very poor , the Stuarts were scotlands glory !but you turn them into englands soft wool, you miss out the rising of 1689 to restore king jamie the 7th in scotland , bonnie dundee let his men to victory at killiecrankie , but he was killed , the stuarts destiny , could have changed ,if he had lived .you miss out an awful lot! like the act of security in scotland in 1704 ,an act allowing scotland to choose is own monarch ,potentially james 8th in scotland and george 1st in england, hence the act of union
Indeed- 27 July 1689 A stunning Jacobite victory against a much larger government force led by Gen Hugh Mackay
Love the history teller, his voice is resonant and nice to listen too. He tells the history of the Stewarts with great interest and sarcasm - thoroughly enjoyed !
Political fever? Brexit, perhaps?
Your title implies that you would describe the Stuart dynasty but you have not done that. Instead you have started hundreds of years after the beginning of the dynasty. So the title you have used - “dynasty” - Is incorrect. I suspect that you can only see history from the lens of England and being English. A bit disappointing really
Excellent point tbh
Crazy 🤪 history ❤
Good afternoon people interrupting right 😮😮😮😮😮100%
Whats the different between reaisance and others
31:17 33:06 35:08 36:25 37:48
Another great video
😢❤Green azoto
What’s the music piece played at 4:58 ?
bach violin concerto A minor 1st movement
A BAS LE CAPITALISME!!!🚩