An important note from our historians about this video: The causes of the civil wars which were fought across Charles I’s kingdoms were complex and multiple, contested at the time, and have been the subject of debate ever since. Our video is designed to provide an accessible introduction to a situation where differences in principle between the king and his opponents, combined with responses on both sides to immediate events, resulted in a dramatic loss of trust, which led to war. At the heart of this were competing notions about royal authority and the limits of power. As our video focuses on why war broke out, it does not look in detail at the king’s execution in 1649, or the events following it. Charles’ death and the abolition of the monarchy took place only after moderate members of the House of Commons had been removed by the parliamentary army, and it is true that his execution was met by widespread shock and dismay, especially because of the dubious legality of his trial. But it is equally true that in 1642, when war broke out in England, nobody anticipated either the king’s demise or the revolutionary constitutional changes that would be enacted in 1649. These, and the form of government in the 1650s, were unintended consequences of the outbreak of war and the ensuing conflict.
Thanks for the added context. The video did a good job summerizing the civil war, especailly for us Americans. Most of us know little about British history.
Why is it so difficult to figure out which side our ancestors might have taken in the Civil War? I'd guess every French person, or American knows exactly where their ancestors stood in the most turbulent times of their history. In the UK, is it as simple as figuring out if your ancestors were Catholic or Protestant? Or maybe knowing where the battles were fought? Were the Welsh even involved? I've read that in most of England the Civil War was little more than a few spats between the nobles, and actual fighting may have lasted weeks, or even only a couple of days.
It’s tricky because a lot of factors went into who chose what side, if they even had a choice and if they aligned with the side they were on. Factors such as religious leaning, living area and wealth status were all contributory factors as people were being called up to fight on both sides. Lower class people tended to side with Parliament unless they agreed with the divine right of kings and therefore sticking by him. The gentry owed the king their positions of power and influence and therefore that may have had an impact unless they swayed puritan or didn’t agree with Charles. Geographic location meant that people were automatically expected to be on a certain side. When Charles was in the ascendancy he had control of the north and west whereas parliament had the south and east. But there was no sure way people could be assigned which made it tricky, coupled with no formal conscription (at least not properly written) it gets muddy. And that’s not even considering people who didn’t align with their assigned choices. If Charles had taxed a Northern or Western area too much the citizens would begin to resent him (seen in the rise of neutralism and groups that would simply ignore Charles / join the parliamentarians) which essentially meant that if there are records of people being formally on a side that may not be true either. Basically it was a nightmare. And the civil wars you mentioned were nearly a hundred years post the ECW so literacy rate no doubt increased and with it, records, letters, proof people were on either side. Not to mention the English Civil war helped introduce the modern British army through the new model army, establishing meritocracy. Formal army structure commonplace for the wars you mentioned was still very new during this one, only being introduced in the final year of the first one.
@@glumdrops3678 I have one branch of my family tree in Kingswinford and Old Swinford. I'd guess, from a lot of the names of surviving pubs, that this was an area that was very proud of its loyalty to the King. Or it would have been very difficult to be openly Pro-parliamentarian. There are two branches of family in Norwich. One branch is strongly Catholic and the other are Quakers. Over several generations the Quakers had generally relocated into more rural areas. My Catholic ancestors are linked to trades with horses, gunsmithing and silversmithing. Many of them are servants in the grander houses. Neither of these families are wealthy but it seems as if these Catholic families are rewarded for their loyalty to the Crown, or at least to the Church. Access to these trades would have meant a possibility of social mobility. So, they seem to be more trusted by the local nobility. It's still difficult to say for certain where their loyalties were. It makes sense that most people would have prioritised their livelihoods. It's such a fascinating period of history.
I am American. My dad's family didn't come to America until the 20th century. I don't know much about what my dad's family did before they moved to America. My mom doesn't know how long her family has been in America.
I'm all in favour of history in a nutshell, but at least make it accurate! This is a very biased account that makes Charles the villain, and ignores the corruption of Parliament. Charles took his role seriously, and defended the rights of the majority in such matters as religious practice, and control of taxation, as well as attempting to prevent the worst excesses of the army. He was far from perfect, and made many mistakes, such as forcing the prayer book on Scotland (though they made many attempts to force their religious practiceson England) , but he was more honest than those who took control of the country. Those who leaned more to the Puritan side were often hypocrites (the wife of Cromwell wearing silk and lace, or Cromwell denying the people music, whilst allowing it in his house, or Cromwell's daughters being called princess). The Puritan Parliament denied what little democracy existed, committed war crimes, and taxed the country up to ten times more than Charles ever had. Charles may have not been perfect, but by his death, a large proportion of the population supported him, particulary after the corruption of Parliament became common knowledge. Parliament was never the saviour of England, being controlled by a power mad minority. Charles was accused of being a tyrant, yet Parliament showed itself to be a tyranny that matches many of today's dictators.
Charles Stuart, man of blood, was a tyrant. My favorite aspects of his reign was when he defended the rights of the majority in such matters as religious practice by sentencing dissenters to the star chamber and cutting off their ears. Or when he controlled taxation by stealing money and land from the poor and giving it to his advisors. Or when he went on several unnecessary wars under the Duke of Buckingham who was so popular that his assassin was called a hero. He defended no majority only, landed gentry. The people were against him and through parliament they denounced him. It was for fear of the common people that he fled London and it was the common people of the New Model Army that defeated him. He was never a hero of the common people, who were made slaves under him. The corruption of parliament came not from the people but from that same damned and rotten spring that Charles Stuart, man of blood, was water and supported his wars on the people, the gentry. It was the Grandees, rich army officers, that took over parliament. Yet they still did a better job of governing then that pompous tyrant. Did his son not return in rebellion and was defeated. Where were the people then to clamor to this king's son. Did John Penruddock not try to stir those most supposedly disillusioned with the Protectorate. Where were the people then who so loved this tyrant as you said and were so dismayed when he suffered the consequences of his actions. To claim parliament was corrupt is truth but to claim the people loved the man who stripped them of their rights, stole from their pockets and tore away from them their lands, who made war and slaughtered them by the thousands for wanting to be free men in a free nation is lunacy of an unrepentant loyalist. Tho' parliament was no new savior, Charles Stuart, man of blood, was on the whole, a villain.
so it sounds like Charles was incapable of true leadership, short-tempered, and cruel; where as parliament was possibly a more established force looking for a power grab/leadership takeover? If so that would usher in modern era government no? @@reonicles435
Yes. I did learn about the American civil war at school. It wasn't that in depth if remember, but we learned about the reasons it started, and who won which battles ,and then who won. This was in the early 1980's.
An important note from our historians about this video:
The causes of the civil wars which were fought across Charles I’s kingdoms were complex and multiple, contested at the time, and have been the subject of debate ever since. Our video is designed to provide an accessible introduction to a situation where differences in principle between the king and his opponents, combined with responses on both sides to immediate events, resulted in a dramatic loss of trust, which led to war. At the heart of this were competing notions about royal authority and the limits of power. As our video focuses on why war broke out, it does not look in detail at the king’s execution in 1649, or the events following it. Charles’ death and the abolition of the monarchy took place only after moderate members of the House of Commons had been removed by the parliamentary army, and it is true that his execution was met by widespread shock and dismay, especially because of the dubious legality of his trial. But it is equally true that in 1642, when war broke out in England, nobody anticipated either the king’s demise or the revolutionary constitutional changes that would be enacted in 1649. These, and the form of government in the 1650s, were unintended consequences of the outbreak of war and the ensuing conflict.
Thanks for the added context. The video did a good job summerizing the civil war, especailly for us Americans. Most of us know little about British history.
I like story in a nutshell, thank you!
Loved this short video on this subject. More of these types of video on British history please.
Thank you very much for making this video, it really helped me to understand the viewpoint on what happened during the English Civil War!
Excellent brief explanation. Bravo
Because one civil war is just so... American...
Lol
British people getting drunk in Spain is the most British thing ever
really interesting 😊
2:15 no taxes !
Who does he think he is Kim Jong un ?
Why was the Declaration of Independence created......Ask an American
Ah, yes... the English Civil War, that started in Scotland and ended in Ireland..
it ended with Cromwell conquering Scotland
Transition ✅
Animation ✅
Explaination✅
I like the monarchy but only limited power and keep paying more taxes to the government if Parliament wants to fix the issues.
Why is it so difficult to figure out which side our ancestors might have taken in the Civil War? I'd guess every French person, or American knows exactly where their ancestors stood in the most turbulent times of their history. In the UK, is it as simple as figuring out if your ancestors were Catholic or Protestant? Or maybe knowing where the battles were fought? Were the Welsh even involved? I've read that in most of England the Civil War was little more than a few spats between the nobles, and actual fighting may have lasted weeks, or even only a couple of days.
It’s tricky because a lot of factors went into who chose what side, if they even had a choice and if they aligned with the side they were on.
Factors such as religious leaning, living area and wealth status were all contributory factors as people were being called up to fight on both sides.
Lower class people tended to side with Parliament unless they agreed with the divine right of kings and therefore sticking by him.
The gentry owed the king their positions of power and influence and therefore that may have had an impact unless they swayed puritan or didn’t agree with Charles.
Geographic location meant that people were automatically expected to be on a certain side. When Charles was in the ascendancy he had control of the north and west whereas parliament had the south and east.
But there was no sure way people could be assigned which made it tricky, coupled with no formal conscription (at least not properly written) it gets muddy.
And that’s not even considering people who didn’t align with their assigned choices. If Charles had taxed a Northern or Western area too much the citizens would begin to resent him (seen in the rise of neutralism and groups that would simply ignore Charles / join the parliamentarians) which essentially meant that if there are records of people being formally on a side that may not be true either.
Basically it was a nightmare. And the civil wars you mentioned were nearly a hundred years post the ECW so literacy rate no doubt increased and with it, records, letters, proof people were on either side.
Not to mention the English Civil war helped introduce the modern British army through the new model army, establishing meritocracy. Formal army structure commonplace for the wars you mentioned was still very new during this one, only being introduced in the final year of the first one.
@@glumdrops3678 I have one branch of my family tree in Kingswinford and Old Swinford. I'd guess, from a lot of the names of surviving pubs, that this was an area that was very proud of its loyalty to the King. Or it would have been very difficult to be openly Pro-parliamentarian.
There are two branches of family in Norwich. One branch is strongly Catholic and the other are Quakers. Over several generations the Quakers had generally relocated into more rural areas. My Catholic ancestors are linked to trades with horses, gunsmithing and silversmithing. Many of them are servants in the grander houses. Neither of these families are wealthy but it seems as if these Catholic families are rewarded for their loyalty to the Crown, or at least to the Church. Access to these trades would have meant a possibility of social mobility. So, they seem to be more trusted by the local nobility. It's still difficult to say for certain where their loyalties were. It makes sense that most people would have prioritised their livelihoods.
It's such a fascinating period of history.
@@GlasPthalocyanine ikr, truly a messy but interesting time
I am American. My dad's family didn't come to America until the 20th century. I don't know much about what my dad's family did before they moved to America. My mom doesn't know how long her family has been in America.
What is the song in the background
1812
King of England and Scotland
Lifesaver
Not a "civil" war as the war with civilians, not by civilians.
I'm all in favour of history in a nutshell, but at least make it accurate!
This is a very biased account that makes Charles the villain, and ignores the corruption of Parliament.
Charles took his role seriously, and defended the rights of the majority in such matters as religious practice, and control of taxation, as well as attempting to prevent the worst excesses of the army.
He was far from perfect, and made many mistakes, such as forcing the prayer book on Scotland (though they made many attempts to force their religious practiceson England) , but he was more honest than those who took control of the country. Those who leaned more to the Puritan side were often hypocrites (the wife of Cromwell wearing silk and lace, or Cromwell denying the people music, whilst allowing it in his house, or Cromwell's daughters being called princess). The Puritan Parliament denied what little democracy existed, committed war crimes, and taxed the country up to ten times more than Charles ever had.
Charles may have not been perfect, but by his death, a large proportion of the population supported him, particulary after the corruption of Parliament became common knowledge. Parliament was never the saviour of England, being controlled by a power mad minority. Charles was accused of being a tyrant, yet Parliament showed itself to be a tyranny that matches many of today's dictators.
Charles Stuart, man of blood, was a tyrant.
My favorite aspects of his reign was when he defended the rights of the majority in such matters as religious practice by sentencing dissenters to the star chamber and cutting off their ears. Or when he controlled taxation by stealing money and land from the poor and giving it to his advisors. Or when he went on several unnecessary wars under the Duke of Buckingham who was so popular that his assassin was called a hero.
He defended no majority only, landed gentry. The people were against him and through parliament they denounced him. It was for fear of the common people that he fled London and it was the common people of the New Model Army that defeated him. He was never a hero of the common people, who were made slaves under him.
The corruption of parliament came not from the people but from that same damned and rotten spring that Charles Stuart, man of blood, was water and supported his wars on the people, the gentry. It was the Grandees, rich army officers, that took over parliament. Yet they still did a better job of governing then that pompous tyrant.
Did his son not return in rebellion and was defeated. Where were the people then to clamor to this king's son. Did John Penruddock not try to stir those most supposedly disillusioned with the Protectorate. Where were the people then who so loved this tyrant as you said and were so dismayed when he suffered the consequences of his actions. To claim parliament was corrupt is truth but to claim the people loved the man who stripped them of their rights, stole from their pockets and tore away from them their lands, who made war and slaughtered them by the thousands for wanting to be free men in a free nation is lunacy of an unrepentant loyalist.
Tho' parliament was no new savior, Charles Stuart, man of blood, was on the whole, a villain.
so it sounds like Charles was incapable of true leadership, short-tempered, and cruel; where as parliament was possibly a more established force looking for a power grab/leadership takeover? If so that would usher in modern era government no? @@reonicles435
Me: "Religion is going to play a role... gee how did I guess???"
Western civilisation: “Religion is going to play a role… gee how did I guess???”
@@lectorintellegatthe Middle East more like
@@JamesBaker-kv6jvThe world:
Charles the First aka Charles the Worst 😆
Malisimo
Factooooos 😂
Interesting. In America we learn very little British history in school. As I suppose you do not learn about the American Civil War.
You say you learned the Civil War, but did you knew that Russia supported the Union and send vessels to back it up?
except they didn't, those ships were just docked in California since it was a warm water port@@yanikkunitsin1466
Yes. I did learn about the American civil war at school. It wasn't that in depth if remember, but we learned about the reasons it started, and who won which battles ,and then who won. This was in the early 1980's.