What a joy to watch something almost 100% historically accurate, quoting directly from the primary sources. The truth is dramatic enough, it doesn't need embellishment
Im sorry but this is a fairly sloppy royalist BJ, Cromwell (if only for Realpolitik reasons) would have done anything other than execute the king but was really left no choice by this asshole
39:00 - He may have been a dedicated Parliamentarian, but you could tell Leckie didn’t want to be the one informing the King that he had been given his death warrant. The emotion was raw in his words as he promised not to leave Charles’ side. A small part of him still felt for the King, and he was willing to see he wasn’t alone at the last. Splendid acting. Jeremy Clyde channeled the essence and aura of Charles I brilliantly.
I've got first series on DVD but found it almost impossible abet high experience that is,to get part two of this excellent drama serial. Thanks for the person whose uploaded this.
You are so sweet I follow your comments from episode to episode. I havn't dis agreed with you yet! This is a great series. I must have missed it first time round. I feel so sorry for all of them. Great acting. Who wouldn't want to be Sir Thomas or the brave Lucinda? The actor playing the King is so good.
@@Russ442100 I'm glad you agree! There are definitely more, especially on the last episode, lol! ^_^ What can I say? It is a truly wonderful series and just pulls you in. So good.
Cromwell died of natural causes on September 3, 1658. In January 1661, his body was dug up and posthumously executed, as were Bradshaw's and Ireton's. The three were beheaded; Cromwell's head was stuck on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685, and thereafter took on a fascinating history of its own. The Royalists had their revenge.
@@alecblunden8615I don’t know. It would have been a bit more macabre if they’d gone up and down the country beheading and expropriating the property of the nobility who had fought with parliament. And that was a real threat at the time in a lot of peoples minds
@@minui8758 And not at all probably. People wanted peace, and one-way to ensure war with the overwhelmingly powerful Army, whose loyalties were still with Parliament, was to seek revenge upon those who had been their officers. Monck would have added Charles II's head to the tally in a heartbeat, rather than his own. The Regicides were all the Army would tolerate
Overall, this is very good, and a good historically accurate - interesting to see how it was in those times - including the forcing of one man to sign the death warrant, and those traitors playing around with the ink in an uncouth manner. The King was right in that he had the Divine Right, for this is expressed throughout the Bible, especially Romans Chapter Thirteen, but like most Monarchs, he did conveniently forget his side of the bargain - the duty he had to his subjects, as much as they had to him. He was in fact probably less tyrannical (if indeed he was) than old Henry the Eighth, who did not end up on the block, but is said to have put 78,000 people there in his time. Charles the First was executed on Tuesday the Thirtieth of January, 1649 (Old Style Julian Calendar), which would have been Tuesday the Ninth of February in the Gregorian Calendar used in France. For all his faults, the Roundheads had no legal nor Biblical right to rebel against the King, for this was in the very Bible that they claimed to follow. This is man doing his own thing and not trusting GOD, like all of the Revolutions that have been before and since.
I've watched a number of dramatizations of the Trial and execution of Charles I and I really think that Jeremy Clyde is the very best of a fine field, ahead of Rupert Everett, Peter Capaldi and even Alex Guinness (who was sadly hampered by a ridiculously biased screenplay in 'Cromwell').
Those who set up this nation, with the fate of Charles I in mind, were very wise. If there is no hereditary monarchy in the first place, there is no need to bitterly dispute what its powers are, and to what extent they are limited. And no need to execute a king who would never exist. (No state church, either.)
“a cruel mockery of justice” So was described the court, whose authority King Charles rightfully disputed in this brilliant moving drama. It’s fitting that as I see this great injustice unfold King Charles III has just ascended to the throne to carry on his good name.
I was struck by this question while watching this; why didn't the parliamentarians extract more rights from the King and limit his rights through an agreement the way the magnates did with King John, which brought about the Magna Carta? Could have this been a viable option for the parliamentarians at the time?
I wouldn't give a flying F- about his skin color, as long as he can act. I remember a long, long time ago some people did a six-hour long version of the Mahabharata with people from all around the world. Some of them were Indian. All were great actors. Was a good day. Most actors probably don't even want anyone to give a damn about the color of their skin; that's not their merit.
>Historical drama that goes so far as to use only actual dialogue from the trial in the scenes of the trial >No, yeah, we can have him be played by a Kenyan, no prob Come the fuck on oiSnowy. Come on man. We already had Cromwell played by an Irishman in 1970
Note: No King was ever elected at that time, it was by the right of royal blood. If the said King did not have an heir, they would have someone else close to the family with the same blood. By saying elected, does it not nullify the trial?
I get the sense this was made by more of a royalist than a parlimentarian as I would suspect Richard Harris' movie was more inclined towards. Both I think great in their own right.
It was a cruel necessity - Charles would have gone on breaking his word and inflicting more bloodshed on the land. Charles Stuart was indeed "a man of blood."
Any criminal trial, at least under the Common Law, must have the prosecution convinced of the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused. If not, there should be no charge. The debate concerned the interpretation of Romans 13. The King relied on the statement that we should all be subject to our rulers because authority was from God. Parliament relied on the original Greek language thereof which makes it clear that the authority of rulers is their (ecclesiastical) role as servants of God, and therefore subject to the divine teaching. Parliament followed- and rightly so-the opinion of Jean Calvin.
@@alecblunden8615 There was no doubt as to Charles's guilt. The doubts were about whether a King could be tried. He died a merciful death (unlike many of his former subjects).
Peter Jeffrey was born to play this role. Any good Richard Harris might have done in the world was negated by his involvement in that monstrosity of a movie - especially considering his Irish roots.
What a joy to watch something almost 100% historically accurate, quoting directly from the primary sources. The truth is dramatic enough, it doesn't need embellishment
Im sorry but this is a fairly sloppy royalist BJ, Cromwell (if only for Realpolitik reasons) would have done anything other than execute the king but was really left no choice by this asshole
Both the main cast and supporting actors knocked this out of the park!
39:00 - He may have been a dedicated Parliamentarian, but you could tell Leckie didn’t want to be the one informing the King that he had been given his death warrant. The emotion was raw in his words as he promised not to leave Charles’ side. A small part of him still felt for the King, and he was willing to see he wasn’t alone at the last. Splendid acting. Jeremy Clyde channeled the essence and aura of Charles I brilliantly.
Vastly superior production values and acting than the garbage foisted upon us now.
I've got first series on DVD but found it almost impossible abet high experience that is,to get part two of this excellent drama serial. Thanks for the person whose uploaded this.
The Anglo-Saxon monarchs were elected by the Witan, until the Norman Conquest of 1066.
Very true. And primogeniture was an entirely Norman import. Local AS lords left their estates to the child, wife, or companion they favoured
He's quite a good Charles I, isn't he?
He has the closest physical resemblance of any actor I've ever seen play him.
In truth!
@@austincottrell794 Jeremy Clyde of Clyde and Jeremy music duo.
You are so sweet I follow your comments from episode to episode. I havn't dis agreed with you yet!
This is a great series. I must have missed it first time round. I feel so sorry for all of them. Great acting. Who wouldn't want to be Sir Thomas or the brave Lucinda? The actor playing the King is so good.
@@Russ442100 I'm glad you agree! There are definitely more, especially on the last episode, lol! ^_^ What can I say? It is a truly wonderful series and just pulls you in. So good.
They got their comeuppance, hung drawn and quartered.
And he admits to it.
Cromwell died of natural causes on September 3, 1658. In January 1661, his body was dug up and posthumously executed, as were Bradshaw's and Ireton's. The three were beheaded; Cromwell's head was stuck on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685, and thereafter took on a fascinating history of its own. The Royalists had their revenge.
Rather a pathetic and macabre "revenge".
@@alecblunden8615 Well, yeah.
@@alecblunden8615I don’t know. It would have been a bit more macabre if they’d gone up and down the country beheading and expropriating the property of the nobility who had fought with parliament. And that was a real threat at the time in a lot of peoples minds
@@minui8758 And not at all probably. People wanted peace, and one-way to ensure war with the overwhelmingly powerful Army, whose loyalties were still with Parliament, was to seek revenge upon those who had been their officers. Monck would have added Charles II's head to the tally in a heartbeat, rather than his own. The Regicides were all the Army would tolerate
Fantastic episode!
Overall, this is very good, and a good historically accurate - interesting to see how it was in those times - including the forcing of one man to sign the death warrant, and those traitors playing around with the ink in an uncouth manner. The King was right in that he had the Divine Right, for this is expressed throughout the Bible, especially Romans Chapter Thirteen, but like most Monarchs, he did conveniently forget his side of the bargain - the duty he had to his subjects, as much as they had to him. He was in fact probably less tyrannical (if indeed he was) than old Henry the Eighth, who did not end up on the block, but is said to have put 78,000 people there in his time. Charles the First was executed on Tuesday the Thirtieth of January, 1649 (Old Style Julian Calendar), which would have been Tuesday the Ninth of February in the Gregorian Calendar used in France. For all his faults, the Roundheads had no legal nor Biblical right to rebel against the King, for this was in the very Bible that they claimed to follow. This is man doing his own thing and not trusting GOD, like all of the Revolutions that have been before and since.
This is such a great show!
I've watched a number of dramatizations of the Trial and execution of Charles I and I really think that Jeremy Clyde is the very best of a fine field, ahead of Rupert Everett, Peter Capaldi and even Alex Guinness (who was sadly hampered by a ridiculously biased screenplay in 'Cromwell').
35:25 one of history’s most infamous documents
Brilliant Series.
King and Martyr
Carolus Rex Martyris . . . give me a break! Drunken wencher and fool, he was lucky he kept his head as long as he did!
Those who set up this nation, with the fate of Charles I in mind, were very wise. If there is no hereditary monarchy in the first place, there is no need to bitterly dispute what its powers are, and to what extent they are limited. And no need to execute a king who would never exist. (No state church, either.)
Timothy Bentinck, who played Sir Thomas Lacey (who will get his at the end of the series), is himself a noble, related to the Queen Mother.
“a cruel mockery of justice”
So was described the court, whose authority King Charles rightfully disputed in this brilliant moving drama. It’s fitting that as I see this great injustice unfold King Charles III has just ascended to the throne to carry on his good name.
King Charles III is a puppet of the World Economic Forum who couldn't stay faithful to his wife, let alone the people of Britain.
Wasn't that why Elizabeth I didn't want to have Mary Queen of Scots killed? Because of precedent?
@@melissakrauss1266 Yes, and she stalled it as long as she could! Wisely, she used death warrants very sparingly.
I was struck by this question while watching this; why didn't the parliamentarians extract more rights from the King and limit his rights through an agreement the way the magnates did with King John, which brought about the Magna Carta? Could have this been a viable option for the parliamentarians at the time?
If thus was made today they'd cast a black actor as King Charles and have a subplot about a disabled Lesbian Eskimos turmoil in the patriarchal 1640s!
I wouldn't give a flying F- about his skin color, as long as he can act. I remember a long, long time ago some people did a six-hour long version of the Mahabharata with people from all around the world. Some of them were Indian. All were great actors. Was a good day. Most actors probably don't even want anyone to give a damn about the color of their skin; that's not their merit.
>Historical drama that goes so far as to use only actual dialogue from the trial in the scenes of the trial
>No, yeah, we can have him be played by a Kenyan, no prob
Come the fuck on oiSnowy. Come on man. We already had Cromwell played by an Irishman in 1970
And yet, ironically, 'J Read', you're the sort of person that complains when people bring 'politics' into casting. I guess you're the snowflake.
Sick of snowflakes and the people who bang on endlessly about them
Two cheeks of the same arse
A Shaka Zulu from Shanghai, and a Finnish Martin Luther King. I would look forward to it.
Note: No King was ever elected at that time, it was by the right of royal blood. If the said King did not have an heir, they would have someone else close to the family with the same blood. By saying elected, does it not nullify the trial?
Saxon king's were elected, although the Atheling had the inside running. Male primogeniture was the innovation of the Normans.
I get the sense this was made by more of a royalist than a parlimentarian as I would suspect Richard Harris' movie was more inclined towards. Both I think great in their own right.
How come the king's body has his head attached to it after he was beheaded?
This is a Kangaroo Court! All that's missing is the head monkey! (Sorry for mixing metaphors).🙄
How can that be when there was no Australia yet?
Was this trial just for show? I thought Cromwell had wanted a legal process, but he had already found him guilty even before court!
Joke of a trial
It was a cruel necessity - Charles would have gone on breaking his word and inflicting more bloodshed on the land. Charles Stuart was indeed "a man of blood."
Any criminal trial, at least under the Common Law, must have the prosecution convinced of the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused. If not, there should be no charge. The debate concerned the interpretation of Romans 13. The King relied on the statement that we should all be subject to our rulers because authority was from God. Parliament relied on the original Greek language thereof which makes it clear that the authority of rulers is their (ecclesiastical) role as servants of God, and therefore subject to the divine teaching. Parliament followed- and rightly so-the opinion of Jean Calvin.
@@alecblunden8615 There was no doubt as to Charles's guilt. The doubts were about whether a King could be tried. He died a merciful death (unlike many of his former subjects).
@@alecblunden8615 No need for jurisprudence; English treason trials only had one outcome.
I'm just sitting here thankful that we don't dress like that anymore.
As I sit here wishing we dressed like that again. The best part would be gentlemen carrying swords.
29:20
I needs done again
Having said that, this version's Cromwell is a bit daft
Richard Harris portrayed a much more sympathetic Oliver Cromwell.
Old Noll was always a strong, committed, competent and rather likeable rogue. I can think of no charge to lay against him.
Peter Jeffrey was born to play this role.
Any good Richard Harris might have done in the world was negated by his involvement in that monstrosity of a movie - especially considering his Irish roots.
Cromwell was a genocidal tyrant.
No need for royals. They should of just turfed him out not kill him