The Trial of Charles I (1649)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2020
- Join the Mailing List here: historiacivilis.com/mailinglist
Patreon | historiacivilis.com/patreon
Donate | historiacivilis.com/donate
Merch | historiacivilis.com/merch
Mailing List | historiacivilis.com/mailinglist
Twitter | historiacivilis.com/twitter
Website | historiacivilis.com
Sources:
T. B. Howell "A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783," Volume IV | bit.ly/2Q9tPOS
"The Sentence of the High Court of Justice upon the King," January 27th, 1649 | bit.ly/2rooZVC
---
Diane Purkiss, "The English Civil War: A People's History" | amzn.to/36YHkrb
Leanda de Lisle, "White King: Traitor, Murderer, Martyr" | amzn.to/2Qen9ir
Esmé Wingfield-Stratford, "King Charles the Martyr: 1643-1649" | amzn.to/36XFvLg
Allan Massie, "The Royal Stuarts: A History of the Family That Shaped Britain" | amzn.to/2SonMZz
Michael B. Young, "Charles I" | amzn.to/35Jm9t7
John MacLeod, "Dynasty: The Stuarts 1560-1807 | amzn.to/2MiJGt2
C. V. Wedgwood, "The Trial of Charles I" | amzn.to/372MDWy
Maurice Ashley, "The House of Stuart" | amzn.to/2PMvU42
Trevor Royle, "Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, 1638-1660" | amzn.to/2tKZNJP
Robert Ashton, "The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution 1603-1649" | amzn.to/36WWOMz
J. P. Kenyon, "The Civil Wars of England | amzn.to/2EIAJW3
Mark Kishlansky, "A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714 | amzn.to/371CSs0
Sean Kelsey, "Politics and Procedure in the Trial of Charles I" | www.jstor.org/stable/4141664
Clive Holmes, "The Trial and Execution of Charles I" | www.jstor.org/stable/40865689
Music:
"Heliograph," by Chris Zabriskie
"John Stockton Slow Drag," by Chris Zabriskie
"Your Mother's Daughter," by Chris Zabriskie
"Hallon," by Christian Bjoerklund
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
13:04 i see you in the dot sheev
1 week ago?
@@LittleGenevieve video was private for patreon viewers only
Sheev lives on in all of our blackened, dead, perfectly circular hearts.
*I AM THE PARLIAMENT*
Are you threatening me, Lord President?
Bradshaw: "We've tried kings before."
Charles: "Source?"
Bradshaw: "Dude trust me."
bro i swear it happened my girlfriends ex had a friend who saw it done
Charles: "Sauce?"
Every executed king was tried and found wanting.
@@henrybenson1501 " I Can't Believe The Criminal I'm Trying Is Actually The King"
Bradshaw might have been attempting to allude to either the Barons listing royal faults with John in Magna Carta. If so he would also have known how worthless Magna Carta had turned out to be during the remaining years of John's reign. Or he may have been referring to the Lords Appellant trying to curb the tyrannical rule of Richard II. Either way it was too off the cuff and not thought out.
“The court was in chaos”
Everybody: *spins aggressively*
Lmao 😂
*spins aggressively while T-posing*
You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round right round
SPEEEEEN
Yeah I kinda do that when I am in chaos.
Charles I: "That's a nice argument, Lord President. Why don't you try backing it up with a source?"
Bradshaw: "My source is that I made it the fuck up."
Source? Dude just trust me.
*Repels illegal argument
"How are you doing that?"
"DIVINE RIGHT SON"
"The most interesting thing about King Charles I was that he was 5'6 tall at the start of his reign but only 4'8 at the end of it."
*Chopin intensifies*
4'8"? I'm not sure about that.....
I'd say he's more like 8".
At the end of his reign he couldn't even eat or hear or see
Wasn't he deposed before the trial?
A true ‘short’ king
The fact that I was on the edge of my seat for something that happened 400 years ago is exciting
CJ Ezinne wait till you see what Oliver Cromwell does next.
Kevin Baer I’m trusting you!!! I’m not even going to research anything until the video comes out!
Same with the last video with Caesar-video. I thought he was gonna make it till the very end.
CJ Ezinne definitely. I like how historia mostly plays fair with the different parties in his videos instead of supplanting modern morals in a context where it doesn’t belong. For example, he doesn’t make a snide comment that the House of Commons were righteous in their acts due to our developed ideas of populism, but at the same time doesn’t completely write them off either.
@@thebashar And what King Charles's son does when he returns to England after ten years in exile.
It's a shame Shakespeare wasn't alive to see this, because this would've made a great play.
I have returned!
Shakespeare wasn't alive to see any of the stuff he made plays about haha
VineFynn yeah, but this happened after he died.
Jonathan Williams There were Puritans in Shakespeares time, he even wrote a poem making fun of them, I believe.
there is Cromwell 1970
The first true Sovereign Citizen.
"On what legal authority is this trial being held!?"
Dang it. You beat me to it! Bravo!!! Well, at least Chuck didn't quote from Black's Law Dictionary. LOLOLOL!
The problem is he was right. The trial was illegal
In this case, just a Sovereign
@@TheIbney00 The trial was illegal because it did not have the consent of the king.
The trial was about the conduct of the king.
You see the issue here?
Sure, it wasn’t legal, but it *was* justice, whatever Cromwell ended up doing.
@@StormShadowHarris What Cromwell did was not justice. Cromwell was a tyrant who took a problem and made it a crisis at every step of the way.
There is no justice without a rule of law. The King should have been forced into abdication, and a constitutional monarchy established. Instead, they paraded themselves as if they were acting in the confines of the law, when the real problem was the law was wrong. This caused the problem itself.
If you are going to hold yourself to the law, or at least say you are holding yourself to the law, don't act surprised when people get mad that you are just paying lip service.
Charles made a huge tactical error from the outset. He was trying to leverage the wrath of his loyalists against the ambitions of his captors, figuring that they couldn't just kill him off without risking more war. But he seemed to lose sight of what that leverage was worth: a seat in negotiations. By stonewalling them, he threw away the only card he had.
Yes, but King Charles made an even bigger blunder before that; Starting a Civil War
I watched a video yesterday where a scholar said that parliament executed him for his massive spending on the arts, leaving out the writs of attained &c.
He was executed because he didn't get it. Or maybe he did- it's all made up, so the moment he stops believing his whole extended family is at risk because they're largely royal parasites
Don't forget about his biggest blunder: losing a civil war
@@chinggiskhan6678 You mean starting a second civil war after already losing one. And that's after a whole lot of other things, big and small, he could have done differently to avoid this outcome. The guy was seriously asking for it by this point.
@@shiroamakusa8075Honestly he was lucky the userper sucked at his role of 'protector of the realm' cause the people wanted Charles II back
"How do you plead, sir?"
"I AM THE SENATE!"
Chicken breasts!
UNLIMITED POWER!
Not yet
They ask how do you please, he asks how do you charge me?
Well yeah, basically. He had the house of lords, which is sorta vaguely like the senate of the US, on his side.
Charles: "By who's authority!"
Bradshaw: "He can't do that! Shoot him!... or something!"
TheSquidPro House of Commons: my authority
Lol
TheSquidPro what’s that from?
Harry Paul it’s a prequel meme
By the authority of Cromwell's control of the soldiers standing behind the king.
After Charles' death, the monarchy was abolished, and Britain became a republic.
Within a few years, Cromwell had transformed it into a military dictatorship.
Just putting that out there.
Rise up! lets fight for the good'ol cause!
(The one of the republic, not the dictatorship, btw))
@@neame-bh3uq I had no idea they existed. There was rumours that the current Queen of England was made illegitimate through Edward IV either being conceived whilst his father was on campaign or his heir being conceived under the same situation, I forget which. Basically it would mean some random Austrailian would be entitled to the title of the King of England if it wasn't for the technicality that England no longer existed after 1707.
Also no Catholic may sit upon the throne since they must also act as the head of the church of england.
@@Jack-uy7ie James II was a catholic while also being in charge of the Church of England
@@sithersproductions He converted in 1688/89 after his exile.
@@Jack-uy7ie after the Tutor line everyone was rushing to ‘fabricate claim’ each turn
I love how in almost all the major trails of a monarch the monarch just ran circles around the people trying to convict him. Charles, Louis etc
That's because most legal codes were set up to defend the old hierarchy of power first and foremost. Fighting back against a tyrant or incompetent despot was often the most severe crime in the books because those same tyrants were the ones writing them.
@@t3hmaniac no the rules were written by the competent forfathers, a truly incompetent ruler would not know how to take advantage of the power
@@t3hmaniac exactly. The laws were completely bias and therefore void. Why the hell should people follow a law that allows evil or tyranny?! Doing the right thing isnt always the legal thing
If all previous established laws were rooted in a philosophical and legal doctrine that was completely biased in my favor and made me legally immune from being charged of any crime I could run circles around anyone trying to convict me too.
@@crazyciler50 lmao no they weren't they were clearly written to protect the powerful. "competent forfathers" are not a thing. Why do you feel the need to defend horribly oppressive feudal structures my dude?
"If I would die for it, I must do it!"
Cromwell: "Say no more fam, I got u."
John Downes was actually later charged with regicide after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. But he was not executed because of this speech and the fact Cromwell bullied him into signing the death warrant. He died 6 years later in prison
Joe Firth Rip
@@joefirth4148 How big of a chance that Cromwell and his buddies were Jesuits and Charles said something against their master the roman pope?
I mean those Devils already tried blowing up King James and his entire parliament but failed and now portray Fawkes in modern zion-media as a Hero who failed
@@AbuHajarAlBugatti Cromwell was a puritant Calvinist.
@@AbuHajarAlBugatti Dafuq, Cromwell a Jesuit? This is some flat-earth, anti-vaccine nonsense right here.
I'd like to believe that "chaos erupting in the court" as depicted, literal spinning in place by all that attended.
the world may never know, thus it can't be proven wrong.
everybody gangsta until the squares start spinning
I actually laughed out loud a lot at just imagining this.
*Paul Keefer Blayblade Blayblade let it rip*
Paul Keefer and there a posing while doing so.
"Well Sir, God has justice in store for you and me" is such an icecold line
It’s amazing how English political judges can make a tyrannical king seem like the good guy.
Yeah like Charles I may have been a dickweed, but that trial was pretty bullshit lmao
He wasn’t actually that tyrannical as the whigs made him out to be just a little aggressive
@@luisandrade2254 Agressively tyrannical yes. Tyrannical by the standards of other nation's Monarchs of the time? Only somewhat.
@@RKNGL he wasn’t aggressively tyrannical lol he was just a little bit more assertive then his predecessors
Ĺp
Charles: You're completely illegitimate.
The court: no u!!!
no YOU ARE!
No, thou art!
@@Larencia91 Ney, yee!
Lauri Pajunen now I realize art was the ancient form of are.
Uno origins.
where is the part when Cicero opposed because he thought killing a monarch was too destabilizing?
Dude poor Cicero just wanted his oligarchy back...
and he was right too
Cicero was the greatest of his generation
@@rupdesnoop except for Caesar, Antony, cleopatra, and Cleo's pet snake Terry.
Awesome Wells - no mention of Cato?
Charles I: "I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed flag. The flag with gilded edges is the flag of an Admiralty Court. An Admiralty Court signifies a Naval court martial. I cannot be court martialed twice. That is all! Furthermore!"
Pocket sand! Shshsha!
There’s an error. Usually when somebody in England was executed, the executioner took his head and said “here is the head of traitor”. But in the case of King Charles I the head was just shown to the people but the executioner didn’t say that sentence.
Did he forget? 😆
@@louisrelf5903 No. He knew he was killing a King....not too much people can say that.
So he wanted to have a bit a respect because of his royal position I suppose
@@carlosgarciaherrero1971 Ah, right - sorry for being glib, I just thought it would be funny he’d had a mind blank and forgot to say the line.
Mary Queen of Scots was tried and charged for treason and lost her head.
One man tried it but the crowd yelled back "no it's not. It's a huge pumpkin with a pathetic moustache drawn on it". Blackadder the Cavalier Years
"making it up as you go along."
the slogan of british politics since times immemorial
Common Law... Making it up as you go along.
@@garretphegley8796 The Romans had the same idea law wise too. That's what precedents are for after all.
Insert your brexit joke here
ALL politics is making it up as you go. Not just British
Klaus Gartenstiel That's the beauty if it. After all, how else would you do it?
Charles I (1649), when speaking to Bradshaw:
"You block,
you stone,
you worse than senseless thing"
No. 3 Is that Shakespeare?
@@PeterLambert2211 Shakespeare died some decades before the Civil War, so probably not
@@EdricoftheWeald Huh, didn't realize that people stopped quoting Shakespeare after his death.
It is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar! Act 1 scene 1
How rude! Callin' ppl blocks. ;x
@@Pensive_Scarlet Yeah! That's HC's job!
William the Conqueror, Henry VII, and Rober the Bruce became King through combat, and Charles I LOST on the field of battle. I am shocked they did not use the argument that God decided that Charles should not be King on the field of battle.
You're thinking of the Mandate of Heaven, which is a very East-Asian-flavored philosophical concept for a reason. It was not at all popular in Europe.
@@jerrycan1756 In the West it was believed that God decided who would win and lose battles. They also had trial by combat.
Popular sovereignty litreally did not accept the idea that god chose the kings, meaning that that argument would be completely hypocritical
That would have conformed the divine right of kings doctrine which the Protestant radical whigs absolutely despised
@@kraigthorne3549 only in the Middle Ages by the mid 17 century the concept was long gone
I think Bradshaw was referring to the trial of lady Jane Grey who was executed after serving as the queen of England for nine days. She wasn't however a reigning monarch when the trial was held.
Maybe that’s what he meant but I don’t think using her as precedent would have helped. Lady Jane Grey was executed on charges of usurping the throne, so claiming her as an example of a monarch put on trial would be retroactively exonerating her. Either she was never a Queen which makes her irrelevant, or she was the rightful Queen who was illegally put to death, which would be the last thing you’d want to associate your kangaroo court with
Meanwhile in Kingdome of France: HonHonHon Silly English! This could never happen to our Kings!
*140 years later* Sacre Bleu!
I give the French style points, though. When they decided to commit, they REALLY decided to commit.
They were to busy eating cake.
They let England do the practice run, work out some bugs.
Curiously enough, the French did what Charles asked: King Louis’ trial was done by the French Parliament
The whole parliament had 507 members at this time. After Pride's Purge in 1648, 200 of these continued to serve. Only 29 MPs voted to established the High Court of Justice that tried Charles I.
The Rump Parliament was aptly named
This kind of bullshit is now law. The British Parliament only needs a quorum of three to operate; the Speaker, his assistant, and another MP.
This is what goes on when you castrate your monarchy
Wait what? Only 3???? That’s fucking ridiculous
@@zekedia2223 sure is, but any limit to Parliament's ability to fuck up Britain with very little effort will be called dictatorial
@@vulpes7079I am totally surprised that the UK managed to fuck up their country less than the U.S. I mean, technically, the US actually have greater restrictions on politicians, but it's so screwed up over there that one president can be almost powerless and another can easily rewrite America to his liking, AND while having no knowledge of legal or parliamentary processes whatsoever. Really!
Of course, when the son, Charles II came into power, he would have revenge on all those who signed his father's death warrant.
Spiking Cromwell's head on a pike on the middle of parliament was a Chad move
@@riograndedosulball248 Nothing more Chad than barbarity...?
@@Edit-nk6nb you’ll find that most of human history is barbarity hidden beneath a civilized suit.
@@joshua12188 I don't remember the quote very well but "There is not a record of History that is not also a record of Barbarism" something to that effect basically.
Edit: Here's the actual quote “There is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” - Walter Benjamin
@@Edit-nk6nb Barbarity for barbarians
Basically a question of:”who’s in charge?” “Who owns what?”
Under what authority?
Well, the authority of we have a bigger army than you do, of course.
Bigger army authory. Add that to GCP Grey's bigger army diplomacy and faster army diplomacy
The only authority that counts.
"Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived."
They didn't have secular authority, because the house of lords and king refused it. They didn't have spiritual authority, because the king was head of the church of England. The correct answer was to bribe the house of nobles into helping them, or purging the king and any royalists in one go. The trial was a mistake, because the state was designed to give the monarch unassailable authority.
Why do you keep citing laws when I have a sword at my side? (Pompey)
I still miss the red square 😭 RIP Caesar
Look how they massacred our boy!
There is another
stfu Marc Antony
Somebody get Octavian on the phone it’s his turn to be our red square
Totally.
It's honestly amazing to see just how unfair Charles' trial was
And in the end Cromwell didn’t even win. Within seven years, the monarchy is back and everyone that sides with Cromwell at that trial is executed for treason. Cromwells government couldn’t even keep it together. Charles was right in that a third civil war broke out. Parliament kept collapsing and Cromwell could only maintain power through a constant military presence
Consider it payback for when Charles tortured nobels into loaning him money when he couldn’t get Parliament approve more/higher taxes.
@@phdtobe And the parliament was using bills of attainder to kill the kings allies and were trying to gain authority over foreign policy(which was the domain of the king before). Both were trying to expand their rule and powers.
@@welch_inc6532 In the end, Cromwell did win. The Monarchy in England is a broken shadow of its former self; just a circus of people pretending to have power and privilege.
Who gives a shit, if it was the King, there will be no trials.
“Wait, that’s illegal...”
-King Charles I (1600-1649)
in a nutshell
Seems like it would've been easier, if not "more legit," to depose Charlie as king first, and _then_ charge him, as a non-monarch, with crimes.
I think that Cromwell really wanted to set a precedent of the power of Parlament over the Power of a King.
They might not have been able to see it that way. The framing in which their reality was probably didn't allow for that.
@@saulolima4652
... a BLOODY precedent
...
i think that’d been even harder. if they failed they’d basically die. if they succeeded he could still kill them before they get the chance.
@@hihi-nm3uy What do you mean? The parliament already won the war. They should of made him abdicate before putting him on trial.
Ah yes. Another episode of "Political history squares".
I can barely cope with having to wait for more.
A sovereign and his head are clean different things
- the executioner probably
Normie
This sentence literally doesn’t make sense
It really says something that the whole civil war was started over the king trying to dismiss the parliament and by the end of it Cromwell pretty much did the same.
??? Cromwell was parliament?
@@SEVEN-gy3ub Then he found them to be almost as bad as the deposed king and took power for himself by dissolving Parliament.
@@chessmaster704 No, King Charles l was scandalous. Over taxing people, turning Catholic, disbanding Parliament and the BS about "The Divine Rights of Kings" which put him above God so he could do no wrong. Then the English wars broke out and Cromwell rose to the top of the military and defeated the Kings Royalists. Then the Irish Catholics started acting up and while Cromwell was away dealing with them Parliament started disagreeing with each other so he disbanded them. A new parliament was agreed upon which Cromwell turned down an offered seat on then that Parliament was voted to be resolved and a new one was formed. That parliament offered Cromwell the crown but he refused it in favor of a Commonwealth Govt with more power to the people with him as Lord Protector. After his death his son proved not to be a leader so the scared minions of England and Scotland wanted the Kings son to resume the Monarchy.
@@SEVEN-gy3ubCromwell, while he was lord protect dissolved 3 different parliament because they were not doing as he wanted; kind of like how the king tried to dissolve parliament when they wouldn’t do as he wanted.
@@325sleeper Big difference though. Cromwell always came up with another one but the king just ran without one.
so what is concluded that the only real authority is the one with the most weapons and the biggest army
gabriel aponte partly, but also that the power of the governing is derived by the consent of the governed.
Robert Aylor you remember the part where they didnt have half of the people they had convinced to actually show up right? They had to intimidate the rest into signing
That's right kids! So remember, always pay your soldiers, and never hire mercenaries. Just like old Machiavelli said.
I think there is an element of modernity here that kind of complicates the idea that it's just, "who has the most guns" and that is the very fact that someone like charles I could be brought into a courtroom and tried like any other person. the idea that authority could be unseated... i mean dang that's like.. we don't even do that today, we let rich fuckers fuck us every day and we consider it fair lol
@@derrydrendell307 no one considers it fair. Left wing nutjobs banned guns for ""your safety"" and now rich corporate oligarchs act with impunity over the slaves. Theyre not going to arrest themselves and the disarmed populace physically cant.
You ever see 2 people on twitter arguing but they're both wrong? That's what this feels like to me.
The king had a better argument
Tony Fontaine but he’s also a literal mass murderer
Mustache You A Question killing traitors isn’t murder
@@czechmeoutbabe1997 one man's mass murderer is another mans hero.
@@TonyFontaine1988 You could argue that any king that had to kill his own subjects has failed at being a monarch. Also, is anyone really rooting for the king killing scores of peasants here? Jesus 2020 is bleak
I have learned more about British and Roman history today than I have in the previous 76 years, thank you.
Bradshaw: How do you plead to these charges?
Charles: I’m boutta end this man’s whole career...
Normie
Bradshaw sounds like an incompetent from how he handled this whole thing. They seriously couldn't find anyone who was better suited to handle this situation?
Go watch the previous video. They LITERALLY couldn't find anyone else willing to put the king on trial.
@@andrewsuryali8540 Putting the village idiot out there to get your arguments destroyed seems worse than just not having a trial.
@@jayteegamble John Bradshaw wasn't the village idiot. I think you're missing the point that ALL his arguments were correct in the long run and we now believe the same things he did BECAUSE he had the gall to say them out loud and set the precedent. The problem was that the rest of his peers were still behind the times and many actually believed in the sanctity of the king. They were stuck in the utterly ridiculous legal loop of all laws having to come from the king, which has absolutely no basis in reality. Bradshaw sounded like an incompetent because the context of what he was saying was so far ahead of everyone else that they couldn't wrap their heads around it. THEY were the idiots, not him. It was as if they'd dropped Einstein into Isaac Newton's Cambridge.
Or do you actually believe all laws descend from the will of the king and not the people?
When I was referring to Bradshaw as an incompetent, I was referring to his behavior during the trial, where he seemed to very easily lose his cool and devolve to just shouting. Some of the arguments he tried to use were admittedly not helping his case at all, but they could at least have gotten someone (if at all possible, given the issues surrounding the trial) who at least wasn't so quick to anger.
@Jimmy De'Souza Hate to break it to you but pretty much every king ultimately gained power by having a bigger stick
Charles: "A subject and a sovereign are clean, different things."
Cromwell: "Your head and your body are clean, different things."
Charles, was a low grifter.
@Creator De Coatrack Thank you... i can sleep now
@Creator De Coatrack
Which was a pointless, symbolic act. Cromwell killed a tyrant. Charles II displayed a rotting corpse.
@@IPlayWithFire135 Cormwell was more of tyrant than Charles I.
@@htoodoh5770 lmao no, that's patently ridiculous. Cromwell did some fucked up shit but he couldn't possibly match the sheer scale of tyranny of the king.
"next thing you will say is 'by what authority and commission do you try me?'"
-Oliver Joestar
Please do more like this. I was on the edge of my seat, you can't make better drama.
King Charles would have made a great lawyer even today.
Lol
Lol
It was literally illegal to convict him of any crime and he still lost.
@@kylenetherwood8734 he was always going to lose though. Parliament was never going to let him go
@@kylenetherwood8734 It helps the people there really wanted him dead and had already committed treason anyways.
It's kind of scary how more often than not in history, such seminal turns of events were contrived by a group of merely some hundred-odd people.
It is, but there are often more widespread cultural and economic factors at play that crystalise in one group if you will allow the metaphor
And often with no legal backing to their movement. It's just a bunch of dudes with ideas that spread and undermine grand institutions.
How was this comment written "1 week ago"?
@@y.r._ that's a good question...
@@y.r._ Many youtubers release their videos early on patreon.
You have a unique ability to tell these stories and make them incredibly interesting. I just wish I could listen to more of your videos.
As someone who doesn't know much about this period, I am amazed by how intelligent Charles was. The speed of his wit is quite incredibly.
In most cases kings are quite far from the fat, almost or even obese, dumb, indulgent, ignorant and irreverent image they have lately been portrayed as on books and movies alike.
Watching this as an outsider the court looks like real tyrants and not Charles
He mostly got lucky that the people around him weren't very in the end he may have acted to smart he was responsible for his own death
@@mlgcactus1035 Yeah, that'll happen when you only see the aftermath of people trying to grapple with using law to convict a man from whom their authority had traditionally been derived. They had two civil wars over the fact that Charles was a tyrannical dictator who murdered his subjects like it was going out of style, and the court telling him to shut the fuck up and stop trying to be cute was the least problematic part of the whole ordeal.
@@TheSeptet He was a monarch that killed those who wanted to take weaken the monarchy and take away from his divinely granted authority; an authority believed by the people of England for centuries. Now, a tyrannical dictator who murdered his subjects like it was going out of style... that one sounds familiar.
damn, Historia Civilis is still giving me chills after all these years. Wish i could buy you a beer mate
uh can you buy me one?
Bogdan donate to his patreon 😄
King Charles was the world's first sovereign citizen
Holy shit.
I mean technically...
No that would be the first king
@@JBlackjackp Guess it's Alulim then, the first guy mentioned in Sumerian Kings List. If he existed at least, then the earliest ruler we know about concretely is En-me-barage-si.
So I guess he was right that no one would be safe if he was convicted.
Charles wasn't "tactically dim". His only hope of being spared the headsman's axe was convincing people that the court wasn't legitimate and he was a man of the people. If he had simply gone along with things he definitely wouldn't have succeeded.
I mean though the common feeling wasn’t execution at first. The tribune was only pushed to kill Charles after his constant flip flopping and attempting to power-grab (Parliament and the new model army has like attempted to deal with him 4 times now and twice he has said “sure” turned around and begun civil war.) and yet even going into the trial, they just wanted to depose him and put his son on the throne. Charles Stubborn Buttheadness is what got him killed, it convinced his enemies he would never give up, even when he had lost a war, lost his authority, lost his crown and was literally in chains, he would never give up.
The way this guy performs statements is just primo. Really keeps you engaged
The thing I hate about your videos
is that there aren't enough of them
I swear last time i watched one of this dudes videos he had like 100k subscribers
Wholesome.
Civilis has a bit of a racket going on; he has 1,438 patrons, so to use $4-5/month as an average, which often seems to be the case with patreon, he's making roughly $69-86k/year before any youtube ad money comes into the conversation, as well as paypal donations, merchandise etc. Any other history channel pumps out multiple videos a month, even BazBattles does 2/month now, but Civilis will leave a month, even two month long gaps between videos, basically hosing up all of your money whilst giving you little to no content. I mean hell, Kings and Generals, by far the best history channel in terms of quality and quantity, has half as many patrons and releases two videos PER WEEK. That's value for money. But they work for it and have a team to share the spoils, where Civilis assumedly leaves the work for himself (but it still shouldn't take nearly as long as he does, particularly when he's getting paid such a huge amount that he can do this full-time). His Caesar and Alexander vids were cool, I appreciate his work, but getting paid by patrons in a month where he releases NOTHING? That's a con.
@@ChrisDynamo Civilis videos have much more debth to them than any kings and generals or bazbattles can ever achieve. Even if they have better art and animations the sheer informational content is not even close. For the amount of content i enjoy every video and it is more memorable than pumping generic ones 2x a week. Ofc id like more content but its worth it to wait for the quality in my opinion.
@ChrisDynamo You are quite a bit off base. His Patreon is set up to be "Per Video" not "Per Month". So months when he doesn't make a video he doesn't receive any money.
As great as the whole video was, I enjoyed the 'poke with stick' sequence way more than I should have.
by far the most important part of the whole trial. This is what sealed charles' fate.
Bradshaw seems to have been very incompetent from the way you've painted him (you would have wanted a political & legal genius in that position); but Charles I seems to have been even more incompetent (in a way), being so blinded by his own claim to sovereignty that he utterly failed to consider the reality of the situation he was facing.
@Micheal Zambos Clearly he shouldve developed communism in the spot. This is some "if youre homeless just buy a home" tier shit.
Bradshaw was the only person that would do it. Even then had to be convinced. Everyone else was afraid of the consequences. Which they were right. Everyone that signed the death sentenced we’re executed when Charles II took the throne. Even those that had already died
Charles wished to make himself a martyr. He had many ways out. He saw the only way to uphold his claim of sovereignty is by being martyred for it.
This pretty much sums up Charles entire reign. “I’m god why are you questioning me?”
@@ImperialGuardsman74 Just like how the death of Caesar ruined the Roman Republic, the death of Charles I ruined the chance for Britain to transform itself to be a republic until very recent years....
This particular video is so well written that I come back and watch it again and again even though it's more or less memorized at this point. You got a gift in bringing this kind of stuff to life friend
*Court approaching boiling point*
Lady Fairfax: Lemme heat things up even more 😁
She was a real mad lass. :D
I'm surprised she kept managing to get in there.
House of Commons/New Model Army officers: If Lady Fairfax gets too vocal, we can bar her from attending the proceedings. I mean, we all know what she looks like, we can pick her out in a crowd.
Disguised Lady Fairfax: OlIvEr CrOmWeLl Is A tRaItOr!
The funny thing is she heckled the court for Shits and Giggles. Her Husband was the Commander and Chief of the New Model Army she Proabably new Oliver Cromwell well, if he was traitor, her husband was a traitor, and everyone who fought for him was a traitor. Savage
spoilers:
it was someone else wearing a face mask pretending to be Fairfax
This is soo good! Your videos are what the internet is all about. I don't normally find history all that interesting but I find your videos captivating! Thank you!
A superb piece of work. Thank you, this was most interesting.
Charles: you have no authority here, you can't Judge me!
High Court: how bout i do anyway
lmao
"only god can judge me"
court: "would you like to see him in person?"
Bill...
Charles I :"who gave you the authority to judge a King?!"
The House of Commons:" WE gave us the authorithy!!"
Charles I:"Wait...That's illegal!"
And we did it by having the majority of parliament, who voted against us, arrested by armed men (Pride's Purge)
@@jayteegamble and ignoring the house of Lords, don't forget that
Same thing literally still happens today
Amazingly streamlined and efficient story telling man. Really enjoying the vids 🎉
Amazing job here and fascinating to watch.
This is a seminal moment in British history and this brings it home.
"When the President does it, it's not a crime." R. Nixon.
*Compelled to resign the next day*
@majooismajor Well rather or not he committed a crime was on the table and it shows bias seeing as the PROSECUTION was divided on party lines with a small minority actually being against it.
@majooismajor Rule by the majority is tyranny as it oppresses the minority
@majooismajor Lord Fairfax here reminds me of those Republicans, indeed, Fairfax was worse for playing both sides and not committing to the cause in the end.
@majooismajor The trial was fueled by political bias if he was found guilty of those crimes the office of president would be a joke and America would seem weak internationally. Sometimes what's best for the nation isn't what's in your personal interest. Both parties should be branded as terrorist organizations as both cause extremism.
28:36 This seems to imply that John Downes was killed or something ominous. This is not the case, he lived and later was found guilty of regicide, but since he spoke up and claimed he was pressured into signing the death warrant he was only incarcerated for life (as opposed to gruesomely executed as were many of the other regicides).
that's sounds worse than execution, I'd rather die right away than spend the rest of my life in a 17th century prison
Yep he’s my ancestor. My uncle still has letters he sent his wife when he was in the tower. He crumpled under cromwells pressure something he regretted for the rest of his life
In the court case after the restoration he was the only penitent regicide. Sad story really. Like many moderates he was terrified of Cromwell
Death sentence was to be hung drawn and quartered. Check that out. Life in prison ain't no thang in comparison.
@@j0nnyism Very cool that you have those letters.
I found this exciting and quite relevant, thank you for all of the history you have taught me.
I'm so glad this video exists.
I need sources for an essay on the trial of Charles I
I live on the Isle of Wight and work (volunteer) at Carisbrooke Castle where he was imprisoned while awaiting his execution. Though initially it was more like house arrest as he had his own little manner, he tried to escape a few times with one attempt ending with him getting stuck trying to climb out of his own bedroom window., it is fascinating being in Charles' bedroom, seeing some of his clothes and other belongings which are on display. His room and the main building within the castle walls is now a museum.
Wow now I want to visit carisbrooke castle
You wouldn't have thought one of the most important trials ever was such a mess.
Which important historical trial isn't a giant mess?
fair, while i am just getting into history, that's mostly because it's one massive comedy act.
honestly I just assume any of the "most important whatever" to be a mess. if it had an established order to it then it probably wasnt the "most important" and if was the "most important" it had probably never happened before and so everyone was making it up as they went
Brilliant video! I love the incorporation of historian views of the topic!
You tell your story well, and you are a fine historian. So glad I found this channel, well worth subscribing to. Tip O' the Hat to you, Mr. Civilis.
The court: says something
The king: aM I bEiNg dEtAiNed
Are king's sovereign citizens?
I mean they are literally sovereigns.
@@XavianBrightly Interestingly enough, they weren't considered citizens, since that was reserved for the subjects of the state.
They don't even need passports! That's how sovereign they are
Indeed but the focus in the term "sovereign citizen" is on sovereign. As in recognizing no higher power.
charles: are you threatening me general bradshaw?
bradshaw: the government will decide your fate
charles: I am the government
Sadly real life has a different ending.
Well, he lost his civil war, Palpatine won his. And good riddance, one less monarch!
@@Jake007123 yeah I was gonna say, the radicals may have been acting arguably illegally, but it was against a tyrant
@@zapdragon23 Acting illegally against inmoral laws is irrelevant. After all, we don't even mention how illegal was the act of saving people from concentration camps in nazi Germany, for example.
@@Jake007123 exactly, yeah sure he was the king, but he was a terrible king who had advanced his own interests over those of his people
Charles certainly deserved this but man that was total kangaroo court. I agree with Charles' argument
I only agree on the basis of English law at the time of course. Bradshaw was up against a wall of bullshit rules and, instead of working around it, kinda just ran into it until it collapsed.
@ConservativesAreTrash I agree with you
@ConservativesAreTrash
What a based name.
He didn’t he was a martyr but ultimately a vindicated one
@@luisandrade2254 Martyr for what lmao
Can't believe the details of the situation it felt like I was there. Although the graphics is just cube. Good work bro.
Charles: I am your king!
Bradshaw: Well I didn't vote for you!
Charles: You don't vote for kings!
Bradshaw: Well how'd you become king then?
Chales: by divine right!
Cue in Monthy Python scene.
In some places, you do vote for kings (if you're among the select few that elect the king).
@@seneca983 Not back in those days.
How about: "From the authority of God himself who showed his will by turning His face against you and made us win the war." Still better argument then what they said.
i mean i get what you mean and i see a lot of what people are saying here but you do not want to claim divine legitimacy against the monarch who is part of a group who has done so for 1000 years, especially since he could then just easily dismiss legal authority
@@almondandfriends Yeah! So what about argumentation from the Bible? For example, God favoured Jeroboam and not Salomon's son Rachab and Joshua instead of Moses's son Gershom and last but not least David instead of Saul's sons. The whole concept of hereditary monarchy is wrong and it was time to get rid of it. Next, English history, they could have mentioned king's attraction to Catholicism on the example of Mary Stuart or they could have even used Richard III or rather Richard II as the example that "bad monarch" can be removed. Lots of possible arguments.
That would have been more effective I think. Also divine right wasn't really that big... Kings were representative of God's authority but were by no means seen as intrinsically holy in the west. However destroying the credibility of the head of the Church or England to show his moral corruption probably would have let them easily segue into his corruption as king. I doubt they would have had any greater authority by law but might have prevented the Stuart Restoration and the Glorious Revolution after it.
@@beanacomputer honestly i have to say i definitely disagree. The position of religion was not only strong on both sides of the conflict (hell it would prompt a genocide in ireland by that most noble of Republicans the despicable Oliver Cromwell) The fact was the Republicans didnt have a legal justification, they couldnt have one, their best argument was that the king betrayed the people of England therefore betraying the nation but in towing that line they would have had to accept a monarchist revival and still wouldnt be legally just.
A result of the civil war was that the Republicans would have to admit to everyone and themselves they had no legal authority here. This would eventually be what led them into their new even more brutal dictatorship and the restoration of the monarchy. A claim of divine authority proven by combat would have absolutely useless to them because it would not have changed anyones mind, the religious followers of Louis would have seen this as the exact opposite of what it should be, Gods divine representative thrown out illegally, those who already supported the Republicans already believed in their own authority. The people on the fence would have been just as prone to skepticism either way.
Was trial by repeated mass combat a thing in the 17th century?
Something that I think wasn't covered in part 1 is that the civil war was a two-act affair (three if you count the rising in Worcester helmed by Charles II and the invasion of Ireland by Cromwell). Around 1645 the royalists had lost and a peace treaty was being brokered. Charles proved himself to be fundamentally untrustworthy. He would secretly make deals with absolutely anyone and promise whatever they wanted if he thought it would further his cause The parliamentarians weren't perfect but they at least tried to negotiate and present terms. Charles made it clear that he didn't care what they said or if they won, he'd never accept anything they put in front of him. So many were furious for him prolonging a war that had already dragged on for a long time and cost a lot of lives.
I love you bro. Thanks for everything. ❤
I love your simple but incredibly clever videos! You’ve been a huge inspiration to me as I build my own history channel. Thank you!
Jesus Christ! How many history channels are floating around on TH-cam now?! :O
@@mikespearwood3914 A lot of history out there...
@@kesorangutan6170 Yes, I like it too. Just surprised that the last year or two, a phenomenal amount of history channels have suddenly appeared.
@@AdamDunebugDunas True!
@@mikespearwood3914 Well there's still not enough to compensate for the metric crapton of beauty influencers out there so... 😉
Holy crap. How did any of this happen? tensions must've been so freaking high that even after fighting a civil war against the king some wanted to speak in defense of the king.
Well there was a loyalist class almost, people who viewed their path to success in life as serving the throne in precisely times like this. Its a gambit. If the throne is under threar and you speak up in defense of it, if it is reinstated you may well be rewarded.
Also notable that a lot of the loyalists were people who had supported, but not fought on, the King's side of the civil war, and managed to remain in their positons and residencies. For them the idea of a King being tried was almost laughable and thus they were confident in their vocal support.
@Maintenance Renegade Lol well said.
Either his servant cost new banquets, or he was sleeping with a sheep?
Many believed the House of Stuart would win in the long-term and they were screwed if they tried to convict the King. They were proven right not long after Cromwell died and Charles II took power.
Let's not forget that up until that year, kings were the status quo for thousands of years, a king ruling england was as certain as us breathing air. Keep in mind that the trial was nothing more than a show and the judges/jury were handpicked independents, with some moderates in there to give them the guise of legitimacy. I believe they were more concerned with trialing the king fairly, with a smarter judge, and avoiding a royalist uprising much more than looking for rewards in case the king got reinstated.
Kudos to you. Great video and well articulated. The best thing is that you are one of the few TH-camrs that knows how to include mid roll ads at natural break points without making them spam like others.
Marvellously written and told. Very entertaining and informative.
We're going to overthrow the king! Oh great...we happen to be going against the one King of England who actually understands the judicial system and has a brain. This would be so much easier if it was George III...
Every time he speaks, he demolishes our legal arguments! Oh, right. All we need to do is keep interrupting him every time he says something.
George III was a very intelligent man who happened to have a terrible illness that affects many people around the world today (only its much easier to control today). Thomas Jefferson wasn’t god, his judgement of George III isn’t automatically right. I don’t know why George III gets such a hard time. Now Henry VIII I understand....
@Megan Thomas Henry VIII lol, what a nutcase
@@meganthomas4768 Henry VIII was fiercely intelligent lol. I agree with your assessment of George III but then you had to toss in another popular myth.
@@fryliver4953 Anyone able to hold authority and form a coherent sentence is more intelligent than most of the population
So basically the court continually demanded that King Charles *RESPECT MY AUTHORITY.*
Bradshaw should have made the argument that the Court's authority had been established by the outcome of the war, just as kings of the past, including ancestors of Charles I, had in exceptional circumstances established their own authority by force of arms, even usurping anointed kings. In this case, however, it was not yet decided whether the present king would be retained, a new king installed, or a new system of government instituted. That depended on the outcome of the trial. If, however, the king refused to cooperate, then the first possibility would necessarily be eliminated.
Issue was that concept had fallen severly out of fashion in the last 100 odd years lomg gone were the days when any random force could get overthrow the king throw a party and rule however they wanted and even when that happened through force of arms 99.999% of the time it was done by someone with an actual claim to the throne and not some random rebel nobodies so that argument would just make Bradshaw look stupider.
Awesome video. I love how you animate. Shows meta details
Please continue the Ceasar storyline!! I'm so invested in it! I need to know the rest of how the Republic finally fell and the emprie was born!!!
Actually, most of the Roman Empire was built under The Republic. The rule of Roman law was instituted at that time too, but it and the Authority of the Senate became a sham after the assassination of Julius Caesar.
Mike Duncans revolutions podcast goes through the whole civil war at length, would heartily recommend it.
I need more of you in these Coronadays. I 've already know every line in Vercingetorix vid. Need new stuff!!
This is a nut buster of a video, damn so good
My favorite take on this whole debacle comes from Extra History’s “history of paper money” series
“He simply seized all the money in the mint, after which his head was promptly removed from his body”
Please don’t trust extra history that quote for example is so misleading like oh my god
@@luisandrade2254 im still not sure why people watch their videos after the whole “playing as a German in call of duty will literally make you a national socialist” video
@@luisandrade2254 I mean it’s true kinda, it was one of the reason why he was so unpopular
@@DylanDkoh it’s incredibly simplistic and misleading much like their content in general
Extra history is biased and blatantly propaganda half the time nowadays.
Charles the whole trial: Yeeeeesss...... I can feeeel your anger.
Keep golden sheep for men forced to her bed.
All I heard King Charles say was: "BUT I'M KING!!!!" as if that would make the guards and soldiers sudden let him go.
And then he shot lasers from his eyes and evaporated Cromwell
Thank you! So educational and entertaining!! =)
I hope Parliament didn't forget to ask Tribune Aquila before going through with all of this.
I saw his comment elsewhere; he said its a-okay with him.
You can see how Hobbes' Social Contract theory was developed by the English Civil war. In one way, you could say that it's a theory that allows subjects to legally prosecute a king.
@Jim Kramer care to explain?
The social contract theory was developed by Rousseau. Hobbes wrote the Leviathan, which present a a completely different idea.
@@MrAlexkyra they're both social contract theorists as far as I know
@@SuperNintendawg They dont say remotely the same thing, you illiterate spud head.
@@mbsb1376 lmao. Bro. They're both social contract theorists. That's all I'm saying.
I'VE BEEN WAITING FOUR YEARS FOR THIS SEQUAL VIDEO AND I'M JUST LEARNING NOW IT'S BEEN OUT THIS WHOLE TIME AND I MISSED IT???
This was one of the last remaining videos of this channel that I had not watched yet. Boy, how I missed the outro song!