My favorite king. He was a remarkable person, I think. He endured terrible suffering but displayed grace, charm and a sense of humor. He was loyal and loving, strong when he needed to be, and forgiving when he had to be. I especially like how he defended his wife. Oh, well, I like so many other things he did. He seemed to have a gift for navigating troubled times.
Any historical examination of a monarch should include what that monarch thought about Divine Rule (Did they actually believe that they were always right? I've seen people who were used to getting their way all the time. Spoiled petulant fools.) Who were his/her advisors and what were their qualifications? What's generally always included in any assessment of Charles II (also one of these critical criteria,) is how he compared to his predecessors and successors. This is well covered in this video. Charles II was more successful because he was more politically astute then either his father or his brother. I find a lot of histories and biographies of British royalty has an underlying assumption that they were the best possible king or queen. (Guess they never read Candide.) The worst efforts are usually summed up with quotes from other nobles. This would be like summing up a politician's career by quoting his cronies. What I think should be included in any biography or sketch of Charles II is his relationship with Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon. He was his best friend and advisor during the Civil War and his exile. When Charles was restored Hyde, having seen how he puts on his pants, continued offering advice -- which his friend, now King took as impertinence. (Hyde's own daughter once she married into royalty didn't allow her aging father to be seated in her presence.) As an anti-Royalist of course I have my prejudices. I would like to see both these men as ignorant fools. They weren't. One however was much smarter than the other. The methods of hereditary position, predominance and rule caused the one made King to arbitrarily dismiss the contributions of his best asset, the man who guided him safely through the civil war, his escape and exile. This is how an otherwise intelligent person becomes a fool. (The real fools of this period of course is the English 'third estate,' Instead of working out their political differences decided bringing back a monarch was their only option. They made a short term reactive response with, so far, permanent consequences. Why did the United States after little more than a century of independence and a republic leave Great Britain in its wake? )
Is the Charles II video on the People Profiles channel up yet? Because, seriously, nobody loves Oppenheimer. You can get rid of the teaser image for the latter right now!
Because the British are classist and he has to show he's not a commoner or how would anyone take him seriously? At least he's not one of those Oxford guys that call the Roman's "The W'uomins"
Please check out our main channel The People Profiles www.youtube.com/@PeopleProfiles
Love that channel as well
He’s one of my favorite monarchs. Love him.
Good to learn the history that inspired the swashbuckling film "The Exile!" Many thanks!
Charles II by Antonia Fraser is a great accessible resource for the Restoration. :)
Charles II is probably the most relatable and unexpected British monarch. I really enjoy his life story.
Thank you
Highly interesting and informative 👍 thank you very much 😊
You have really grown on me as a narrator. Love your channel!
That's great, thankyou for saying so!
Love your story telling. Great research, thoughtful and articulate writing. Overall GREAT!!! Bravo
Thanks!
Fitting as his birthday was on the 28th!
Bravo...just watched, liked, subscribed and look forward to more of these beautifully produced and so clearly narrated videos! Well Done❤
Thankyou!
My favorite king. He was a remarkable person, I think. He endured terrible suffering but displayed grace, charm and a sense of humor. He was loyal and loving, strong when he needed to be, and forgiving when he had to be.
I especially like how he defended his wife. Oh, well, I like so many other things he did. He seemed to have a gift for navigating troubled times.
Any historical examination of a monarch should include what that monarch thought about Divine Rule (Did they actually believe that they were always right? I've seen people who were used to getting their way all the time. Spoiled petulant fools.) Who were his/her advisors and what were their qualifications? What's generally always included in any assessment of Charles II (also one of these critical criteria,) is how he compared to his predecessors and successors. This is well covered in this video. Charles II was more successful because he was more politically astute then either his father or his brother.
I find a lot of histories and biographies of British royalty has an underlying assumption that they were the best possible king or queen. (Guess they never read Candide.) The worst efforts are usually summed up with quotes from other nobles. This would be like summing up a politician's career by quoting his cronies. What I think should be included in any biography or sketch of Charles II is his relationship with Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon. He was his best friend and advisor during the Civil War and his exile. When Charles was restored Hyde, having seen how he puts on his pants, continued offering advice -- which his friend, now King took as impertinence. (Hyde's own daughter once she married into royalty didn't allow her aging father to be seated in her presence.)
As an anti-Royalist of course I have my prejudices. I would like to see both these men as ignorant fools. They weren't. One however was much smarter than the other. The methods of hereditary position, predominance and rule caused the one made King to arbitrarily dismiss the contributions of his best asset, the man who guided him safely through the civil war, his escape and exile. This is how an otherwise intelligent person becomes a fool. (The real fools of this period of course is the English 'third estate,' Instead of working out their political differences decided bringing back a monarch was their only option. They made a short term reactive response with, so far, permanent consequences. Why did the United States after little more than a century of independence and a republic leave Great Britain in its wake? )
so good.
congrats
Thankyou!
Can we get a tighter shot of the presenter's face, please? 😂
Love the Merry monarch! The Restorer! Shame he didnt have a legitimate son😢😢😢
Is the Charles II video on the People Profiles channel up yet? Because, seriously, nobody loves Oppenheimer. You can get rid of the teaser image for the latter right now!
Glory to the Monarchy Glory to the King Charles II
P exercises
i’m a papist.
why u wearing a suit to narrate a youtube channel from home
Because he has standards!
Because the British are classist and he has to show he's not a commoner or how would anyone take him seriously? At least he's not one of those Oxford guys that call the Roman's "The W'uomins"
Because he is a gentleman and you must be the opposite!
Why are you even watching? Back to Disney Plus for you!
@@tamaveirene maybe somebody can enjoy the content and also wonder why he's wearing a suit. What a worthless comment.
Great video!
Thanks!