Not to mention the two thirds of the population who died (1665 The Great Plagued) after the amazing healing touch. How about all the Republican Parliamentarians he had exercuted?
What about the Royal African Slave trade. This monarchy was responsible for the slavery, dead and destruction of hundreds of thousands of Africans through slavery We are about the have redemption.
@@MikeGreenwood51 As far as I know, the only ones he had executed, at least right after he became king, were the ones who signed his father's death warrant. And you can hardly blame him for that. And remember, medical science was very limited back then. He and his subjects all thought in good faith that his touch would help them. From his perspective he was doing a generous and selfless thing, taking time to try to help all those people. And I'm sure the people were profoundly grateful and if it wasn't really scrofula that they had, they probably felt better from placebo effect.
Um .... you wasn't alive when he walked the earth so how do you know really if the people liked him disregarding what's written about him? A better way to put it would be, What written history says about him........etc
A good presentation Historically correct. Surprised she didn't mention his debauchery, 'The Merry Monarch'? Far more darker than the nickname would suggest.
He was open with his affairs it better than murdering and killing like most royal familys at the time and he also gave them all titles. Some kings murdered there children etc
The irony of people abolishing the Monarchy because it was limiting freedom, only to find themselves even more oppressed by fanatical Puritans, is a very important message to be conscious of today.
At least with in an idealistic Republican idealism. The people were those being the fanatics as they were the people making the laws for the people. The Cromwellian period was known as Republican not puritan. But many were Puritens. Under a tyrannical oppressor limiting freedoms you all had to obey (supposedly) the rules of the single individual. Where as with the Republican you were supposed to obey the rules you as the people enacted. In the tyrannical monachistic system the people had no say, no vote and fundamentally no rights.
One of Britain's greatest monarchs. Mainly for bei g the Merry Monarch. Helping, personaly, in putting out the great fire and Bringing order and stability to a nervous, war ravaged public.
As he wasn't really appointed by God. And if he hadn't healed so many with his miracle touch then may be two thirds of the Nation/Europe would not not have died of what they called the Black Death and so the Great Fire would likly not have to have happen. Where was you stability and order, as he felt he had to flee.
The republic failed Cromwell's reign Wasnt popular banning the theatre And xmas the plague and great fire Of london descended upon england The dutch fleet sailed up the Thames When charles engaged peace negotiations with holland he wasnt Given the same courtesy as cromwell We respected him they said!
My 11th great grandfather, a lord mayor of london and master of the taylors merchants guild was knighted by Charles II personally shortly after coming to power. He was a court assistant as well. Despite his old oaths to Charles I, being imprisoned in the tower of london for a few months, was reinstated.
He was a womaniser,,and Katherine of Braganza,, his wife and Queen..felt very lonely and her presence fade it away from his presence..but the gold keep coming from the old allies Portugal..in those days had an Empire and wealth.
Charles II was much more like his grandfather James VI and I. Ideologically he was in agreement with his father and brother in the divine right but politically was astute enough to know when to compromise and build coalitions to outwit adversaries.
Well, the UK hadn't been established yet, and yes, it absolutely was a Republic after the execution of Charles I. Oliver Cromwell was a Parliamentarian Republican and while I agree that Cromwell was a King in all but name, it was not known when he was first chosen as lord protector that the "title" would be hereditary. You see how that worked for them.
@@CountessKitten The idea of what I said is true. Yes, it was not UK yet, but UK is really England. It was called a Republic but not one in functionality. However, by the book, you are correct.
@@b1crusade384 This is like a communist saying "it's not real communism" whenever you point out a genocidal butcher like Mao as an example of communism.
@@sithersproductions What you said is right. Europe and Asian practice communism but a poor form. And nearly all military strong rulers are Europe, America and Asian are butchers. Pointing out one as bad is ridiculous. I am not here to teach White people their history and I have taught you enough. Now, buzz off.
You do not mention the real humanitarian side of his character. He apparently stood shoulder to shoulder with the firefighters during the great Fire of London, helping and encouraging as best he could, and his close involvement with the reconstruction was not just for his own gratification. Meanwhile, Samuel Pepys sat on the sidelines, as far away from the fire as possible, and wrote about it!
Yes, she was part of the aristocratic Spencer family and through one of its different branches was connected to Winston Churchill as well. Diana's distant noble ancestors included the first Duke and Duchess of Marlborough (made famous in the film The Favourite played by Rachel Weisz) and she was also descended from the House of Stuart through two illegitimate sons of Charles II. As king, this will make Prince William be the first monarch since the death of Queen Anne in 1714 to undisputedly descend from Charles I and the first to descend from Charles II.
Porphyria (Fear of the Poor). A nervous disorder resulting from extream zelous taxation of the poor. A belief that a person owns an other and as such has the right to beat, punish, imprison, extort and piggy back ride the poor person to death. Or glutany, one of the supposed deadly sins (When a person supposedly incharge sees his policies result in mass poverty for others and the amassing of accumulated wealth for himself to the detriment of those he supposedly rules for their benefit).
Cromwell was a feared leader of people, these people followed him because he was a great general and protector. Personally I have a lot of admiration and a lot to thank him for as we'd all be speaking nonsense othwise 🤔 you've been brainwashed love.
Since Diane Morgan parodied this type of documentary presentation as the character Philomena Cunk, I cannot take this style seriously. The dress the host is wearing feels it should be worn by a much older woman, she looks like she is a young student with no fashion sense. Bless her cotton socks though, she is rather adorable.
Well that’s not patronising at all is it? How about giving your attention to the subject matter being presented, and showing what generosity and grace you are able to muster. And remember, practice makes perfect (manners).
This word of illegitimate sons and daughters is so offensive to me in the Royal families, King David out the bible had 100s of children, did people of that day call the children illegitimate for King David having children with his concubines no not at all .The ancient Kings of the Britons who became the Welsh Kings did treat all the same if out of wedlock or not . No child was illegitimate. But imbraced.
That is bizarre to say that: ' No child is illigitimate but embraced'. You can kiss the dog or illigitimate bastard. But that will not make him equal for the purpose of inheritance. You seem to be talink of a fairy tale world where there is no day of reconning or Judgement. Also the ancient 'Kings of the Brits'? Who are you thinking they were? Your pseudo revisionist Geffory of Monmoth fake Kings decending from Troy? Or the Roman appointed Rex? You need to take account of real history rather than you erroneous mistaken pseudo history. You need to realse that the Romans named the out siders Welsh (Walian (Welsh being the later English spelling of the same identifier) and as such there was no country or Nation with Kings before the Romans arrived. There were how ever tribal Chiefdoms. Your Rex Romanem King Vortigen was not sole ruler but was the ancester of the Roman appointed Rex to try to subjugate the other tribal chief under Roman rule. Basically to creat a slave society. That is where you still are today. A slave culture eager for subugation and to be ruled over.
Sorry. my system would allow additional. So I'll add her. So that county you supposedly mentioned as having Welse Kings is assummuly Britain or what we now generally call The British Ilse. But contary to your bizarre illusion the Iles from south to North and East to west was already inhabited by tribes with their tribal hierarchy and chieften befor the Romans arrived and started appointing Rex Romanums. So from the River Seven to the Wash the lands were inhabited by Belgaeic tribes. So even before the establishment of a westen frontier the Romans had aleady apoointed in the first century the father of Queen Bodica as Rex Romanum. Not at all Welsh. But Iceni or the Icenic tribal group. So clearly the modern day Royals or the Royals are not properly Welsh. Even if there was a Welsh appointed Rex Romanum farther of King Vortigen. That King wrote to the Romans (The Groans of the Britans) begging them to return and complaining about most of the other Islanders who clearly did not accept Vortigen as their King. Vortigen then went on to marry the Angle or Saxon Pricess Rowena.
I am not sure you would have liked living under the Puritans. Ultimately Britain became a parliamentary democracy because the monarch needed to share power with his or subjects. The Commonwealth Parliament did not. It is quite possible that had the monarchy not returned Britain would have ended up being ruled by oligarchs, such as in Russia. Which system would you prefer to live under?
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
It's literally impossible to dislike Charlie II. He had such a catchy song. Besides, "he loved the people and the people loved him"
Not to mention the two thirds of the population who died (1665 The Great Plagued) after the amazing healing touch. How about all the Republican Parliamentarians he had exercuted?
What about the Royal African Slave trade. This monarchy was responsible for the slavery, dead and destruction of hundreds of thousands of Africans through slavery
We are about the have redemption.
The king who brought back partying! And don't forget, he fought the fire and proved he was more than a bopper - he was a firestopper!
@@MikeGreenwood51 As far as I know, the only ones he had executed, at least right after he became king, were the ones who signed his father's death warrant. And you can hardly blame him for that. And remember, medical science was very limited back then. He and his subjects all thought in good faith that his touch would help them. From his perspective he was doing a generous and selfless thing, taking time to try to help all those people. And I'm sure the people were profoundly grateful and if it wasn't really scrofula that they had, they probably felt better from placebo effect.
Um .... you wasn't alive when he walked the earth so how do you know really if the people liked him disregarding what's written about him?
A better way to put it would be,
What written history says about him........etc
You did an excellent job with your research and presentation. One of my favorite subject matter in British history. Thank you for a great video.
@@smiththomson95 you're not real.
Watching this makes me think of the "Charles Two, I liked to party!" line from The Monarch Song in Horrible Histories.
It's thanks to that song I'm here lol
Have you seen his solo song? th-cam.com/video/P2kyNbZc7oc/w-d-xo.html
A good presentation Historically correct. Surprised she didn't mention his debauchery, 'The Merry Monarch'? Far more darker than the nickname would suggest.
He was open with his affairs it better than murdering and killing like most royal familys at the time and he also gave them all titles. Some kings murdered there children etc
@@petesmart1983 ... * Their children
The irony of people abolishing the Monarchy because it was limiting freedom, only to find themselves even more oppressed by fanatical Puritans, is a very important message to be conscious of today.
At least with in an idealistic Republican idealism. The people were those being the fanatics as they were the people making the laws for the people. The Cromwellian period was known as Republican not puritan. But many were Puritens. Under a tyrannical oppressor limiting freedoms you all had to obey (supposedly) the rules of the single individual. Where as with the Republican you were supposed to obey the rules you as the people enacted. In the tyrannical monachistic system the people had no say, no vote and fundamentally no rights.
Same thing happened in Russia & France.
Vile ideology
@@notnek202Ahahhaa no. France went through their nonsense for 2 bloody years. The English, far longer.
@@falconeshield France are on their 5th republic lol
One of Britain's greatest monarchs. Mainly for bei g the Merry Monarch. Helping, personaly, in putting out the great fire and Bringing order and stability to a nervous, war ravaged public.
As he wasn't really appointed by God. And if he hadn't healed so many with his miracle touch then may be two thirds of the Nation/Europe would not not have died of what they called the Black Death and so the Great Fire would likly not have to have happen.
Where was you stability and order, as he felt he had to flee.
Greatest.
That rogue was responsible for the mass removal of Africans during slavery!
Evil!
Now, long live King Charles III.
@Ahmad Hijaz yeahhhh
The background music and the tone are heavenly
Thank you
This is a very good video and well researched / presented.
Thumbs up if you're here to learn about Charles III's predecessors!
He bought back Christmas 🎉 and fun 🎉
Great video, very well presented. Thanks for this!
The republic failed Cromwell's reign
Wasnt popular banning the theatre
And xmas the plague and great fire
Of london descended upon england
The dutch fleet sailed up the Thames
When charles engaged peace negotiations with holland he wasnt
Given the same courtesy as cromwell
We respected him they said!
The black boy King he was a force.
Excellently Made!
He was crowned King of Scots in Scotland at Scone on 1/5/1651.
Great man. Great king.
And now...Ladies and Gentlemen... HRH Charles III !
Hip hip hooray!
It is his DUTY to dismiss Parliament as all other Charles have done
*His majesty
Great video. I’ve now subscribed. Look forward to more.
My 11th great grandfather, a lord mayor of london and master of the taylors merchants guild was knighted by Charles II personally shortly after coming to power. He was a court assistant as well. Despite his old oaths to Charles I, being imprisoned in the tower of london for a few months, was reinstated.
Very interesting and well told story
Super presentation.
Thanks you!
Ok, Charles III, you know what to do: enter the Parliament and disolve it.
This video was next up after i looked up Alec Guinness and Richard Harris in Cromwell. The girl presenting this is really cute
I agree she is cute 🥰
He was a womaniser,,and Katherine of Braganza,, his wife and Queen..felt very lonely and her presence fade it away from his presence..but the gold keep coming from the old allies Portugal..in those days had an Empire and wealth.
Charles II was much more like his grandfather James VI and I.
Ideologically he was in agreement with his father and brother in the divine right but politically was astute enough to know when to compromise and build coalitions to outwit adversaries.
great job chloe
UK was not a republican after the fall of King Charles I. The Lord Protector title was hereditary. The Lord Protector was a king in all but name.
Well, the UK hadn't been established yet, and yes, it absolutely was a Republic after the execution of Charles I. Oliver Cromwell was a Parliamentarian Republican and while I agree that Cromwell was a King in all but name, it was not known when he was first chosen as lord protector that the "title" would be hereditary. You see how that worked for them.
@@CountessKitten The idea of what I said is true. Yes, it was not UK yet, but UK is really England. It was called a Republic but not one in functionality. However, by the book, you are correct.
@@b1crusade384 This is like a communist saying "it's not real communism" whenever you point out a genocidal butcher like Mao as an example of communism.
@@sithersproductions What you said is right. Europe and Asian practice communism but a poor form. And nearly all military strong rulers are Europe, America and Asian are butchers. Pointing out one as bad is ridiculous. I am not here to teach White people their history and I have taught you enough. Now, buzz off.
Charles II was a 1st cousin of Louis XIV of France.
HE LOVES THE PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE LOVE HIM
thank you
You do not mention the real humanitarian side of his character. He apparently stood shoulder to shoulder with the firefighters during the great Fire of London, helping and encouraging as best he could, and his close involvement with the reconstruction was not just for his own gratification. Meanwhile, Samuel Pepys sat on the sidelines, as far away from the fire as possible, and wrote about it!
He always kept his dogs. Named after him . 11 cavalier King Charles cavalier spaniel
Is Charles 11 an ancestor of Princess Diana?
Yes, she was part of the aristocratic Spencer family and through one of its different branches was connected to Winston Churchill as well. Diana's distant noble ancestors included the first Duke and Duchess of Marlborough (made famous in the film The Favourite played by Rachel Weisz) and she was also descended from the House of Stuart through two illegitimate sons of Charles II. As king, this will make Prince William be the first monarch since the death of Queen Anne in 1714 to undisputedly descend from Charles I and the first to descend from Charles II.
This is great.
When you search for Charles the second only results for Charles III appear. I don’t know why
As far as I know like the house of Batemberg and their Hemophilia the Stuarts allso had a hereditary illness Porphyria
Porphyria (Fear of the Poor). A nervous disorder resulting from extream zelous taxation of the poor. A belief that a person owns an other and as such has the right to beat, punish, imprison, extort and piggy back ride the poor person to death. Or glutany, one of the supposed deadly sins (When a person supposedly incharge sees his policies result in mass poverty for others and the amassing of accumulated wealth for himself to the detriment of those he supposedly rules for their benefit).
What about Charles the third and Bishop Ball?
Chad Stewarts vs virgin republicans
Why hadn't I seen this before? It's so majestuous :0
After Cromwell's republic fell thru
And the monarchy was restored
The royals live on in britain
Alas not so in france and russia
Bloody executions!
Clearly, she's not a republican
Que bom, ser republicano é uma doença do fanatismo ateu.
Fear of Luis 16.
Bastile = battle.
Long live the King.
Charles was one of the biggest maggots in history
The 17th Century was metal AF long hair, violent executions, religious crap,etc.😂
its a wig
Britain should also return what it stole in terms of art to the countries they once 'ruled'.
Bog off
Why does He look white? 😳
Because he was.
I am sorry but the inflections are too difficult to enjoy this.
It’s like listening to a high school kid read her history paper.
Lol this lady’s voice 😂
Lol
Shes cute
Cromwell was a feared leader of people, these people followed him because he was a great general and protector. Personally I have a lot of admiration and a lot to thank him for as we'd all be speaking nonsense othwise 🤔 you've been brainwashed love.
It won't be to a Country who had just returned from theft
Idealism and Kings who knew they changed it
From many Countries hardwork
Security
USA?
Since Diane Morgan parodied this type of documentary presentation as the character Philomena Cunk, I cannot take this style seriously.
The dress the host is wearing feels it should be worn by a much older woman, she looks like she is a young student with no fashion sense. Bless her cotton socks though, she is rather adorable.
Well that’s not patronising at all is it? How about giving your attention to the subject matter being presented, and showing what generosity and grace you are able to muster. And remember, practice makes perfect (manners).
@@lilyandrose8557 well, you have told me straight 😃
You don’t know my family’s history Britain is out of sync with history. Lol
This country becomes cursed every time a Charles sits on the throne
This word of illegitimate sons and daughters is so offensive to me in the Royal families, King David out the bible had 100s of children, did people of that day call the children illegitimate for King David having children with his concubines no not at all .The ancient Kings of the Britons who became the Welsh Kings did treat all the same if out of wedlock or not . No child was illegitimate. But imbraced.
That is bizarre to say that: ' No child is illigitimate but embraced'. You can kiss the dog or illigitimate bastard. But that will not make him equal for the purpose of inheritance. You seem to be talink of a fairy tale world where there is no day of reconning or Judgement.
Also the ancient 'Kings of the Brits'? Who are you thinking they were? Your pseudo revisionist Geffory of Monmoth fake Kings decending from Troy? Or the Roman appointed Rex? You need to take account of real history rather than you erroneous mistaken pseudo history. You need to realse that the Romans named the out siders Welsh (Walian (Welsh being the later English spelling of the same identifier) and as such there was no country or Nation with Kings before the Romans arrived. There were how ever tribal Chiefdoms. Your Rex Romanem King Vortigen was not sole ruler but was the ancester of the Roman appointed Rex to try to subjugate the other tribal chief under Roman rule. Basically to creat a slave society. That is where you still are today. A slave culture eager for subugation and to be ruled over.
Sorry. my system would allow additional. So I'll add her. So that county you supposedly mentioned as having Welse Kings is assummuly Britain or what we now generally call The British Ilse. But contary to your bizarre illusion the Iles from south to North and East to west was already inhabited by tribes with their tribal hierarchy and chieften befor the Romans arrived and started appointing Rex Romanums. So from the River Seven to the Wash the lands were inhabited by Belgaeic tribes. So even before the establishment of a westen frontier the Romans had aleady apoointed in the first century the father of Queen Bodica as Rex Romanum. Not at all Welsh. But Iceni or the Icenic tribal group. So clearly the modern day Royals or the Royals are not properly Welsh. Even if there was a Welsh appointed Rex Romanum farther of King Vortigen. That King wrote to the Romans (The Groans of the Britans) begging them to return and complaining about most of the other Islanders who clearly did not accept Vortigen as their King. Vortigen then went on to marry the Angle or Saxon Pricess Rowena.
They should never have been allowed to return.
I am not sure you would have liked living under the Puritans. Ultimately Britain became a parliamentary democracy because the monarch needed to share power with his or subjects. The Commonwealth Parliament did not. It is quite possible that had the monarchy not returned Britain would have ended up being ruled by oligarchs, such as in Russia.
Which system would you prefer to live under?
bro keep ur diabetes on you lol. Maybe when you dont live on your parents basement, just then your opinion might matter
A república é um erro grave, viva a monarquia. Republicanos desde 1889 atrasam o Brasil. Republicano é uma seita do fanatismo ateu.
I hate when documentaries show the narrators gawking at paintings, walking around, etc instead of showing the actual subject-personalities.
Hmm. Best not watch our George III video. Lots of that in that one.
He was crowned King of Scots in Scotland at Scone on 1/5/1651.