Treason consists of various acts against the sovereign (including sleeping with the wife of the Prince of Wales). The issue is the definition of the "sovereign". For Royalists, it was the King. For Parliament, it was Parliament, which consisted of the King in Parliament, or the King by and with the consent of Lords and Commons. The latter prevailed as the result of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, although the King was deleted under the Commonwealth. War is no respecter of conventions or academic legal theories.
After the previous battle, pillaging, and the execution of civilians, and now the threatened wanton destruction of the Castle, I do believe I have lost all respect for Cromwell and his Parliamentarians.
@@venusboys3 I tend to agree - the ordinary people who know what they believe and fight well for what they believe. That was certainly true of Cromwell and his army. And I am unaware of the executions of civilians.
How is it considered treason when you fight for King and country? Is it because the other side fought for Parliament and King? None of this makes any sense to me.
Originally, Parliament contended that King Charles was being misled by "wicked advisers", and that the Army fighting on Parliament's side was upholding the rights of the subject against the badly advised Crown. By the end of the first part of the Civil War, and with those with more radical beliefs concerning government and religion gaining control, this pretence was dropped.
@@baraxor Cromwell and the other regicides contended that King Charles committed treason against the people of England which had no basis in English law
24:54 beautiful setting reminiscent of works by Vermeer. This brilliant series seems far better than when I first saw it.
16:19 - Goodwife Margaret certainly never had any problem speaking her mind, even in front of whoever she disliked, lol.
Such a great character
Americans, who had their own Civil War 220 years later, should well be able to understand the complex intricacies betrayed so well in this series.
Treason consists of various acts against the sovereign (including sleeping with the wife of the Prince of Wales). The issue is the definition of the "sovereign". For Royalists, it was the King. For Parliament, it was Parliament, which consisted of the King in Parliament, or the King by and with the consent of Lords and Commons. The latter prevailed as the result of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, although the King was deleted under the Commonwealth. War is no respecter of conventions or academic legal theories.
After the previous battle, pillaging, and the execution of civilians, and now the threatened wanton destruction of the Castle, I do believe I have lost all respect for Cromwell and his Parliamentarians.
As I presume you have lost all respect for the king and his advisors for identical or worse offences
@@alecblunden8615 All else being equal, I'll side against religious zealots every time.
@@venusboys3 I tend to agree - the ordinary people who know what they believe and fight well for what they believe. That was certainly true of Cromwell and his army. And I am unaware of the executions of civilians.
@@alecblunden8615Cromwell never ordered these but his men would kill and plunder towns on their own authority
How is it considered treason when you fight for King and country? Is it because the other side fought for Parliament and King? None of this makes any sense to me.
Originally, Parliament contended that King Charles was being misled by "wicked advisers", and that the Army fighting on Parliament's side was upholding the rights of the subject against the badly advised Crown. By the end of the first part of the Civil War, and with those with more radical beliefs concerning government and religion gaining control, this pretence was dropped.
@@baraxor Cromwell and the other regicides contended that King Charles committed treason against the people of England which had no basis in English law