If I had a nickel for every time the British arguably caused a genocide in Ireland, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s pretty horrific that it happened twice. (Cromwell’s conquest and the Great Famine, if anyone’s wondering.)
There was the Ulster Plantation in Northern ireland before that, and the Norman-Anglo Conquest Of Ireland before that, so you'd arguably have 3 or 4 nickels.
It didn't cause a genocide in Ireland; if you had nickel for every time it did, you would have 0 nickels. Precisely no one of any legitimacy holds the opinion that there was a genocide. The Irish Economist and Historian Cormac Ó Gráda did a huge amount of work on the Famine of the 1800s and has said very plainly that the claim of constituting a genocide is not supported by the evidence.
@@WalterKhayyam That’s why I said ‘arguably’. Even if it’s not an actual genocide, if your conduct was bad enough for there to be a significant body of research examining the possibility, you did something pretty horrendous.
The story of Cromwell's being offered the crown is pretty interesting, in that there's the official reason why Cromwell turned down the crown, and the real reason why. Cromwell's fellow military governors were looking for a way to limit the power of the Protectorate under Cromwell, as they were finding that, because the role of Lord Protector had no precedent, there really were no constitutional limits to what the LP could do. They had traded in a king, who had aspired to absolute power, for a Lord Protector, who in fact wielded absolute power. So, they approached Cromwell and suggested that perhaps it was the Will of God that he was worthy of the "Royal Dignity". Cromwell, it is said, pondered over this for some time, before coming back with a demurral, saying that taking up the crown would be to betray everything he and his army had fought for. In fact, he understood very well that his powers as Lord Protector, all encompassing as they were, could be easily circumscribed by Parliament if he sat on the throne. Both sides, it seemed, knew what the score was.
His military governors were literally the only reason he didn't accept the crown. A broad (albeit not terribly deep) coalition wanted him to be king for the reasons you say... its just that the generals, or Grandees, or whatever you want to call them, said no way Jose, so Cromwell had to reject the Crown, even though he was probably 60-40 in favour of taking it.
The English Revolution is such a fascinating event. People like Gerrard Winstanley and Thomas Rainsborough were proto socialists, who tapped into a longstanding under current of British radicalism, following in the footsteps of earlier radicals like John Ball and Wat Tyler, while inspiring later resistance themselves.
Even just the trial of Charles I is super interesting. In reality it was a sham trial lol. You could argue the law was on the king's side, but clearly it was the right thing to find him guilty. Also we know the names of everyone involved and know most of what they said and did, which is really cool for something that happened 400 years ago.
I wouldn’t really call it a revolution as it was a series of civil wars to uphold the parliamentary status quo. Even the revolution of 1688 was really just a coup. For what I’ve heard it was Marx who called the civil wars the English revolution
England had civil wars - The closest England got to a revolution was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 . But the critical part of this was the 1689 English Bill of Rights , when ELECTED Parliamentarians said to William of Orange and Mary II - here are the terms . th-cam.com/video/Gx9N0mrTPtw/w-d-xo.html In other words , this is beginning of democracy in modern civilization . However , at the time , only land owners had the vote . The struggle for the vote continued during the 19th century Charitist Movement . Thomas Rainsborough was a leveller - which sounds like the precursor to John Locke and Enlightenment ideas . th-cam.com/video/bZiWZJgJT7I/w-d-xo.html .
..... Jesus Christ saves He had mercy on me he can save all who all seek him today He made away through calvery repent of all sins today Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
I spent a week learning about this for my "life in the UK" test. I was listening to audiobooks and had color-coded notes and everything. There were no questions about it on my test.
To be fair, there's a hell of a lot of potential questions that could come up on a test entitled "life in the UK". That's like when people pick "WWII" as a specialist subject in Master Mind only to find they ask a load of questions about the atomic bomb. I'm also curious as to why you would be doing a test on "life in the UK".
@@Dave5400 There are official guidelines that state what info may appear on the test, I studied all of the content equally. The test is required for immigrants to the UK when it comes time to apply for their permanent residency / citizenship.
David Starky in that seriese also defined monarchy as any and all political systems in which one individual can me said to be in-charge and explicitly claimed prime ministers and presidents are examples of monarchy, which is such a casual disregard of the basic meaning of words that it still kinda makes me mad just thinking about it.
I mean, I guess that's correct in the sense that a king and his court is a very similar dynamic to a president/prime minister and the capitalist class, but I can't imagine he was making some sort of leftist structural critique of liberal representative democracies lol
By the basic definition of a monarchy he is right though. Μονος = sole αρχειν = rule So a monarch is somebody who is the sole ruler and if even a king who is heavily dependant on his vassals counts as a monarch, a prime minister could also be seen as one.
@@angela_merkeI That's not how language works mate. A word's meaning isn't based on its origin, but a lot of factors, including use and common understanding of the word. Also by that definition almost nothing is a monarchy because not even kings have ruled anything by themselves.
The idea of the monarchy as an institution of stability and continuity seems, to me, an idea born in the 20th century, during the reign of Elizabeth II and the collapse of the Empire. It, in this sense, represents a kind of grandeur and dignity that the country is desperate to cling onto now that the original source of that grandeur (the Empire & Britain's pre-eminent position amongst the great powers) is gone.
The Japanese right like to do the same thing with their imperial family, claiming them to be the longest running single governing body in the world. Nevermind that they were basically figureheads for about 700 years of history. These same politicians like to ignore the native Ainu people and claim that Japan is a mono-ethnic state and that's what makes it stable.
Not sure about that. Monarchs always emphasised their long history and cultural continuity. They thought monarchies falling was a garant for all traditional law and custom being ignored.
I just read "Legacy of Violence" about the British Empire and Caroline Elkins says something similar - that the idea of modern of Britishness - involving love for the monarch and empire - was intentionally manufactured as propaganda complete with music by Elgar and patriotic songs around the late 1800's (I may have a few details slightly off)
As an Australian the crowning of Chumbo is REALLY important to me. Like it SO matters. It matters to SUCH a degree that I think we really should have a public holiday about it.
@@Tay12345 That's disappointing news. Do you like the new king of Australia? I think Australians are more than qualified to run their own country just fine without an English king telling them what to do.
Mate, I’ve got an MA in International History (also currently working on my PhD proposal) and I have to say that you have much better communication skills than most history lecturers I’ve had. Honestly, your storytelling abilities when you communicate this history is absolutely enthralling!! Very well done 😊
Wait, you're telling me that there isn't a divine right of Kings and that political systems are social constructs that can be changed? Wow, this might just be the hottest take I've ever heard
Not really, considering there was very little difference between the personal rule of Charles I and the dictatorship of Cromwell, aside from the fact that, unbelievably, Cromwell was even more religiously intolerant then Charles was
@@Edmonton-of2ec Charles I was married to a Catholic which was probably a mark against him. Most of his descendants became catholic leading to the line having to go back up through James I again after Anne.
That whole ‘the English Monarchy is 1500 years old’ thing is so ridiculous they may as well be claiming decent from King Arthur. Like there wasn’t even an England 1500 years ago and you’d probably still struggle to get that far back if you counted all the kings of Wessex as well
Yeah, they Royal Family is German/Dutch AF, the first 2 Reich's were fought on their behalf. They're technically Dutch, from the VOC, but still very much not Mount Batten Windsor, which is Rollo/William's descendants who lost the crown nearly 1000 years ago.
I was halfway through a comment decrying the typical British celebration of Cromwell without mention of his lust for Irish genocide until you did actually mention it; good stuff Tom! Really enjoying this and looking forward to the rest of the series. Wouldn't have hurt to describe it a little though... Cromwell in Ireland specifically might not be enough material for your usual video length, but I'm pretty sure if you were to combine that with all the other British history not widely discussed in the UK, you'll have your next series.
I think this is generally well-recognised today. In terms of going into more detail, however, my worry was that, mentioning one or two events would maybe accidentally imply that it was the extent of it. Sometimes I find it’s better to just acknowledge that some things are beyond the remit of a particular video!
Massive respect for that and the fact you took the time to mention it is all that's required. If every video on TH-cam discussed all relevant topics to the extent they deserved, we would get one video a year at best
@@Tom_Nicholas That makes perfect sense but it's still appreciated that you took the time to address the elephant in the room. Especially given the relevance of Anglo-Irish relations at the moment with the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. If you ever wind up doing a video in the future on Cromwell in Ireland good luck with the place names. Drogheda is pronounced Draw-head-ah
Just a little medieval peasant dressed in his nicest suit-adjacent attire standing there with a huge battle axe and rapidly convincing you of a bunch of almost contradictory anti-monarchic ideas.
This is great work, thank you Tom. I'm a Spaniard and I teach UK history at college. I certainly will recommend this video to my students. By the way, here in Spain we are in sore need to seriously study our Republican age, 1931-1936, five years during which Spain became a cutting edge democracy, until the Republic was destroyed by the fascists. As one commentator has said, today is the anniversary of the proclamation of the Second Republic, something completely ignored by pro establishment parties here.
My dad's written an academic dissertation about the pre-civil war period, but I think his focus was on the underlying tensions rather than the Republic itself? I shall have to ask him.
I saw a Daily Telegraph headline the other day complaining that the king is too woke. They actually used that word. Whatever about the ethics of the conservative press, there was once a time when they at least took themselves seriously. Apparently no longer.
remember when "politicaly correct" was the buzzword of the day? From red-baiting to accusations of "wokeism", the right wing playbook has simply not changed.
Their ethics aren't your own, which is were they real point lays. The reason why they talk about this stuff is that they come from a different moral paradigm, basically just the prexisting one as they haven't really thought it though just as those who accuse them of immorality haven't really thought though that that's about the same as a Confucian calling a Christian immoral, they have different values in the first place. Also left wing claims of a lack of sincerity are often self-confessions, they are far more post-modern in their outlook than conservatives are.
@@vorynrosethorn903 I'm not (here) complaining about their ethics, though I have many complaints I could make. I'm saying that they no longer even take themselves seriously. "The king is too woke" is not, actually, a principled position of any sort.
Fun fact: The Civil War period also shook up the church. Not only were people willing to push against the power of the monarchy, they were also keen to get rid of the bishops and priests. Many new denominations grew out of this including Baptists (the second largest denomination in the USA, generally conservative) and Quakers (radically progressive, anarchist, based). Most new movements disappeared, but a notable few remain.
Kinda interesting parallel with Russian Civil War. There are many articles about communist anti-religious policy, but all those usually exaggerated depictions of the repressions usually do not even trying to answer on the one simple question - how deeply religious, mostly Orthodox-Christian Russian Empire so easily accepted new communist rulers, who was openly atheist? Answer hides in the deep internal crisis of the Russian Orthodox church, which has root in the XVII century from times of the split between Niconians and old-believers. Orthodoxy itself had stong connection to the original Christian communes, where people denied private property, and common Russian peasants had their own system of beliefs with huge differences from official position of the high clergy, which obviously spreads ideas about loyalty to the crown. Hard climate and conditions of life formed traditional communal ownership of land (so-called "obshina"), and Orthodox fate enforced it. In the same time, Russian Emperors constantly not provided policy in the interests of nobility (peasants did not understand, why noble own the land, because God gives land only for those, who works on it), but even tried to destroy institute of obshina itself (Reforms of the prime minister Stolypin). It was not just not pleasant thing for majority of peasants, but literal heresy. And high clergy, who supports nobles and tsar in such heresy are heretics too. In the last decades before revolution in the Russian Empire different religious sects, independent from official Russian Orthodox church, rapidly increased in size, and almost all of them had connections to old-believers. Common people just lost their trust to official church and slowly raised hate for them. And most influential sect was so-called "bespopovstsy" (literal translation means "people without priests"). And when monarchy collapsed, those people decided, that godless communists, who fights for common cause without expecting any afterlife reward for his actions much closer for them, then hypocritical fat priest with golden cross on his chest.
I am a Quaker, and I can attest that we talk about our English Civil War roots not infrequently. A week ago, we had a national denominational conference, and in one workshop a yearly meeting superintendent held a lecture on our history. I suppose it's fair to call us "radically progressive" for the time considering our heavy emphasis on egalitarianism, but we're certainly not anarchists. Quakers (officially, "The Religious Society of Friends") had to learn to self-govern very quickly after a few incidents with rogue preachers that got out of hand. Quakers were essentially proto-Evangelicals, in the sense that they emphasized a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in their preaching, following George Fox's conversion experience. They were (and continue to be) a very decentralized community. However, there was a certain Quaker preacher named James Nayler who unilaterally rode on the back of a horse into Bristol shouting, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," reenacting Christ's entry into Jerusalem. He was arrested for blasphemy, and even Fox and the other Quakers said he went too far. After that, Quaker leaders made efforts to organize local autonomous meetings governed by consensus, partly so that a rogue individual wouldn't do something stupid that reflected badly on the broader movement.
@@ErikNilsen1337 Good to hear from another Quaker. My background is very conservative pentecostalism, so Australian Quakers are radically progressive by comparison. In practice my meeting is just a bunch of sensible, caring folk who want the world to be better. They're definitely not radical in the civil war sense.
Oliver Cromwell was a king in all but name. As Lord Protector he was granted his position for life and was given the right to chose his successor and he chose his eldest son just like a king would.
Tbf, he picked Richard because he was arguably the only one around at the time that had the skill to manage the country. Richard gets a bad wrap, but he was a excellent politician in his own right, but there was no one in Britain that had the means to hold the together together other than Cromwell.
ironically he was better than a king, the king was limited by articles and parliment, the lord protector had no such limits, his power was beyond the constitution, the irony being that parliment and member of the army wanted him crowned to reduce his power.
@@jam8539 well thats an overlooked point in that a faction of the army wanted him to be king because it would actually give the army more power, which Cromwell curtailed somewhat, and another faction were utterly apposed to the idea of reintroducing a king. Plus at this point, its hard to understand that he kinda needed extra-ordinary power to try subdue the chaos. it was a catch 22 moment.
You have managed to simplify and explain, in a really engaging and accessible way, a time in history that I had to read so much about to make sense of (Welsh history is intwined with all this and making sense of one's historical invasion means making sense of the material conditions at the time etc) Basically, thank you for this and for your larger body of work. ❤
The English Civil War is my jam, so very happy to see some coverage of it on a channel such as yours. The Commonwealth period is so fascinating, dozens of tiny factions floating about. Not just radicals such as the Diggers, but the Ranters, the Fifth Monarchists, the Quakers. It really is the first of the bourgeois revolutions, from the Marxist perspective, and was considered a hugely important event before it was overshadowed by the French Revolution. The French Revolution itself kept looking back and comparing itself to the English Revolution, some accused others of being a Cromwell attempting to concentrate power, and Louis XVI himself was reading a biography of Charles I in his final days. I think you deemphasized the religious element somewhat but I can see how the more you add the more complicated it gets, and anything that teaches about the period is good in my books.
"No, no, I'm not a monarch, I'm a Lord Protector, it's totally different. Yes, I get supreme power and my son will inherit the position, but I wear a totally different sort of hat. See?"
Boy, those diggers seem pretty cool. I had only been taught the broad strokes, that Cromwell was a king by another name, that it was a "brief period", before things "returned to normal". It's pretty interesting to think how those ideas might've influenced other revolutions. And also sadly not surprising that Cromwell turned-around and quashed what he perceived as counter-revolutions which were really just continuations!
Compared to almost a thousand years of monarchy it was and extremely brief period. It was also a failure in terms of forming a stable replacement for the order that was removed.
@@adamantiiispencespence4012 do you think that was due to the inherent instability of what they were going for or were there maybe a bunch of other contributing factors?
This is so funny in the timing... I'm an American who visited parts of Europe a week back, including Scotland, and in one of the museums in Edinburgh we found some really interesting paintings of the beheading of Charles I. As Americans we had no idea who this was but we were like "man, this dude must've really been hated, there's like 5 paintings of him being beheaded here". But obviously none of us cared enough to look it up. We get home and you upload this video on this exact situation!
This was good, and thanks for mentioning that Cromwell was also a loathsome cruel guy himself, but if you could add 20% more monarchy bashing to future videos that would be great.
England is kinda sneaky - America taking the role of "primary global imperialist" the last 100ish years has let them sweep a lot of their misdeeds under history's rug. At least for European/North American history curriculums 😂
I'm inordinately pleased with myself that I figured out this was about Cromwell after you said 17th century. I know it's not much, but it makes me happy that my years of history learning have paid off :D
The diggers have a traditional english folk song. It's a protest song and can be found as a cover by chumbawamba or on the english folk project (with a variety of other folk songs, do give it a view as it's trying to preserve a lot of our heritage). It's a cool song and I would really recommend a listen.
When I was taught about the dissolution and reformation of the monarchy, it was done with a large emphasis on emotion and historical empathy... So to hear Tom's retelling is fuckin amazing, the mad lad straight up called charlie a prick lmao
To be fair, everyone involved was prick. It was a time of pricks. Charles II just wanting to sleep with women and have fun was probably an immense relief
We have still had a monarchy for 1000 years Not sure the cromwell years are a time anyone wants to go back to He acted just as a king but under a different title even tried to leave it to his son Only reason he didn’t call himself king when offered was because it would have limited his power whereas he had unlimited power as lord protectorate as it was new territory
@@04nbodAgreed, a lot of people give Charles II a lot of crap but it’s very much an over correction. Like Cromwell, Charles II played a big part in making Britain, Britain. He reeled in the excesses of the Salem Witch Trials and a bunch of other Puritan Tomfuckery in New England, continued to expand Britain’s colonial ambitions, Henry Morgan was knighted under Charles II, and he obtained New York from the Dutch. He was lustful and careless but these attributes helped keep Britain steady after it had been though decades and decades of chaos.
@@thezpn I don’t think so. That’s probably done by Tom himself and he just put the star on the left instead of the right. He’s human, it happens. This is a great video. It’s good there a small error to humanize it🙂
You noble Diggers all, stand up now, stand up now, You noble Diggers all, stand up now, The wast land to maintain, seeing Cavaliers by name Your digging does maintain, and persons all defame Stand up now, stand up now.
Fun Fact: ‘Zadok The Priest’ is used to crown monarchs and is also the Champions League theme tune. So when Charles gets crowned, we can pretend he’s won the Champions League! 😂
Yeah, the oldest institution is the Papacy. Literally nearing it’s 2000 anniversary under the current pope’s successor Or the Papal States which existed before England was a country
The English Civil War and the time before Charles I's execution was a very based time in British history. A lot of their ideas were ahead of our time. Shame that Cromwell went and ruined it all.
@@tisFrancesfault Cromwell and his fellow grandees actively suppressed the more egalitarian factions, and Cromwell himself seized power with the intent to remain a dictator. Not to mention, Ireland. He definitely ruined things.
@@MrGksarathy I dont see the issue with him being a (radical) moderate in that regard. Nor did he really seize power. He Tried to save the King as King, offered him to abdicate for his son, It was only Charles arrogance that damned him. He also consistently tried to create a "godly and just parliament". But they were, just ..the worst. This failure really depressed him. He was also one of the few who could control the army, and the army in effect demanded his position of control, though the relationship actually fairly adversarial. And the Issue with Ireland was, in contemporary manner legitimate. They were at war after all.
It would of been interesting in how the rest of europe would of viewed it. Since by the french revolution all the other major powers see france as a threat to "the ballance of power in europe"
@@tisFrancesfault you know, an arsehole that’s been dead for 364 years is probably not the best one to keep licking- can’t be healthy. You’re all over this comment section defending Cromwell and it’s just a bit weird tbh
I love the fact that even in the earliest dawn of capitalism people already formulating their own anticapitalist (specifically protocommunist) ideas and put it into praxis. Stand up now, Diggers all! In other news, now everytime I try to watch UEFA Champions League I will always remember the British royal coronation ceremony. Thanks Tom, I hate it
The pilgrims who founded the USA were as radical as the levelers, and some as radical as the diggers. The USA would have been considered communist initially if it wasn't so racist. Free land for all the workers? Back then, the land was basically the only means of production.
shout-out to editor Georgia Burrows, don't know who she is, but she did an amazing job in this video and I loved it. 🌟 Also, congratulations Tom, for such a wonderful storytelling and spice! ✨ Thank you.
This was such an interesting video on an absolutely fascinating topic! Your videos have evolved so much, it's been a joy to watch your content change and grow, and I'm really excited for what's to come. The intro animation on its own was stunning. I seriously need to get nebula finally
I have got to wonder which monarchy contains the most frustrated republicans? Turns out there are only 4 countries who got rid of the monarchy only to restore them. Sure, We were the first country to behead our king, but there are so many countries that were republics for most of their history only to become a monarchy in the modern period. The Netherlands for one was a republic from the 1560s to the 1800s only for the French republican revolution to end that. I cant imagine either the Spanish or the Cambodian republicans like to promote their republican history when the Spanish one was for a long period fascist and Cambodia seemed to have continual interference from outside forces such as France, Vietnam and the USA.
I actually would really love a video on the historical revisionism/propaganda of the Horrible Histories series, as someone who loved it as a kid and frankly hasn't learned much else about British History since watching it
Always love your videos, but this one has some very loud sound effects that kinda hurt if you are on headphones. Particularly the transition music after the intro and the bagpipes soundeffect.
A decent video though you kind of brush aside the importance of religion in this Era. Religion was crazy important. Charles the 1st's war with the Scottish was due to trying to have religious uniformity in his three kingdoms, as was typical of rulers of all types in that era. Scotland was Presbyterian and when he issued a new prayer book, they revolted. A growing number of the Puritans in Parliament Sympathized with the Scottish during the conflict. Then prior to the 1st English civil war, Ireland had its own rebellion as the catholic gaelic Irish and catholic old english united to get some better equality and rights for them. Parliament and London in particular would use this against Charles, and they would have wild consipercy theories about how if toleration for catholicism would bring about doom and despair. Mind you the revolt wasn't to get rid of the King but to have the graces(aka some better equal treatment) for the Irish During the civil war Parliament was split into two factions the Independents and the Presbyterians(the moderates in your video) who signed the Solemn League and Covenant to effectively make Presbyterianism the state religion of England after the fighting was done. The Independents wanted more puritanical government; there is a reason why they banned Christmas, plays, sport, and more once they took power. Side note: The Scottish side of this whole thing with the National covenant, to fighting Charles I to fighting for Charles II against Cromwell and then under the commonwealth could be its own video.
Just a small correction. Charles I wasn’t a “medieval king” but an early modern one. The medieval era in England had ended over a century prior to Charles I🥲
As an American whose entire knowledge of this topic was from watching Horrible Histories as a kid, I feel some responsibility to defend them. They didn’t represent Charles II just as a fun loving guy who wanted to party all day in his cool palace, they represented him as a a fun loving guy who wanted to party all day, fuck nonstop, and execute the people who would threaten interrupt that! Very clearly a dictator, I think
The king had more limits on his power then Cromwell did though Cromwell acted exactly as a king would even trying to leave his son the country He only refused the title of king as it would limit his power whereas ‘lord protectorate’ was completely new and so he became a dictator The monarchy nowadays has a surprisingly similar role to your ‘First lady’. Both unelected, live in a state owned palace, Has an important role in public service, as foreign representatives tradition etc Most other countries especially with constitutional monarchies like Britain also don’t care nor know who the prime ministers wife is
@@orangelemon2511 I would say the british monarchy is more like the us constitution. Seems outdated and was made a long time ago but is the basis for the founding of the country. Also was created arbitrarily by a couple of guys without the real consent of the people. The british monarch protects the constitution of the british people and is able to overule most things that the parliment can do theoretically, just like the constitution can theoretically do. All british charters and legislations are done in the monarchs name like with the constitution. Abolishing the monarchy would be like abolishing the constitution and would effectively through the entire country into anarchy like abolishing the monarchy has done to so many countries in the world.
Im an Irish American and the child of a protestant minister. I have a very clear memory of a church lady cornering me talking about her visit to the UK and how wonderful Cromwell was. I reminded her of my family's history. She sort of just shrugged it off "oh right the Irish don't like him much" and then continued to blather on about Cromwell. I was trying to be polite. But I lost my patience when she pulled out her phone to show me pictures she took at Cromwell's grave. I said Id love to visit so I could piss on it and she finally left me alone.
Pissed is a beautiful word of many meanings: drunk, angry, urinating, alcohol, messing around, dawdling - truely one of the best creations of the English language.
To be fair, a coronation is something historical that doesn't happen very often. Charles III seems to be in good health and, with his genes and modern medical care, he could make it to 100 or more.
Disclaimer: I am not disputing that Charles I was a moron. Your analysis of the circumstances of Charles I inheriting the throne in 1625 is, however, a bit loaded. Parliament actually started playing silly buggers before Charles had a chance to do anything. Specifically, they only gave him tonnage and poundage (customs duty income) for a year, rather than the traditional "for the duration of the reign." They'd also been enthusiastically pushing for an expensive War while refusing to pay for it. The Eleven Year Tyranny notion was the creation of later Whig Historians. The period 1629-1640 saw England sit out the Thirty Years War, and because Charles wasn't calling Parliaments, taxation was low - the only people whingeing were the elites. Charles was genuinely popular with the average person, at least in England (Scotland was a different matter, what with the religion thing). Had Archbishop Laud never pushed the Prayer Book on Scotland, there's no particular reason the Personal Rule might not have continued indefinitely - sure Laud and Charles were fools, but Stafford (the other key minister in the regime) was not. The crisis of 1640-1641 also saw Parliament demand not only the head of Stafford, and the ousting of Laud, but they actually wanted to put Charles' own children into Parliamentary custody. By the standards of the time, Parliament was engaging in a power grab beyond belief, and thus Charles pushed back - having already sacrificed his ministers. The War thus reflected Parliamentary Overreach, not Royal Overreach - Charles undoubtedly handled everything badly, but fundamentally was a victim of circumstances beyond his control.
29:37 Also, the leaders of the English Civil War, like John Pym and John Hampden, inspired the American Revolution, as guys like Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton drew inspiration from their writings.
No, the Dutch Republic already had shown that denying the devine right of kings, getting rid of your king because he had become a tyrant who didn't serve the people and did not respect their inalienable rights was not punished by god, but got extremely prosperous. The American DOI is almost a copy of the the Dutch DOI of 1581. They had over 2 centuries of republic to study, and they did.
@@DenUitvreter Who cares about the declaration of independence. How many different ways are there of writing a letter declaring independence. The dutch were never really a republic as they had a hereditary stadtholder. That is a monarchy. The americans would have and still would be baffled by the completely undemocratic "dutch republic". The us constitution is almost exactly the same as the 1689 english bill of rights which is much more important including the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms and the freedom of trial by jury and non unlawful detainment.
@@freneticness6927 The stadtholder was not heriditary, but appointed by the Staten, the Dutch parliaments. A monarchy back then was with the divine right of kings and the absolutism Britain had returned to when the Dutch Republic invaded in 1688 to give you your current constitiutional parliamentary monarchy and bill of rights, becoming a monarchy as close to the Dutch Republic as possible for a monarchy. Effectively pulling Britain out of the Dark Ages once and for all so it would stop allying with France and parts of Germany to attack the Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic had freedom of religion for over century, that was it's founding principle. It had a seperate judicial branche for much longer, it was also far more democratic because the Dutch parliaments were not controlled by nobles and had ultimate power. It also had freedom of thought and print, that's why John Locke lived their and wrote is important works. He accompanied appointed stadtholder William III his wife to by then occupied London were William took the throne. The only reason for the Americans to look at Britain was and still is their language skills. Ignorance about everything non English does not make England the centre and beginning of it all. And no, he wasn't invited, he asked 7 powerless lords to be invited while preparing the impressive fleet and army for the invasion for propaganda reasons.
@@DenUitvreter Holland was crushed in all of the wars it ever had with england and was stomped on by every power in europe. The only reason why your country is independent from the spanish is because the english under elizabeth sent troops to fight the spanish. Holland has never been a real republic and the stadtholders were all from the house of orange and were the monarchs of holland. There was no parliment and no democracy in the netherlands. It was not a republic in any form and did not have a real elected head of state which is what a republic is. The magna carta and the 1689 bill of rights have nothing to do with the dutch and are a product of the barons and parliment which holland did not have. It was mary who became queen of england with william and william of orange was her cousin and in line to the english throne anyways. The netherlands is a modern non country with almost as little legitimacy as belgium. Its not like the dutch ever needed the english to stop napoleon from stomping them into dust ever anyways. Britain was as much invaded by the dutch as it was by the americans in ww2. The monarch of england became mary 2nd.
@@freneticness6927 You simply have no clue about history and you own ignorance. Elizabeth's personal favourite the Earl of Leicester, Robert Dudley, was indeed supposed to help, but was incompetent, made a mess and sold Dutch cities to the Spaniards. It was not exactly returning the favour of blocking a huge part of the Armada by the Dutch to prevent the invasion of Britain. You don't understand what monarchy in Europe was and therefore you're own monarchy. They were supposed to be put there by god, as your theocratic practices of your king being the head to the Church of England (protestants in name only) should have reminded you of. It was not just a position of power and not necessarily a position of power. As you also might have noticed as most likely a monolingual, people in different parts of the world speak different languages. The fact that the Dutch didn't name their parliament parliament or parlement, the Netherlands had and still has the Staten and the Staten-Generaal. Staten Island is named after that. The head of state was elected by those parliaments. Sometimes the appointed stadtholder could be considered the head of state, sometimes the raadspensionaris. Sometimes no stadtholder was appointed. Before Willem III there was the first stadtholderless era for example, and there was to be another one. A republic does not require democracy just like democracy doesn't require a republic. Unless everybody can vote equally there is not really a democracy, there wasn't in Britain, the USA or the Netherlands or anywhere else before the late 1800's. The Magna Charta was very limited and soon surpassed by far more extensive civil rights in the Low Lands and freedom of religion was in the de facto constitution of the Dutch Republic that was signed in 1579. With the Bill of Rights, the English finally got similar civil rights to the Dutch. Stadtholder Willem III nor his wife was in line to the English throne, but the Staten-generaal had commissioned a fleet twice the size of the Armada and increased the Staatse leger (yes, the Dutch army was named after the parliemant too) for William to invade England, and so he did. The legitimate king got a nosebleed and ran off to France before there was the big battle, and the English army fell into chaos with lots of deserters and defectors. The Dutch reached London and had it occupied for several years without an English soldier allowed near it. English parliament had no power over him whatsoever, but he wanted to make Britain into a stable ally against the catholic enemies of the Dutch Republic. He was used to dealing with parlement as a stadtholder, he was not stuck in the Dark Ages like the English, he was a modern leader from a country so modern it was richer than Britain with only 1.5 million inhabitants. If he wanted to rule like some medieval alpha male he wouldn't have brought John Locke but just killed all the nobles that made up parliament. It was mostly Germans who stopped Napoleon. Wellington managed to make it all by himself for an ignorant British audience. The Dutch Republic never cared much for the imperialistic habits of monarchies like Britain and France, and actually turned Britain into a country, a nation state like it had been itself for over a century. But because of English aggression prior to 1688, it had to invade and conquer Britain and a few years before it also had to sail up the Thames to take out the English navy. The English only managed to burn down a village on a Dutch coastal island. After 1688, with the English economy modernized and the foundation of the Bank of England by the Dutch stadtholder, a lot of Dutch many that was laying around in heaps anyway was going to take it's ROI from English entreprises while the Dutch Republic got a bit out of the heat of international war and let the English do their dirty work. Without the medieval mindset, the feudalism, but from the Dutch capitalist angle, it was a huge win.
All I remember from being taught about Cromwell in primary school was my teacher saying that Cromwell was a tyrant, hated by all who oppressed us far more than the king did. Completely missing what he stood for, the hope of a republic in Britain.
Wouldn’t say he is a shining example of democracy or a republic The only reason he didn’t accept the throne when offered was BECAUSE it limited his power when acting as essentially an absolute monarch But under a different name He simply wanted power didn’t have a claim to the throne so he just used the idea of a republic for his own gain He even tried to leave all unlimited power to his Son hereditary rule The royal family nowadays has a surprisingly similiar function to that of the First lady of USA ( also notably unelected and lives in a state owned palace) public service foreign representatives etc but I guess more traditional and ceremonial So I think a republic would face a lot of issues to fill that gap since no one give a damn who the prime ministers wife is nor would they for an elected representative of state let alone their spouse However I do believe the monarchy should adapt, cost less etc it has potential to be better while still in keeping with traditions
Being offered the crown was his greatest failure The whole point of the revolution was to vest all power to parliament but Cromwell didn't know that people needed a figurehead to worship
This is a fascinating dive into the less taught history of English monarchy ❤ as an NZer it's something which has muchly shaped this land of Aotearoa, we still have The Crown as the head entity of government, but this vid brings hope for a reprieve from it all
They're actually thinking about trying to reunite the english speaking colonies of NZ, AU, CA and UK. Same head of state, intelligence communities work together very closely, same monetary system, same church, language, general culture, etc. seems better than just a territory, since flights would be domestic.
Because we're all blasted with historical footage of the previous one in the intervening years, regaled with tales of the legendary street parties, how everybody rented a TV for the week just to see it, blah blah blah national mythmaking bollocks. People are nostalgic for that rather than the event itself, and the idea of getting to be part of the next one seems exciting for many. Even though of course there's no way Charles will last that long before there's yet another one!
11:31 as a drama student Tom, you of all people should know that the majority of English accents during the 17th century, even those of the south east, were rhotic. So I would guess that Cromwell probably sounded more Suffolk like than the standard RP English which is common in Cambridge today.
I'm going to England on Thursday! My dad is from England and My mom is from the U.S.A. and I'm so excited to go back, I haven't been since I was a little kid and my baby sister has never been. 🎉 I'm not looking forward to the 7 hour flight though 😅
Wow, it's amazing how much of this I glazed over during A level history. Cheers for the recap. (Somehow got an A*, one of the great mysteries of my life).
Another good reason to forget the Interregnum is that it legally is forgotten: in the early days of Restoration Parliament passed the 'Indemnity and Oblivion Act' which legally forgot the Commonwealth and Protectorate - the 'oblivion' part.
@@Sam-iu8nb Some of my optimistic hopes when it comes to electoral politics is simply making a bit more space for things like communal turnip farming or sleeping in public areas safely and peacefully. You want a program that includes small, practical, immediate sorts of steps _and_ a grand revolutionary vision as possible. It's also good to have a plan that embraces the input of people who have only the interest and energy to spare to wish us luck all the way through professional, career party political operatives.
Amazing video 1) Thank you for talking about Cromwell in Ireland; I've seen him be lionised far too much by people who haven't been taught about what he did just across the pond 2) If you have time at all in the future, would love to see you go a bit into what happened in Wales in the 1280s -- it's very important to the continued enforcement of the idea of Wales as a lessser territory that is supposed, in the English royal mind, to be subservient, and nobody from any British nation are taught enough about it 3) Can I have your breastplate?
In a 70s movie, _Monty Python and the Holy Grail,_ there's a scene where they actually parodied the Diggers and proto-communism, contesting the "divine right of king"
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
Support the channel and get 40% off an annual Nebula subscription by using my link: go.nebula.tv/tomnicholas
Brilliant video! Thank you!
Small note, your end card says "pateron" instead of "Patreon"
The intro song at the beginning of the video (4:00) sounds like it was loosely based on the UEFA Champions League theme.
Is that just me?
@@GTAVictor9128 you’re right, I can hear it.
Heads up, that's Carlisle you've got pinned as Newcastle. @7:56
I watched it on Nebula, but there's no comments there so I had to come here for the Engagement.
[ALGORITHM ENGAGEMENT COMMENT]
I appreciate your sacrifice to the algorithm gods.
@@Tom_Nicholas I shall sacrifice as well
[ALGORITHM ENGAGEMENT ANSWER TO A COMMENT]
Haha good one, very insightful
@@wolregin8471 [ALGORITHM ARGUMENT WITTY RETORT]
If I had a nickel for every time the British arguably caused a genocide in Ireland, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s pretty horrific that it happened twice.
(Cromwell’s conquest and the Great Famine, if anyone’s wondering.)
There was the Ulster Plantation in Northern ireland before that, and the Norman-Anglo Conquest Of Ireland before that, so you'd arguably have 3 or 4 nickels.
Cursed achievement coins nobody should have, like receiving a medal for a war crime. Oh, wait..
@@grandsome1 It's called "Most awards given to military service members in the global north"
It didn't cause a genocide in Ireland; if you had nickel for every time it did, you would have 0 nickels. Precisely no one of any legitimacy holds the opinion that there was a genocide.
The Irish Economist and Historian Cormac Ó Gráda did a huge amount of work on the Famine of the 1800s and has said very plainly that the claim of constituting a genocide is not supported by the evidence.
@@WalterKhayyam That’s why I said ‘arguably’. Even if it’s not an actual genocide, if your conduct was bad enough for there to be a significant body of research examining the possibility, you did something pretty horrendous.
As a Scot, I took psychic damage from that impression
Abby thorn lulled me into false security about Brits being good at accents
Hoot mon, I caught a little collateral damage all the way over here in Texas
i thought it sounded more welsh tbh lol
Sins against the geordies too. Apparently Newcastle is in Carlisle.
Maybe a little whiskey might help.
The story of Cromwell's being offered the crown is pretty interesting, in that there's the official reason why Cromwell turned down the crown, and the real reason why.
Cromwell's fellow military governors were looking for a way to limit the power of the Protectorate under Cromwell, as they were finding that, because the role of Lord Protector had no precedent, there really were no constitutional limits to what the LP could do. They had traded in a king, who had aspired to absolute power, for a Lord Protector, who in fact wielded absolute power. So, they approached Cromwell and suggested that perhaps it was the Will of God that he was worthy of the "Royal Dignity". Cromwell, it is said, pondered over this for some time, before coming back with a demurral, saying that taking up the crown would be to betray everything he and his army had fought for. In fact, he understood very well that his powers as Lord Protector, all encompassing as they were, could be easily circumscribed by Parliament if he sat on the throne. Both sides, it seemed, knew what the score was.
Crazy how people thought a guy was appointed by God for a job he made up.
His military governors were literally the only reason he didn't accept the crown. A broad (albeit not terribly deep) coalition wanted him to be king for the reasons you say... its just that the generals, or Grandees, or whatever you want to call them, said no way Jose, so Cromwell had to reject the Crown, even though he was probably 60-40 in favour of taking it.
I just wanna make sure everyone knows oliver Cromwell's son was widely known as Tumbledown Dick
long story short: he saw what happened to the last king, so...
His face was still on the coins
Britain is not a monarchy, it’s an anarcho syndicalist commune. I saw that in a documentary
Bloody peasant!
@@Mildau30 what?
@@bluebellbeatnik4945 NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
@@westrim ECKY ECKY ECKY FTANG ZUPOY NEER
Would that it were.
The English Revolution is such a fascinating event. People like Gerrard Winstanley and Thomas Rainsborough were proto socialists, who tapped into a longstanding under current of British radicalism, following in the footsteps of earlier radicals like John Ball and Wat Tyler, while inspiring later resistance themselves.
Even just the trial of Charles I is super interesting. In reality it was a sham trial lol. You could argue the law was on the king's side, but clearly it was the right thing to find him guilty. Also we know the names of everyone involved and know most of what they said and did, which is really cool for something that happened 400 years ago.
I wouldn’t really call it a revolution as it was a series of civil wars to uphold the parliamentary status quo. Even the revolution of 1688 was really just a coup. For what I’ve heard it was Marx who called the civil wars the English revolution
@@t_ylr all post war trials are sham trials what is often dubbed victor’s justice
England had civil wars - The closest England got to a revolution was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 .
But the critical part of this was the 1689 English Bill of Rights , when ELECTED Parliamentarians said to William of Orange and Mary II - here are the terms .
th-cam.com/video/Gx9N0mrTPtw/w-d-xo.html
In other words , this is beginning of democracy in modern civilization . However , at the time , only land owners had the vote . The struggle for the vote continued during the 19th century Charitist Movement .
Thomas Rainsborough was a leveller - which sounds like the precursor to John Locke and Enlightenment ideas .
th-cam.com/video/bZiWZJgJT7I/w-d-xo.html
.
.....
Jesus Christ saves
He had mercy on me he can save all who all seek him today He made away through calvery repent of all sins today
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
Last time I was this early we had a queen
“Too soon bro!”
@@jtgd Prosperity to Yemen and hellfire to Elizabeth.
Now that Lizzy's down the drain, what should we expect from Chuck? Up on the pole?
I spent a week learning about this for my "life in the UK" test. I was listening to audiobooks and had color-coded notes and everything. There were no questions about it on my test.
Funny part is theres things there that even brits don't know.
They don't even teach british school kids about the revolution. But they'll go hard on Henry VIII
@@cretinousswine8234 They taught me about this
To be fair, there's a hell of a lot of potential questions that could come up on a test entitled "life in the UK". That's like when people pick "WWII" as a specialist subject in Master Mind only to find they ask a load of questions about the atomic bomb. I'm also curious as to why you would be doing a test on "life in the UK".
@@Dave5400 There are official guidelines that state what info may appear on the test, I studied all of the content equally. The test is required for immigrants to the UK when it comes time to apply for their permanent residency / citizenship.
David Starky in that seriese also defined monarchy as any and all political systems in which one individual can me said to be in-charge and explicitly claimed prime ministers and presidents are examples of monarchy, which is such a casual disregard of the basic meaning of words that it still kinda makes me mad just thinking about it.
I rewatched this excerpt today. Just wild stuff. "Everything is [blank] as long as I redefine [blank] to mean everything".
"Checkmate, republicans!"
I mean, I guess that's correct in the sense that a king and his court is a very similar dynamic to a president/prime minister and the capitalist class, but I can't imagine he was making some sort of leftist structural critique of liberal representative democracies lol
By the basic definition of a monarchy he is right though. Μονος = sole αρχειν = rule So a monarch is somebody who is the sole ruler and if even a king who is heavily dependant on his vassals counts as a monarch, a prime minister could also be seen as one.
@@angela_merkeI That's not how language works mate. A word's meaning isn't based on its origin, but a lot of factors, including use and common understanding of the word.
Also by that definition almost nothing is a monarchy because not even kings have ruled anything by themselves.
The idea of the monarchy as an institution of stability and continuity seems, to me, an idea born in the 20th century, during the reign of Elizabeth II and the collapse of the Empire. It, in this sense, represents a kind of grandeur and dignity that the country is desperate to cling onto now that the original source of that grandeur (the Empire & Britain's pre-eminent position amongst the great powers) is gone.
The Japanese right like to do the same thing with their imperial family, claiming them to be the longest running single governing body in the world. Nevermind that they were basically figureheads for about 700 years of history.
These same politicians like to ignore the native Ainu people and claim that Japan is a mono-ethnic state and that's what makes it stable.
Continuity is overrated. An hereditary disease can be seen as a sign of continuity.
Not sure about that. Monarchs always emphasised their long history and cultural continuity. They thought monarchies falling was a garant for all traditional law and custom being ignored.
I just read "Legacy of Violence" about the British Empire and Caroline Elkins says something similar - that the idea of modern of Britishness - involving love for the monarch and empire - was intentionally manufactured as propaganda complete with music by Elgar and patriotic songs around the late 1800's (I may have a few details slightly off)
@@pipster1891 A really good point, what is the point of continuity if we just hold on to the bad things?
As an Australian the crowning of Chumbo is REALLY important to me. Like it SO matters. It matters to SUCH a degree that I think we really should have a public holiday about it.
Agreed, when will our republic commence?
Why did you post 4 different comments?
@@circleofshame never! 🇦🇺🇳🇿🇬🇧🇨🇦👑
@@Tay12345 That's disappointing news.
Do you like the new king of Australia?
I think Australians are more than qualified to run their own country just fine without an English king telling them what to do.
@@circleofshame it’s not like he actually tells them what to do though ?
Mate, I’ve got an MA in International History (also currently working on my PhD proposal) and I have to say that you have much better communication skills than most history lecturers I’ve had. Honestly, your storytelling abilities when you communicate this history is absolutely enthralling!! Very well done 😊
Wait, you're telling me that there isn't a divine right of Kings and that political systems are social constructs that can be changed? Wow, this might just be the hottest take I've ever heard
This has been the constitutional consensus since Charles I lost his head. The church can believe it. The state does not
Not really, considering there was very little difference between the personal rule of Charles I and the dictatorship of Cromwell, aside from the fact that, unbelievably, Cromwell was even more religiously intolerant then Charles was
@@Edmonton-of2ec Charles I was married to a Catholic which was probably a mark against him. Most of his descendants became catholic leading to the line having to go back up through James I again after Anne.
@@04nbod Well aware of the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement, thank you
Yes, and also telling you God is a construct and everything is made up in the name of power and utility
That whole ‘the English Monarchy is 1500 years old’ thing is so ridiculous they may as well be claiming decent from King Arthur. Like there wasn’t even an England 1500 years ago and you’d probably still struggle to get that far back if you counted all the kings of Wessex as well
including the kings of wessex gets you to 1500 almost exactly
General Motors was officially founded in 2011, but they do claim all the old trademarks.
Yeah, they Royal Family is German/Dutch AF, the first 2 Reich's were fought on their behalf. They're technically Dutch, from the VOC, but still very much not Mount Batten Windsor, which is Rollo/William's descendants who lost the crown nearly 1000 years ago.
You can trace the English royal line back to Cerdic King of the West Saxons in the 5th century.
@@mikealexander1935 Not patrilineally. They may as well be roman generals kids, too by that standard.
Ahh.. Mr Tom has blessed us with another video. 😁😁
All joking aside, thank you for your hard work, as always. One of the best on this platform. ✌️
Thank you, that's very very kind! I'm glad you find the stuff I make interesting!
Indian reserves in Canada are still fully owned by the monarchy, and are not equal citizens under the law through the indian act
I was halfway through a comment decrying the typical British celebration of Cromwell without mention of his lust for Irish genocide until you did actually mention it; good stuff Tom! Really enjoying this and looking forward to the rest of the series.
Wouldn't have hurt to describe it a little though... Cromwell in Ireland specifically might not be enough material for your usual video length, but I'm pretty sure if you were to combine that with all the other British history not widely discussed in the UK, you'll have your next series.
I think this is generally well-recognised today. In terms of going into more detail, however, my worry was that, mentioning one or two events would maybe accidentally imply that it was the extent of it. Sometimes I find it’s better to just acknowledge that some things are beyond the remit of a particular video!
Massive respect for that and the fact you took the time to mention it is all that's required. If every video on TH-cam discussed all relevant topics to the extent they deserved, we would get one video a year at best
@@Tom_Nicholas That makes perfect sense but it's still appreciated that you took the time to address the elephant in the room. Especially given the relevance of Anglo-Irish relations at the moment with the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement.
If you ever wind up doing a video in the future on Cromwell in Ireland good luck with the place names. Drogheda is pronounced Draw-head-ah
The best thing he could have done would be to link to an Irish video essayist who covered it in more detail.
@@Jmcinally94 Do you know any? (this isn't tryna be accusatory it's being curious tone is hard)
"which would later be known as communism"
'Based'
I just love the videos man.. Super excited to see the next one. (after I finish this one of course)
„Divine Right of Kings DEBUNKED WITH AXE AND LOGIC“ put the image of a medieval Ben Shapiro into my head, so you’re gonna have to deal with it, too.
That killed me 😂
Just a little medieval peasant dressed in his nicest suit-adjacent attire standing there with a huge battle axe and rapidly convincing you of a bunch of almost contradictory anti-monarchic ideas.
I feel like Ben Shapiro would be pro-monarchy though.
@@judeconnor-macintyre9874 Some people say we would be better off without the king, and that is illogical.
@@judeconnor-macintyre9874 Yeah but it’s still funny.
Today, 14th April, is the day in 1933 when the Spanish Second Republic was declared. SALUD Y REPUBLICA
Ahhhh, I'm gonna pretend I did that on purpose...
@@Tom_Nicholas Very well, we shall pretend that you are not pretending :)
¡No pasarán!
This is great work, thank you Tom. I'm a Spaniard and I teach UK history at college. I certainly will recommend this video to my students.
By the way, here in Spain we are in sore need to seriously study our Republican age, 1931-1936, five years during which Spain became a cutting edge democracy, until the Republic was destroyed by the fascists. As one commentator has said, today is the anniversary of the proclamation of the Second Republic, something completely ignored by pro establishment parties here.
My dad's written an academic dissertation about the pre-civil war period, but I think his focus was on the underlying tensions rather than the Republic itself? I shall have to ask him.
It takes a brave population to really learn it’s own history. The English establishment will tell any politically acceptable story to avoid that.
Problem is that unlike Germany we never had a proper "denazification" or a figure like Willy Brandt
Ah yes, and what a great period that was eh?
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan Germany's own was a bit dubious considering how much of the Third Reich became the Bundesrepublick
I saw a Daily Telegraph headline the other day complaining that the king is too woke. They actually used that word. Whatever about the ethics of the conservative press, there was once a time when they at least took themselves seriously. Apparently no longer.
Charles is woke? Is there a quota of dead Irishmen that a British monarch needs to preside over before being considered properly conservative?
remember when "politicaly correct" was the buzzword of the day? From red-baiting to accusations of "wokeism", the right wing playbook has simply not changed.
Their ethics aren't your own, which is were they real point lays. The reason why they talk about this stuff is that they come from a different moral paradigm, basically just the prexisting one as they haven't really thought it though just as those who accuse them of immorality haven't really thought though that that's about the same as a Confucian calling a Christian immoral, they have different values in the first place. Also left wing claims of a lack of sincerity are often self-confessions, they are far more post-modern in their outlook than conservatives are.
@@vorynrosethorn903 I'm not (here) complaining about their ethics, though I have many complaints I could make. I'm saying that they no longer even take themselves seriously. "The king is too woke" is not, actually, a principled position of any sort.
The tory press is the worst...
The coverage is litterally OTT.
A wonderful breakdown overall but also, "divine right of kings destroyed with AXE and logic" is a best background gag I think I've ever seen😂😂😂
You'd think if they had God's mandate it would more difficult to bisect them
Fun fact: The Civil War period also shook up the church. Not only were people willing to push against the power of the monarchy, they were also keen to get rid of the bishops and priests. Many new denominations grew out of this including Baptists (the second largest denomination in the USA, generally conservative) and Quakers (radically progressive, anarchist, based). Most new movements disappeared, but a notable few remain.
Kinda interesting parallel with Russian Civil War. There are many articles about communist anti-religious policy, but all those usually exaggerated depictions of the repressions usually do not even trying to answer on the one simple question - how deeply religious, mostly Orthodox-Christian Russian Empire so easily accepted new communist rulers, who was openly atheist?
Answer hides in the deep internal crisis of the Russian Orthodox church, which has root in the XVII century from times of the split between Niconians and old-believers. Orthodoxy itself had stong connection to the original Christian communes, where people denied private property, and common Russian peasants had their own system of beliefs with huge differences from official position of the high clergy, which obviously spreads ideas about loyalty to the crown. Hard climate and conditions of life formed traditional communal ownership of land (so-called "obshina"), and Orthodox fate enforced it.
In the same time, Russian Emperors constantly not provided policy in the interests of nobility (peasants did not understand, why noble own the land, because God gives land only for those, who works on it), but even tried to destroy institute of obshina itself (Reforms of the prime minister Stolypin). It was not just not pleasant thing for majority of peasants, but literal heresy. And high clergy, who supports nobles and tsar in such heresy are heretics too.
In the last decades before revolution in the Russian Empire different religious sects, independent from official Russian Orthodox church, rapidly increased in size, and almost all of them had connections to old-believers. Common people just lost their trust to official church and slowly raised hate for them. And most influential sect was so-called "bespopovstsy" (literal translation means "people without priests").
And when monarchy collapsed, those people decided, that godless communists, who fights for common cause without expecting any afterlife reward for his actions much closer for them, then hypocritical fat priest with golden cross on his chest.
Quaker are radically progressive?
Made up propaganda.
I am a Quaker, and I can attest that we talk about our English Civil War roots not infrequently. A week ago, we had a national denominational conference, and in one workshop a yearly meeting superintendent held a lecture on our history.
I suppose it's fair to call us "radically progressive" for the time considering our heavy emphasis on egalitarianism, but we're certainly not anarchists. Quakers (officially, "The Religious Society of Friends") had to learn to self-govern very quickly after a few incidents with rogue preachers that got out of hand.
Quakers were essentially proto-Evangelicals, in the sense that they emphasized a personal relationship with Jesus Christ in their preaching, following George Fox's conversion experience. They were (and continue to be) a very decentralized community. However, there was a certain Quaker preacher named James Nayler who unilaterally rode on the back of a horse into Bristol shouting, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," reenacting Christ's entry into Jerusalem. He was arrested for blasphemy, and even Fox and the other Quakers said he went too far. After that, Quaker leaders made efforts to organize local autonomous meetings governed by consensus, partly so that a rogue individual wouldn't do something stupid that reflected badly on the broader movement.
@@ErikNilsen1337 Good to hear from another Quaker. My background is very conservative pentecostalism, so Australian Quakers are radically progressive by comparison. In practice my meeting is just a bunch of sensible, caring folk who want the world to be better. They're definitely not radical in the civil war sense.
Oliver Cromwell was a king in all but name. As Lord Protector he was granted his position for life and was given the right to chose his successor and he chose his eldest son just like a king would.
Tbf, he picked Richard because he was arguably the only one around at the time that had the skill to manage the country. Richard gets a bad wrap, but he was a excellent politician in his own right, but there was no one in Britain that had the means to hold the together together other than Cromwell.
ironically he was better than a king, the king was limited by articles and parliment, the lord protector had no such limits, his power was beyond the constitution, the irony being that parliment and member of the army wanted him crowned to reduce his power.
@@jam8539 well thats an overlooked point in that a faction of the army wanted him to be king because it would actually give the army more power, which Cromwell curtailed somewhat, and another faction were utterly apposed to the idea of reintroducing a king.
Plus at this point, its hard to understand that he kinda needed extra-ordinary power to try subdue the chaos. it was a catch 22 moment.
Hereditary succession was the norm
Who was gonna choose his successor the electoral college?
You have managed to simplify and explain, in a really engaging and accessible way, a time in history that I had to read so much about to make sense of (Welsh history is intwined with all this and making sense of one's historical invasion means making sense of the material conditions at the time etc)
Basically, thank you for this and for your larger body of work. ❤
Also, I agree with your sentiment. His body of work is something I am very thankful for.
Yma O Hyd 🎶
Just got to the opening and unfortunately I must admit that Zadok the Priest is an absolute banger
The English Civil War is my jam, so very happy to see some coverage of it on a channel such as yours. The Commonwealth period is so fascinating, dozens of tiny factions floating about. Not just radicals such as the Diggers, but the Ranters, the Fifth Monarchists, the Quakers. It really is the first of the bourgeois revolutions, from the Marxist perspective, and was considered a hugely important event before it was overshadowed by the French Revolution. The French Revolution itself kept looking back and comparing itself to the English Revolution, some accused others of being a Cromwell attempting to concentrate power, and Louis XVI himself was reading a biography of Charles I in his final days. I think you deemphasized the religious element somewhat but I can see how the more you add the more complicated it gets, and anything that teaches about the period is good in my books.
"No, no, I'm not a monarch, I'm a Lord Protector, it's totally different. Yes, I get supreme power and my son will inherit the position, but I wear a totally different sort of hat. See?"
Oliver, the first of his name
Lord of the Three Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm
Boy, those diggers seem pretty cool. I had only been taught the broad strokes, that Cromwell was a king by another name, that it was a "brief period", before things "returned to normal". It's pretty interesting to think how those ideas might've influenced other revolutions. And also sadly not surprising that Cromwell turned-around and quashed what he perceived as counter-revolutions which were really just continuations!
Look up the Paris Commune! Those guys were really hardcore as well.
Whoa brother easy on the hard r.
@@danielhadad4911 I did know about that one :) it’s the fact it happened here too and may even have influenced them that I found cool!
Compared to almost a thousand years of monarchy it was and extremely brief period. It was also a failure in terms of forming a stable replacement for the order that was removed.
@@adamantiiispencespence4012 do you think that was due to the inherent instability of what they were going for or were there maybe a bunch of other contributing factors?
This is so funny in the timing... I'm an American who visited parts of Europe a week back, including Scotland, and in one of the museums in Edinburgh we found some really interesting paintings of the beheading of Charles I. As Americans we had no idea who this was but we were like "man, this dude must've really been hated, there's like 5 paintings of him being beheaded here". But obviously none of us cared enough to look it up.
We get home and you upload this video on this exact situation!
A fine example of American tact and understanding of culture outside their own borders.
Jesus Christ what do you do in American schools? Drugs and football?
Why wouldn't you care enough to look it up? You flew across a dammm ocean
Homie straight up said "I'm going to assume history" fr
I love super interesting historical deep dives of a moment in time. This was so good and entertaining
God save save the king!
King Tom, first of his name, king of TH-cam and video essays, protector of the Theater and dread of the neoliberalism!
Croatia has entered the chat
Tom Nicholas and Jacob Geller upload on the same day, this is the greatest day of my life
Didn't actually think about that 0_o
The planets must have aligned or something
This was good, and thanks for mentioning that Cromwell was also a loathsome cruel guy himself, but if you could add 20% more monarchy bashing to future videos that would be great.
I'm Irish, and am therefore required to utterly despise Cromwell and everything about him.
Why stop at 20%? We'd go full Cromwell%, if only the latter weren't a prick himself.
@@qwertyTRiG English people should hate him too there were two whole better options right these and he was like Screw You
@@danielhadad4911 cromwell% lol
@@danielhadad4911 cromwell% sounds like a speedrun category but one shudders to think exactly what it might involve
England is kinda sneaky - America taking the role of "primary global imperialist" the last 100ish years has let them sweep a lot of their misdeeds under history's rug. At least for European/North American history curriculums 😂
That, and ending up (mostly accidentally) on the right side of the Second World War.
@@qwertyTRiG yes I think it's not common knowledge that Britain didn't really want to get involved in WW2. It's not as though we had German royals 😂
This is awesome. Great idea - I can't wait to see the full "execution" of Treasonfest!
I'm inordinately pleased with myself that I figured out this was about Cromwell after you said 17th century. I know it's not much, but it makes me happy that my years of history learning have paid off :D
when the queen died, i wanted to drill my brain out with a spoon because they made the radio miserable
The diggers have a traditional english folk song. It's a protest song and can be found as a cover by chumbawamba or on the english folk project (with a variety of other folk songs, do give it a view as it's trying to preserve a lot of our heritage). It's a cool song and I would really recommend a listen.
When I was taught about the dissolution and reformation of the monarchy, it was done with a large emphasis on emotion and historical empathy...
So to hear Tom's retelling is fuckin amazing, the mad lad straight up called charlie a prick lmao
To be fair, everyone involved was prick. It was a time of pricks. Charles II just wanting to sleep with women and have fun was probably an immense relief
We have still had a monarchy for 1000 years Not sure the cromwell years are a time anyone wants to go back to
He acted just as a king but under a different title even tried to leave it to his son
Only reason he didn’t call himself king when offered was because it would have limited his power whereas he had unlimited power as lord protectorate as it was new territory
@@orangelemon2511when 21st C people wanted to introduce religious governance to Britain, we said nah tried that 400 years ago
@@04nbodAgreed, a lot of people give Charles II a lot of crap but it’s very much an over correction. Like Cromwell, Charles II played a big part in making Britain, Britain. He reeled in the excesses of the Salem Witch Trials and a bunch of other Puritan Tomfuckery in New England, continued to expand Britain’s colonial ambitions, Henry Morgan was knighted under Charles II, and he obtained New York from the Dutch. He was lustful and careless but these attributes helped keep Britain steady after it had been though decades and decades of chaos.
Thanks for all the great entertainment and, yes, glimpes into interesting and somewhat neglectet parts of history and society.
7:57 that Newcastle placement was spot on 😂
I saw the "mistake", but is this placement a reference to something?
@@thezpn been put in carlisle, don't know if thats some sort of footy joke or what
@@thezpn I don’t think so. That’s probably done by Tom himself and he just put the star on the left instead of the right. He’s human, it happens. This is a great video. It’s good there a small error to humanize it🙂
It's a trick to make sure that you are watching!
@@nevreiha That's not Carlisle, it's the Anthorn NATO transmitter. What's Tom not telling us?
Oliver Cromwell isn't even the main parliamentarian commander. Thomas Fairfax was better than cromwell in every military aspect
Thank you for explaining the civil war better than literally any history teacher I've ever had lol
You noble Diggers all, stand up now, stand up now,
You noble Diggers all, stand up now,
The wast land to maintain, seeing Cavaliers by name
Your digging does maintain, and persons all defame
Stand up now, stand up now.
16:24 in fairness to Charlie, this approach worked so well they had to remove him from the trail because he kept owning the judge.
"I would gladly defend myself, only that I ask, Upon who's authority am I being tried"
The only way to destroy his argument is to prove there is no God, from which Charlie claimed subordination, and no Christian man would do that
So Napoleon was basically the Cromwell of the French Revolution.
Marx called it bonapartism
Fun Fact: ‘Zadok The Priest’ is used to crown monarchs and is also the Champions League theme tune.
So when Charles gets crowned, we can pretend he’s won the Champions League! 😂
Remember, it's not "God save the king, long live the king"
It's "DIE MEISTER, DIE BESTEN, LES GRANDES EQUIPES, THE CHAMPIONS".
I always found topic of English revolution quite funny by itself, but your sense for memes made it pure gold.
Treasonfest seems like a Good idea, probably will be watching all of them as soon as they come out
It’s kind of funny that someone who is known for cheating on his wife is now head of the Church of England… what a world
let's be real they all did that weirdness, throughout history. It's the natural end of the hedonic treadmill.
@@Pistolita221 I think you missed the point
Yeah, the oldest institution is the Papacy.
Literally nearing it’s 2000 anniversary under the current pope’s successor
Or the Papal States which existed before England was a country
The Papal States were dissolved in 1871 though, not continuously existing since the Middle Ages to this day. The papacy definitely is.
The English Civil War and the time before Charles I's execution was a very based time in British history. A lot of their ideas were ahead of our time. Shame that Cromwell went and ruined it all.
I wouldn't say he did, the politics of the time were extremely complex which tended to trip itself over.
@@tisFrancesfault Cromwell and his fellow grandees actively suppressed the more egalitarian factions, and Cromwell himself seized power with the intent to remain a dictator. Not to mention, Ireland. He definitely ruined things.
@@MrGksarathy I dont see the issue with him being a (radical) moderate in that regard. Nor did he really seize power. He Tried to save the King as King, offered him to abdicate for his son, It was only Charles arrogance that damned him. He also consistently tried to create a "godly and just parliament". But they were, just ..the worst. This failure really depressed him. He was also one of the few who could control the army, and the army in effect demanded his position of control, though the relationship actually fairly adversarial.
And the Issue with Ireland was, in contemporary manner legitimate. They were at war after all.
It would of been interesting in how the rest of europe would of viewed it.
Since by the french revolution all the other major powers see france as a threat to "the ballance of power in europe"
@@tisFrancesfault you know, an arsehole that’s been dead for 364 years is probably not the best one to keep licking- can’t be healthy. You’re all over this comment section defending Cromwell and it’s just a bit weird tbh
I love the fact that even in the earliest dawn of capitalism people already formulating their own anticapitalist (specifically protocommunist) ideas and put it into praxis. Stand up now, Diggers all!
In other news, now everytime I try to watch UEFA Champions League I will always remember the British royal coronation ceremony. Thanks Tom, I hate it
The pilgrims who founded the USA were as radical as the levelers, and some as radical as the diggers. The USA would have been considered communist initially if it wasn't so racist. Free land for all the workers? Back then, the land was basically the only means of production.
shout-out to editor Georgia Burrows, don't know who she is, but she did an amazing job in this video and I loved it. 🌟 Also, congratulations Tom, for such a wonderful storytelling and spice! ✨ Thank you.
This was such an interesting video on an absolutely fascinating topic! Your videos have evolved so much, it's been a joy to watch your content change and grow, and I'm really excited for what's to come. The intro animation on its own was stunning.
I seriously need to get nebula finally
All monarchies should be abolish
I have got to wonder which monarchy contains the most frustrated republicans? Turns out there are only 4 countries who got rid of the monarchy only to restore them. Sure, We were the first country to behead our king, but there are so many countries that were republics for most of their history only to become a monarchy in the modern period. The Netherlands for one was a republic from the 1560s to the 1800s only for the French republican revolution to end that. I cant imagine either the Spanish or the Cambodian republicans like to promote their republican history when the Spanish one was for a long period fascist and Cambodia seemed to have continual interference from outside forces such as France, Vietnam and the USA.
I’ll be tuning in to the coronation purely on the small chance that Diana runs in and interrupts the whole service
Liz Truss was right once: 20 years ago when she said the Monarchy should be abolished 👍
I need an Assassin’s Creed game set during the English Revolution 😩
If Dianna was going to be the queen consort i would have cared about the coronation
Many others would agree with ya mate....
No one is gonna call Camilla queen.
loved this... that last part about the actual crown is brilliant!
Nice to know Bri'ish politics been a shitshow at least since XVII century
Hasn't politics in general basically been a shitshow throughout all of human history?
@@scifino1 Yes.
One time the Nordics owned york and 1 guy on a bridge stopped an entire army...
I just found your channel and I love it! You have such great content! ❤️
Any time I think my government can't get any worse I look at yours and feel instantly better.
I actually would really love a video on the historical revisionism/propaganda of the Horrible Histories series, as someone who loved it as a kid and frankly hasn't learned much else about British History since watching it
i thought this was a real video and wasted 5 min looking for it, tom plz
Always love your videos, but this one has some very loud sound effects that kinda hurt if you are on headphones. Particularly the transition music after the intro and the bagpipes soundeffect.
A decent video though you kind of brush aside the importance of religion in this Era. Religion was crazy important. Charles the 1st's war with the Scottish was due to trying to have religious uniformity in his three kingdoms, as was typical of rulers of all types in that era. Scotland was Presbyterian and when he issued a new prayer book, they revolted. A growing number of the Puritans in Parliament Sympathized with the Scottish during the conflict.
Then prior to the 1st English civil war, Ireland had its own rebellion as the catholic gaelic Irish and catholic old english united to get some better equality and rights for them. Parliament and London in particular would use this against Charles, and they would have wild consipercy theories about how if toleration for catholicism would bring about doom and despair. Mind you the revolt wasn't to get rid of the King but to have the graces(aka some better equal treatment) for the Irish
During the civil war Parliament was split into two factions the Independents and the Presbyterians(the moderates in your video) who signed the Solemn League and Covenant to effectively make Presbyterianism the state religion of England after the fighting was done. The Independents wanted more puritanical government; there is a reason why they banned Christmas, plays, sport, and more once they took power.
Side note: The Scottish side of this whole thing with the National covenant, to fighting Charles I to fighting for Charles II against Cromwell and then under the commonwealth could be its own video.
Just a small correction. Charles I wasn’t a “medieval king” but an early modern one. The medieval era in England had ended over a century prior to Charles I🥲
I too would like to express my engagement with errrr that particular algorithm.
“Oliver Cromwell has freed us!”
“Oh, I wouldn’t say ‘freed’. More like ‘under new management’.”
Kier Starmer is the Oliver Cromwell for the 2020s
As an American whose entire knowledge of this topic was from watching Horrible Histories as a kid, I feel some responsibility to defend them.
They didn’t represent Charles II just as a fun loving guy who wanted to party all day in his cool palace, they represented him as a a fun loving guy who wanted to party all day, fuck nonstop, and execute the people who would threaten interrupt that! Very clearly a dictator, I think
The king had more limits on his power then Cromwell did though
Cromwell acted exactly as a king would even trying to leave his son the country
He only refused the title of king as it would limit his power whereas ‘lord protectorate’ was completely new and so he became a dictator
The monarchy nowadays has a surprisingly similar role to your ‘First lady’. Both unelected, live in a state owned palace, Has an important role in public service, as foreign representatives tradition etc
Most other countries especially with constitutional monarchies like Britain also don’t care nor know who the prime ministers wife is
@@orangelemon2511 I would say the british monarchy is more like the us constitution. Seems outdated and was made a long time ago but is the basis for the founding of the country. Also was created arbitrarily by a couple of guys without the real consent of the people. The british monarch protects the constitution of the british people and is able to overule most things that the parliment can do theoretically, just like the constitution can theoretically do. All british charters and legislations are done in the monarchs name like with the constitution. Abolishing the monarchy would be like abolishing the constitution and would effectively through the entire country into anarchy like abolishing the monarchy has done to so many countries in the world.
Im an Irish American and the child of a protestant minister.
I have a very clear memory of a church lady cornering me talking about her visit to the UK and how wonderful Cromwell was.
I reminded her of my family's history. She sort of just shrugged it off "oh right the Irish don't like him much" and then continued to blather on about Cromwell.
I was trying to be polite. But I lost my patience when she pulled out her phone to show me pictures she took at Cromwell's grave.
I said Id love to visit so I could piss on it and she finally left me alone.
Wait. Does pissed mean tipsy in British? lol
YES!!
Pissed is a beautiful word of many meanings: drunk, angry, urinating, alcohol, messing around, dawdling - truely one of the best creations of the English language.
@@j_fenrir for sure, it’s one of my absolute favourites in the English language
It means very drunk
Pissed: very drunk
Pissed off: angry
Phrasal verbs are tricky.
To be fair, a coronation is something historical that doesn't happen very often. Charles III seems to be in good health and, with his genes and modern medical care, he could make it to 100 or more.
His genes....as if he's special 😅
not a good thing
Long live the last king. Hopefully not too long
Disclaimer: I am not disputing that Charles I was a moron.
Your analysis of the circumstances of Charles I inheriting the throne in 1625 is, however, a bit loaded. Parliament actually started playing silly buggers before Charles had a chance to do anything. Specifically, they only gave him tonnage and poundage (customs duty income) for a year, rather than the traditional "for the duration of the reign." They'd also been enthusiastically pushing for an expensive War while refusing to pay for it.
The Eleven Year Tyranny notion was the creation of later Whig Historians. The period 1629-1640 saw England sit out the Thirty Years War, and because Charles wasn't calling Parliaments, taxation was low - the only people whingeing were the elites. Charles was genuinely popular with the average person, at least in England (Scotland was a different matter, what with the religion thing). Had Archbishop Laud never pushed the Prayer Book on Scotland, there's no particular reason the Personal Rule might not have continued indefinitely - sure Laud and Charles were fools, but Stafford (the other key minister in the regime) was not.
The crisis of 1640-1641 also saw Parliament demand not only the head of Stafford, and the ousting of Laud, but they actually wanted to put Charles' own children into Parliamentary custody. By the standards of the time, Parliament was engaging in a power grab beyond belief, and thus Charles pushed back - having already sacrificed his ministers. The War thus reflected Parliamentary Overreach, not Royal Overreach - Charles undoubtedly handled everything badly, but fundamentally was a victim of circumstances beyond his control.
29:37 Also, the leaders of the English Civil War, like John Pym and John Hampden, inspired the American Revolution, as guys like Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Hamilton drew inspiration from their writings.
No, the Dutch Republic already had shown that denying the devine right of kings, getting rid of your king because he had become a tyrant who didn't serve the people and did not respect their inalienable rights was not punished by god, but got extremely prosperous. The American DOI is almost a copy of the the Dutch DOI of 1581. They had over 2 centuries of republic to study, and they did.
@@DenUitvreter Who cares about the declaration of independence. How many different ways are there of writing a letter declaring independence. The dutch were never really a republic as they had a hereditary stadtholder. That is a monarchy. The americans would have and still would be baffled by the completely undemocratic "dutch republic". The us constitution is almost exactly the same as the 1689 english bill of rights which is much more important including the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms and the freedom of trial by jury and non unlawful detainment.
@@freneticness6927 The stadtholder was not heriditary, but appointed by the Staten, the Dutch parliaments. A monarchy back then was with the divine right of kings and the absolutism Britain had returned to when the Dutch Republic invaded in 1688 to give you your current constitiutional parliamentary monarchy and bill of rights, becoming a monarchy as close to the Dutch Republic as possible for a monarchy. Effectively pulling Britain out of the Dark Ages once and for all so it would stop allying with France and parts of Germany to attack the Dutch Republic.
The Dutch Republic had freedom of religion for over century, that was it's founding principle. It had a seperate judicial branche for much longer, it was also far more democratic because the Dutch parliaments were not controlled by nobles and had ultimate power. It also had freedom of thought and print, that's why John Locke lived their and wrote is important works. He accompanied appointed stadtholder William III his wife to by then occupied London were William took the throne. The only reason for the Americans to look at Britain was and still is their language skills. Ignorance about everything non English does not make England the centre and beginning of it all.
And no, he wasn't invited, he asked 7 powerless lords to be invited while preparing the impressive fleet and army for the invasion for propaganda reasons.
@@DenUitvreter Holland was crushed in all of the wars it ever had with england and was stomped on by every power in europe. The only reason why your country is independent from the spanish is because the english under elizabeth sent troops to fight the spanish. Holland has never been a real republic and the stadtholders were all from the house of orange and were the monarchs of holland. There was no parliment and no democracy in the netherlands. It was not a republic in any form and did not have a real elected head of state which is what a republic is. The magna carta and the 1689 bill of rights have nothing to do with the dutch and are a product of the barons and parliment which holland did not have. It was mary who became queen of england with william and william of orange was her cousin and in line to the english throne anyways. The netherlands is a modern non country with almost as little legitimacy as belgium. Its not like the dutch ever needed the english to stop napoleon from stomping them into dust ever anyways. Britain was as much invaded by the dutch as it was by the americans in ww2. The monarch of england became mary 2nd.
@@freneticness6927 You simply have no clue about history and you own ignorance. Elizabeth's personal favourite the Earl of Leicester, Robert Dudley, was indeed supposed to help, but was incompetent, made a mess and sold Dutch cities to the Spaniards. It was not exactly returning the favour of blocking a huge part of the Armada by the Dutch to prevent the invasion of Britain.
You don't understand what monarchy in Europe was and therefore you're own monarchy. They were supposed to be put there by god, as your theocratic practices of your king being the head to the Church of England (protestants in name only) should have reminded you of. It was not just a position of power and not necessarily a position of power. As you also might have noticed as most likely a monolingual, people in different parts of the world speak different languages. The fact that the Dutch didn't name their parliament parliament or parlement, the Netherlands had and still has the Staten and the Staten-Generaal. Staten Island is named after that.
The head of state was elected by those parliaments. Sometimes the appointed stadtholder could be considered the head of state, sometimes the raadspensionaris. Sometimes no stadtholder was appointed. Before Willem III there was the first stadtholderless era for example, and there was to be another one.
A republic does not require democracy just like democracy doesn't require a republic. Unless everybody can vote equally there is not really a democracy, there wasn't in Britain, the USA or the Netherlands or anywhere else before the late 1800's. The Magna Charta was very limited and soon surpassed by far more extensive civil rights in the Low Lands and freedom of religion was in the de facto constitution of the Dutch Republic that was signed in 1579. With the Bill of Rights, the English finally got similar civil rights to the Dutch.
Stadtholder Willem III nor his wife was in line to the English throne, but the Staten-generaal had commissioned a fleet twice the size of the Armada and increased the Staatse leger (yes, the Dutch army was named after the parliemant too) for William to invade England, and so he did. The legitimate king got a nosebleed and ran off to France before there was the big battle, and the English army fell into chaos with lots of deserters and defectors. The Dutch reached London and had it occupied for several years without an English soldier allowed near it. English parliament had no power over him whatsoever, but he wanted to make Britain into a stable ally against the catholic enemies of the Dutch Republic. He was used to dealing with parlement as a stadtholder, he was not stuck in the Dark Ages like the English, he was a modern leader from a country so modern it was richer than Britain with only 1.5 million inhabitants. If he wanted to rule like some medieval alpha male he wouldn't have brought John Locke but just killed all the nobles that made up parliament.
It was mostly Germans who stopped Napoleon. Wellington managed to make it all by himself for an ignorant British audience. The Dutch Republic never cared much for the imperialistic habits of monarchies like Britain and France, and actually turned Britain into a country, a nation state like it had been itself for over a century. But because of English aggression prior to 1688, it had to invade and conquer Britain and a few years before it also had to sail up the Thames to take out the English navy. The English only managed to burn down a village on a Dutch coastal island. After 1688, with the English economy modernized and the foundation of the Bank of England by the Dutch stadtholder, a lot of Dutch many that was laying around in heaps anyway was going to take it's ROI from English entreprises while the Dutch Republic got a bit out of the heat of international war and let the English do their dirty work. Without the medieval mindset, the feudalism, but from the Dutch capitalist angle, it was a huge win.
I haven't clicked on a video title so quickly after being shown it on my TH-cam subscriptions page
All I remember from being taught about Cromwell in primary school was my teacher saying that Cromwell was a tyrant, hated by all who oppressed us far more than the king did. Completely missing what he stood for, the hope of a republic in Britain.
Wouldn’t say he is a shining example of democracy or a republic
The only reason he didn’t accept the throne when offered was BECAUSE it limited his power when acting as essentially an absolute monarch But under a different name
He simply wanted power didn’t have a claim to the throne so he just used the idea of a republic for his own gain
He even tried to leave all unlimited power to his Son hereditary rule
The royal family nowadays has a surprisingly similiar function to that of the First lady of USA ( also notably unelected and lives in a state owned palace)
public service foreign representatives etc but I guess more traditional and ceremonial
So I think a republic would face a lot of issues to fill that gap since no one give a damn who the prime ministers wife is nor would they for an elected representative of state let alone their spouse However I do believe the monarchy should adapt, cost less etc it has potential to be better while still in keeping with traditions
Being offered the crown was his greatest failure
The whole point of the revolution was to vest all power to parliament but Cromwell didn't know that people needed a figurehead to worship
The Irish probably had good reasons to see him as a tyrant.
This is a fascinating dive into the less taught history of English monarchy ❤ as an NZer it's something which has muchly shaped this land of Aotearoa, we still have The Crown as the head entity of government, but this vid brings hope for a reprieve from it all
They're actually thinking about trying to reunite the english speaking colonies of NZ, AU, CA and UK. Same head of state, intelligence communities work together very closely, same monetary system, same church, language, general culture, etc. seems better than just a territory, since flights would be domestic.
@@Pistolita221 imagine something like EU but it's the commonwealth.
@@davidty2006 imo we're really not far from that today, anyways.
@@Pistolita221 imagine America allowing that.
I mean i dislike charles as much as the next guy, but he literally waited 3/4ths of a century, i think he deserves like a year of it.
I've been playing a fair bit of "King of the Castle" on various streams, and I'm surprised to see Grandeez'nuts being a real historic thing.
Thank you for this video, I didn't know anything about the English civil war outside that it happened
As an ungrateful colonial I am really pumped for this!
That hardly narrows it down 😂
How can modern british prople have a coronation culture ya’ll had the same monarch for 70 years!
Because we're all blasted with historical footage of the previous one in the intervening years, regaled with tales of the legendary street parties, how everybody rented a TV for the week just to see it, blah blah blah national mythmaking bollocks.
People are nostalgic for that rather than the event itself, and the idea of getting to be part of the next one seems exciting for many. Even though of course there's no way Charles will last that long before there's yet another one!
My brain exploded from the astronomical production value
ITS JUST TOO GOOD
11:31 as a drama student Tom, you of all people should know that the majority of English accents during the 17th century, even those of the south east, were rhotic. So I would guess that Cromwell probably sounded more Suffolk like than the standard RP English which is common in Cambridge today.
I'm going to England on Thursday! My dad is from England and My mom is from the U.S.A. and I'm so excited to go back, I haven't been since I was a little kid and my baby sister has never been. 🎉 I'm not looking forward to the 7 hour flight though 😅
Wow, it's amazing how much of this I glazed over during A level history. Cheers for the recap. (Somehow got an A*, one of the great mysteries of my life).
Another good reason to forget the Interregnum is that it legally is forgotten: in the early days of Restoration Parliament passed the 'Indemnity and Oblivion Act' which legally forgot the Commonwealth and Protectorate - the 'oblivion' part.
I wanna let you know the subtitles are all fucked up starting at the nebula ad, I love this video and wanted to let you know
Britain (and the rest of us) could use a Leveller Party today.
Good luck with party politcs if you still have the energy.
I just want to go pick turnips with The Diggers at this point. :(
@@Sam-iu8nb Some of my optimistic hopes when it comes to electoral politics is simply making a bit more space for things like communal turnip farming or sleeping in public areas safely and peacefully. You want a program that includes small, practical, immediate sorts of steps _and_ a grand revolutionary vision as possible. It's also good to have a plan that embraces the input of people who have only the interest and energy to spare to wish us luck all the way through professional, career party political operatives.
This opening montage is so good! Really impressive, good work
Amazing video
1) Thank you for talking about Cromwell in Ireland; I've seen him be lionised far too much by people who haven't been taught about what he did just across the pond
2) If you have time at all in the future, would love to see you go a bit into what happened in Wales in the 1280s -- it's very important to the continued enforcement of the idea of Wales as a lessser territory that is supposed, in the English royal mind, to be subservient, and nobody from any British nation are taught enough about it
3) Can I have your breastplate?
In a 70s movie, _Monty Python and the Holy Grail,_ there's a scene where they actually parodied the Diggers and proto-communism, contesting the "divine right of king"
omfg, i just got that joke. ty for explaining that to me. I'm going to laugh even harder next time i watch that movie.
"shorter"
Given I usually set out to make a 20-minute video and wind up with a 50-minute-or-so video, I think I did pretty well here...
Fascinating. Thank you for the extensive background.