1:45. poor Charles 1st. all he had to do was increase Parliamentary powers for the local, and far off district ministers, and this would have squeezed out any Puritan intrigues, and avoided the war!! even this day, i curse the wicked name of Cromwell ! the beast!
you know...he was canonized...because there was this clap of thunder when they cut off his head.....and he was trying to preserve the apostolic succession.....and is the only person to have been canonized in the CofE and since the reformation
after the first they imprisoned him since regicide is bad.. he escaped and raised a second army after which they decided he was to dangerous to leave alive so they executed him
Even after losing the Civil War, he could have gained the throne back, if only he would have agreed to concede some of his powers to Parliament. But he was too stubborn, and insisted on the absolute power of the monarchy, believing that such authority was ordained by God.
He agreed to cede power to parliament, he agreed that they were to be given control of the armed forces for 20 years and the triennial agreement which allowed parliament to meet every three years, and he even agreed that parliament could only be dissolved by itself. But it was his resolve to stand for the Episcopal Church and the power of the Bishops over the church that was opposed by the Presbyterian Scots and Puritan Parliamentarians.
Whose was it? He who is gone. Who shall have it? He who will come. What was the month? The sixth from the first. Where was the sun? Over the oak. Where was the shadow? Under the elm. How was it stepped?
North by ten and by ten, east by five and by five, south by two and by two, west by one and by one, and so under. What shall we give for it? All that is ours. Why should we give it? For the sake of the trust.
i would fit right in with these ppl im just as private with my business as they are i was on the elevator the other day and my friend was talking loud about our business and someone else was on there with us too i was like in my head shut up dont talk so loud about our business to strangers whats wrong with you?
that man made a good point we shall not waste what little money we have on vanity..i need to know that for the future for when i am low on funds my spending habits are all vanity and not nothing i need to have
I BELIEVE MY ANCESTOR COL WILLIAM CARELESS SAVED CHARLES THE SECONDS LIFE , HE HID THE KING IN AN OAK TREE UNTIL HE COULD MAKE HIS ESCAPE TO FRANCE . BOSCOBEL OAK IS STILL THERE
@1DerekRubin1 : Shrewd some would say, did not get too deeply involved. One of my profs described him as the intelligent one and his brother James the dumb one.
Charles had the wit but not the drive, James the drive but dumb as a box of rocks.
But as always with history, a matter of interpretation :)
@1DerekRubin1: Shrewd some would say, did not get too deeply involved. One of my profs described him as the intelligent one and his brother James the dumb one.
Charles had the wit but not the drive, James the drive but dumb as a box of rocks.
But as always with history, a matter of interpretation :)
he did give a speech before he died in reality. they didn't show it in this because it's a dream Charles is having and he wasn't there for his fathers death.
OK, that certainly makes your point clearer. I think you could sharpen it even further however. I think you suggest that a symbol is just that, a symbol, representing and exerting power, but also detached from the actual mechanisms and manifestations of it. It's an issue of how history should be studied and researched. Very interesting.
I was thinking about Magna Carta, the reputed ancestor of the ideals of England and her descendants. It was motivated by a certain group of self-interested barons; it has since been idealized...
But, as you mentioned symbols...
How effective a person is in matching the symbol they represent, the more successful they are.
If they are not, other people step in, and they either are better as that symbol, or they create new expectations of one.
I am more and more convinced that history is motivated by personalities, not necessarily principles. People of very ordinary abilities become powerful because of strange circumstances, and their decisions can affect millions of people.
Charles II wanted a settled life after the turmoil of the Civil War- but he was the heir of a king. The resultant demands upon him made a wish of peace impossible.
I don't think your point is clear. Motivated by personalities? In effect you seem to imply that history is one of personalities, Hitler, Cromwell, Kings and Emperors, but then you imply that it is circumstances/environment that puts these people in positions of power which doesn't tally up.
I said that principles were not as relevant, not circumstances/environment- or, 'nature and nurture'.
I believe that great events are rarely caused by great people. Many 'heroes' were very ignoble people who had little interest in their ideals beyond their own use of them.
People that wanted power, prestige, and so on, went to the King. Being the symbol of power of an ambitious nation, Charles II was larger than life; although, as a man, he was very ordinary; and, as a leader, a poor one.
You are absolutely right. this series is much better than "The Tudors", starting simply because they have historical accuracy, this failure was the big mistake of the series "The Tudors" (starting soon for the wedding of Princess Margaret with a supposed king Portuguese (decrepit and old ), but such a king who married Margaret, was a man named Louis King of France (not Portugal), since then reigned in Portugal a young Portuguese king already married to a Spanish princess ...
I also think that even those who married this old French king was Mary Tudor, and Margaret did not (as the series The Tudors suggests) that subsequently married Charles Brandon ...
I hate to see this lack of rigor in historical series and in my opinion, "The Tudors" had a very big failure on the part of historical accuracy.
Since this series is more serious in the way it deals with historical facts.
The beauty of "The Tudors" is only in the casting because his characters are more charming, which gives a certain charm to the series itself (who would not want to see Henry Cavill to make of Charles II??).
i really enjoyed following this programme when it was on the t.v and now watching and following the tudors,thanks for puting this on so i can watch it again
I did feel sorry for Charles I, but then I found out he believed himself to be 'God Ordained' as king...these were outdated ideas, the Martin Luther and the Reformation had happened 100 before, even his father King James was not popular, Guy Fawkes tried to blow him up. Britain as an island offered the chance for a different form of rule compared to most of Europe..
His belief in the divine right of KIngs wasn't the problem. It was his inability to temper it with pragmatism. James VI believed in the same principle but he knew that he had to live within the reality with which he was presented.
I've always found the death of Charles I very sad. Because it was a cold day he put on two shirts so that he wouldn't shiver in the cold and have the people think he was shivering ouut of fear. Poor Charles. Horray for Charles II!
If you would study the history, you would know that Charles essentially signed his own death warrant. Even after being defeated in the civil war, they were willing to put him back on the throne if only he would concede some of the powers of the monarchy to parliament. He refused, he insisted on ruling as a despot, or not at all, and he was rightfully deposed.
@NewYorkFlavour That's what happened in both the french and Russian revolutions as well. Louis XVI and Nicholas II both enthusiastically refused to entertain the idea of a constitutional monarchy, and both would probably have lived if they'd capitulated. Almost unbelievably, it really was both of their wives who were the influential voice in the decision(s.) Marie Antoinette can only really be blamed for the flat refusal to give up any royal prerogative, which sealed their fate.
This progamme is miles miles better than The Tudors. The fact that there is dirt, sweat, dust, worn clothes is much more realistic than the pantomine Tudors show.
finally someone downloaded this movie. you're the best:) best interpretation of British Monarchy besides Elizabeth 1998, Elizabeth the Golden Age & the Tudors.
@324wilson Screw the monarchy! Charles I was quite happy to continue the bloodshed of the Civil War to continue his reign. Monarchs are the bearers of a murderous inhuman logic that Charles I embodied in particular. The current queen of England only has her power because of generations of theft and human suffering caused by her own family and families like it.
@GeorgeDuroy75 ....Elizabeth II is a figurehead you dope. She only has ceremonial power. Although many of the previous monarch were douches due to too much power, that is true.
@000000poizen000000 First of all, it is the anthem of our country. The Queen is the personification of British people, the Commonwealth, Church of England, courts and British values, duty etc. All these things are rolled into one person, the Queen (or King) of Great Britain and Commonwealth Realms. By singing "God save the Queen," we actually mean "God save these institutions, values and her people."
@000000poizen000000 The Queen is the personification of British people, the Commonwealth, Church of England, courts and British values, duty etc. All these things are rolled into one person, the Queen (or King) of Great Britain and Commonwealth Realms. By singing "God save the Queen," we actually mean "God save these institutions, values and her people."
May His Majesty Charles I rest in peace in the kingdom of heaven.
mak34237 1 month ago in playlist Charles II: The Power & the Passion
Belief in the divine right of kings is everyone's problem.
curtisgoat 1 month ago
Hmmm, what you need, Charlie, is Dragons!
MidnighWolf 3 months ago
Thank you so much for the upload!
Medusa0999 4 months ago
i thought this was about charles 2 of spain at first
GROZNAYA 5 months ago
my ancestor was the court artist of Charles I <3 rest in peace
Nicollie1062 5 months ago
@Nicollie1062 Wow, are you a descendant of Van Dyke?
counterhon 1 month ago
@counterhon yep :)))
Nicollie1062 2 weeks ago
1:45. poor Charles 1st. all he had to do was increase Parliamentary powers for the local, and far off district ministers, and this would have squeezed out any Puritan intrigues, and avoided the war!! even this day, i curse the wicked name of Cromwell ! the beast!
acerb45666555 5 months ago 7
Charles I is one of my favourite monarchs..along with Richard III, Edward IV, and Edward I :)
Nicollie1062 8 months ago
this depiction is wrong, on his execution he wore a black cavalier's attire...
jubelletoledo 9 months ago
@jubelletoledo
TheGilhooly 8 months ago
love the music, it sets the whole scene for the movie.
grease97 9 months ago
God bless Old Rowley!
knightoftheroyaloak 10 months ago
@DreamEaters
you know...he was canonized...because there was this clap of thunder when they cut off his head.....and he was trying to preserve the apostolic succession.....and is the only person to have been canonized in the CofE and since the reformation
austreneland 11 months ago
@maths36 he lost effectivly 2 civil wars
after the first they imprisoned him since regicide is bad.. he escaped and raised a second army after which they decided he was to dangerous to leave alive so they executed him
thats the short version
lordmortimer88 11 months ago
@lordmortimer88
Even after losing the Civil War, he could have gained the throne back, if only he would have agreed to concede some of his powers to Parliament. But he was too stubborn, and insisted on the absolute power of the monarchy, believing that such authority was ordained by God.
NewYorkFlavour 9 months ago
@NewYorkFlavour
He agreed to cede power to parliament, he agreed that they were to be given control of the armed forces for 20 years and the triennial agreement which allowed parliament to meet every three years, and he even agreed that parliament could only be dissolved by itself. But it was his resolve to stand for the Episcopal Church and the power of the Bishops over the church that was opposed by the Presbyterian Scots and Puritan Parliamentarians.
PatDan 9 months ago
interesting film, baaaaaaaaaaaad camera work
gabbacadabra07 11 months ago
only grifiki could suck a horses arse and call it a youtube comment
Danemarkofmalvern 1 year ago
"Only the BBC (Bitches Box of Crap), could do this, and try to make a romantic adventure, when it is reeally just another Tyrant movie."
Grifiki 1 year ago
Miserable Puritan FILTH...
Noodles37UK 1 year ago
I'll probably find it anyway, but in which episode can I find the executions of the people who signed Charles the First's death warrant?
Noodles37UK 1 year ago
this was a brilliant series
NinaLuvsFriedChicken 1 year ago
Is this the BBC version or the A&E American edited version? Either way I shall enjoy. Thanks to the op.
TSearcy 1 year ago
6:25 How very touching, it makes them seem far more real than the portraits and pictures do, doubly so to me since the kid's my ancestor
Zeruel3 1 year ago
Whose was it? He who is gone. Who shall have it? He who will come. What was the month? The sixth from the first. Where was the sun? Over the oak. Where was the shadow? Under the elm. How was it stepped?
North by ten and by ten, east by five and by five, south by two and by two, west by one and by one, and so under. What shall we give for it? All that is ours. Why should we give it? For the sake of the trust.
Nevenius 1 year ago 2
@Nevenius Hey! another Sherlockian!
londongoth7 1 year ago
@londongoth7 Me too! I looked this up 'cause I found out Watson was in this. ^^ <3 (btw, do you know when season 2 comes out by any chance?)
PaddySnuffles 1 year ago
Robert Lane's score to this series was amazing. Some of the most beautiful music I have heard.
AungiaTaEywa 1 year ago
rufus my love. and on another note if i knew i was gonna be executed in a horrible manner like a beheading i would probably make sure to kill myself
fleurgi 1 year ago
0: 46 Where's Michael York? I don't get it....
Kelly14UK 1 year ago
i would fit right in with these ppl im just as private with my business as they are i was on the elevator the other day and my friend was talking loud about our business and someone else was on there with us too i was like in my head shut up dont talk so loud about our business to strangers whats wrong with you?
donnylovesayesha1 1 year ago
that man made a good point we shall not waste what little money we have on vanity..i need to know that for the future for when i am low on funds my spending habits are all vanity and not nothing i need to have
donnylovesayesha1 1 year ago
Is this available on DVD in the HMV?
To Kill A King was a total bugger to get...
Kelly14UK 1 year ago
I BELIEVE MY ANCESTOR COL WILLIAM CARELESS SAVED CHARLES THE SECONDS LIFE , HE HID THE KING IN AN OAK TREE UNTIL HE COULD MAKE HIS ESCAPE TO FRANCE . BOSCOBEL OAK IS STILL THERE
bearcub410 1 year ago
@bearcub410 Weird, Charles II is my ancestor so, thanks, I guess
Zeruel3 1 year ago
@Zeruel3 All hail Zeruel3 I! Long live the king! All hail the king.
kiminokami 1 year ago
This greatly appreciated!
Many Thanks to you! and Yippeeeeeeee!
MosaicMaiden 1 year ago
anyone know the name of the actor who plays charles II ? I see him in so many movies but have no clue who he is.
EliteAvenger130 1 year ago
Rufus Sewell
Loob1970 1 year ago
@EliteAvenger130
Rufus Sewell
Loob1970 1 year ago
@1DerekRubin1 : Shrewd some would say, did not get too deeply involved. One of my profs described him as the intelligent one and his brother James the dumb one.
Charles had the wit but not the drive, James the drive but dumb as a box of rocks.
But as always with history, a matter of interpretation :)
EverythingAustin 1 year ago
@1DerekRubin1: Shrewd some would say, did not get too deeply involved. One of my profs described him as the intelligent one and his brother James the dumb one.
Charles had the wit but not the drive, James the drive but dumb as a box of rocks.
But as always with history, a matter of interpretation :)
EverythingAustin 1 year ago
Charles II the power and the passion is tottally awsome
timeline883 1 year ago
my prof told us that charles ii was a maniac, a psychopath, and a killer of prostitutes I don't know if this is true or not.
jemaya123 1 year ago
@jemaya123 Who is your prof and where does he teach?
showmethefilm 1 year ago
@showmethefilm i don't want to reveal his name :) sorry
jemaya123 1 year ago
@jemaya123 In answer to your question - I believe it is not true. The Duke of Monmouth had a bad reputation though and was involved in a murder.
showmethefilm 1 year ago
@showmethefilm me too it was kind of bizarre for my prof to say that but well he had read more books than I so maybe his sources are reliable. :)
jemaya123 1 year ago
YUM!
Countess777 1 year ago
sic semper tyrannis
Good Riddance.
ballantrae101 2 years ago
Poor little Charles I and II
AdrienneVilliers 2 years ago
the day before the annivercery of charles I mars was in clear view next to the moon.
nationalist19 2 years ago
woo! been wanting this for dvd for years! think me might go buy it:)
lokna 2 years ago
I wished this had been shot a few years later in HD.
fantastic work none the less.
The8thDOCTOR 2 years ago
I love to study royalty... History cannot be cool without Queens and Kings... I love them
Raveshaw2002 2 years ago 11
Wow, now THAT was an opening! Made me feel sorry for Charles I, which I seldom do. Watching the entire series through! Bravo.
gdbalck 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Why wasn't he given a chance to make aan after-beheading speach?
MosheNL 3 years ago
he did give a speech before he died in reality. they didn't show it in this because it's a dream Charles is having and he wasn't there for his fathers death.
nationalist19 2 years ago 3
OK, that certainly makes your point clearer. I think you could sharpen it even further however. I think you suggest that a symbol is just that, a symbol, representing and exerting power, but also detached from the actual mechanisms and manifestations of it. It's an issue of how history should be studied and researched. Very interesting.
Justinucl 3 years ago
I was thinking about Magna Carta, the reputed ancestor of the ideals of England and her descendants. It was motivated by a certain group of self-interested barons; it has since been idealized...
But, as you mentioned symbols...
How effective a person is in matching the symbol they represent, the more successful they are.
If they are not, other people step in, and they either are better as that symbol, or they create new expectations of one.
Or, myths are created that suit such purposes.
Infofan 2 years ago
I am more and more convinced that history is motivated by personalities, not necessarily principles. People of very ordinary abilities become powerful because of strange circumstances, and their decisions can affect millions of people.
Charles II wanted a settled life after the turmoil of the Civil War- but he was the heir of a king. The resultant demands upon him made a wish of peace impossible.
Infofan 3 years ago
I don't think your point is clear. Motivated by personalities? In effect you seem to imply that history is one of personalities, Hitler, Cromwell, Kings and Emperors, but then you imply that it is circumstances/environment that puts these people in positions of power which doesn't tally up.
Justinucl 3 years ago
I said that principles were not as relevant, not circumstances/environment- or, 'nature and nurture'.
I believe that great events are rarely caused by great people. Many 'heroes' were very ignoble people who had little interest in their ideals beyond their own use of them.
People that wanted power, prestige, and so on, went to the King. Being the symbol of power of an ambitious nation, Charles II was larger than life; although, as a man, he was very ordinary; and, as a leader, a poor one.
Infofan 3 years ago
Superb drama; has to be Rufus Sewell's 'finest moment'. He is King Charles II.
elenapullix 3 years ago
Its a shame they didn't show where Charles escaped and hid in a tree from the parliamentarians.
WellArdott 3 years ago
Superb posting - thank you.
BRUTUALTRUTH 3 years ago 2
This series beats 'The Tudors' hands down! Much more autentic of the time.
JohnsonofLondon 3 years ago 7
You are absolutely right. this series is much better than "The Tudors", starting simply because they have historical accuracy, this failure was the big mistake of the series "The Tudors" (starting soon for the wedding of Princess Margaret with a supposed king Portuguese (decrepit and old ), but such a king who married Margaret, was a man named Louis King of France (not Portugal), since then reigned in Portugal a young Portuguese king already married to a Spanish princess ...
Tuguinhalinda 2 years ago 3
I also think that even those who married this old French king was Mary Tudor, and Margaret did not (as the series The Tudors suggests) that subsequently married Charles Brandon ...
Correct me if I am wrong.
Tuguinhalinda 2 years ago
@Tuguinhalinda
correct, but I have long ago seen "The Tudors" for what it is.
A piece of entertainment that revels in its arrogance & ignorance
The8thDOCTOR 2 years ago 3
I hate to see this lack of rigor in historical series and in my opinion, "The Tudors" had a very big failure on the part of historical accuracy.
Since this series is more serious in the way it deals with historical facts.
The beauty of "The Tudors" is only in the casting because his characters are more charming, which gives a certain charm to the series itself (who would not want to see Henry Cavill to make of Charles II??).
Tuguinhalinda 2 years ago
i really enjoyed following this programme when it was on the t.v and now watching and following the tudors,thanks for puting this on so i can watch it again
roloman0012 3 years ago
this was damn good.
thanks for puttin this out there.....
Hexachloraphine 3 years ago 2
I did feel sorry for Charles I, but then I found out he believed himself to be 'God Ordained' as king...these were outdated ideas, the Martin Luther and the Reformation had happened 100 before, even his father King James was not popular, Guy Fawkes tried to blow him up. Britain as an island offered the chance for a different form of rule compared to most of Europe..
ForexFrenzy 3 years ago 2
His belief in the divine right of KIngs wasn't the problem. It was his inability to temper it with pragmatism. James VI believed in the same principle but he knew that he had to live within the reality with which he was presented.
slimes23 2 years ago 6
I've always found the death of Charles I very sad. Because it was a cold day he put on two shirts so that he wouldn't shiver in the cold and have the people think he was shivering ouut of fear. Poor Charles. Horray for Charles II!
DreamEaters 3 years ago 42
@DreamEaters only if there was this kind of glory these days only chavs
nounever 1 year ago
@DreamEaters
If you would study the history, you would know that Charles essentially signed his own death warrant. Even after being defeated in the civil war, they were willing to put him back on the throne if only he would concede some of the powers of the monarchy to parliament. He refused, he insisted on ruling as a despot, or not at all, and he was rightfully deposed.
NewYorkFlavour 9 months ago
@NewYorkFlavour
TheGilhooly 8 months ago
@NewYorkFlavour That's what happened in both the french and Russian revolutions as well. Louis XVI and Nicholas II both enthusiastically refused to entertain the idea of a constitutional monarchy, and both would probably have lived if they'd capitulated. Almost unbelievably, it really was both of their wives who were the influential voice in the decision(s.) Marie Antoinette can only really be blamed for the flat refusal to give up any royal prerogative, which sealed their fate.
counterhon 1 month ago
@DreamEaters Who wouldnt be fearful of their head being hacked off..
Herimia 4 months ago
Thank yo so much for this film!! I love the work of Joe Wright!! (Director)
Rocafilm 3 years ago 2
This progamme is miles miles better than The Tudors. The fact that there is dirt, sweat, dust, worn clothes is much more realistic than the pantomine Tudors show.
JohnsonofLondon 3 years ago 6
Thank so much !
artemis12061966 3 years ago
Is Christian Coulson in this?
MrsMarsters666 3 years ago
yes he is. christian coulson plays charles' son the duke of monmouth
chofaigh 3 years ago
finally someone downloaded this movie. you're the best:) best interpretation of British Monarchy besides Elizabeth 1998, Elizabeth the Golden Age & the Tudors.
sweetab24 3 years ago 2
omg I am so excited to find this, thankyou so much
icyangel018 3 years ago 2
Very nice...
Thanks;)
Long live the British Monarchy,
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!
324wilson 3 years ago 34
Damn right! God save the Queen! :)
DreamEaters 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
To hell with Kings & Queens. Long live the REPUBLIC!!
blacbraun 2 years ago
@324wilson Screw the monarchy! Charles I was quite happy to continue the bloodshed of the Civil War to continue his reign. Monarchs are the bearers of a murderous inhuman logic that Charles I embodied in particular. The current queen of England only has her power because of generations of theft and human suffering caused by her own family and families like it.
GeorgeDuroy75 1 year ago
@GeorgeDuroy75 What power? The Queen of England doesn't have much in terms of authority.
kaileyy07 1 year ago
@GeorgeDuroy75 ....Elizabeth II is a figurehead you dope. She only has ceremonial power. Although many of the previous monarch were douches due to too much power, that is true.
PaddySnuffles 1 year ago
@324wilson Why not God save Great Britain or God save the people, what makes the Queen so damn special. Old crone.
000000poizen000000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@000000poizen000000 First of all, it is the anthem of our country. The Queen is the personification of British people, the Commonwealth, Church of England, courts and British values, duty etc. All these things are rolled into one person, the Queen (or King) of Great Britain and Commonwealth Realms. By singing "God save the Queen," we actually mean "God save these institutions, values and her people."
324wilson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@000000poizen000000 The Queen is the personification of British people, the Commonwealth, Church of England, courts and British values, duty etc. All these things are rolled into one person, the Queen (or King) of Great Britain and Commonwealth Realms. By singing "God save the Queen," we actually mean "God save these institutions, values and her people."
324wilson 1 year ago
Thanks ever so much for posting this! I love this film. :)
audie83 3 years ago 2
thanks :)
CountessBethany 3 years ago 2