Charles I enters the House of Commons

[ILGAR93]

as an objective viewer i can say this. monarchy sucks, anywhere. its a primitive tribal ideal and makes a very forward nation such as UK look silly IMHO. yet again, so is cromwell. he was a dictator who melded the country and parliament to his zealous puritan ways.

[rickcoram1]

@Theyrealjoebloggs Clearly you're a fool of the self-identifying sort. The period costumes were precisely as worn in that era. This movie was historically accurate, and was the end of absolute monarchies, and the solution of Constitutional Monarchies we enjoy today.

[therealjoebloggs]

Charles looked like a right poofter in that outfit. The Puritans, on the other hand, look like they're going to sit down with the Red Indians and have turkey dinner. Didn't anyone have fashion sense in the mid 17th C.?

[BloodyEmpire]

4:55 i didn't know Ben Franklin was part of Parliament...

[skip8619]

No one even knew who Oliver Cromwell was before the Civil War started.

[fdmarminy]

Cromwell, the biggest hypocrite in English history. He wasn't even on the arrest warrant!

[thehulk3010]

i heard that King Charles likes it up the ass

[neilzep]

@thehulk3010 white boys are animals.

[brnleague99]

@thehulk3010 James I did.

[rofflemows2]

why do nerds always have to take the fun out of everything =/

[baraxor]

If Obi-Wan doesn't dissolve Parliament they're going to make Palpatine the Emperor

[maureenOWW]

@RichBanks2010 Indeed. I notice he hasn't replied to my observations. And yet he has 31 people who apparently agree with him. Crazy fuckwits.

[MrOhjames]

That was tense.

[MrOhjames]

The sound effects at the end were amazing! But I never did see the horse.

[abbyfortheskew]

Obi Wan Kenobi and Dumbledoor in the same movie!!!

awesome!!!!

[dairyfan123]

I had no idea Obi-Wan wanted to dissolve parliament.

[dairyfan123]

Is that Geoffrey Rush?

[irishgodfatherchris]

@dairyfan123 its Sir Alec Guiness, Geoffrey Rush would've been 19 at the time this movie was made

[sgtsolo1]

...and so began the english civil war... :D

[MajBlood]

King Charles I wasn't that bad. He always wanted the best for England. He wanted a tolerant England for protestants and catholics. He wanted a united Britain. He wanted to help protestants being attacked on the continent. Parliament voted against all of these admirable ambitions. And it is almost certain that the five men he tried to arrest actually did commit treason.

[dantheleafsfan1]

im sure thats exactly how it went down...

[MajBlood]

@dantheleafsfan1 More or less. Of course some artistic liberties are taken, the big one being that Cromwell was not on Charles list of people to arrest. It is a movie afterall. But a good one that should please any history fans and teach people some basic lessons about Charles, Cromwell, and the English Civil War. I love to watch movies like these to get me interested and then afterwards read the more accurate text books.

[rken23]

Every word of dialogue by Cromwell in this scene more or less never happend haha. I wasn't originally one of the five up for arrest

[dmax631]

cromwell is pretty badass in this scene

[seirennosorento]

@dmax631

So was the King :P

[mc0558]

The warrant did not name Oliver Cromwell.

[densaner77]

GET OUT! GET OUT! You useless Stewart swine!

[sleeming88]

0:35 Cromwell's all like "WTF? I'm not supposed to be on the list!"

[MajBlood]

Man I have to get this movie it looks bad ass.

[MajBlood]

Charles I was a bit of a douche but Cromwell was a super douche. Boy the 1600s really was a shitty century for England.

[Kev95682]

"You can't win Oliver. If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine." With apologies to Sir Alec Guinness; he hated being the most well known for playing Obi-Wan Kenobi.

[shahideurope]

Great stuff but it really did not happen like that at all!

[NewDayStudios]

one of my all time favourite films, and one of most influential politions of all time

[lytrigian]

Never heard of this movie -- but is it honestly trying to make a hero out of Cromwell, of all people?

[baraxor]

@lytrigian

Yes...and it ironically made King Charles I a more sympathetic figure (especially when Cromwell is played by Richard Harris vs. Alec Guinness's Charles I)

[kanenkitten]

This makes you think that if Charles just sent Black Rod to deliver that warrant, then the Civil war may not have happened

[OfirBeck]

what's the name of the Hat they wore back then?

[Germkiller426]

the force is strong with the king

[bjr43]

Nice. The only cast I recognize are Alek Genis and Richard Harris.

[bjr43]

What is this from?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@bjr43

Cromwell.

[NottinghamForest22]

King Charles I is also a Jedi master :)

[PiterdeVries03]

Obi-Wan is the king!

[bulked]

@kmutd786 then stand for parliament at the next vote. If you think you can do better.

If not, people with nothing to offer shouldnt critcise

[ProNorden]

Britain should have a written Constitution, with all the explicit civil rights guaranteed in the American Constitution (particularly the First and Second, 4th and 5th Amendments, and 'equal protection' clause of the 14th) plus the explicit right of Referendum and Recall.

Who in Britain is authorized to institute a National Constitution?

[bulked]

Parliament-although, ironically, parliament is supreme in the UK, so it also has the ability to change any law by voting to amend or abolish it-it would have to be put into effect withg a law declaring that the consitiution is the one law the parliament can never resciund or adapt without consent from the people

[mightywindmill102]

The Commons, should a vote be cast there. But why exactly do we need a written constitution? Our independent judiciary already guarantees the rights we have, and an unwritten constitution guarantees greater flexibility than any codified one such as the US and France.

[ProNorden]

Puritans like Cromwell created New England and started America.

Cromwell favored the Long Parliament, legitimate government, a commonwealth/'some economic commons', and civic virtue.

Go BNP. Go Nationalist.

'Pro-Family, Stewardship, & Fair Trade'

[ProNorden]

@ProNorden .... A Constutional Monarchy may be legitimate if authorized by periodic Referendum votes of the citizenry, and in concert with an elected Parliament.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Cromwell talked about civic virtue and legitimate government, but in fact he was more tyrannical than any monarch.

[guyfroml]

@Medeasbiggestfan That entirely depends on one's perspective. I am sure you will not be surprised that many in the United States see it differently. You and others talk about how Cromwell arrested many MPs - and rightfully so considering how much they corrupted themselves.

Oh how a righteous man shall find himself alone among his kind.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@guyfroml

I am surprised to hear that people in the US see things differently. Why would people in the US think any differently from people in the UK on this matter?

Cromwell was a tyrant who banned Christmas, music, dancing and acting. He committed atrocities in Ireland, abolished Parliament and ruled with an iron fist. How many people in the US think these things were good?

[WSWarthog]

@Medeasbiggestfan

THIS ONE THOUSAND TIMES OVER

[alanthe2]

@Medeasbiggestfan what has it got to do with people in the united states anyway? it's not their history its ours, and as an englishman your opinion on the matter (provided it's based in fact) far outweighs that of any american, especially when you're absolutely right in everything you said about Cromwell.

[677222]

@Medeasbiggestfan did you know that the first ship of the continental navy was named the 'oliver cromwell'? the founding fathers obviously saw cromwell as a hero of liberty, your generalised propaganda notwithstanding. Cromwell is the original revolutionary, he became a tyrannt because it was necessary. this was because like napoleon, he saved his country from ruin, when outside threats were tearing it apart

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@677222

A tyrant can't be a 'hero of liberty'. Oliver Cromwell was a fundamentalist Christian, like many of the Pilgrims. I'm guessing that's why they liked him.

Cromwell didn't save his country from ruin, he created the most authoritarian, oppressive and tyrannical government in the history of the British Isles.

And when you say 'outside threats', do you mean the Irish and the Scots, who Cromwell massacred?

[677222]

@Medeasbiggestfan thats my point, he had to become a tyannt to keep the country together. He committed atrocities yeah, but nothing in comparison to others of the times, some of the atrocities that happened in europe numbered in the 10s of thousands. You say oppressive, tyrannical, but his rule brought peace to britain, that otherwise would have been torn apart by never ending, religous, political wars. no king again ruled england without the consent of parliament after cromwell

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@677222

It wasn't a peaceful time for the Irish or the Scots. You say he kept the country together, but it wasn't one country at that point, it was three - England, Scotland and Ireland. His exploits in Scotland and Ireland were anti-catholic colonialism.

You say no King ruled without Parliament after Cromwell, but Cromwell ruled without Parliament. The fact that Parliament asked the King to come back after Cromwell's death says a lot about the time under the Lord Protector.

[Peter43John]

@Medeasbiggestfan ...your forfathers were also surprised and could not understand why the Boston Tea Party occured for many of the same reasons. Cromwell was a great man who understood that government dirives it's power from the people in Parliament assembled-not the "Divine Right" of Kings! He and John Locke were virtually quoted by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independance. Lord Cornwaillis learned what you have obviously forgotten the hard way in 1781....

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@Peter43John

Cromwell did not believe government derives its power from the people in Parliament. If he did, why did he dissolve Parliament and rule as a dictator?

He was far more oppressive and authoritarian than any monarch before or since. True democracy came in 1688 (30 years after Cromwell's death), when Parliament removed the King but kept the monarchy. They didn't want to go back to a republic because they could still remember the horror or Cromwell's rule.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan Can Democracy exist when one person, the king, along with his royal family remaining above the Rules of Law?

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@KATAERO1

In theory, the monarch is the embodiment of the law and so can't be subject to it. The Royal Family (with the exception of the monarch) are not above the law.

In the 21st century, democracy does exist in this situation, as if the monarch ever broke the law (which would be completely out of character), the elected Parliament would step-in to remove the monarch from the throne and put them on trial.

Oliver Cromwell also put himself above the law, as he decreed what was and wasn't legal.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan Yes, in theory, it is entirely possible with a perfect human being who happens to be a king. Unfortunately, only one person fits that description, which is Jesus Christ Himself.

I was from Thailand, whose king, King Bhumibol Aduljadej, is the opposite of Charles I. "A monarch who governs not from fear but by the affection of a free people" is most associate with King Bhumibol, someone Oliver Cromwell would be proud to call him "King."

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@KATAERO1

Cromwell was a dictator. The monarchy returned because of Cromwell's tyrannical legacy.

England (and later the UK) became the world's leading parliamentary democracy, which history has shown to be a far more stable and democratic system of government than a Constitutional Republic.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan And Charles was not a dictator? At least, Cromwell had a vision of what he wanted England to become, which is a Constitutional Monarchy Democracy, through education to empower the common Englishmen. All he wanted was a cooperation from Charles to lower himself to be under the law just like everybody else. Remember that originally, Cromwell himself preferred Charles to remain king but Charles preferred to have his head chopped off than to lose his absolute power.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggest I consider Cromwell to be a benevolent dictator just like Gen. Washington or even Lee Kuan Yew, who made a tiny dot on the map, aka, Republic of Singapore, to become the latest economic miracle.

Whether system of parliamentary democracy is superior to Constitutional Representative Republic still remains to be seen. Most of parliamentary democracies like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal & even the UK are all struggling harder than Constitutional Republic like the US or even Chaina.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@KATAERO1

Most former British colonies became parliamentary democracies, whereas most former Spanish colonies become Constitutional Republics. It's no coincidence that most former British colonies have a history of stable government, whereas most former Spanish colonies have a history of military military.

Europe is going through economic troubles, but the governments in parliamentary democracies remain stable. When something similar happen in South America in the 70s, there were military coups.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan However, a democracy, whether a direct parliamentary system or an indirect one constitutional representative system is preferable to an absolute monarchy. Have you heard of King Henry VIII???

Cromwell would be proud to see how the UK is turning out to be as he envisioned, and even prouder to see his ideal principles be carried across the Atlantic & is flourishing in the USA. Remember, Christ, not man, is King! God bless Oliver Cromwell.

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@KATAERO1

I suggest you look at the Democracy Index which shows that the world's most free and democratic nations are parliamentary democracies and most of the world's least democratic nations are presidential republics

The parliamentary system allows the executive to be held to account by the people's representatives in the legislature (this could only have come about in a constitutional monarchy) but this accountability is forbidden in the US style of government

Watch this video:

v=oAtBryLmrcU

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggest Are you aware of the work of Alexander Fraser Tyler (1747-1813), Cycle of Democracy, aka, Death by Democracy?

Democracy is only a tool & unless it is used to achieve something good & noble, it is useless. The American system of Constitutional Representative Republic is known as the American Democracy, where democracy is allowed to function within certain constitutional framework, based on certain God's given Rights. It is not perfect but seems to fall off the cliff the slowest.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan Also, in practice, I hope you're aware of how difficult it is to prosecute a monarch who broke the law. As the movie shows a vast majority of MPs still respect him, despite of being made fully aware of Charles' high treason & wickedness. Unfortunately for Charles, Cromwell was a man of high principle, otherwise, he would be allowed to live out his life in exchange for a large sum of money.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan Such a man of high principle as Cromwell would make a fine king, a better one than Charles I for sure, if he chose to become one. The same with Gen Washington who turned down being made King George I of the USA. England immediately after Cromwell was capable of becoming a full-fled Constitutional Representative Republic like the USA, unfortunately, the people chose otherwise. The rest is history, I guess.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan Did Cromwell fulfill the oath he gave to: 1) bring England its self-respect, 2) liberate man's soul from the darkness of ignorance, 3) build schools & universities for all, 4) Bring the Law within the reach of every common man, 5) provide work & bread for all, 6) create prosperity?

If yes, why didn't Charles I do that? Cromwell wanted nothing more than to have England "justly governed" through parliament, instead he had to sacrifice his old age, in order, to do it himself.

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan (con) Were those ideas adopted by the American Founding Fathers later on upon establishing the USA, not to mention fighting & defeating the army of another English king, in order to achieve them? That might explain why "people in the US think any differently from people in the UK on this matter?"

Good day!

[Medeasbiggestfan]

@KATAERO1

Charles I was a dictator, but Cromwell was a lot worse

As I say, far from being a benevolent dictator, Cromwell banned Christmas, music, dancing and acting, committed genocide in Ireland and abolished Parliament so he could rule with the military.

I don't think he'd like the modern UK, a country that respects religious freedom and the wishes of the people. He wouldn't like an independent Ireland or the fact that the UK has good relations with the Vatican. Cromwell was a puritan zealot

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan What's about his vision & achievements as he promised to fulfill? Without them, can the UK become what it is today? That particular parliament Cromwell dissolved was a den of thieves & I think England was better off without it.

You're absolutely correct saying Cromwell was a puritan zealot & I doubt that anybody other than a puritan zealot like him could profoundly modernize England & heavily influence the founding of the USA. (con)

[KATAERO1]

@Medeasbiggestfan (con) Roman Catholicism is a political system & as a puritan Christian zealot, Cromwell might see Catholic Ireland as a grave threat to his beloved Protestant England. And that might explain his heavy-handed approach in eliminating the Irish threat. To me, Cromwell is like Martin Luther with sword. Both were mere mortals and far from perfect, however, their profound achievements & influences cannot be denied as they change the world.

[bulked]

Never BNP-they are exactly the kind of fascists we fought against in WW2

[ProNorden]

@bulked ....False. The BNP are fighting against the sort of fascism that violates the rights of free speech and freedom of association, and against the subversion of national sovereignty by corporatist predatory parasites.

[bulked]

I have first hand knowledge of the evil spouted by the BNP-i know the evil that pervades their membership

[Tzimnewman3]

@ProNorden

Fuck the BNP racist Nazi loving scum

[StealthBlue]

Holy crap Obi-won just dissolved Parliament!

[baraxor]

Charles I fell the same way as Louis XVI and Nicholas II: if your'e going to act like an autocrat you have to be as ruthless as an autocrat against your perceived enemies.

If the Commons had acted this way to Henry VIII, he'd throw the lot of them into the Tower and have their leaders beheaded.

If the Commons had acted this way to the Henry VIII of "The Tudors", he'd throw the lot of them into the Tower, behead their leaders, and boff their hotter wives and daughters.

[talesdauphin]

Was that to me?

[talesdauphin]

I just love the way they all bow to the King *-*!

Viva a Monarquia!

[fishhead06]

Ah, power struggles between the elites!

[krayzeeryan]

Charles has come to arrest them for abuse of MPs expenses!

[Marcobisc24]

Parlaments come and go. But this country was built upon the legacies of great kings and queens. Not now or never, great governments.

[siobhanbligh]

Your an idiot, go research teh french revolution

[SamHawkens]

I've heard several times that the Queen actually still has very much power but just does not execute it. Could you please explain me why this is? England, once a great nation, is now swallowed by immigrants, and about to lose every rest of her strength. THIS would be the time, in which England needs a strong monarch most. This would be the time for the Queen to rule instead of just signing bills of idiotic governments, wouldn't it?

[smezec]

@SamHawkens Well firstly, England doesn't have a Queen, its the United Kingdom.

The population of the UK is 60million and we have less than 5million immigrants... I'd hardley call that swallowed, though I think I know why you might.

How can you honestly suggest monarchial rule on a video of a monarch who ruled purely for himself with complete disregard for his people, the likes of which even a British government has never been stupid enough to do.

Seriously, think it through.

[SamHawkens]

Are you sure that you have less than 5m immigrants? What about British citizens non-British ethnicity? Officially, they are no longer foreigners -- but a cat remains a cat, even if you give it a sign with the words "dog" on it.

However, I am convinced that a parliament can only have one task: to control the ruler, whether it be a monarch or a president. The parliament itself should not rule. In my opinion, a parliament may be compared to a monkey's cage in the zoo.

[StupidWhiteGuys]

Before you make a statement about a nation being ruled by one person you should go over your history books.

In fact even in classical history a time full of barbaric nations, there was this one state called Athens that only fell once politicians became so powerful, and the assembly was no longer required (Cleon)

As for Charles he caused the civil war, after the parliament would not grant him funds for war. Now do you think that this is a good system of government?

[bulked]

well said-BNP types are strangers to education

[baraxor]

@smezec

To quote Lady Fairfax at the "trial" of Charles I:

"Not half, not a quarter of the people of England! Oliver Cromwell is a traitor!"

[londoncalling1984]

So in repsonse to immigrants coming to this country you make better lives for themselvs you advocate a monarchical dictatorship and a dissolution of democracy?

I think sir, that you will find your ideas extremist, archaic and authoritarian nonesense.

The monarchy is a relic of the UK's imperialist past, a past in which the UK invaded, subjucated and exploited a number of the countries that the 'immigrants' you seem to have such a grudge against come from.

[bulked]

relic of an imperialist past?

W had a monarchy before we had an empire, so, sorry, but your wrong

[mightywindmill102]

The Monarchy was there before the Empire, so hardly an Imperical relic.

[smezec]

@Marcobisc24 Nonsense. Winston Churchill > any Monarch.

The Monarchs sat on thrones of gold whilst the real people of the country lived in poverty. There is nothing great about that whatsoever.

[comanchio1976]

@Marcobisc24 What about the war-time Churchill gvment, post war Attlee government (nhs etc). You're a pathetic grovelling serf whose glad of their chains and I pity you.

[Marcobisc24]

@comanchio1976 The very few that helped this country in time of war are the ONLY ones that i will pay homage to, winston churchill, BUT ever since, 1 way or another, the government of this country has been a fucking disgrace. You call me pathetic ? You're the delluded lackie who sings the praises of theiving crooked politicians who are more interested in lining their own pockets before putting the welfare of the people of britain first. Then again, in this case, kings are just as bad, D.T.A.

[comanchio1976]

@Marcobisc24 Just because the current system has its flaws, doesnt mean the solution is to go back to a system born in the grovelling ignorance of the dark ages. The only reason the royals dont have to swindle any money out of us, is that their handed it on a silver platter every year..and for what? Being born into the right family, it's a complete farce.

[maureenOWW]

@Marcobisc24 'this country was built upon the legacies of great kings and queens. Not now or never, great governments.' - what world do you live in? Did a King institute democracy? Abolish slavery? Create social welfare? NHS? Free education? Give women the vote? All those things were the product of PARLIAMENT or direct action by the people, and all happened after 1689, when the monarchy was stripped of all independent power. You are a complete halfwit.

[kanenkitten]

The Queen doesn't need to declare war on parliament. She has the power to dissolve it and get rid of it that way and we go back to Absolute Monarchy

[Darkmind1970]

@kanenkitten Um, actually no she doesn't.

[kanenkitten]

@Darkmind1970: It's happening right now, there is no government until May 7th. Everything at the moment is run by The Queen and her Privy Council

[TheTudorsVIII]

@Darkmind1970 um, actually yes she does.

[Darkmind1970]

@TheTudorsVIII No. Not any more. Are you mad?

[Britishguy18]

@kanenkitten Which is what Britian needs, our country and nation to become an Absolute Monarchy and rid this Roundhead built treasonous Democracy, for the good of the people of the country and nation.

Long live Monarchy and the memory of His Majesty King Charles Stuart I

[kanenkitten]

@Britishguy18: I agree, or at least have Her Majesty use the vast powers she has more often

[Britishguy18]

@kanenkitten Yes exactly. Im glad there are still Royalists as well as I out there to defend our most gracious Monarchy

[unluckytourist]

I would. I'd happily wipe out the monarchy.

[Britishguy18]

@unluckytourist Why Sir? What reason have anyone to wipe out our Royal members? I on the other hand would keep the Monarchy and allow the Monarchy to take its position as aboslute Monarchy once agian.

[MrCharlesDouglas]

Id have ordered my men to begin killing :)

Cant have mp's if all your mp's are dead.

[unluckytourist]

Except the MP's had more power than the king.

[cgavin1]

This was a great movie that doesnt get show often enough on TV sadly. One of Harris' better performances.

[hofffan333]

I love it when religion and politics collide.the consequnces are always interesting in some way + richard harris portrayed his character brilliantly.

[humder]

Cromwell arrested more MPs than the King tried too.

[BRUTUALTRUTH]

And Cromwell murdered hundreds of thousands too - the spotty bastard!

[mc0558]

@humder Cromwell was still an obscure Cambridge gentleman when this incident occurred. It's a shame that the authors of this entertainment felt it necessary to distort the fact of history to this extent.

[mbb05jb]

the current speaker of the house is a nothing compared to the speaker in the film.

[BRUTUALTRUTH]

Yes and the speaker during Cromwell's time was fluent in English!

[asiantiink1996]

Oh yeah i know i did use the annotation but i even wrote down the ones he said aswell! i wanted to ask my teacher why is it different to what he said or for real life and wot is your MSN?

[asiantiink1996]

I know that! it said that on your clip when he was telling who he was gonna arrest!

[Medeasbiggestfan]

That was the annotation. I just wanted to make sure you were using that and not what he said.

[asiantiink1996]

The annotation what? i don't even know what that iz wot is it??

[Medeasbiggestfan]

In reality Charles wanted John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode and Sir Arthur Hesilrige.

[asiantiink1996]

This film is good it also saved my life for my homework! i had to get the name of the 5 people the king named or i would get an hour Detention! :)

[Medeasbiggestfan]

I hope you watched this with the annotations switched.

[EdgarTFriendly]

And people say history and politics is boring

[324wilson]

What's the name of this movie???

[Medeasbiggestfan]

Cromwell

[324wilson]

Thanks!

[lelvish1]

Great film. Harris' performance is brilliant.