ooh wheel lock muskets, cool, those i mightadd to everyone are a rarity indeed, the wheellock was the first firearm mechanism allowing a weapon to be loaded WELL in advance.
the greatest error in scottish history is the decision made by the scots (most famously by queen mary stuart) that they should govern england rather than scotland. a relatively poor country that spent so much precious blood in the name of expansionism. the stuarts have effectively doomed scotland as a nation state.
@hill9868 err no, 1688 was the start in the decline of the power of the monarchy. However that power was lost bit by bit, Cromwell had nothing to do with it. Charles II who followed the republic was very much a powerful king.
@12from12 cromwell set in motion the events which seperated the monarchy's powers. without th english civil war, england would remained an absolutist state into the 18th century
@jed371 I strongly disagree, Cromwell was a biggot and a tyrant. James II's son being born threatening a Catholic dynasty and his replacemnt William III not believing in divine right is what started the shift in power.
@12from12 cromwell had to become a tyrant or the country would have fallen apart. william iii did not like the limits which were imposed on his power "William cannot take it ill if we make conditions to secure ourselves for the future" . the powers which were given to parliament in the glorius revolution, were the powers and limits parliament demanded from charles i
@jed371 none of which would have been possible had James not been an idiot. Anyway I am not sure whether we really disagree except on Cromwell's role. William may not have liked it but he accepted it.
@something9313 I don't use"great man" to mean a good man, worthy of emulation. I mean that he was a man of great ability who had a profound impact on history. He destroy Hitler, and I would argue that he destroyed the very ideology that he spent his life promoting--Communism.
Hitler did not fix the German economy. He threw money at armaments and social programs, until by 1937, he was beginning to reneg on the latter because of financial constraints. War was an escape from bankruptcy.
The King was and remains an enduring symbol of true and proper government, fully deserving of the title Defender of the Faith and ultimately that which is legitimate.
Any action of Cromwell's was illegal, and his foray into the sacrilegious: His Majesty's murder by the luddite squire, served as a bloody and evil episode of the United Kingdom's history.
This was the last time a reigning monarch entered the House of Commons and why all subsequent Kings and Queens have been banned from the chamber. It is also why the Queen has to send her messenger (Black Rod) to summuns the MPs to the House of Lords during the State opening of Parliament and why they slam the door in his face as an act of defience.
Yeah, you have a point. All this patriotism is the veneer under which the hunger for power is cloaked. Winston Churchill was a drug addict and megalomaniac and despite his incompetence Britain and its allies won the war. Yet Churchill is sold as a hero when in fact he is a disgrace for the greatness of Britain.
Be not to stern with sweet Winston Churchill, he did commit many great folly, including the destruction of the German cities and most of all, slaughtering the wrong pig, while it was one pig to less as Hitler and Stalin are birds of the selfsame feathers; so he should have arranged the downfall of Hitler (non accidental car and airplane accidents do always lurk around) and then a traditional change o alliances in 1943/44 to cause the undoing of Stalin; like in the War of Spanish Succession...
The guy speaking at around 6:20 (the one asking for control of the militia) or so is the guy who played the narrator in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
I love these early modern times: Everything is undecided and in move; like here when the Parliament and the Crown raise armies against each other accusing the other party of treason and the breach of law. I fear in modern times with their machinery of standing armies and police forces something like that would be impossible unless the armed forces would split among themselves or the people are well equipped with arms like in the USA.
@CamelsAssBangMohmed: God be praised! But why wait for the traitor to make his move? Why not following the deliberations of Shakespeare's Brutus: "It must be by his death: and, for my part, I know no personal cause to spurn at him, But for the general. He would be crown'd: How that might change his nature, there's the question: It is the bright day that brings forth the adder; And that craves wary walking. Crown him?—that: And then, I grant, we put a sting in him, (...)"
"(...) That at his will he may do danger with. Th' abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins Remorse from power; and, to speak truth of Caesar, I have not known when his affections sway'd More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof, That lowliness is young ambition's ladder, Whereto the climber-upward turns his face; But, when he once attains the upmost round, He then unto the ladder turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees By which he did ascend: (...)"
"(...) so Caesar may; Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel Will bear no color for the thing he is, Fashion it thus,—that what he is, augmented, Would run to these and these extremities: And therefore think him as a serpent's egg Which hatch'd, would, as his kind grow mischievous; And kill him in the shell." - Art and poerty have for sure a practical use...
In Britain, there is no such thing as treason against the Nation. There is treason against the Crown. The innovative fine point of law popularised by Sir Edward Coke was, however, that the Crown and the person of the King are two different things.
Like his father, Charles was a very unwise King. To come to parliament and allow himself to be bettered like this was political suicide. And when the Speaker of the House said he served Parliament rather than the Kind, Charles should have arrested him there and then.
The Stuarts had no effective power in Scotland. When they inherited Elizabeth's mantle they thought they would be rich and all powerful. It went to their heads, and they threw it all away.
And if I were Charles, I would have just arrested all the Parliament members when they spoke of Civil War. Why should I give then Parliament members go and raise an army when I could have arrested all the brains of my enemies at once?
First of all, this film is not historically accurate. Secondly, it was Charles who raised an army against parliament. It was the King who took up arms against that part of the nation that opposed his efforts at a personal rule. Thirdly, except for the prerogative court, Star Chamber, the King had lost the ability to get juries to convict his opponents. Look at those who refused to pay ship money--they got off.
Charles lost the nation's support and snatched it back at the end by dying well.
No indeed and neither was Henry Ireton's, which was also presented in the film. The five MP's were: Pym, Holles, Haselrig, Hampden (of Ship Money fame) and Strode.
The film had a dramatic story to tell centred on Charles and Cromwell, and it told it regardless of facts that got in the way of their theme. I am sympathetic, but I think in changing names like this, they go too far.
@mc0558 It should be noted that Cromwell was not on the list of 5 names the King came to arrest. In fact at the the time, Cromwell was practically unknown, so this dual of words between the two never happened. I suspect it was just added for dramatic effect.
You are right on all counts. Indeed the film contains many historical inaccuracies. I think Guiness does a great job as Charles. Harris lacks the acting subtlety to embrace Cromwell's many contradictions and his genius. Moreover, Cromwell was a great man.
@mc0558 Yes I agree with you about Guiness, he catches the arrogance of the King perfectly. I'm not sure all would agree about Cromwell being a great man though. Especially the Irish as he was responsible for many thousands of deaths over there.
@drecords0 In my lexicon, "great man" does NOT mean "good, kind, admirable man or a man held up for emulation." It means someone who had a profound effect on history, some of which was positive. Thus I would say Stalin was a great man but Hitler wasn't.
You are right on all counts. Indeed the film contains many historical inaccuracies. I think Guiness does a great job as Charles. Harris lacks the acting subtlety to embrace Cromwell's many contradictions and his genius. Moreover, Cromwell was a "great" man.
@GohModley Why do I care? Care about what? I don't understand which of my comments prompted these bitter comments. Looking down my nose at you because you're American? Where do I do that? And why are we limeys dying? I would love to know what I said that inspired your emnity.
@mc0558 Um no. King James I was a great king. He ended a twenty year war with Spain. He vastly improved religious turmoil in England by creating the King James Bible. The empire and trade were vastly expanded under his rule. And he did a lot of get the union of England and Scotland going. Really he is the father of Great Britain. All in all he was a good king.
ooh wheel lock muskets, cool, those i mightadd to everyone are a rarity indeed, the wheellock was the first firearm mechanism allowing a weapon to be loaded WELL in advance.
elgostine 1 year ago
the greatest error in scottish history is the decision made by the scots (most famously by queen mary stuart) that they should govern england rather than scotland. a relatively poor country that spent so much precious blood in the name of expansionism. the stuarts have effectively doomed scotland as a nation state.
spiderlime 1 year ago
Funny how at the end of the movie Cromwell does almost the exact same thing as the King. Anybody else see it as ironic?
ProtestantIRA 1 year ago
Before Cromwell, the British Monarchy ruled Britain. After Cromwell, they became a glorified tourist attraction.
hill9868 1 year ago
@hill9868 err no, 1688 was the start in the decline of the power of the monarchy. However that power was lost bit by bit, Cromwell had nothing to do with it. Charles II who followed the republic was very much a powerful king.
12from12 1 year ago
@12from12 cromwell set in motion the events which seperated the monarchy's powers. without th english civil war, england would remained an absolutist state into the 18th century
jed371 1 year ago
@jed371 I strongly disagree, Cromwell was a biggot and a tyrant. James II's son being born threatening a Catholic dynasty and his replacemnt William III not believing in divine right is what started the shift in power.
12from12 1 year ago
@12from12 cromwell had to become a tyrant or the country would have fallen apart. william iii did not like the limits which were imposed on his power "William cannot take it ill if we make conditions to secure ourselves for the future" . the powers which were given to parliament in the glorius revolution, were the powers and limits parliament demanded from charles i
jed371 1 year ago
@jed371 none of which would have been possible had James not been an idiot. Anyway I am not sure whether we really disagree except on Cromwell's role. William may not have liked it but he accepted it.
12from12 1 year ago
@something9313 I don't use"great man" to mean a good man, worthy of emulation. I mean that he was a man of great ability who had a profound impact on history. He destroy Hitler, and I would argue that he destroyed the very ideology that he spent his life promoting--Communism.
Hitler did not fix the German economy. He threw money at armaments and social programs, until by 1937, he was beginning to reneg on the latter because of financial constraints. War was an escape from bankruptcy.
mc0558 1 year ago
@something9313 How does this slightly hysterical comment appear on a board that deals with Charles I?
mc0558 1 year ago
His Majesty the King was never unwise.
The King was and remains an enduring symbol of true and proper government, fully deserving of the title Defender of the Faith and ultimately that which is legitimate.
Any action of Cromwell's was illegal, and his foray into the sacrilegious: His Majesty's murder by the luddite squire, served as a bloody and evil episode of the United Kingdom's history.
Sancte Carole, ora pro nobis !
MrRBloomfield 1 year ago
is that richard burton who plays cromwell
Hunte9753 1 year ago
they do say charles spoke with a scottish accent.... so this is quite authentic
pahoboye 1 year ago
This movie has so many flaws in that I am surprised it can pass its content as historical.
SophiaDarkraven 1 year ago
Prince Rupert was a bit of a ponce but he was also very good.
You'd have to be to carry a poodle around.LOL
oldsreo 1 year ago
What is the name of the actor that plays
the role of Cromwell?
Keisari70 2 years ago
richard harris i think
bulked 2 years ago
7:25-onward
What happened? The film had much more of the battle than that.
LtSurge659 2 years ago
This was the last time a reigning monarch entered the House of Commons and why all subsequent Kings and Queens have been banned from the chamber. It is also why the Queen has to send her messenger (Black Rod) to summuns the MPs to the House of Lords during the State opening of Parliament and why they slam the door in his face as an act of defience.
drecords0 2 years ago
thanks for info sir...
jpandyaraja 2 years ago
Yeah, you have a point. All this patriotism is the veneer under which the hunger for power is cloaked. Winston Churchill was a drug addict and megalomaniac and despite his incompetence Britain and its allies won the war. Yet Churchill is sold as a hero when in fact he is a disgrace for the greatness of Britain.
Adamalgorithm 2 years ago
Be not to stern with sweet Winston Churchill, he did commit many great folly, including the destruction of the German cities and most of all, slaughtering the wrong pig, while it was one pig to less as Hitler and Stalin are birds of the selfsame feathers; so he should have arranged the downfall of Hitler (non accidental car and airplane accidents do always lurk around) and then a traditional change o alliances in 1943/44 to cause the undoing of Stalin; like in the War of Spanish Succession...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
when i was a dumb kid i thought Oliver Cromwell was Charles Darwin =) little off huh ;)
alexp9999 2 years ago
lol
12345JJBB 2 years ago
Interesting note :
The guy speaking at around 6:20 (the one asking for control of the militia) or so is the guy who played the narrator in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
achorn316 2 years ago
Charles Grey also starred as the Bond villain Blofeld in Goldfinger (also as a good guy in You Only Live Twice)
ShahOfBlahII 2 years ago
Ooops he was a bad guy in Diamonds are Forever!
ShahOfBlahII 2 years ago
yea blofeld! Thats where I knew him from, I know he looked so freakin familiar!! haha 007 thats where he was from...THANKS!! =)
TheArmo1 1 year ago
I`M SUCH A DUMMY FOR A WHITE MAN...
CamelsAssBangMohned 2 years ago
How can, whoever made this movie can make such a mistake?
Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton's were not the ones' Charles wanted to arrest!
324wilson 2 years ago
I love these early modern times: Everything is undecided and in move; like here when the Parliament and the Crown raise armies against each other accusing the other party of treason and the breach of law. I fear in modern times with their machinery of standing armies and police forces something like that would be impossible unless the armed forces would split among themselves or the people are well equipped with arms like in the USA.
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago 3
we are stocking up in the USA for when General secretary OBAMA makes his move
CamelsAssBangMohmed 2 years ago
@CamelsAssBangMohmed: God be praised! But why wait for the traitor to make his move? Why not following the deliberations of Shakespeare's Brutus: "It must be by his death: and, for my part, I know no personal cause to spurn at him, But for the general. He would be crown'd: How that might change his nature, there's the question: It is the bright day that brings forth the adder; And that craves wary walking. Crown him?—that: And then, I grant, we put a sting in him, (...)"
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
"(...) That at his will he may do danger with. Th' abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins Remorse from power; and, to speak truth of Caesar, I have not known when his affections sway'd More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof, That lowliness is young ambition's ladder, Whereto the climber-upward turns his face; But, when he once attains the upmost round, He then unto the ladder turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees By which he did ascend: (...)"
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
"(...) so Caesar may; Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel Will bear no color for the thing he is, Fashion it thus,—that what he is, augmented, Would run to these and these extremities: And therefore think him as a serpent's egg Which hatch'd, would, as his kind grow mischievous; And kill him in the shell." - Art and poerty have for sure a practical use...
GreatGrumbledook 2 years ago
In Britain, there is no such thing as treason against the Nation. There is treason against the Crown. The innovative fine point of law popularised by Sir Edward Coke was, however, that the Crown and the person of the King are two different things.
mc0558 3 years ago 2
Like his father, Charles was a very unwise King. To come to parliament and allow himself to be bettered like this was political suicide. And when the Speaker of the House said he served Parliament rather than the Kind, Charles should have arrested him there and then.
The Stuarts had no effective power in Scotland. When they inherited Elizabeth's mantle they thought they would be rich and all powerful. It went to their heads, and they threw it all away.
mc0558 3 years ago 8
Very good observation there , thanks
SSRusitah 3 years ago
And if I were Charles, I would have just arrested all the Parliament members when they spoke of Civil War. Why should I give then Parliament members go and raise an army when I could have arrested all the brains of my enemies at once?
DarthFanta 2 years ago
First of all, this film is not historically accurate. Secondly, it was Charles who raised an army against parliament. It was the King who took up arms against that part of the nation that opposed his efforts at a personal rule. Thirdly, except for the prerogative court, Star Chamber, the King had lost the ability to get juries to convict his opponents. Look at those who refused to pay ship money--they got off.
Charles lost the nation's support and snatched it back at the end by dying well.
mc0558 2 years ago
Cromwell was not one of the five MPs the King wanted to arrest!
tnecklover 2 years ago
No indeed and neither was Henry Ireton's, which was also presented in the film. The five MP's were: Pym, Holles, Haselrig, Hampden (of Ship Money fame) and Strode.
The film had a dramatic story to tell centred on Charles and Cromwell, and it told it regardless of facts that got in the way of their theme. I am sympathetic, but I think in changing names like this, they go too far.
mc0558 2 years ago 2
true but the film's producers may have thought it would add an interesting twist and show one reaction cromwell may have shown.
hofffan333 2 years ago
@DarthFanta NOTE that Charles was the first to raise an Army for use in putting down the London mob that supported the House of Common's radicals.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 It should be noted that Cromwell was not on the list of 5 names the King came to arrest. In fact at the the time, Cromwell was practically unknown, so this dual of words between the two never happened. I suspect it was just added for dramatic effect.
drecords0 1 year ago
@drecords0
You are right on all counts. Indeed the film contains many historical inaccuracies. I think Guiness does a great job as Charles. Harris lacks the acting subtlety to embrace Cromwell's many contradictions and his genius. Moreover, Cromwell was a great man.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Yes I agree with you about Guiness, he catches the arrogance of the King perfectly. I'm not sure all would agree about Cromwell being a great man though. Especially the Irish as he was responsible for many thousands of deaths over there.
drecords0 1 year ago
@drecords0 In my lexicon, "great man" does NOT mean "good, kind, admirable man or a man held up for emulation." It means someone who had a profound effect on history, some of which was positive. Thus I would say Stalin was a great man but Hitler wasn't.
mc0558 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drecords0 @drecords0
You are right on all counts. Indeed the film contains many historical inaccuracies. I think Guiness does a great job as Charles. Harris lacks the acting subtlety to embrace Cromwell's many contradictions and his genius. Moreover, Cromwell was a "great" man.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Awwwww, too bad. You make a fine Tory.
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley I wonder how you come to this conclusion. I am not a Tory at all.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Why do you care? I'm just a dumb American, right? Just look down your nose at me and walk away like the rest of you dying Limeys.
GohModley 1 year ago
@GohModley Why do I care? Care about what? I don't understand which of my comments prompted these bitter comments. Looking down my nose at you because you're American? Where do I do that? And why are we limeys dying? I would love to know what I said that inspired your emnity.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Um no. King James I was a great king. He ended a twenty year war with Spain. He vastly improved religious turmoil in England by creating the King James Bible. The empire and trade were vastly expanded under his rule. And he did a lot of get the union of England and Scotland going. Really he is the father of Great Britain. All in all he was a good king.
MajBlood 9 months ago
I dont think this is the whole movie
kmm5792 3 years ago
yup , i have shorten it .
SSRusitah 3 years ago
OMG, i haven't seen this for like 10 years. Thank you so much.
florinu123 3 years ago
It is available on DVD.
tnecklover 2 years ago