Timothy Dalton in Cromwell

[baraxor]

How can a sovereign king be a traitor when all loyalty in the kingdom is supposed to be bent to the royal person?

BTW, the person of the Queen is still protected from imprisonment by the law of treason, and cannot be held accountable to the law. Politically accountable, yes, but not judicially.

[laganuk]

Charles believed in the Divine Right of Kings. In 1690 his son James vacated the throne and his daughter and husband William where made Queen and King with a social contract with Parliament called the Bill of Rights.

[bollockchops55]

charles was a traitor and got what was coming to him

[mc0558]

Sophia Darkraven

I think James and Charles tried to preserve what they saw as the Tutor style of kingship, but they missed the subtlities of Tudor rule. The Tudors controled parliament from the inside. They won MP and Lords support for government policy through bribery and corruption. James and Charles confronted parliament head on and it ruined them. It really is not until you get to William III that you get back to the Tudor way of politics--inside control and manipulation to win the vote.

[SophiaDarkraven]

This will probably be the last time I will visit this comment area. I have lingered too long in it as it is. Do you by any chance teach history or work in an area that requires historical knowledge? If you don't you may want to consider it as you are a diamond ^.^

[mc0558]

No personal information.

[mc0558]

Further to Sophia Darkraven

I cannot help link Charles' actions with those of Mazarin and Louis XIV in France--all part of exaggerated Renaissance ideas about kingship espoused principally by Machiavelli. The devil isn't called "Old Nick" for nothing--so I disagree with you that Charles was only misguided. I do think his practices were evil; whether Charles was is up to God. Thank you for concerning yourself with my degree of understanding. You must be a very distinguished scholar indeed.

:--)

[SophiaDarkraven]

lol that is a compliment indeed ^.^ thank you. I would never say I was distinguished though nor claim such a vast knowledge. I am still a novice in many ways. In regards to this I've had an interest in the English Civil War since I was a small child and I am always looking for the opportunity to gain more knowledge with this time period. I like to hear how other people view events because I find that it helps in my own understanding as they will bring new thoughts & ideas to the table.

[mc0558]

Ma no! Non e possibile!!

I know you are a leading historian acting in here incognito!

[SophiaDarkraven]

heh ^.^ you are a charmer but I am not what you think. Like I said, I love the time period. My forte, as it is, lies with Prince Rupert though. He is a very interesting person with remarkable skills. For example: While standing sixty yards away from the church of St Mary, Rupert fired his pistol at the weathercock, the bullet piercing a hole in its tail. When the king said it was a fluke Rupert repeated the feat (Taken from a document that has survived from that time)

[SophiaDarkraven]

If you are interested about him the best Bio I have read and would recommend would be Frank Kitson - Prince Rupert: Portrait of a Soldier. It is written by a General and goes really into the nitty gritty of the 17th century army, There is also a second book of him by the same author that goes into his life after the Civil War and into Charles II

[mc0558]

What a fascinating piece of information.

[SophiaDarkraven]

Your own knowledge is fantastic and I must say well done ^.^

[SophiaDarkraven]

This movie is historically wrong on several things. For one Prince Rupert's white dog boy was shot at the battle of Marston Moor, a year before Naseby. Also he liked the scarlett not blue and would also not of dressed like a blue silk puff when going into battle. Doing so would of been like having a sign saying "I am in charge of this group please shoot me."

[nbm34]

Charles the 1st was a corrupt evil king in a line of such monarchs. He was a leading light of the illuminati of the age. On his cloak you will see the emblems of his masonic links as well.The divine right of kings was fought against the people.JOHN lILLBOURNE,and his ilk SHOULD BE BETTER KNOWN THAN THIS MONSTER. Real English history like how the levellers forced Parliament to execute this bastard for warcrimes. Was never taught in school histories. He was a tool of the Vatican as well.

[mc0558]

Whether Charles was evil or not is a matter of argument. The rest of what you write is not--it's utter balderdash.

[nbm34]

mc0558 LOOK YOU IDIOT what I say is backed BY HISTORIC EVIDENCE. YOU

TIT.

[mc0558]

being abusive and foul-mouthed is no substitute for evidence.

What's your evidence? I mean scholarly evidence!

[nbm34]

The historic evidence is that Charles was a closet Catholic.His aim was through the Anglican Church which retained the liturgy of Catholic practise, used it as a front to promote the Catholic church.

The civil war was a result of Charles Taxing the middle class of the age for War

agianst Scotland who refused to accept

there church being forced to accept his terms on these issues. HE WAS THE MAN OF BLOOD. Executed justly for his

evil aims in these historic facts.

[mc0558]

Now you are saying something that is sensible! Bravo!!

That Charles was a crypto-papist is a plausible theory but there is only circumstantial evidence to support it; no "smoking gun". The Civil War was a result of Charles losing control of parliament and London. His powers were under attack.

I agree with you that he deserved what he got.

[SophiaDarkraven]

If you look at the historical evidence with a less single view you will also note that the civil war had been long coming. If you look at the previous kings and queens you will see the hostility building up. King Charles I just happened to by the unlucky one when it finally blew. He was not "evil" just misguided. It is easy to judge with our more modern view of things but you have to try and see things how they would of back then. When you do you will find that you will understand more.

[mc0558]

I agree with you that already there were tensions as early as Elizabeth's reign. But James stirred up a lot of trouble with the law courts with his doctrinaire pronouncements about law and "good" government.. Charles, however, actually tried to rule without parliament, something none of his predecessors had done, and he tried to revive feudal charges and prerogatives that had faded away. Moreover, he tampered with the Scottish Church. I do not agree that he was just unlucky. He was unwise!

[SophiaDarkraven]

That is true. He did do things that no others had done. But, he was not a very forward king and would listen to his advisors a little too often rather then going on his own instincts. Perhaps this is down to his up-bringing since he was never expected to gain the throne in first place nor expected to live far past infancy due to his sickly nature but after his brother died he was suddenly push to the front. Would this have contributed in some degree to the type of king he would turn out to be?

[mc0558]

Charles I pretty much followed on with the foolish policies and unpopular parctices of his father, James I. (Have a look especially at the attempt to raise moneyh by reviving feudal dues--escheatment--and the forcing of people to become knights and baronets)

Charles' brother died when Chas was 11; so James had 12 years in which to prepare Chas for kingship. (You can train a heart surgeon in that time.) I think James succeeded very well in creating an even more reckless version of himself.

[SophiaDarkraven]

I can see your point. So would it be fair to say his downfall was how his father brought him up? Or just his own ambition as a man and king?

[mc0558]

You know that the landed gentry were badly affected by massive inflation that resulted from Spain's importation of huge amounts of Aztec and Peruvian gold into Europe. (This is the time of the Fronde in France.) So there was social uprest that arose from circumstances over which Charles had no control.

However, faced with these challenges, the early Stuart's tried and failed to do in Britain what Mazarin and Louis XVI succeeded in doing in France--rule in their own right, without parliament.

[Arnieluvsshred91]

Yes it appears like it was long coming but the fact is that as late as the parliaments of 1640-41, the Commons had no intention of going to war with the king and it was in fact a group of army radicals who signed his death warrant in late 1648. Most of them had no intention of killing Charls. However I agree with you that he was not evil. Pym believed he was misguided by "evil" advisors such as Stafford and Laud when parliament returned after Personal Rule

[batalion666]

Sir Guiness was great actor,Rupert Everett is good looking nice man and i love 17.centurys faces,uniforms,long hair and pussies.Please check few scenes from great polish movie about that called POTOP on youtube.

[blackdress69]

Well, at least Alec Guiness is a lot shorter than Rupert Everett, that's a start...

[rexel666]

Yes wasn't that a ridiculous piece of casting?

[HelloDaves]

I think Tim Dalton would have made an excellent Anakin Skywalker in the SW prequels. This character combined with Prince Barin (Flash Gordon 1980) would have been something better than Hayden Christensen's version.

[TheFlashman]

That's just about the most stupid thing I've ever heard.

[11iop]

Old Obi Wan Kenobi and James Bond come together

[rexel666]

Alec Guinness's portrayal of Charles Stuart is simply superb. One of the finest and yet understated performances of all time