@RichardElden Read your history you ignorant prick, charles was not ugly! In fact he was very very hansome in those days! Over 6ft, tall dark and handsome.
@odinkey76 Not really 'James III' was widely said and perceived to have been illegitimate. James II had been married to Mary of Modena for 15 years when they allegedly had their child which seemed bizarre at a time when a marriage was traditionally consummated as soon as possible. It would have been more scandalous to put 'James III' on the throne than William of Orange and Mary.
1) What if the monarch wrote on bill, veto; send back with super majority of 3/5's or don't send back, what would happen?
2) What if monarch a single cabinet member sign for an EU issue; i.e. a key that never goes to the parliament?
3) Given such few weeks for the required general election could the monarch opt to level the playing field and not let the PM choose the exact date of voting?
4) Does Supreme Govennor of CofE have any destionary authority?
HM The Queen is de jure head of state but her first lord of the treasury the PM is de facto head and advises her on what to do. By being the leader of the majority party in Parliament he decides on what laws to be make or break.
1-within weeks, parliament would either have deposed the monarch in favour of someone who will tow the line, or we would have a republic, depending on the public mood.
2-if an EU lw comes into effect, the monarch has no say because it is binding by virtue of the treaties that the parliament agrees to in the monarchs name. again, as with answer one, the monarch doesnt have any involvement. she signs the document, no question asked.
You notice how the poor lad touches the axe that was going to cut off his head? As if he was thinking, "Geez, this thing is really, really blunt." Eight blows, no wonder!
@yot5000 James II, though a Catholic, was hardly stupid. One thing that he pressed for as king was RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE and freedom for his people. Parliament was against it, not wanting the established Church of England to lose its clout. There were a number of times in English history when religious tolerance could have been nurtured, and it was not always a fanatical Catholic or Protestant monarch who stood in the way.
@lichtbroeder Yes he was. His Brother said years before he died that James would end up losing the crown. King Charles on his death bed ended his life as a catholic. James on the other hand flaunted his catholicism in a Protestant country. I call that STUPID!
@yot5000 Charles II , who had leanings towards Catholicism long before his death, converted to Catholicism on his death bed, as it was the only way he could become a Catholic in an intolerant England. He had to hide his true inclinations. James wanted to be true to his heart and live as a Catholic monarch openly, in a religiously diverse country, and you call that "flaunting". I call that admirable and brave. Yes, he lost the "crown", but not the one that ultimately mattered to him more.
@lichtbroeder Look I am a catholic for whats it worth! James was just not up to being king. He was no politician!!!!!!!!!! He new the state of the country and just thought he could be a DIVINE KING and do what he wanted. That is why I called him STUPID.
I agree with you, he got his crown in Heaven I Hope.
@yot5000 James had friends of many faiths and refused to enforce religious discrimination laws or dismiss Catholic servants. He established freedom of religion in the colonies, worked with Quakers, helped Dissenters, protected Jews, and helped Protestant Huguenot refugees.
He released over 1300 prisoners of conscience from jail and during his rule, no one was executed in England for religious beliefs. He risked his throne and lost it, because of the ideal of religious liberty. "Flaunting"?
@odinkey76 Not really 'James III' was widely said and perceived to have been illegitimate. James II had been married to Mary of Modena for 15 years when they allegedly had their child which seemed bizarre at a time when a marriage was traditionally consummated as soon as possible. It would have been more scandalous to put 'James III' on the throne than William of Orange and Mary.
@odinkey76 Not really 'James III' was widely said and perceived to have been illegitimate. James II had been married to Mary of Modena for 15 years when they allegedly had their child which seemed bizarre at a time when a marriage was traditionally consummated as soon as possible. It would have been more scandalous to put 'James III' on the throne than William of Orange and Mary.
I love this end scene because it tells what happened to the people involved in Charles's life, a good idea to some who are a little rusty about their history
Brilliant drama this was.I'm in a re-enactment group of roughly this period...the chicks love the clothes,and you can get away with being a drunken sex maniac LOL !!!
It required 8 blows of the axe to remove his head. Either the axeman aim was terrible or he had a neck the size of one of popeyes forearms. Do we know from the public records of the period if he had a giant neck. I`am going to start some historical research. I need to know.
Well the chap who was in charge of his execution - Jack Ketch - was known to have put his 'clients' though some morbid executions, so it may have been a planned stage of brutal execution to scare others?
He should have lived longer, instead of his silly brother taking the crown. Here is a man who despite having his father executed was able to understand the mistakes made and listen to Parliament and bring peace to the country. And he lived life to the full!
Don't be too hard on James II. He was deeply scarred emotionally by the Civil War and lacked his brother's ability both to forgive and to make himself liked. He was overthrown because of anti-Catholic bigotry, not because he deserved to be.
Charles I, the Martyr and Charles II were two of our best Kings and James II was far from the worst.
You're right, but I'd like to add James was never the bully his enemies made him out to be.
He actually had way more guts than his brother actually, and was kinder in the sense that nobody died for their religous beliefs under his reign. He was more honest and direct.
Also, Charles' mistresses were far greedier and malicious than this series makes them out to be. And most of their children turned out to be as low and greedy as their mothers.
I have a lot of affection for James II. He could have been a king as good as his brother, had he been given the chance.
I agree about the mistresses. We tend to romanticise the gold-diggers of the past, but let us not forget "pretty, witty Nell" holding her own baby over a stream and threatening to drop him unless Charles gave him a title.
Charles II, by far, my favorite English monarch, spent his life protecting his brother James (who did not have a clue as to what the English public would tolerate).
@RichardElden Read your history you ignorant prick, charles was not ugly! In fact he was very very hansome in those days! Over 6ft, tall dark and handsome.
MissSixtiesPennyLane 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@odinkey76 Not really 'James III' was widely said and perceived to have been illegitimate. James II had been married to Mary of Modena for 15 years when they allegedly had their child which seemed bizarre at a time when a marriage was traditionally consummated as soon as possible. It would have been more scandalous to put 'James III' on the throne than William of Orange and Mary.
leverj 1 year ago
Questions?
1) What if the monarch wrote on bill, veto; send back with super majority of 3/5's or don't send back, what would happen?
2) What if monarch a single cabinet member sign for an EU issue; i.e. a key that never goes to the parliament?
3) Given such few weeks for the required general election could the monarch opt to level the playing field and not let the PM choose the exact date of voting?
4) Does Supreme Govennor of CofE have any destionary authority?
Crazy, no?
But some how it works.
Hkepfer 2 years ago
HM The Queen is de jure head of state but her first lord of the treasury the PM is de facto head and advises her on what to do. By being the leader of the majority party in Parliament he decides on what laws to be make or break.
laganuk 1 year ago
@Hkepfer
answers
1-within weeks, parliament would either have deposed the monarch in favour of someone who will tow the line, or we would have a republic, depending on the public mood.
2-if an EU lw comes into effect, the monarch has no say because it is binding by virtue of the treaties that the parliament agrees to in the monarchs name. again, as with answer one, the monarch doesnt have any involvement. she signs the document, no question asked.
3-no. the date is set by law.
4-ceremonial
bulked 1 year ago
Elizabeth I is my favorite English Monarch but, Charles II is a close second...
brett21 2 years ago
Love our monarchy...
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!!!
324wilson 2 years ago 5
You notice how the poor lad touches the axe that was going to cut off his head? As if he was thinking, "Geez, this thing is really, really blunt." Eight blows, no wonder!
MLFive 2 years ago
fantastic how a dutch men Willem III (william) takes the power of James II, a Dutch men rulles over England!
promish 3 years ago
Isn't inviting a foreign force to invade your country treason?
ArtsyFartsyGal 2 years ago
@ArtsyFartsyGal
no. not if its done by the peoples representatives in parliament, expressing th will of the people
bulked 1 year ago
GOOD SERIES!! But the King of England must been James III (the last son of James II and Mary of Modena) not William and Mary!!
odinkey76 3 years ago 5
Yes but the son of James II was catholic. Wasn't he?
324wilson 3 years ago
Hail to the Jacobite succession!!!
Long live the House of Stuart!!!
Hosea22 2 years ago
@odinkey76
Yes, BUT NO Catholic by an act of Parliament can be King or Queen. So James the second (STUPID MAN) lost his right and HEIRS to be king.
yot5000 1 year ago
@yot5000 James II, though a Catholic, was hardly stupid. One thing that he pressed for as king was RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE and freedom for his people. Parliament was against it, not wanting the established Church of England to lose its clout. There were a number of times in English history when religious tolerance could have been nurtured, and it was not always a fanatical Catholic or Protestant monarch who stood in the way.
lichtbroeder 1 year ago
@lichtbroeder Yes he was. His Brother said years before he died that James would end up losing the crown. King Charles on his death bed ended his life as a catholic. James on the other hand flaunted his catholicism in a Protestant country. I call that STUPID!
yot5000 1 year ago
@yot5000 Charles II , who had leanings towards Catholicism long before his death, converted to Catholicism on his death bed, as it was the only way he could become a Catholic in an intolerant England. He had to hide his true inclinations. James wanted to be true to his heart and live as a Catholic monarch openly, in a religiously diverse country, and you call that "flaunting". I call that admirable and brave. Yes, he lost the "crown", but not the one that ultimately mattered to him more.
lichtbroeder 1 year ago
@lichtbroeder Look I am a catholic for whats it worth! James was just not up to being king. He was no politician!!!!!!!!!! He new the state of the country and just thought he could be a DIVINE KING and do what he wanted. That is why I called him STUPID.
I agree with you, he got his crown in Heaven I Hope.
Godbless him
yot5000 1 year ago
@yot5000 James had friends of many faiths and refused to enforce religious discrimination laws or dismiss Catholic servants. He established freedom of religion in the colonies, worked with Quakers, helped Dissenters, protected Jews, and helped Protestant Huguenot refugees.
He released over 1300 prisoners of conscience from jail and during his rule, no one was executed in England for religious beliefs. He risked his throne and lost it, because of the ideal of religious liberty. "Flaunting"?
lichtbroeder 1 year ago
@odinkey76 Not really 'James III' was widely said and perceived to have been illegitimate. James II had been married to Mary of Modena for 15 years when they allegedly had their child which seemed bizarre at a time when a marriage was traditionally consummated as soon as possible. It would have been more scandalous to put 'James III' on the throne than William of Orange and Mary.
leverj 1 year ago
@odinkey76 Not really 'James III' was widely said and perceived to have been illegitimate. James II had been married to Mary of Modena for 15 years when they allegedly had their child which seemed bizarre at a time when a marriage was traditionally consummated as soon as possible. It would have been more scandalous to put 'James III' on the throne than William of Orange and Mary.
leverj 1 year ago
I love this end scene because it tells what happened to the people involved in Charles's life, a good idea to some who are a little rusty about their history
Lionstar16 3 years ago 5
Brilliant drama this was.I'm in a re-enactment group of roughly this period...the chicks love the clothes,and you can get away with being a drunken sex maniac LOL !!!
Castlemaines a milf in this...
hawksleyart01 3 years ago 4
It required 8 blows of the axe to remove his head. Either the axeman aim was terrible or he had a neck the size of one of popeyes forearms. Do we know from the public records of the period if he had a giant neck. I`am going to start some historical research. I need to know.
clackbleep 3 years ago 8
Well the chap who was in charge of his execution - Jack Ketch - was known to have put his 'clients' though some morbid executions, so it may have been a planned stage of brutal execution to scare others?
JohnsonofLondon 3 years ago 3
@clackbleep ever thought the axe was blunt?! Supposedly was often that way in those days! ouch!
MissSixtiesPennyLane 1 year ago
He should have lived longer, instead of his silly brother taking the crown. Here is a man who despite having his father executed was able to understand the mistakes made and listen to Parliament and bring peace to the country. And he lived life to the full!
JohnsonofLondon 4 years ago 10
Well said,couldnt agree more!:)
barthyb 4 years ago
Don't be too hard on James II. He was deeply scarred emotionally by the Civil War and lacked his brother's ability both to forgive and to make himself liked. He was overthrown because of anti-Catholic bigotry, not because he deserved to be.
Charles I, the Martyr and Charles II were two of our best Kings and James II was far from the worst.
Steeleperfect 3 years ago 3
You're right, but I'd like to add James was never the bully his enemies made him out to be.
He actually had way more guts than his brother actually, and was kinder in the sense that nobody died for their religous beliefs under his reign. He was more honest and direct.
Also, Charles' mistresses were far greedier and malicious than this series makes them out to be. And most of their children turned out to be as low and greedy as their mothers.
ArtsyFartsyGal 2 years ago
I have a lot of affection for James II. He could have been a king as good as his brother, had he been given the chance.
I agree about the mistresses. We tend to romanticise the gold-diggers of the past, but let us not forget "pretty, witty Nell" holding her own baby over a stream and threatening to drop him unless Charles gave him a title.
Steeleperfect 2 years ago
heh heh, I thought she dangled the kid out the window, but it's true, those women got more credit for their characters than they deserved.
ArtsyFartsyGal 2 years ago
Charles II, by far, my favorite English monarch, spent his life protecting his brother James (who did not have a clue as to what the English public would tolerate).
BetterThanObits 2 years ago 2
Uh, read some history.
hotgravy1 2 years ago
He's only the worst to confused individuals who know little of the real history of the Stuarts.
How readily they buy all the Williamite crap.
hotgravy1 2 years ago
His "silly" brother was a man who had guts. His brother believed in religious and racial equality. He also was a fair and direct man.
He was far ahead of his time. If that is "silly" then I honestly feel very sorry for your mindset.
ArtsyFartsyGal 2 years ago
Only thing silly is not knowing your history.
hotgravy1 2 years ago
nice again darling
nutieboy 4 years ago 2