The Trial of Charles I (1649)

[@_badmadsadlad]

13:04 i see you in the dot sheev

[@LittleGenevieve]

1 week ago?

[@emrandelowar9061]

@@LittleGenevieve video was private for patreon viewers only

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

Sheev lives on in all of our blackened, dead, perfectly circular hearts.

[@lawdennis3801]

*I AM THE PARLIAMENT*

[@YossarianVanDriver]

Are you threatening me, Lord President?

[@cjezinne]

The fact that I was on the edge of my seat for something that happened 400 years ago is exciting

[@thebashar]

CJ Ezinne wait till you see what Oliver Cromwell does next.

[@cjezinne]

Kevin Baer I’m trusting you!!! I’m not even going to research anything until the video comes out!

[@Innengelaender]

Same with the last video with Caesar-video. I thought he was gonna make it till the very end.

[@midshipman8654]

CJ Ezinne definitely. I like how historia mostly plays fair with the different parties in his videos instead of supplanting modern morals in a context where it doesn’t belong. For example, he doesn’t make a snide comment that the House of Commons were righteous in their acts due to our developed ideas of populism, but at the same time doesn’t completely write them off either.

[@adamclark1972uk]

@@thebashar And what King Charles's son does when he returns to England after ten years in exile.

[@BirdThatEatsPrometheussLiver]

Bradshaw: "We've tried kings before." Charles: "Source?" Bradshaw: "Dude trust me."

[@stevencooper4422]

bro i swear it happened my girlfriends ex had a friend who saw it done

[@henrybenson1501]

Charles: "Sauce?"

[@gnenian]

Every executed king was tried and found wanting.

[@nayeemhaider8367]

@@henrybenson1501 " I Can't Believe The Criminal I'm Trying Is Actually The King"

[@sgregg5257]

Bradshaw might have been attempting to allude to either the Barons listing royal faults with John in Magna Carta. If so he would also have known how worthless Magna Carta had turned out to be during the remaining years of John's reign. Or he may have been referring to the Lords Appellant trying to curb the tyrannical rule of Richard II. Either way it was too off the cuff and not thought out.

[@RobGcraft]

“The court was in chaos” Everybody: *spins aggressively*

[@fa1con730]

Lmao 😂

[@artemiswillow5479]

*spins aggressively while T-posing*

[@bromicorn]

You spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round right round

[@swedneck]

SPEEEEEN

[@MALITH666]

Yeah I kinda do that when I am in chaos.

[@alexross1816]

Charles I: "That's a nice argument, Lord President. Why don't you try backing it up with a source?" Bradshaw: "My source is that I made it the fuck up."

[@liam2384]

Source? Dude just trust me.

[@jogzyg2036]

*Repels illegal argument "How are you doing that?" "DIVINE RIGHT SON"

[@AChapstickOrange]

Charles I: "That's a nice argument, Lord President. Why don't you try backing it up with a source?" Bradshaw: [should have responded] "Your Majesty, as well you know, clause 61 of Magna Carta, to which your illustrious predecessor consented, implies that the King of England is a subject of the law and to being held responsible for breaking it."

[@willcarstens8721]

It's a shame Shakespeare wasn't alive to see this, because this would've made a great play.

[@cryoshakespeare4465]

I have returned!

[@VineFynn]

Shakespeare wasn't alive to see any of the stuff he made plays about haha

[@willcarstens8721]

VineFynn yeah, but this happened after he died.

[@mrmoist9753]

Jonathan Williams There were Puritans in Shakespeares time, he even wrote a poem making fun of them, I believe.

[@perciblejames268]

there is Cromwell 1970

[@AnotherGradus]

I'd like to believe that "chaos erupting in the court" as depicted, literal spinning in place by all that attended.

[@intensifiedfailure5681]

the world may never know, thus it can't be proven wrong.

[@flameoguy]

everybody gangsta until the squares start spinning

[@paigeconnelly4244]

I actually laughed out loud a lot at just imagining this.

[@rrobucksthehuman9186]

*Paul Keefer Blayblade Blayblade let it rip*

[@swampdonkey1567]

Paul Keefer and there a posing while doing so.

[@TheSquidPro]

Charles: "By who's authority!" Bradshaw: "He can't do that! Shoot him!... or something!"

[@enderpup9289]

TheSquidPro House of Commons: my authority

[@abdullahehe]

Lol

[@charlieh9725]

TheSquidPro what’s that from?

[@andrewlange7820]

Harry Paul it’s a prequel meme

[@rollingthunder8630]

By the authority of Cromwell's control of the soldiers standing behind the king.

[@benjaminwalker4458]

"The most interesting thing about King Charles I was that he was 5'6 tall at the start of his reign but only 4'8 at the end of it."

[@jpheitman1]

*Chopin intensifies*

[@jeffreyherrera5069]

4'8"? I'm not sure about that..... I'd say he's more like 8".

[@Rain-bo6uc]

At the end of his reign he couldn't even eat or hear or see

[@Julianna.Domina]

Wasn't he deposed before the trial?

[@sapaulgoogdmen9542]

A true ‘short’ king

[@karlleonis7882]

"If I would die for it, I must do it!" Cromwell: "Say no more fam, I got u."

[@joefirth4148]

John Downes was actually later charged with regicide after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. But he was not executed because of this speech and the fact Cromwell bullied him into signing the death warrant. He died 6 years later in prison

[@minoreror9961]

Joe Firth Rip

[@AbuHajarAlBugatti]

@@joefirth4148 How big of a chance that Cromwell and his buddies were Jesuits and Charles said something against their master the roman pope? I mean those Devils already tried blowing up King James and his entire parliament but failed and now portray Fawkes in modern zion-media as a Hero who failed

[@reds.victim1023]

@@AbuHajarAlBugatti Cromwell was a puritant Calvinist.

[@Ammeeeeeeer]

@@AbuHajarAlBugatti Dafuq, Cromwell a Jesuit? This is some flat-earth, anti-vaccine nonsense right here.

[@xazelnighthaunterfanboy975]

Meanwhile in Kingdome of France: HonHonHon Silly English! This could never happen to our Kings!

[@merrittanimation7721]

*140 years later* Sacre Bleu!

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

I give the French style points, though. When they decided to commit, they REALLY decided to commit.

[@akrybion]

They were to busy eating cake.

[@jeffengel2607]

They let England do the practice run, work out some bugs.

[@alberto2287]

Curiously enough, the French did what Charles asked: King Louis’ trial was done by the French Parliament

[@absintel]

"How do you plead, sir?" "I AM THE SENATE!"

[@charleskeefer9030]

Chicken breasts!

[@reds.victim1023]

UNLIMITED POWER!

[@minoreror9961]

Not yet

[@gmat5046]

They ask how do you please, he asks how do you charge me?

[@beepbop6542]

Well yeah, basically. He had the house of lords, which is sorta vaguely like the senate of the US, on his side.

[@silver965]

The first true Sovereign Citizen. "On what legal authority is this trial being held!?"

[@firebird6522]

Dang it. You beat me to it! Bravo!!! Well, at least Chuck didn't quote from Black's Law Dictionary. LOLOLOL!

[@TheIbney00]

The problem is he was right. The trial was illegal

[@m.f.m.8290]

In this case, just a Sovereign

[@StormShadowHarris]

@@TheIbney00 The trial was illegal because it did not have the consent of the king. The trial was about the conduct of the king. You see the issue here? Sure, it wasn’t legal, but it *was* justice, whatever Cromwell ended up doing.

[@TheIbney00]

@@StormShadowHarris What Cromwell did was not justice. Cromwell was a tyrant who took a problem and made it a crisis at every step of the way. There is no justice without a rule of law. The King should have been forced into abdication, and a constitutional monarchy established. Instead, they paraded themselves as if they were acting in the confines of the law, when the real problem was the law was wrong. This caused the problem itself. If you are going to hold yourself to the law, or at least say you are holding yourself to the law, don't act surprised when people get mad that you are just paying lip service.

[@klausgartenstiel4586]

"making it up as you go along." the slogan of british politics since times immemorial

[@CThyran]

@Garret Phegley The Romans had the same idea law wise too. That's what precedents are for after all.

[@MarcieParcie]

Insert your brexit joke here

[@LordDragon1965]

ALL politics is making it up as you go. Not just British

[@attalan8732]

Klaus Gartenstiel That's the beauty if it. After all, how else would you do it?

[@reprobus7986]

It;s worked for 1000 years

[@pariza86]

where is the part when Cicero opposed because he thought killing a monarch was too destabilizing?

[@beanacomputer]

Dude poor Cicero just wanted his oligarchy back...

[@konradvonschnitzeldorf6506]

and he was right too

[@rupdesnoop]

Cicero was the greatest of his generation

[@AnnhilateTheNihilist]

@@rupdesnoop except for Caesar, Antony, cleopatra, and Cleo's pet snake Terry.

[@rupdesnoop]

Awesome Wells - no mention of Cato?

[@rakaman27]

Under what authority? Well, the authority of we have a bigger army than you do, of course.

[@HuntingTheEnd]

Bigger army authory. Add that to GCP Grey's bigger army diplomacy and faster army diplomacy

[@tarquiniussuperbus21]

The only authority that counts.

[@nickkepley9294]

"Violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived."

[@KaiserAfini]

They didn't have secular authority, because the house of lords and king refused it. They didn't have spiritual authority, because the king was head of the church of England. The correct answer was to bribe the house of nobles into helping them, or purging the king and any royalists in one go. The trial was a mistake, because the state was designed to give the monarch unassailable authority.

[@Wallyworld30]

Why do you keep citing laws when I have a sword at my side? (Pompey)

[@bigbadseed7665]

After Charles' death, the monarchy was abolished, and Britain became a republic. Within a few years, Cromwell had transformed it into a military dictatorship. Just putting that out there.

[@reds.victim1023]

Rise up! lets fight for the good'ol cause! (The one of the republic, not the dictatorship, btw))

[@Jack-uy7ie]

@@neame-bh3uq I had no idea they existed. There was rumours that the current Queen of England was made illegitimate through Edward IV either being conceived whilst his father was on campaign or his heir being conceived under the same situation, I forget which. Basically it would mean some random Austrailian would be entitled to the title of the King of England if it wasn't for the technicality that England no longer existed after 1707. Also no Catholic may sit upon the throne since they must also act as the head of the church of england.

[@sithersproductions]

@@Jack-uy7ie James II was a catholic while also being in charge of the Church of England

[@Jack-uy7ie]

@@sithersproductions He converted in 1688/89 after his exile.

[@Neagnosis]

@@Jack-uy7ie after the Tutor line everyone was rushing to ‘fabricate claim’ each turn

[@jackharvey9808]

I still miss the red square 😭 RIP Caesar

[@FlymanMS]

Look how they massacred our boy!

[@PieMaster2425]

There is another

[@protonjones54]

stfu Marc Antony

[@tedwards4150]

Somebody get Octavian on the phone it’s his turn to be our red square

[@charleskeefer9030]

Totally.

[@notmareelnam7545]

Charles: You're completely illegitimate. The court: no u!!!

[@NPC-bs3pm]

no YOU ARE!

[@Larencia91]

No, thou art!

[@NPC-bs3pm]

@@Larencia91 Ney, yee!

[@alexanderchenf1]

Lauri Pajunen now I realize art was the ancient form of are.

[@gmat5046]

Uno origins.

[@MrBoodyx]

damn, Historia Civilis is still giving me chills after all these years. Wish i could buy you a beer mate

[@FFFFFFF-FFFFFFFUUUUCCCC]

uh can you buy me one?

[@nathanpaukstelis3170]

Bogdan donate to his patreon 😄

[@claiminglight]

Charles made a huge tactical error from the outset. He was trying to leverage the wrath of his loyalists against the ambitions of his captors, figuring that they couldn't just kill him off without risking more war. But he seemed to lose sight of what that leverage was worth: a seat in negotiations. By stonewalling them, he threw away the only card he had.

[@chinggiskhan6678]

Yes, but King Charles made an even bigger blunder before that; Starting a Civil War

[@BiggestCorvid]

I watched a video yesterday where a scholar said that parliament executed him for his massive spending on the arts, leaving out the writs of attained &c. He was executed because he didn't get it. Or maybe he did- it's all made up, so the moment he stops believing his whole extended family is at risk because they're largely royal parasites

[@Mateusz-hn7hy]

Don't forget about his biggest blunder: losing a civil war

[@shiroamakusa8075]

@@chinggiskhan6678 You mean starting a second civil war after already losing one. And that's after a whole lot of other things, big and small, he could have done differently to avoid this outcome. The guy was seriously asking for it by this point.

[@falconeshield]

​@@shiroamakusa8075Honestly he was lucky the userper sucked at his role of 'protector of the realm' cause the people wanted Charles II back

[@no.3802]

Charles I (1649), when speaking to Bradshaw: "You block, you stone, you worse than senseless thing"

[@PeterLambert2211]

No. 3 Is that Shakespeare?

[@EdricoftheWeald]

@@PeterLambert2211 Shakespeare died some decades before the Civil War, so probably not

[@solosulla9648]

@@EdricoftheWeald Huh, didn't realize that people stopped quoting Shakespeare after his death. It is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar! Act 1 scene 1

[@Pensive_Scarlet]

How rude! Callin' ppl blocks. ;x

[@gfox9295]

@@Pensive_Scarlet Yeah! That's HC's job!

[@MentalEdge]

Ah yes. Another episode of "Political history squares". I can barely cope with having to wait for more.

[@SigEpBlue]

Seems like it would've been easier, if not "more legit," to depose Charlie as king first, and _then_ charge him, as a non-monarch, with crimes.

[@saulolima4652]

I think that Cromwell really wanted to set a precedent of the power of Parlament over the Power of a King.

[@deltasword1994]

They might not have been able to see it that way. The framing in which their reality was probably didn't allow for that.

[@ezzovonachalm7534]

@@saulolima4652 ... a BLOODY precedent ...

[@hihi-nm3uy]

i think that’d been even harder. if they failed they’d basically die. if they succeeded he could still kill them before they get the chance.

[@jerm70]

@@hihi-nm3uy What do you mean? The parliament already won the war. They should of made him abdicate before putting him on trial.

[@squiglemcsquigle8414]

I love how in almost all the major trails of a monarch the monarch just ran circles around the people trying to convict him. Charles, Louis etc

[@t3hmaniac]

That's because most legal codes were set up to defend the old hierarchy of power first and foremost. Fighting back against a tyrant or incompetent despot was often the most severe crime in the books because those same tyrants were the ones writing them.

[@crazyciler50]

@@t3hmaniac no the rules were written by the competent forfathers, a truly incompetent ruler would not know how to take advantage of the power

[@aorusaki]

@@t3hmaniac exactly. The laws were completely bias and therefore void. Why the hell should people follow a law that allows evil or tyranny?! Doing the right thing isnt always the legal thing

[@juancarloshernandez2333]

If all previous established laws were rooted in a philosophical and legal doctrine that was completely biased in my favor and made me legally immune from being charged of any crime I could run circles around anyone trying to convict me too.

[@Oruam1111]

@@crazyciler50 lmao no they weren't they were clearly written to protect the powerful. "competent forfathers" are not a thing. Why do you feel the need to defend horribly oppressive feudal structures my dude?

[@kauffner]

The whole parliament had 507 members at this time. After Pride's Purge in 1648, 200 of these continued to serve. Only 29 MPs voted to established the High Court of Justice that tried Charles I.

[@Riku-zv5dk]

The Rump Parliament was aptly named

[@vulpes7079]

This kind of bullshit is now law. The British Parliament only needs a quorum of three to operate; the Speaker, his assistant, and another MP. This is what goes on when you castrate your monarchy

[@zekedia2223]

Wait what? Only 3???? That’s fucking ridiculous

[@vulpes7079]

@@zekedia2223 sure is, but any limit to Parliament's ability to fuck up Britain with very little effort will be called dictatorial

[@13minutestomidnight]

@@vulpes7079I am totally surprised that the UK managed to fuck up their country less than the U.S. I mean, technically, the US actually have greater restrictions on politicians, but it's so screwed up over there that one president can be almost powerless and another can easily rewrite America to his liking, AND while having no knowledge of legal or parliamentary processes whatsoever. Really!

[@kaiserslim2751]

Bradshaw sounds like an incompetent from how he handled this whole thing. They seriously couldn't find anyone who was better suited to handle this situation?

[@andrewsuryali8540]

Go watch the previous video. They LITERALLY couldn't find anyone else willing to put the king on trial.

[@jayteegamble]

@@andrewsuryali8540 Putting the village idiot out there to get your arguments destroyed seems worse than just not having a trial.

[@andrewsuryali8540]

​@@jayteegamble John Bradshaw wasn't the village idiot. I think you're missing the point that ALL his arguments were correct in the long run and we now believe the same things he did BECAUSE he had the gall to say them out loud and set the precedent. The problem was that the rest of his peers were still behind the times and many actually believed in the sanctity of the king. They were stuck in the utterly ridiculous legal loop of all laws having to come from the king, which has absolutely no basis in reality. Bradshaw sounded like an incompetent because the context of what he was saying was so far ahead of everyone else that they couldn't wrap their heads around it. THEY were the idiots, not him. It was as if they'd dropped Einstein into Isaac Newton's Cambridge. Or do you actually believe all laws descend from the will of the king and not the people?

[@kaiserslim2751]

When I was referring to Bradshaw as an incompetent, I was referring to his behavior during the trial, where he seemed to very easily lose his cool and devolve to just shouting. Some of the arguments he tried to use were admittedly not helping his case at all, but they could at least have gotten someone (if at all possible, given the issues surrounding the trial) who at least wasn't so quick to anger.

[@textnumbers22]

@Jimmy De'Souza Hate to break it to you but pretty much every king ultimately gained power by having a bigger stick

[@gabrielaponte6403]

so what is concluded that the only real authority is the one with the most weapons and the biggest army

[@robertaylor9218]

gabriel aponte partly, but also that the power of the governing is derived by the consent of the governed.

[@ryans5073]

Robert Aylor you remember the part where they didnt have half of the people they had convinced to actually show up right? They had to intimidate the rest into signing

[@jakman2179]

That's right kids! So remember, always pay your soldiers, and never hire mercenaries. Just like old Machiavelli said.

[@derrydrendell307]

I think there is an element of modernity here that kind of complicates the idea that it's just, "who has the most guns" and that is the very fact that someone like charles I could be brought into a courtroom and tried like any other person. the idea that authority could be unseated... i mean dang that's like.. we don't even do that today, we let rich fuckers fuck us every day and we consider it fair lol

[@dylanb4494]

@@derrydrendell307 no one considers it fair. Left wing nutjobs banned guns for ""your safety"" and now rich corporate oligarchs act with impunity over the slaves. Theyre not going to arrest themselves and the disarmed populace physically cant.

[@carlosgarciaherrero1971]

There’s an error. Usually when somebody in England was executed, the executioner took his head and said “here is the head of traitor”. But in the case of King Charles I the head was just shown to the people but the executioner didn’t say that sentence.

[@louisrelf5903]

Did he forget? 😆

[@carlosgarciaherrero1971]

@@louisrelf5903 No. He knew he was killing a King....not too much people can say that. So he wanted to have a bit a respect because of his royal position I suppose

[@louisrelf5903]

@@carlosgarciaherrero1971 Ah, right - sorry for being glib, I just thought it would be funny he’d had a mind blank and forgot to say the line.

[@bonniemagpie5166]

Mary Queen of Scots was tried and charged for treason and lost her head.

[@howardlanus8610]

One man tried it but the crowd yelled back "no it's not. It's a huge pumpkin with a pathetic moustache drawn on it". Blackadder the Cavalier Years

[@Bram06]

King Charles was the world's first sovereign citizen

[@Milkbutter]

Holy shit.

[@merrittanimation7721]

I mean technically...

[@JBlackjackp]

No that would be the first king

[@merrittanimation7721]

@@JBlackjackp Guess it's Alulim then, the first guy mentioned in Sumerian Kings List. If he existed at least, then the earliest ruler we know about concretely is En-me-barage-si.

[@timmcclymont3527]

So I guess he was right that no one would be safe if he was convicted.

[@mjs752002]

As great as the whole video was, I enjoyed the 'poke with stick' sequence way more than I should have.

[@jackvernian7779]

by far the most important part of the whole trial. This is what sealed charles' fate.

[@MetalHeadViking]

King Charles would have made a great lawyer even today.

[@htoodoh5770]

Lol

[@htoodoh5770]

Lol

[@kylenetherwood8734]

It was literally illegal to convict him of any crime and he still lost.

[@lovablesnowman]

@@kylenetherwood8734 he was always going to lose though. Parliament was never going to let him go

[@merrittanimation7721]

@@kylenetherwood8734 It helps the people there really wanted him dead and had already committed treason anyways.

[@justenholder918]

You have a unique ability to tell these stories and make them incredibly interesting. I just wish I could listen to more of your videos.

[@HistoryExplained]

I love your simple but incredibly clever videos! You’ve been a huge inspiration to me as I build my own history channel. Thank you!

[@mikespearwood3914]

Jesus Christ! How many history channels are floating around on KZbin now?! :O

[@AdamDunebugDunas]

@@mikespearwood3914 A lot of history out there...

[@mikespearwood3914]

@@kesorangutan6170 Yes, I like it too. Just surprised that the last year or two, a phenomenal amount of history channels have suddenly appeared.

[@mikespearwood3914]

@@AdamDunebugDunas True!

[@bishop6218]

@@mikespearwood3914 Well there's still not enough to compensate for the metric crapton of beauty influencers out there so... 😉

[@Roderickdl]

You sir are amazing. Never have I come across someone who can tell a story with depth and tension with just squares on a screen. I am loving it.

[@MarcieParcie]

You ever see 2 people on twitter arguing but they're both wrong? That's what this feels like to me.

[@TonyFontaine1988]

The king had a better argument

[@czechmeoutbabe1997]

Tony Fontaine but he’s also a literal mass murderer

[@lolihitler4198]

Mustache You A Question killing traitors isn’t murder

[@TonyFontaine1988]

@@czechmeoutbabe1997 one man's mass murderer is another mans hero.

[@czechmeoutbabe1997]

@@TonyFontaine1988 You could argue that any king that had to kill his own subjects has failed at being a monarch. Also, is anyone really rooting for the king killing scores of peasants here? Jesus 2020 is bleak

[@revelaitons3959]

Charles I: "I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed flag. The flag with gilded edges is the flag of an Admiralty Court. An Admiralty Court signifies a Naval court martial. I cannot be court martialed twice. That is all! Furthermore!"

[@blaine1987]

Pocket sand! Shshsha!

[@Photosounder]

28:36 This seems to imply that John Downes was killed or something ominous. This is not the case, he lived and later was found guilty of regicide, but since he spoke up and claimed he was pressured into signing the death warrant he was only incarcerated for life (as opposed to gruesomely executed as were many of the other regicides).

[@arseface2k934]

that's sounds worse than execution, I'd rather die right away than spend the rest of my life in a 17th century prison

[@j0nnyism]

Yep he’s my ancestor. My uncle still has letters he sent his wife when he was in the tower. He crumpled under cromwells pressure something he regretted for the rest of his life

[@j0nnyism]

In the court case after the restoration he was the only penitent regicide. Sad story really. Like many moderates he was terrified of Cromwell

[@stevenmajor9513]

Death sentence was to be hung drawn and quartered. Check that out. Life in prison ain't no thang in comparison.

[@maybecole]

@@j0nnyism Very cool that you have those letters.

[@mattmackenzie4636]

I live on the Isle of Wight and work (volunteer) at Carisbrooke Castle where he was imprisoned while awaiting his execution. Though initially it was more like house arrest as he had his own little manner, he tried to escape a few times with one attempt ending with him getting stuck trying to climb out of his own bedroom window., it is fascinating being in Charles' bedroom, seeing some of his clothes and other belongings which are on display. His room and the main building within the castle walls is now a museum.

[@ResistTheGreatReplacementEU]

Wow now I want to visit carisbrooke castle

[@askinperson2839]

Please do more like this. I was on the edge of my seat, you can't make better drama.

[@EinFelsbrocken]

*Court approaching boiling point* Lady Fairfax: Lemme heat things up even more 😁

[@shorewall]

She was a real mad lass. :D

[@merrittanimation7721]

I'm surprised she kept managing to get in there.

[@louiscallahan3720]

House of Commons/New Model Army officers: If Lady Fairfax gets too vocal, we can bar her from attending the proceedings. I mean, we all know what she looks like, we can pick her out in a crowd. Disguised Lady Fairfax: OlIvEr CrOmWeLl Is A tRaItOr!

[@therearenoshortcuts9868]

spoilers: it was someone else wearing a face mask pretending to be Fairfax

[@joellaz9836]

Felsbrocken There was a great fear of the political influence women had over their husbands in the 17th century, you know.

[@bobsnow6242]

Charles: "A subject and a sovereign are clean, different things." Cromwell: "Your head and your body are clean, different things."

[@thejokhadaar]

Charles, was a low grifter.

[@Mitaka.Kotsuka]

@Creator De Coatrack Thank you... i can sleep now

[@IPlayWithFire135]

@Creator De Coatrack Which was a pointless, symbolic act. Cromwell killed a tyrant. Charles II displayed a rotting corpse.

[@htoodoh5770]

@@IPlayWithFire135 Cormwell was more of tyrant than Charles I.

[@elowin1691]

@@htoodoh5770 lmao no, that's patently ridiculous. Cromwell did some fucked up shit but he couldn't possibly match the sheer scale of tyranny of the king.

[@maxis2k]

We're going to overthrow the king! Oh great...we happen to be going against the one King of England who actually understands the judicial system and has a brain. This would be so much easier if it was George III...

[@vylbird8014]

Every time he speaks, he demolishes our legal arguments! Oh, right. All we need to do is keep interrupting him every time he says something.

[@meganthomas4768]

George III was a very intelligent man who happened to have a terrible illness that affects many people around the world today (only its much easier to control today). Thomas Jefferson wasn’t god, his judgement of George III isn’t automatically right. I don’t know why George III gets such a hard time. Now Henry VIII I understand....

[@theyoshi202]

@Megan Thomas Henry VIII lol, what a nutcase

[@fryliver4953]

@@meganthomas4768 Henry VIII was fiercely intelligent lol. I agree with your assessment of George III but then you had to toss in another popular myth.

[@AbuHajarAlBugatti]

@@fryliver4953 Anyone able to hold authority and form a coherent sentence is more intelligent than most of the population

[@nikhiljoshiPi]

I think Bradshaw was referring to the trial of lady Jane Grey who was executed after serving as the queen of England for nine days. She wasn't however a reigning monarch when the trial was held.

[@theladycata9648]

Maybe that’s what he meant but I don’t think using her as precedent would have helped. Lady Jane Grey was executed on charges of usurping the throne, so claiming her as an example of a monarch put on trial would be retroactively exonerating her. Either she was never a Queen which makes her irrelevant, or she was the rightful Queen who was illegally put to death, which would be the last thing you’d want to associate your kangaroo court with

[@elmascapo6588]

​​@@theladycata9648when Charles raised his banner against parlament, he made himself an usurper, tho

[@wholeNwon]

"When the President does it, it's not a crime." R. Nixon.

[@tyvamakes5226]

*Compelled to resign the next day*

[@Callsign_Prophet]

@majooismajor Well rather or not he committed a crime was on the table and it shows bias seeing as the PROSECUTION was divided on party lines with a small minority actually being against it.

[@Callsign_Prophet]

@majooismajor Rule by the majority is tyranny as it oppresses the minority

[@alainarchambault2331]

@majooismajor Lord Fairfax here reminds me of those Republicans, indeed, Fairfax was worse for playing both sides and not committing to the cause in the end.

[@Callsign_Prophet]

@majooismajor The trial was fueled by political bias if he was found guilty of those crimes the office of president would be a joke and America would seem weak internationally. Sometimes what's best for the nation isn't what's in your personal interest. Both parties should be branded as terrorist organizations as both cause extremism.

[@jozefmasny8349]

How about: "From the authority of God himself who showed his will by turning His face against you and made us win the war." Still better argument then what they said.

[@almondandfriends]

i mean i get what you mean and i see a lot of what people are saying here but you do not want to claim divine legitimacy against the monarch who is part of a group who has done so for 1000 years, especially since he could then just easily dismiss legal authority

[@jozefmasny8349]

@@almondandfriends Yeah! So what about argumentation from the Bible? For example, God favoured Jeroboam and not Salomon's son Rachab and Joshua instead of Moses's son Gershom and last but not least David instead of Saul's sons. The whole concept of hereditary monarchy is wrong and it was time to get rid of it. Next, English history, they could have mentioned king's attraction to Catholicism on the example of Mary Stuart or they could have even used Richard III or rather Richard II as the example that "bad monarch" can be removed. Lots of possible arguments.

[@beanacomputer]

That would have been more effective I think. Also divine right wasn't really that big... Kings were representative of God's authority but were by no means seen as intrinsically holy in the west. However destroying the credibility of the head of the Church or England to show his moral corruption probably would have let them easily segue into his corruption as king. I doubt they would have had any greater authority by law but might have prevented the Stuart Restoration and the Glorious Revolution after it.

[@almondandfriends]

@@beanacomputer honestly i have to say i definitely disagree. The position of religion was not only strong on both sides of the conflict (hell it would prompt a genocide in ireland by that most noble of Republicans the despicable Oliver Cromwell) The fact was the Republicans didnt have a legal justification, they couldnt have one, their best argument was that the king betrayed the people of England therefore betraying the nation but in towing that line they would have had to accept a monarchist revival and still wouldnt be legally just. A result of the civil war was that the Republicans would have to admit to everyone and themselves they had no legal authority here. This would eventually be what led them into their new even more brutal dictatorship and the restoration of the monarchy. A claim of divine authority proven by combat would have absolutely useless to them because it would not have changed anyones mind, the religious followers of Louis would have seen this as the exact opposite of what it should be, Gods divine representative thrown out illegally, those who already supported the Republicans already believed in their own authority. The people on the fence would have been just as prone to skepticism either way.

[@timothymclean]

Was trial by repeated mass combat a thing in the 17th century?

[@duchi882]

The thing I hate about your videos is that there aren't enough of them

[@hfslattst4]

I swear last time i watched one of this dudes videos he had like 100k subscribers

[@willek1335]

Wholesome.

[@ChrisDyn1]

Civilis has a bit of a racket going on; he has 1,438 patrons, so to use $4-5/month as an average, which often seems to be the case with patreon, he's making roughly $69-86k/year before any youtube ad money comes into the conversation, as well as paypal donations, merchandise etc. Any other history channel pumps out multiple videos a month, even BazBattles does 2/month now, but Civilis will leave a month, even two month long gaps between videos, basically hosing up all of your money whilst giving you little to no content. I mean hell, Kings and Generals, by far the best history channel in terms of quality and quantity, has half as many patrons and releases two videos PER WEEK. That's value for money. But they work for it and have a team to share the spoils, where Civilis assumedly leaves the work for himself (but it still shouldn't take nearly as long as he does, particularly when he's getting paid such a huge amount that he can do this full-time). His Caesar and Alexander vids were cool, I appreciate his work, but getting paid by patrons in a month where he releases NOTHING? That's a con.

[@marekvazny2122]

@@ChrisDyn1 Civilis videos have much more debth to them than any kings and generals or bazbattles can ever achieve. Even if they have better art and animations the sheer informational content is not even close. For the amount of content i enjoy every video and it is more memorable than pumping generic ones 2x a week. Ofc id like more content but its worth it to wait for the quality in my opinion.

[@elrac7333]

@ChrisDynamo You are quite a bit off base. His Patreon is set up to be "Per Video" not "Per Month". So months when he doesn't make a video he doesn't receive any money.

[@ravenmoonspicer4781]

Of course, when the son, Charles II came into power, he would have revenge on all those who signed his father's death warrant.

[@riograndedosulball248]

Spiking Cromwell's head on a pike on the middle of parliament was a Chad move

[@Edit-nk6nb]

@@riograndedosulball248 Nothing more Chad than barbarity...?

[@joshua12188]

@@Edit-nk6nb you’ll find that most of human history is barbarity hidden beneath a civilized suit.

[@Foogi9000]

@@joshua12188 I don't remember the quote very well but "There is not a record of History that is not also a record of Barbarism" something to that effect basically. Edit: Here's the actual quote “There is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” - Walter Benjamin

[@rustybayonette6641]

@@Edit-nk6nb Barbarity for barbarians

[@MalcolmTown]

It's kind of scary how more often than not in history, such seminal turns of events were contrived by a group of merely some hundred-odd people.

[@ninjacell2999]

It is, but there are often more widespread cultural and economic factors at play that crystalise in one group if you will allow the metaphor

[@mikemorr100]

And often with no legal backing to their movement. It's just a bunch of dudes with ideas that spread and undermine grand institutions.

[@y.r._]

How was this comment written "1 week ago"?

[@cortexavery1324]

@@y.r._ that's a good question...

[@johni0018]

@@y.r._ Many youtubers release their videos early on patreon.

[@joaovitormatos8147]

Charles: you have no authority here, you can't Judge me! High Court: how bout i do anyway

[@stardustreverie9737]

lmao

[@therearenoshortcuts9868]

"only god can judge me" court: "would you like to see him in person?"

[@jacintovski]

Bill...

[@ImSquiggs]

This particular video is so well written that I come back and watch it again and again even though it's more or less memorized at this point. You got a gift in bringing this kind of stuff to life friend

[@averyshinylugia]

this video and the previous one were the main reasons i chose king charles i for my monarchies project. amazingly informative and well made, great job!

[@sonicmeerkat]

You wouldn't have thought one of the most important trials ever was such a mess.

[@Jake007123]

Which important historical trial isn't a giant mess?

[@sonicmeerkat]

fair, while i am just getting into history, that's mostly because it's one massive comedy act.

[@cooltv2776]

honestly I just assume any of the "most important whatever" to be a mess. if it had an established order to it then it probably wasnt the "most important" and if was the "most important" it had probably never happened before and so everyone was making it up as they went

[@Nikolapoleon]

That droning synth really illustrates the tension of the scene. This is some next level content.

[@madrox1989]

This is why I love this channel. History teaches us about our greatest feats - to inspire from, and our greatest falters - to not repeat from.

[@peppernoni9608]

"Well Sir, God has justice in store for you and me" is such an icecold line

[@mafiousbj]

Charles I :"who gave you the authority to judge a King?!" The House of Commons:" WE gave us the authorithy!!" Charles I:"Wait...That's illegal!"

[@jayteegamble]

And we did it by having the majority of parliament, who voted against us, arrested by armed men (Pride's Purge)

[@lorefox201]

@@jayteegamble and ignoring the house of Lords, don't forget that

[@tosspot1305]

Same thing literally still happens today

[@alexkfridges]

Please continue the Ceasar storyline!! I'm so invested in it! I need to know the rest of how the Republic finally fell and the emprie was born!!!

[@billolsen4360]

Actually, most of the Roman Empire was built under The Republic. The rule of Roman law was instituted at that time too, but it and the Authority of the Senate became a sham after the assassination of Julius Caesar.

[@ddiva1973]

I love the easy different words are enlarged in the speech bubbles. It looks so good!

[@kraigthorne3549]

William the Conqueror, Henry VII, and Rober the Bruce became King through combat, and Charles I LOST on the field of battle. I am shocked they did not use the argument that God decided that Charles should not be King on the field of battle.

[@jerrycan1756]

You're thinking of the Mandate of Heaven, which is a very East-Asian-flavored philosophical concept for a reason. It was not at all popular in Europe.

[@kraigthorne3549]

@@jerrycan1756 In the West it was believed that God decided who would win and lose battles. They also had trial by combat.

[@kevinsworldK.w69]

Popular sovereignty litreally did not accept the idea that god chose the kings, meaning that that argument would be completely hypocritical

[@luisandrade2254]

That would have conformed the divine right of kings doctrine which the Protestant radical whigs absolutely despised

[@luisandrade2254]

@@kraigthorne3549 only in the Middle Ages by the mid 17 century the concept was long gone

[@HumanPerson_final]

It’s amazing how English political judges can make a tyrannical king seem like the good guy.

[@Murzac]

Yeah like Charles I may have been a dickweed, but that trial was pretty bullshit lmao

[@luisandrade2254]

He wasn’t actually that tyrannical as the whigs made him out to be just a little aggressive

[@RKNGL]

@@luisandrade2254 Agressively tyrannical yes. Tyrannical by the standards of other nation's Monarchs of the time? Only somewhat.

[@luisandrade2254]

@@RKNGL he wasn’t aggressively tyrannical lol he was just a little bit more assertive then his predecessors

[@clombran5020]

Ĺp

[@elmunus1]

Holy crap. How did any of this happen? tensions must've been so freaking high that even after fighting a civil war against the king some wanted to speak in defense of the king.

[@thepinkplushie]

Well there was a loyalist class almost, people who viewed their path to success in life as serving the throne in precisely times like this. Its a gambit. If the throne is under threar and you speak up in defense of it, if it is reinstated you may well be rewarded. Also notable that a lot of the loyalists were people who had supported, but not fought on, the King's side of the civil war, and managed to remain in their positons and residencies. For them the idea of a King being tried was almost laughable and thus they were confident in their vocal support.

[@elmunus1]

@Maintenance Renegade Lol well said.

[@charleskeefer9030]

Either his servant cost new banquets, or he was sleeping with a sheep?

[@chad3232132]

Many believed the House of Stuart would win in the long-term and they were screwed if they tried to convict the King. They were proven right not long after Cromwell died and Charles II took power.

[@georgekosko5124]

Let's not forget that up until that year, kings were the status quo for thousands of years, a king ruling england was as certain as us breathing air. Keep in mind that the trial was nothing more than a show and the judges/jury were handpicked independents, with some moderates in there to give them the guise of legitimacy. I believe they were more concerned with trialing the king fairly, with a smarter judge, and avoiding a royalist uprising much more than looking for rewards in case the king got reinstated.

[@zapdragon23]

charles: are you threatening me general bradshaw? bradshaw: the government will decide your fate charles: I am the government

[@francesconesi7666]

Sadly real life has a different ending.

[@Jake007123]

Well, he lost his civil war, Palpatine won his. And good riddance, one less monarch!

[@zapdragon23]

@@Jake007123 yeah I was gonna say, the radicals may have been acting arguably illegally, but it was against a tyrant

[@Jake007123]

@@zapdragon23 Acting illegally against inmoral laws is irrelevant. After all, we don't even mention how illegal was the act of saving people from concentration camps in nazi Germany, for example.

[@zapdragon23]

@@Jake007123 exactly, yeah sure he was the king, but he was a terrible king who had advanced his own interests over those of his people

[@Bhubnipz]

The way this guy performs statements is just primo. Really keeps you engaged

[@Anonemus7]

This might be my favorite video of yours. I'd love to see you do more videos over important trials in history.

[@wellston2826]

You tell your story well, and you are a fine historian. So glad I found this channel, well worth subscribing to. Tip O' the Hat to you, Mr. Civilis.

[@MajorGore]

Mike Duncans revolutions podcast goes through the whole civil war at length, would heartily recommend it.

[@emptank]

It really says something that the whole civil war was started over the king trying to dismiss the parliament and by the end of it Cromwell pretty much did the same.

[@NotaKamalaFan]

??? Cromwell was parliament?

[@chessmaster704]

​@@NotaKamalaFan Then he found them to be almost as bad as the deposed king and took power for himself by dissolving Parliament.

[@NotaKamalaFan]

@@chessmaster704 No, King Charles l was scandalous. Over taxing people, turning Catholic, disbanding Parliament and the BS about "The Divine Rights of Kings" which put him above God so he could do no wrong. Then the English wars broke out and Cromwell rose to the top of the military and defeated the Kings Royalists. Then the Irish Catholics started acting up and while Cromwell was away dealing with them Parliament started disagreeing with each other so he disbanded them. A new parliament was agreed upon which Cromwell turned down an offered seat on then that Parliament was voted to be resolved and a new one was formed. That parliament offered Cromwell the crown but he refused it in favor of a Commonwealth Govt with more power to the people with him as Lord Protector. After his death his son proved not to be a leader so the scared minions of England and Scotland wanted the Kings son to resume the Monarchy.

[@325sleeper]

⁠@@NotaKamalaFanCromwell, while he was lord protect dissolved 3 different parliament because they were not doing as he wanted; kind of like how the king tried to dissolve parliament when they wouldn’t do as he wanted.

[@NotaKamalaFan]

@@325sleeper Big difference though. Cromwell always came up with another one but the king just ran without one.

[@pretty-white-lamb]

Bradshaw seems to have been very incompetent from the way you've painted him (you would have wanted a political & legal genius in that position); but Charles I seems to have been even more incompetent (in a way), being so blinded by his own claim to sovereignty that he utterly failed to consider the reality of the situation he was facing.

[@mbsb1376]

@Micheal Zambos Clearly he shouldve developed communism in the spot. This is some "if youre homeless just buy a home" tier shit.

[@welch_inc6532]

Bradshaw was the only person that would do it. Even then had to be convinced. Everyone else was afraid of the consequences. Which they were right. Everyone that signed the death sentenced we’re executed when Charles II took the throne. Even those that had already died

[@ImperialGuardsman74]

Charles wished to make himself a martyr. He had many ways out. He saw the only way to uphold his claim of sovereignty is by being martyred for it.

[@drosso4956]

This pretty much sums up Charles entire reign. “I’m god why are you questioning me?”

[@Schinshikss]

@@ImperialGuardsman74 Just like how the death of Caesar ruined the Roman Republic, the death of Charles I ruined the chance for Britain to transform itself to be a republic until very recent years....

[@tsonny1104]

Charles certainly deserved this but man that was total kangaroo court. I agree with Charles' argument

[@tsonny1104]

I only agree on the basis of English law at the time of course. Bradshaw was up against a wall of bullshit rules and, instead of working around it, kinda just ran into it until it collapsed.

[@tsonny1104]

@ConservativesAreTrash I agree with you

[@concept5631]

@ConservativesAreTrash What a based name.

[@luisandrade2254]

He didn’t he was a martyr but ultimately a vindicated one

[@futhington]

@@luisandrade2254 Martyr for what lmao

[@metalema6]

The chad King vs the virgin hiGh cOurT of JusTice

[@mynamejeb8743]

Chad King: what authorities do you have High Court of Simp : I have the power of God and Anime on my side. Reeeeee!

[@arseface2k934]

fr charles was not a good man but he convinced me. they had to kick him out of his own trial to win what a pussy move

[@BoleDaPole]

They rigged the whole trial in thier favor, it was a show trial nothing more.

[@georgekosko5124]

Honestly I was amazed by how well he handled it

[@christiandaugherty6339]

A Chad? Losing two civil wars and then getting himself beheaded because of his conceited nature.

[@DeepCrossing1]

Amazingly streamlined and efficient story telling man. Really enjoying the vids 🎉

[@davra3683]

The court: says something The king: aM I bEiNg dEtAiNed

[@oliverlane9716]

Are king's sovereign citizens?

[@XavianBrightly]

I mean they are literally sovereigns.

[@ElectroNeutrino]

@@XavianBrightly Interestingly enough, they weren't considered citizens, since that was reserved for the subjects of the state.

[@stevencooper4422]

They don't even need passports! That's how sovereign they are

[@XavianBrightly]

Indeed but the focus in the term "sovereign citizen" is on sovereign. As in recognizing no higher power.

[@cirrus8791]

You have an uncanny ability to give personality to squares.

[@forever_golfer1981]

Basically a question of:”who’s in charge?” “Who owns what?”

[@Jame5man]

I'm so glad this video exists. I need sources for an essay on the trial of Charles I

[@thadarasx4]

Charles: I am your king! Bradshaw: Well I didn't vote for you! Charles: You don't vote for kings!

[@merrittanimation7721]

Bradshaw: Well how'd you become king then?

[@samuelvieira645]

Chales: by divine right!

[@FlymanMS]

Cue in Monthy Python scene.

[@seneca983]

In some places, you do vote for kings (if you're among the select few that elect the king).

[@Jake007123]

@@seneca983 Not back in those days.

[@SuperNintendawg]

You can see how Hobbes' Social Contract theory was developed by the English Civil war. In one way, you could say that it's a theory that allows subjects to legally prosecute a king.

[@SuperNintendawg]

@Jim Kramer care to explain?

[@MrAlexkyra]

The social contract theory was developed by Rousseau. Hobbes wrote the Leviathan, which present a a completely different idea.

[@SuperNintendawg]

@@MrAlexkyra they're both social contract theorists as far as I know

[@mbsb1376]

@@SuperNintendawg They dont say remotely the same thing, you illiterate spud head.

[@SuperNintendawg]

@@mbsb1376 lmao. Bro. They're both social contract theorists. That's all I'm saying.

[@tommykarrick9130]

My favorite take on this whole debacle comes from Extra History’s “history of paper money” series “He simply seized all the money in the mint, after which his head was promptly removed from his body”

[@luisandrade2254]

Please don’t trust extra history that quote for example is so misleading like oh my god

[@fort809]

@@luisandrade2254 im still not sure why people watch their videos after the whole “playing as a German in call of duty will literally make you a national socialist” video

[@DylanDkoh]

@@luisandrade2254 I mean it’s true kinda, it was one of the reason why he was so unpopular

[@luisandrade2254]

@@DylanDkoh it’s incredibly simplistic and misleading much like their content in general

[@kingofcards9]

Extra history is biased and blatantly propaganda half the time nowadays.

[@MrChrist741]

Can't believe the details of the situation it felt like I was there. Although the graphics is just cube. Good work bro.

[@thejackman687]

I kind of think Charles went in knowing he was dead. He just wanted to make a mockery of his executioners.

[@rationalroundhead6739]

Oh, he walked in knowing he wasn't going to talk his way out of punishment, sure. He lost that chance after running away from the negotiations and starting the second civil war. But he was far from *dead* when he entered that room. Most of the government and people still wanted him alive, even the high court wasn't willing to put their names on the death sentence, as we saw. All he had to do was *enter a plea* and THEN plead his case and offer his compromise.

[@Madhattersinjeans]

It does seem like he threw his own case out the window by antagonising the judge. As incompetent and biased the judge was the king could not afford to mess around. Stating his own authority over the court was an interesting tactic but it didn't do much other than force a double or nothing situation. Either The king got out and the court was overthrown on this technicality he kept trying to push (how? the very fact his trial was taking place already indicates he was in very dangerous water) They would just go ahead and execute him. Unprecedented for the time though, so was this ever a likely outcome to anyone at the time? Presumably the judges in this trial weren't expecting this outcome. It's a difficult scenario to be in but his insistence on this kind of antagonistic approach meant he missed an opportunity to have a less severe outcome, imprisonment. And with a possibility of being released in future. And given how monarchs are usually treated it would probably be a fairly generous prison. No doubt the people presiding over the trial would want to keep their authority and not rock the boat. This execution that occured just threw a wrench into everything and Charles didn't have to die. That's how I see things purely from watching these videos.

[@nottoday3817]

@@Madhattersinjeans Well, his strategy was not that dumb. He was no idiot. He realised that if someone wanted him dead, he would be dead. All they had to do was bribe an escorting soldier to stab him on a bridge in the darkness. (And many other means) However, Charles most likely realised something else was at the stake: the very essence of Monarchy. That was his plea and his only defence, frankly. His only real defence was to prove that the guys before him were illegitimate. He did ask foreigners to invade his country. He did imprison and kill oposition, but he was in the right to do that BECAUSE HE WAS KING. As Charles said: 'He was forced to Defend himself'. He was the King of England. You declare war on him, you declare war on the entire nation. Even more: HE HAD SUPPORTERS. That's why there was a civil war and not a massacre. So, he commited treason against the nation, BUT the parliament DID IT THREE TIMES: 1. By declaring war against the King. 2. By declaring war against the people of England (subjects to the King) 3. By weakening the nation and exposing it to foreign agression. So, basically, if he could prove that the court was illegitimate, he was proving his innocence. If he would attest the legitimacy of a court made by traitors against the king (and furthermore by radicals who betrayed the cause of of the rebellion) he would basically prove himself guilty.

[@ahsdjasashdahs9940]

@@nottoday3817 he was also the king of Scotland and Ireland so it would be perfectly legal for Scots and Irish to invade England to save their king imho

[@temistogen]

@@nottoday3817 so in your opinion,a person that wants power so much that he goes to other entities of his kingdom and wages war knowing that he wages it against his own ppl,to hold his laws and decisions that were bad for the well being of the country is a righteous man? They should have caught him and shown him to the people in a cage. They should have shown and welcomed the families that lost sons or fathers/brothers in that war.And that would be it.Guilotine and we are done. Also kings and governments are in power because the ppl supported them.If they turn on the ppl i see no reason that the people should not punish them with severity. P.S. His taxes and mindless wars weakened that nation enough

[@paigeconnelly4244]

The tense background music really heightened what was at stake here. Amazing. I was on edge for something I already knew the outcome of very well (I'm British).

[@bubblewrapmonster8801]

Could Bradshaw have been talking about Mary queen of Scots, when he referred to a predecessor of Charles being tried in the same way? She was Charles’s grandmother, a queen, and was sentenced to death by a tribunal of lords

[@harrysmall8705]

Sam Quinn But that precedent can be distinguished as Mary was tried under the authority of an Act of Parliament , i.e. Commons, Lords and sovereign.

[@bubblewrapmonster8801]

True, but Elizabeth claimed that when she signed the act into law, she never intended it to be used, it was only meant to be a gesture of intent. She apparently acted indignantly when told of her death, and claimed that the lords had executed Mary without permission. She arrested the man who gave the order, publicly grieved the death of Mary, and made every attempt to wash her hands of it. She was almost certainly putting on an act, but if she was believed, then they might argue the execution was done without royal authority. Mary could in that case be seen by her contemporaries, as the first monarch ever to be executed by the authority of a lord of England, not a sovereign. Just an idea that’s all...

[@ToaArcan]

Perhaps, but it doesn't add up. Mary was the former Queen of another country, no longer in charge of Scotland. The entire reason she was even in England was because a troubled reign marred by religious disputes and an exploded husband had led to her being effectively forced to give her throne to her son, James VI/I. James hadn't had much contact with his mother and was mostly advised and supported by Protestant nobility, at odds with Mary's own Catholicism. In essence, Mary was Elizabeth's guest, and a Queen in name only, not the reigning monarch, and was found guilty of plotting to murder Elizabeth and take her place as monarch. Now, whether you think that's legit, or you think the evidence was forged by Cecil, who really wanted to get rid of her as the figurehead and rallying point of pretty much every plot ever levelled against the Queen, in the eyes of the law, she was guilty. Mary was, in essence, a deposed queen allegedly plotting to kill an actual queen, who was also her host and her relative.

[@georgewright3949]

Mary wasnt queen when it happened she'd been deposed via sectarian conflict and was charged with plotting against a foreign sovereign slightly different

[@howardlanus8610]

If that's the case why didn't Bradshaw use it? Engage Charles in a debate on the legality like he wanted with planned responses to all of his points. I think the fact that they didn't just screams illegitimate to me.

[@gurufabbes1]

Amazing job here and fascinating to watch. This is a seminal moment in British history and this brings it home.

[@HoundofOdin]

So basically the court continually demanded that King Charles *RESPECT MY AUTHORITY.*

[@DeadPyro96]

I'd love a similar "series" on the trial of Louis XVI.

[@DeadPyro96]

@Jim Kramer 1. I mean, they both put men on trial for supposed crimes they commited whille absolute monarchs. They both resulted in the execution of a once absolute monarch. Both conincided with a creation of a republic etc. There are plenty of similarities. 2. Even if we say they were different, why does that mean it's not worth doing a series about? It was a pivotal moment in European history, the story around it is fascinating. You make it sound as if it was just a boring affair not worth talking about. Also HC obviously talks about politics all the time, why not cover this event as well? 3. There were plenty of legal questions discussed during the trial. While everyone kinda agreed that he was guilty, the problem was, guilty of what exactly? Before the constitution of 1791, he was an absolute monarch that could literally do anything. Same issue that the English grappled with. After the constituion, the punishment for treason comited by the king, was deposition, which had already happened by that , so what was even a purpose of the trial? There was also no real precedent for this event, so they had to invent a legal framework on how to judge a monarch. There was also the people's votes thing they discussed. And so on, there is so much to cover and it's just as fascinating as Charles I, so I completely fail to see the point of your comment.

[@nolletthibault2031]

In France's case it took 7 years though.

[@lukesmith1818]

Something that I think wasn't covered in part 1 is that the civil war was a two-act affair (three if you count the rising in Worcester helmed by Charles II and the invasion of Ireland by Cromwell). Around 1645 the royalists had lost and a peace treaty was being brokered. Charles proved himself to be fundamentally untrustworthy. He would secretly make deals with absolutely anyone and promise whatever they wanted if he thought it would further his cause The parliamentarians weren't perfect but they at least tried to negotiate and present terms. Charles made it clear that he didn't care what they said or if they won, he'd never accept anything they put in front of him. So many were furious for him prolonging a war that had already dragged on for a long time and cost a lot of lives.

[@turinturambar1159]

I found this exciting and quite relevant, thank you for all of the history you have taught me.

[@y.r._]

I like the english civil war series. But I really need a continuation of the ceasar series, until the end of the republic.

[@ItsBubs]

Seconded

[@fatalshore5068]

What Republic? By the time Caesar died the Republic was already dead.

[@y.r._]

@@fatalshore5068 *the republic was already inevitably dying. The final death of the republic was the principate of Augustus.

[@fatalshore5068]

@@y.r._ you are right of course the Republic was in a spiral from all the way back to Tiberius Gracchus' murder I would say but It could certainly be argued that the death knell was Julius. I would love to see HC do a series on Octavian and the second triumvirate.

[@golagiswatchingyou2966]

@@fatalshore5068 what makes or breaks a political system? just the times? the people in charge? the expanding military who's loyalties lie with their commander and not the roman identity? what drives this decline and is it always inevitable or are there signs and ways to stop it?

[@therabbi9848]

I just love these videos. There are a lot of great history channels out here on ur with fantastic production value and such but when it comes to really going in depth on specific subjects this channel is just on another level.

[@uexplorer]

“Wait, that’s illegal...” -King Charles I (1600-1649)

[@EvilSmonker]

in a nutshell

[@riz8437]

Standing up to a monarch who believed in the divine right of kings showed some guts. A bold but necessary step to ensure the movement of power from the monarchy to parliament.

[@noticias6111]

Would be neat to see 'the LegalEagle' reacting to this.

[@fadedjem]

I mean sure, he's interesting and intelligent and it's a great topic so more input can't hurt - but I'd contend that if he was to do anything on this subject it should concentrate on the legacy of the trial in the context of the legal system he is familiar with - modern US law. In my experience he goes off the rails whenever he talks about historical or non-US law.

[@ahendo22]

@@fadedjem Modern US law is built on English common law and US lawyers are well versed in the the history of English law and its value as precedent. Would still be interesting to get his reaction

[@LordTalax]

Are you going to do a video on Cromwell/the return of Charles II next?

[@oWallis]

Charles the whole trial: Yeeeeesss...... I can feeeel your anger.

[@charleskeefer9030]

Keep golden sheep for men forced to her bed.

[@nerdburger234]

Bradshaw: How do you plead to these charges? Charles: I’m boutta end this man’s whole career...

[@Cjnw]

Normie

[@KaiserAfini]

Bradshaw was the type of person who thought with his liver rather than his brains. They really didn't prepare for the trial, at all.

[@TheLouisianan]

Like when you have a group presentation next week and you haven't even made the powerpoint yet lol

[@KaiserAfini]

@@TheLouisianan More like you made it, but forgot to reherse it or prepare for any questions. He was expecting this triumphant landslide of a victory, but never stopped to question the legality of his actions. He never prepared a defense based on legal doctrine or had a spiritual authority ratify the king's loss of the divine mandate. He didn't plan this properly.

[@BenFrewgoogle]

absolutely love this channel mate, really appreciate everything you upload

[@LordVader1094]

It's honestly amazing to see just how unfair Charles' trial was

[@welch_inc6532]

And in the end Cromwell didn’t even win. Within seven years, the monarchy is back and everyone that sides with Cromwell at that trial is executed for treason. Cromwells government couldn’t even keep it together. Charles was right in that a third civil war broke out. Parliament kept collapsing and Cromwell could only maintain power through a constant military presence

[@phdtobe]

Consider it payback for when Charles tortured nobles into loaning him money when he couldn’t get Parliament to approve more/higher taxes.

[@ImperialGuardsman74]

@@phdtobe And the parliament was using bills of attainder to kill the kings allies and were trying to gain authority over foreign policy(which was the domain of the king before). Both were trying to expand their rule and powers.

[@stephenjenkins7971]

@@welch_inc6532 In the end, Cromwell did win. The Monarchy in England is a broken shadow of its former self; just a circus of people pretending to have power and privilege.

[@PRubin-rh4sr]

Who gives a shit, if it was the King, there will be no trials.

[@calebspain4828]

A superb piece of work. Thank you, this was most interesting.