I've always been amazed that kids in America only learn about America, and they even pledge allegiance and all that. To an Englishman , or anyone else to that matter, it looks like a cult! 🤣

You have to go back to Magna Carta to see how Parliament came into being. Prior to that the King was theoretically all powerful. Over the centuries the Monarch lost more and more power - usually concessions had to be made in relation to raising money. However it is wrong to say that the Queen is only a tourist attraction. She has no active power in that she cannot rule and she cannot make law. But Parliament cannot rule without her and they rule on her behalf. Only the Queen can dissolve Parliament and the newly elected Prime Minster has to ask the Queens permission to form a new Parliament (largely ceremonial for the most part, but it does have a safety aspect as well - if there was ever a massive controversy about the legitimacy of a vote without actual evidence behind it, the Queen theoretically can refuse them forming a new Parliament. She cannot rule herself, she cannot put in place her own Parliament and she cannot go against the will of the people, but she is entitled to take steps to safeguard the will of the people if needed). No law is law unless the Queen signs it (she couldnt refuse forever as it would become a constitutional crisis, however she has been known to delay laws if there is controversy which allows time for them to be thought through a bit more), she can dissolve Parliament mid term if that is the will of the people (which happened during WW2 - the country had lost faith in Neville Chamberlain and his governments ability to handle the war so the King dissolved Parliament and an interim coalition Government was put in place (with Winston Churchill as Prime Minister) until the war concluded and a new election could be held). Also it is the Queen that is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, not the Government. The Queen cannot order them into battle - only the Government can do that. But the Queen can order them to stand down or retreat - she does have that power. The reason she retains that power is if we ever had a rogue Government, they could never use the Armed Forces to seize power - The Queen is always there to ensure that we remain a free land and the Government is representative of the people not itself, so ensuring that The Queen has ultimate power where the Armed Forces are concerned is our protection against tyranny. She is also one of our most important diplomatic arsenal. The Queen has a full on job to do and part of that is effectively as a foreign diplomat. All those banquets etc that she throws are not for her benefit, they are part of the job in order to sway foreign powers in British interests. The Government will ask her to throw a banquet or to make a foreign visit or to meet such and such and so and so and this helps not only her to start conversations with foreign dignitaries but also softens them up for Government officials to have conversations with them. She also advises the Prime Minister of the day - she has regular meetings with them when they will go over what they are doing and plan to do and she will offer advice. This would be true of whoever was on the thrown, but in terms of the Queen herself, she has seen more Prime Minsters come and go than any of her predecessors and she has a wealth of experience so her advice is consider by most Prime Ministers to be invaluable. So no the Queen does not have the powers that Kings & Queens of old had and on a day to day basis you wouldnt notice she retained any power at all. But she does retain some power, even if the powers she retains are the ones we have to hope she never has to use. And she does have a very very important job beyond being a tourist attraction

No George the third lost America years later

Just for reference, parliament is dissolved every time there is a general election. Technically the queen runs the state until a new prime minister is selected

It's amazing the extent to which the Civil War has been forgotten in the popular imagination. This was a brutal and bloody war -- more casualties per head of the population than WWI and WWII combined. It also happened 100 years before the French Revolution, and gave a voice to ordinary people in a way that was unprecedented, arguably in the World. Understanding the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution (Civil War V2) is crucial to understanding UK politics today.

Spain owned Jamaica, it was a rich colony for them. Spain had a war with Britain and came second, as is usual in these cases we wanted payment for our costs incurred. We took Jamaica as reparations for the cost of beating them in the war they lost. It’s the same reason we own Gibraltar.

The Queen has an incredible amount of power. She is arguably the most powerful woman in the world. See the video 'What powers does the queen of England actually have?' by Today I found out.

Oliver Cromwell became essentially a dictator in a puritan government, laying down the law. You see there are always examples in history elsewhere that can be used in modern circumstances...

The reason that this makes very little sense to you is because you are doing English history backwards! To properly understand the motives of historical people you need to understand the time they were living in and you can only do that if you understand the history of events that have led to this point in time - I.e. the history of that history. The three civil wars referenced here are usually lumped together and referred to as the English Civil Wars. However they are not our only civil wars. There were two before this: the first, known as the Anarchy occurred in the late 12th century and the second, known as the War of the Roses, occurred in the late 15th century. The Anarchy planted the seed that eventually led to the Tudor succession at the end of the War of the Roses. The ultimate failure of the Tudors to produce an heir led to the Catholic (Papist) Scottish Stuart dynasty. Of which Charles I was the second king.

I'm from Hull lol. It is mentioned in primary school when learning about the Stuarts, how we barred Charles from the city. Also, today's mindset doesn't work with what happens in the past, invasions and trade were done for different reasons with people with different minds. Had the English not been as successful in the past who knows what would it would be like today. Too many look at the bad reasons but there are loads of good things that happened either directly or indirectly. Looking back negatively and using it as a weapon, or reason or excuse for actions of today is ridiculous. No other nation apologises more than Britain, there were more barbaric nationalities, invasions and tyrants who don't.

Also heads up, if you’re familiar with other reactors (flight reacts, cashnasty, imdontai, etc) I think I’m going to try a new format like them. It will make editing way easier for me and thus I’ll be able to upload more videos a day! 🔥💕 thanks for watching my vids btw! I appreciate you guys so much!!

Charles II ended up being a pretty popular king overall. People were relieved to live under a return to normality after living under Cromwell and the Puritans (who banned Christmas as too Catholic, among other things). He attempted to bring more religious tolerance to the nation but was often blocked by Parliament. He also had to deal with a plague in 1665 and the Great Fire of London (1666) which actually helped end the plague and lead to London being rebuilt as a more modern city.

Cromwell banned Christmas too 😠 (you should watch my name is Charles II from horrible histories)

The point of having a royal monarch with no power is to fill a spot that might otherwise be occupied by a dictator with very real power. It kind of works, so we leave it alone.

GoT is based loosely on the war of the roses. York Vs Lancaster. Stark vs Lannister...

There is a film called "Cromwell" (1970 starring Richard Harris), it's obviously been tweaked slightly for entertainment value, but basically historically correct. It's worth watching.

What is the point of the Queen?.............Well it stops us having a President !!

06:43 King CharlesI didn't lose America. That was George III, about 130 years later.

England and Scotland were separate nations but shared the same monarch.

in the english history education we learn about the history of every country

You are very bright,asking pertinent questions,I hope you investigate the answers.

Game of Thrones, the real life version. The Queen's "connections" and her diplomatic role is very important. In Ireland, the beef stretches back a long way... Cromwell was a miserable bastard. And yeah, you're spot on with the comparison between Cromwell's moral compass and the high sparrow. Jamaica was previously Spanish.

And the moral of all this is the one that seems to inevitably apply to such personalities and events, and is still relevant today: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!

"For such a small area it's a lot of trouble!" well mate...you kinda summed it up

Charles was King of Scotland too but Scotland had their own Parliament

The First English Civil War, was no where near the first. Anywhere between 8 and 14 civil wars happened before the First one. And another couple after the third,

The motivation of Charles was due to the historical belief that monarchs held about themselves. They believed they were appointed by God and held divine right to rule. Therefore, they saw themselves above gentry and commoners and 'knew best'. So dissent or refusal of their demands was not tolerated and deemed treacherous by the monarch. So basically, he believed he knew how best to address the issues facing England, and expected the gentry and Parliament to fall in line with his (divinely appointed) wishes -i.e. incl power-broking and wheeler dealing. When they said "No", that's why he acted as he did. It's as a result of what happened pre, during, and post the Civil War period that the dynamic between monarch, parliament and our constitution evolved to what it is today. Any legislation once approved by Parliament has to be signed off by our Head of State (The Queen). The trouble in Ireland resulting from Cromwell's actions there is the route of the subsequent conflict between Ireland and England that flared up over subsequent centuries, notably the bitter 'Troubles' that broke out in the 1970s.

The English civil wars were a situation that had been brewing for 600 years, since William of Normandy invaded in 1066 and introduced the feudal system - see game of thrones. The Monarch was viewed as being appointed by god with a divine right to rule and had absolute power in theory. Underneath the King there were various levels of Barons, Dukes, Earls etc - that were given the right to rule a local area by the king and were pretty much kings in their own areas, in exchange they had to pay taxes and raise soldiers for the army when the king called as there was no national army and the king only had a small personal army. So here's the problem the King has absolute power but no military force to back it up telling a load of guys each with their own private army what to do - if the King pisses them off too much they'll kill him. Over the centuries the group of lords slowly chipped away at the power of the monarchy and eventually became parliament. To this mess add in religion the Catholic church was massively powerful at the time and all Catholics were meant to be loyal to the pope, clearly the last thing you want is either lords or even a king that's taking orders from a foreign power hence all the accusations of papacy - being Catholic.

The question of whether the countries of the British isles being United is a good thing has been a pervasive question in UK politics for a while. In theory it gives the smaller countries a larger voice on the world stage and decreases disputes between the nations. In practice it means England gets significant influence over the other nations because it's the biggest, which isn't great considering England has spent a significant amount of time dominating the others.

Charles fought two very bloody, long wars against his people, which amazingly this doesn’t really seem to cover - that was why he was considered to have committed treason - to put it simply, the king (or rather the crown) was declared to be sovereign with the will of the people. It’s so important to the revolutionary war I have no idea why it’s not taught

Seen a few of your videos now. Full respect to you for learning

When looking at history, try not to look at it with modern sensibilities or make value judgements. Everything that has ever happened was caused by preceding events and bringing modern values into history obscures this.

Very astute when you said you were getting Game of Thrones vibes. Martin, while he drew on many places and eras for inspiration, drew the heart of his inspiration from English history. In particular he drew from the War of the Roses, which was earlier than the English civil war, but this was all part of the history of power struggles in the British and Irish isles.

the english civil war is probably (along with magna carta) the most important event that led to western democracies. Americans should learn this stuff. The Civil War was the first time autocratic rule was really challenged and the common people were given more of a voice(democracy), even though this parliament back in the 17th century was hardly at all democratic it was at least somewhat.

Can you please react to horrible histories songs x sorry if you have already done this ☺️

Charles the first, and Donald Trump, let’s play spot the difference LOL

Parliament is not one of the branches of government. It's two. Legislative and executive. Back in the day, it used to be judicial, too.

Dear Favour - I am not surprised you are finding it hard to get your head round this period of British history - or any period of British history. There are three reasons for this: First, British history is a continuum. It is hard to make sense of what happens next if you do not know what happens first, all the way back to the Saxons in about 450AD. Second, there is no single accepted narrative. You have to read a shedload of different opinions and then make up your own mind. Third, humans are shades of grey, and so are the outcomes they generate. Every action has a mixture of positive and negative consequences, and verdicts are not always helpful. If you fancy a chat about this, drop by the East Herts Archaeological website. Best wishes - Mark of the Beast

As per the jokey 1066 and all that: 'The Royalists were romantic but wrong. The Puritans were repulsive but right'.

It was George v who lost America. He's known in Britain as mad king George.

You don't realise parliament was very different in those days,people had no power ,there was no democracy, that came years latter.Charles believed he was a defendant of god. The world was very different in those days

cromwell also cancelled christmas.... no bolix

In 1660 the only elements of the kingdom that were united were England and Wales ... Scotland was a separate kingdom that had its own parliament as was Ireland that was effectively ruled by a Lord Lieutenant

yes its better united but nationalism and history cuts deep.. most of us are cool with each other though

Fun fact. I live a few minutes away from a church in England called "King Charles the Martyr Church ". The town was founded shortly after the civil war and was popular with the nobility. Aka. Cavaliers.

Theirs more to Cromwell that meets the eye, that's why his statue stands outside parliament today.

Cromwell probably didn't want the Crown because if I'm not mistaken he was a Parliamentarian. Also when "annointed" if you failed you tended to face a head losing situation I could be wrong ! lol

This is usually referred to as The English Civil War, but there's a good argument that it wasn't actually the first. In the twelfth century there was a years long struggle for the crown between Matilda, the daughter of King Henry I of England and Stephen of Blois, Henry's nephew. It's referred to as "The Anarchy" and lasted for 19 years resulting in the son of Matilda becoming king as Henry II.

It was very brutal back then, village’s ransacked, women raped, unnecessary murders so back then execution was common especially public ones for high profile people

Charles was very religious and firmly believed in Divine Rule, which means he had most power after King John had signed the Magna Carta, with Parliament having certain rights. So it ended in Civil War. Why Cromwell refused to be king was because he would then be bound by the same rules that shackled Charles. And Cromwell became a greater tyrant than most English kings, In the movie Cromwell starring Richard Harris, it ended with Cromwell marching into Parliament with armed soldiers and dissolved it. One of the Members of Parliament characters asked Cromwell. "Didn't we just execute a King for doing what you have just done?"

Cromwell was the main figure in the English civil war, but when he became "Lord protector of Britain and Ireland" he went about persecuting Catholics. They made a film about Cromwell

‘The queen has no actual power’ LMAO

It's actually funny that you mention Game of Thrones... Because Game of Thrones is precisely based on the English civil wars lol. Only difference is that it's been reskinned with a fantasy setting and a lot of creative adaption. xD Before the Kingdom of England was formed, it was all the duchies (duke and duchess) and counties (count and countess) which were all fighting each other and fighting against invasion after invasion. You had the likes of Mercia, Sussex, Wessex, Kent, York, Northumberland, Lancashire, Cornwall all at war with each other, then ultimately they all combined under a single rule because they made a pact against the continuous invasion of the vikings. That's how the Kingdom of England came to be. Similarly in Scotland, except up there it was separated by clans and chiefdoms, but they also joined to form the Kingdom of Alba (Kingdom of Scotland) for similar reasons. In regards to parliament, the UK parliament is often dubbed as the 'Mother of Parliaments', in the same way that Britain may be regarded as the 'Mother' to the Commonwealth. Britain has always been a commerce-focused nation, a lot of our history is because of decisions based around trade - but as we know, disagreements in trade could often lead to war. There's quite a big misconception that the 'British Empire' was the Brits military conquering land all over the world for the sake of controlling the world, but this isn't actually true lol. Every piece of land that Britain had influence in overseas all started as a trading company. This was combined with Britains naval policy - and parliament had passed an Act centuries ago called the 'Naval Defence Act' which basically meant that Britain would always maintain a Navy at least twice the size of the two nearest navies combined. This was something that happened for about 3 centuries. I'm not sure how much detail history in the US going into at school (each country is partially bias to their own history in some form or other really lol), but the American Revolution was actually a very large war for Britain, and it was tactical. It was the thirteen colonies (led by the plantation owners as they disagreed with Britain seeking to outlaw slavery), the Spanish Empire (who wanted to regain control of the rock of Gibraltar on the southern coast of Spain which was British territory), the French Empire (because France always loves a reason to go to war with Britain LOL) and the Dutch Empire (who had very close links to Spain because of monarchy ties and Spain's claim to their throne). At the same time, Britain was also fighting uprisings in the Indian continent. It came down to a decision between either focusing on the thirteen colonies, but losing Gibraltar, or focusing on Gibraltar and losing the thirteen colonies. Gibraltar, although much smaller in land mass, was considered to be of far more value to Britain than the thirteen colonies because of its strategic position. It was at the heart of the Seville trade centre and was the gateway for flowing trade entering Europe from the African continent and Carribbean. Because Gibraltar was an island, so long as Britain's navy was powerful enough, nobody would ever be able to successfully take it unless we moved military presence away. France subsidised the American revolution because they wanted Britain to send all its military forces to the thirteen colonies hoping that they would then be able to launch a surprise attack on Britain with far fewer defences as they'd be halfway across the world - but Britain didn't take the bait. Unfortunately for France, they later asked the thirteen colonies to repay the monies, but the thirteen colonies didn't and that then led to France's economy collapsing, which in turn led to the French revolution after the working class had higher taxes imposed on them for the country to repay its debts. That is how the French Empire fell - which once used to be the biggest superpower in Europe, and arguably the world. It was also what marked the end to the Spanish Empire - because they too plummeted into economic disaster from the war. It caused such devastation, that it was in fact the last time these countries were in war against one another - considering that history prior to then was nothing but war after war after war lol. In a way, I think it was actually a good thing that it happened because the alternative history is that the world could have potentially been incredibly different today if no land was conceded. There is an old saying that people associate with British tactics, and that is 'Divide and conquer'. What people may not realise though, is that it was an epiphony on reflection of our own land pre-1066 before the Kingdoms were formed together and the British Isles was separated between ruling duchies and counties. When divided, we be conquered; when united, we would conquer. There are many moments in history we can reflect upon and look back on our country and regret what happened, and it's something that is taught heavily in our schools. We weren't 100% bad though, there were actually some positive things we did for parts of the world we had influence in. By the time many of these countries became independent, they had an established rule of law, a parliamentary democratic system (which is why the UK parliament is dubbed the 'Mother of Parliaments'), human rights (citing the famous English Bill of Rights from early 1600's which was probably one of the most important legislation there has ever been in history for the starting foundation of equality), and an extremely advanced commerce system in place. Notwithstanding, we certainly have our fair share of bad decisions, too - but we have always made an attempt to right our wrongs ultimately. In the 16th century we were participants in the slave trade, but by the 18th century we had abolished it entirely throughout the realm, but also started enforcing that change on other countries by intercepting their ships. We would take everyone onboard, the ship would then be sunk at sea, and people would be returned back to their homeland and those who were organising the trade would be imprisoned or executed. Above all though, we weren't a military empire. We were first and foremost a trading empire - though a trading empire with an impressive military to protect its trade.

I live 5 mins walk away from the big battle where Cromwell defeated the Scottish in preston

if you think that ireland is small and causing a lot of trouble you haven't heard of transnistria XD

When Charles 2nd took the crown his first act was to have Oliver Cromwell's corpse removed from his tomb and have the body given a traitors punishment in death i.e. hung drawn and quatered. The head survived but is hidden in secret to this day because he is divisive.

This history is significant for the US. The Scots Covenanters rejected the King's requirement for them to recognise him as their religious leader. They fought a long war for the liberty of their belief, their self determination and self governance before travelling far and wide to settle, some via Northern Ireland, on to the US. They say covenantors wore a red neckerchief or something red on their lapel to recognise each other which may be the origin of the term redneck. They have a close association with the rowdy, musical & apparently lawless life of rural non conformist (independents) people living in the Scots/English border lands who had had to defend themselves from local raids for centuries, also know as "crackers" in a reference to words of a border song & now more widely known now from the the Irish word craic. The civil war in some ways was a blueprint for the War of Independence and much of the political thought that formed the USA. Where else would the Founding Father's have obtained the ideas they had in 1776? Britain became a constitutional monarchy suggesting rights and duties between the crown & people. It had also managed to move from serfdom and guarantee rights of people, at least in theory. A Bill of Rights was also passed in 1689 in Britain that guaranteed religious freedom and is echoed in the US constitution. The disaster the Founding Fathers set in motion in 1776, while writing about men being born equal, allowing each State decide on the issue of slavery themselves, to ensure they joined the new union, rather than dealing with it as a fundamental federal principle.

Parliament had tax raising powers and Charles had few medieval sources of income and invented a few taxes ie Ship Money to build the royal navy

300,000 people died in the English civil war soldiers and mostly civilians mostly starving to death in the Battle of Bolton Lancashire 700 were killed when the royalist army took the town from the parliament army

Charles I believed he had the divine right to rule. Parliament said he needed the consent of the people ie: them.

Quoting Oliver Cromwell . "The king is not England and England is not the King". It is not the survival of the king that is issued here is it the survival of England.

Having the same last name as Cromwell, I have gotten a lot of shit from the dozens of UK people I've meet over the years. I have an English friend I worked with and I jokingly said that I was related to Oliver Cromwell. She said "Well... it's better than being related to Jack the Ripper, I suppose." 😂

This is why Prince Charles doesn't want to be King Charles III, as no other king will have held that name, he wants/wanted to be known as King George VII as George is one of his middle names.

It was King George III that lost the US. You should watch Hamilton😂

3:43 point of UK monarch is to protect UK subjects from terranny/dictatorship. As she is head of state but not ruler it is impossible for UK's priminister or current government to cease total control over UK as they hav no rights as head of stae job is taken. That's also why UK priminister must ask monarch's permission to form and dismantle Thier government

Please, please, watch and react to BBC horrible history? That is if the rules of allow you to do it. I ask this because you were ok with the BBC littlemix reaction. Without KZfaq taking the video down. Horrible history is a good funny show for all ages and a good account of British history.

Are you should definitely watch some “Horrible Histories“ about the English Civil War and the Royal Family. They Tell a Much Deeper (and Probably Funnier) History Lesson. PS, the Caribbean As a WholeHas resources that the rest of the world were fighting over 200 years before the US Civil War

When Elizabeth I died in 1603 the crown of England passed to James I of Scotland. This united the two kingdoms and led to the new flag the Union Jack which incorporated the red cross of St. George with the saltire diagonal cross of St Andrew, Northern Irelands's flag is incorporated into the Union Jack, Wales was ignored. Ironical that James I became king as Elizabeth had his mother, the unfortuanate Mary Queen of scots executed some years after she fled to England. As a Catholic she had become the focus of various plots. This led to the kingdoms being unified, polititical union had to wait til 1707. James I, "the wisest fool in Christendom" just about held it all together. Charles I lacked the nous of his father or the affable good nature of his son, the future Charles II. His belief that he ruled by "Divine Right" this led the country towards civil war.

Why did I say bless you when you sneezed 😂😂😍

The one great thing about having the royal family - no politician ever gets to put themselves in the top position. The Prime Minister has all the power (though is very vulnerable to the House of Commons) but can never call him/herself head of state and receive the salutes of the military, all the ceremonial stuff - which seems to have gone to a certain American President's head!

Enjoyed your intelligent reaction. Whichever Unions or Kingdoms are created England, Wales , Northern Ireland and Scotland will always be separate Countries...

One of the most important points: Pre 1642 - There was no Standing Army, only the local Militia with weapons, powder stores.

Well done for having a go at this. Srsly! Though proving that KZfaq vids are not the best way to learn history. This is a fascinating period and, ironically, should be taught as part of US History 101 as it underpins and would bring a better perspective on so much of what happened later. Just one example being that what happened in this and the next century busts the US foundation myth of tyrant kings, but maybe that's why it isn't taught ;-) So much more to say, but here's a thread to follow up if you're interested. Check out the religious aspects of all this (they are even more than in the vid), then find out where the Mayflower types fit into it (clue, they were pretty extreme). More generally, research of English/British political, social and economic history in this period would be an excellent way to "recalibrate" your understanding of things like monarchy, democratic institutions, nation states, as well as scientific developments, international trade the like, as it shows their transition from the mediaeval to the modern. Oh, and you might want to remember that the War of Independence was in the 1770s (ie George III), not the early 1600s, so not the same King. It was Charles I's father, James I of England / James VI of Scotland (same man) who sponsored the founding of the 13 Colonies.

It makes you wonder how we managed to build the biggest empire the world has ever seen with all the trouble at home

TBF most Brits know very little about the civil war or their history in general, and mainly know only a few common facts and myths. Well done for delving so deep into foreign affairs, culture and history, very impressive.

the world at that point in history was full of this sort of stuff - not just England. It does help to note the ages of these people - Charles 1 became heir apparent when he was 12 years old. A lot of the names we hear in history took power at ages between 12 to 17 - so, imagine the world run by middle school kids....

Part of the problem with not so bonny, sic, King Charles 1 was that he was the 2nd son, he only became heir in 1612 when his brother Henry died young.

Parliament was not quite the fully formed body it is today in 1640s. No George Third lost america Charles Daughter Virginia was the source of the name of the US state of that name

Charles was from the Scottish line the "Stuarts", however that history video has a number of mistakes like calling Monk Scottish when he was Lord of Devon.

In England, democracy arose from numerous factors. The key turning point was the English Civil War, symbolising the end to absolute monarchy and, for the first time, the creation of a parliament which had a significant degree of power. George the 3rd gave up on America about 130 years after Charles 1st as the British armies were spread too thin fighting other countries so although he had a bit if a tantrum about it, he let the colony go. Watch the film, the madness of King George. :)

The power of a constitutional monarchy is firstly the armed forces and police swear loyalty to the crown, that limits the power of politicians. Spain has a similar set up and in the 70s some Generals took control of the Spanish Parliament who help Spain's politicians hostage. The Spanish King Juan Carlos went on TV and told army units loyal to him to storm parliament and restore the rule of law.

I think Franz Joseph II of Austria-Hungary had the best explanation for what a monarch should be/do when Teddy Roosevelt asked him that question. "It is my duty to protect my people from their government." Ideally a monarch would be a check on the government. Instead of politicians who could with 51% of the vote oppress the 49%, a monarch is the king of all 100% of the people and thus would seek to protect all his subjects while politicians only care about their supporters. Also a populace can be manipulated by politicians into doing things that are not in their own best interest and can convince the people to give up their rights and liberties for various promises of security and prosperity... a monarch would veto it and stop it from happening. The issue is it requires the monarch to be a good person who not only cares for their people, but is wise enough to know how to properly do so. But a monarch not needing to worry about being elected can be more decisive than elected rulers who balk at doing something that may lose them votes. I'm an American but growing older I've come to see the value in monarchy.

most conlficy in uk is caused by unification ironicly releasing scotland was a smart move as even modern day scotland being aoart of uk is a conflict issue not as bad as ireland but scotland have its own independence movments

What was Charles's goal? Charles was a person who saw the world in absolute terms: was a firm believer in 1) the divine right of king's, which maintained that the monarch was appointed by God and subject to no-one else; he was also convinced that 2) he knew the correct way that everyone should worship, hence why he tried to force church reforms on the Scots. (NB, it is important to remember that, while Charles was king of both Scotland and England, these were still two separate countries with their own laws and governments. Charles, though born in Scotland and head of the Scottish royal house of Stewart, neglected that kingdom for the more prosperous and powerful southern neighbour, attempting to rule both from London). The Scots didn't like his church reforms very much and they were rejected by the Scottish parliament who basically ran the whole of Scotland in his absence. Charles decided to enforce his religious changes and his authority militarily by sending an English army to Scotland. However, to raise an army he needed hard cash, but he couldn't raise taxes in England without the consent of parliament, a legal limitation which he dearly resented. So, he called the English parliament in the hope of getting their consent to raise taxes and fund his war against his other kingdom, but, due to his perceived abuses of power and attempts to rule without parliament, they refused unless he conceded to their demands first. OK, this is all an oversimplification, but you might summarise the aims of the two factions as follows: - Parliament were fighting to establish that the monarch was subject to the law and could not rule without their consent (at least in certain areas of policy). - Charles was fighting to enforce his right to rule as an absolute monarch subject to no-one except God.

Jamaica as one of the largest Caribbean islands was strategically important. They were fighting Spain because Spain was the most powerful Catholic state at the time. Religion at the time was very important, and this was during the end of the Reformation period in Europe.

What Cromwell did to the English revolution was the same as Bonaparte did to the French Revolution

The Queen does still have some power, it is just indirect. For example, she had little to no say on Brexit, but she did have to approve the final exit clause before the government could officially more forward with it

England had its own game of thrones. And it was brutal.

History Matters is an excellent channel to get a thumbnail sketch of history

And somewhere in the backround I can hear the Pogues make 20.000 people curse Oliver Cromwell in a stadium and "A brief history on Oliver Cromwell", as told by Monty Python. Never knew that if you were educated in the US you would not have a clue what the fuss is all about.

thats where the nursey rhyme, 'humpty dumpty' came from.... humpty was a royalist mortar in a siege

You might not like cromwell, but that little cartoon isny describing the whole sale murder of the pensantry and underclasses at will. Its hard to imagine the savagry that took place.

Basically the parliament started out as a advisory body supposed to give the king advice, not actually make decisions... Then you get a power struggle between them and the king with power gradually being accumulated by the parliament. But at this stage their supremacy had definitely not been established yet...

Ironically I’m living not far from where the Levellers started, surrounded by houses in Courts named after all the Roundheads battles, that lead from Cromwell Road, in the same town that Elizabeth I worshipped in and not far from where Henry VIII lived in Hampton Court Palace. There’s a lot of history in Surrey UK 🇬🇧

Charles the 1st was the King of Scotland because his father was James the 6th of Scotland and James the the 1st of England.

You should also know that this was not our only Civil war. There have been several .

The politics of the English Civil war is very different fron today’s politics. When Parliament won the civil war the people who voted for parliament had to be landowners, ie if you were poor, a woman etc you couldn’t vote. Though the English laws were still anti Catholic, they did allow different types of Protestants. The pilgrims who left to form the colonies that eventually became the USA, left England because they thought England was too accommodating to different Protestant religions.

For a long time it was mainly Catholics vs Protestants and you still kinda get that today especially in Ireland and Scotland. Cromwell was a Puritan and a lot of people were not fans of the Puritan life style to say the least. The Queen actually has more power than you think, but historically grants every wish of parliment, otherwise it is sort of seen as treason/tyrannical. For instance, the Queen has the power to seize any land that she wishes in most of the commonwealth, as it's technically all owned by the 'Crown.'

Cromwell was a Puritan and they were very strict protestants.They banned the theatre and Christmas. Charles l was Charles Start and the Stuarts were Scottish.They had been given the throne after Elizabeth l died childless.