There a difference between Scotland turning against the King & wanting to murder him. You don't kill the King. It sets a bad precedent. The war was to persuade him to see things their way.

We didn't "HAVE" to give Hong Kong back to China, it was on a 99 year lease, of which Britain honoured by giving it back at the end of the lease.

The Source material is what's wanting with this video. Blaming Britain for the division of the Indian subcontinent, when Muslims demanded it for fear of being wiped out by the majority Hindus, is a typical error, which could have been avoided with minimal research. And King James did not send "British colonialists" to NI, or anywhere else, as stated at 5.01. Conflating England and Scotland into one Kingdom before 1707, is the easy sign with which to recognise the history illiterates on YT......

Yes, I think I understand what you mean. This is a reminder to all of these "small government" people in your country that "government" is not a bad thing. It is not an abstract construct that is only there to control and supress you, to force you to pay for things you don't care for or you think you don't need. Instead a functioning government is the necessary foundation of each democratic society. Jurisdiction and the execution of it, infrastructure, education of your citizens, security (for internal and external purposes), support systems after natural disasters or facilites which stop diseases from spreading, all these are just parts of what to govern means. It does not help to get rid of a government if the new system does not tackle all the duties and tasks that already exist AND additionally offers more benefits for all of their citizens. And sometimes western societies do not get how lucky they really are to live under a democratic western government.

British isles history surly must be one of the most complex of any country.

the Partition of India was negotiated by the Brits and all interested parties in India. What happened during partition had nothing to do with Brits...except that we had kept the rivalry in check for 200 years and the hate betwixt Hindu & Muslim came out in spades.

Yep at 3:50 you are missing a bit, oddly he didn't mention the English Civil War 1642-1651, one of the most important parts of English History. That is the reason Charles I was tried for treason and executed rather than conflict with the Scottish Protestants as the video suggests. The Bishop wars with Scotland were quite short and the Scots were still loyal to their King, so were somewhat angry when Cromwell had him executed. It's an interesting video, he's trying to get a lot in a short space but there are inconsistencies. Seemed to also imply James II was the last of the House of Stuart, he wasn't it was Queen Anne who came after William III, after her it was the House of Hanover with George I etc

It was also to pay for a standing army to protect the US colonists, as they had P'd off the locals. Basicity the US colonists wanted their cake and to eat it. Unfortunately the UK had an incompetent King and PM at the time, so it was handled really badly.

Connor, I think there are better videos than this. It seems to be for children and the US narrator gabbles ! I agree with you about rhe Grass is always Greener. Hence why successive Governments don't always do any any better 🙄

Hudson Bay is frozen in winter but melted and open water in summer. One of the most important trading posts established by the British absolutely essential to the fur trade of the times.

They were on board with forcing the king to do what they wanted, not outright killing him and deposing the monarchical system

Translation - Dont throw the baby out with the bath water. That makes you minimally a conservative, Connor

This looks and sounds as if it was made for 5 year olds.

We love your 'rants', McJ! That's the reason for watching you!

If the stars align we might see the emergence of the British empire in another form with Canada, Australia and New Zealand reunited with its motherland. We all share the same monarch, parliamentary democracies, common language and values, and similar size economies. In truth I wonder how much American power today was built on the demise of the British empire when American president Roosevelt stabbed Britain in the back when he promised Britain a loan to rebuild our great country after Britain endured horrendous amounts of bombardment from the German Luftwaffe during the war. The money Britain received as a loan under the Marshall plan came with conditions which were unacceptable at the time but Britain was bankrupt and in no position to renegotiate new terms. It’s like, when American history teachers teach their kids in schools about the American war of independence, they romanticise about it instead of telling it like it is. How Spain and France helped America kick the British out, but not entirely because that’s why Canada exists today which is one of Britains loyal bredrens. #canzuk

Ok so the British Empire was a thing and it did things that through the lens of today are abominable. However the one redeeming feature of the British Empire was that while we were in charge we abolished slavery. Then we went on to browbeat every other country on the planet to do the same. Not that slavery doesn't exist today but at least we tried!

There was the English Civil War 1642-1646 (which included the Scots on Parliaments side), but after that war was concluded the Army (the New Model one), gained to much power and seized the King, which upset the English and Scots Presbyterians and the remaining Royalists and so began the Second English Civil War 1648-1649 (Part 2 the Sequel), which ended with the King losing his head, which upset the Scots because he was their King as well and so began the Third English Civil War 1649-1651 (Part 3 the Conclusion) which ended with Charles II escaping, via an Oak Tree to France.

Cecil Rhodes had a fantasy about building a Cape Town to Cairo railway on British territory, but physical geography would probably have thwarted it.

Presbyterian was originally the opposite of Episcopalian. Their church was run by meetings of ministers (presbyters) instead of by bishops. In terms of theology, they were Calvinists.

Charles the First was of the Stewart line so was of a Scottish line so them kicking the line off the throne was not to their liking because then England basically claimed all of Scotland without the royal right to rule

They used to say that "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire".....

9:14 You are right. The idea that William of Orange only came to be King because he was "invited" by the political establishment, is a bit of 17th century propaganda. He was planning to invade anyway. His forces had already invaded anyway, and were on their way to London. Yes, a lot of the politicians and establishment people in England supported the idea and welcomed him, but the reality is that even if he hadn't had that support, he would have succeeded in invading anyway. In schools we are all taught about the "Glorious Revolution" in which he was invited, but that version is too simplistic. It was sort-of invented as a useful story afterwards.

4:43 At that time, Scotland and England were still two separate independent countries, even though they had the same king (like Australia and Canada having the same King as the UK) (they joined to form a single country of Great Britain in 1707). So the civil war in England which resulted in the King being executed wasn't the same conflict in Scotland.

I forgot to mention your late involvement in WW1 and WW2 and your disastrous contributions to the peace settlements after both. Then there is your involvement in Vietnam - which you lost (despite the valiant efforts of your armed forces and fine young men) and more recently in Afghanistan - in which you dragged a multitude of other countries to join - only to abandon them at the last minute. Now, if you get Old Smelly back, God knows what the world is going to face.

Rule Britannia ... one of the better Empires. Roman Empire lasted for 2000 years Founding of Republic until conquest of Constantinople.

There is no comparison between the Roman Empire and British Empire. The British Empire was the biggest empire ever.

When the Scots joined the English Parliamentarian army in defeating Charles I it was done so with the expectation that a settlement would be reached between the King and Parliament. This settlement would likely see the King's power greatly reduced and in the most extreme case, see Charles I forced to abdicate for his heir. This is what the Scots thought would happen. It wasn't until later that it became clear to the Scottish Government that England was going to kill their Scottish King. Thus when this did happen the Scots took up arms for a little revenge... Didn't go well.

A slight generalisation but the only people who identify themselves as British are Protestants from N.Ireland. The Scottish are Scottish, English English and Welsh Welsh nobody thinks they are British. What that means for the future I’m not sure.

When the British left India - it was at the the Indians behest and the countries of Bangladesh, Pakistan etc where what the Muslim and Hindu leaders wanted. It was voted upon by them and is what they wanted. You have to remember there was a old resentment of Muslims by Hindus because of the Mughal empire. It is only because the Mughal empire was virtually gone and India was becoming divided into different state by local rulers that the British were able to take over India in the first place.

Evening Connor, very interesting video . 😊

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never never shall be slaves! Note that this is imperative, not indicative.

Simon roper linguistic type channel, my fav is a granddad talking to his grandson who becomes granddad talking his grandson over the ages.

Use your words, Connor! 🤣

"The grass is always greener" and the Marxist "Ditch it all and start from scratch" versus the need for caution calls to mind the old saying, "Don`t throw the baby out with the bathwater" 😁

British Empire started in Nocton village, Lincs.

I think if you could just slow down your need to speak to allow a little more time for thought then you could be a really good philosopher. It is fun to watch though.

Passing control of Hong Kong back to china is certainly a regrettable act, as evidenced by the volume of Hong Kong residents who desperately applied for ‘British Nationals Overseas’ passports in the build up to the handover. Few residents feel that Chinese control has been a good thing for the former colony, many openly wish the British were back in charge.

Scotland and England had seperate reformations. In England it was driven by the actions of five monarchs. Henry VIII broke with Rome, but was no Protestant. However his Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer was, and he became the driving force in making England Protestant under the boy King Edward VI. This was an elite movement, the populace had not bought into it, until Mary started burning Protestants and worse gave them a Spanish king. Protestantism became about being English to many. Elizabeth then came up with her great compromise, I seek no windows into men's soals, she said. Believe what like, but in public you worship in this basically Protestant, but with Catholic frills, national Church of England. James I contribution was to keep it, rather than bring the Scottish version with him, and to give it a great Bible. In Scotland it was a more revolutionary process, more in line with Lutheran and Calvinist reformations in Europe. Presbyterian is the Scottish version of Calvinism. The Scots have no Bishops and it is a more austere reformed Church than the CoE. It exists in the US, mainly among those of Scottish decent.

Love your rants!!!!

France invaded England and occupied London (troublemakers) at the end of King John's reign (Barons War). King William II of Orange was the beginning of the modern Parliament, which was helped along by King George I (who couldn't speak English). French troops also made it to Scotland and Spain got to Ireland, but they couldn't hold.

Please react to , top 10 most evil empires that existed by neo lan

Talk more on Gibraltar!

I think the British and Roman Empire's are too different ro compare. The Roman one was an expansionist single block of territory, at its height it had about 20 to 25% of the World's population, but its world impact was limited beyond its neighbours, indeed a lot of the world wasn't aware of it, and the Chinese Empire had more people, and which was stronger was a moot point. The British was a scattered collection of territories of three types, settler colonies, business and trade opportunities and in its final phase, we had better get hold of that to stop the other lot getting it. At its height it had about a quarter of the Earth, population and in 1870 its GDP. It had no serious rival in power in the 19th century, though other than at sea it lacked the military power to impose itself. Its influence was global, but stayed away from European conquest attempts, it picked its fights, The US in 1960 had a far greater economic dominance than the British ever had, with 40% of the world's GDP and huge cultural and military resources, yet it has not been able to impose its will anywhere much militarily since WW2.

Massive slant on that

JIBBSVILLE!!! How many times do I have to tell you? 'HISTORY TODAY' by Newman & Baddiel, full 39min compilation.........ENJOY!

My dad was there when we gave Hong Kong back to China and he said all he saw were adults throwing their kids around

A history of Britain with not a single mention of Wales?.. Tidy!🙄

'''Systems" only get a 80 to 100 years old and change into a new one

Scottish Presbyterians are Calvinists (see John Calvin of Geneva). There is no hierarchy (no bishops or archbishops). They differ from Lutherans who adhere to the doctrine of Trans-substantiation. Calvinists believe in Predestination (a pernicious doctrine which was an insurmountable stumbling-block for me - as a Calvinist - at age 15). Calvinist John Knox of Edinburgh - a mad, mixed-up misogynist - used to rant extremist sermons. A member of the congregation called Jenny Geddes got so incensed one Sunday that she threw a stool at his head. Mary, Queen of Scots gave him an audience twice. Twice he reduced her to tears with his rantings. Although a Catholic herself - she had spent her youth in France - she did not even have him arrested, far less executed, so religiously tolerant was she.

So much wrong/left out in that documentry. The abolishing of slavery is quite a big one. Many of the ex colonies are now the most successful countries on the planet.

I think the words you're looking for there Connor, are reformation of state, and political upheaval. ~ Trouble is, that Protestantism, was/is a religious, and that the Church Of England with King Henry the 8th beforehand, added to those issues. People get no vote on church or king. And religion does not permit much change, when change was trying to happen... yet again in a short time. Also any influence Rome might've still held, likely added to confusion. ~ Don't worry about pausing and thinking in educational videos bud. That you are trying to at all, is to be commended, not moaned at. And why I think you find this interesting? "Those who do not learn from mistake of the past, are doomed to repeat them." And we British are as guilty of that, as anyone else. ~ Justin Trudeau however? Yeesh, lol.God save Canada atm. ;-) Oh... and to further that point? The video at the end points out more or less, that the U.K's current fairness towards immigration laws, may be coloured by our Empires broadness. I believe I was taught that the British Empire was bigger & more influential than the Roman. The Industrial Era, changed the planet. Roads were great, but mass produced molten steel was more broadly useful, plus great inventions were created at the same time.

The British were far more powerful than the Roman's. Even if you were to remove the technology. Britain has a much more advanced political system, economic system, military structure. Britain also has hindsight, whereas the Roman's cant look back on our history

I'm pretty sure Scots couldn't give a caber's toss for Charles given they were very Protestant and he was pro Catholic.

Ireland was not involved in British empire nope 😅

@17:40. No. America does not do that nowadays. Nowhere near the extent the British did. And the British were far, far more successful than the Romans.

This is absolute bollocks. Not the commentary but the history bit.

Epic history tv Islam's golden age plz

In 1649, Scotland had 3 warring churches, Catholic, Anglican and Catholic. King Charles wanted to impose the Anglican church as it existed in England and Wales, and the Presbyterian majority didn't like that. The Presbyterians continued to make trouble from 1542-1746. Anglicans and Catholics still exist in Scotland, as minorities. Catholicism was illegal in England until 1829-1837.

Communism is pretty great...actually

Amount of time (years), and technology wise (the army), the Romans were arguably probably more powerful. It's not a good comparison though tbh with the British Empire

As someone from england that loves yr content, i feel in country they threw out trump and u got biden , i feel trump did more for america and global influence than biden ever has done or obama even crazy but true ...

America will never have an Empire they cannot win anything on there own. And remember America was built by the British Empire. Plus we civilised and educated most of the world hence the English Language.

Bientôt l'empire français 🇫🇷🇫🇷

7 minutes in i thought you regretted independence from england😂

Its complicated