And I see why he was so poor before doing Star Wars

I don’t think he rated this movie all that highly either.. he much preferred his earlier roles in the 1940s and 50s

​@@derrickstorm6976star wars sucks lol

@@OrbowitzTake that back!

@@olympia5758 no lol

What a plot twist😂🤣

Yeah! Sadly, Cromwell was dug up and his corpse tortured. Who would agree to this idea?

@@sgtbuckwheat wait what 😳

@@Brvnkaerv Nothing sad about it. Well deserved desecration of his remains

About as helpful as divorce counseling

Even if the King was Scottish.

He does not mean King in a literal sense. He just means a strong head of state

​@@Trebor74The crowns were united in 1603.

​@@rumeunner3245however there wasn't a union until the tender of Union

Charles was a fool.

The role paid well. And you will note that Cromwell's actions in Ireland was never mentioned in the movie.

@@alabamaal225 Neither were the Irish actions that caused them NOR the Scotish invasion of England either England was being threaten by Catholic europe, Backstabbers couldn't be allowed

@@farmerned6 You could litterally write the same thing about Napoleon, France was being threaten by monarchies across Europe, democracy couldn't be allowed, he had to become an Emperor. What one wouldn't excuse in the name of their beloved country!😁

@@CHALETARCADE # Hardly Boney accepted an Emperors lauels, and tried to conquer europe, russia and egypt, buying "honour" with victorys paid with blood Cromwell refused the Crown and the title of King, and tried repeatedly to forge a working peoples Parliment Bonely was a backline pounder, Cromwell Lead

We are all Aryan

lmao

And he did in the end

Holy crap, you're right. "There is another....in France." "The son of Stuart must not become a king."

Fun fact Alec Guinness actually wished he never played Obi-Wan because people only remembered him for Star Wars when he had so many great roles

@@phillipmorel5116 I had heard that. Which is funny when so many actors peak and then take unremembered bit roles as they get older.

He also has an inconsistent accent. His accent becomes notably more Scottish when he's angry, but when talking normally he has only the slightest Scottish touch to his voice. It's brilliant.

That’s just Guinness’ accent. Charles I was born in Scotland but didn’t live there beyond infancy. Guinness himself was English.

I've always thought his best role was as Prince Faisal in Lawrence of Arabia

The bridge on the river Kwai, Murder by death, Caesar and Cleopatra

The Lady Killers.

@@mr.perceval6811 While we’re on Ealing, let’s add eight roles in Kind Hearts and Coronets.

I often hear this argument, but I don’t agree with it. Think of all the great stage actors whose names are lost to history despite overwhelming talent. Imagine if Patrick Stewart never became Captain Jean-Luc Picard. By having a role remembered by all, though it may not have been his best, Sir Alex will be remembered by many for generations to come, and this we’ll also remember the true masterpieces.

A great observation, well put!

Good summation of their cover stories. It was more of a naive king vs. Money.

Are you merely a Bored Lawyer or more pertinently..An interestingly well versed Historian?

So speaks Captain Obvious

I think Charles' understanding of the English monarchy was entirely consistent with the principles of what had been a very powerful monarchy, unlike the French which had only over the course of the previous century become so centralised.

literal propaganda haha

@@Samuel-wm1xrhow so lol? In the UK the King is completely separate from the government in every way but name, they can’t use prerogative powers unless the overwhelming majority of people support their measures. If the British people wanted they could overthrow the crown in a second, but why? They would lose much more than they would gain and would cause social unrest since the crown is what holds the government/state/people together as one. The tax paid to the crown is so immensely small and in return they get greater international influence with the King&Commonwealth which they need for trade, especially as they are outside EU now. they were actually pretty smart in retrospect by keeping a king for show, although it does sound awfully close to a gilded cage scenario.

@@Samuel-wm1xr How so?

Too bad the script is so full of historical holes...

Unlike today boring actors and boring scripts.

How? It's just Englishmen being English.

@@xgetxsickx Richard Harris is Irish pal

And you wonder how he possibly could have lost his head 😂

​​@@Superking.MentholHe didn't lose it until after his death. Not quite the same effect to dig up a corpse and decapitate it.

Was gonna comment on that too!

Such a blue balls moment 😂 good catch

Cromwell Skywalker

@@adamrules01 more like Darth Cromwell

😂😂😂😂 same here

Nice. I see what you did there.

These are not the proposals we're looking for!

Maybe, but Charles I rejected a good deal of reality himself... to predictable results.

@@Malt454 I don't think he rejected reality, Charles the 1st simply stood on a political position that was not a tenable as he thought it was.

@@mn5499- When "not tenable" translates as "having your head chopped off", you've made a seriously delusional miscalculation about the lay of the land. Charles was in denial that he was even being tried, when it should have been obvious that no one was bothering going through the exercise on any assumption that he was somehow inherently innocent because of either his title or philosophy.

@@Malt454 I disagree with the word delusional, because its plain wrong, there were many rulers say for example in France and across the world that were acting as absolute monarchs even after the time of Charles the first. So its certainly not delusional to think that at the time. Charles the first made mistakes that pressed others to take action against him which made his position untenable. The republican project failed and then comes in Charles the 2nd the merry monarch.

@@mn5499 - Believing that what other people thought of the theory of Divine Right somehow mattered when Charles I was in the dock on trial for his life is a good example of delusion, as is questioning the legitimacy of the court TO the court. The loss of the Civil War should have been a good indication that Charles' views on the monarchy were no longer strongly in vogue at the time. I guess if God had ever wanted Charles to be king, He must have changed His mind.

Hang on both of them should have their iconic characters and not Alec Guinness what about Oliver Cromwell change his name to Albus Dumbledore

You left the part out that Sir Oliver studied the arts of Merlin and joined the order of wizards 🧙‍♂️ somewhere in Scotland.. there he continued his lifelong passion for civil rights and confronted a friend by the name of Grindelwald.. at the twilight of his career he mentored a young Rizzard named Harry…. (Another story)

Bruh...

@King of All Buttocks Seriously?! You're not that dumb.

@King of All Buttocks LOTR reference ? There is no Leonard nemoy.

@King of All Buttocks embarrassing of u

It’s sucks to have an iconic role that people identify you with

Sir Alec Guinness would've absolutely hated it. He had a bit of a love-hate relationship with Star Wars, but was always adamant that he'd played far better roles than Obi Wan. I think he hated that a role in a pulpy sci-fi blockbuster outshone all his other work in more "serious" productions. He was perhaps a little bit snobbish about it, but I totally get where he was coming from.

It is hard to imagine any other actor than Alec Guinness playing the role of King Charles I as effectively.

I'll always remember Richard Harris as Augustus, Emperor of Rome

@@alabamaal225 exactly! He even went through the effort of working in a stutter and spoke with a slight Scottish accent during his brief moment of anger.

If you look at the "Heads of the Proposals" given to the King by Cromwell and his supporters, the main proposals are very reasonable. 1. Royalists had to wait five years before running for or holding an office. 2. The Book of Common Prayer was allowed to be read but not mandatory, and no penalties should be made for not going to church or attending other acts of worship. 3. The sitting parliament was to set a date for its own termination. Thereafter, biennial Parliaments were to be called (i.e., every two years), which would sit for a minimum of 120 days and a maximum of 240 days. Constituencies were to be reorganized. 4. Episcopacy would be retained in church government, but the power of the bishops would be substantially reduced. 5. Parliament was to control the appointment of state officials and officers in the army and navy for 10 years.

World class bumbler that guy.

Shortly after... he was put on trial at Westminster first.. then his body lost its head.

I believe something like it did happen. Though whether that is word for word is in doubt.

"Use the Force, Harry" - Gandalf

he was great, he helped civilise our barbaric land and, while i am atheist and do not support religious governance, he did at least shift the power away from the catholic church in favour of a more politics first, religion second republic.

@@Oran_Fitz The Catholic Church civilized Europe after the end of the Roman empire. They were the foundation that provided stability until the Renaissance. Thank you Jesus for the Catholic Church, your church, that will exist until the final coming. My prayers are for atheists in hope they see the light.

Might have been alright, if Charles didn't lose his head over the whole thing...

On Monday, 10 September 1649, Cromwell had a letter delivered to Sir Arthur Aston, which read: "Sir, having brought the army of the Parliament of England before this place, to reduce it to obedience, *to the end that the effusion of blood may be prevented*, I thought fit to summon you to deliver the same into my hands to their use. *If this be refused, you will have no cause to blame me.* I expect your answer and remain your servant, - O. Cromwell" The contemporary laws of war were clear; if surrender was refused and a garrison was taken by assault, then its defenders could lawfully be killed. Such things didn't just happen in Ireland, it happened all over England and the rest of Europe. So while your mileage may vary, it sounds to me Aston was a dopey cunt and got all the innocent people of Drogheda killed, *not Cromwell* contrary to popular romantic Irish mythology. Still, its 372 years ago and everybody should just fucking get over it. Peace. :-)

@@mr31337yeah OP is just spewing royalist propaganda

Ares

Or worse: bustin' cheeks

The best Starhorse Rider in all of Christendome

Charles I was nothing of the sort. Alec Guiness was a magnificent actor but his portrayal of Charles was nothing short of Royal propaganda. In reality, Charles I was vain, adulterous, rather cruel and a thief. He was far from a noble individual but instead your average European monarch desperate to gain absolute power

At that point, the king had essentially lost the civil war, and Cromwell held the greater military power. had he wanted the king dead he wouldn't have dropped by to visit with just one friend.

@@proudblack9453 I mean, he was. That's Richard Harris as Cromwell. He played Dumbledore in the first two movies before he passed away.

Normie

@Ethan S wrong Dumbledore.

The Emerald

Charles Also lost his head so.

Salazar Slytherin

specifically in this situation, the traitor Charles, who preferred to collude with foreign powers and Catholics than to share power with parliament

@@Artur-qq1ef6zm1l It's exactly what Parliament would do a few years later, they would collude with a foreign protestant power to oust a king they didn't like for being too Catholic. And before that it was standard practice for monarchs to get military support from other countries to support what were otherwise domestic conflicts.

@@Treblaine I didn't say that the parliament in this story was a good guy! but the execution of the king and the civil war eventually made England a better place as well as France :)the divine right of kings had to be destroyed because it contradicted progress and human rights! in addition, it was the bourgeois revolutions that finally destroyed the remnants of feudalism and allowed more progressive capitalism to earn

​@@Artur-qq1ef6zm1l it is still hypocritical for Parliament to say it's so unthinkably wrong to collude with a foreign power to overtake a country then go and do that themselves when it suits their theocratic ideals. This act of treachery is still referred to as "Glorious". They took away the king's power not because he threatened individuals in his realm but was perceived as a threat to Protestantism as a religion where individual human rights were secondary to establishing that religious belief. They didn't want to end religious discrimination, they wanted religious discrimination to go one way but not the other. It established a new theocracy where it was great if you were part of the established religion and progressively worse for those who deviated more and more from the state religion. Now the fact that later parliament would mellow and moderate and SLOWLY over CENTURIES begrudgingly ease their state sponsored discrimination is something to celebrate but then and only when they actually did that. There are still no individual rights that actually limit the legislature or the government in the UK/ Whatever "rights" you have in England are simply what Parliament hasn't gotten round to outlawing yet. You have a right to protest right up until Parliament says you don't and there's NOTHING you can do about it if they take it away. There is only one right in the UK and that is the right for Parliament to do whatever the hell they like. English courts can only EXPAND what is forbidden by law, not decrease it. They cannot invalidate a law for violating rights because the UK has "absolute supremacy of Parliament".

@@Treblaine I'm not saying that this system is perfect, I generally sympathize with the Communists and the USSR, and if we talk about the revolution that had a huge impact, it's French, not English! perhaps the British really need a king and religious fanaticism in the end, the imperial consciousness and sense of their own fake greatness have not left them, this is especially noticeable in the example of the United States, which is simply the British Empire in a new wrapper

Thank you for your good sense. Most comments on here are irrelevant! They all want to impose our beliefs and motivations on that time. This is a stupid thing to do. They were people stumbling along, often making things up as they fumbled - but we often think of them as decisive . The period has roots that go way back and this adds to our confusion and added to theirs. They created a giant pudding of an idea and sections of the rising classes wanted it to work. We are now going through the same thing with mumbo-jumbo like Net Zero - though I think the loony ideas of the old religious fanatics will prove more useful than our contemporary fanatics.

it was 350 years ago, I don't think it weighed too heavily on him

Then you don’t know the Irish

@@asdf33395 you'd be surprised by how some people take heritage really seriously. History is never forgotten and should never be forgotten, so I'm sure it was quite the challenge for Richard Harris

Richard Harris was actually very adamant about playing the role BECAUSE he was Irish. Harris believed Cromwell was misrepresented by history and post-humous depictions, and that simply throwing all the blame at Cromwell was very ignorant. Harris was spot on after all, it was the Covenanters who ravaged Ireland much more brutally than the New Model Army, and one cannot forget the fact that the Royalists used Ireland as a base of operations in a war that did nothing for the interests of Irish people.

@@deaconstjohn4842 Snowflake

And to be sure Cromwell is honorable man....

How was Charles I not a tyrant?

@@vexjaeger4314 Cromwell was great for England. Terrible for Ireland.

@@vexjaeger4314 The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.

@@Dularr He wasn't a particularly kleptocratic king, just a tin-eared one.