I was wondering the same

I donk care what He makes of His country as long as it goes with a good speech along the way

@@lukahutinski9075 heck yeah

Yes, please. I hope so.. :D

Its actually very easy. All he needs is a PM to advice him to dissolve the parliament and call general elections, and its done. The issue is, in a two party system such opportunities are rare.

Charles the 2nd: NOW LETS PARTY

@@Dim4323 I’m writing a play about him. Stay tuned. 😏

I don’t think Charles III will dissolve Parliament, third time could be the charm

@@iee4g6he wouldn’t have the nerve unfortunately 😕

Me

How many house Civil Wars you had? Hahaha

That's the kind of line that makes kids stop doing whatever goofy shit they're doin and say "What?" "What?" "Dad, what?" "What does that mean?" Jedi mind control Big Daddy! Trip em up so they think a bit while you get your troops in line. That's fierce!

​@@SimCityEA1989 😂😂😂😂

"Can anyone here contemplate such evil without horror?"

@@UNUSUALUSERNAME220 Gotta remember this when i have kids

-- LOL.

Lets hope Charles III comes in soon so he can do the same to the current lot!

There's already a play, titled "King Charles III", about just that.

@@golden-63 It might be George VII.

Boris will lose his job.

Much better than Trump!

Magnificent

Just so

well technically they were not fired

He was a very capable king. His only mistake was not siring a legitimate heir.

Amen! Given how beautiful [no other word to describe him] Rufus Sewell is, is another reason to watch this clip again.

He was pretty much that. He was King.

The Royal family are bred for this. They protect the people from the government. Without the people they cannot do this.

Looks like something out of a Depeche Mode video when the camera is close up on him. Just love it.

Truly fucked 😂

The Orb is only seen at the Coronations and state funerals of monarchs. Charles II should have remembered what happened to his father when he showed up in the Commons. It didn't go well for him.

He certainly had balls.

Correction: The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

​@@nathanwile499i see, a man of culture

Were you the Chancellor of the ExCzecher?

"Duke of York is A-OK" -Jan

Ah so, from there come to hungary the toc(s)ni, what we like it so 🙂✌️

It was awesome movie Rufus Sewell is a great actor

That is cool!

Why do i have the feeling that this may have happened to you in real life?

I declare your employment to be dissolved

Lmao!

@@RainbowManification Sir, Go home I will not trouble any further

Sir, Go home I will not trouble you any further

Also John Smith in the Man in the High Castle

Maybe he specializes in English speaking Anglophiles who are constantly accused of plotting to impose absolute monarchy.

I just saw a clip of the Adams series and thought "hey, it's Charles II..."

Also not to mention Thomas Clarkson in "Amazing Grace," who sympathized with revolution to overthrow the King. Now that's bringing it full circle!

And Lord Melbourne in Victoria

Peter Gregory But the Crown looks so oversized as to look ridiculous. If he sneezed, the thing could come off, and take the wig with it. That would have been worth seeing. I understand the Queen practices wearing it for a few days before ceremonies where she has to wear it. I get migraines, and you would never persuade me to ever try to wear it, even if I had that job. It just looks ridiculously huge, heavy, and uncomfortable. Sometimes simplicity is better.

Yeah these and the clips from the HBO series John Adams are brilliant acting.

John Cronin i suppose that symbolises the monarchy or atleast my view, it looks like nothing but grandeur to those of us who look at it but for the one who has ti wear it, it is a heavy and uncomfortable thing

It IS a perfect scene: perfectly shot and perfectly acted with the perfect enunciation, the perfect cadence and the perfect music.

I was an extra in this scene, dressed as a bishop. I don't see myself in the crowd; there were seven of us, all with gray wigs, sitting high up at the far end. It was indeed a memorable scene. I also appeared in the fire of London scene.

Japanese businessmen probably do the same thing!

@Witchfinder Nielsen yup that would be quite likely probably the reason they bowed for him not doing that xD

At least His Majesty didn't do what Lucy Liu did to a disrespectful subordinate in Kill Bill.

Sadly, most of them would return when Parliament was recalled by the King. At the time the wealthy and Nobles almost always regained their seats.

Nah, hahah. They deposed James after Charles died anyway. This speech was useless and embarrassing.

... and then Mark Addy becomes king?

@@ObeyDarkElf no, Heath Ledger .... Sir Uuuuulrich von Lichtenstein!!!

Wait... did Charles II say this? Where did you come up with this verse from the Bible? What made you say that?

@@EINSilenceDogood It's a quote from A Knights Tale, which the actor was also in, though (no spoilers) it was not his character that said it

Ken - Nope! It was Charles II who was found wanting. His chosen successor, James II, barely lasted 3 years before Parliament deposed him in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

I never liked him as a young heart throb but he's great in more mature roles.

He was in Hamlet too

He was great in Hercules, clearly having a blast playing a more lighthearted fun character.

Lord Melbourne in Victoria and Thomas Clarkson in Amazing Grace too

Totally agree.

😂

That's an orb not an egg thing.

Aww, such cute comment...😁😁

[Behelit intensifies]

What is it even for, actually?

He has been weighed, he has been measured, and he has been found un-wanting

He is a genius.

Surprised by so masterly acting. Laurence Olivier Is his inspiration.

@@alessandrocaboni5882 Oh, you can see it.

An exceptional actor. Worthy heir to Lawrence Olivier.

KurasakiBleachigo1 why dose the line "Like a Boss" feel needed

Of course, all his action did was in effect call for new elections, and you can rest assured 99% of the same men were reelected, if not 100%

KurasakiBleachigo1 And he couldn’t even nod in acknowledgement, as that huge crown would come tumbling down, likely taking the wig with it. Now THAT would have been worth seeing. Of course the only reason this was necessary was because Charles, who fathered many, many children out of wedlock (and James was apparently even more of a womanizer), but couldn’t produce an heir, likely because these royal families were so inbred. It really says something about the snobbery when Charles’ and James’ mother (widow of Charles I) was scandalized by James’ second marriage because his bride was not a royal. Marry a cousin, no problem, as long as they are of royal blood. But marry someone “common” - scandalous. People had some strange ideas then. One wonders why “commoners” put up with it all for so long. It’s okay for a symbolic, non political head of state, I can see the value of that. But as a real ruler? Not so great an idea. Had the Stuarts reigned, and let Parliament rule, they might have lasted longer, and been more popular, and wouldn’t have needed to make the political decisions that always disappoint somebody.

guyfroml Well, the House of Lords was just reconvened. They weren’t elected. And in those days, it was easy for a savvy political operator (which Charles II was, unlike his father and brother) could, under the system as it existed then, manipulate things so that you get a Parliament which was compliant. Charles II managed to do that. James later threw it all away. He wasn’t nearly as gifted a politician as his elder brother. It didn’t help that he was openly Catholic at a time when Louis XIV, a militant Catholic, was busy revoking the Edict of Nantes, persecuting the Huguenots (French Protestants), and invading Protestant nations, such as the Netherlands. That was the only reason William of Orange agreed to become King of England. It greatly aided his struggle with France. That’s much more difficult to do since the Reform Act, (making the Commons more representative of the nation), and with the growing number of people who could actually vote.

Agree. I knew Lords wasn't/isn't elected. You are spot on about James.

MegaWolfgang Unlike his father, Charles II had ruled with great respect for over 18 years before dissolving Parliament. Note no need for any guards!

The only person to fire everyone, leave the room, and everyone bows their head.

MegaWolfgang Well, I assume this dissolution occurred in the House of Lords, not the Commons. It’s easy today to simply conflate “Parliament” with the House of Commons, as the House of Lords has really lost all real power. My question is did the King even need to enter Parliament to dissolve it. Charles was gambling that people would remember the Civil War, and the turmoil in its wake (including a REAL war on Christmas, carried out by the Puritans), and that Parliament would back down. That gamble did work, at least for a while. Had James not given birth to a son, who was baptized as a Catholic, the Glorious Revolution might never have happened. But he did, and there was such fear of Catholics, and a Catholic dynasty, that English leaders “invited” William of Orange and his wife, a Protestant daughter of James II, Mary, to invade England and depose James II, who wound up fleeing into exile. So, a short term win for Charles, who fathered many, many children, but none, alas, who were legitimate. But in the long run, the exclusionists got their way, for after the last Stuart Protestant died, (Queen Anne, who is almost forgotten by history), Catholics were excluded from the monarchy, and the House of Hanover began, with a king who could not repeat this speech, as he couldn’t speak a word of English. So in the long run, Parliament won the argument.

Doug Maus I assume this took place in the House of Lords. I don’t think any monarch has entered the House of Commons since Charles I did, trying to arrest five members, who had already left the building, making Charles I look like a fool. And if there’s anything worse than a tyrant, it’s an incompetent tyrant. Charles I, like his grandmother, had a martyr’s complex. His son James apparently had no desire to be executed, so he fled before any battle. Again, I wonder if Charles actually entered Parliament in order to dissolve it. Certainly today, the Queen doesn’t enter Parliament for dissolution, when the term runs out, or a snap election is called, by the Prime Minister.

It was reasonably common practice at the time, just got tangled up with other issues and made more extreme under Charles I.

Harrison Lee - HA, the moment the King became a Jester with a simple phrase

well charles II was our happiest king

Sergey Bodrov He was speaking both to The House of Commons and House of Lords so the gentleman would a proper phrase

Harrison Lee Quite appropriate, considering the mental state of mps nowadays.

@Sergey Bodrov Lords they were before the treason.

Yup. He only went to defeat Smaug after this.

@@avatarwan5824 Child's play after having served in English politics.

And after the battle of five armies he went back to London, where he moved inwith a witty self employed detective

Sir Sketch When AGAMEMNON himself tells Dilbo.... I mean Bildo.... I mean you know who I mean 😂 “GO HOME”, he needs to listen 😊

Took me a minute, but then I saw him 😉

Did Romania have such a king?

@@Perririri stronger than that Vlad The Impaler

Regele Mihai

@@Perririri the comment was made a year ago but i can't help but respond, we had a King that dissolved parliament too his name was Carol II his name being the romanian version of Charles funny enough

He failed. His words meant nothing. The Glorious Revolution happened anyway.

Long live The Bangles.

And numerous male rock stars.

"You mean to say that the womenfolk residing in the Colonies in the New World will be sporting the style of aristocrats and kings?!?"

And male glam rockers.

To me that shows me his power and determination

That's Called A Stationary Field Check. You look without moving to prove your superioress to others.

@@damnnndamien6085 That’s certainly the metaphorical element to it, yes. The practical element is that the Crown of St. Edward is apparently *extremely* heavy, and basically the only way to wear it without breaking your neck or having it fly off is to keep your head extremely still and continue looking forwards.

Do it Your Majesty !!!

Thank you for posting this. I had forgotten how this all ended.

The so-called "Glorious Revolution" was no revolution at all. It was a military coup d'etat supported by 50 members of the House of Commons and eight bishops. They called in a foreign ruler, William of Orange, and foreign troops. This was treason.

@@c.norbertneumann4986. Actually the so-called Glorious Revolution was a foreign invasion helped by a 5th column inside the country.

@@iparipaitegianiparipaitegi4643 Take notes of what this guy just said here Western Civilization, take note......

Yes. Charles won this battle, but the Stuarts lost the war.

It led to civil war anyway after Charles II death, James became king only to be turfed out by parliament and William and the Hanoverians being invited over. After that we got years of civil war in Ireland and numerous Jacobite rebellions in Britain until 1746 with all the murder and chaos that came with ‘the pacification’ of Scotland. He talks of blood and chaos that would follow would be their fault? It would have saved a lot of time and blood if they had just voted Charles II down then and there.

​@@grahamhighmore7702 Can't really blame him for not being able to foresee that far innit?

@@baloocallout678 He’s supposed to know, he’s the king, he’s a grown up! He’s responsible! His father had his head cut off due to lack of foresight when dealing with the affairs of the state. Charles II knew more than most the consequences of wrong/bad action and by allowing his brother to become king was setting the kingdom up for another Protestant/Catholic civil war.

@@grahamhighmore7702 If you think about it, with the time he lived in, could he really predicted the jacobite rebellions or the irish civil wars?

@@baloocallout678 if Charles II was half as clever as this show claimed he was then he could have made the educated guess that a catholic monarch on the throne of a Protestant kingdom (post English civil war and 30 years war) would lead to bloodshed. The responsibility was his and he takes the blame, or most of it, for all the calamities that followed from his inaction. Either he nominates William as successor or abdicates in favour of a second Republic. The alternative was another war and he knew that only too well.

He caused the Glorious Revolution when his illegitimate brother, The Duke of York, tried to reinstate Catholicism as the official state religion, and was replaced by his Protestant daughter, Mary, and William the Prince of Orange.

@@eddihaskell You mean his legitimate brother who tried to reinstate the true religion and was ousted by vicious traitors?

@@CidVeldoril Did the Pope tell you those lies?

And it was all powerless and impotent. The MPs all effectively said "yeah, sure" and waited for him to die. Then, they deposed his brother James just fine.

King Charles is Scottish why you say of England? He is king of United Kingdom after his Stuart’s took over England

@@Valhalla88888 no, the United Kingdom only came into being with the Act of Union in 1707. When his grandfather, James I ascended to the throne there was a Union of the Crowns of the two Kingdoms, but not Government. The Stuarts (and William of Orange) were monarchs of three seperate Kingdoms: England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

@@Valhalla88888 No. The events depicted here took place in 1679. It was Charles II's grandfather, King James VI of Scotland, who took over England as James I in 1603.

@@Valhalla88888 Because he was. England, Scotland and Ireland were three separate kingdoms in personal union...meaning three kingdoms were ruled by one single person/monarch but still maintaining separate laws and administration. In 1707 was the first union, England and Scotland united into one kingdom of Great Britain which was in personal/dynastic union with Ireland. In 1801 was the 2nd and final union of Great Britain and Ireland forming a single United Kingdom out of those two.

Sigma

jazzthieve Dare you you to go tell her that then, mate ;)

The Queen still possess the right and legal prerogative to dissolve parliament and call a fresh Election. She is more powerful than the US president in terms of the powers she has. She may declare war, declare allegiance, refuse ascent to a law (thereby rendering it unlawful to prosecute someone under it). She may also pardon anyone who has committed a crime as well as being immune to prosecution herself. She is also the head of state and is the head of church. She is the Church of England's Pope in that if she declared it unchristian to bash gays it would be so. The Queen is one of the most lawfully powerful executives in the world. But she does not exercise the enormous power afforded to her because she recognizes it is the right of the people to govern themselves and her position depends entirely upon not exercising her lawful prerogative. However she exercises her power in other ways by bending the ear of officials and the Prime Minister. She has years of experience that they lean on. If anyone ever tells you the queen is purely ceremonial they are, in fact, a liar. The Royal Prerogative is the name of her list of powers if you're ever curious.

The royal prerogative to dissolve parliament is very much in question after the fixed-term parliaments act of 2011.

Agreed. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act (2011) removes the right of the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament. In any case, this prerogative was only theoretical, as the Sovereign could only dissolve Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister. For more information on this topic, see here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

The Sovereign, through the Office of the Governor-General, can still dissolve the Australian Parliament, I do believe.

You have to be American , your language gives away your understanding .

Though him not having a legitimate heir and his philandering ruined his personal reputation among other monarchies and nobles. Him not having any legitimate issue doomed his line to fall and with it the chance for Absolutism fell.

@@justinpachi3707 : Very True, his brother James was an awful choice of succession.

Charles did not actually convert to Catholicism until he was on his deathbed.

C Pegg he was always catholic...I suspect from the time he went into exile at the very least...his mother was truly Catholic...a sister and then an aunt to the King of France (by that time the eminent Catholic power in the world)

Morgan Walker39 James II was a catholic convert. And you know what they say? There’s nothing more fanatical than a convert.

That may be true and Charles II was certainly a benevolent ruler, although I think it should be remembered that the parliament also had the best interests of their country and its people at heart, which is why they tried to stop James II from becoming King. James II didn't have his country's best interests at heart, only his own power and authority, which is why we had to get rid of him. Same with their father, King Charles I.

​@@boazjamesmiller6387of all the Stewart rulers charles 2 was the best

@@boazjamesmiller6387James wanted Catholics to have rights parliament wanted to repress Catholics

​@@Vlaams_Monarchist1302hardly. Parliament wanted to protect the country and people from illegitimate usurpation of power by the Latin rite, which fails to meet any of the four marks of the church as one holy catholic and apostolic.

@alecblunden8615 why was it illegitimate the king is the ruler of the country he embodies the country if he wants to be catholic that's his right parliament and those power hungry aristocrats and ministers just didn't want to lose their power so they plotted and illegal coup against the rightful king

Shaftsbury is the only one in the room that that looks to Charles after he passed by while everyone else still bows. Arrogant man.

@Romeo_Alfa. Yes. John was the last to rule without a parliament. Although Charles does dismiss Parliament right here... Charles fought three minor naval wars with the Dutch Republic with few casualties. Compared to many kings before him, that was nothing. If you're talking a king with the kind of power Charles II had, nobody after him came close. His brother was king for two years, then got the boot, and then the Glorious Revolution set clear limits on what sorts of powers an English monarch could wield. Ironically, a virtually bloodless revolution a generation after the end of a very bloody war over the same issue.

Monarchy has its risks of course, but our aversion to this risk will see the modern day nameless/faceless elites slide us towards chaos (first social chaos which is clearly already begun, then it'll branch out into government which it already has in some ways).

This comment made me burst out laughing!

We already have one, Saudi Arabia. We don't need more.

​@@feels_bad-man We in past Has Democracy Nazi German. We don't need antoher. The same argument.

Then you'll love Saudi Arabia, Oman, Brunei, Eswatini. No rights for you.

It may still be an option for the monarch, but should only be done in grave national emergencies. The UK has gone so far into democracy that I think a questionable decision to dissolve Parliament could make things difficult for the monarchy to remain statutory figures. Sir John in Australia may have acted before a crisis occurred in 1975 to call a snap election, but at least that time the voters confirmed his judgement and there was no doubt in peoples minds that a different government was appropriate at the time.

The only justification would be to either forcibly dissolve a parliament which has extended its legal term limit, or if a bill so terribly against the established conventions of the unwritten constitution was to be passed.

The wild Parliament fainted ! Charles II gains 1,000 exp

What "boss mode"? What BS! He over-reached, and Parliament had the last laugh when they deposed Charles II's chosen successor in 1688 and put monarchs of their choosing on the English throne.

@@wiseonwords You mean when the Dutch conquered England?

It has been done.. kinda

Rufus is always a badass.

Hope Charles the Third is too.

Indeed. How is that Supremacy of Parliament thing working out for you?

Gentlemen go home.

“This Parliament is, by my authority, dissolved; terminated.” 👿

@@crazyman8472 Beautiful words, only better would be "forever abolished, and all those involved executed for being corrupt and traitors, Freemasonry Delenda Est"

I remember watching this series a long time ago and this scene left an impression that I still remembered...hence why I found my way back here I guess.

Three years after the death of King Charles the 2nd, his brother was overthrown in a popular coup known as the Glorious Revolution and spent the rest of his life in exile. After that, no British monarch ever tried to arbitrarily dissolve parliament or rule the country through absolutist tyranny ever again. So much for his right ordained by God.

@@boazjamesmiller6387 This is what democracy stans look like.

@@boazjamesmiller6387 And how is that whole "supremacy of parliament" thing working out for you? I heard it's fantastic being in Sydney, Australia right now...

@@bolshoefeodor6536 I doubt that an absolute monarch or dictator would have handled the situation any better.

@@boazjamesmiller6387 Funny, the worst thing we had under universal executive monarchy was the Nopeonic Wars. Ironically born out of the unbridled tyranny of Revolutionary France! After monarchs were hobbled by Parliament, we got WW1. When they were removed entirely, we got Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Holodomor, the Killing Fields. I think I'll take my chances with monarchy, thanks. Fuck "democracy," all to hell.

... and be family men

Gentlemen go home 'cause thy art drunketh

Long live the King.!!!

He is a part of the WEF elitists as are all party leaders across Europe.

Hahahahah makes me proud hahahahah 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Me too (I'm Venezuelan)

Imagine if Queen Elizabeth II went into Parliament and declared the suspension like this.

@@olympia5758 it would be fucking beautiful 😍🇬🇧

@@olympia5758 Like a boss!

But the King of England then had a perfectly legal right to dissolve the parliament and rule without it. Theoretically, even today, he actually could (although TODAY he could just dissolve the parliament and call new elections). Moreover, something like a parliament/senate (as a legislative body or as a system of the government) did not even exist in history. Of course there were such assemblies, some estates or royal councils... but they were all just advisory councils without real power - they just HELPED the monarch to rule/reign. (Absolute) monarchy is a natural state of society that has always been there and existed/overwhelmingly prevalent until modern times. Today's parliaments were created like the senate in ancient Rome - the king was banished and the monarchy was abolished, or the monarch was "just" removed from power and this collective body took over (gradually or all at once). England: Magna Carta (etc), Nobles/Aristocracy, Merchants, Bureaucrats/Politicians, Parliament,... do you think this was some kind of development for the good of humanity and that constitutional monarchy is somehow better (than absolute)? It was just a struggle for power - where some groups wrongfully usurped power from the ruler (either gradually or completely). And the whole system became inefficient. The head of state is still a monarchy, but the head of government is something else (options: aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy/elections, bureaucracy, ochlocracy, anarchy...).

His father was an idiot.

Cromwell was a Tyrant.

So were the Stuarts.

Wow, you went out of your way to reply to two separate comments on threads in which you had no involvement. Do you just have no life at all?

readsomebooks666 Uh... you mean the same thing that you did? Hypocrite much?

Hurrah for good Queen Bess!

I am looking for the name of the this marvelous music.

That's literally me

sigma*

Number 2 is chad but may not be the case for the number 1, his body doesn’t even have a head

Not sure Klaus Schwabb will let him. If Britain were still an imperial power maybe but don't see those days coming back any time soon sadly.

@@andrewmckenzie292 I know, I was merely jesting. Charles III is a usefull idiot doing their agenda, at best, or is a willing servant of them, at worst.

It's the only thing I could pay attention to the first time around!

my apologies I don't know which two actors you are talking to. I only know the Granada version

martin theiss in the TV series "Sherlock" Martin Freeman plays Dr Watson.

I find it interesting this storyline (Charles 1 and 2) get good actors in it. in 1970 there was a version where Charles was the infamous "Ben Kinobi" from Star Wars and he ordered the arrest of the man who became the first and short lived head of Hogwarts.

martin theiss Rufus (the king here) plays Obberstgruppenfurhur John Smith in TMITHC

Bilbo WAS a serious character.

OH SHUT UP HAHAHAHA

Gianluca Borg and in cold comfort farm film.

The 1680s hair metal scene.