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.
@wilfred de ivanhoe u are more than completely correct in what u write ✍️ in the video, & I do hope that the people of ingland can understand exactly what is occurring with the situation 😢😢😢
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.
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!
I can't stop rewatching this. The cinematography really made him look like some ethereal divine avatar, absolute power incarnate. Sends shivers down my spine.
This scene was shot in the Czech Republic castle named Točník. I remember it well as I was there as an "actor", portraying the member of the parliament. Just a crowd scene, but worth to watch real professionals like Martin Freeman and Rufus Sewell doing and repeating the scene, building it better and better. It was a nice experience.
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.
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.
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.
In this scene, Charles II makes the right play. He calls to point that the Crown is hereditary, that the King/Queen should have a say in who is in succession. While he accuses any who speak against his brother is committing treason, he does not name names nor calls for them to be arrested. He doesn't go as far as his father had, which led to that civil war and Charles I's beheading. As he dissolves that Parliament, he doesn't take direct revenge. He simply tells them to go home, and he will trouble them no further. He doesn't want bloodshed, and he's gambling that the leaders of Parliament don't want it either. He leaves the room still King, and with the respect of even his enemies.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
When the King, in full regalia, tells you to get the fuck out of his House and stop talking shit about his family..... you really should do as he says.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Unlike his father, Charles II had the ability to compromise and make well-thought decisions, such as keeping his catholic faith a secret from the public.
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.
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)
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).
@@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.
This marked the last period where the crown existed as a powerful force, independent or superior to parliament. Charles II ruled without parliament in the final years of his reign, and ensured that the Duke of York would succeed him as James II. But it was a long-term defeat for the monarchy, which saw James II short reign end in the Glorious Revolution and his replacement by parliament with William and Mary, the signing of the Bill of Rights and the ultimate settlement of the constitutional question of the 1600s in favour of parliamentary supremacy and constitutional monarchy.
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.
King Charles II is such a boss. I love how he went out of his way to put on the full regalia and made sure he was there first and waited for parliament to arive. calmly tells them off and fires em all & tells them to go home😎
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.
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.
@@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
Ironic that the last absolute monarch of England was also one of its most tolerant, most progressive and least warlike. In other words, one where being an absolute monarch was just fine!
@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@Belgisch_Monarchist1831hardly. 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
Gangster move. Hopefully King Charles III, will follow in his footsteps and do the same thing. The government sucks. Go on Charles do it one time. God save the King.
@@crazyman8472 Beautiful words, only better would be "forever abolished, and all those involved executed for being corrupt and traitors, Freemasonry Delenda Est"
Obviously, when you want to make a point, dress up in the full royal regalia holding both the orb and scepter in your hands, and not too many people are going to disagree!
*L E T T H E R E B E N O C O N F U S I O N* The Duke of York is my heir and *will remain so.* *His right is ordained by God,* and *N O M A N* may alter it.
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 And how is that whole "supremacy of parliament" thing working out for you? I heard it's fantastic being in Sydney, Australia right now...
@@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.
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.
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.
I love how he sits there, enthroned in power. Then as he goes to leave, all those present bow lower than they need to. I think present in all minds was the fact they beheaded his father. And where he could've exacted revenge upon them all, he didn't. He simply made his position clear, and did so clothed in dread majesty as the anointed of God. And so none present dared to speak a word against him. I believe they all knew better then to defy the king openly, and therefore they would not oppose him and possibly have civil war return again to scourge the land. Therefore, they accepted his decree and made no effort to halt his steady tread as he swept through the midst of them like a storm of divine rebuke and awesome power, who chose to not rain down fire and destruction upon them. But broke through the dark clouds of malcontent with brilliant rays of glory. Whereby all present knew better than to raise themselves up against royal authority again.
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...).
@@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.
This is one of the best scenes I've ever seen- the acting, the background music, the atmosphere- as if God himself entered that room. Whenever I want to get inspiration I go back here and never being disappointed
I understand why Charles II would do this: parliament drove him into exile, executed his father, plunged his country into civil war, and now it was trying to block his brother's succession.
They detested Roman Catholics and were scared of a "papist" taking the throne. His brother did take throne in 1685 and look how that turned out for King James II. He barely lasted 4 years.
He dressed up in his full royal ship to make sure they know who's the king and who still rules over them. He was making a statement so that no one forgets or is confused of the point he was making. If you want to send a royal message this is how you do it, as a monarch.
The Monarchy is ceremonial. They have no Government Power. From what I read the House of Lords still had some of that or a disproportionate share of say so in the Government but it was curtailed. Note I said Power not influence. There are people in England who want to dissolve the Monarchy and totally detest it ! IMO I think current Monarchy is well organized and well run regardless of some of the faux pas that occur and become Public knowledge . They keep Great Britain on the map and bring in lots of tourist dollars or pounds or quid or whatever it is called -
Hobbs Charles The British Monarchy wouldn’t ever do this because it would cause the end of the monarchy. Elizabeth knows that even popular political leaders (Thatcher, Blair) eventually wear out their welcome, and rarely last more than a decade. She’s seen so many come and go. She’s so popular precisely because she doesn’t govern (though she has informal “influence” by means of those frequent meetings with the PM). She doesn’t even vote. She’s smart enough to understand her constitutional role in the system, and has enough to do trying to run the family. She learned a lot from the fiascos of some of her children’s marriages (I think Edward is the only one still married to his first wife). She was much more “hands on” with William’s marriage, making sure his wife knew what she was getting into. Living in a fishbowl is not a life I would like. But Elizabeth seems to view it as her “duty”. At least at her age, and with more family members, she can delegate certain duties (public appearances) to other family members. If she lives as long as her mother (and she looks extremely vigorous for someone in her 90’s), she’ll be around for another decade. I don’t think she ever smoked (which her father and sister did - which I think was a factor in their shortened lives). One can never be certain, nobody expected Charles II to die as suddenly as he did. And sudden deaths do happen. But she still appears very fit. And she has much better health care than Charles II had.
It's up to our lad Charles III to keep this tradition alive
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.
His Majesty the King dissolves the parliament. Long live the King.
-- 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.
The most elegant way of saying "you're all fired" I've ever seen.
Much better than Trump!
Magnificent
Just so
well technically they were not fired
@wilfred de ivanhoe u are more than completely correct in what u write ✍️ in the video, & I do hope that the people of ingland can understand exactly what is occurring with the situation 😢😢😢
Who is here before Charles III dissolves parliament?
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
You know you're in trouble when the King busts out the orb.
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
" ...Think on that before you take another step towards chaos..."
I use this line with my kids all the time
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
The fact that this guy is capable of playing both King Charles and Alexander Hamilton (John Adams series) is incredible. Does both convincingly.
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
When you've been messing around all day at work and you come back to your office to find your boss sitting in your chair
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
I can't stop rewatching this. The cinematography really made him look like some ethereal divine avatar, absolute power incarnate. Sends shivers down my spine.
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.
The King just fired all of them and they still bow on his way out. What a Chad.
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.
This scene was shot in the Czech Republic castle named Točník. I remember it well as I was there as an "actor", portraying the member of the parliament. Just a crowd scene, but worth to watch real professionals like Martin Freeman and Rufus Sewell doing and repeating the scene, building it better and better. It was a nice experience.
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!
Only the King of England can fire a room of people and have all of them bow to him as he walks out
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.
He should've added: "Gentlemen, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting..."
... 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 got to admit it took a lot of guts considering his father did the same thing which caused years of civil war and the loss of his head.
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.
You know the King means business when he even busts out that little egg thing.
😂
That's an orb not an egg thing.
Aww, such cute comment...😁😁
[Behelit intensifies]
What is it even for, actually?
"Gentlemen.... go home."
That fun moment when the King of England sounds like a bartender trying to shoo the drunks out at three in the morning.
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.
Rufus Sewell is so good. Criminally underrated.
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.
That's when Bilbo decided to go back home to Bag End and have an adventure after being fired.
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 😉
Love Rufus Sewell's acting. Alexander Hamilton, Obergruppenfuhrer Smith and King Charles II. What a diverse set of characters to play as.
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.
In this scene, Charles II makes the right play. He calls to point that the Crown is hereditary, that the King/Queen should have a say in who is in succession. While he accuses any who speak against his brother is committing treason, he does not name names nor calls for them to be arrested. He doesn't go as far as his father had, which led to that civil war and Charles I's beheading. As he dissolves that Parliament, he doesn't take direct revenge. He simply tells them to go home, and he will trouble them no further. He doesn't want bloodshed, and he's gambling that the leaders of Parliament don't want it either. He leaves the room still King, and with the respect of even his enemies.
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.
When the King, in full regalia, tells you to get the fuck out of his House and stop talking shit about his family..... you really should do as he says.
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.
Who could have known that hundreds of years later, young American women would be wearing their hair like that in numerous malls in the 1980s.
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.
@@lachlankeddie7 in market halls none the less
I like the cold open. No greeting, no introduction, no background. He just gets straight to the point.
God, I can't stop watching this over and over again. Everything about it is perfect, the music, the delivery of the lines, everything
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.
Unlike his father, Charles II had the ability to compromise and make well-thought decisions, such as keeping his catholic faith a secret from the public.
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.
Do it King Charles. This world needs a true Monarchy
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.
"If we are understood, more words are unnecessary; if we are not likely to be understood, they are useless."
King Charles II
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
This marked the last period where the crown existed as a powerful force, independent or superior to parliament. Charles II ruled without parliament in the final years of his reign, and ensured that the Duke of York would succeed him as James II. But it was a long-term defeat for the monarchy, which saw James II short reign end in the Glorious Revolution and his replacement by parliament with William and Mary, the signing of the Bill of Rights and the ultimate settlement of the constitutional question of the 1600s in favour of parliamentary supremacy and constitutional monarchy.
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.
My favorite part is how the King's eyes flick around the room, right there at the start. It's like "You think you can mess with ME?"
King Charles II to Parliament,"Beat it nerds, this is my house!!"
King Charles II is such a boss. I love how he went out of his way to put on the full regalia and made sure he was there first and waited for parliament to arive. calmly tells them off and fires em all & tells them to go home😎
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.
"look at my wig, its more fabulous, now fuck off"
That's a true King. Speaking with strong command.
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.
Ironic that the last absolute monarch of England was also one of its most tolerant, most progressive and least warlike. In other words, one where being an absolute monarch was just fine!
@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.
I really like how the King moves his eyes from front to left to right and to the front again without moving his head one bit.
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.
Boss mode activated.
King Charles II uses "dissolution of parliament" -- it's super effective!
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?
For all his faults, Charles the Second had the best interests of the country and its people at heart.
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
@@Belgisch_Monarchist1831hardly. 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
Think of that before you take another step towards Chaos.
Class. Pure class.
Charles III: Want me to do it again?
Do it Your Majesty !!!
I loved how he shut it down, left them speechless and takes his glorious royal stroll straight into the golden sunset 😅😄😂😃😄🌟🌟☄
Fellas, we gotta start wearing capes again
Checking this as a preview of Charles III inauguration speech
Brothers, the time has come
My favorite part of this, is the fact that even though he just fired all of them, they still show their respect and bow
Shaftsbury is the only one in the room that that looks to Charles after he passed by while everyone else still bows. Arrogant man.
Gangster move. Hopefully King Charles III, will follow in his footsteps and do the same thing. The government sucks. Go on Charles do it one time. God save the King.
It has been done.. kinda
@@SebastianForal 😂
Good for him. They killed his father, exiled him, and ran the country into the ground. I would've done the same
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?
Rufus Sewell is such a great actor.
This is a King worth his name!
Hope Charles the Third is too.
This is why i love monarchies!
Rufus Sewell is an amazing actor. Played quite a range of characters.
> Enters courtroom
>"You all suck, you all dissolved"
> Refuses to elaborate further and leaves
Chad
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
Charles II: "I declare Parliament dissolved"
Members of Parliament: " Shit here we go again"
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"
Charles III, are you watching? This is how you do it. Spare us from this crowd of idiots masquerading as a government.
"That's right. Now say my name."
"Charles."
"You're goddamned right."
You have to be American , your language gives away your understanding .
This scene was very, very well done.
This entire scene is so powerful especially seeing everyone bow even though he dissolved parliament
They knew something was up when they saw the king wearing full royal regalia
Obviously, when you want to make a point, dress up in the full royal regalia holding both the orb and scepter in your hands, and not too many people are going to disagree!
I absolutely LOVE the vibe of authority and divine right that they captured in this scene.
Come on King Charles lll do it, the army is literally yours. God save the King.
Long live the King.!!!
He is a part of the WEF elitists as are all party leaders across Europe.
*L E T T H E R E B E N O C O N F U S I O N*
The Duke of York is my heir and *will remain so.*
*His right is ordained by God,* and *N O M A N* may alter it.
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.
Rufus is a badass in this series 😆
Rufus is always a badass.
Charles the first in heaven “that’s my boy!”
Here in the spirit of parliament getting suspended.
I love how he tells them to go home!!
King Charles will disolve the parlament.
One of the best scenes ever..
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.
If ever a Parliament needs to be dissolved .there is no doubt it's the one we have now!
GOD SAVE THE KING!
I can't take it seriously while Bilbo Baggins is standing there in front of the King in a fancy wig.
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.
And now we have a King Charles III...
I'm seeing at this video continually. Exceptional.
Rufus Sewell is one of the most underrated British actors
I love how he sits there, enthroned in power. Then as he goes to leave, all those present bow lower than they need to. I think present in all minds was the fact they beheaded his father. And where he could've exacted revenge upon them all, he didn't. He simply made his position clear, and did so clothed in dread majesty as the anointed of God. And so none present dared to speak a word against him.
I believe they all knew better then to defy the king openly, and therefore they would not oppose him and possibly have civil war return again to scourge the land. Therefore, they accepted his decree and made no effort to halt his steady tread as he swept through the midst of them like a storm of divine rebuke and awesome power, who chose to not rain down fire and destruction upon them. But broke through the dark clouds of malcontent with brilliant rays of glory. Whereby all present knew better than to raise themselves up against royal authority again.
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...).
Parliament suspension make me remember this video
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!
This gentleman is such an incredibly gifted actor. A true artist.
Charles we got your back, do it, do it now.
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.
Rufus Sewell nails it,
I think I've watched this about 100 times now.
The acting here is truly sublime! And the music in the background just adds to the perfection of this scene!
I am looking for the name of the this marvelous music.
Such majestic speech and amazing interpretation
A most powerful scene. The score accompanies it perfectly.
I LOLed at Watson and Lestrade so prominently shown together!
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.
This is one of the best scenes I've ever seen- the acting, the background music, the atmosphere- as if God himself entered that room.
Whenever I want to get inspiration I go back here and never being disappointed
I absolutely LOVE this series. Rufus Sewell is fantastic!
Gentlemen... go home...
... and be family men
Gentlemen go home
'cause thy art drunketh
He must dissolve Parliament now, its tradition 🤣
I understand why Charles II would do this: parliament drove him into exile, executed his father, plunged his country into civil war, and now it was trying to block his brother's succession.
They detested Roman Catholics and were scared of a "papist" taking the throne. His brother did take throne in 1685 and look how that turned out for King James II. He barely lasted 4 years.
@@johnking5174 they were scared because of all the property they stole from the catholic church
I come from the future. The commons has just been suspended
Hurrah for good Queen Bess!
Its tradition to dissolve parliament when your name is charles!!
Amen!
That’s what taking care of business looks like. Well done Charlie.
Absouletely
King Charles II a leviathan in ermine pity our current queen no longer has the power to dissolve our current parliament
@ABC Assassinated, perhaps, but not executed.
Yes, technically she does. Whether anyone would take any notice is a moot point.
"Truss, go home, i will not trouble you any further"
If only parliament stayed dissolved.
He dressed up in his full royal ship to make sure they know who's the king and who still rules over them. He was making a statement so that no one forgets or is confused of the point he was making. If you want to send a royal message this is how you do it, as a monarch.
0:45 Must have been thinking “finally you lot show up. I’ve been holding this pose for damn near 15 minutes”
This was an excellent acting by Rufus Sewell. I can imagein Charles lI in this situation so 👍
I was surprised our current Monarch chose his actual name. Proves he is not superstitious, but efficient. No need to change the stationary.
The British monarchy today doesn't have the balls to do this.
Hobbs Charles They dont have the power to do so...
*The people don't have the will to accept it
FIFY
They have no legal right.
The Monarchy is ceremonial. They have no Government Power. From what I read the House of Lords still had some of that or a disproportionate share of say so in the Government but it was curtailed. Note I said Power not influence. There are people in England who want to dissolve the Monarchy and totally detest it ! IMO I think current Monarchy is well organized and well run regardless of some of the faux pas that occur and become Public knowledge . They keep Great Britain on the map and bring in lots of tourist dollars or pounds or quid or whatever it is called -
Hobbs Charles The British Monarchy wouldn’t ever do this because it would cause the end of the monarchy. Elizabeth knows that even popular political leaders (Thatcher, Blair) eventually wear out their welcome, and rarely last more than a decade. She’s seen so many come and go. She’s so popular precisely because she doesn’t govern (though she has informal “influence” by means of those frequent meetings with the PM). She doesn’t even vote.
She’s smart enough to understand her constitutional role in the system, and has enough to do trying to run the family. She learned a lot from the fiascos of some of her children’s marriages (I think Edward is the only one still married to his first wife). She was much more “hands on” with William’s marriage, making sure his wife knew what she was getting into. Living in a fishbowl is not a life I would like. But Elizabeth seems to view it as her “duty”. At least at her age, and with more family members, she can delegate certain duties (public appearances) to other family members. If she lives as long as her mother (and she looks extremely vigorous for someone in her 90’s), she’ll be around for another decade. I don’t think she ever smoked (which her father and sister did - which I think was a factor in their shortened lives).
One can never be certain, nobody expected Charles II to die as suddenly as he did. And sudden deaths do happen. But she still appears very fit. And she has much better health care than Charles II had.