🤴🏼🎻What this American thinks of Oliver Cromwell 🇬🇧👑
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- Hey guys! Felipe reacts to a documentary on Oliver Cromell and when King Charles I walked into the House of Commons.
Editor: Josh Conway
If you're new to our channel, we are Americans living in the UK. We make five new videos a week and would love it if you subscribed to our channel and hit that notification bell!
Remember, you can buy our music on iTunes and everywhere now if you search "The Postmodern Family" or click on the links below.
Music on Amazon: amzn.to/31q24FI, amzn.to/31x95V4, amzn.to/2TnOsrC
Music on iTunes: bit.ly/buyPMFsongs, bit.ly/PMFfrenc..., bit.ly/PMFitali...
------------
Subscribe to our channel for new videos three times a week! ➡️ bit.ly/postmode...
Buy a T-Shirt in support of our channel here ➡️
teespring.com/...
Buy us a gift from our Amazon Wish List! ➡️ bit.ly/pmfwishlist
Subscribe to our Podcast to get inside our heads ➡️ bit.ly/pmfpodcast
If you’re wondering how you can support us, get mentioned in our video descriptions or even given a shout out in one of our videos, check out our Patreon page ➡️ bit.ly/pmfpatreon
And our Website for everything that we're doing: thepostmodernfamily.com; bit.ly/pmfwebsite
------------
facebook: @postmodernfamily
twitter: @postmodern_fam
instagram: @postmodernfamily
pinterest: @postmodernfamily
-------------
BUY OUR GEAR
Primary DSLR Camera: amzn.to/2MegxkE
Backup DSLR Camera: amzn.to/2KqNS9M
Compact Mirrorless Camera: amzn.to/2Kuh5QY
Favourite Lens for DSLR Videography: amzn.to/31yOUX6
Favourite Lens for DSLR Photography: amzn.to/2YTphOU
Best Lens for Mirrorless Camera: amzn.to/2KtACRD
Best Microphone for DSLR: amzn.to/2Mbz2pL
Editing Software: amzn.to/2KsZFnV
PLAYLISTS
Most Popular Videos: bit.ly/bestofpmf
Food in the UK: bit.ly/foodinuk
Pregnant in the UK: bit.ly/ukpregnancy
VIDEOS
Real Opera Singer Sings "Never Enough": • REAL OPERA SINGER SING...
US vs. UK Healthcare: • US vs. UK HEALTHCARE |...
5 Day UK Food Tour: • AMERICANS EAT UK FOOD ...
We Love UK Food: • AMERICANS WHO LOVE UK ...
Baby Bump Progression: • BABY BUMP PROGRESSION!...
US vs. UK Driving Conditions: • US VS. UK DRIVING COND...
Americans Love Moggmentum: • AMERICANS LOVE MOGGMEN...
To me he is neither hero nor villain. I don't think Cromwell had designs on power. I think he simply wanted to curtail the absolutist power of the king. I understand he was reluctant to take on the role of Lord Protector. His intentions were good but things just got out of hand as things tend to do when there has been years of growing tension. Charles may have kept his head and his throne if he had been more diplomatic and willing to make concessions. I have sympathy with both. Overall I'm glad it happened as it is a big moment in the overall struggle to gain more freedom and rights for people and in demanding accountability from those in power. Although this last 18 months I fear I see that all melting away!
Amen
Writing Cromwell off as just a villain is the same as the people who do the same to Churchills legacy today. History is nuanced and you'd do well to avoid judging historical figures by modern standards.
If anything Cromwell strengthened the crown through his actions making it a constitional one and making parliament answerable to the people who elected it, you just have to see other European Royal houses to see their positions in relation to their governments only the UK has the crown still within the fabric of government thanks to the involvement and hence removal of a authoritarian King by Cromwells forces but it also paved the way for a professional standing army of the like we have today, Cromwell was a reformist he saw corruption and gauged it out.....he didn't want to be Lord protector it was thrust upon him and his son reinstated the crown.
Richard Harris was a brilliant actor. I was fortunate enough to see him on stage. My first wife was from Medford Oregon and was called Claypole. She researched her family tree and found she was a direct descendant of Oliver Cromwell.
Back when I was a boy from the country who had been in a London university student for about a month, I was in a pub next to the Strand theatre (the Coal Hole) when an old man (who I now know was in his 40s) politely asked if he could take an unused chair away, which I graciously agreed to. Yep, Richard Harris.
Cromwell was a monster
And Richard Harris was a catholic
If you watch today's opening of parliament you will note that the slamming of the door in the face of Black Rod represents this very event.
Well at least they're taking diversity seriously
The film is not a documentry and has got it wrong, Oliver Cromwell was not on the Arrest Warrent and they have missed off a sixth person the Earl of Manchester. Another mistake they have several Peers in the House of Commons they would not be there. The King came with 400 armed men not 100. At this point Oliver Cromwell was a minor figure and not the main protaganist, he was not even in the building and only met the King on one occaision.
Why the king marched into parliament with100 men and not 400 is because the film was made on a tight budget 💷💷😂😂.
Cromwell is regularly voted into the top ten of greatest Britons, the saying " some are born great, others have greatness thrust upon them" applies to Cromwell. This country would be a very different place if the King had had his way. My kids went to The Cromwell school in March Cambridgeshire, the county of his birth. Remember history is written my the victor and digging up a persons body and executing it indicates what was thought of him by the succeeding Royalists.
Hi Felipe, it`s a great film well worth watching. Sir Alec Guiness as the King & Richard Harris as Oliver Cromwell are brilliant, as they project the 2 primary opinions of that historical moment. The main arguments against the King seemed to be that he believed in an absolute monarchy. Further to this, that his Catholic wife was attempting to once again reintroduce her faith over & above the then Protestant one.
Not very historically accurate as others have said but some great actors and well worth a look. I'm a royalist but Charles showed he put his own power above the interests of the English people and would have continued to do so and that was why he was executed. Cromwell was offered the Crown but turned it down. He was a narrow minded puritan but did remain true to his beliefs.
a good answer and i am very parlimentarian
Cromwell was not a bad man, he was a man needed for this country at a difficult time, he was voted the 10th greatest Britons of all time, he created the new model army, developed parliament, and protected religious freedom.
Not in Ireland
Evil man
Taxes without representation that is what it was all about. The Civil war is a very under represented period of our history, you will find countless documentaries about Elizabeth 1st but very few about the Civil War which is odd considering we lost more people pro rata than we did in WW1.
The English civil war and Cromwells rise to power has to be viewed in context, as clearly the War of the Roses, with its ever changing monarchs, based on who won battles, would’ve been at the forefront of the minds of those both in, or near, to power! Cromwell, is a man of his time! It was natural to take power if you defeated your enemies! The decline in power of the monarchy, and the rise in status of Parliament (the basis of democracy as we know it now), can be directly attributed to Cromwell, for all his flaws, and he had many!
as Cromwell said when sitting for his portrait " paint me warts and all" or was that BS lol ?
@@pjmoseley243 is apparently true.
Speaking as a R Catholic myself and interested in history This is just a film with dramatic licence. Richard Harris was an excellent Irish actor who had reason to dislike Cromwell. As he grew into the role of Cromwell, Richard Harris said in a TV interview, he grew to understand Cromwell's motives, and grew to understand him. Cromwell did not wish to be a King or start a new Dynasty. He is credited with starting true democracy which has been passed on around the world. His actions happened to be the final piece of a democratic jigsaw that had taken centuries to complete. I too am a Royalist with limits.
Cromwell anytime for me, a hero.
And yet the people wanted him gone.
@@chips1889 not all did, depends on your standing.
@@tomhirons7475 But the people called for the restoration mate.
@@chips1889 I believe his religious leanings were too strong for most people. But he did good in many ways in his short but busy "reign" . We had a professional army that offered protection to other Protestant countries and minorities in Europe .
@@keithrose6931 And yet the people wanted their Christmas back.
The English civil war is a fascinating time in our history, I found that an ancestor of mine named Samuel Gidley served in the Royalist forces at first, when the Royalists lost the war he like many other common foot soldiers joined the Parliament’s Army.
It is a very interesting period.whatever your views. If you ever find yourself in Yorkshire, visit Ripley Castle it's where Jane Ingilby held Oliver Cromwell prisoner overnight in the castle’s library after the Battle of Marston Moor.
Another stage in the centuries-long struggle to develop a fair and effective way of governing, which is perhaps still going on. Charles had inherited the view that the monarch had first and foremost say in ruling the country, and that Parliament was necessarily subservient. Naturally, there was a growing antipathy to this view, and so the struggle continued
It is most likely that Cromwell was bipolar. He was diagnosed as suffering from melancholia. A minor East Anglian farmer he was hopeless with money and was only restored to the gentry by an inheritance from his uncle. Like Ulysses S Grant (a failure at business and a life-long manic depressive) we would never have heard of Cromwell but for the civil war. A common bipolar symptom is 'believing you are on a mission and are unstoppable.' This was certainly the case with Cromwell.
Cromwell is a cracking movie, definitely worth a watch.
Hero or villain? Why not both? 😃 He was a hero to the extent that he was instrumental in ending the idea of an absolute monarch, who could do anything he wanted and was completely unaccountable. But he was a villain in that he subsequently ruled as a tyrannical, de facto absolute monarch himself. To this day he is loathed in Ireland for the massacres he conducted there. History is seldom black and white!
Yay 🥰 you didn't block me 🙂 Faringdon, Oxfordshire. We were a Royalist stronghold. Folly Hill had a battle. Our church still has a cannonball embedded in the wall. Come visit 🙂
Why would they block you?
Have to see this cannon ball. Fascinating subject, especially in Ireland as he is the most hated English man, Thanks for the info
Oh, one of my favourite movies! Love the scenes in Parliament!
This is complicated, you need to go deeper than I have time for here. The king broke the law which magna carta had long established. He also conived with foreign powers to do so. Cromwell had right on his side, but once the King was removed by war and execution, it left a vacuum for which the country had no long term solution. It was part of England maturing into a parliamentary democracy which most other Europeans failed to do. Overall, his motives were just.
I watched this film in history class at school from what I remember it’s one of those that tries to portray both Charles II and Oliver Cromwell in a sympathetic light.
Charles *I. Charles II was the eldest surviving child of Charles I and became the first constitutional monarch after the Restoration in 1660. Yes, it does attempt to be even handed and well worth watching to understand the history and traditions carried through to our modern parliamentary system today.
@@davemac1197 oops! I did know that just a momentary brain lapse trust me haha
@@andyjtarrant577 - I thought as much. Easily done!
@@davemac1197 1666... king Charles II... and we had the great fire of London... and the plague. After the great fire they had to check who died and who lived... you had 7 years to register... the records were transfered from the churches to government... Now we have Charles III... we had covid... coronavirus... and what do we have now... digital ID... it's transfere power from government to WHO... global government... new world order. The Queen died on 8th Sept 2022... the WHO declare coronavirus as pandemic on 11th of march 2020... from the 11th of march 2020 to the death of the Queen is 911 day... 911. Spooky isn't it... what's more spooky is the date of the queens date... 8th sept.. the day the virgin Mary is born. 9/11 in roman numerals IX XI... IXXI.. the jesuit symbol.. Auspice Maria... under the protection of Mary. Corona... it's latin... crown. Why did they call it coronavirus?... why not china virus or Wuhan virus?... on the queen or king for that matter they wear the crown... two symbols.. maltese cross and fleur de lis... the maltese cross is worn by the pope.... and the fleur de lis is the symbol of Mary. If the do history you'll know the "Crown" is the vatican. The current pope is the first Jesuit pope. The plan is world religion.. all religions to join together and controlled from the vatican. You see and hear the chaos in politics.. all over the world... order out of chaos. Heard anything about avian flu?... what would happen if there was an avian flu pandemic?... what would they do about the Ravens at the tower... if the ravens leave the tower london would fall... who's idea was that?..... yes.. Charles II. On the cover of the Economist 2019 you'll see the four horsemen apocalypse over Britain... The war that's going on just now is just a tip of what's coming... it's like the owner of the Economist magazine is a prophet... or course the owner is the rothschilds.. and funding the wars. What's the goal?... global power.. and how are going to do it?... CBDC.... cut the population... with vaccine and cut food supply... how are they going to get the public go for CBDC?... chaos first step... war... and I'm just waiting for UFO and alien invation... they have done it many times... so make sure you have your light saber ready... the borg are about us... but don't worry... Trump.. or his real name... Batman will save us... all you have to do is get you digital ID and go for the CBDC... The public are so stupid.. spend most of their time watch TV and sports and have no idea how they are controlled.
This is a fabulous film I have in my video collection and watched several times.
Remember if you watch the film it has many innacuracies and they were people of their time and made their decisions accordingly. Oliver Cromwell was a very religious man and was an Independant (now known as a Congregationlist) and not a Puritan. There are much better sources to read or watch to give you a more accurate picture of the English Civil War. As to comparison to your Civil War I think it was nearer to your War of Independance with perhaps Washington a Cromwell figure, looking at the present troubles over there you might be nearer to the Republic you mentioned in your comments than you think. As a matter of interest you had a battle in the Colonies in 1655 called the Battle of Kent Island or River Severn which resulted in Oliver Cromwell sending over instructions for the dispute to be resolved.
I'm a Royalist too Felipe, although Oliver Cromwell was born in my home County of Cambridgeshire. He was born in Huntington which was then Huntingtonshire, now Cambridgeshire. He lived also in St. Ives & Ely in Cambridgeshire. He died of septicemia brought on by an infection.
Strange fact, Oliver Cromwell was executed two years after his death.
On 30 January 1661, Oliver Cromwell’s body, along with that of John Bradshaw, President of the High Court of Justice for the trial of King Charles I and Henry Ireton, Cromwell’s son-in-law and general in the Parliamentary army during the English Civil War, were removed from Westminster Abbey to be posthumously tried for high treason and ‘executed’. This symbolic date was chosen to coincide with the execution of Charles I twelve years previously. The three bodies were hung from the Tyburn gallows in chains before being beheaded at sunset. The bodies were then thrown in a common grave and the heads were displayed on a twenty foot spike at Westminster Hall, where they remained until 1685 when a storm caused the spike to break, tossing the heads to the ground below.
I am a royalist as well.
Ironically Cromwell saved the monarchy. England was not ready to be kingless but when kings returned their power was increasingly curtailed by Parliament and this eventually developed into constitutional monarchy.
Cromwell was a complex character..his reign was short but his influence is unmatched..the film itself has a lot of artistic license but is one of my favourites,the acting from guinness and harris,the battle scene pieces etc make it a true classic imo
In comfortable modern times, people look back at the civil war as a story. Perhaps unsurprisingly many state they would have been in the Royalist side.
However, the reality is that most such people would definitely not have been on the Royalist side if they had been alive at that time. If they were, then t would have been through lack of knowledge and understanding of the reality of governance of the day.
Thank you for your honest review Phillipe but I must tell you about cromwell from an Irish perspective. Ironically cromwell is played by Richard Harris an Irishman. The Civil War was also the WarS (plural) of the Three Kingdoms. Scotland Ireland and England. The wars arose from civil and religious disputes, mainly whether ultimate political power should be held by the King or by parliament, as well as issues of religious freedom and religious discrimination. Royalists (or 'Cavaliers') supported Charles I in his claim to be above parliament. Parliamentarians (or 'Roundheads') believed the King was behaving as a tyrant, particularly by levying taxes without parliamentary consent.
Some were republicans who wanted to abolish the monarchy. Reformed Protestants such as the English Puritans and Scottish Covenanters opposed changes the King tried to impose on the Protestant state churches, and saw them as too "Catholic". Meanwhile, the Irish Confederates wanted an end to discrimination against Irish Catholics, greater Irish self-governance, and to roll back the Plantations of Ireland. The wars also had elements of national conflict, in the case of the Irish and Scots.
In the Bishops' Wars of 1639-1640, Scottish Covenanters opposing the King's policies took over Scotland and briefly occupied northern England.
Irish Catholics launched a rebellion in 1641, which developed into ethnic conflict with Protestant settlers. The Irish Catholic Confederation was formed to control the rebellion, and in the ensuing Confederate Wars it held most of Ireland against the Royalists, Parliamentarians and Covenanters. Real Game of Thrones stuff!
King and parliament sought to quell the Irish rebellion, but neither trusted the other with control of the army. This tension helped spark the First English Civil War of 1642-1646, which pitted Royalists against Parliamentarians and their Covenanter allies. The Royalists were defeated and the King was captured. In the Second English Civil War of 1648, Parliamentarians again defeated the Royalists and a Covenanter faction called the Engagers.
The Parliamentarian New Model Army then purged England's parliament of those who wanted to negotiate with the King. The resulting Rump Parliament agreed to the trial and execution of Charles I, and founded the republican Commonwealth of England. His son Charles II signed a treaty with the Scots. During 1649-1653, the Commonwealth (under Oliver Cromwell) defeated the Scots and remaining English Royalists, and conquered Ireland from the Confederates. Scotland and Ireland were occupied, and most Irish Catholic lands were seized. The British Isles became a united republic ruled by Cromwell and dominated by the army. There were sporadic uprisings until the monarchy was restored in 1660.
That said I am writing this overlooking a valley in with Cromwell's army encamped which brings me to Ireland.
The Cromwellian conquest completed the British colonisation of Ireland, which was merged into the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1653-59. It destroyed the native Irish Catholic land-owning classes and replaced them with colonists with a British identity. The bitterness caused by the Cromwellian settlement was a powerful source of Irish nationalism from the 17th century onwards.
Tens of thousands of Irish were sent into effective slavery in the Caribbean. At the time they outnumbered any other group dutch French Spanish etc. in the americas except the natives and that includes Black slaves. the land was ravaged and Cities were burned and famine left in their wake.
Total excess deaths for the entire period of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms ***in Ireland*** was estimated by Sir William Petty, the 17th century economist, to be 600,000 out of a total Irish population of 1,400,000 in 1641 thats over 40% of the entire population!
In Poland The deaths, emigration, and geopolitical adjustments resulting from World War II reduced the 1939 population of about 35 million to about 24 million by 1946. That's just over 30%
and they are not all deaths many of them are refugee movements so it is fair to say it was under 30% . But the WWII "Holocaust" planned execution is about 10 to 12 million at least half of which were Jews. I'm not trying to compare which was worse just to get a feeling as to what "over 40% " means. In WWI for example a 5% death rate in any place would be high. even the Famines in Ireland in the Mid 1700s and mid 1800s were about 15% . The Rwandan genocide witnessed a population decline from just 7.1 million in 1990 to 5.6 million in 1995 About 22%
Again not all deaths so lets assume about 20%. And again while not discounting that genocide it puts a 40% figure into perspective.
In addition, the whole post-war Cromwellian settlement of Ireland has been characterised by historians such as Mark Levene and Alan Axelrod as ethnic cleansing, in that it sought to remove Irish Catholics from the eastern part of the country, others such as the historical writer Tim Pat Coogan have described the actions of Cromwell and his subordinates as genocide.
so hios legacy in Ireland is totally different from the coloquial "democratic" leader many Americans assume.
Stunning thank you
Interesting footnote is that the area in the east of Ireland you referred to was known as the English Pale or just 'the Pale' around Dublin, hence the origin of the phrase 'beyond the Pale' to mean beyond acceptable behaviour.
@@davemac1197 indeed and "chancing you arm" apparently comes from the fitzgeralds of kildare fighting the Butlers of Ormond and when the Butlers holed up inside st patricks chatederal in Dublin, Fitzgerald proffeted his arm through a hole made in the door to shake hands on a truce not knowing if Butler ewould shake his hand or cut off his arm..
@@bartconnolly6104 - oh wow, didn't know that one! Thanks.
Spot on Bart
Cromwell, hero or villain? Yes. The Church of England, protestant or catholic? Yes. The monarch, figurehead, or essential part of the political system? Yes. Charles I, martyr or fool? Yes.
We're a complicated people...
Fun fact, Thomas Cromwell (Henry VIII's Principle Secretary, Lord Great Chamberlain, Vicar General etc. etc.) is Oliver Cromwell's great great grand uncle. Oliver Cromwell and Sir Winston Churchill are first cousins 10 times removed.
"I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, consider that you might be wrong." Oliver Cromwell
A movie about the Civil War. Richard Harris as Oliver Cromwell, Sir Alec Guinness as King Charles I and Robert Duvall as General Robert E. Lee.
I like Cromwell because he actually led (yes led) men in combat.
Parliamentary privilege allows the members of both houses certain rights which they might not have outside of the house. It is sometimes used to name people who have been granted anonymity by a court prior to their prosecution for a crime. If the MP did that outside of parliament they would be charged with perverting the course of justice, but inside they get away with it.
I'm a royalist but happen to like Cromwell. The monarchy at the time was out of touch.
Cromwell actually left with the others, but there are other mistakes or artistic licence in this film.
Former Tory cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher, Peter Lilley had a small part in the film as a soldier with a pike standing guard as Cromwell rides through an arch of gatehouse in London.
Cromwell left a lot of improvements to the country still in place today.
Without the civil war things would not have changed and the law would be what the sovereign said it was.
You need to see the film. Richard Harris is powerful as Cromwell. Fantastic film.
Good for you to do a reaction to what happens to Oliver Cromwell's head
What is the difference between a dictator or king? Power corrupt a and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Listening to an Americans view of history ,really !!!.
If the King would have used a Jedi mind trick on Parliament then maybe the bloodshed could have been avoided.
and we would have been a country of a 100 million by now lol
The film is a good one, but as others have said, take some of it with a pinch of salt. e.g. In that scene Cromwell wasn't on the list of those to be arrested. I've always struggled a bit with Cromwell. Like most people totally "driven" by a cause he could be utterly ruthless, but England had reached a peak again (like in 1215 with Magna Carta), in the ongoing power struggle between king and nobles/gentry. Overall, although I don't like the fact that Charles I was executed - as he himself argued - by being tried by a court and judges which actually had no precedence or legal authority, the end result was actually a positive one for England as a whole. It set the precedent that a monarch rules by consent, or with permission, of the English people and not as an autocrat. It also set the precedent that a king should rule in conjunction with parliament (i.e. power share to some degree with the people.) It set in motion the principles of parliamentary democracy which every democratic country has to a certain extent, including the US, modelled itself upon.
The destruction of church items - especially ancient stained glass windows - can be seen today where in many cases the pieces have been just put back together in a jumble. However, you can understand that his form of radical Puritanism felt that such things were not needed to understand or communicate with God, thus they were seen to be akin with idolatry. The mass death and destruction he wreaked in Ireland again fits in with radical Puritanism, which saw itself at the complete other end of the spectrum from Catholicism. Thus he believed that Ireland's power as a source of rebellion and a stronghold of Catholicism needed to be crushed. (Not justifying it, but you can see it fits in with his beliefs. And of course it is totally understandable why he's such a hated figure in Ireland.)
Did Charles I deserve to die? - I think most people probably think that he didn't, but at the end of the Civil War the Parliamentarians were stuck with the problem that if they let him return to absolute power then what would happen to them. They'd tried negotiating with him previously but he'd secretly gone behind their backs - how could the king be trusted? Radicalism within the army and parlementarians pushed for things to be resolved by trying the king. Even at this stage moderates hoped that the king might negotiate early on. However, he stuck steadfastly to the argument that the court had no authority to try him, rather than realising that in situations like this those in power call the shots. He was therefore deemed to be in contempt of court for not entering a plea and thus tried in his absence. He'd therefore lost any chance to negotiate his position. So Cromwell was a necessary power which was needed at the point after Charles had been executed to restore some kind of order to a country which had gone through absolute turmoil. Anti-Cromwellians always point to the fact that he nominated his son Richard to succeed him, however, as far as I'm aware that isn't exactly clear. There is disagreement over whether Cromwell actually nominated his son or not - or whether he was chosen by the powers in charge when Cromwell died. It is known that his son Richard was informed he was the new Lord Protector on the day Cromwell died. Some say he was verbally informed by Cromwell a few days earlier - however, that is still hardly a proper preparation to take over the reins of power. Some say another man was named by Cromwell - and then presumably conveniently forgotten about by those in power who saw it best to try to maintain the Cromwell "brand". Either way it seems Richard wasn't that keen to take on the role and he didn't have the support of the army as his father had. Some people complain that Richard wasn't like his father (i.e. that Richard was weak). I just think he was very different - and overall that probably was no bad thing.
Really good look into it
Just want to point out Charles 1 would have had the men on his arrest list executed and would not have cried 1 tear or wondered if they deserved it ....so he was defo no saint .
They knew it was kill or be killed
I have not seen anymore Postmodern family - does anyone know whats happened to them. They are such a nice family and I miss them!
The song 'everybody wants to rule the world ' is sadly too true. Every now and again somebody has to be brave and say NO. Oliver Cromwell was that man here .
Unfortunately Britain still had plenty of people wanting to rule after the Kings execution which was the problem .
That is why the royals returned but were told not to interfere with parliament decisions ever again !
Cromwell was the sort of character who so often seems to end up in charge after a revolution. He served his historical purpose as regards curbing the power of kings but he was a tyrant and a religious zealot and in many ways worse than the regime he usurped. When he appointed his son as his successor, how was he different from a king?
Cromwell did not want to be King, a corrupt westminster parliment forced it on him if I read history correctly. Richard Harris also said in one of his interviews how strange it was for an Irishman to play one of his countries worst enemies , but strange as it was he began to understand Cromwell through playing his character.
@@pjmoseley243 He was offered the crown but declined. However he appointed his own son to succeed him as Lord Protector, in exactly the same way that a prince inherits the crown from his father, the king.
So much is historically incorrect here.He allowed religious freedom except Catholics allowed the return of Jews. The Irish atrocities were after he left but on his watch. He never named a successor to follow him. Judge him by his time not ours.
@@johnnorth4667 yes exactly John, there too much judging by our times over past times. What was done was correct for the time as that was the standard for that time.
@@johnnorth4667Sorry, but if he didn't allow religious freedom across the board, he didn't allow religious freedom. This is a zero sum calculation, he either allowed it or he didn't, there isn't a half measure. Catholicism is a religion, and at the time the biggest "minority" religion. He restricted forms of worship, outlawing ostentatious trappings and ceremony. He was a religious bigot. And he WAS judged by his time, the Restoration saw what contemporaries described as the "happiest day England ever saw" with the road from the coast, where Charles II landed, to London strewn with flowers. His body was exhumed for a posthumous "execution" and was displayed with those of other regicides at Tyburn, before his the head was severed and left on a spike. The 12 years of his Republic were so "Utopian" as to sustain the Monarchy ever since. Good luck with your rehabilitation of Cromwell, I think you're flogging a dead horse here.
Years ago when I visited Scotland I remember seeing remains of beautiful castles, remains of beautiful fortresses and the remains of beautiful churches that have been blown up after surviving maybe a thousand years. And there was always a little plaque stating its history and how Oliver Cromwell destroyed it.
Could do with this now.They are the same.His words when throwing out parliament lol
One major fault with this film is the misrepresentation of how the two sides were dressed. It depicts Royalits with feathers in their hats and Parliamentarians in drab cheap black and white clothing. People get it wrong both side dressed basically the same ,main differences were between higher class people and that of the "poorer sort". Both sides wore fashionable long hair, if you look at paintings you will see this, both Prince Rupert and Cromwell had long hair and no moustache, the Earls of Essex and Holland had long hair. It would be asked how did they tell each other during a battle. Bohe sides selected Field signs, at Marston Moor the Parliamentary Army wore strips of white cloth, the royalists put pieces of beanstalk in their hats. they also chose Watchwords (Passwords), at Naseby the Royaists used Queen Mary for theirs, call out Queen, the reply would be Mary.
As an after thought Black Cloth was one of the most expensive cloth made, apart from Velvet plus White cloth was very expensive to produce.
Hi Felipe. 'Regicide' is the word you're looking for. Cromwell (1970) is a very good film for it's performances from Richard Harris, Alec Guinness, Timothy Dalton and Frank Finlay, although (health warning) it does inevitably contain historical inaccuracies. Although an old film, I have seen it recently in the last couple of years and enjoyed it again very much, and I'm a monarchist myself. I don't think it's in any way biased. History is complicated, and the film does the best job it can to navigate the audience through this interesting chapter in English (this is before the union with Scotland) history. As such it does provide a very good historical foundation for today's shenanigans in Parliament - the Speaker's declaration "I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place, but as the house is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here" I think is very educational. The Speaker was quite correct in his duty to say this.
In response to a reaction video a while back I got into an argument with someone, I'm ashamed to admit was a fellow Brit, who insisted the monarch today still has real powers. She does not. The powers the Queen has are her priviliges under our constitution, settled by the Civil War and subsequent Restoration of the monarchy, but they are exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister, who leads the Government duly elected by the people. An example would be her power to dissolve Parliament, but it would be unconstitutional for her to use it on a whim, it is done on the advice of the Prime Minister. When an election has changed the composition of the Commons and a new Government is formed, the outgoing Prime Minister tenders his resignation to the Queen, and advises her on who to call on to be appointed as the next PM. If she doesn't remain above party politcs, it would probably end the monarchy, so her role is for the purposes of continuity. Boris Johnson is the Queen's 14th Prime Minister. Her first was Winston Churchill. That's some continuity! There is a text book phrase from our British Constitution classes at school (I attended in the 1970s, I'm not sure if it's even taught any more as a subject) which states "the Queen reigns, but she does not rule". This defines the difference between the constitutional monarchy from Charles II onwards (The Restoration after Cromwell's Republic), and the absolute monarchy up to Charles I (who lost the Civil War and his head). This film tells the story of how the monarchy lost its power to rule absolutely.
Best Royal moment for me? Probably Henry VIII's split with the Catholic Church. It was the first Brexit!
Thanks to Cromwell the monarchy survived today.
Regicide
I agree with you
Really enjoying these highbrow videos you're reacting to. Much better than the comedy one's...🤥
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't disagree with you, but remember - half of all jokes are true, so I think Al Murray serves a dual purpose with his routines!
I'm not sure that Cromwell was actually there.
He wasn't. Best take this film with a pinch of salt.
For me the important question is whether the execution of the King and the establishment of the Commonwealth ultimately guaranteed to the reestablishment of the monarchy within a constitution and the survival of the modern monarchy we have today ?
The old crown is one of very few original coaching inns. We have the Royal stained glasswork windows. We fought Cromwell. The King was in Oxford at the time I think. The staircase at The Crown goes back to the time of Shakespeare. We are just up the road from Radcott Bridge.
you fought and you lost.
Oliver Crowell believed in Gods law,had a puritan views of how government should be under the rule of the Holy Scriptures - we need to realise a return to these values is the answer to our present woes.
The movie Oliver Cromwell is only an interpretation of events and carries some inconsistencies, but generally gets the message across. To my mind he is a hero, but a flawed one. The politics of the day were raw and the counter reformation in full swing in Europe that was bloody and cruel and that fed into a firm resistance against the power of Rome I.e. the hegemonic power of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of that resistance especially in Ireland has come under strong criticism and to be honest I can’t say it makes me feel as a Christian very comfortable. Sometimes politics surged way too far ahead of following Christ - we must remember Him who dwelt upon this Earth as a servant King. Him we should honour before King, country and Oliver Cromwell. Ironically my hunch is that Oliver Cromwell would probably agree, whereas the King of the day I doubt would have. Another irony about Cromwell was actually his tolerance towards religious expression, but he was against the totalitarianism of the RC church. For RCs freedom of religious expression was allowed, within limits. A good book I’d recommend is J.H.Merle D’Aubigne, D.D., “The Protector”. To quote Oliver Cromwell in a letter to Col. Norton, 28th March, 1648, “I know God has been above all ill reports, and will in His own time vindicate me.”
Definitely a hero. However, he has the only statue in London that the public cannot get to - it's just outside the Houses of Parliament behind a fence to stop Royalists and Irish people from attacking it. In World War 2 one of the British tanks was named the Cromwell, which apparently very much annoyed Churchill. Cromwell was a man of his time, but he was on the right side, and no king afterwards tried to be a dictator. Without him, there might later have been our equivalent of the French Revolution, with a guillotine set up in Trafalgar Square. Hmm, on second thoughts.
What horrible background music.
We buggered it up only chance we had of getting rid of monarchy
Wow, I was going to comment on this but then saw that all the comments on this video are really, really long.
Favourite moment in our monarchy. King John signing the Magna Carta. Regicide is the term for the murder of a monarch.
Ironically, Cromwell and the civil war saved the Monarchy.
I'm a royalist too but I think Cromwell was right to hold the royalty to account but unfortunately he went too far the other way it's not about making a republic it was trying to be able to hold them to account but again I think today system gives parliament too much power and the queen is just a figurehead unfortunately
I think you're right. Cromwell's Republic, or Protectorate, went too far the other way and the Restoration in 1660 recognised that without Cromwell as dictator the country was ungovernable and brought the country back to the monarchy, although only as a figurehead. Evolution is always preferable to revolution, in my view.
I watched this in history
The American constitution and Republic learnt the errors of our own brief Republic by getting it right.
But everyone gets it wrong by calling Cromwell a “dictator “, he firmly believed he was doing “god’s work” and throughout his rule felt unworthy of himself. Real Dictators think they are gods and demand the people to worship and praise them. Cromwell never sought worship or praise, in fact, after all the fighting (which was started by the King in the first place) he just wanted a quiet life for the people of England.
Lessons will be learnt
I could be wrong, but I suspect the "privileges" mentioned were laid out in the Magna Carta and/or subsequent charters.
If so, by denying those privileges, the king was committing treason.
The issue that exercised parliament was primarily taxation..
I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised to see how much you understand the players that be that led to the English Civil War. Is very refreshing to see, you drawing other sources other than a movie and coming to your own conclusion of what you saying or thinking of Oliver Cromwell. Also it is regicide that is the killing of a King.
Cromwell was better than the king. If the civil war never happened Cromwell was going to leave for America to re settle there. Charles 1st was a tiny man, less than 5 feet tall. As for Cromwell, he did some good but a lot of bad. I think it's difficult looking back and judging because we don't know what life was like back then. After the civil was the English people would not have a standing army of much size because it had been used to subdue the people. Its all interesting. Like a lot of politicians he was not any different from what he replaced.
According to Monty Python, King Charles I was 5 foot six inches at the beginning of his reign and only 4 foot 8 inches at the end of it.
We got rid of a tyrant to be replaced by a dictator.
Didn’t Cromwell cause the problem in Ireland when he killed the property and stole the land putting “planters” (thieves) in from England and Scotland
Breach of magnacarta
This clip is one of the big historical errors (well, not so much error as lie) in the film. Cromwell wasn't on the list of men to be arrested and so the big show down never happened. The men were John Hampden , Arthur Haselrig, Denzil Holles, John Pym, and William Strode. Cromwell simply was not prominent enough at that point to be worried about. The film also has him playing a significant role at the battle of Edgehill in 1642, the first battle of the wars, when in fact he and his troop of horse (which is all he commanded at the time) arrived too late to take part. Even by Naseby in 1645 he's only second in command to Sir Thomas Fairfax. The film is worth watching as a film, but it certainly rather over state's Cromwell's importance early on and is far from accurate, it's a good film, but don't treat it as evidence of anything.
One of the problems is that Cromwell goes on to be SO important that the shadow he casts obscures many other folk. I get frustrated when anything and every thing that happened between the death of Charles I and the Restoration is spoken of as "Cromwell did this or that..." there were other folk in England during the Commonwealth. I think Julie Peters is right, I don't think Cromwell sought ultimate power. Charles was executed and the Commonwealth declared in 1649, Cromwell doesn't become Lord Protector until the very end of 1653, when it was clear the current arrangements weren't working. Once he had power, well, "all power corrupts...".
This is a really interresting question and it isn't as easy as 'A King or a Republic'. The fact is that if Cromwell had lived 200 years later, we would look at him like Hitler! Yes, really... what he and his forces did in Ireland can only be described as genocide, and still: he is hailed as the first parliamentarian in British history, and is revered for that.The King (Charles II) was no angel, but the simplification (or dumb-ing down) of history, that 'King bad, Puritan good' is simply incorrect... and that comming from me, a Presbytarian (and thetefore by default belonging to the Cromwell camp). History, and especially historic individuals, are rarely all bad or all good and therefore, to glorify a person for one thing they did, while ignoring everything else, is to falsify history.
For example, we can all say (and learn in school) that Democracy started in Greece 500 B.C. because it was declaired' Rule by the people, it is every citizens responsibility to take part in government' but that did NOT include women or slaves... or even citizens with no means. So again, history must be seen in its context, because soundbites like 'Cromwell made Britain Democratic' is not only misleading, but often, as in this case, downright wrong.
Cromwell was not one of the five members that Charles tried to arrest in the house of commons. He was not that important at that time.
He only rose to power much later in the war through his military skills. The Kings considered that parliament was an advisary gathering not soveriegn. All legitimate power rested in the crown. It was a clique of radical puritans that took control of parliament & bullied out any moderate voices. At the same time there were royalists that encouraged the King to assert his authority. The radical faction as often in such revolutions enforced their will on the country through the army, because they were certain that they were right. Cromwell had all his opponents removed from the army & parliament, & put military governors in control of the country, under himself as Lord Protector.
He took all the powers & trappings of a king, he just did not use the title, but he was styled 'your majesty'. He forced taxes on the people harsher than those they had denied the King (for which they had started the civil wars). He conducted savage wars against the Scots
(who had actually ensured his victory against the King) , & his actions in Ireland were near genocidal, because it was Catholic.
People have called him principled , but his sympathy & interest was only in the faction that agreed with his puritan stance. Anyone of a different opinion than him was an enemy to be beaten into submission or slain, while many were deported to the colonies. These actions ultimately led to endless resentment in Ireland, & something akin to it in the West Indies & southern USA, which had consequences much later in time. He promoted wars against Spain, France, & even the Netherlands (the latter a fellow protestant nation) forcing taxes to build up the navy far greater than the ship money which parliament had objected to when asked for by the King.He had insisted on the King being executed as a 'tyrant', but his own dictatorship was far more severe.
Can’t stand Cromwell, he wanted to be a monarch with non of the restrictions. Branding himself as a lord protector. Constitutional monarchy in my view is the best form of government I have seen to date.
Like most human beings he had good and bad points.
Why did they ever let the Royals back ,big mistake for the ordinary people!!!
The country was ungovernable as a republic. The Restoration was a compromise solution.
This is not The King you're looking for.
Ha ha!
And the leader of Charles I's cavalry (Prince Rupert of the Rhine) was none other than 007 (Timothy Dalton).
In reality Charles didn’t have cromewell’s name on his list.
National hero who brought the monarchy to heel.
Boudica. Longshanks. Elisabeth the First. Cromwell.
Unfortunately Cromwell was a man who gained too much power and so as many do when that happens only his way was right, at the end of the civil war many things were voted on in order to re establish a stable society, unfortunately many things Cromwell did not want were not only denied but the people who put forward the proposals were hunted down tried and hung, many of the leading officers of the new model army proposed things that would prevent Cromwell's ambitions so they were quickly disposed of, some escaped and went to America taking their values with them, many of those values are written into the bill of rights, the civil war was a necessary event to end the power of the regent over the common folk and once it was successful England should have remained a republic, however the lords who controlled the parliament after Cromwell's death returned to what they knew in order to fill the vacuum, I believe now the monarchy should stay its mainly ceremonial and creates a lot of wealth, Cromwell was a thoroughly nasty piece of work, the levellers proposed that no Englishman should be forced against his will to fight on foreign soil, as I said not what Cromwell wanted so lots were hung, then Cromwell used the army to invade Ireland and the rest as they say is history.
Cromwell doesn't take his hat off nor stand....a bit like Corbyn.
Didn't like Cromwell and the people soon agreed.
Firstly, I didn't formerly study these times, I doubt many have outside Uni. But from what I've gathered, he's not exactly detested, I doubt many are fans of his reign, his absolute antipathy toward the monarchy and his dictatorial rule, and most are glad that the monarchy returned. But that said, his actions certainly precipitated a form of the far more egalitarian structure of British rule we know of today, where the monarchs power is 'checked' by a far more democratic parliamentary system. So as you might gather, I'm pretty much on the fence about Cromwell.
1:16 I think you meant _Fourth Wall Break._ So named because a stage has three walls, and the audience. It was meant in this film. Cromwell addresses the audience at the end.
I thought Felipe was referring to the Bar of the House, beyond which the monarch is not permitted.
@@davemac1197 From the editing, it seemed to me that he was drawing attention to Richard Harris looking directly at camera.
@@carlhartwell7978 - just watched that part again, and Felipe does say "he looks at the camera", but that's a technique to tell the audience that something important has just happened, or about to happen here. I think Richard Harris looks into the camera more than once in this film and computer tells me it was before the battle of Naseby to give a speech that was actually given by a knight on the Royalist side, so a historical inaccuracy but also a theatrical device to have a leading character inform the audience.
@@davemac1197 You're basically elaborating on my comment, I was merely correcting Phillipe saying '...he breaks the 3rd barrier' I've never heard that term, only fourth wall break. That was all, I know it was meant in the film. I know Harris addresses the audience in the film. For all I know _3rd barrier_ is what Americans call it, I''m open to correction on that, but it would surprise me.
He was an evil evil man
Like most poeple, some good, some bad, but you take a too broader brush in your criticism which is negatively loop sided. You need your wife back again to sweeten you up a bit.
I was never a Cromwell fan, he was too puritanical, for me it was a bad period in British history , and I think the people felt the same after the execution of the King and saw where his rule was leading .
The whole time period was a mess, nothing can be done to change it. Just have to accept it as a fact. Was it legal or protocol? Ask Jacob Rees Mogg.
what the king did was illegal, all the king had to do to not be executed, was to accept parliment, and not say he was the king my divine right.
I thought you might have appreciated the religious aspect of Cromwell.
What's your next one gonna be hitler villain or hero..Cromwell was a monster
Your assessment of Oliver Cromwell is superficial and simplistic and completely fails to take account of the historical context. It is virtually axiomatic that a period of profound social, political and economic upheaval (whether Revolution or Civil War) creates the need for a strong leader. The French Revolution created Napoleon, the Russian Revolution created Stalin and the English Civil War created Cromwell. In America Abraham Lincoln was accused of being a tyrant - "Sic semper tyrannis" (John Wilkes Booth).
I want a republic and English men to be up full and rigtus, look at tge royals a joke ,look at tge house of parkerment full of bs
20 April 1653, London, England
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!
I used to be pro Cromwell, now I'm not.
I used to think he was a democrat and a Man of the People.But he was a Puritan and intellectual ancestor of the crazy (woke)left of the English Speaking world.(And I think most insane versions of this category are in the United States pushing out critical theory etc)
me neither i agree with you
I am not a religious person i look at all of them a cult although you are religious that is up to you
i signed a oath to the queen i will gladly accept it and respect it
i am not a socialist or a tory but i do like tory views to a extent
i have morals and understanding to defend and protect myself or others in the family
but if they do serious wrong and known to have done it they are on their own.