How accurate was this movie in portraying Charlie as being the victim of his c*thtard wife as an agent of her father? Was there ever any possibility that Charlie could have told her to shut the fuck up and joined with Cromwell to launch a Protestant putsch against England's c*thtard enemies? And if he had, how likely was the rest of continental Europe to run a train on him like they did Napoleon in retaliation?
>>18003449kill yourself, protestant scum.
>>18003463You first you popish wretch
>>18003463>>18003466NOO YOUR RELIGION IS 1% DIFFERENT THAN MINE I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL YOU WORTHLESS HERETIC!!!!!
>>18003449Despite his love for his wife and his permissiveness in allowing her to practice her religion, Charlie I was never going to become Catholic himself. He never was going to force England or Scotland to become Catholic. The religious disagreements really came down to Presbyterianism and Puritanism vs Episcopalian Anglicanism. So, it was (in very simplified and retarded language) a case of democratic and more radical Protestantism vs autocratic and more moderate Protestantism. Yes, Catholics did generally support Charlie, but that was because he was moderate, his wife was Catholic, and the Catholics were more conservative (therefore sterner supporters of monarchy). Even with this, people didn’t neatly fall into these camps based on their religion. The threat of real Popery coming from Charlie I was mostly propaganda. Now, it could be argued that there were Catholic-like elements in Charlie’s Protestantism, but it simply was not Catholicism. The radical Protestants opposing Charlie just didn’t want any elements of Popery in their Christianity across the board. So anything that was similar drove them crazy, and then trying to force these things on them made them incredibly angry. Thus how it all really started with Charlie trying to force his prayer book on the Scottish church.
>>18003523And to answer your first question OP, I love that movie, but Charlie really only has himself to blame. His wife influenced him, but no more than any other queen consort did their husbands. It also portrays him acting in a way deserving more sympathy than he did real life. He could be petulant.
>>18003449>How accurate was this movie in portraying Charlie as being the victim of his c*thtard wife as an agent of her father?I would say the film might be leaning a bit much into making her so domineering over Charles. But it is accurate in the sense that she agitated for more Catholic tolerance, and that Charles was willing to allow that.
Some historians argue she influenced Charles in ways that seemed pro-Catholic, but portraying her as a full-blown agent of her father is an exaggeration.
