After nearly seven years at war, Charles I remained as inflexible and unable to compromise with Parliament as ever. On 20th January, 1649, the King was put on trial by Parliament in the ancient Westminster Hall.
The charges against Charles included high treason, specifically waging war against the realm and betraying the trust of the people.
He was found guilty of this treason and on 30th January 1649, the King was executed outside of Banqueting House.
Background to the English Civil War
A loving and faithful husband, a fond father, and an intelligent, art-loving Monarch, Charles had a strong sense of duty. However, he was incredibly shy, stubborn, and sensitive to criticism and disagreement; compromise was simply a foreign word to him, but this shyness also made him appear arrogant.
This personality, set against the context of the kingdom he inherited, ended up being a lethal cocktail…
The English Civil War, which began in 1642, was fought after a series of political battles between the King and Parliament. Charles had quite the ego, believing in the Divine Right of Kings: he was God’s representative on earth, and was answerable only to Him. To disagree or disobey the King was to disobey God himself.
But Parliament had begun to assert its rights, and those of the people, which had evolved slowly over the centuries since Magna Carta; they believed England should function as a democracy.
Compounding this tension was the fact that the royal coffers to run the country was almost-always empty, and Parliament were the ones who could approve taxes to give the King money…
The King believed in his inherent right to rule unimpeded and without Parliament. Charles ruled without Parliament for 11 years, having repeatedly clashed over multiple issues. But the things that put them on the path to war included:
-
Legally dubious raising of funds
- The Forced Loan
- Without money, and Parliament not looking likely to assist, Charles compelled his wealthy subjects to ‘loan’ him money. Refusal meant imprisonment, and the infamous case of the Five Knights – the nobles who refused to pay, and for whom the court found in favour.
- Ship Money
- Charles asked for Ship Money from his people in 1628 because her was short of money, and Parliament refused to grant levies until he heard their concerns. This was not an uncommon practice – in fact James I had done the same, without issue – but it was another example of the King ploughing ahead with his plans, critics be damned.
- The tax was one of few financial avenues that was solely at the Monarch’s discretion, levied to support the navy, normally in times of war and in the coastal counties. But there was no war in 1628, he demanded it of some inland counties too, and its enforcement was legally dubious – contested by some MPs themselves, who were jailed for refusal.
- The Forced Loan
-
Defending the Duke of Buckingham
- The King was staunchly defensive of his favourite, George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. A likely lover of his father’s, Villiers had the ear of the new King from the off, as his closest friend and effective first minister.
- Parliament saw Buckingham as the chief issue – the Duke was pushing for war with Spain, and had allowed various expensive and disastrous missions to go ahead, out of some kind of misguided desire to support European Protestants (and what seems to be a hero complex). If Villiers went away, then all would be well again with the King… But Charles was steadfast and refused to allow Buckingham to be impeached, or blamed by Parliament.
- Incidentally, the Ship Money Charles demanded was for one of Buckingham’s damnable missions…
-
Angering Protestants across the nation
- Charles was Anglican, a Protestant through and through. But he preferred Arminianism – a strand of Anglicanism that emphasised ‘holiness in beauty’, and was often interpreted to include the decoration of churches, the use of candles, stained glass, music and ornate vestments for the clergy – this reflected God’s majesty appropriately. This sort of high church religious practice, however, was anathema to the a large part of the population, as it reeked of thinly-veiled Catholicism – a scourge of the Earth.
- But by 1637, Charles had decided to impose these elaborate practices in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; this meant they were a low church, which focused on the word of God and removed anything that could be distracting of that – including decoration. The Bishops’ Wars broke out three years later, between Charles’ men and the Covenanters, the new Scottish government which swore to protect its religion. It was the peace negotiated with the Scots that meant the King had to recall Parliament, to ratify the treaty….
-
Ignoring long-standing rights and precedents
- The Five Members – The King attempted arrested a handful of MPs whilst Parliament was sitting in 1642, in blatant defiance of the rights of representatives. Charles sought to quiet five leading MPs: John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, Arthur Haselrig, William Strode, for treason, but they had been warned and fled. Charles I entered the House of Commons, accompanied by armed soldiers, and noting their absence, famously said: ‘I see the birds have flown’. It was shortly after this particular incident that the King left London, realising he had lost all control of MPs, and that the mood in the city had shifted against him.
Relations deteriorated, and the King refused to back down. In August 1642, Charles rallied troops and raised his standard at Nottingham Castle, beginning the conflict that would lead to his death…
Did you know…? The Duke of Buckingham became universally hated following his disastrous attempts at foreign policy. He was stabbed to death by a disgruntled soldier in Portsmouth, ahead of setting out on another mission to save European Protestants in August 1628…
The Civil War begins
Initially the north and west of England, together with much of Ireland, supported Charles I, while the southeast, including London, the Royal Navy, and Scotland, chose Parliament’s side. The Presbyterian Scots were most annoyed at the religious practices the King supported, while the Navy had not been paid for months.
Did you know…? This attempted arrest of sitting MPs is the reason that the Monarch can no longer enter the House of Commons and during the State Opening of Parliament, send Black Rod to summon the Commons.
The Royalists began the war well, their cavalry remaining undefeated for nearly two years, until 1644.
Gradually, the Parliamentarians however, with Oliver Cromwell at the helm, began to gain the upper hand through new military tactics and planning, in what became the bloodiest war ever fought in England.
The Battle of Naseby in June 1645, which saw the defeat of the Royalist army, became a turning point. More defeats followed, and Parliament gained momentum in its victories.
But fighting dragged on until 1649, and Charles’ heir, the future Charles II, continued attempting to regain his kingdom until 1651 (two years after his father’s execution).
The story might ring familiar: Parliament offered multiple opportunities to end the conflict. They simply wanted Charles to engage in earnest discussion, and hear their concerns fairly. They wanted him to agree that their rights would be upheld and not be overruled by the King, and that he would give real consideration to their concerns, in line with the law and precedent of English Parliaments.
Charles continually refused to negotiate, believing the Parliamentarians were unable to negotiate with a God-appointed Monarch.
Did you know…? It is rumoured that the nursery rhyme, Humpty Dumpty, comes from the English Civil War. A cannon with the same name was used by the Royalists during the Siege of Colchester – but its roots are dubious and is likely not a contemporary rhyme.
In 1646, the King was imprisoned and put under house arrest in the old Tudor royal apartments at Hampton Court Palace, from where he famously escaped.
He was soon recaptured and kept prisoner at Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight. His imprisonment throughout was, however, comfortable: he had staff, wrote letters, could exercise in the grounds.
Despite the many opportunities presented, the King refused to repent and seek a negotiated peace. He stubbornly refused to accept defeat or submit to the republican authority.
The trial of Charles I
The 46 MPs who remained after Pride’s Purge – an act which removed those who were not loyal to the Parliamentary cause in 1648 – became known as the Rump. A petition from the New Model Army, known as the Remonstrance, came in November 1648, and called for the King to be put on trial as ‘the capital and grand author of all [the country’s] troubles’.
The army at that time was led by Thomas Fairfax, but had fast become a force to be reckoned, with beyond the battlefield; high-ranking republican, Puritan soldiers began dictating the political direction of Parliament’s cause.
The Rump agreed, and indicted the King on a charge of treason, which was rejected by the House of Lords.
The three Chief Justices of the common law courts of England all opposed the indictment as unlawful, since the justice system – and all arms of government – functioned in the Sovereign’s name, and Parliament had no judicial function.
Despite the supposed committed status of its Rump members, only 26 MPs agreed to put the King on trial.
The Rump passed an act on 4 January 1649 to establish the High Court of Justice, asserting the court’s authority over Charles I, without the need for royal assent, effectively declaring itself capable of legislating alone.
The trial began on 20 January 1649 in Westminster Hall, and this version of the High Court of Justice was comprised of 135 commissioners. Many either refused to serve or chose to stay away, not wanting to be affiliated with it.
Fewer than 70 showed, and Fairfax fled, resigning his position. He was replaced as commander-in-chief by Cromwell.
John Bradshaw was appointed Lord President of the court (the MP with the highest judicial position that could be persuaded to preside over such unprecedented proceedings) the week before, and the prosecution was led by the Solicitor General, John Cook.
Bradshaw chose to wear a bullet-proof hat during the trial.
The indictment stated that Charles I was guilty of the ‘accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented’.
These ‘wicked designs, wars, and evil practices […] have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to [Charles] and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation’.
The charges additionally held the King ‘guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby.’ Charles, they argued, in his refusal to negotiate, caused all of the death and destruction in the country.
The King refused to submit a plea, repeatedly questioning the authority of the court; he mocked its judges and scorning the MPs who presumed to be in control. Charles explained that if the court could answer that question to his satisfaction, he would then enter a plea.
Bradshaw seemed surprised by this question and replied that the court sat in the name of ‘the people of England’. The answer was not to the King’s liking and the court – which began on a Saturday – was adjourned til Monday.
The trial continued.
On Monday and Tuesday, both days ended with no progress, only further arguments about the authority of the court.
On Wednesday (24th), witnesses were heard in private, delivering their evidence against the King.
With the King’s refusal to engage, and the evidence that was heard, a judgment was reached and a sentence passed. On Saturday 27 January 1649, the High Court of Justice – which had been called in Parliament’s name – declared King Charles I guilty of treason.
They said the King was ‘guilty of levying war against the Parliament and people […] and that he hath been and is the occasioner, author and continuer of v unnatural, cruel and bloody wars, and therein guilty of high treason […] for which the court doth adjudge that he, the said Charles Stuart, as a tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy to the good people of this nation, shall be put to death by the severing of his head from his body’.
59 of the 65 commissioners signed the death warrant, possibly being coerced by Cromwell.
Charles’ fate was sealed: the King was to be executed.
The Rump and army had wanted a trial to vindicate their actions, showing the man Charles was and laying bare his mistakes. But Bradshaw had refused to allow Charles to speak after his conviction; in conjunction with guards stationed at the entrance to Parliament, turning away those who disagreed with it or would not support the Rump, added to the impression of it being a mere show trial with a predetermined outcome.
Historians John Morrill and Philip Baker explain that Oliver Cromwell had certainly made up his mind that the King needed to be removed as early as 1647, at the time of the Putney Debates (the first democratic debates held in England). However, there was no suggestion that abolition of Monarchy or the regicide was on the table at that time.
But just over a year dealing with a stubborn King had changed all that…
Charles’ imprisonment
Charles I was given three days to put his affairs in order and say goodbye to his family. After the trial he was taken to the Palace of Whitehall, where he refused to see anyone but his children and his chaplain, Bishop Juxon.
The next day the King was moved to St James’s Palace, where much of his vast collection of art remained, but was awaiting sale, the Parliamentarians determined to raise money and erase the Monarchy.
He was due to go to Whitehall again for the night of his execution, but the Rump had been kind enough to consider that the noise of the erection of the scaffold outside Banqueting House would have been disconcerting for the condemned King.
And so they had him stay at St James’s instead. Charles would be escorted to Whitehall on the morning of his death.
Charles spent his time writing to those he loved and praying. In particular he wrote imploring letters to James, Duke of York (his second son) begging him not to allow himself to be used by his enemies: the King suspected Parliament might try to make one of his younger sons agree to take the throne ahead of the Prince of Wales (future Charles II) in order to shape a post-regicide world to their liking.
To his heir, Charles, he wrote a last will and testament. The passionate 5000-word plea asked the young Royal to stand by the church, and to withstand that ‘devil of Reformation [that] doth commonly turn himself into an angel of reformation‘, telling him there was no need for many of these changes requested by the Puritans.
‘Above all I would have you, as I hope you are already, well-grounded and settled in your religion, the best profession of which I have ever esteemed that of the Church of England … as coming nearest to God’s word for doctrine and to the primitive examples for government.’
He also asked his son for justice, after preserving the church, knowing his fate had been sealed: ‘When you have done justice by God, your own soul and His Church in the profession and preservation of truth and unity in religion, the next main hinge on which your prosperity will depend and move, is civil justice.‘
Charles asked the Prince to uphold the ‘settled laws‘; he talked of his downfall being caused by his weakness in failing to protect the church and the rule of law from ‘the rough hours of men’s covetous and ambitious designs,’ having not spotted ‘the wolves in sheeps’ clothing‘.
‘At worst, I trust I shall go before you to a better kingdom, which God hath prepared for me, and me for it, through my Saviour Jesus Christ, to whose mercy I commend you, and all mine. Farewell, till we meet, if not on earth, yet in Heaven.’
He also said sad farewells to his two youngest children, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, aged nine, and Princess Elizabeth, who was 11. The pair were still in the country, unlike the remainder of the royal group.
His wife, Henrietta Maria had fled abroad earlier in the war, and James, Duke of York, had recently joined her in Paris. The Queen had written to Fairfax and the army in early January, pleading to see her husband, but her letters remained unopened and unanswered. Charles, Prince of Wales, was at The Hague with his sister, Mary, who was married to the leader of the Dutch, the Prince of Orange.
Charles told them not to grieve, and that they should obey their elder brother Charles, who would be the lawful sovereign. Henry promised he would be torn limb from limb before he accepted the crown ahead of the Prince of Wales.
Elizabeth cried hysterically when she realised she would not see her father again, and it is thought Charles tried hard to hide his own tears. “Sweetheart, you will forget this,” came the consoling words to his daughter. The young Royal recorded every detail in her diary that evening.
Charles was delivered a blank sheet of paper, signed by the Prince of Wales. This was so that the King’s enemies could fill in the paper with any conditions they wished, in return for Charles I’s life. “The King, who, with an appreciative smile at his son’s efforts on his behalf, burnt it, determined to make no further concessions to his enemies, even to save his own life,” writes Graham Edwards.
Charles I on the scaffold – the execution:
The following morning, Tuesday 30th January, had been set for the execution date. The time was originally planned for early morning, but it had to be delayed as an ordinance was rushed through to make it treason for anyone to proclaim a successor to King Charles I.
The Scots, for whom Charles was also King, shared their shock at the trial and sentence, and the Dutch sent two respected ambassadors to protest the trial and sentence, but to no avail. Parliament deliberately held off meeting with them until it was too late.
Historian Richard Bonney suggests that the French, Spanish and Dutch monarchies were largely non-reactive to the events, it being more politically expedient to allow the Rump to continue its activities. Indeed, after the regicide, most European countries officially recognised the Protectorate – Spain was the first to do so – and few gave any true support to Charles II to help restore his line.
The Dutch people did, however, make the life of the Commonwealth’s representative, Walter Strickland, very difficult, but no countries were keen to break off relations with the new republic. It is likely they were concerned at how best to play the situation to their advantage. The Portuguese, who had been close allies to Charles I during the Civil War, even delivering messages to Europe on the King’s behalf, were cautious in proceeding, but did have the whole royal house go into official mourning after Charles’ death. The Danes also offered the young new King money for his cause, but the revenue soon dried up.
The 10-year-old French King, Louis XIV, wrote to Parliament at the time of the trial, offering rich reward if they restored Charles I to the throne, but this too was ignored.
Embed from Getty Images
Charles I’s blue silk vest worn on the day of his execution
The King dressed for the bitter winter weather, that had seen the Thames freeze: two shirts, so that he wouldn’t shiver, and have people think he was fearful. His waistcoat featured red, silver and gold brocade, while the cap he was to wear had a turned back edge, decorated with embroidered scrolls of fruit and flowers. The remainder of his outfit was black, but not to mark mourning.
Charles also wore his Order of the Garter St George, on its vivid blue ribbon, the diamond-heavy Garter star, and his usual pearl earrings surmounted with a crown.
Charles and Bishop Juxon prayed, with the Bishop reading Matthew:27 to the King, recounting Jesus’ own trial and execution. This was not chosen because of the circumstances, but as the appropriate reading for the calendar.
He had gifted his heir his own Bible, with many personal annotations from the King, while Herbert, Charles’ attendant, was given the silver clock that had accompanied him throughout his imprisonment.
Having spent the night at St James’s Palace, Charles was joined by Juxon and Herbert on the walk across St James’s Park at 10am. The King was wrapped in a black cloak, guarded on all sides. Loud drum beats rang out as the journey continued.
He was taken to his bedchamber in Whitehall Palace, to await summons to the scaffold, which had been erected outside the hall, the floor and railings covered in a black cloth, marking the sombre occasion but also preventing true witnesses to the event.
The location was complete with manacles and restraints, should the King resist.
In the final moments before the execution, the Rump were still looking for a willing executioner. Men from various senior New Model Army regiments had been offered £100 and an immediate promotion should they volunteer for the office, but none were forthcoming.
They then turned to the local executioner, Richard Brandon, who refused but was taken to Whitehall nonetheless. Brandon only seems to have complied after he was arrested, with various threats being made against his life, Edwards claims. An assistant was conjured up for the job.
The final call came at 10am. Charles walked through the great hall of Banqueting House, beneath the Rubens ceiling painting, ironic, considering it celebrated the divine principle of the Divine Right of Kings which got him into this situation.
He exited the building from a tall window (the second from the north side, according to Muddiman) onto the scaffold at the same level, wearing a nightcap over his hair.
Charles managed to speak, but the crowds were kept away from the scaffold by swathes of soldiers, meaning many wouldn’t have heard him, something he acknowledged: “I shall be very little heard of anybody here. I shall therefore speak a word unto you here.”
He read from notes on a piece of paper, calling himself ‘the martyr of the people‘ – a King who was to die in preserving their liberties, by upholding a God-given form of government, and protecting it from self-interested men (the Parliamentarians) who had forgotten that ‘a subject and a sovereign are clear different things‘.
You can read his full speech here.
The King removed his cloak, and informed the executioners, wearing false masks to hide their identities, that he would lie down and say a prayer. He would then give the signal that he was ready for the axe by putting out both his arms.
“I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown; where no disturbance can be, no disturbance in the world.”
King Charles I on the scaffold to Bishop Juxon
He queried with the executioner: “Does my hair trouble you?” He was asked to put all the hair under his cap, revealing his neck; the executioner and Bishop Juxon helped the King with the task.
Turning to Juxon, Charles said: “I have a good cause, and a gracious God on my side.”
After a pause, the King lay down with his head on the block; he stretched out his hand, and the axe fell, the executioner severing his head in one clean blow. Richard Brandon was skilled, apparently never needing to strike more than once.
Charles was killed just before 2pm, and his head showed to the crowds, who groaned at the sight. London, who had taken Parliament’s side in the war sympathised with the Monarch, upon hearing the death penalty had been chosen.
Some reports have the executioner dropping Charles’ head into the crowd, which allowed observers – mainly soldiers – to dip handkerchiefs in the King’s blood, and cut off locks of his hair as mementoes of the historic occasion.
The blood-soaked scaffold was also torn apart for pieces to sell.
I will be bold to say (which I hope God guides my hand to write) This High Court hath cut off the head of a Tyrant, and they have done well; undoubtedly it is the best action that they ever did in all their lives, a matter of pure envy, not hatred, for never shall or can any men in this Nation, promerit so much Honor as these have done, by any execution of Justice comparable to this; and in so doing, they have pronounced sentence not onely against one Tyrant, but Tyranny it self;
Prosecutor John Cook on the execution of Charles I
Prosecutor Cook declared the act a ‘sentence not only against one tyrant but against tyranny it self’.
The execution of Charles I is remembered every year on 30 January with a service in the Banqueting House and a bust of the King can be seen on the exterior of the building. The inscription reads: ‘His majesty King Charles I passed through this hall and out of a window nearly over this tablet to the scaffold in Whitehall where he was beheaded on 30th January 1649’.
The cult of Charles the Martyr:
Those responsible for Charles’ execution recognised the hazard of creating a martyr, and so forbade his burial in Westminster, and – having arranged for the head to be sewn back onto the body – sent the royal corpse to Windsor, where it was buried in early February in St George’s Chapel. While a traditional royal venue, its location within the confines of Windsor Castle (now controlled by Parliament) meant it could not become a shrine.
However, for decades after his death, in loyalist circles, Charles I was viewed as a martyr. He has been seen as a God-like figure being executed by his enemies, as Jesus had been.
The creation of this cult was a means by which royalists could console themselves and come to terms with the events.
The Eikon Basilike, a pamphlet of the King’s thoughts on religion and government, was published shortly after Charles’ death and was a huge success. It was printed 40 times in 1649 alone, and a further 20 editions were published on the continent in foreign languages.
Upon his Restoration in 1660, Charles II utilised the image of his father as a martyr to help reestablish his authority after the Protectorate: if Charles I had been the crucified Jesus, then Charles II was the resurrected Christ, returned to save his people.
Sources:
-
- Cook, John (1649) King Charls, his case, or, An appeal to all rational men concerning his tryal at the High Court of Justice : being for the most part that which was intended to have been delivered at the bar, if the king had pleaded to the charge, and put himself upon a fair tryal : with an additional opinion concerning the death of King James, the loss of Rochel, and the blood of Ireland. London: Printed by Peter Cole for Giles Calvert 1649
- Edwards, Graham (1999), The Last Days of Charles I, Stroud: Sutton Publishing
- Kishlansky, Mark A., and John Morrill. “Charles I (1600–1649), king of England, Scotland, and Ireland.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 23 Sep. 2004
- Morgan, Basil. “Brandon, Richard (d. 1649), common hangman and probable executioner of Charles I.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 23 Sep. 2004
- Peacey, Jason (ed) (2001), The Regicides and the Execution of Charles I,
- Wedgwood, C. V. “European Reaction to the Death of Charles I.” The American Scholar 34, no. 3 (1965): 431-46
