1649: Charles I

On this date in 1649, the struggle between parliament and crown cost the Stuart monarch Charles I his head.

Charles‘ political clumsiness and unreconstructed authoritarianism had seen the realm whose unitary sovereignty he insisted upon blunder from disaster to disaster: into bankruptcy, military defeat, religious conflict and the English Civil War.

The assignation of cause and consequence in that war’s genesis has much exercised historians.

What is beyond dispute is that the confrontation between monarch and subject, pitting against each other political and economic epochs, theories of state and power, rates as one of history’s most captivating courtroom dramas.

Charles refused to answer the court’s charge of treason, occasioned most particularly by the king’s fomenting the Second Civil War while already a defeated prisoner of parliament following the first Civil War. He rested firmly on royal prerogatives against what some interlocutors take to be an almost desperate plea by his judges for some hint of acknowledgment that could open the door to compromise:

[A] King cannot be tried by any superior jurisdiction on earth. But it is not my case alone — it is the freedom and the liberty of the people of England. And do you pretend what you will, I stand more for their liberties — for if the power without law may make laws, may alter the fundamental laws of the kingdom, I do not know what subject he is in England that can be sure of his life or anything that he calls his own. Therefore, when that I came here I did expect particular reasons to know by what law, what authority, you did proceed against me here.

It must be borne in mind that the trial of a king was a completely unprecedented event. Charles might be forgiven his attitude, even if it smacked of the impolitic high-handedness that had forced this deadly test of powers.

Parliament’s position — here in the words of its President — is distinctly in the stream of political discourse (if not always actual practice) ascendant in the West to this day.

Sir, as the law is your superior, so truly, sir, there is something that is superior to the law and that is indeed the parent or author of the law — and that is the people of England.

And therefore, sir, for this breach of trust when you are called to account, you are called to account by your superiors — “when a king is summoned to judgment by the people, the lesser is summoned by the greater.”

The modern and the medieval, facing each other at the bar.

A fragment from a World War II bomb-damaged and only-recently-rediscovered Hippolyte Delaroche painting situating Charles in the Christlike pose of enduring the mockery of his captors.

Charles played his lordly disdain to the end, refusing to admit parliament’s jurisdiction by making any sort of plea.

The line between heroic defiance and pig-headed obstinacy being very much in the eye of the beholder, the confrontation is typically played straight-up for its arresting clash of principles — as in the 1970 biopic Cromwell, with Alec Guinness as the monarch:Probably more troubling for the parliamentary party than the regicide taboo was consideration that the execution would transfer royalist loyalties from a man safely imprisoned to an heir beyond their power, who could be expected to (as in fact he did) resume the civil war.

Competing philosophies expounded for the competing interests; the dispute involved the era’s intellectual titans, in conflict over the most fundamental concepts of the state. Thomas Hobbes wrote his magnum opus The Leviathan as a royalist exile in Paris, and its abhorrence for rebellion and divided sovereignty unmistakably reflects the English Civil War experience. John Milton earned his bread as a republican polemicist; his poetic celebration of Satan’s failed rebellion in Paradise Lost, written after the Stuart restoration, can be read as a political critique.

Separated at the block? Charles I and Hobbes’ Leviathan

It’s conventionally thought that the beheading was conducted by a radical minority, though that supposition is debatable, colored as it is by the ultimate restoration of the crown. But although England would have a king again, the weight of political authority would steadily, permanently, gravitate towards parliament, organ of the merchant classes who would steer England henceforward.

Did it have the right? Two implacable powers each claimed an indivisible object; “between equal rights, force decides.” So on this cold winter’s afternoon — Charles wore thick undergarments, so he would not shiver with the appearance of fright — the deposed king was marched to a scaffold erected at Whitehall. He gave a short final address, with the famous words for his principle of martyrdom — “a sovereign and a subject are clean different things” — then laid his head on a low block, where a masked executioner (never definitively identified) cleanly chopped it off.

After the monarchy’s restoration, Charles was canonized as a saint by the Church of England: he’s still the last person so venerated, an odd salute to a mortal career of unalloyed arrogance and incompetence. Observance of the cult was toned down in the 19th century, although a Society of King Charles the Martyr dedicated to its preservation still exists; monarchists of a more secular inclination also continue to mark his martyrdom on this anniversary.

Less reverent by far was Monty Python’s homage:

“The most interesting thing about King Charles the First is that he was five foot six inches tall at the start of his reign, but only four foot eight inches tall at the end of it.”

Part of the Themed Set: The English Reformation.

On this day..

34 thoughts on “1649: Charles I

  1. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1655: Jane Hopkins, Bermuda’s last known witch execution

  2. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1600: The corpses of John and Alexander Ruthven, for the Gowrie conspiracy

  3. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1756: Four members of the Swedish Hovpartiet

  4. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1738: Katherine Garret, Pequot infanticide

  5. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1662: John Barkstead, Miles Corbet, and John Okey, renditioned regicides

  6. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » Themed Set: The Medical Gaze

  7. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1697: John Fenwick, bitter

  8. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1655: Henry Manning, Protectorate spy

  9. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1685: Dame Alice Lisle, first victim of the Bloody Assizes

  10. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1649: Robert Lockyer, Leveller

  11. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1677: William Drummond, for Bacon’s Rebellion

  12. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1672: Cornelis and Johan de Witt lynched

  13. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1680: La Voisin, poisoner to the stars

  14. Pingback: Dead Men Talking « Daly Stew

  15. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1641: Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford

  16. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1623: Amboyna Massacre

  17. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1554: Lady Jane Grey, the Nine Days’ Queen

  18. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1661: Thomas Venner and the Fifth Monarchy Men

  19. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » Themed Set: Resistance and Rebellion in the Restoration

  20. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1645: William Laud, given to the devil

  21. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » Daily Double: John Hothams

  22. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1624: Marco Antonio de Dominis, posthumously

  23. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1540: Thomas Cromwell

  24. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1649: John Poyer, the lucky winner

  25. Pingback: Damn you Cromwell! | Web News Directory

  26. Pingback: The execution of Charles I - a mini blog carnival « Mercurius Politicus

  27. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1661: Oliver Cromwell, posthumously

  28. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1685: James Scott, Duke of Monmouth

  29. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » Nine Executed People Who Make Great Halloween Costumes

  30. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1660: Major-General Thomas Harrison, the first of the regicides

  31. Pingback: ExecutedToday.com » 1918: Tsar Nicholas II and his family

  32. P.S Thanks for the fim clip. I went to see it was a equally history fanatic friend, and we wept throughout most of the film ! Alex Guiness was marvellous, but Cromwell wasn’t a quarter as handsome as Richard Harris!

  33. I’m not sure how I feel about this. I’m a history graduate and specialised in this period in UK and European history at this time (and the French Revolution). Have you heard of Sellars and Yeatman, Headsman? They wrote a famous “Brief Study” of UK history as people remembered it, so it was all jumbled up and quite crazy! They christened the Cavaliers “Wrong but Wromantic” and the Puritans “Right but Repulsive”, and I feel much the same. However, legalistically, Charles was a fool to think he could emulate Elizabeth and to proclaim “The divine Right of Kings” – if there was one, his brother Henry should have been king, not him. He drove a coach and horses through UK rights and privileges by ruling without Parliament and imposition of various illegal taxes (much like the American Revolution, really) . So the Wromantic side of me loves the Van Dyke “Happy Families” paintings of the Royal family at that time, and the hardheaded bit says he asked for what he got!

Comments are closed.