To Kill a King - an Act of Regicide
The trial of Charles I began on January 20th 1649 in Westminster Hall. The public were allowed access to the trial. 135 commissioners were appointed as judges and John Bradshaw, an inexperienced judge, was President of the Court.
After Pride's Purge, it was difficult to assemble a Court to judge Charles as many stayed away from Westminster and many did not want to be associated with the trial of the Kind. Fairfax, although a leader of the NMA, only attended one meeting on the trial of Charles. When his name was called to register attendance at the trial, there was silence - his wife, who was in one of the public galleries, shouted "he hath more wit then to be here."
Only 68 out of the 135 commissioners attended the trial - with only 59 signing the death warrant.
- This suggests how radical the commissioners must have thought the event was. Also, there was also the possibility of one of Charles' sons or a member of the royal family becoming monarch again and the people who had allowed the execution of Charles would be hunted down, tried and executed themselves for treason.
Charles was tried for crimes against his people and the laws of England. It was claimed that Charles had attacked the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom and also banned the people from their traditional right to government.
Charles complained about these charges, due to the fact that the legality of the trial was in question. The Rump Parliament was different as it was biased and did not support the King, plus the fact that it had not been elected. Charles questioned their right to judge him as they were not a legitimate authority and they had no right to put the King to trial.
January 30th - Charles' public execution
Before his death, Charles' last speech declared that he had fought for the liberties of the people and declared himself a "martyr of the people."
After Charles' execution, some reports suggest that there was a stunned silence at the moment of execution. One 17 year old boy in the crowd at Whitehall recorded that the execution was met with "such a groan as I have never heard before, and desire I may never hear again." Similar views were repeated as one man claimed no king "ever left the world with more sorrow: women miscarried; men fell into melancholy."
Was the Trial of Charles I always meant to end in Execution?
Yes
- Many believe that Charles was responsible for two wars and this was his justice. He needed to be removed so there would be no more Royalists uprisings.
- The NMA's success during the Civil Wars was seen as "God's providence" (God's doing) he was meant to be punished. Coward states that religious zeal pushed Cromwell to execute Charles.
- The intransigent settlement negotiations had gone on for too long. Coward saw Charles as "blocking future peace" and "had to executed"
- Pride's Purge appears to be calculated - Charles was going to suffer a punishment
- Kishlanksy states that in the weeks before the trial began "there was no turning back."
No
- Settlement period was hugely unsuccessful due to Charles. Some saw the impending trial as a way to force Charles into settlement, not to remove him. Many MPs felt pressured into appearing as commissioners - execution was not the only option
- Starkey - the death warrant of Charles suggests there was indecision over the event. Starkey refers to the corrections made to the document - the date had been changed twice and the original executioner refused to be involved, so names were altered.
0 comments:
Post a Comment