Marriage of Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland and Henrietta Maria de Bourbon of France.

Tags

1st Duke of Buckingham, Charles I of England, Charles Stuart, George Villiers, Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, Infanta Maria Anna of Spain, James I of England, James VI of Scotland, Princess Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon, Roman Catholic Church

Charles (November 19, 1600 – January 30, 1649) was King of England, King of Scotland, and King of Ireland from March 27, 1625 until his execution in 1649. Charles was born into the House of Stuart as the second son of King James VI of Scotland, but after his father inherited the English throne in 1603 (as James I), he moved to England, where he spent much of the rest of his life. He became heir apparent to the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1612 on the death of his elder brother Henry-Frederick, Prince of Wales.

Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland

In 1620, Charles’s brother-in-law, King Friedrich V of Bohemia was defeated at the Battle of White Mountain near Prague and his hereditary lands in the Electoral Palatinate were invaded by a Habsburg force from the Spanish Netherlands. James I-VI, however, had been seeking marriage between the new Prince of Wales and Ferdinand’s niece, Habsburg princess, Infanta Maria-Anna of Spain, and began to see the Spanish match as a possible diplomatic means of achieving peace in Europe.

Infanta Maria-Anna of Spain was the daughter of King Felipe III of Spain and Archduchess Margaret of Austria. Archduchess Margaret was the daughter of Archduke Charles II of Austria and Maria-Anna of Bavaria and thus the paternal granddaughter of the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I. Her elder brother was the Archduke Ferdinand, who succeeded as Emperor in 1619.

Initially in adolescence she was betrothed to Archduke Johann-Charles, eldest son and heir of Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor and his first wife Maria-Anna of Bavaria. Her fiance was her first cousin, being the son of her mother’s brother. The marriage never took place due to Archduke Johann-Charles’ early death in 1618.

Infanta Maria-Anna of Spain

Unfortunately for James, negotiation with Spain proved generally unpopular, both with the public and with James’s court. The English Parliament was actively hostile towards Spain and Catholicism, and thus, when called by James in 1621, the members hoped for an enforcement of recusancy laws, a naval campaign against Spain, and a Protestant marriage for the Prince of Wales.

George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, Jame I-VI’s favorite and a man who had great influence over Prince Charles, travelled incognito to Spain in February 1623 with Prince Charles to try to reach agreement on the long-pending Spanish match. In the end, however, the trip was an embarrassing failure. The Infanta thought Charles to be little more than an infidel, and the Spanish at first demanded that he convert to Roman Catholicism as a condition of the match.

The Spanish insisted on toleration of Catholics in England and the repeal of the penal laws, which Charles knew would never be agreed by Parliament, and that the Infanta remain in Spain for a year after any wedding to ensure that England complied with all the terms of the treaty. A personal quarrel erupted between Buckingham and the Count of Olivares, the Spanish chief minister, and so Charles conducted the ultimately futile negotiations personally. When Charles returned to London in October, without a bride and to a rapturous and relieved public welcome, he and Buckingham pushed a reluctant King James to declare war on Spain.

George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham

At the end of 1626, Infanta Maria-Anna was betrothed to Ferdinand, the younger brother of her first fiancé, and the new heir of Emperor Ferdinand II. Ferdinand was her first cousin, being the son of her mother’s brother. February 20, 1631, Infanta Maria-Anna was married to King Ferdinand of Hungary-Bohemia, who became Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in 1637.

With the failure of the Spanish match, Charles and Buckingham turned their attention to France. On May 1, 1625 Charles was married by proxy to the fifteen-year-old French princess Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon in front of the doors of Notre Dame de Paris.

Princess Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon was the youngest daughter of King Henri IV of France and Navarre and his second wife, Marie de’ Medici, and named after her parents. She was born at the Palais du Louvre on November 25, 1609, but some historians give her a birth-date of November 26. In England, where the Julian calendar was still in use, her date of birth is often recorded as November 16.

Princess Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon

Princess Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon was brought up as a Catholic. As a daughter of the Bourbon King of France, she was a Fille de France and a member of the House of Bourbon. She was the youngest sister of the future Louis XIII of France and aunt of King Louis XIV. Her father was assassinated on May 14, 1610, when she was less than a year old. As a child, she was raised under the supervision of the royal governess Françoise de Montglat.

Charles had seen Henrietta-Maria in Paris while en route to Spain. The married couple met in person on June 13, 1625 in Canterbury. Charles delayed the opening of his first Parliament until after the marriage was consummated, to forestall any opposition. Many members of the Commons were opposed to the king’s marriage to a Roman Catholic, fearing that Charles would lift restrictions on Catholic recusants and undermine the official establishment of the reformed Church of England.

Although he told Parliament that he would not relax religious restrictions, he promised to do exactly that in a secret marriage treaty with his brother-in-law Louis XIII of France. Moreover, the treaty loaned to the French seven English naval ships that would be used to suppress the Protestant Huguenots at La Rochelle in September 1625. Charles was crowned on February 2, 1626 at Westminster Abbey, but without his wife at his side because she refused to participate in a Protestant religious ceremony.

March 10, 1629: Charles I dissolves the Parliament of England, beginning the eleven-year period known as the Personal Rule.

Tags

Charles I of England, Charles Stuart, Earl of Stafford, English Civil War, King Charles I of England, Long Parliament, Parliament, Personal Rule, Rule of Tyranny, Short Parliament, Thomas Wentworth

In January 1629, Charles opened the second session of the English Parliament, which had been prorogued in June 1628, with a moderate speech on the tonnage and poundage issue. Members of the House of Commons began to voice opposition to Charles’s policies in light of the case of John Rolle, a Member of Parliament whose goods had been confiscated for failing to pay tonnage and poundage. Many MPs viewed the imposition of the tax as a breach of the Petition of Right.

When Charles ordered a parliamentary adjournment on March 2, 1629 members held the Speaker, Sir John Finch, down in his chair so that the ending of the session could be delayed long enough for resolutions against Catholicism, Arminianism and tonnage and poundage to be read out and acclaimed by the chamber. The provocation was too much for Charles, who dissolved Parliament on March 10, 1629 and had nine parliamentary leaders, including Sir John Eliot, imprisoned over the matter, thereby turning the men into martyrs, and giving popular cause to their protest.

Personal rule necessitated peace. Without the means in the foreseeable future to raise funds from Parliament for a European war, or the help of Buckingham, Charles made peace with France and Spain. The following eleven years, during which Charles ruled England without a Parliament, are referred to as the personal rule or the “eleven years’ tyranny”. Ruling without Parliament was not exceptional, and was supported by precedent. For example, during the reign of Henry VII Parliament met only on seven occasions between 1485 and 1509, and five of these were between 1485 and 1495. When Henry VII felt more secure, he no longer felt the need to call Parliament.

It was during the reign of Henry VIII and the Reformation Parliament, which sat from 1529 to 1536, which fundamentally changed the nature of Parliament and English government. The Reformation Parliament is where Parliament gained more power as the king began to depend on this legislative body to accomplish his agenda. The King had summoned it in order to settle what was called his ‘great matter’, his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, which the Papacy in Rome was blocking.

Parliament had the power of the purse and only Parliament, however, could legally raise taxes, and without it Charles’s capacity to acquire funds for his treasury was limited to his customary rights and prerogatives. It was the abuse of these rights and prerogatives that lead to his downfall.

A large fiscal deficit had arisen in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I-VI. Notwithstanding the Earl of Buckingham’s short-lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was little financial capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas. Unable to raise revenue without Parliament and unwilling to convene it, Charles resorted to other means. One was to revive conventions, often outdated.

The King also tried to raise revenue through ship money, demanding in 1634–1636 that the inland English counties pay a tax for the Royal Navy to counter the threat of privateers and pirates in the English Channel. Established law supported the policy of coastal counties and inland ports such as London paying ship money in times of need, but it had not been applied to inland counties before.

Many saw this as yet another extra-Parliamentary, illegal tax, which prompted some prominent men to refuse to pay it. Charles issued a writ against John Hampden for his failure to pay, and although five judges including Sir George Croke supported Hampden, seven judges found in favour of the King in 1638. The fines imposed on people who refused to pay ship money and standing out against its illegality aroused widespread indignation.

The end of Charles’s independent governance came when he attempted to apply the same religious policies in Scotland. The Church of Scotland, reluctantly episcopal in structure, had independent traditions. Charles wanted one uniform Church throughout Britain and introduced a new, High Anglican version of the English Book of Common Prayer to Scotland in the middle of 1637. This was violently resisted and riots broke out in Edinburgh.

Charles needed to suppress the rebellion in Scotland, but had insufficient funds to do so. He convened Parliament in 1640 because he needed to seek money from a newly elected English Parliament. Its majority faction, led by John Pym, used this appeal for money as a chance to discuss grievances against the Crown and oppose the idea of an English invasion of Scotland. Charles took exception to this lèse-majesté (offense against the ruler) and dissolved the Parliament after only a few weeks; hence its name, “the Short Parliament”.

Without Parliament’s support, Charles attacked Scotland again, breaking the truce at Berwick, and suffered comprehensive defeat. In 1639, Charles had recalled Thomas Wentworth to England and in 1640 made him Earl of Strafford, attempting to have him achieve similar results in Scotland. This time he proved less successful and the English forces fled the field at their second encounter with the Scots in 1640. Almost the whole of Northern England was occupied and Charles forced to pay £850 per day to keep the Scots from advancing. Had he not done so they would have pillaged and burnt the cities and towns of Northern England.

All this put Charles in a desperate financial state. As King of Scots, he had to find money to pay the Scottish army in England; as King of England, he had to find money to pay and equip an English army to defend England. His means of raising English revenue without an English Parliament fell critically short of achieving this. Against this backdrop, and according to advice from the Magnum Concilium (the House of Lords, but without the Commons, so not a Parliament), Charles finally bowed to pressure and summoned another English Parliament in November 1640.

Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford

The new Parliament proved even more hostile to Charles than its predecessor. It immediately began to discuss grievances against him and his government, with Pym and Hampden (of ship money fame) in the lead. Early in the Parliamentary sessions, known as the Long Parliament, the house overwhelmingly accused Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford of high treason and other crimes and misdemeanors. Charles sacrificed his friend and reluctantly signed the Bill of Attainer submitted by Parliament for Stanford’s execution. This Parliament would be the body that greatly opposed the king eventually leading to Civil War.

February 19, 1594: birth of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales

Tags

Calvanism, Charles Stuart, Henry Frederick Prince of Wales, Henry IX of England, James VI-I of Scotland and England, Sir Walter Raleigh, Tower of London

Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (February 19, 1594 – November 6, 1612)was the eldest son of James VI and I, King of England and Scotland, and his wife Anne of Denmark. His name derives from his grandfathers: Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and King Frederik II of Denmark. Prince Henry was widely seen as a bright and promising heir to his father’s thrones. However, at the age of 18, he predeceased his father when he died of typhoid fever. His younger brother Charles succeeded him as heir apparent to the English, Irish and Scottish thrones.

Henry was born at Stirling Castle, and since his father James VI was the reigning King of Scotland the new born prince and heir became Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland automatically on his birth. Henry’s baptism on August 30, 1594 was celebrated with complex theatrical entertainments written by poet William Fowler and a ceremony in a new Chapel Royal at Stirling purpose-built by William Schaw.

With his father’s accession to the throne of England in 1603, Henry at once became Duke of Cornwall. In 1610 he was further invested as Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, thus for the first time uniting the six automatic and two traditional Scottish and English titles held by heirs-apparent to the two thrones. The ceremony of investiture was celebrated with a pageant London’s Love to Prince Henry, and a masque Tethys’ Festival during which his mother gave a sword encrusted with diamonds, intended to represent justice.

He also disapproved of the way his father conducted the royal court, disliked Robert Carr, a favourite of his father, and esteemed Sir Walter Raleigh, wishing him to be released from the Tower of London.

The prince’s popularity rose so high that it threatened his father. Relations between the two could be tense, and on occasion surfaced in public. At one point, the two were hunting near Royston when James criticised his son for lacking enthusiasm for the chase, and Henry initially moved to strike his father with a cane, but rode off. Most of the hunting party then followed the son.

“Upright to the point of priggishness, he fined all who swore in his presence”, according to Charles Carlton, a biographer of Charles I, who describes Henry as an “obdurate Protestant”. In addition to the alms box to which Henry forced swearers to contribute, he made sure his household attended church services. His religious views were influenced by the clerics in his household, who came largely from a tradition of politicised Calvinism.

Henry is said to have disliked his younger brother, Charles, and to have teased him, although this derives from only one anecdote: when Charles was nine years of age, Henry snatched the hat off a bishop and put it on the younger child’s head, then told his younger brother that when he became king he would make Charles Archbishop of Canterbury, and then Charles would have a long robe to hide his ugly rickety legs. Charles stamped on the cap and had to be dragged off in tears.

Henry died from typhoid fever at the age of 18, during the celebrations that led up to his sister Elizabeth’s wedding. (The diagnosis can be made with reasonable certainty from written records of the post-mortem examination, which was ordered to be carried out in order to dispel rumours of poisoning.) He was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Prince Henry’s death was widely regarded as a tragedy for the nation. According to Charles Carlton, “Few heirs to the English throne have been as widely and deeply mourned as Prince Henry.” His body lay in state at St. James’s Palace for four weeks. On 7 December, over a thousand people walked in the mile-long cortège to Westminster Abbey to hear a two-hour sermon delivered by George Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury. As Henry’s body was lowered into the ground, his chief servants broke their staves of office at the grave. An insane man ran naked through the mourners, yelling that he was the boy’s ghost.

Immediately after Henry’s death, the prince’s brother Charles fell ill, but he was the chief mourner at the funeral, which his father, King James (who detested funerals) refused to attend. Henry’s titles of Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay passed to Charles, who until then had lived in Henry’s shadow. Four years later Charles, by then 16 years old, was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

Had he lived he would have reigned as King Henry IX of England, Scotland and Ireland….and the history of England would have been very different.

The Trial of Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Tags

Charles Stuart, House of Lords, John Cook, Parliamentarians, Rump Parliament, The High Court of Justice, Trial of King Charles I of England, Westminster Hall

Charles was moved to Hurst Castle at the end of 1648, and thereafter to Windsor Castle. In January 1649, the Rump House of Commons indicted him on a charge of treason, which was rejected by the House of Lords. The idea of trying a king was a novel one. The Chief Justices of the three common law courts of England – Henry Rolle, Oliver St John and John Wilde – all opposed the indictment as unlawful.

The Rump Commons declared itself capable of legislating alone, House of Lords passed a bill creating a separate court for Charles’s trial, and declared the bill an act without the need for royal assent. The High Court of Justice established by the Act consisted of 135 commissioners, but many either refused to serve or chose to stay away. Only 68 (all firm Parliamentarians) attended Charles’s trial on charges of high treason and “other high crimes” that began on January 20, 1649 in Westminster Hall. John Bradshaw acted as President of the Court, and the prosecution was led by the Solicitor General, John Cook.

Charles was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of the country. The charge stated that he, “for 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”, and that the “wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation.

Reflecting the modern concept of command responsibility, the indictment held him “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.” An estimated 300,000 people, or 6% of the population, died during the war.

Over the first three days of the trial, whenever Charles was asked to plead, he refused stating his objection with the words: “I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority…?” He claimed that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch, that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God and by the traditional laws of England, and that the power wielded by those trying him was only that of force of arms. Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining that,

no earthly power can justly call me (who am your King) in question as a delinquent … this day’s proceeding cannot be warranted by God’s laws; for, on the contrary, the authority of obedience unto Kings is clearly warranted, and strictly commanded in both the Old and New Testament … for the law of this land, I am no less confident, that no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King, they all going in his name: and one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong … the higher House is totally excluded; and for the House of Commons, it is too well known that the major part of them are detained or deterred from sitting … the arms I took up were only to defend the fundamental laws of this kingdom against those who have supposed my power hath totally changed the ancient government.

The court, by contrast, challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that “the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern ‘by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise’.

At the end of the third day, Charles was removed from the court, which then heard over 30 witnesses against the king in his absence over the next two days, and on 26 January condemned him to death. The following day, the king was brought before a public session of the commission, declared guilty, and was formally sentenced to death. Fifty-nine of the commissioners signed Charles’s death warrant.

The name Louis and the British Monarchy: II

Tags

1745, Battle of Culloden, Bonnie Prince Charlie, Charles Stuart, Duke of Brunswick, George I of Great Britain, Holy Roman Empire, House of Hanover, House of Stuart, James I of England, John III Sobieski of Poland, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, Kings and Queens of Great Britain, Louis, Maria Clementine of Poland, Queen Anne of Great Britain

As we have seen, England almost had a King Louis. It is interesting to speculate how things would have turned out had King John not died when he did. Forces were working against him as Louis was gaining ground and victory seemed assured until the sudden death of King John and the reversal of the Barons revolt. If Louis had succeeded English history would have unfolded much differently.

From 1217 until the 18th Century there was no prince with the name Louis even as a secondary name. From my research and the records I have read it seems that multiple names didn’t even begin until 17th century and even then there is only one case I know of: Prince Charles James, Duke of Cornwall, son of Charles I and elder brother of Charles II and James II-VII.

One early example of Louis as a secondary name within the British Royal Family is questionable. I interrupt my strict chronological narrative of this series to include this royal prince for I feel he should be counted and considered.

Prince Charles Edward Stuart

The person in question is Prince Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender, and known to history as “Bonnie Prince Charlie,” the elder son of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales and the grandson of James II-VII and after 1766 the Stuart claimant to the throne of Great Britain.* I question if this is an example of the name “Louis” in the British Royal Family because during his lifetime he technically was not a member of the Royal Family since the House of Hanover was on the throne at this time. However, for the sake of this discussion, I will overlook this technicality and include him as a prince of Britain to carry the name Louis. Also, I am not aware of any legal restrictions of the title of prince placed on the exiled Stuart line and most historians do view the exiled Stuarts as being British princes.

In full his name was Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart (December 31, 1720 – January 31, 1788). Besides being known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, during his lifetime he was also known as “The Young Pretender” or “The Young Chevalier” and to his supporters he was King Charles III of England, Scotland and Ireland. He is best remembered for his role in the 1745 uprising and defeat at the Battle of Culloden in April 16, 1746 to unseat the House of Hanover and place himself on the throne. The loss at Culloden effectively ended the Stuart cause against the House of Hanover and the subsequent attempts at a planned French invasion in 1759 failed to materialize. Prince Charles’ dramatic escape from Scotland after the failed uprising led him to be portrayed as a romantic figure of heroic failure in later representations of stories and songs.

* During Prince Charles life time the kingdom he tried to rule over was the Kingdom of Great Britain which came into being with the Act of Union of 1707 which united the crowns of England and Scotland into one nation. However, many Jacobites (the supporters of the the exiled Stuart line) did not recognize this union and still considered the three kingdoms as being separate.

Prince Charles string of names does highlight his heritage. The name Casimir denotes the Polish heritage of his mother, Maria Clementina Sobieska, the granddaughter of John III Sobieski of Poland. The name Louis stems from their cousin Louis XIV and Louis XV of France. Louis XIV was the first cousin to Prince Charles’ grandfather, James II-VII, who first gave the Stuarts support in exile and Louis XV also gave financial support to the exiled Stuarts.

In this blog I try my best to use the names of these individuals in their native tongue. For example, I never call the last German Emperor by the English translation of his name, William II, I call him by the German translation, Wilhelm II. However, for this series, I will render all German names in their English translation.

King George I of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.

The first member of the British Royal Family with the secondary name of Louis was King George I of Great Britain (May 28, 1660 – June 11, 1727). His name in English was George-Louis. In German it was Georg-Ludwig. He was the eldest son of Ernest-Augustus, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and his wife, Sophia of the Palatinate. Sophia was the granddaughter of King James I-VI of England, Scotland and Ireland through her mother, Elizabeth of Bohemia. George-Louis’ father died on January 23, 1698, leaving all of his territories and titles to George-Louis with the exception of the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabrück, an office he had held since 1661. George-Louis thus became Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg (also known as Hanover, after its capital) as well as Archbannerbearer and a Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire. In his German lands this new Elector of Hanover was known by his double names, Georg-Ludwig.

George-Louis’ mother, the Electress Sophia of Hanover, was the designated hier to the British throne according to the Act of Settlement of 1701. She was selected as heiress to the British throne in order to exclude the Catholic line of the House of Stuart from the succession. She was the nearest descendent of James I-VI that was Protestant. However, she never became Queen of Great Britain, She died on May 28, 1714 at the age of 83….it was her son, George-Louis’ 54th birthday. The Electress Sophia had collapsed in the gardens at Herrenhausen after rushing to shelter from a shower of rain. George-Louis was now Queen Anne’s heir presumptive.

Queen Anne herself shortly thereafter suffered a stroke, which left her unable to speak, and she died on August 1, 1714. Elector George-Louis of Hanover was proclaimed King of Great Britain and Ireland. Instead of being King George-Louis of Great Britain the name Louis was dropped from his official name and title in Great Britain.

Stay Tuned next week for part III.