January 30, 1649: Execution of Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland

Tags

Abolition of the Monarchy, Beheading, Charles I of England Scotland and Ireland, English Civil War, Execution, Oliver Cromwell, Pride's Purge

Charles’s beheading was scheduled for Tuesday, January 30, 1649. Two of his children remained in England under the control of the Parliamentarians: Elizabeth and Henry. They were permitted to visit him on January 29, and he bade them a tearful farewell. The following morning, he called for two shirts to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear: “the season is so sharp as probably may make me shake, which some observers may imagine proceeds from fear. I would have no such imputation.”

He walked under guard from St James’s Palace, where he had been confined, to the Palace of Whitehall, where an execution scaffold had been erected in front of the Banqueting House. Charles was separated from spectators by large ranks of soldiers, and his last speech reached only those with him on the scaffold. He blamed his fate on his failure to prevent the execution of his loyal servant Strafford: “An unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect, is punished now by an unjust sentence on me.”

He declared that he had desired the liberty and freedom of the people as much as any, “but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having government … It is not their having a share in the government; that is nothing appertaining unto them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” He continued, “I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.”

At about 2:00 p.m., Charles put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready by stretching out his hands; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. According to observer Philip Henry, a moan “as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again” rose from the assembled crowd,some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in the king’s blood as a memento.

The executioner was masked and disguised, and there is debate over his identity. The commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common hangman of London, but he refused, at least at first, despite being offered £200.

It is possible he relented and undertook the commission after being threatened with death, but there are others who have been named as potential candidates, including George Joyce, William Hulet and Hugh Peterrs. The clean strike, confirmed by an examination of the king’s body at Windsor in 1813, suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman.

Created by Pride’s Purge when Colonel Thomas Pride forcibly removed from the Long Parliament all those members who supported the King and were not supporters of the Grandees in the New Model Army and the Independents. Many historians consider called it a coup d’état. This paved the way for the things to come.

Just before and the execution of King Charles I, the Rump Parliament passed a number of Acts of Parliament creating the legal basis for the republic. After the execution of Charles I, the House of Commons abolished the Monarchy, the Privy Council and the House of Lords, and declared the people of England “and of all the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging” to be henceforth under the governance of a “Commonwealth”, effectively a republic.

The House of Commons now had unchecked executive and legislative power. The English Council of State, which replaced the Privy Council, took over many of the executive functions of the monarchy.

January 30, 1649: Execution of Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Tags

Commonwealth, Execution of Charles Stuart of England, House of Lords, King Charles I of England, Long Parliament, Pride's Purge, Privy Council, Rump Parliament, Thomas Pride

Charles’s beheading was scheduled for Tuesday, January 30, 1649. Two of his children remained in England under the control of the Parliamentarians: Elizabeth and Henry. They were permitted to visit him on January 29, and he bade them a tearful farewell. The following morning, he called for two shirts to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear: “the season is so sharp as probably may make me shake, which some observers may imagine proceeds from fear. I would have no such imputation.”

He walked under guard from St James’s Palace, where he had been confined, to the Palace of Whitehall, where an execution scaffold had been erected in front of the Banqueting House. Charles was separated from spectators by large ranks of soldiers, and his last speech reached only those with him on the scaffold. He blamed his fate on his failure to prevent the execution of his loyal servant Strafford: “An unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect, is punished now by an unjust sentence on me.”

He declared that he had desired the liberty and freedom of the people as much as any, “but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having government … It is not their having a share in the government; that is nothing appertaining unto them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” He continued, “I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.”

At about 2:00 p.m., Charles put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready by stretching out his hands; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. According to observer Philip Henry, a moan “as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again” rose from the assembled crowd,some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in the king’s blood as a memento.

The executioner was masked and disguised, and there is debate over his identity. The commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common hangman of London, but he refused, at least at first, despite being offered £200. It is possible he relented and undertook the commission after being threatened with death, but there are others who have been named as potential candidates, including George Joyce, William Hulet and Hugh Peterrs. The clean strike, confirmed by an examination of the king’s body at Windsor in 1813, suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman.

Cromwell was said to have visited Charles’s coffin, sighing “Cruel necessity!” as he did so. The story was depicted by Delaroche in the nineteenth century.

It was common practice for the severed head of a traitor to be held up and exhibited to the crowd with the words “Behold the head of a traitor!” Although Charles’s head was exhibited, the words were not used, possibly because the executioner did not want his voice recognized. On the day after the execution, the king’s head was sewn back onto his body, which was then embalmed and placed in a lead coffin.

The commission refused to allow Charles’s burial at Westminster Abbey, so his body was conveyed to Windsor on the night of February 7. He was buried in private on February 9, 1649 in the Henry VIII vault in the chapel’s quire, alongside the coffins of Henry VIII and Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour, in St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. The king’s son, Charles II, later planned for an elaborate royal mausoleum to be erected in Hyde Park, London, but it was never built.

The execution of Charles I had been carried out by the Rump Parliament. The Rump was created by Pride’s Purge when Colonel Thomas Pride forcibly removed from the Long Parliament all those members who supported the King and were not supporters of the Grandees in the New Model Army and the Independents. Many historians consider called it a coup d’état.

Just before and the execution of King Charles I, the Rump Parliament passed a number of Acts of Parliament creating the legal basis for the republic. After the execution of Charles I, the House of Commons abolished the Monarchy, the Privy Council and the House of Lords, and declared the people of England “and of all the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging” to be henceforth under the governance of a “Commonwealth”, effectively a republic. The House of Commons now had unchecked executive and legislative power. The English Council of State, which replaced the Privy Council, took over many of the executive functions of the monarchy.

King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Tags

Charles II, Charles II of England and Scotland, General Monck, Pride's Purge, Royal Declaration of Indulgence, Royal Society, Sir Issac Newton

Today I’d like to finish my write up on King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. After the death of Cromwell his son Richard took over as Lord Protector. It was soon realized that he was not the same as his father and he was not respected by either the Army or Parliament. He fell from power within a year. The Army fell under the power and control of General Monck. After the Protectorate was dissolved there was no stable government and things were falling into anarchy. Monck knew that unless order was restored the country would fall further into anarchy. Monck marched the army into London and demanded the Rump Parliament return the members who had been evicted in Pride’s Purge. New elections to Parliament were held and restrictions against royalists were abolished. The new pro-monarchy Parliament that convened recalled Charles II to the throne. He arrived in London on May 29, 1660, his 30th birthday.

One of the things I admire about Charles II is that he was a patron of the arts and sciences. Two areas of study very close to my heart. During the Puritanical rule of Cromwell arts and theater were abolished and the study of science was negligible. Charles founded the Royal Observatory and gave patronage to the Royal Society, a scientific group whose members included Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newton. Charles was also the personal patron of Sir Christopher Wren, the architect who helped rebuild London after the Great Fire of 1666. The Commonwealth period of the Cromwells is often seen as a melancholy period where a dark cloud hung over England. The restoration of Charles II with the coming to life of the culture of arts and science is seen as a new birth of spring, a golden area.

That doesn’t mean all was rosy. Charles was not always soundly on the throne. Despite his recall by Parliament the conflicts between Crown and Parliament, which had lead to Civil War, were never resolved or faced and there were times when they two bodied butted heads. It took skill and bravery on the part of Charles to navigate the Crown during these times. There were moments when it was feared that Civil War would once again raise its ugly head. One time was when he challenged Parliament over the Royal Declaration of Indulgence which would give the right of the freedom of worship (mainly for Catholics) and the repeal of anti Catholic laws. Parliament would have none of that. They did not think the king had the right to dismiss laws which they had legally established. In his enlightened view of freedom of worship he was a man ahead of his times. I could list many other problems between Charles and Parliament but many of them surround the fears of Catholic uprisings. The fact that he also was clandestinely dealing with his cousin, King Louis XIV of France who was very Catholic, was probably foolhardy. In the end Charles had to concede to the wishes of Parliament. To have done otherwise would have cost him his head.

Charles II died in February of 1685 and was only 54. Despite a string of illegitimate children from a string of mistresses Charles did not have any legitimate children with his wife, the Portuguese Princes, Catherine de Braganza. Therefore the throne passed to his brother, Prince James, Duke of York who became King James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland.

The “Merry Monarch” as he was called was a man ahead of his times in many ways and also a product of his times. He tried to be a good king and in many ways he did successfully navigate England and Scotland and Ireland through difficult times and brought stability to a nation torn apart by war. He was a man of arts and science and of culture. He over came adversity and struggle and became a better and not embittered person because of it.

 

Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland (1630-1685)

Tags

at Boscobel House, Charles II of England and Scotland, English Civil War, Henri IV of France, Henrietta-Maria of France, Pride's Purge, Royal Oak

King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Charles II is probably one of the kings I most admire. I find his life fascinating and I also think he lived at an interesting point in history. Yesterday I featured Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, a man who did not become King and Charles II almost did not become king himself. His life is a story of struggle and triumph, of loss and pain as well as well as success. There is a lot in his life I can relate to and admire. His life demonstrates the difficulties of the human condition as well as the spirit within us all, that keeps us moving forward in the face of adversities.

Charles was born on May 29, 1630 to King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland and his wife Princess Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon of France, the daughter of King Henri IV of France and Navarre. King Henri’s wife was the Italian princess, Marie de’ Medici, which brought Italian blood into the English royal family. Charles inherited a darker complexion due to his Italian ancestry and his darker complexion gave his mother much shame and many whispers at court. This is one area I can relate to. Although it wasn’t my skin color that brought me struggles, I am a pale Irishman, but I had a physical condition (Pectus excavatum) which brought me shame and a lot of whispers from people. 

Charles’ up bringing was typical for the time, educated at home by tutors and also cared for by nurses and servants. In 1640 Charles was designated Prince of Wales, though he was never formally invested with the Honours of the Principality of Wales. Everything seemed secure and the future assured and that one day young Charles would come into his inheritance and take up the mantel as King of England, Scotland and Ireland. However, as life often does, things changed and for a long while some of these changes seemed permanent. Within two years of being destined Prince of Wales, Civil War broke out and his father took charge of the Cavaliers who were fighting against the Parliamentarians. Fearing for his safety Charles sought refuge in Sicily. His first of many trips into exile.

As the years rolled on and war continued in England Charles finally made it to France where he was reunited with his mother who had also fled England. Both mother and son stayed at the court of Louis XIV who was Charles’ first cousin. Charles and his mother were separated during these early teen years and I often speculate if his insatiable desire for women stems from these stressful times separated from his mother? It was while in France Charles began one of his many love affairs. This first one was with Lucy Walter. She would falsely claim years later that they had secretly married and that their son, James Crofts, Duke of Monmouth, was the rightful heir to the throne.

Shortly before the birth of their son, Charles experienced one of his great losses. The Civil War in England had come to an end. Although at one point there was a bright light at the end of the tunnel and that King and Parliament were to reconciled, this hope was short lived as Pride’s Purge got rid of all those in government that supported the king. Those who were left placed the king on trial. He was found guilty of treason and was beheaded on January 29, 1649. At the time Charles was only 19…too young to lose a parent. I can relate to that, I was 17 when I lost my father suddenly.

Charles, technically now Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, was a man on the run. He spent the next years in exile. At one point he was crowned King of Scots in 1651 but was soon exiled from that country as Cromwell’s forces chased him from the country. He was defeated at the Battle of Battle of Worcester on September 3,1651. He spent one night in a tree, a Royal Oak, at Boscobel House. He wore disguises and was only one step ahead of his captors. With a large bounty on his head he finally escaped England and returned to the European continent. I know life can be stressful and difficult at times but I Cannot contemplate the stress one would be under being forcefully chased from ones country under the threat of death. 

He stayed in France until 1654 when Louis XIV, because of his own ambitions, sought an alliance with Cromwell’s government. This forced Charles to seek refuge in Spain. There were times when money was in short supply and the man who was King in name only lived in poverty at times. Things looked dark and bleak with no hope for the future until 1658 hope glimmered a little with the death of Oliver Cromwell, the military dictator who had ruled England.

This is where I will end the first half of our story. I can relate to the pain and loss and struggle he lived with, however, I do not know what it is like to live with a bounty on ones head. This would have left me a bit paranoid. I think what it did for Charles was gave him issues of trust. It was hard to know who was there to help you and serve you, who was there looking for a favor (even though he had none to give) or who was there to kill you.

Copyright ⌐2012 WJFoley

 

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

Tags

1789, Bastille Day, Charles I of England, Colonel Thomas Pride, English Civil War, French Revolution, July 14, Long Parliament, Lord Strafford, Louis XVI, Oliver Cromwell, Parliament, Pride's Purge

Saturday is Bastille Day where they celebrate the 1789 storming of the Bastille which was the start of the French Revolution. Since I don’t write long posts on the weekends I thought I would take the celebration of Bastille Day to examine how monarchies adapt and survive. Although Louis XVI and his Queen, Marie Antoinette, did not survive the French Revolution the monarchy in France did limp on for a few decades after it was restored following the Napoleonic period. The question I ask is where did Louis XVI go wrong? Where did Charles I of England & Scotland go wrong in the 1640s culminating in his beheading in 1649? Did each have a part to play in their demise? Ah, so many questions. I often think history is complex and I personally eschew simple cause and effect answers. Generally many factors play into the events of history. So in this small little blog I will examine some of the factors that caused the downfall of these people and also examine, in the big picture, how monarchies that survive to this day, have been able to adapt.

Louis XVI, King of France and Navarre (1774-1792)

Shortly after the storming of the Bastille the French royal family was forcibly removed from the opulent Palace at Versailles to the Tuileries Palace in Paris where they lived as virtual prisoners. For a brief period of time Louis did enjoy a considerable level of popularity. Initially the abolition of the monarchy was not the goal of the revolutionaries. If they had a clear goal it was to end the absolutist nature of the crown and to bring it under the control of a constitution which limited its powers. Much of the fight was between those supporting changes, sometimes radical changes, and those who wished to preserve the monarchy. Louis was indecisive and in his heart he was the King and his heritage and tradition taught that it was the king that wielded the reigns of power. Other factors were his unpopular wife, and Austrian royal by birth, and many rightfully feared that the king and the queen would draw Austria and other absolute monarchies to their side. Invasion of France by foreign powers in support of the monarchy was a constant threat. There was distrust all around on both sides.

In the end because of their shoddy treatment Louis and his family tried to escape their prison like existence in the Tuileries Palace but were caught and returned to Paris. Louis was also secretly planning, with the aid of loyal ministers, his escape once again and the appeal to foreign powers for their aid in restoring the monarchy and ending the revolution. Before they could implement these plans Louis and Marie Antoinette were arrested and the evidence of their dealings with foreign powers to regain power was their undoing and the reasons for being executed for high treason. What if questions are impossible to answer. Had Louis not conspired with foreign powers, had his queen been more popular, would he have lost his head, or was it inevitable?

Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland (1625-1649)

For eleven years Charles ruled as an absolute monarch in a country not used to absolute monarchs. during that time he ruled without calling Parliament. Even his more powerful predecessors, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, still had to wrestle with ministers and Parliament from time to time. Henry had a formidable will and Elizabeth also had a formidable will along with diplomatic skills and feminine charm. As with the case with Louis XVI the seeds for revolution were sown in the past. For Charles the problem concerned with who wielded the power, the Crown or Parliament? The struggle for power between the two entities had a long tradition and in viewing the threads of history it can be seen that the the two would eventually bump heads. Charles did abuse his power during those eleven years of personal rule. He raised taxes illegally and forced loans upon his people.

In 1640 the call of war beckoned in the form of the Bishops War when Charles wanted to force an episcopal style of worship on his Scottish subjects. In order to accomplish his tasks he needed to raise funds and for that he needed Parliament. Charles called two Parliaments within a short time which were distrusting of the king. There was actually distrust on both sides. Despite many concessions given to Parliament by the king there was still a struggle between both the Crown and Parliament. An event that pushed the two parties closer to war was the handling of Lord Strafford. Lord Strafford was the king’s deputy in Ireland and when Parliament could not prove a charge of treason against him the House of Commons resorted to passing a Bill of Attainder which did not require proof of guilt for the conviction of high treason only the king’s signature.

The king knew Strafford to be innocent of the charges and yet the king also knew to ignore the Bill from the House of Commons would trigger war. So the king sent Strafford to slaughter as a sacrificial lamb. Upon Straffords death Ireland fell into chaos fearing reprisals by a protestant army. As tensions continued to rise Charles entered Parliament with 400 troops to arrest 5 members on charges of treason. This failed miserably as the members had been tipped off and flew the coup. The speaker of the House of Commons told the king he was a servant of Parliament and not the king.

Fearing for his safety Charles left London and the English Civil War had begun. It would last, off and on, until 1649 with the defeat of the king and his execution for high treason. Even with an assured victory for Parliament at the end of the war it was still possible for the king to keep not only his head but his crown as well. Toward the end of 1648 the king was willing to negotiate and accept the concessions of Parliament and rule with limited powers. Parliament was willing to accept him and have him return to power. So what happened? Colonel Thomas Pride and his troops scored a military coup d’état and purged Parliament of all those that supported the king. With nothing left but the rump of the Long Parliament and the remaining members who were anti-monarchist, Charles was convicted of high treason and executed.

I could go one with more examples, such as Wilhelm II of Germany, Nicholas II of Russia, Constantine II of Greece etc. It may be impossible to examine these monarchies and answer the question “was there something these monarchs could have done differently to save either themselves or their thrones?” Was their demise inevitable? We’ll never know. One thing I do observe from the tapestry of history is that the monarchies that have survived were the ones that were willing to adapt to changes. Those that wanted to keep the status quo and retain power were the ones that failed and ended up in the trash bin of history. The source of the change seems to have come from the majority of the people in these states and the problem seems to be that the monarchies would not, or could not, either listen to the changes in the wind or see the proverbial hand writing on the wall.