When Did Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland Become King? Part III.

Tags

Abolition of the House of Lords, Abolition of the Monarchy, Charles II of the Kingdom of England, Commonwealth of England, King Charles I of England, Restoration, Rump Parliament, Scotland and Ireland

In the previous entries we followed Charles II from his father’s execution to his entry into London on May 29, 1660 as His Majesty King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland.

So the question I asked at the start of the series is, when did Charles assume the title of “King?”

Let us examine the evidence.

The execution of Charles I was stayed until January 30, so that the House of Commons could pass an emergency act, the “Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the Dominions thereof”.

The purpose of the Act was to prevent the automatic succession of Charles’s son as King, or the proclamation of another person as King.

The Commons voted to abolish the House of Lords on February 6 and to abolish the monarchy on February 7; an act abolishing the kingship was formally passed by the Rump on March 17, followed by an act to abolish the House of Lords on 19 March.

The establishment of a Council of State was approved on February 14 and on May 19 an Act Declaring England a Commonwealth was passed. The Treasons Act made it an offence to say that the House of Commons (without the Lords or the King) was not the supreme authority of the land.

Following the Restoration the Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King was declared void because it had not received royal assent.

Can understand that as both a monarchist and a historian these two rules can conflict because of personal biases.

Therefore, informing my opinion, I’d like to address the legal aspect of when Charles II became king. However, I must admit I’m sure my bias is still present.

Also, this may be a bit of an academic pursuit, I’m also having a bit of fun with it and I don’t want anybody to take it too seriously. This is just a fun interesting topic for me.

The fact that the Act of proclaiming anyone King of England was declared void upon the Restoration does point to some legal proof of my opinion.

Here is my opinion: At the time of the death of Charles I monarchists believed, as do I, that his son and heir automatically became King of England, Scotland and Ireland as King Charles II.

That is my view and in the next and final entry of this series I will do my best to support my opinion.

When Did Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland Become King? Part II.

Tags

Convention Parliament, Declaration of Breda. George Monck, King Charles II of England Scotland and Ireland, Lord Halifax, Restoration, Rump Parliament

After the failed attempt to maintain the Scottish throne, Charles spent the next nine years in exile in France, the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Netherlands.

The major motivator in restoring Charles to the throne was George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle JP KG PC (December 6, 1608 – January 3, 1670) who was an English soldier, who fought on both sides during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Monck was also a prominent military figure under the Commonwealth.

George Monck, 1st Duke of Albemarle

When Oliver Cromwell died in September 1658, Monck transferred his support to Cromwell’s son Richard, who was appointed Lord Protector. The Third Protectorate Parliament elected in January 1659 was dominated by moderate Presbyterians like Monck and Royalist sympathisers, whose main objective was to reduce the power and expense of the military.

In April, army radicals led by John Lambert and Charles Fleetwood dissolved Parliament and forced the resignation of Richard Cromwell. Sometimes known as the Wallingford House Party, the new regime abolished the Protectorate, reseated the Rump Parliament dismissed by Cromwell in 1653 and began removing officers and officials of suspect loyalty, including many of those serving in Scotland.

Monck was left in place largely because rumours of another Royalist rising made it preferable to retain him. Both his cousin John Grenville and brother Nicholas were connected with the Royalist underground and in July 1659, Nicholas brought him a personal appeal from Charles II, asking for his help.

When Booth’s Uprising broke out in August 1659, Monck considered joining it but the revolt collapsed before he had the time to commit himself. In October, the Wallingford House group dismissed the Rump Parliament before being forced to reinstate it in early December.

King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland

By the end of 1659, England appeared to be drifting into anarchy, with widespread demands for new elections and an end to military rule. Monck declared his support for the Rump Parliament against the Republican faction led by Lambert, while co-ordinating with Sir Theophilus Jones, a former colleague in Ireland who seized Dublin Castle in late December.

At the same time, he marched his army to the English border, supported by a force raised by former New Model Army commander Sir Thomas Fairfax. Outnumbered and unpaid, Lambert’s troops melted away; and on February 2, 1660 Monck entered London.

Monck forced the Rump Parliament to re-admit members of the Long Parliament who had been excluded in December 1648, during Pride’s Purge. Parliament dissolved itself, and there was a general election for the first time in almost 20 years. The outgoing Parliament defined the electoral qualifications intending to bring about the return of a Presbyterian majority.

The restrictions against royalist candidates and voters were widely ignored, and the elections resulted in a House of Commons that was fairly evenly divided on political grounds between Royalists and Parliamentarians and on religious grounds between Anglicans and Presbyterians. The new so-called Convention Parliament assembled on April 25, 1660.

While Monck’s backing was essential to the Restoration, modern historians question whether the policy was initiated by Monck as opposed to following majority opinion, which by now was overwhelmingly in favour of reinstating the monarchy.

Charles sets sails for home

Although elected MP for Devon, external observers noted Monck had little interest in politics while the lack of a regional power base in England and the proposed reduction of the army mitigated his future influence.

Nevertheless, the Declaration of Breda issued by Charles on April 4, 1660 was largely based on Monck’s recommendations. It promised a general pardon for actions committed during the civil wars and Interregnum, with the exception of the regicides, retention by the current owners of property purchased during the same period, religious toleration and payment of arrears to the army.

Charles promised to rule in cooperation with Parliament, and on May 8, the Convention Parliament proclaimed Charles as King and further stated that King Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the execution of Charles I on 30 January 30, 1649. Historian Tim Harris describes it: “Constitutionally, it was as if the last nineteen years had never happened.”

In Ireland, a convention had been called earlier in the year and had already declared for Charles. On May 14, he was proclaimed king in Dublin.

Charles returned from exile, leaving the Hague on May 23 and landing at Dover on May 25. The King triumphantly entered London on May 29, 1660, his 30th birthday. To celebrate His Majesty’s Return to his Parliament, 29 May was made a public holiday, popularly known as Oak Apple Day. He was crowned at Westminster Abbey on April 23, 1661.

Tomorrow I will give my personal opinion on when Charles II assumed the title of King.

January 4, 1649: The Rump Parliament Decides To Bring King Charles I of England to Trial.

Tags

3rd Lord Fairfax of Cameron, English Civil War, King Charles I of England, Oliver Cromwell, Pride's Purge, Rump Parliament, The Long Parliament, Thomas Fairfax, Thomas Pride, Treaty of Newport

Despite defeat in the First English Civil War, King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland retained significant political power. This allowed him to create an alliance with Scots Covenanters and Parliamentarian moderates to restore him to the English throne. The result was the 1648 Second English Civil War, in which he was defeated once again.

Charles I in Three Positions by van Dyck, 1635–36

Treaty of Newport

In September 1648, at the end of the Second English Civil War, the Long Parliament was concerned with the increasing radicalism in the New Model Army. The Long Parliament began negotiations with King Charles I via the Treaty of Newport intended to bring an end to the hostilities of the English Civil War.

The members wanted to restore the king to power, but wanted to limit the authority he had. Charles I conceded militia power, among other things, but he later admitted that it was only so he could escape.

Negotiations were conducted between September 15, 1648 and November 27, 1648, at Newport, Isle of Wight, on the initial proviso that they would not take longer than forty days (negotiations had effectively broken down by October 27, but continued formally to November). Charles was released on parole from his confinement at Carisbrooke Castle and lodged in Newport.

Pride’s Purge

The New Model Army wanted to prevent Parliament from agreeing on the Treaty of Newport to reinstate King Charles I. While Presbyterian and moderate elements within Parliament were inclined to continue negotiations, the Army was impatient with Charles.

Pride’s Prurge

Thomas Fairfax, by issuing a command to Commissary General Ireton, organized a military coup in 1648. Ireton intended to dissolve the Long Parliament but was persuaded to purge it instead. He then ordered Colonel Thomas Pride to prevent the signing of the Treaty of Newport.

Between December 6 and 12, Pride—supported by two regiments—prevented 231 known supporters of the treaty from entering the House, imprisoning 45 for a few days. The remaining free members then became the Rump Parliament.

Pride’s Purge brought Parliament to heel under the direct control of the Army; the remaining Commons (the Rump) then on December 13, 1648, broke off negotiations with the King.

Two days later, the Council of Officers of the New Model Army voted that the King be moved from the Isle of Wight, where he was prisoner, to Windsor, “in order to the bringing of him speedily to justice”. The King was brought from Windsor to London in the middle of December.

Thomas Fairfax, 3rd Lord Fairfax of Cameron

The Purge eliminated from Parliament those who backed a negotiated settlement with Charles, which included moderate Independents, as well as Presbyterians.

However, even those who agreed he had to be removed did not necessarily support his execution; this included Fairfax, who refused to take part in his trial, and initially Cromwell, who returned to London from the siege of Pontefract Castle in early December. In return for sparing his life, Cromwell hoped Charles would order the Duke of Ormond to end negotiations with the Irish Confederacy, and prevent a new war in Ireland.

Once it became clear Charles had no intention of doing so, Cromwell became convinced he had to die, stating “we will cut off his head with the crown still on it”.

On January 4, 1649, the House of Commons passed an ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice, to try King Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England.

Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland

The House of Lords rejected it, and as it did not receive Royal Assent, Charles asked at the start of his trial on January 20, in Westminster Hall, “I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority”, knowing that there was no legal answer under the constitutional arrangements of the time.

When the ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice was rejected by the House of Lords, they declared themselves the supreme power in the state, and proceeded with the trial.

The Purge cleared the way for the execution of Charles in January 1649, and establishment of the Protectorate in 1653; it is considered the only recorded military coup d’état in English history.

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.

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.

High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I: January 20, 1649.

Tags

Act of Parliament, Charles I of England, English Civil War, High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I, House of Commons, House of Lords, Rump Parliament

The High Court of Justice was the court established by the Rump Parliament to try King Charles I of England. This was an ad hoctribunal created specifically for the purpose of trying the king, although the name was used for subsequent courts.

After the first English Civil War, the parliamentarians accepted the premise that the King, although wrong, had been able to justify his fight, and that he would still be entitled to limited powers as King under a new constitutional settlement. By provoking the second Civil War even while defeated and in captivity, Charles was held responsible for unjustifiable bloodshed. The secret “Engagement” treaty with the Scots was considered particularly unpardonable; “a more prodigious treason”, said Oliver Cromwell, “than any that had been perfected before; because the former quarrel was that Englishmen might rule over one another; this to vassalize us to a foreign nation.” Cromwell up to this point had supported negotiations with the king but now rejected further negotiations.

In making war against Parliament, the king had caused the deaths of thousands. Estimated deaths from the first two English civil wars has been reported as 84,830 killed with estimates of another 100,000 dying from war-related disease. The population of England in 1650 was estimated at only 5.1 million, meaning that the war deaths totalled 3.6% of the population.

Following the second civil war, the New Model Army and the Independents in Parliament were determined that the King should be punished, but they did not command a majority. Parliament debated whether to return the King to power and those who still supported Charles’s place on the throne, mainly Presbyterians, tried once more to negotiate with him.

The role of Parliament in ending a reign

Neither the involvement of Parliament in ending a reign nor the idea of trying a monarch was entirely novel. Parliament had asked for the abdication of Edward II (r. 1307–1327) who was charged with incompetence. Parliament also accepted the resignation of Richard II. However, in both these cases, Parliament acted at the behest of the new monarch. Parliament had established a regency council for Henry VI, although this was at the instigation of senior noblemen and Parliament claimed to be acting in the King’s name.

In the case of Lady Jane Grey, Parliament rescinded her proclamation as queen. She was subsequently tried, convicted and executed for high treason, but she was not brought to trial while still a reigning monarch.

Establishing the court

After the King had been moved to London, the Rump Parliament passed a Bill setting up what was described as a High Court of Justice in order to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The bill initially nominated 3 judges and 150 commissioners, but following opposition in the House of Lords, the judges and members of the Lords were removed. When the trial began, there were 135 commissioners who were empowered to try the King, but only 68 would ever sit in judgement. The Solicitor General John Cook was appointed prosecutor.

Charles was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of England. The charge against Charles I stated that the king, “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”, 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.” 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.”

Although the House of Lords refused to pass the bill and the Royal Assent naturally was lacking, the Rump Parliament referred to the ordinance as an “Act” and pressed on with the trial anyway. The intention to place the King on trial was re-affirmed on January 6 by a vote of 29 to 26 with An Act of the Commons Assembled in Parliament. At the same time, the number of commissioners was reduced to 135 – any twenty of whom would form a quorum when the judges, members of the House of Lords and others who might be sympathetic to the King were removed.

The trial began on January 20, 1649 in Westminster Hall, with a moment of high drama. After the proceedings were declared open, Solicitor General John Cook rose to announce the indictment; standing immediately to the right of the King, he began to speak, but he had uttered only a few words when Charles attempted to stop him by tapping him sharply on the shoulder with his cane and ordering him to “Hold”. Cook ignored this and continued, so Charles poked him a second time and rose to speak; despite this, Cook continued. At this point Charles, incensed at being thus ignored, struck Cook across the shoulder so forcefully that the ornate silver tip of the cane broke off, rolled down Cook’s gown and clattered onto the floor between them. With nobody willing to pick it up for him, Charles had to stoop down to retrieve it himself.

When given the opportunity to speak, Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch. He believed that his own authority to rule had been due to the divine right of kings given to him by God, and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that of force of arfter Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining, “No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King … one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong.” Charles asked “I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful [authority].” Charles maintained that the House of Commons on its own could not try anybody, and so he refused to plead. The court 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’.