On the 30th of January 1649, Charles Stuart, was beheaded at Whitehall, London.
Charles was the second son of James VI (of Scotland) and James I (of England) and Anne of Denmark. He was born in Scotland in 1600 and was unable to walk or talk until he was three years old. Charles became heir to the throne in 1612 after his older brother, Henry, died of typhoid. He ascended the throne in 1625.
Charles believed in the ‘Divine Right of Kings”, the political and religious doctrine of royal absolutism that asserts that the monarch is subject to no earthly authority, derives his right to rule directly from God, and is not subject to the will of his people. Charles was not alone in his belief, had one asked any earlier Kings they would have agreed with Charles.
However, politics has always been the art of possible, and wise monarchs with no standing army, no police force, no civil service, and virtually dependent on their own resources for finance were well aware that they needed the goodwill and support of their subjects. Asserting one’s rights are all fine and dandy providing those on whom one depend are happy with what you are doing, but Charles managed to alienate far too many people who also believed in their rights. It is not as if Charles could have been unaware of his own family history: John, Henry III, Edward II and Richard II had all ridden roughshod over their subject’s rights.
Charles’s marriage to a Catholic, his failure to successfully support Protestants in the Thirty Years War, his appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury who was determined to impose uniformity on the Church of England by removing and punishing non-conformists, and his attempt to impose ‘reforms’ on the Church in Scotland alienated large numbers of people who were fearful of a return to Catholicism.
Charles’s attempt to rule without Parliament alienated those who believed they had a right to be part of the governing process. By the end of the 1300s it was accepted that no taxes could be levied without the consent of the Commons: Charles raised money by resurrecting obsolete financial impositions and selling monopolies. Furthermore, the Henrician reforms had established the principle that the highest form of law was Statute by the Crown sitting in Parliament, personal rule by a monarch was seen as an illegitimate excercise of arbitrary power.
Charles’s execution still provokes strong feelings between those who see him as a tyrant and those who see him as a martyr.
Charles was accused and convicted of being a “tyrant, traitor and murderer; and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England.”
At his execution, Charles said:
“[As for the people,] truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whomsoever; but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consist in having of government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government, sirs; that is nothingpertaining to them; a subject and a sovereign are clear different things… “
Between two such opposing beliefs there could never be compromise.
Again I ask your indulgence! This is not my period and I know that someone on this site knows a great deal more than I!
Boadicea's Chariot 
Hello Boadicea: one of the most interesting periods in my opinion and impossible to condense into one short post but you have raised a number of interesting questions.
Charles’ failure to support Protestants was not important perhaps in the religious sense, but his failure to recognise the ethos of Protestantism as the new force behind the emergence of the new squirearchy and emerging trading classes as opposed to the old feudal order was probably quite significant. The return to Catholicism, a hierarchical system which supported the old order was not a good move either.
These were the people who had benefited greatly from the relative peace established earlier and these were the people who were now seen as milch cows by a monarchy who wanted to benefit from their endeavours. Naturally they wanted representation.
I haven’t even begun to address the wider issues but just a start. I may return, but really difficult to condense.
Typical bloody English. Chopping the boy’s heid off just because he was a Jock. No wonder we tend to be a wee thing scathing about our Southron cousins. They obviously started it.
A fascinating time, Boa. We started a lot of his problems by refusing to accept Laud’s reforms and eventually occupying the whole of Northumberland and Durham under Leslie. Charlie was forced to summon a new Parliament (the Long Parliament) and they were not about to take any nonsense from somebody who had been seriously duffed up by the Jocks.
In the fullness of time, and losing the Civil War, he surrendered to the Scottish Army, but would not sign the Covenant so we left him in the care of the English with guarantees about his safety when we marched back to Jockland. We got a wee bit hacked off when Cromwell and his lot proceeded to regicide him despite said guarantees and we immediately proclaimed his son as King. Sir James Balfour of Denmilne recorded the event:-
‘K. Charles behedit at Whytehall Gate, in England, by that traiterous parliament and armey (all honest men being formerly removed) on Tuesday, the 30th of Januar, 1649…..Prince Charles proclaimed King of Grate Britane, France and Irland, at Edinburghe crosse….’
Fascinating times, I say again and one of the reasons why there are so many people of Scots descent in the Americas. Shipped there as bondsmen by Cromwell after he humped us completely at Dunbar and elsewhere when we fought for our King, Charles II.
Interesting take on the matter, John 🙂 The canny Scots had espoused the cause of Protestantism rather too wholeheartedly perhaps? It was an easy victory was is not?
Just another thought. The divine right of kings doctrine has taken a bit of a knock even before this time and was very much a Catholic reinforcement of the absolute power of the Monarch. Very much questioned as per Ponet and then Locke.
The reality of the situation was England was in fact a constitutional monarchy of sorts and had been for some time.
Araminta
It was with some fear and trepidation that I embarked on this blog – knowing full well that you know so much about this period! But I couldn’t just ignore the date and write about something else.
I hope you do return to give us all a bit more insight… but thanks for answering anyway!
John … perhaps you should know my sentiments on the matter! It’s one of my favourite sayings that we chopped a king’s head off because he thought he was above the law…
… and I almost wish we would could chop a few more off for the same reason…
… the fact that Charles and GB share the same nationality has nothing to do with it, I assure you….
🙂
In some ways Charles Stuart was trying to take Britain back to an earlier time and in doing so he created a gulf between the factions in society and created a division of loyalty between King and Parliament that eventually led to bloodshed. A return to absolute monarchy would have torn up the terms of the Magna Carta (a very significant document of which I shall shortly publish a blog) and potentially an abuse of the rights of the common man.
In Scotland there is no doubt there were rough times following Cromwells brutal repressions, but no less so than in Ireland (and perhaps elsewhere in the UK too?).
Charles is often portrayed as a benign character, a gentile and unforuntate victim of circumstances. I am not so sure that his obstinency and direction didn’t play a large part in his failure. Had he acted through Parliament he might have achieved more and survived to leave a different legacy.
Not much of a subject for before breakfast, though Bo.
Boa and Arrers, I note the line: ….”subject to no earthly authority, derives his right to rule directly from God, and is not subject to the will of his people”. This brings me smoothly to a comparison between poor Charles and the not-so-poor Blair! His evidence to Chilcot yesterday exhibited some of the same attitudes, ‘je ne regrette rien’ amongst them.
Morning Boadicea: I don’t know about knowing more about it, it was a very long time ago, but I certainly was encouraged to approach it differently. The classic Christopher Hill approach, which looks at the period in terms of the emergence of the “middle classes” engaging in trade and commerce and their espousal of the ethos of Protestantism which placed a great deal of reliance on the benefiting from the results of one’s own labours, in contrast to the old order of knowing one’s station in life was pretty much defined at birth.
I think this approach does have its limitations though. It does not place much emphasis on individuals, Kings or parliamentarians, suggesting these characters react in in a pretty much defined way and have little influence on events.
A Scotsman ignoring the wishes of the English. That sounds familiar in today’s circumstances! Let us hope the perpetrator suffers similar consequences!
The most famous of those who signed Charles’ Death Warrant (31 signatures) was one Henry Marten, imprisoned first in the Tower and then for 20 years in Chepstow castle where he died. he is buried in the nave of Saint Mary’s parish church in that town, as a boy, like thousands of others, I walked over his stone most Sundays. It bears this Epitaph.
HENRY MARTEN
H ere or elsewhere (all’s one to you, to me)
E arth, air, or water, gripes my ghostless dust.
N one knows how soon to be by fire sett free.
R eader, if you an oft tryed rule will trust,
Y ou’ll gladly do, and suffer what you must.
M y life was spent with serving you, and you,
A nd death’s my pay (it seems) and welcome too.
R evenge destroying but itself, while I
T o birds of prey leave my old cage, and fly.
E xamples preach to th’ eye, care then (mine says)
N ot how you end, but how you spend your dayes.
I think you missed my point Paul, that whatever previous monarchs may have thought about their role none of them actually had the power to do exactly what they liked and to hell with what anyone thought. If sufficient numbers of those on whom kings depended to enforce their will refused to do so – just what was the king to do? Absolute monarchy cannot exist where kings do not have an independent power base – which usually comes down to where and how they get their money.
Thanks for your comments Araminta. I guess I’m biased by the fact that I studied at the LSE, where almost everything came down to economics!
Exactly Boadicea: I agree with you. Charles did recognise this fact, hence his desire to try to tax this new emerging source of wealth. They rebelled against this, flexing their new power and this fact a was crucial factor in his downfall, in my opinion. The aristocracy were also alarmed about this, but were attempting to some degree reluctantly to tap into this by marriage, but they found this alarming too. It was very much recognised and resisted by the old order, by and large.
Thanks for this LW.
I’ve just looked up the list of those who sat on the Commission that tried Charles. Henry was vary lucky to have escaped with his life!
One has to have a little sympathy for Charles – only a little! Parliamentary taxes were incredibly outdated. He had a choice of a 15th and 10th (or multiple thereof) – a set sum levied on defined places which had been agreed in the mid 1400s and raised about £32,000, or a subsidy the terms of which had been established in the early 1500s. There were a few other options, like aid for marrying the first daughter and knighting the first son, but even excise was dependent on Parliament’s approval.
There is a wonderful story about Edward III (not a weak king by any means!) having to leave his wife as surety for his debts while he went back to England to persuade the Commons to give him more money to fight the French…
I think, Boadicea that the Civil War was inevitable:
“If writings be true,” said the Leveller Rainborowe in 1647, “there have been many scufflings between the honest men of England and those that have tyrannised over them; and if it be read, there is none of those just and equitable laws that the people of England are born to but are intrenchment altogether. But … if the people find that they are not suitable to freemen as they are, I know no reason should deter me . . . from endeavouring by all means to gain anything that might be of more advantage to them than the government under which they live.” [Woodhouse]”
Sorry, I’ll go away now, but I have enjoyed your post and looking forward to the next one, Bo.
Thank you to everyone for posting on this blog. 🙂