“A wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his Will, and to overthrow the Rights and Liberties of the People’. In carrying out this strategy, he had ‘traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament and the people therein represented.”
– One of the accusations laid on Charles 1st of England during his Trial
The concept of King has become a rather nebulous one. The measure of their authority curtailed far from the ‘divine right’ once attributed to their station. The monarchy, once viewed as divinely ordained, has evolved into a largely symbolic institution, its legacy shaped by both conquests and cultural traditions. Kings, and by extension royalty, do very little in the way of ruling these days. One could almost cite them as a local historical attraction for the tourists, a relic from a bygone era. Lauded and criticized for their accomplishments and crimes in equal measure by the history books, the role of a monarch was both prestigious and perilous, as missteps could lead to the severest of consequences.
Second Son
Born into the House of Stuart, Charles was the second son of James VI of Scotland/ I of England. His elder brother, Henry, died of typhoid fever at age eighteen, making Charles heir apparent to the throne. Charles reign did not start well, in part due to the erratic choices of his father, James VI & I, who embroiled himself in conflict through fractious battles with Parliament and failed. But even so, Charles did little to improve his situation once the crown was on his head.
Charles was a believer in the divine right of kings – a political/religious doctrine that enforces a monarchs legitimacy and rule through the concept that their authority comes from God – and therefor could not be subject to the will of others. This put him in direct conflict with the English Parliament, which sought to curb his outlandish policies, and further hurt his public image and approval from the people.
The king, however, did not give these considerations much thought. When he married Henrietta Marie (by-proxy) in 1625, he intentionally delayed opening Parliament to avoid any objections. He told Parliament that he would not relax religious restrictions and then promised to do just that in treaties with his new brother-in-law, Louis the XIII. When his friend Buckingham was in danger of impeachment, Charles had two of the most ardent speakers – Dudley Digges and Sir John Eliot – arrested outside the House of Commons. When Parliament objected, saying that Buckingham was “intermeddling with the great affairs of state”, Charles dismissed Parliament rather than fire his friend.
Money, Money, Money
In an attempt to raise money for his war, Charles created further distress by subjecting his people to a ’forced loan’ in 1626. This meant that the King could collect money from his people without the consent of Parliament and imprison without trial anyone who refused to pay. Despite signing the Petition of Right, Charles later resumed collecting funds without parliamentary approval, raising concerns about the Parliament’s ability to enforce said document.
Charles frequently exercised his royal prerogative in ways that strained his relationship with Parliament, disregarding the legal ramifications of his actions as he saw himself not merely above the law, but the sole definer of its implementation. He gained financial support through granting monopolies to friends and allies, redrew the lines of the royal forests so he could fine land owners for its use, and sold off the areas for use in the iron industry. But despite all this illegality in the name of wealth, by the 1640’s Charles was so bankrupt he could not get a loan in his own country, much less outside of it.
In 1642, tensions had risen to the point of combustion. Parliament, initially, had no desire to abolish the monarchy. They merely wanted to be sure of a proper balance of power as well as the continued necessity of having a Parliament in the government to ensure correct checks and balances. Charles, with his radical belief in his own supremacy, refused to make concessions. The English Civil War lasted from August 1642 to September 1651, with the monarch backing Royalists (or Cavaliers) fighting tooth and nail against the Roundheads, who backed Parliament. After nine years of bloody conflict, Charles was turned over to Parliament by the Scottish Presbyterian Army for £100,000.
How to Kill a King
Charles would attempt to escape, fleeing Hampton Court in November and bound for the Isle of Wight only to find the Parliamentary Governor unsympathetic to his plight. An attempt to restore Charles to the throne in May 1648 was short-lived and ultimately unsuccessful. It was over by August of the same year. By this point, Oliver Cromwell had already made strides in consolidating his power. To Cromwell’s mind and the minds of his supporters, Charles was a ruler whose decisions had led the country into chaos, and they believed his removal was necessary
Trying a reigning monarch was unprecedented, raising complex legal and political questions. There was some degree of general befuddlement as to how to go about it, considering that the previous monarch had made it rather difficult for Parliament to do much without the kings approval. In the end, a bill was passed creating a separate court to try Charles. On January 20th, 1649, Charles I was charged with high treason and tyranny, specifically with waging war on the realm and betraying the trust of his own people. Throughout the proceedings, Charles refused to legitimize the assembly, defiant to the last that he was a king, and was therefore above their rulings.
This assertion was not terribly persuasive to Parliament. It was even less persuasive in the opinion of the axe, which, if it can be said to have an opinion on anything, likely did not have much of one outside of the efficient keenness of its edge.
Charles was beheaded at 2:00 p.m., at the Palace of Whitehall. The identity of his executioner is unknown, but the killing blow was said to be a ‘good clean stroke’ by those who examined it. Charles’ head was lifted high in the tradition of those who came before him. The cry “Behold the head of a traitor!” carried far and wide across the gathered crowd. Spectators collected pieces of cloth stained with the king’s blood, preserving them as relics of the historic event.
History offers perspective on the present. Looking back, we see that power is never absolute—governments change, political landscapes shift, and societies continue to evolve. No rule lasts forever, and the authority of even the most influential leaders is eventually tempered by time. Studying history allows us to understand past events, recognize patterns, and apply those lessons to shape the future. The past is filled with leaders who have left both positive and negative legacies, their impact shaping the course of history. Over time, societies reassess their actions, and change follows in ways that once seemed impossible.
It’s only in hindsight that we fully grasp the choices made and the transformations they set in motion.