Charles Stuart (I, King 1600-1649)

Wikipedia

Saint Charles I, King and Martyr (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649) was the second son of James VI of Scots and I of England. He was King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 27 March 1625 until his execution.[1] Charles engaged in a struggle for power with the Parliament of England, attempting to obtain royal revenue whilst Parliament sought to curb his Royal prerogative which Charles believed was divinely ordained. Many of his English subjects opposed his actions, in particular his interference in the English and Scottish Churches, and the levying of taxes without parliamentary consent grew to be seen as those of a tyrannical absolute monarch.[2]

Religious conflicts permeated Charles' reign. His failure to successfully aid Protestant forces during the Thirty Years War, coupled with such actions as marrying a Catholic princess,[3][4] generated deep mistrust concerning the king's dogma. Charles further allied himself with controversial religious figures, such as the ecclesiastic Richard Montagu, and William Laud, whom Charles appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Many of Charles's subjects felt this brought the Church of England too close to the Catholic Church. Charles's later attempts to force religious reforms upon Scotland led to the Bishops' Wars, which weakened England's government and helped precipitate his downfall.

His last years were marked by the English Civil War, in which he fought the forces of the English and Scottish Parliaments, which challenged the king's attempts to overrule and negate Parliamentary authority, whilst simultaneously using his position as head of the English Church to pursue religious policies which generated the antipathy of reformed groups such as the Puritans. Charles was defeated in the First Civil War (1642–45), after which Parliament expected him to accept its demands for a constitutional monarchy. He instead remained defiant by attempting to forge an alliance with Scotland and escaping to the Isle of Wight. This provoked the Second Civil War (1648–49) and a second defeat for Charles, who was subsequently captured, tried, convicted, and executed for high treason. The monarchy was then abolished and a republic called the Commonwealth of England, also referred to as the Cromwellian Interregnum, was declared. Charles's son, Charles II, became king after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.[2] In that same year, Charles I was canonized as "St. Charles Stuart" by the Church of England.[5]

[edit] Early life

The second son of James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark, Charles was born in Dunfermline Palace, Fife, on 19 November 1600.[2][6] His paternal grandmother was Mary, Queen of Scots. Charles was baptised on 23 December 1600 by the Bishop of Ross, in a ceremony held in Holyrood Abbey and was created Duke of Albany, Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch.[7]

Charles was a weak and sickly infant, and suffered from rickets at the age of one. When Elizabeth I of England died in March 1603 and James VI of Scotland became King of England as James I, Charles was not considered strong enough to survive the journey to London due to his fragile health. While his parents and older siblings left for England in April and May that year, Charles remained in Scotland, with his father’s friend and the Lord President of the Court of Session, Alexander Seton, Lord Fyvie, appointed as his guardian.[7]

By the spring of 1604, Charles was three and a half and was by then able to walk the length of the great hall at Dunfermline Palace unaided. It was decided that he was now strong enough to make the journey to England to be reunited with his family, and on 13 July 1604 Charles left Dunfermline for England, where he was to spend most of the rest of his life.[8] In England, Charles was placed under the charge of Alletta (Hogenhove) Carey, the Dutch-born wife of courtier Sir Robert Carey, who taught him how to walk and talk and insisted that he wear boots made of Spanish leather and brass to help strengthen his weak ankles. When Charles was an adult, he was 5 feet 3 inches (162 cm) tall.

Charles as Duke of York and Albany, c. 1611

Charles was not as valued as his elder brother, Henry, Prince of Wales; Charles himself adored Henry and tried to emulate him. In 1605, Charles was created Duke of York, which is customary in the case of the Sovereign's second son. However, when his elder brother died of typhoid at the age of 18 in 1612, two weeks before Charles's 12th birthday, Charles became heir apparent (and the eldest living son of the sovereign, thus automatically gaining several titles including Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay) and was subsequently created the Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in November 1616. His sister Elizabeth married Frederick V, Elector Palatine in 1613 [9] and moved to Heidelberg.

Charles as Prince of Wales by Isaac Oliver, 1615.

In 1617 the Catholic Ferdinand II was elected king of Bohemia. The following year, the people of Bohemia rebelled against their monarch, choosing to crown Fredrick V of the Palatinate, and leader of the Protestant Union in his stead. Fredrick's acceptance of the crown in November 1619 thus marked the beginning of turmoil which would develop into the Thirty Years' War. This conflict made a great impression upon the English Parliament and public,[10] who quickly grew to see it as a polarised continental struggle between Catholic and Protestant. James, who was supportive of Fredrick, and had been seeking marriage between the new Prince of Wales and the Spanish Infanta, Maria Anna of Spain, since Prince Henry's death,[11] began to see the Spanish Match as a possible means of achieving peace in Europe.

Unfortunately for James, this diplomatic negotiation with Spain proved generally unpopular, both with the public and James' court,[12] with 'Arminian' divines providing a unique source of support for the proposed union.[13] Parliament was actively hostile towards the Spanish throne, and thus, when called by James, hoped for a crusade under the leadership of the king [14] to rescue Protestants on the continent from tyrannical Hapsburg rule.[15] Attacks upon the monopolists by Parliament for the abuse of prices led to the scapegoating of Francis Bacon by George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham [16], leading to Bacon's impeachment before the Lords; the first of its kind which was not officially sanctioned by the King in the form of a Bill of attainder since 1459. The incident set an important precedent in terms of the apparent authority of Parliament to safeguard the nation's interests and its capacity to launch legal campaigns, as it later did against Buckingham, Archbishop Laud, the Earl of Strafford and Charles I. However, parliament and James came to blows when the issue of foreign policy was discussed, with James insisting that the Commons should be exclusively concerned with domestic affairs. The members of the Commons, meanwhile, protested that they had the privilege of free speech within the Commons' walls.[17] In January 1622 James dissolved the Parliament.

Charles, and the Duke of Buckingham,[18] James' favourite and a man who had great influence over the prince, together travelled incognito to Spain in 1623 in an attempt to reach agreement on the long-pending Spanish Match. The trip ended as an embarrassing failure however, as the Spanish demanded that Charles convert to Roman Catholicism and remain in Spain for a year after the wedding as hostage to ensure England's compliance with all the terms of the treaty. Charles was outraged, and upon their return in October, he and Buckingham demanded that King James declare war on Spain.

With the encouragement of his Protestant advisers, James summoned Parliament so that he could request subsidies for a war. James also requested that Parliament sanction the marriage between the Prince of Wales and Princess Henrietta Maria of France, whom Charles had met in Paris while en route to Spain. It was a good match since she was a sister of Louis XIII (their father, Henry IV, had died during her childhood). Although Parliament agreed to the marriage, the episode soured Charles' alliance with the Puritans. By 1624, James was growing senile, and as a result was finding it extremely difficult to control Parliament—the same problem would later haunt Charles during his reign. By the time of James' death, February 1625,Charles and the Duke of Buckingham had already achieved de facto control of the kingdom.

Scottish and English Royalty
House of Stuart
Charles I
Charles II
James II & VII
Henry, Duke of Gloucester
Mary, Princess Royal
Henriette Anne, Duchess of Orléans
Elizabeth

Both Charles and James were advocates of the divine right of kings, but whilst James' lofty ambitions were tempered by compromise and consensus with his subjects, Charles I was shy and diffident, but also self-righteous, stubborn, opinionated, determined and confrontational. Charles believed he had no need to compromise or even explain his rules and that he was answerable only to God, famously stating: "Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone".[19][20]

[edit] Oath of Allegiance

Although the concept of the Oath of Allegiance was founded upon the principles of the Magna Carta, early modern usage of such an oath was instituted by James I and extensively broadened under the reign of Charles. The text of the Oath of Allegiance to Charles read as follows;

I A. B. doe truely and sincercly acknowledge, professe, testifie and declare in my conscience before God and the world, That our Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES, is lawfull King of this Realme, and of all other His Majesties Dominions and Countreyes: And that the Pope neither of himselfe, nor by any Authority of the Church or Sea of Rome, or by an other meanes with any other, hath any power or Authority to depose the king, or to dispose of any of his Majesties Kingdomes or Dominions, or to Authorize any Forraigne Prince, to invade or annoy Him or His Countreyes, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to His Majestie, or to give Licence or leave to any of them to beare Armes, raise Tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to His Majesties Royall person, State or Government, or to any of His Majesties Subjects within His Majesties Dominions. Also I doe sweare from my heart, that, notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted, by the Pope or his Successors, or by any Authority derived, or pretended to be derived from him or his Sea, against the said King, His Heires or Successors, or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience; I will bear faith and true allegiance to His Majestie, His Heires and Successors, and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatoever, which shall be made against His or their Persons, their Crowne and Dignitie, by reason or colour of any such Sentence, or Declaration or otherwise, and will doe my best endevour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, His Heires and Successors, all Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies which I shall know or heare of to be against Him, or any of them. And l do further sweare, That I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position, That Princes which be Excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I doe beleeve, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof; which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to bee lawfully ministered unto me, and do renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I doe plainely and sincerely acknowledge and sweare, according to these expresse words by me spoken, and according to the plaine and common sence and understanding of the same words, without any Equivocation, or mentall evasion or secret reservasion whatsoever. And I doe make this Recognition and acknowledgement heartily, willingly, and truely, upon the true Faith of a Christian. So helpe me GOD. [21]

[edit] Early reign

On 11 May 1625, Charles was married by proxy to Henrietta Maria. In his first Parliament, which he opened in May, many members were opposed to his marriage to Henrietta Maria, a Roman Catholic, fearing that Charles would lift restrictions on Roman Catholics and undermine the official establishment of Protestantism. Although he stated to Parliament that he would not relax restrictions relating to recusants, he promised to do exactly that in a secret marriage treaty with Louis XIII of France. Moreover, the price of marriage with the French princess was a promise of English aid for the French crown in the suppressing of the Protestant Huguenots at La Rochelle, thereby reversing England's long held position in the French Wars of Religion. The couple were married in person on 13 June 1625 in Canterbury and Charles himself was crowned on 2 February 1626 at Westminster Abbey, but without his wife at his side due to the controversy. Charles and Henrietta had seven children, with three sons and three daughters surviving infancy.[22]

Sir Anthony Van Dyck: Charles I painted in April 1634

Distrust of Charles's religious policies increased with his support of a controversial ecclesiastic, Richard Montagu. In the pamphlet Immediate Addresse unto God alone , Montagu had argued against the teachings of John Calvin, thereby bringing himself into disrepute amongst the Puritans. After a Puritan member of the House of Commons, John Pym, attacked Montagu's pamphlet during debate, Montagu requested the king's aid in another pamphlet entitled "Appello Caesarem"(1625), (a reference to an appeal against Jewish persecution made by Saint Paul the Apostle).[23] Charles made the cleric one of his royal chaplains, increasing many Puritans' suspicions as to where Charles would lead the Church, fearing that his favouring of Arminianism was a clandestine attempt on Charles' part to aid the resurgence of Catholicism within the English Church.

Charles's primary concern during his early reign was foreign policy. The Thirty Years' War, originally confined to Bohemia, was spiralling into a wider European war. In 1620 Frederick V was defeated at the Battle of White Mountain and by 1622, despite the aid of English volunteers, had lost his hereditary lands in the Palatinate to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II.[24] Having agreed to help his brother-in-law regain the Palatinate, Charles declared war on Spain, which under the Catholic King Philip IV had sent forces to help occupy the Palatinate.[25]

Parliament preferred an inexpensive naval attack on Spanish colonies in the New World, hoping that the capture of the Spanish treasure fleets could finance the war. Charles, however, preferred more aggressive (and more expensive) action on the Continent. Parliament only voted to grant a subsidy of £140,000; an insufficient sum for Charles. Moreover, the House of Commons limited its authorisation for royal collection of tonnage and poundage (two varieties of customs duties) to a period of one year, although previous sovereigns since 1414 had been granted the right for life.[citation needed] In this manner, Parliament could keep a check on expenditures by forcing Charles to seek the renewal of the grant each year. Charles's allies in the House of Lords, led by the Duke of Buckingham, refused to pass the bill. Although no Parliamentary authority for the levy of tonnage and poundage was obtained, Charles continued to collect the duties anyway.

The war with Spain went badly, largely due to Buckingham's incompetent leadership. Despite Parliament's protests, however, Charles refused to dismiss him, dismissing Parliament instead. He then provoked further unrest by trying to raise money for the war through a "forced loan" -- a tax levied without Parliamentary consent. Although partially successful in collecting the tax, Charles let the money dribble away in yet another military fiasco led by Buckingham in the defence of La Rochelle. Summoned again in 1628, Parliament adopted a Petition of Right on 26 May, calling upon the king to acknowledge that he could not levy taxes without Parliament's consent, impose martial law on civilians, imprison them without due process, or quarter troops in their homes.[26] Charles assented to the petition, though he continued to claim the right to collect customs duties without authorisation from Parliament.

Despite Charles' agreement to suppress La Rochelle as a condition of marrying Henrietta Maria, Charles reneged upon his earlier promise and instead launched a poorly conceived and executed defense of the fortress under the leadership of Buckingham in 1628 - thereby driving a wedge between the English and French Crowns that was not surmounted for the duration of the 30 Years' War. Buckingham's failure to protect the Huguenots - indeed, his very presence spurred Louis XIII's attack on the fortress - furthered Parliament's detestation of the Duke and the king's close proximity to this 'eminence grise'. On 12 June 1628, the House of Commons launched a direct protestation, stating, 'We protest before your Majesty and the whole world that until this great person be removed from intermeddling with the great affairs of state, we are out of hope of any good success; and we do fear that any money we shall or can give will, through his misemployment, be turned rather to the hurt and prejudice of your kingdom.'

On 23 August 1628, Buckingham was assassinated. The public rejoicing at his death accentuated the gulf between the court and the nation, and between the crown and the Commons. Although the death of Buckingham effectively ended the war with Spain and eliminated his leadership as an issue, it did not end the conflicts between Charles and Parliament over taxation and religious matters.[27]

[edit] Personal rule

Charles I, King of England, from Three Angles, the Triple Portrait by Anthony van Dyck.

In January 1629, Charles opened the second session of the 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 their opposition in light of the Rolle case, in which the autonomous MP had had his goods confiscated for failing to pay tonnage and poundage. Many MPs viewed the confiscation as a breach of the Petition of Right,[28] arguing that the petition's freedom-from-arrest privilege extended to goods. When Charles ordered a parliamentary adjournment in March, members held the Speaker, Sir John Finch, down in his chair whilst resolutions against Catholicism, Arminianism and poundage and tonnage were read out. The lattermost resolution declared that anyone who paid tonnage or poundage not authorised by Parliament would "be reputed a betrayer of the liberties of England, and an enemy to the same", and, although the resolution was not formally passed, many members declared their approval. Nevertheless, the provocation was too much for Charles, who dissolved parliament the same day.[29] Moreover, eight parliamentary leaders, including Eliot, were imprisoned on the foot of the matter, thereby turning these men into martyrs, and giving popular cause to a protest that had hitherto been losing its bearings.

Immediately following the proroguing of Parliament, Charles made peace with France and Spain. The following eleven years, during which Charles ruled without a Parliament, are referred to as the Personal Rule or the Eleven Years' Tyranny. (Ruling without Parliament, though an exceptional exercise of the royal prerogative, was supported by precedent. By the middle of the 17th century, opinion shifted, and many held the Personal Rule to be an illegitimate exercise of arbitrary, absolute power.)

[edit] Economic problems

The reigns of Elizabeth I and James I had generated a large fiscal deficit for the kingdom. Notwithstanding the failure of Buckingham in the short lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was in reality little economic capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas. England was still the least taxed country in Europe, with no official excise and no regular direct taxation.[30] Now, despite peace, without the consent of Parliament Charles' capacity to acquire funds in order to maintain his treasury was theoretically hamstrung, legally at least. To raise revenue without reconvening Parliament, Charles first resurrected an all-but-forgotten law called the "Distraint of Knighthood," promulgated in 1279, which required anyone who earned £40 or more each year to present himself at the King's coronation to join the royal army as a knight.[31] Relying on this old statute, Charles fined all individuals who had failed to attend his coronation in 1626.

Later, Charles reintroduced obsolete feudal taxes such as purveyance, wardship, and forest laws.[32] Chief among these taxes was one known as ship money,[32] which proved even more unpopular, and lucrative, than poundage and tonnage before it. Under statutes of Edward I and Edward III, collection of ship money had been authorized only during wars, and only on coastal regions. Charles, however, argued that there was no legal bar to collecting the tax during peacetime and throughout the whole of the kingdom. Although the first writ levying ship money, issued in 1634, did not provoke much immediate opposition, the second and third writs, issued in 1635 and 1636 aroused serious dissent as Charles' intention became clear. Many attempted to resist payment, but the royal courts declared that the tax was within the King's prerogative. The collection was a major concern to the ruling class.

The king also derived money through the granting of monopolies, despite a statute forbidding such action (The Monopolies Act, 1624), which, though inefficient, raised an estimated £100,000 a year in the late 1630s in royal revenue.[33]

[edit] Religious conflicts

Throughout Charles' reign, the issue of how far the English Reformation should progress was constantly brought to the forefront of political debate. Arminian theology contained an emphasis on clerical authority and the individual's capacity to reject salvation, and was consequently viewed as heretical and a potential vehicle for the reintroduction of Roman Catholicism by its opponents. Charles' sympathy to the teachings of Arminianism, and specifically his wish to move the Church of England away from Calvinism in a more traditional and sacramental direction,[34] consistently affirmed Puritans' suspicions concerning the perceived irreligious tendencies of the crown. A long history of rightful opposition to tyrants who oppressed Protestants had developed since the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, most notably during the French Wars of Religion (articulated in the Vindiciae contra tyrannos), and more recently in the Second Defenestration of Prague and eruption of the Thirty Years' War. Such cultural identifications resonated with Charles' subjects. Although Charles was, in fact, quite hostile to Catholicism (particularly due to the divided loyalty of Catholics between their prince and the Papacy) these allegations would haunt Charles due to the continued exacerbating actions of both king and council, particularly in the form of Archbishop William Laud.

William Laud was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633,[35][36] and began a series of unpopular reforms such as attempting to ensure religious uniformity by dismissing non-conformist clergymen, and closing Puritan organisations. His policy was opposed to Calvinist theology, and he insisted that the Church of England's liturgy be celebrated using the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. To punish those who refused to accept his reforms, Laud used the two most feared and most arbitrary courts in the land, the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber. The former could compel individuals to provide self-incriminating testimony, whilst the latter, essentially an extension of the Privy Council, could inflict any punishment whatsoever (including torture), with the sole exception of death.

William Laud shared Charles's views on Calvinism

The first years of the Personal Rule were marked by peace in England, due in part to tighter central control. Several individuals opposed Charles's taxes and Laud's policies, and some left as a result, such as the Puritan minister Thomas Hooker, who set sail for America along with other religious dissidents in the Griffin (1634). By 1633 Star Chamber had, in effect, taken the place of High Commission as the supreme tribunal for religious offenses as well as dealing with Crown cases of a secular nature.[37] Under Charles's reign, defendants were regularly hauled before the Court without indictment, due process of the law, or right to confront witnesses, and their testimonies were routinely extracted by the Court through torture.

However, when Charles attempted to impose his religious policies in Scotland he faced numerous difficulties. The king ordered the use of a new Prayer Book to be used within Scotland that was almost identical to the English Book of Common Prayer, without consultation with either the Scottish Parliament or Kirk. Although this move was supported by the Scottish Bishops, it was resisted by many Presbyterian Scots, who saw the new Prayer Book as a vehicle for introducing Anglicanism to Scotland. In 1637, spontaneous unrest erupted throughout the Kirk upon the first Sunday of its usage, and the public began to mobilise around rebellious nobles in the form of the National Covenant. When the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland abolished Episcopalian government (that is, governance of the Church by bishops) in 1638, replacing it with Presbyterian government (that is, governance by elders and deacons), Charles sought to put down what he saw as a rebellion against his authority.

In 1639, when the First Bishops' War broke out, Charles failed in his attempts to collect taxes from his English subjects in order to organise an armed response against the Covenanters. Charles could not effectively wage war and was thus forced into a humiliating truce in June of the same year. In the Pacification of Berwick, Charles agreed to grant his Scottish subjects civil and ecclesiastical freedoms.

Charles's military failure in the First Bishops' War in turn caused a financial and military crisis for Charles, which ultimately ended the period of Personal Rule.[38] Due to his financial weakness, Charles was forced to call Parliament into session by 1640 in an attempt to raise funds. While the ruling class's grievances with the changes to government and finance during the Personal Rule period were a contributing factor in the Scottish Rebellion, the key issue of religion was the main reason that forced Charles to confront the ruling class in Parliament for the first time in eleven years. In essence, it was Charles's and Laud's confrontational religious modifications that ended what the Whig historians refer to as "The Eleven Years of Tyranny".

[edit] The Second Bishops' War

Charles immediately sought to redress his grievances with the Church of Scotland, taking the fateful step of recalling Parliament in April 1640. Although Charles offered to repeal ship money, and the House of Commons agreed to allow Charles to raise the funds for war, an impasse was reached when Parliament demanded the discussion of various abuses of power during the Personal Rule. Both sides refused to give ground on this matter, and in the General Election in March, court candidates fared badly. The Parliamentarians' calls for further reforms were ignored by Charles, who still maintained the support of the House of Lords. Parliament was dissolved in May 1640, less than a month after it assembled; thus, the Parliament became known as the "Short Parliament."[39]

Portrait of Charles I with Seignior de St Antoine

By this stage Thomas Wentworth, who was promoted to Earl of Strafford in January 1640, had emerged as Charles' right hand man and together with Laud, pursued a policy of 'thorough'.[40] Although originally a major critic of the king, Strafford defected to royal service in 1628 (due in part to Buckingham's persuasion)[41]; since emerging as the most capable of Charles' ministers. Having trained up a large army in Ireland in support of the king, and seriously weakened the authority of the Irish Parliament, particularly those members of parliament belonging to the Old English, Strafford had been instrumental in obtaining an independent source of both royal revenue and forces within the three kingdoms. As the Scottish Parliament declared itself capable of governing without the king's consent and, in September 1640, moved into Northumber, Strafford was sent north to command the English forces. The Scottish soldiery, many of whom were veterans of the Thirty Years' War, had far greater morale and training compared to their English counterparts, and met virtually no resistance until reaching Newcastle where, at the Battle of Newburn, the town—and hence England's coal supply—fell into the hands of the Covenanter forces. At this critical juncture, the English host based at York was unable to mount a counterattack due to the fact that Strafford was incapacitated by a serious case of gout.

On the 24th of September Charles took the unusual step of summoning the magnum concilium, the ancient council of all the Peers of the Realm, who were considered the King's hereditary counsellors, who recommended recalling Parliament. However, events overtook the King as the Covenanters took the initiative and marched on York, thereby forcing Charles to agree to the humiliating Treaty of Ripon, signed October 1640. The treaty stated that the Scots would continue to occupy Newcastle and be paid £850 per day, until peace was restored and the English Parliament re-called. Consequently, in November Charles summoned what was later to become known as the Long Parliament. Of the 493 MPs of the Commons, 399 were opposed to the king, and only 94 could be counted on, by Charles, for support.

[edit] The "Long Parliament"

The Long Parliament assembled in November 1640 under the leadership of John Pym, and proved just as difficult for Charles as the Short Parliament. Although the members of the House of Commons thought of themselves as conservatives defending the King, Church and Parliamentary government against innovations in religion and the tyranny of Charles's advisors, Charles viewed many of them as dangerous rebels trying to undermine his rule.

To prevent the King from dissolving it at will, Parliament passed the Triennial Act, to which the Royal Assent was granted in February 1641. The Act required that Parliament was to be summoned at least once every three years, and that when the King failed to issue proper summons, the members could assemble on their own. In May, he assented to an even more far-reaching Act, which provided that Parliament could not be dissolved without its own consent. Charles was forced into one concession after another. Ship money, fines in destraint of knighthood and forced loans were declared unlawful, and the hated Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission were abolished. Although he made several important concessions, Charles improved his own military position by securing the favour of the Scots. He finally agreed to the official establishment of Presbyterianism; in return, he was able to enlist considerable anti-parliamentary support.

Henrietta Maria (c. 1633) by Sir Anthony van Dyck

In March 1641 Strafford, who had become the immediate target of the Parliamentarians, went on trial for high treason. The incident provided a new departure for Irish politics whereby Old English, Gaelic Irish and New English settlers joined together in a legal body to present evidence against Strafford.[42] However, the Lords were opposed to the severity of the sentence of death imposed upon Strafford on the 22nd of March, and the evidence supplied by Vale in relation to Strafford's alleged improper use and threat to England via the Irish army was not upheld by another witness, and the case consequently began to flounder. Moreover, Strafford's life ultimately lay in Charles' hands as his execution could not go ahead unless the king signed the Bill of Attainder. Yet, increased tensions and an attempted coup by the army in favour of Strafford began to sway the issue. In the Commons the Bill went virtually unopposed (204 in favour, 59 opposed, 250 abstained),[43] the Lords acquiesced, and Charles, fearing for the safety of his family, signed on May 10.[44] The Earl of Strafford was beheaded two days later.

In a similar manner as pursued by the English Parliament in their opposition to Buckingham, albeit from a far less disingenuous stance, the Old English within the Irish Parliament argued that their opposition to Strafford did not negate their loyalty to Charles and that Charles, rather, had been led astray by the malign influence of the Earl,[45] and that, moreover, the ambiguity surrounding Poynings' Law meant that, instead of ensuring that the king was directly involved in the governance of Ireland, that a viceroy such as Strafford, the Earl of Wentworth, could emerge as a despotic figure.[46] However, unlike their Old English counterparts who were Catholic, the New English settlers in Ireland were Protestant and could loosely be defined as aligned with the English Parliament and the Puritans; thereby fundamentally opposed to the crown due to unfolding events within England herself. Various disputes between native and coloniser concerning fallout from the most recent plantation of Ulster, coupled with the gradual polarisation of monarchist and anti-monarchist would sow the seeds of conflagration in Ireland that, despite its initial chaos, provide the catalyst for direct armed combat within England between those who opposed the authority of the king and those who supported it. The success of the trial against Strafford weakened Charles' influence whilst also paving the way for cooperation between the Gaelic Irish and Old English in Ireland, who had hitherto been antagonistic towards one another. Thus, in the conflict between the Gaelic Irish and New English settlers in the Irish Rebellion of 1641, the Old English sided with the Celtic Irish whilst simultaneously professing their loyalty to the king.

Following the attempted coup of 'The Incident' in Scotland, Charles' remaining Scottish support disintegrated. However, though in November 1641 the House of Commons passed the Grand Remonstrance, a long list of grievances against actions by Charles's ministers that were asserted to be abuses of royal power Charles had committed since the beginning of his reign, it was in many ways a step too far by Pym (passed by 5 votes, 200 abstain, and opposed by the Lords). The tension was heightened when the Irish rebelled against Protestant English rule and rumours of Charles's complicity reached Parliament. The support of the 'Papist Army' established by Strafford for the king, whose religious convictions were already doubted by the English Parliament, coupled with the massacres of Protestant New English in Ireland by Gaelic Irish who could not be controlled by their lords, proved to be the final antinomy between the English Parliament and the king in relation to Charles' authority to govern. The English Parliament did not trust Charles' motivations when he called for funds to put down the Irish rebellion, many members of the House of Commons fearing that forces raised by Charles might later be used against Parliament itself. The Militia Bill was intended to wrest control of the army from the King, but Charles refused to agree to it. However, the Militia Ordinance appears to have been the single most decisive moment in prompting an exodus from the Upper House to support the king.[47] Parliament decreed The Protestation as an attempt to lessen the conflict. Yet, when rumours reached Charles that Parliament intended to impeach his Catholic Queen, Henrietta Maria, he decided to take drastic action which would not only end the diplomatic stalemate between himself and parliament, but signal the beginning of the civil war.

It was possibly Henrietta who persuaded Charles to arrest the five members of the House of Commons who were perceived to be the most troublesome on charges of high treason. Charles intended to carry out the arrests personally, but news of the warrant reached Parliament ahead of him, and the wanted men, Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode and Sir Arthur Haselrig had already slipped away by the time he arrived. Charles entered the House of Commons with an armed force on 4 January 1642, but found that his opponents had already escaped. Having displaced the Speaker, William Lenthall from his chair, the King asked him where the MPs had fled. Lenthall famously replied, "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."[48] Charles abjectly declared 'all my birds have flown', and was forced to retire, empty-handed.

The botched arrest attempt was politically disastrous for Charles. It caused acute embarrassment for the monarch and essentially triggered the total breakdown of government in England. Afterwards, Charles could no longer feel safe in London and he began travelling north to raise an army against Parliament; the Queen, at the same time, went abroad to raise money to pay for it.

[edit] English Civil War

The English Civil War had not yet started, but both sides began to arm. Following futile negotiations, Charles raised the royal standard in Nottingham on 22 August 1642. He then set up his court at Oxford, when his government controlled roughly the Midlands, Wales, the West Country and north of England. Parliament remained in control of London and the south-east as well as East Anglia. Charles raised an army using the archaic method of the Commission of Array. The Civil War started on 26 October 1642 with the inconclusive Battle of Edgehill and continued indecisively through 1643 and 1644, until the Battle of Naseby tipped the military balance decisively in favour of Parliament. There followed a great number of defeats for the Royalists, and then the Siege of Oxford, from which Charles escaped in April 1646.[49] He put himself into the hands of the Scottish Presbyterian army at Newark, and was taken to nearby Southwell while his "hosts" decided what to do with him. The Presbyterians finally arrived at an agreement with Parliament and delivered Charles to them in 1647. He was imprisoned at Holdenby House in Northamptonshire, until cornet George Joyce took him by force to Newmarket in the name of the New Model Army. At this time mutual suspicion had developed between the New Model Army and Parliament, and Charles was eager to exploit it.

He was then transferred first to Oatlands and then Hampton Court, where more involved but fruitless negotiations took place. He was persuaded that it would be in his best interests to escape — perhaps abroad, to France, or to the custody of Colonel Robert Hammond, Parliamentary Governor of the Isle of Wight.[50] He decided on the last course, believing Hammond to be sympathetic, and fled on 11 November.[51] Hammond, however, was opposed to Charles, whom he confined in Carisbrooke Castle.[52]

From Carisbrooke, Charles continued to try to bargain with the various parties. In ironic contrast to his previous conflict with the Scottish Kirk, Charles gained the promise of military intervention from Scotland in exchange for a promised imposition of Presbyterianism in England as well as Scotland for a trial period. The Royalists rose in July 1648 igniting the Second Civil War, and as agreed with Charles the Scots invaded England. Most of the uprisings in England were put down by forces loyal to Parliament after little more than skirmishes, but uprisings in Kent, Essex, and Cumberland, the rebellion in Wales and the Scottish invasion involved the fighting of pitched battles and prolonged sieges. But with the defeat of the Scots at the Battle of Preston, the Royalists lost any chance of winning the war.

[edit] Trial

A plate depicting the Trial of Charles I on 4 January 1649.

Charles was moved to Hurst Castle at the end of 1648, and thereafter to Windsor Castle. In January 1649, in response to Charles's defiance of Parliament even after defeat, and his encouraging the second Civil War while in captivity, the House of Commons passed an Act of Parliament creating a court for Charles's trial. After the first 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. It was now felt that by provoking the second Civil War even while defeated and in captivity, Charles showed himself incorrigible, dishonourable, and responsible for unjustifiable bloodshed.

The idea of trying a king was a novel one; previous monarchs (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward IV) had been deposed, but had never been brought to trial as monarchs. The High Court of Justice established by the Act consisted of 135 Commissioners but only about half of that number ever sat in judgement (all firm Parliamentarians); the prosecution was led by Solicitor General John Cooke.

His trial on charges of high treason and "other high crimes" began on 20 January 1649, but Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch.[53] He believed that his own authority to rule had been 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 arms. When urged to enter a plea, he stated his objection with the words: "I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority...?"[53] The court, by contrast, proposed an interpretation of the law that legitimised the trial, which was founded on

"...the fundamental proposition 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’."[54]

The trial began with a moment of high drama. After the proceedings were declared open, Solicitor General John Cooke 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". Cooke ignored this and continued, so Charles poked him a second time and rose to speak; despite this, Cooke continued his speech.

At this point Charles, incensed at being thus ignored, struck Cooke across the shoulder so forcefully that the ornate silver tip of the cane broke off, rolled down Cooke's gown and clattered onto the floor between them. Charles then ordered Cooke to pick it up, but Cooke again ignored him, and after a long pause, Charles stooped to retrieve it.[53][54]

Over a period of a week, when Charles was asked to plead three times, he refused. It was then normal practice to take a refusal to plead as pro confesso: an admission of guilt, which meant that the prosecution could not call witnesses to its case. However, the trial did hear witnesses. Fifty-nine of the Commissioners signed Charles's death warrant, possibly at the Red Lion Inn in Stathern, Leicestershire[55] on 29 January 1649.

After the ruling, he was led from St. James's Palace, where he was confined, to the Palace of Whitehall, where an execution scaffold had been erected in front of the Banqueting House.

[edit] Execution

This contemporary German print depicts Charles I's decapitation.

Charles was beheaded on Tuesday, 30 January 1649. At the execution it is reputed that he wore two cotton shirts as to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear or weakness. He put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. His last words were, "I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."[2]

Philip Henry records that moments after the execution, a moan was heard from the assembled crowd, some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in his blood, thus starting the cult of the Martyr King. However, no other eyewitness source, including Samuel Pepys, records this. Henry's account was written during the Restoration, some 12 years after the event though Henry was 19 when the King was executed and he and his family were Royalist propaganda writers.[1]

The executioner was masked, and there is some debate over his identity. It is known that the Commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common Hangman of London, but that he refused, and contemporary sources do not generally identify him as the King's headsman. Ellis's Historical Inquiries, however, names him as the executioner, contending that he stated so before dying. It is possible he relented and agreed to undertake the commission, but there are others who have been identified. An Irishman named Gunning is widely believed to have beheaded Charles, and a plaque naming him as the executioner is on show in the Kings Head pub in Galway, Ireland. William Hewlett was convicted of regicide after the Restoration.[56] In 1661, two people identified as "Dayborne and Bickerstaffe" were arrested but then discharged. Henry Walker, a revolutionary journalist, or his brother William, were suspected but never charged. Various local legends around England name local worthies. An examination performed in 1813 at Windsor suggests that the execution was done by an experienced headsman.

It was common practice for the 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. In an unprecedented gesture, one of the revolutionary leaders, Oliver Cromwell, allowed the King's head to be sewn back onto his body so the family could pay its respects. Charles was buried in private on the night of 7 February 1649, inside the Henry VIII vault in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. The royal retainers Sir Thomas Herbert, Capt. Anthony Mildmay, Sir Henry Firebrace, William Levett Esq. and Abraham Dowcett (sometimes spelled Dowsett) conveyed the King's body to Windsor.[57][58] The King's son, King Charles II, later planned an elaborate royal mausoleum, but it was never built.

Ten days after Charles's execution, a memoir purporting to be from Charles's hand appeared for sale. This book, the Eikon Basilike (Greek: the "Royal Portrait"), contained an apologia for royal policies, and it proved an effective piece of royalist propaganda. William Levett, Charles's groom of the bedchamber, who accompanied Charles on the day of his execution, swore that he had personally witnessed the King writing the Eikon Basilike.[59] John Cooke published the speech he would have delivered if Charles had entered a plea, while Parliament commissioned John Milton to write a rejoinder, the Eikonoklastes ("The Iconoclast"), but the response made little headway against the pathos of the royalist book.[60]

Following the death of the king, several works were written expressing the outrage of the people at such an act. The ability to execute a king, believed to be the spokesman of God, was a shock to the country. Several poems, such as Catherine Phillips' Upon the Double Murder of King Charles, express the depth of their outrage. In her poem, Phillips describes the "double murder" of the king; the execution of his life as well as the execution of his dignity. By killing a king, Phillips questioned the human race as a whole - what they were capable of, and how low they would sink.[61]

[edit] Legacy

The image of Charles being mocked by Cromwell's soldiers was used by French artist Hippolyte Delaroche in his 1836 painting, Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers, rediscovered in 2009, as an allegory to the more recent similar events in France, felt to be still too recent to paint

With the monarchy overthrown, and the Commonwealth of England declared, power was assumed by a Council of State, which included Lord Fairfax, then Lord General of the Parliamentary Army, and Oliver Cromwell. The final conflicts between Parliamentary forces and Royalists were decided in the Third English Civil War and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, whereby all significant military opposition to the Parliament and New Model Army was extinguished. The Long Parliament (known by then as the Rump Parliament) which had been called by Charles I in 1640 continued to exist (with varying influence) until Cromwell forcibly disbanded it completely in 1653, thereby establishing The Protectorate. Cromwell then became Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland; a monarch in all but name: he was even 'invested' on the royal coronation chair. Upon his death in 1658, Cromwell was briefly succeeded by his son, Richard Cromwell. Richard Cromwell was an ineffective ruler, and the Long Parliament was reinstated in 1659. The Long Parliament dissolved itself in 1660, and the first elections in twenty years led to the election of a Convention Parliament which restored Charles I's eldest son to the monarchy as Charles II. Following the Restoration, Oliver Cromwell was exhumed and posthumously beheaded.

Republicanism thus had a brief tenure in British governance, but nevertheless, the monarchy never regained the heights of power it had experienced under the Tudors and early Stuarts. Moreover, continued fears concerning the accession of a Catholic heir, and consequent persecution of the Protestant Church (as under Mary I), or foreign intervention by the Hapsburgs or French, meant that the right of succession was closely guarded. Ultimately, in the conflict between William III, and James II, it was William, the foreign usurper, who became the popular defender of Protestantism. Throughout the 19th century Parliament gradually assumed greater effective control of British government, whereby the king's prime minister became the de facto leader of the United Kingdom.

The Colony of Carolina in North America was named after Charles I, as was the major city of Charleston. Carolina later separated into North Carolina and South Carolina, which eventually declared independence from Great Britain during the formation of the United States. To the north in the Virginia Colony, Cape Charles, the Charles River, Charles River Shire, and Charles City Shire were named after him. Charles personally named the Charles River after himself.[62] Charles City Shire survives almost 400 years later as Charles City County, Virginia. The Virginia Colony is now the Commonwealth of Virginia and retains its official nickname of "The Old Dominion" bestowed by Charles II because it had remained loyal to Charles I during the English Civil War.

English furniture produced during the reign of Charles I is distinctive and is commonly characterised as Charles I period.

[edit] Sainthood

During the reign of his son Charles II, Charles was venerated a Saint by the Anglican Church. He is considered a martyr who died for the preservation of Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church. There are many societies dedicated to his devotion. Besides the Biblical and Roman Catholic Church saints that the Anglicans venerate on their calendar, Charles is the only person ever officially venerated by the Anglican Communion.

[edit] Assessments

Archbishop William Laud described Charles as "A mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or how to be made, great."[63]

Ralph Dutton says - "In spite of his intelligence and cultivation, Charles was curiously inept in his contacts with human beings. Socially, he was tactless and diffident, and his manner was not helped by his stutter and thick Scottish accent, while in public he was seldom able to make a happy impression."[64]

[edit] Titles, styles, honours and arms

[edit] Titles and styles

• 19 November 1600 – 27 March 1625: Prince (or Lord) Charles
• 23 December 1603 – 27 March 1625: The Duke of Albany
• 6 January 1605 – 27 March 1625: The Duke of York
• 6 November 1612 – 27 March 1625: The Duke of Cornwall
• 4 November 1616 – 27 March 1625: The Prince of Wales
• 27 March 1625 – 30 January 1649: His Majesty The King

During his time as heir apparent, Charles held the titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of York, Duke of Albany, Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Ross, Baron Renfrew, Lord Ardmannoch, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.

The official style of Charles I was "Charles, by the Grace of God, King of England, France and Ireland, King of Scots, Defender of the Faith, etc." (The claim to France was only nominal, and was asserted by every English King from Edward III to George III, regardless of the amount of French territory actually controlled.) The authors of his death warrant, however, did not wish to use the religious portions of his title. It referred to him only as "Charles Stuart, King of England".

[edit] Honours

Memorial to Charles I at Carisbrooke Castle, Isle of Wight

• KG: Knight of the Garter, 24 April 1611 – 27 March 1625

[edit] Arms

As Duke of York, Charles bore the arms of the kingdom, differenced by a label argent of three points, each bearing three torteaux gules. As Prince of Wales he bore the arms of the kingdom, differenced by a label argent of three points.[65] Whilst he was King, Charles I's arms were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); II Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland).

[edit] Ancestry

Of Charles's 16 great-great-grandparents, 5 were German, 4 Scottish, 1 English, 2 French, 1 Danish and 1 Polish, giving him a thoroughly cosmopolitan background.[citation needed]

[edit] Marriage and issue

Painting of Charles I's children. The future Charles II is depicted at centre, stroking the dog

Charles was father to a total of seven legitimate children, two of whom would eventually succeed him as king. His wife also had two stillbirths.[66]

Charles is also believed to have had a daughter, prior to his marriage with Henrietta Maria. Her name was Joanna Brydges, born 1619-20, the daughter of a Miss Brydges ("a member of a younger branch of the ancient Kentish family of that name"), possibly from the line of Brydges of Chandos and Sudeley. Joanna Brydges, who was provided for by the estate of Mandinam, Carmarthenshire, was brought up in secrecy at Glamorgan, Wales. She went on to become second wife to Bishop Jeremy Taylor, author of Holy Living and Holy Dying and chaplain to both Archbishop Laud and Charles I. The Bishop and his wife Joanna Brydges left for Ireland, where Jeremy Taylor became Bishop of Down, Connor and Dromore in 1660. Joanna Brydges and Jeremy Taylor had several children, including two daughters, Joanna Taylor (Harrison) and Mary Taylor (Marsh).[67][68][69]

[edit] See also

Saints portal

• Caroline era
• Cultural depictions of Charles I of England
• Descendents of Charles I and Henrietta Maria of France
• List of regicides of Charles I
• Society of King Charles the Martyr
• Whigg

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

Find more about Charles I of England on Wikipedia's sister projects:

Definitions from Wiktionary Textbooks from Wikibooks Quotations from Wikiquote Source texts from Wikisource Images and media from Commons News stories from Wikinews Learning resources from Wikiversity

• Chronology Charles I World History Database
• The Royal Household. (2004). "Charles I." Official Web Site of the British Monarchy
• Archival material relating to Charles I of England listed at the UK National Register of Archives
• "Decision Most Deadly" historical novel set in 1641, featuring King Charles I
• The Parliamentary Archives holds the original of Charles I's death warrant
• The Society of King Charles the Martyr
• The Society of King Charles the Martyr (United States)
• Biography of King Charles I, 1600-1649
• Rediscovered painting of Charles I to be shown at National Gallery

[edit] Books about Charles I available online

• History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England: Begun in the Year 1641 by Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon (1717): Volume I, Part 1, Volume I, Part 2, Volume II, Part 1, Volume II, Part 2, Volume III, Part 1, Volume III, Part 2
• The History of Great Britain Under the House of Stuart by David Hume (1759): Volume I, Volume II
• An Historical and Critical Account of the Lives and Writings of James I and Charles I, and the Lives of Oliver Cromwell and Charles II by William Harris (1814): Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV, Volume V
• The Trials of Charles the First, and of Some Regicides (published by John Murray, 1820)
• The High Court of Justice; Comprising Memoirs of the Principal Persons Who Sat in Judgment on King Charles the First, by James Caulfield (1820)
• A History of the British Empire, From the Accession of Charles I to the Restoration by George Brodie (1822): Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV
• Memoirs of the Court of King Charles the First by Lucy Aikin (1833): Volume I, Volume II
• The Great Civil War of Charles I and the Parliament by Richard Cattermole, with illustrations by George Cattermole (1845)
• History of Charles the First and the English Revolution, from the Accession of Charles the First to His Execution by François Guizot, trans. Sir Andrew Scoble (1854): Volume I, Volume II
• Charles I in 1646: Letters to Queen Henrietta Maria, ed. John Bruce (1856)
• Arrest of the Five Members by Charles the First: A Chapter of English History Rewritten by John Forster (1860)
• The Spanish Match; or, Charles Stuart at Madrid by William Harrison Ainsworth (1865): Volume I, Volume II, Volume III
• Notes of the Treaty Carried on at Ripon between Charles I and the Covenanters of Scotland by John Borough, ed. John Bruce (1869)
• Charles I by Jacob Abbott (1876, 1904)
• Eikon Basilike, ed. Catherine Mary Phillimore (1879)
• The Fall of the Monarchy of Charles I, 1637-1649 by Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1882): Volume I (1637-1640), Volume II (1640-1642)
• A Secret Negotiation with Charles the First, 1643-1644, ed. Bertha Meriton Gardiner (1883)
• History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642 by Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1883–1891): Volume I (1603-1607), Volume II (1607-1616), Volume III (1616-1621), Volume IV (1621-1623), Volume V (1623-1625), Volume VI (1625-1629), Volume VII (1629-1635), Volume VIII (1635-1639), Volume IX (1639-1641), Volume X (1641-1642)
• History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649 by Samuel Rawson Gardiner (1886–1901): Volume I (1642-1644), Volume II (1644-1647), Volume III (1645-1647), Volume IV (1647-1649)
• The Picture Gallery of Charles I by Sir Claude Phillips (1896)
• Historical Sketches of Notable Persons and Events in the Reigns of James I and Charles I by Thomas Carlyle (1898)
• A History of the George Worn on the Scaffold by Charles I by Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey
• King Charles I: A Study by Walter Phelps Dodge (1912)
• Commons Debates for 1629, ed. Wallace Notestein & Frances Helen Relf (1921)

This text was last fetched from this Wikipedia page (where you can edit it) on
17 Mar 2010, 10:03am under the terms of the GFDL.

Annotations

• N helena murphy on Fri 2 May 2003, 09:27pm. Flag this

  Charles I was the son of James VI of Scotland ,who succeeded his aunt ,Elizabeth Tudor, as James I of England.Charles was born at Dunfermline in Scotland in 1600 and owing to poor health did not join his family in London untill he was about five years old. In 1605 his father created him Duke of York, a customary title borne by the second son of the King. In 1612 his elder brother, Prince Henry died, thus making Charles the heir apparent . By then he had mostly overcome his physical disabilities, becoming a very proficient horseman although his stammer would remain with him throughout his life. Around this time he also began to cultivate his interest in art, collecting medals, while he took a keen interest in theology and military strategy. He enjoyed a happy relationship with his father who died in 1625 ,but not before advising his son about the rising power of puritan factions, belief in the divine right of kings, and the importance of the royal prerogative. On March 1625 Charles Stuart was proclaimed King of England, Scotland, Ireland and France. In the same year he married the catholic Princess ,Henrietta Maria of France ,and although stormy at first it became one of the happiest marriages in history. Charles practically stands alone as being a monarch without a royal mistress. His court was that of a flourishing Renaissance King as it attracted poets such as Robert Herrick, Milton, Lovelace, and great artists such as Anthony Van Dyck, Peter Paul Rubens and Gerard Honthorst. In 1628 he had purchased the art collection of the Duke of Mantua which included works by Tintoretto, Caravaggio and Raphael.
  Sadly, from a political perspective the King was born into the wrong era. He had inherited his father,s debts and a country that was the least taxed in Europe. His Parliaments were reluctant to give him the money he needed to make of England a strong maritime nation and a European power. When he tried to raise money using his powers as a feudal Lord he created enemies ,although he never overlooked the needs of the poor , keeping back land for them after his drainage of the fens. He supported the unemployed cloth workers against the clothiers, and the dispossessed when landlords enclosed lands. In the religious sphere he upheld the recusancy laws against Roman Catholics, although he did try to make their lives easier, but this was difficult due to rising militant puritanism . Theologically he supported the Anglican Church in its rituals, regulations and administration.
  The years of his personal rule,from 1630 to 1640 were his most sucessful. It was a period of great prosperity and social mobility. There was greater industrial output in mining, and further development in brewing, soap manufacture, tanning and the production of saltpetre. Wool accounted for 80% of England,s exports. We also witness the seeds of mercantilism as aliens were forbidden to engage in any direct trade with Virginia, the tobacco colony. The purpose of the colonies was to help with the enrichment of the mother country. As a tribute to him Carolina was named in his honour, while Maryland was thus named in honour of his wife.
  His religious policies made him highly unpopular with the Scots and the non Anglicans in government. Financially he had also hit against their vested interests. Men such as John Pym were ruthless in their opposition to Charles,judicially murdering his most able minister, the Earl of strafford with a Bill of Attainder. The Anglican Archbishop Laud was soon to follow the same fate. In order to uphold the law of the land, to support the Anglican Church, and to defend the royal prerogative Charles raised the royal standard at Edgehill in 1642 against Parliament. A long and bloody civil war followed which culminated with the execution of Charles in January 1649. He died with a clear conscience and in the belief that his son would succeed him. After his execution Cromwell crushed those, such as John Lilburne, who fought for social and political equality for all. Immediately after the King,s death the legend of his sanctity and sufferings grew, and his meditations in captivity, published as Eikon Basilike outsold every other publication and was translated into most European languages . The frontispiece shows the King at prayer and in close meditation with God. He is buried in Saint George,s Chapel at Windsor.

  Sources: Gregg, Pauline , King Charles I Phoenix Press 1981

  
  

• N Emilio on Sun 28 Dec 2003, 11:55pm. Flag this

  I just discovered a link to a neat eyewitness account of his execution at EywitnesstoHistory.com. It’s quite vivid:

  http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/charlesI.htm
  

• N Mark Turnbull on Tue 6 Jan 2004, 08:26pm. Flag this

  You can join the King Charles I Society at http://www.kingcharles.biz

  Also we have history and resources there.

  Mark

• N vicente on Fri 25 Jun 2004, 10:01pm. Flag this

  Painting of Charles I with his head stitched back on with 3 page 3 “sun[the paper daily] girls”
  http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/MOLsite/piclib/pages/bigpicture.asp?id=4
  

• N anonymous on Mon 25 Oct 2004, 09:54pm. Flag this

  Gentlemen, King Charles I was a virtuous sovereign who was wantonly murdered by the hypocritical Puritans.

• N anonymous on Mon 25 Oct 2004, 10:08pm. Flag this

  “Charles practically stands alone as being a monarch without a royal mistress.”

  Respectfully, madam, there were other Kings of virtue, such as Alfred the Great, St. Edward, William the Conquerer, King Henry III, King Henry VI, King George III, and others.

• N Cumgranissalis on Thu 5 May 2005, 07:48pm. Flag this

  great lead from
  Philip on Thu 5 May 2005, [http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1661/12/01/index.php#c30655 ]
  re: Sam and the Execution of the King
  Few if any cheered the execution. On the contary:
  

• N Descendant of Pym on Fri 10 Jun 2005, 10:22pm. Flag this

  Charles I was a tyrant, rightfully overthrown in the name of democracy. Unfortunately, after Pym’s death, that dream was destroyed by power hungry Cromwellians.

• N jeannine on Mon 20 Feb 2006, 08:13pm. Flag this

  “Advice that Charles I Bequeathed to his Son Charles II” can be found at
  http://anglicanhistory.org/charles/eikon/27.html
  

• N dirk on Tue 16 May 2006, 03:57am. Flag this

  A scientific note on decapitation

  Having your head chopped off doesn’t necessarily mean immediate death…

  The famous physicist Lavoisier was executed in France on 8 May 1794 with the guillotine. As a scientific experiment, Lavoisier decided to try to determine how long his consciousness would continue after he was guillotined, by blinking his eyes for as long as possible. He blinked twelve times after his head was chopped off.
  

• N dirk on Sun 28 May 2006, 02:55am. Flag this

  Charles I’s Nightcap

  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/peoplesmuseum/week3_04.shtml

  It will only be here briefly I suspect, so if you want to see it…
  

References in the diary

1660

Mar: 29
May: 21
Jun: 27
Aug: 2
Oct: 13, 29
Nov: 1, 6, 19

1661

Jan: 27
Feb: 3

1662

Jan: 30
Oct: 6

1663

Jan: 30
May: 19
Jul: 2
Nov: 9

1664

Jan: 30
Feb: 29
Mar: 21

1665

Mar: 12
Jun: 13
Sep: 7

1666

Jan: 30
Feb: 26
Aug: 17
Oct: 15
Dec: 1

1667

Jan: 9, 30
Feb: 12