Charles I: Killing a King: Episode 1

Yesterday I caught up on the first episode of the new BBC 4 documentary on the trial and execution of the Charles I, and thought I would share a few of my observations. Overall I thought the documentary was well constructed and I particularly enjoyed the focus on the 12 days of Christmas 1648/9 which were arguably the most politically tense in English history. Such a detailed look at this short period allowed for a greater analysis of how events unfolded. However, there were a few points which I wanted to touch on.

Initially I was concerned that the documentary was going to place too heavy of an emphasis on the role of Oliver Cromwell and also equate Parliament with the Army when in reality the situation was more complicated. Let’s address the latter first, I was making notes while watching and the second thing I wrote was there was no mention of Pride’s Purge. Although this was a bit premature as it was later mentioned, I feel that this was glossed over and not given the proper attention it needed. By the end of 1648 the fragile parliamentary alliance that had united against Charles was falling apart and it is important to view Pride’s Purge and the Rump Parliament for what it was, a military coup. Despite highlighting the events of 6th December 1648 the documentary continued to talk of parliament as a relatively homogeneous organisation.

Concerning Cromwell, my initial fears were unfounded, the documentary was balanced in its assessment of Cromwell’s activities during this period. There is a tendency to exaggerate the importance of Cromwell, part of this is due to hindsight, we know that he will eventually seize power and I think the other part is an attempt to paint Cromwell as a plotting villain with a long term plan. The first episode was careful to display a more accurate picture, the Cromwell presented was closer to reality than other depictions, evasive, hard to qualify and his views on the emerging political drama difficult to determine.

While Cromwell’s role was not exaggerated, I think the documentary did place too much focus on the puritan prophet Elizabeth Poole. It could be argued that she was used to demonstrate the importance of the belief in providence and how religion permeated all aspects of life. That being said, I think they spent too much time on her much and as such distorted her importance. I also would have liked to have seen more on how the political events at Whitehall were being interpreted outside of London, and not just in England but in Scotland and Ireland as well.

I have not watched the other two episodes yet, and probably won’t until after Christmas. However, I will share my thoughts once I have and will be intrigued to see which school thought they end up siding with, was the trial an actual attempt at justice, or was it a show trial to legitimise a military coup?