Charles I, Killing a King: Episode 2.

I had intended to write and publish this blog yesterday, unfortunately (fortunately in my case) I got a bit side-tracked sorting out the formalities of my new job. The reason for wanting to publish it yesterday was that 9th January was the anniversary of the Rump Parliament's proclamation that the High Court of Justice would sit at Westminster Hall and try King Charles I for treason. That was the subject of the second episode of BBC 4's Charles I, Killing a King and what I'll be exploring in this blog.

I mentioned it in my blog looking at the first episode but I admire BBC 4 for investing the energy at looking at the events of the trial and execution in such minute detail. The second episode took this to the next level, and at one point was even giving an hour by hour account of the events of early January 1649. This focus allows us as historians to get deep into the detail of how the run up to the trial unfolded, and is, in my opinion, a much better way of conducting documentaries.

At the end of the last blog I speculated which side of the historical debate this documentary would fall down on, was the trial a legitimate attempt at justice or a show trial to reinforce the authority of a military coup. After watching the second episode, I'm no closer to providing an answer as it could be argued that the documentary has presented both sides of this debate - and perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle. However, regardless of the purpose of the trial I would argue that once it had been decided that it would definitely take place the outcome was inevitable. The king would be found be guilty and executed.

Although the second episode did not necessarily state this viewpoint, there were a number of items discussed which implied such an outcome was likely once the trial had been set in motion. For example, the episode opened by examining another tremendous event which occurred yesterday. On 9th January 1649, the same day as the trial was announced the House of Commons ordered the Great Seal of England to be destroyed and a new one created. This in affect ended the authority of the King and established the Commons as the highest authority in the land.

Moreover, the fact that no attempt to force the King to abdicate in favour for his younger son Henry, which would have been more historically acceptable to the public demonstrates their intent. In addition, with the abolition of the Lords, it is clear that the army was determined to end the monarchy and set up the Republic, whether this had always been their intention is debatable. One criticism I have of this episode is that it paints the House of Lords as a rather pointless player in the whole affair, I am not enough of an expert on the House of Lords, however, I did get John Fitzgibbon's new book on the Lords during this period for Christmas, so I will be able to provide a more detailed answer to that soon.

Another criticism, which I had in the first episode as well was the continued focus on London, it would be interesting to see the reaction across the country, even if there was no reaction, as that can say a lot. Overall, another enjoyable episode which set up the trial nicely and in the final episode I'll be intrigued to see which Charles they portray; the martyred protestant saint or the tyrant man of blood?