Charles I, Killing a King: Episode 3.

Yesterday was the 371st anniversary of the execution of King Charles I, with the blow of the axe the old world ended and a new one emerged. It seems fitting to write this blog, my review of the final episode of the Charles I documentary, on the day that Britain is once again facing a new world - at 11pm tonight Britain will leave the European Union and enter the unknown.

The last episode of this fascinating documentary examined the final days of the King's life as his trial concluded and his death sentence was set and delivered. The main areas which this episode explored was whether his execution was inevitable, how much what happened next was planned and ultimately was Charles a murderer or a martyr. An interesting aspect was the discussion around the use of witnesses during the trial, Ted Vallance was one of the historians in the documentary and his work focuses on the witnesses. Last year I attended a seminar at the Institute of Historical Research where Vallance gave a paper on his research into witness testimony. Going to use this blog as an opportunity to go into more detail about this.

The traditional view regards the events of January 1649 as a show trial, the result of a military coup, in which Charles I’s tactic of denying its legitimacy was the only route available. Concerning the witnesses, most historians have typically followed the explanation that Samuel Gardiner presented that witnesses were called as a holding tactic to ensure the army’s goal of holding a full trial was achieved. However, recently this interpretation has been challenged in a series of works which suggest that the trial, and by extension the calling of witnesses was in fact a delaying tactic to allow further negotiations with the King. This school of thought was developed by Sean Kelsey who argues that the execution of Charles I was not the intended outcome of the trial, it was hoped that a settlement could be reached with the King. The eventual execution was a consequence of the breakdown of these further negotiations. Vallance’s research builds on this debate as to what the purpose of the trial was. Through examining the witnesses that were called Vallance intends to argue that the witnesses were a key component of the proceedings, central to the regicides’ strategy and use to convince the commissioners to convict the King.

33 witnesses were called by the High Court of Justice in January 1649 to provide testimony against the king – of these 33, 2 were former Royalists and the rest had some connection to the Parliamentarian cause. Except for Richard Price, not much is known of the witnesses apart from their names and where they came from. Nevertheless, Vallance argues the importance of the individuals called was their lowly status; there were no members of the nobility or high-ranking officers. Vallance argues that this demonstrates the trial’s purpose was to represent the sovereign will of the people. Consequently, this was more than a show trial to consolidate the power of the army, its intention was to establish a new precedent – that Kings were subject to the law. Vallance highlights that despite the Levellers opposition to the trial, the proceedings were heavily influenced by them. The concepts of biblical justice were used throughout the trial, for example, Numbers 35:30-33, establishes the principle of executing an unjust king was justifiable. References to this biblical precedent were used by the court and Vallance argues that the witness testimony was central to cementing the concept of blood guilt.

So the was the execution a forgone conclusion? Vallance and the documentary would not entirely agree with that sentiment. For example, it highlighted that there was division amongst the commissioners, with some still hoping that the trial could be used as a negotiating tactic - for Vallance this is where the witnesses came in to bolster the case for conviction. Also, it was suggested that during the trial Charles had resigned himself to be a martyr for divine monarchy, however, after the sentence was given Charles did in a panic of disbelief try to plea for this life. It would have been interesting to hear more about the reactions to the execution, after all, there was an odd dichotomy to the reaction. On the one hand those who viewed the execution rushed to gain relics of the late King, wipe their handkerchiefs in his blood, clearly they still believed to some extent in Charles' divinity. Conversely there was no mass uprising, no foreign intervention (worth mentioning) and while the world might have been turned upside down, it did not end. Overall, I enjoyed this series, its level of focus was refreshing and I look forward to the next series 'Revenge of the King'.