The Rest Is History - 143. The Trial of Charles I Part 1

Episode Date: January 27, 2022

Charles I was executed 373 years ago to the day on 30th January. But was his killing a sinful act of treason or merely one of retributive justice? Tom and Dominic welcome back Professor Ted Vallance from the University of Roehampton to explore the build-up, event and aftermath of the trial of Charles I. Producer: Dom Johnson Exec Producer: Tony Pastor *The Rest Is History Live Tour 2023*: Tom and Dominic are back on tour this autumn! See them live in London, New Zealand, and Australia! Buy your tickets here: restishistorypod.com Twitter:  @TheRestHistory @holland_tom @dcsandbrook Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thank you for listening to The Rest Is History. For weekly bonus episodes, ad-free listening, early access to series, and membership of our much-loved chat community, go to therestishistory.com and join the club. That is therestishistory.com. Hello, welcome to The Rest Is History. Just before two o'clock on the afternoon of the 30th of January 1649, Charles Stuart, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, walked out onto a platform erected outside the banqueting house in Whitehall in London. He read a short speech to his attendants, he knelt and placed his head on the block,

and a moment later, the axe came down and he was dead. It was one of the most extraordinary moments in British and indeed in European history, the public trial and execution of an anointed monarch for crimes against the rights and liberties of the people, and almost 400 years on, it still arouses remarkably strong feelings. So Tom, Tom Holland, are you a devotee of Charles King and Martyr? Or do you think the man of blood got what he deserved? Well, I'm very much with Thomas Fairfax, Lord Fairfax,

who commanded the army in the time a massive fence sitter. You're a liberal Democrat on this. Well, basically, so basically, I think that I think Charles was a terrible king. He was obdurate. He refused to negotiate. He pushed England into a second bout of civil war. I think he had blood on his hands at the same time I I don't think that beheading him solved anything uh and I think it was actually in the long run a

victory for for Charles for the monarchy and particularly for Charles's vision of the monarchy um so I think it's an absolute mess um and I don't think it's a kind of you know was he a goody or baddy you know whose side would he be on kind of situation it's just you just you know and speaking as someone who's living in a country that's gone through quite a lot of imponderable political messes recently um you know you just look back at that and think well i'm glad i wasn't alive then and i didn't have to didn't have an opinion very evasive answer but it doesn't really matter what you think because we've got a genuine expert so hold on dominic before before we introduce the genuine expert yeah well let's go to you yeah what do you think um will you i mean people who listen to our recent podcasts will

know that i took a very stern and robust line on the princess and the tower thinking that richard the third did it but he was right to do it so So on this, I would say I feel sorry for Charles I. I think his trial and execution was his finest hour, but I think they were probably right to get rid of him. Okay. You know I'm a big Cromwellian, Tom. I do. Yes, I do. I do. So you're more Cromwell than Fairfax on this?

Sort of. I'm cruel necessity. I'm wiping away a manly tear, but at the same time, I'm saying he's got to go. Yeah, so that's the story, isn't it? That Cromwell gazed at the corpse of Charles I. Which I'm sure our guest will tell us is totally invented. So let's, so our guest, the great Ted Vallance, who came on last year to talk about Magna Carta,

and now he's back. And Ted, this, I mean, this is very, very much your field at the moment, isn't it? Because you're actually writing a book about it. who came on last year to talk about Magna Carta and now he's back. And, Ted, this is very, very much your field at the moment, isn't it? Because you're actually writing a book about it, about the trial. Yeah, so I'm working on the trial at the moment, yeah. So there's only really one question, isn't there? It's after Magna Carta's podcast. Ted, do you know Charles I's date? I know the end date very much, Dominic, because you just said it.

So, yeah, 1600 to 1649 and of course famously you know shorter at the end of his reign than all of which badinage suggests Ted that you as well and maybe more on the Cromwellian opinion on this

more seriously I think you know there is um i was very interested when i i was sort of um you know uh poking the bear a bit by asking your listeners you know what questions that they would like to ask uh about the trial of charles the first and one person responded what circle of hell do the regicides currently reside in? Would this have been a Mr. Capple loft? It wasn't, in fact. It was another one of your listeners. And it is remarkable, really, given this is an event that happened in 1649.

There clearly is some, you know, that level of strong feeling still about it. But I think it's a case of, you know, as Thomas Paine said, pitying the plumage and not the bird. This is a man who was responsible for the deaths of, you know, tens of thousands of his subjects. And he fitted in many respects, you know, the classical definition of a tyrant. Those charges of being a tyrant, a murderer, you know, a public enemy um these are all charges that could be substantiated so he got what he deserved really oh ted strong views but we should you know for the point of balance from the point of balance point out that absolutely so so this is going out

the week where his death is commemorated yes at church services yes you know he's commemorated as a saint he wasn't a martyr either milton was absolutely right about that he's a faux martyr too let's just let's really wind your listeners up including members of the society for you know okay well i think i well we're not the bbc so we can we can be as biased as we like. But just just for the sake of balance, we should point out that we certainly do have listeners. Kappel Loft, preeminent among them, who are very, very passionate about this. And Dominic Kappel Loft berated us, didn't he, for not including Charles I in the list of the World Cup kings, the World Cup kings. So there is a broad range of opinion. And Ted, I mean, I guess when we're talking about a civil war, that's unsurprising. So could you, maybe for people who aren't British or people who are British who don't know very much about it, just very quickly, what was the civil war what's going on about the war of the two the three kings i mean it's so complex we don't even know what to call it yeah let's call it the english

civil war for the sake of argument with apologies to scottish and irish listeners yeah if we try and focus on england just to sort of keep it as simple as possible i mean that there are so it is a very complicated series of events and so many things behind it and leaning into it. But let's try and focus on a few of them. One is religion. And this is sort of, you know, the aftershocks and after effects of the English Reformation. Charles I's religious policies deeply anger and cause a great deal of fear amongst English Puritans. They see the king and his bishops as trying to reintroduce Catholicism, potpourri, as they call it.

So the changes that the king makes in terms of, or his bishops make in terms of the fabric of English churches, the reintroduction of more of a kind of sort of ceremonial and sort of the beauty of holiness, as Charles's Archbishop William Lord calls it, into English churches, all cause a great deal of fear that the king is basically trying to reintroduce Catholicism. And that is exacerbated by the fact that leading Puritans are persecuted by the king, prosecuted for publishing anti-episcopal tracts. So William Prynne famously has his ears cropped twice as a result of publishing hostile works against the king. Well, they trimmed them the first time,

and the second time they kind of cut off the stumps. So particularly galling for William Prynne, who was an opponent of long hair as well, he then had to grow his hair to sort of cover up the holes that were left there. The coolest cut of all. Yeah. You know, there's so religious controversies is at the heart of it. And Charles's wife, Henrietta Maria, is Catholic.

She's Catholic. And so there's a great deal of fear about that and of foreign influence as well. And, you know, there's basis to that, as we see in the Civil War, in that Henrietta Maria is basically Charles I's chief advisor after the death of the Duke of Buckingham. She becomes the most important person at court. But there are also political constitutional issues at play here as well, because Charles has so much difficulty with his parliament that basically he rules without parliament from 1629 up until 1640. So his period of personal rule or the 11 years tyranny, as his critics call it. And these are issues, the issues that he has with his parliament around his foreign policy. They are around the way in which the king is raising money

and what he does with those who refuse to pay the money that he wants, his use of sort of basically imprisonment without trial, and the way that he is dealing with his critics. So there are already people as well who are seeing the king not just as somebody who may be reintroducing, trying to reintroduce Catholicism, but somebody who's ruling in a tyrannical fashion. And Ted, I mean, the general sense of the war of of the king against the parliament the monarchy is much older than the parliament but there is a sense isn't there in which actually it's charles who is the radical yeah isn't he a modernizer in a sense like trying

to bring in a kind of absolutism is that is that right ted yeah well the the language that's used a lot by his critics is of innovation. And they are very much casting, you know, the Puritans and those who are kind of opponents of Charles I's fiscal policies are very much presenting themselves as the defenders of the status quo with the king, his ministers and the church as the innovators, as those who are trying to transform the state and the church as as the innovators as those who are um trying to transform the state and the church and is that also the the norman yoke and uh the idea of ancestral english freedoms that's kind of bubbling away as well i mean that that certainly comes into play as well that the king is is is challenging that that those rights that are gifted through that ancient constitution um and and yes there is an anxiety too, that is linked to things like, you know, the Queen and her influence, that the King is trying to move England towards a European absolutist Catholic state. And sort of warning signs as well come through court culture too. So Charles is a great collector of art.

He spends a lot of money on his court entertainments, these court masks. But a lot of this court aesthetic is the aesthetic of the European absolutist court. and the artworks are artworks that resonate with that kind of political system and also with a more Catholic church as well. Just at the end, so at the end of that period that you talk about, the 11 years personal rule, so before Charles gets into a mess with the Scots and then has to recall Parliament and then you're on the sort of slippery slides of the Civil War.

So before that, just before that, in the late 1630s, is there a sense of sort of slippery slides at the Civil War. So before that, just before that, in the late 1630s, is there a sense of sort of pressure building and people thinking that this is a tyrannical regime? I mean, the sort of broad mass of the public or the broad mass of the public kind of quiescent and just kind of plodding along? Well, it's a weird combination of the two. So you've got sort of, there's no kind of active rebellion and so on. So in one

sense, it looks very peaceful. And it then looks like it's sort of, you know, a dramatic, sort of unexpected kind of collapse of this regime, certainly in England, obviously, things already going wrong in Scotland, as you mentioned. But when we look at what people are saying, so yes, you've got, as it were, the kind of machinery of government going on and local government continuing and these taxes that are deeply unpopular, like ship money being administered and collected. But when you look at what... And they're unpopular because they're being levied inland. They're being levied, yeah. so this particular tax is unpopular because traditionally it would have been imposed on maritime counties and only imposed during

periods of emergency so when there's an invasion threat for example vikings yeah yeah vikings absolutely um so that's but when you so that tax is being collected and being collected by people like Oliver Cromwell. But when we see what some of those people are saying about having to collect this tax, it is that this is deeply worrying that they're having to do this, that it is a sign that this is this is a government which is, you know, operating in a tyrannical fashion. And Ted, I mean, now that there's a lot of kind of whenever anything whenever a government does any measure people say oh this is becoming like hitler i'd be astounded if they were saying it then is there a kind of 17th century equivalent yes where the government does anything and people say oh you know this is like potpourri this is you know we're all going to be you inquis. You'll be pleased to know, Tom, that the comparisons are Roman.

So this is like Nero. Yeah. This is Nero. We've been guilty of that as well. There are obviously lots of points in English history where people are disaffected and crossed with, as it were, the government. But often what they do is they say, you know, the king has ill counsel

or something like that. So in other words, they don't say immediately jump to saying the king is a dreadful tyrant and the most awful person. Is it personalised in that way already in the 1630s, people pointing specifically at Charles? Well, actually, Dominic, could I, sorry, Ted, there's a question from Dave Walters, because actually it's about Charles's character, right? So Dave Walters asks, wasn't major conflict with Parliament inevitable when Charles became king, given his character? And would almost any other monarch of the era have succeeded in keeping more of the people that mattered on side? Yeah, I think Charles's character does play a big role in this. So there is a distinct difference between how James, his father, operates and how Charles operates.

So James is much better at, you know, allowing debate and accepting that there will be criticism, that there will be, you know, arguments about policies and so on. Charles has a tendency to see criticism and argument as itself a problem. So actually, if we look at his court culture, whereas what James liked was disputations where he could show off how intellectual he was. What Charles likes is is these kinds of performances, these masks where royalty appears and solves everything. You know, I mean, it's like the fantastic painting of him as some people may see, you know, know the painting of him as St. George besting the dragon. And basically it's the monarch has solved everything. All disputes, all disagreements have been pushed aside.

And so he can't accept it when there is opposition, when there is disputation about policies. It's not something that he recognises as sort of just part of political life. But in the grand scheme of kind of bad monarchical behaviour, I mean, last time you came on, we were talking about King John, who I think we all agreed is an absolutely terrible man. And you mentioned Nero. Yeah.

I mean, Charles I's defenders would presumably say he's a nice family man, you know, he likes paintings, he's not cruel, he's, you know, is he a... Is tyrant the right word? So I think, you know, in comparison to figures like Nero and King John, yes, absolutely, he looks much, much better. But I think, to come back to the question you were asking just before Tom rudely interrupted. Yeah, that was rude. Sorry. I'm sorry. I think the,

so what is difficult about the evil counsellor's position, which is certainly one that gets used, and certainly in the early years of the civil war, that they're not fighting the king. They're trying, they're trying to actually kind of rescue the king from the clutch of the, of these evil counsellors who are leading him astray. It is that Charles is very obviously, well, with Henrietta Maria, kind of in control of things.

And there is, I mean, for one thing, his main favourite prior to Henrietta Maria, the Duke of Buckingham has been bumped off. And there's no other figure who really replaces him in Stratford, his Lord Deputy in Ireland, to a certain extent. But it's really the king and the queen who seem to be kind of running the show and dictating things. So it's quite hard to sort of say, oh, well, somebody else is actually, you know, driving this and to blame. It's a bit it already feels a bit artificial from that point of view.

And then when you look at this criticism that's going on in the 1630s you have you know you already have got people like prin who was saying albeit in a kind of you know allegorical and trying to sort of you know not immediately direct way they're already making these connections between um charles and classical tyrants they. They're not sort of saying, oh, it's somebody else. It is already, you know, Charles who is the problem that is being identified. And the second part of Dave Walter's question, would almost any other monarch of the era have succeeded

in keeping more of the people that mattered on side? I mean, could you imagine? I think that one is harsher on Charles. There are big problems that, you know, the monarch is facing, any monarch would be facing. And those a church that is half reformed with, you know, significant sections that want it to become much more Protestant and others who don't want it to move that far towards a more Calvinist style of church. problem created by the union of crowns of governing multiple kingdoms and kingdoms with very different religious establishments as well. And you've got the problem of the fact that the, you know, the financial stability of the monarchy has been an issue through the reigns of Elizabeth and through the reigns of James as well but so it is not an easy inheritance couldn't the counter be that as you say he inherits a lot of these problems from elizabeth and james um but both of them were unpopular at times but they managed to base it they were more skillful and also his son charles ii faces not dissimilar

problems and also is not executed so So Charles is doing something wrong. Yes, he is. The question as to, you know, yes, he has, you know, inherits a lot of issues, but it is Charles and his character and his decision-making which plays a large part in bringing things to this extraordinary conclusion in 1649. Right. Okay, which we have to get to.

Yes. So let's just speed through. So everything, the state of crisis that you've brilliantly set out leads in the long run to civil war. And war rages between Parliament and King. And it ends with the King's defeat. And that looks to be conclusive. But we then have a question

from Stephen Clark, friend of the show. After heavy defeat by the new model army at Naseby. So the new model army is, well, it's new. It's a model army. It's a new model army.

Brilliant punditry, Tom. Top 17th century analysis there. And it's particularly associated with Cromwell. After heavy defeat by the New Model Army at Naseby in June 1645 in the First English Civil War, why did Charles I risk a second civil war against them in 1648? Well, that's key to this story, isn't it? The fact that he's seen as triggering. So what's going on with the second civil War? So, well, I think this is, again, comes back to Charles's character, is that he's always trying to play his opponents off each other rather than negotiating good faith.

And he's always looking for a way to recover, basically to go back to the status quo before the civil war he doesn't really want to concede anything in terms of his his authority um and so the the engagement as it's called that he makes with the scottish covenanters is a way for him to do that to basically get out of it tells tell us who the Scottish Covenanters are. So the Covenanters are the people who have been opponents of Charles I in the 1630s and opposed to his religious policies in Scotland. And they form this national covenant, you know, against those policies. But they are also monarchists. so they they're also opposed to the establishment of a republic and they form this this alliance although it's one that actually splits the covenant of cause

to and which which leads to the the second civil war so basically am i right in thinking ted that after charles so charles was cornered at the end of the first civil war and he was captured well he gave him he he went over to the scots didn't he yes they sold him to parliament but there's a point at which there are basically i'm not massively clear on all the different factions but there's the scots there's some people in parliament who want to do a deal with Charles, and then there's the army who are supposedly answerable to Parliament, but have now got their own agenda. Is that basically right?

The armed wing of the English people. Yeah, that's basically it. So the situation sort of post-First Civil War is that the king is a prisoner, but he's a prisoner of different factions at different points. So he starts off as a prisoner of the Covenants, as you say, then becomes Parliament's prisoner. Then in a rather dramatic and extraordinary instance, he's seized by a very lowly officer, Cornet Joyce, for the army and taken into the army's custody. The king asked Cornet Joyce what his authority is joyce points at the other soldiers behind him and you

can read that in two ways he's either saying shut up i've got some guys with with muskets with me or the army is my authority yeah we have the authority ourselves um so yes there are these three different parties um and actually also the growing distrust between the army and parliament is critical here, because what's a lot of the rank and file in the army fear is that both parliament and also the army leadership are going to sell them out with a soft peace. They are basically going to conclude a peace with the king, which will mean that they're not protected from being prosecuted for what they've done in the civil war um and and that is something that they are very worried about that you know that they'll basically do a deal with charles i and then charles i will go back on that and they'll you know be strung up so charles um when does he get taken to carisbrook Castle on the Isle of Wight? So what happens is actually that Charles escapes from Hampton Court.

And the reason why he is driven to escape is important as well, because during the Putney debates, which are mostly famous for this discussion over the right to vote. So this is the New Model Army. The New Model Army and civilian levellers discussing the agreements to the people and the case of the army, these radical documents, talking about every man having the right to vote, the poorest he has much of life to live is the greatest he, as Thomas Rainsborough says.

But what also gets discussed at Putney is what to live as the greatest tea as thomas rainsborough says um but what also gets discussed at putney is what to do with the king and a couple of officers one of whom thomas harrison goes on to become a regicide himself call charles the first yeah friend of the show he's the one who um we mentioned in the um yes dies very, dies very cheerfully. Yes. So he's a fifth monarchist man. Fifth monarchist. He calls Charles I a man of blood and says that the king must be proceeded against as a man of blood.

So there is already talk late 1647 in the army about putting the king on trial. And Charles hears about this via john lilburn who is a prisoner in the tower at this point in time but a prisoner with royalist prisoners and word reaches charles i at hampton court about the you know these kinds of statements that are being made about his fate and decides it's time to do a runner basically and not you know but at that point ted that must be a very is that not perceived why generally it's a very

extreme and radical position to try and execute the king because the second civil war hasn't happened so charles hasn't completely sort of as it were disgraced himself further yet so to most people in the army and in parliament think well that's bonkers we're obviously not going to try him or are there quite a lot of people who say no that's right he's got to go so in terms of the army leadership you're you're right and cromwell is actually argues against harrison he says and they basically have an argument over the biblical interpretation so this phrase man of blood is is rooted in the Old Testament, rooted in the book of Genesis and the book of Numbers. It's the idea that basically he who

spills blood, the guilt of that blood must be assuaged by the shedding of the murderer's blood in order to assuage God's wrath. But what Cromwell says in answer to Harrison is, no, no, no, there's different ways of interpreting that text. And actually, it's a text that can be about moral admonition rather than, you know, putting people to death. So certainly, the army leadership at this point in time is trying to argue against that view. But you can see even, you know, in the immediate aftermath of the First Civil War, growing anger amongst the rank and file. There are members of the rank and file who reportedly refer to Charles as Ahab as well, making Henrietta Maria his Jezebel too. So there's already in the wake of the First Civil War, that level of anger against him,

a way of seeing him as this sort of wicked king who must be done away with. So it's actually incredibly foolish of Charles to then take the decisions like running away, plotting, behaving badly. So, yeah, again, it's a bad decision to go to the Isle of Wight. He decides to flee to the Isle of Wight because he thinks that the governor there um Robert Hammond is sympathetic to him and will help him escape uh to the continent but in fact he doesn't do that and locks him up there uh and he's really Carisbrook Castle Carisbrook Castle and he makes a couple of attempts to to escape from Carisbrook Castle the window that he tried to get through is still there. Yes. Which are comically unsuccessful. He gets stuck in the window.

And the second attempt he's, he's, he's trying to, um, uh, he's got nitric acid and a hacksaw and he tries to sort of trying to cut open the bars and gets caught halfway, you know,

in, in, in mid sort of hack. But it's fair to Charles. I mean, he's got no prior experience of escape. No, he's not.

That's fair. I mean, he's just been sitting around watching Charles. I mean, he's got no prior experience of escape attempts, right? No, he's not. That's fair. I mean, he's just been sitting around watching masks. Yeah, not an experienced jailbreaker. He's not a kind of Houdini figure. Not a Jack Shepard of the 17th century. So he's in Carisbrook Castle failing to escape. And meanwhile, what is happening with the return of England to civil war?

So, yes, so he's in Carisbrook. He's entered into this engagement. As soon as the news of the engagement reaches Parliament, which has been, you know, trying to negotiate with the king, it breaks off these negotiations. So the engagement, sorry, is with the Scots. Is with the Scottish Covenanters. And issues a very remarkable declaration

that it will have no further addresses from the king, there'll be no further personal treaty for the king, in which declaration it accuses Charles of all sorts of terrible crimes, including covering up the murder of his father, James I, by the Duke of Buckingham through the use of poisons. So it entertains the most extraordinary conspiracy theories about the king. So that seems to sort of, you know, make things look even worse for Charles I, that Parliament is making these kinds of statements.

The Second Civil War itself goes very badly for the royalists and the covenanters. So there are risings in Wales, there are risings in Kent, they're the most serious ones. There's a Covenanter invasion. The Covenanters are crushed at the Battle of Preston by Cromwell's forces. It's also Cromwell who suppresses the rebellion in Wales. Fairfax suppresses the rebellion in Kent. There's a really nasty siege in Colchester, which Fairfax is also in command of. Finally, they surrender at the end of August 1648, and two of the royalist commanders are summarily executed, which is, again, a sign of how things have hardened, attitudes have hardened during the course of this conflict. So the royalists are defeated. And I think that's there is some really the Second Civil War is really pivotal in this because it does something really important, which is it changes the attitude of the army command. So whereas I said in Putney, we've got Cromwell arguing against prosecuting the king. I think by the end of the

Second Civil War, he has become convinced that Charles has to be prosecuted. He says that Charles is a man against whom the Lord has witnessed. You know, God has made his judgment against the king. And now it is time that the king is dealt with. Just before we carry on, I think it's time for a quick break. In the name of God, go. I'm Marina Hyde. And I'm Richard Osman. And together we host The Rest Is Entertainment.

It's your weekly fix of entertainment news, reviews, splash of showbiz gossip, and on our Q&A, we pull back the curtain on entertainment and we tell you how it all works. We have just launched our Members Club. If you want ad-free listening, bonus episodes, and early access to live tickets, head to therestisentertainment.com.

That's therestisentertainment.com. Hello, welcome back to part two of today's episode of The Rest Is History. We are discussing Charles I, his trial, his execution with Professor Ted Valance. The Royalists have been now conclusively and decisively and publicly defeated in the eyes of God. That's how I guess everyone on the parliamentarian side sees it. But the problem remains that the king is not the kind of man to accept compromise. So I guess that there are various options one you try and persuade the king to accept the kind of compromises that you as a parliamentarian want that presumably doesn't work well because charles is digging his heels in he feels that god wants him to defend bishops and all the kind of all that kind of stuff. So there's no real prospect of negotiation there.

The other option, I mean, one that has happened throughout English history, is that where you have a problematic king, whether it's Richard II or Henry VI or whatever, you dispose of him and you come up with a new king. Is there no thought of doing that? Yeah, there certainly is thought of doing that. So the most likely candidate for that option that you're talking about is Charles's youngest son, Henry. And Henry is in Parliament's custody at this point. And he's eight, isn't he?

Yeah. So the thinking is that he could be, he's young enough that he could be sort of trained up to be a sort of parliamentarian puppet king, you know, with very limited power, if any power. But that is certainly one option that seems to be being entertained. the king is executed because you know henry remains um in parliament's custody uh after the execution um and he does actually become a kind of very hot protestant doesn't he yeah he ends up with his mother and they can't get on at all so so why do they not go with him um well i i think ultimately um the i mean i think there's a few things here one obviously we we move as we go through the 1650s into a situation where effectively it becomes a kind of cromwellian dynasty instead and so so that you know we're moving away um from that i think the other thing is that there there is um a sense in which this becomes about more than doing away with a wicked king yeah okay so that's the third option isn't it that you and you decide that this it's not just the king that's being judged but the

whole institution of monarchy it is monarchy that is the problem it is it is the monarchy fundamentally leads to this sort of corrupt oppressive form but that is a very very very radical position i mean it's not a position i mean i don't know how many people held that position at the start of the civil war in early 1640s but not many i would have thought um yeah Yeah. How radical a position is it in the summer of 1648 as the commanders of the army are trying to work out what to do? How radical a position is that in the context of England as a whole? Yes, it remains a very radical position. It remains a very radical position.

And I think it's even more radical because at this point in time, it is increasingly, we're not talking about the kind of aristocratic republicanism that could be seen as a Venetian form of republicanism. It is a republicanism that is being grounded in ideas of popular sovereignty. There's a kind of leveller-infused republicanism. And so there's a great deal of anxiety about that. I mean, just as an example of this, the royalist diarist John Evelyn sneaks into the Whitehall debates of December 1648,

which is the army sitting again with civilian levellers discussing, you know, what to do, how to settle the kingdom. And he talks about the horrid villainies that are discussed at the Whitehall debates. So he's shocked by the matter of what is being discussed. But the thing that also really shocks him is what he describes as the raw, ill-mannered young men who are speaking there. So what Evelyn is also scandalised by is by the fact that these are young men, young lower class men, who are speaking to their social betters as if there were no distinctions of class between them, who are speaking as if there's nothing that should stop them from taking control.

And is that what makes this different from, say, if a similar event had happened 100 years previously? I mean, you had, I don't know, the Pilgrimage of Grace or something where there's a kind of real culture of kind of deference still to Henry VIII, even though people are outraged by his religious policy. Is that something that has changed by the, partly because of, I don't know, is it because of literacy and prints and all these kinds of things? Yeah, I think so.

Because, and I think that is something where the Civil War itself, because of the things you're talking about in terms of the explosion, sort of printed news reporting, this sort of greater literacy to kind of absorb that material. This is something where there has been a kind of real radicalising effect on the population, particularly on soldiers within the New Model Army over the course of the 1640s. Right. So, Ted, could we now go into the process by which charles is brought to trial and then ultimately to the block um so while while cromwell is away the army are basically kind of self-radicalizing perhaps and they and they come up with something called the um the remonstrance of General Fairfax and the Council of Officers.

So just tell us what that is, because that's very important, isn't it? It is. So it's largely drafted by Henry Ireton, Cromwell's son-in-law, also a significant leader of the New Model Army. But with input from some of these civilian levellers as well. And it is a lengthy kind of indictment of Charles, and it demands that, effectively it demands that the king should be brought to justice. Now, this is a very long document as well as about 25 000 words it's read in full to parliament so it takes several hours to do that as you can manage the other few mps probably nodding off during the yeah you know uh during the reading although i suppose i

mean it's so explosive in its implications that perhaps yes yes so yeah so so there yes i think i think probably attention was was was you know there wasn't any problem with that during during the reading um and you know it is met with with great consternation uh by parliament becomes very clear that parliament is not going to um accept uh that call to bring the king to justice. And so that then moves the army to another solution, which is basically to purge Parliament of those members who are not going to support bringing the king to trial in what's known as Pride's Purge, after the commander Thomas Pride, who with his guard of troops prevents these MPs who've been identified as moderates from entering the chamber. Some of them are just dismissed and some of them are put into

custody. So this is basically a coup. I mean, that's what it is. Yes. And it is also something I think we should emphasise that actually been talked about in the army as well before. So it is not the army, figures in the army have been talking about purging parliament for some time, because, as I said, parliament had become seen as being increasingly suspect as well. And how do they justify that, Ted? Because they can't claim there's any constitutional basis. Do they claim, is there a kind of religious justification for that they're doing god's work or something no i think that the justification is primarily political and it is that these mps

are of suspect loyalty that these mps are people who are you know disaffected um who are who are quasi royalist so would it be would it be fair to say that i I mean, the trial of Charles I, that in a way, it's not really about his crimes, whether he's guilty of crimes, even whether he should be put to death. But it's about who has political legitimacy, what the source of political legitimacy is. And that's essentially what's at stake. And anyone who stands in the way of the army declaring that they have the political legitimacy basically have to be purged, whether it's the monarchy or whether it's traditionalist parliamentarians. Yeah. And that's made very clear in a declaration of the commons on January the 4th, where they basically say, you know, we are the sovereign power as representatives of the people, not the king, not the lords. Now, there's an expedient reason for this, which is that the

lords, you know, despite all this purging, the lords still refuse to pass the legislation to create this new court that is going to try the king. And so the commons respond with this declaration where they say, well, we're supreme anyway, so it doesn't matter. But it's also, I think, something that is coming out of all of these years of discussion, all these leveler ideas, the kind of radical ideas that are coming out of the army rank and file, that actually it's the people who are supreme. So on the 4th of January, they say the people are under God,

the original of all just power, the commons of England in parliament assembled, being chosen by and representing the people have the supreme power in this nation. And that's the kind of the key, isn't it? Yeah. That's the justification.

And the army is casting itself as what the kind of the armed wing. Yeah. The British people. Yes. And, you know, in practical terms, the british people yes and you know in practical terms they they do have you know much greater claim to be representative than the house of commons does even or you know certainly the house of lords so yes and and on the um there's this prophetess from Abingdon, Elizabeth Poole, who is, I mean, she's kind of humble background, who nevertheless declares to be speaking the truths of God. And she's brought up, isn't she? And kind of very seriously consulted. And so she's, that's a kind of, I mean, what's going on there? Because that seems quite, is that expressive of an anxiety that maybe God's will does need to be skipped?

Yes. Yeah, yeah, totally. They're willing to give this woman an audience because they are desperately keen to understand what God's providence, you know, what God's will is. It's a kind of theological focus group. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And she says, yeah, bring him to try, but don't kill him, basically. Basically.

So at that point, right, ted that parliament's been purged the army leadership have been radicalized they've all decided on the trial at that point when they're talking about a trial is there even the slightest doubt in their mind that he will be found guilty i mean is it is it is it basically a show trial from the beginning or do they genuinely think well maybe he'd be acquitted? Who knows? Yeah. So obviously this has been a major kind of source of debate among historians. And my feeling is that there isn't really any. I don't think there's any doubt that Charles is going to be found guilty, personally.

It's interesting to look at the trials that happened in February of 1649. So after Charles has tried, basically other Royalist commanders are put on trial before the same body, the High Court of Justice. And unlike Charles, all of those defendants actually recognise the court and enter pleas. They all plead that they're not guilty. They're all found guilty. Right. You know. Yeah. And what is their fate?

Well, so this is interesting. And this is where perhaps I think there is more wriggle room. Three of them are executed, but two of them are let off. And what happens basically is they're all condemned by the court, but their sort of punishment is then reverted to Parliament for ultimate decision-making. And Parliament basically votes that three of them are going to die and two of them, the votes turn in their favour, one of them by just one vote, by the Speaker's vote.

Wow. Who's an old mate. Who's an old mate. Ted, the key thing that you said there was that Charles I does not recognise the court. Yes. And that essentially is the key, because if he does recognise the legitimacy of the court, then he is destroying the ideological basis for the kind of monarchy that he's always upheld i mean is that basically the issue for him yes yes and uh you know he's got very good grounds his position is a very strong one um uh in in terms

of the strategy that he uses i should also say it's a strategy that is anticipated as well. So there's a royalist newsletter writer, Marchmont Nedham, who predicts in his manuscript newsletters that what's going to happen is the king is not going to recognise the court, he won't plead, and he'll be found guilty pro confesso, as if he had confessed. But what will happen is that the king is not going to be executed. Instead, the kind of sword will be kind of hanging over his head. And this will be used as a way of getting the king to the negotiating table to agree to all the things that...

But the king doesn't in the long run. But the king won't do that, yes. So he is a martyr to that degree. And as Charles said, at this point, so the winter of 1648, 1649, but the king won't do that yes yeah so he's he is a martyr to that degree and it's charles ted is at this point so the winter of 1648 1649 they're setting up the court um does he have i mean this might sound a stupid question does he have legal advice i mean is he meeting with people who are telling him his barrister discuss yeah discussing his strategy kind of thing yeah i mean i think that's an interesting question i think the short

answer i think not really because he's by this point he's a very close prisoner so you know they have finally learned the lessons of you know 1646 through to uh late 1648 well the king's been trying to escape multiple multiple times and had various people passing intelligence to him so by this point he's a very close prisoner and he's still guarded by thomas harrison isn't he yes so we we escaped multiple, multiple times and had various people passing intelligence to him. So by this point, he's a very close prisoner. And he's still guarded by Thomas Harrison, isn't he? Yes. So we don't have the same situation as we get with actually what happens in the trials in February 49, where in fact, we know that John Lilburn was helping to advise those royalist prisoners on their defence. And they're actually allowed defence counsel

because they recognise the courts. They're actually allowed some very high-status lawyers. Matthew Hale works on behalf of those royalist prisoners. Doesn't do them any good at the end of the day, but they have a lot of good legal advice. So this is something that, yeah, I think we have to give a lot of good legal advice. So this is something that, yeah, I think, you know, we have to give a lot of credit to the king himself in terms of how he constructs his defence.

And it is an impressive defence. So the king has been brought over from Carisbroke to a castle on the Solent. And then he's brought up by Major Harrison to Windsor. Is that right? Yes. And he's under close guard. Is there, so I'm sure we'll talk about Louis XVI and the French Revolution towards the end of this.

But is there a kind of an attempt to remind him of how far he's fallen? Is there a kind of Republican tinge to his treatment? Is he still treated as God's anointed by the people who are guarding him he is treated with respect but there's a definite kind of trimming down of um the amount of kind of well the number of people who can attend him um the ceremonial is much reduced um so so there is a definite kind of diminution of of of all of the sort of trappings of royalty um uh by the time he's sort of getting to to to windsor and how do they decide where because there is talk isn't that they might hold the trial at windsor but in the end they decide to hold it in whitehall and so what's the thinking about where the location should be for the trial

well i think you know the the thinking about so the trial takes place in westminster hall um in the past of westminster and if anybody's been into westminster hall it's a huge space it's this this magnificent medieval hall um william rufus yes yeah uh and um in terms of you know uh the choice of that as a venue, it's a couple of things. One, they want this to be a very public trial, and Harrison actually says to the King, you know, this, I'm sure this wasn't meant to be reassuring, but the King has a conversation with Harrison whilst they're, you know, en route towards Windsor, and Harrison assures him that they're not going to just sort

of murder him or kick him down the stairs, but instead, that he will be proceeded against in a manner in which the world can witness. And so this is what they want. They want something that's very, very public. And Westminster Hall can accommodate thousands of spectators. The other thing is, it's also the site where great state trials have taken place before. So the gunpowder plotters are arraigned in Westminster Hall. It's also the site of key courts, King's Bench, Chancery take place there. So they're trying to say something about this as being kind of a seat of justice as well. Sorry, are there symbols of royal authority in Westminster Hall that have to be taken down?

Yeah, well, by the time, you know, when they set it up for the trial, and this is one of the other significant things about, you know, what else is going on here, and it's maybe not just a bad king who's being tried, is that you can't see it in the way that it's been cropped, my wonderful virtual background here. But when they set the court up, they also put up a new coat of arms, which is what becomes later the coat of arms of the English Commonwealth. So it's removing the royal coat of arms, and instead we've got these arms arms of the commonwealth of the of the cross of St George and the Irish heart. Now that is the end of today's episode but tune in tomorrow when we'll have the next instalment or alternatively you could always

join the Rest Is History club at restishistorypod.com and you'll get it straight away we never miss a promotional opportunity anyway for the time being it's goodbye from me and it's goodbye from him thanks for listening to the rest is history. For bonus episodes, early access, ad-free listening and access to our chat community, please sign up at restish host The Rest Is Entertainment. It's your weekly fix of entertainment news, reviews, splash of showbiz gossip. And on our Q&A, we pull back the curtain on entertainment and we tell you how it all works. We have just launched our Members Club. If you want ad-free listening, bonus episodes and early access to live tickets, head to therestisentertainment.com. That's therestisentertainment.com.