The Rest Is History - 144. The Trial of Charles I Part 2

Episode Date: January 28, 2022

Tune in to hear the second part of The Rest Is History's take on the execution of Charles I and its aftermath. 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 one of the most extraordinary events in British history. 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. welcome back to the rest is history where we are on part two of our epic journey into the trial and execution of charles the first with professor ted valence of roehampton university so ted just talking about your background because listeners can't see this but ted has this splendid background of the of the trial which i like to think is his real wallpaper yes at home no we really approve this kind of upping the game definitely we had we had dan jackson in his his top hat and now we've got ted with this sensational wallpaper so before we talk about the sort of the judges as it were let's talk about the the scene in the in the trial and

when it opens so the people behind you i mean they're about the the scene in the in the trial and that when it opens so the people behind you i mean they're they're all men in the picture behind you um are the people there i mean are they all men or or is it just a huge mass and a kind of rabble of people do they have to buy tickets do they have to queue up to get their tickets how does all that work so there's a bit of a differentiation between uh cheap seats and you know the the kind of costlier options so there are galleries that are kind of above where the commissioners are sitting uh which would have been accessible from from private residences so this is where the kind of the wealthier uh patrons are coming to they can kind of get a box, like a kind of package. Yeah, yeah. So this is where Anne Fairfax, who makes some,

so Thomas Fairfax's wife makes her famous kind of outbursts from, is from these posher seats in the galleries. And then you've got sort of, you know, cheaper seats. Well, so there are two alleged incidents where she interjects. The first is on the opening day of the public proceedings of the trial on the 20th of January, where they're naming the commissioners of the court and they read out Thomas Fairfax's name, but he's not there. And she's reputed to say he has more wit than to be here. And then on the 27th, when they actually condemn the king, and they say they're condemning him on behalf of the whole people of England, Anne reputedly shouts out from the gallery, no, not one in 100, or words to that effect. Now, I should say, this is one of those instances where

there's problems with the sources, because most of these reports of her saying these things come from much later accounts, from early 18th century accounts. But the one on the 27th is probably credible that she said that there. But we do have to bear in mind that there were probably about 2,000 odd spectators in this hall. So imagine the noise in that hall. Again, the February trials, we get more evidence about what it was actually like in terms of what it sounded like because bradshaw has to keep telling witnesses to speak up because it's too hard to hear people so i think it would have actually been quite here hard to hear

and fairfax saying those things we're probably getting reports second hand from people who could you know were next to her or her what she wanted to say later on and so on. So Bradshaw is John Bradshaw, who is a Cheshire lawyer. And he's what? He's president. He's essentially the president. He is the president of the court. So it is a very unusual institution. The High Court of Justice created specially to try the king. Bradshaw is its president. And then with 159 commissioners appointed, although much less than that actually turn up. And these commissioners are basically judge and jury.

So they're occupying kind of multiple roles within the court. But it is Bradshaw. The commissioners are pretty much silent during the proceedings, They're kind of arrayed behind him. He's directly facing Charles as the trial opens, as it's set out. But it is Bradshaw who basically communicates everything about what the commissioners want and what the commissioners do. Is it true that he wore a bulletproof hat? Is that not true? So I was really hoping that we would get on to Bradshaw's bulletproof hat. I like to oblige.

Yeah. Thank you for that. So there is absolutely no evidence that he wore a bulletproof hat. And so what's Charles wearing when he comes in on that first day? What's he look like? So there is a painting of him at his trial. One thing is that he's physically aged a lot. His beard is grey. It's a full beard rather than being kind of, you know,

neat and trimmed as in those earlier, you know, Van Dyck paintings, wearing mostly black, black cloak, black hat. Notably, he refuses, he doesn't take his hat off. Again, another sign that he doesn't, you know, recognise the authority of the court or the authority of the judge before him. And presumably, the people sitting in judgment on him don't remove their hats to him as well.

No, no. So there's a lot of not hat action. There's basically a lot of hat action, yeah. But I think this is, you know, we're making a bit of a joke of it, but this is actually really important and really extraordinary. You know, you just think, again, as you said, this is the anointed king. It's not only that he's before people who are not taking their hats off to him. I mean, at least people like Bradshaw are, you know, fairly upper class

people. There are witnesses who are in the bank, as it were, ready to be called up to give the prosecution's case, who are, you know, basically the lowest of the low. We've got kind of a 21-year-old butcher from Shropshire, who's going to give evidence against his anointed monarch. I mean, that's an utterly remarkable reversal of the social hierarchy. This is really saying, you know, putting equality before the law into effect. But then there's this, so in a way, the tables are turned on Charles, because, you know, everything that he stands for is sort of being turned on its head. And yet, sort of the irony is this is absolutely, whatever you think of Charles I, this is his moment of glory

in a way, isn't it? That he finds within himself this extraordinary kind of, I don't know what the word is. Is it courage? Is it serenity? He gives this performance. He uses his stammer, doesn't he? He'd always had a stammer and he speaks clearly for the first time.

So there's a business with the cane, isn't there, Ted? Is that in the very first day when he taps someone with his cane? Yes, so the prosecuting counsel, John Cook, is reading out the indictment against Charles and Charles says to him, hold. And Cook just carries on anyway. And so the king gets out his cane and taps Cook on the shoulder. And ominously, the top of the cane falls off.

And this is reported in newsbooks. The Leveller-influenced newsbook, The Moderate, says this is very, you know, well, this doesn't look good for the king the top of his canes come off um so so so yeah um and he waits for someone to pick it up doesn't he and then no one picks no one does yes again again you know but he doesn't lose his self possession though does he i mean you would think that'd be i mean i know frankly putting myself in his shoes i would be kind of shaking and a terrible wreck of a man. But he's not. I think, you know, he shows kind of remarkable control.

And, you know, as you've noted, Tom, you know, the stutter goes. It's a very eloquent defence. I think it's very smart politically as a defence as well. Because he's not just returning to, you know, Charles I of the 1630s, I'm king, do what I say, my way or the highway. He reframes himself as being the man of the people, the defender of the people's liberties, and the defenders of, you know, the ancient constitution, the way things were. And now it's his opponents who are the innovators, the people who want to destroy things and tear things up.

And in that sense, he's got a case, though, hasn't he? I mean, can't he reasonably say, you are an – you know, you're the product of a coup, you're an arbitrary military court, you know, I am the anointed king and you have no authority to try me. Yes. So I think, you know, that's the other thing. He does have a really strong case to make. They try and sort of consult with lawyers in December of 48 to sort of find out what the kind of legal basis might be.

And basically the kind of overall legal opinion is, you know, there isn't a legal way of, you know, trying your king. The English law doesn't, you know, factor this scenario into consideration. So he's got really good grounds and there are claims that are made, you know, statements about England being an elective monarchy, which is very, you know, easy for him to sort of challenge and dismiss. So he's on strong grounds here, which is another thing I'm sure, you know, that sort of helps to build his own confidence in the position that he's maintaining.

And Ted, on top of that, isn't it the case that the things that he's accused of, that he's the occasioner, the author, continuer of the said unnatural, cruel and and bloody wars and they're in guilty of all the treasons murders rapines burning spoils desolations damages and mischiefs to this nation acted and committed in the said wars are occasioned thereby i mean the fact that he's the author of all of them it seems a bit of overkill well so i think this is where it gets more interesting and i think this is where we do have to think a little bit more about the basis on which the trial is being conducted and so the the ground sort of for the trial and thing in english common law that you know that can't be sustained really but what they're really going for is a basis more on um the laws of war and contemporary understandings of the laws of war and the idea of command

responsibility. So the idea that the king, as the commander of the royalist armies, has been responsible ultimately for all of the bloodshed in the civil wars. And one of the reasons why they're doing that is that actually the king has given them, he's made a bit of a concession anyway. So after the Second Civil War, Parliament basically reopens negotiations with the king in the so-called Treaty of Newport. And one of the things that the king does during the discussions in the Treaty of Newport is concede the Parliament's argument that it was waging a defensive war, that it was waging a defensive war against the King. So he basically agrees to that point. Why does he do that? Well, at this point in time, he's pretty desperate. And I think he's, you know, he's

already worried about the army wanting to basically kill him. It's also a point, I should say, that they say that all of these things are going to be worked out in the final conclusions of the Treaty of Newport. And the Treaty of Newport is never concluded. So this is something that he sort of concedes early on in negotiations and he might have rode back on later on. But they've got that in the bank, basically. They've basically got his concession that he made in the Treaty of Newport. And so what a lot of these witnesses they wheel in say is they saw the king when the royal standard was raised at Nottingham to sort of signal the official kind of beginning of hostilities. They saw the king in armour with sword in hand, various battles, so they can show that he was there personally

in command. They're establishing that he is the man who was responsible for starting the war. He is the man who was responsible for prosecuting the war. Right. But it's still, I mean, when you've been through a civil war, generally, you know that it's kind of more complicated than that, isn't it? Yeah, but they're not going to admit that, Tom. I mean, I know they're not, but it's still, it seems a good point on which Charles could base a defence. But of course he doesn't.

He won't defend himself. He's not defending himself. He doesn't recognise its legitimacy. And so he comes before the court on the 20th of January. Yes. Which is a saturday right i think uh and then he probably oh yeah sorry back on the monday um yeah and then he's found guilty on the 25th 27th so he's he's he's um in in private session. They condemn him on the 26th. And then on the 27th, that condemnation is made before him. But he wasn't there on the 26th, was he?

Because he kicked him out after three days. Yes, yes. So 23rd, 24th and 25th, when they're hearing kind of witness testimony, the king is not present for any of this. And one argument is actually that, again, this is the hearing of witness testimony. The king is not present for any of this. And one argument is actually that, again, this is a, the hearing of witness testimony is a delaying strategy. And again, they're hoping that this,

allowing this extra time, the king will be, you know, mullet over and come back and enter in a plea, which doesn't happen. And at that point, Ted, but let's imagine we had tons of questions about alternatives. So Tim Vasby-Burney, top vicar, friend of the show, member of the Restless History Club, he says, you know, were there other alternatives to executing him, imprisoning him, sending him to exile and so on?

Had he adopted a different strategy on day one? Had he, let's say, I mean, obviously he'd have had to be a different strategy on day one? Had he... Let's say... I mean, obviously he'd have had to be a different person. But let's say he'd arrived on day one and said, I do acknowledge the court. You know, I've made mistakes. I've learned valuable lessons. Lessons have been learned.

I was well advised by my staff. I was possibly sent emails but I probably didn't read them before the party um if he'd if that had happened would there have been a different outcome so would they have said oh well in that case you know life imprisonment or or something or if what if he turned up and said you're right i abdicate or whatever what would have happened so i think this is you know as i say it's been a big area of debate amongst historians um i i still i think there's

still a slim possibility that there might have been a an outcome of him being found guilty and a kind of you know effectively he has to abdicate, goes into prison. His son Henry becomes a kind of puppet king. The issue with that as a possible outcome, I think, again comes back for me to the rank and file of the army. So one of the most extraordinary things, which interestingly enough isn't recorded in the parliament's own recording of the trial in the in the the journal the manuscript journals the trial in state papers is that on the 22nd of january the court is directly approached by army petitioners and what the army petitioners basically say is, we support you, you are caught doing God's work, you are the people's court, but if you don't proceed against the king,

then you're going to be destroyed and we're going to be destroyed as well. And you must proceed against him as a tyrant, you must, you know, get rid of this dreadful, dreadful tyrant. And as I say, noticeably, interestingly, that isn't recorded in the trial journal, but it brings home the way in which the army leadership are struggling to contain the army rank and file as well, and the anger within the army rank and file against the king too. So I think there's a real risk that if they hadn't gone through with executing Charles I, that army discipline could have disintegrated. So, Ted, one other question from Brixton Andrew. So, Brixton, we've got to have him.

What was on trial, King Charles as a personality or the monarchy as an institution? By the time of the trial, is it the very idea of monarchy that is being tried? I think it's certainly political authority. And there's a lot of signalling, I think, as well, towards a Republican future to, you know, in that, you know, the new coat of arms within the trial, in the way in which the trial kind of inverts the kind of established and accepted political order. I mean, you know, as I say, if we imagine that the King had entered into a plea, the fact that he would have been, you know, listening to testimony against him from, you know, these lowly witnesses is just, I think, you know, really remarkable kind of example of that. So there is a lot more going on here than just trying, deal with a bad king. Yeah. Okay. So he is sentenced to death by the court.

Does that come as a surprise to him? You know, does he think that he might call that bluff? I think at the beginning of the trial and during the trial himself, he's already in a way sort of prefiguring this casting of him as a martyr. He's already talking about himself in those terms. I think at the beginning of the trial, he understands that that's likely to be the conclusion. But at the same time, he's still trying to kind of win political points and sort, win political arguments. When we get to that last day of the trial on the 27th, and when Bradshaw won't let him speak after the sentence has been delivered, I think that's the

point where we finally see Charles's composure actually break, where he can't, he almost, you know, he, in a way, I think, you know, he knows that it's the likely outcome. But when it's finally there, he can't quite believe it. He can't quite believe that actually they're not going to sort of pull back from this. They're not going to ultimately have second thoughts. So he's convicted on the 27th of January, 28th and 9th. They need signatures for the death warrant. And how easy is it for them to get signatures, to get people to dip their fingers in the blood?

Well, so there's all sorts of stories about this. The death warrant itself, the copy that is preserved in the parliamentary archives, does show evidence that the subscriptions, the signatures, are taken over several days rather than it all being done in one go. And there are stories which are recounted post-restoration of Cromwell forcing people to sign, holding their hands to the death warrant. There are then stories after they've signed of ink being flicked at people's faces and kind of hysterical laughter that they've done this, that they've taken this step. We have to, I think, you know, take these statements with a pinch of salt because the people making these statements are on trial in 1660 and they're on trial for

their lives. So they've obviously got a vested interest in saying, yeah, they held my hand when I signed it. I was forced to do this. The other thing we should note is that there are 59 signatures on the death warrant that more than that number stood up to show their assent when Charles I was condemned. Very brave of the ones who stood but didn't sign. Yeah. 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. Charles has been moved, hasn't he? Because they're going to be building the scaffold. So he's been moved to... And he's, what what burning his papers and talking to his kids and stuff is that basically yeah so he has he has sort of tearful um final sort of um interviews uh with his children um in which in particular with henry he says you know you must never accept the crown um um you know from uh if you're told to do so by the parliament henry promises that he won't

um yeah so the fateful day arrives 30th january can you talk us through the events of yes extraordinary day yeah so i mean it it it takes place the the scaffold is erected outside the banqueting house, which is obviously, you know, filled with symbolism because this is the site of these royal entertainments, these court masteries. So where would it be now? Not on Whitehall? Not the road that goes past the banqueting house?

Where exactly? This is a tough question to ask on a podcast, isn't it? That is the site, isn't it? Yeah, no, that is where it would... So it's literally on a house. So where would? That is the site, isn't it? That is where it happens. So where would it... By the war memorial or by the cenotaph or something? So the side that is facing the street, this is where it took place.

He walks out of one of those windows onto the scaffold that's been built out there. The reason why they're holding it there, though, is not for the symbolism of executing the king outside of his place of great court entertainments with the magnificent ceiling of you know the apotheosis of yeah of james the first symbol of divine right kingship it's actually for security reasons because um where they execute the um people who are condemned in March of 49. So James, Duke of Hamilton, they execute him in the palace yard. But the crowd at Hamilton's execution is estimated to be about 20,000. So that would have been far too many people for them to feel confident about being able to control the crowd if there was an attempt to kind of rush the scaffold and you know rescue the king

so they they're choosing that the banqueting house because it's actually an enclosed sort of square at this point in time which can hold relatively few spectators and which is well controlled by the army well they're not chosen um and they're still them for there's still an enormous crowd i mean if you look at the contemporary uh prints of the execution there are even people depicted sitting on the pitch of the roof of the banqueting house so right on the top of it trying to to get a view of this extraordinary scene but but the the worry about security does that tell you that they know it's quite unpopular i mean london is a parliamentarian city so you would think if they're going to execute the king anywhere london's the the perfect place to do it

but are they still conscious that among the public at large this is probably very unpopular is that what they're thinking is yes yes and all the way through i mean the trial there are also you know um great security measures that are taken um to to ensure that the king can't be rescued. But then, Ted, doesn't that, they think they're the representatives of the people. So if you are, I mean, maybe this is a theme that recurs in history. If you are the embodiment of the popular will and you have to have massive security because you're worried that the people will storm the scaffold and rescue the man of blood doesn't that don't they see the those are obviously the wrong kind of people

you know well there's there's a great example of this actually is sort of you know if you look at the the level of agreements the people and, and certainly in versions of them, when they come down to sort of who is going to be able to vote in these versions of agreements of people, initially it sounds like every man, every free man will have his vote. And then they think about it and think, well, actually, maybe not servants. No, servants are too kind of wedded to their masters. Okay, not servants, not servants.

Okay, well, hang on. What about people who receive charity? No, no, too kind of wedded to their masters. Okay, not servants, not servants. Okay, well, hang on. What about people who receive charity? No, no, no, no. Because they're too, you know, dependent as well. They're not people who receive charity. We'll strike them out. Okay, okay, not them. Okay, what about royalists?

Well, not royalists. They're not royalists. Okay, no royalists. Okay, okay. Okay, what about people who don't like the agreement? No, well, we shouldn't have people who don't like the agreement either. So eventually you end up with a franchise that is people who agree with you

and these are the people these are these are the people yeah yeah yeah as dominic says an abiding theme of history so charles is on the scaffold and he's he's he's put on an extra shirt hasn't he so that he won't get cold and people yes that he's he's frightened and he behaves very well yes so so so again you know i think this is as in his trial moment in which he shows great composure and dignity do we know who they we don't we don't know who the executioners are then they wear wigs the executioners to disguise they wear masks and uh yeah so their their their identity is concealed although it's usually thought to have been uh a guy called um richard brandon is the the executioner and so charles neil's but he gives he gives a speech first there doesn't he doesn't he give him yes yes he does give a speech and there is also as there is for the later trials

a a shorthand note taker there to take down um what the king saying. What he's saying. So his final words are recorded. I go from a corruptible crown to an incorruptible crown. I mean, it's impressive. Great stuff. It's great. It is great stuff. And isn't his last word, isn't he? One last word is remember.

And then, I mean, I just kind of think, Charles I, obviously, in many ways, was a pretty poor man. But if I'm publicly executed i mean i i can only dream of behaving with this sort of dignity and courage of charles the first on the scaffold yeah he became him all that kind of stuff yes yeah yeah and then there's some there's uh such a groan as i never heard before and desire i may never hear again it's the head bumps and rolls doesn't isn't that some weird story? I mean, it's in 1066 and all that, so it must be true.

That, you know, his head gets chopped off and he wanders around the block for a few seconds. Yeah, that's definitely true. Yeah, yeah. There's a great picture of the headless Charles I kind of discoursing. But do people dip their handkerchiefs in the blood? Is that true?

Yes, yes, yeah. And, you know, again, going back to those kind of discoursing but do people dip their handkerchiefs in the blood is that true yes yes yeah and you know again going back to those kind of um contemporary uh visualizations of the execution um there's lots of images of people fainting in the crowd uh or you know people with their heads in their hands you know in shock and dismay of what has happened so the crowd so this is different from let's say tom mentioned the execution of louis the 16th and the sort of what has happened. So the crowd, so this is different from, let's say, Tom mentioned the execution of Louis XVI and the sort of classic French revolutionary, you know,

the tricoteurs and the crowd roaring and all this sort of stuff, which is obviously we've got from Dickens and Carlyle. But the execution of Charles I, do you think the crowd were pleased? Do you think they cheered and hurrah, the man of blood is dead? Or do you think some of them were upset? Oh, I think certainly people were. I think certainly people were upset. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I know this topic we've already asked, but Alex Kleinberg, how did the rest of the population react to the execution? Was public opinion divided? Would you say that basically people are just kind of stunned that it's actually happened? Yeah, stunned, horrified, appalled. And European reaction as well is that this is extraordinary, despicable, terrifying.

There's an interesting letter from the Venetian ambassador where he says, first of all, history know, history records no example of the like, this is something that's totally unprecedented. But in the next bit of that letter, he goes on, it basically kind of admonishes, you know, European ruling, you know, has a saying, saying, you know, you spent all your time in your petty squabbles, you know, disputing about your various, you know, privileges and all the rest of it and here is this terrible existential threat that's emerged in england where the idea of monarchy the idea of monarchy itself has now been put on trial and dispatched and is that how it's generally understood because i mean you know in the wake of louisVI's execution, I mean, that's absolutely clear. There's a kind of dread among the monarchs of Europe.

Do they feel that kind of dread that maybe this is something that might spread or is it just seen as a kind of mad English thing? No, I think there's definitely a fear of contagion also also just you know as i say the extraordinary nature of it and the recognition of how different it is from um you know what is a relatively commonplace uh occurrence which is a king dying at the hands of his own subjects you know a king dying in battle or dying in post-deposition is something that's awful but in a way is kind of recognized as yeah as an occupational risk if you like but but the idea that you're going to be tried by your own subjects and that they're going to assert their authority over you as they take your head off is something that is is extraordinary but here's a weird thing though ted so in some ways you would say this is an incredibly symbolic

moment um it shows that monarchy is not above the law, that the monarchy is sort of subject to the popular will, all these kinds of things. And yet, obviously, Britain still has a monarchy. And the monarchy is restored in 1660. And could you not argue that in some ways, politically, in the very long run, and in the battle for the public imagination, that this is a disaster for the ante, for Charles's opponents, because it makes him a martyr. And even now, you know, when children read in their school textbooks about the execution of Charles I, it is very hard,

as we found in this podcast, it's very hard to tell the story without Charles becoming this tremendous underdog and very admirable. And on that theme, is it not, I mean, the morning of the execution that you get this pamphlet, Icon Basilicae, published, which is supposedly Charles's own reflections. And in reaction to that, you get Milton publishing Iconoclasties, the idea that icons should probably be smashed. He just can't compete in the bestseller stakes.

No, you know, Icon Basilicae't compete in the bestseller stakes it's it's no that you know um icon basilica is a runaway bestseller and you know far you know exceeds the parliamentarian attempts to to counter it um and i think it's it's not even you know it and in in the long run a problem i mean it immediately becomes a problem for the new regime, if you like, even amongst its own governing class. So they attempt very soon after the King's execution, basically to require everybody on this new governing body, the Council of State, to take a pledge of loyalty, the engagement, which basically says that you agree, as well as pledging loyalty to the new regime, you agree that the execution,

trial and execution of the king was justified, was lawful. And members of the Council of State won't take it, including most notably Thomas Fairfax, who eventually takes a kind of modified version of it um so it's not just that it's you know it's a problem in terms of the wider public um being appalled by this even amongst those who are now in charge there's a great deal of sort of um you know conflicted feelings about what has been done what what they what they've just gone through and it does leave this problem of legitimacy um you know at the heart of this regime there's basically the regime has had to come into power through you know this course of action which essentially many people feel is illegal as well

as being immoral in many ways because of course when we're using this word regicide regicide is not a crime it is a sin they've committed this heinous sin of of killing uh their anointed king well that so the new seal is 1649 in the first year of freedom by god's blessing restored so yeah so so that's the question isn't it how where what is it that's being restored what is this freedom that's being restored ancient freedoms tom so so from our anglo-saxon but but even going further back than that so so you know milton writes paradise lost the idea of freedoms that go back to man's creation by God? I mean, these are the kind of political and theological arguments that the trial... So we should say, because we've been talking a lot about the horror and the division

and the anxiety that, you know, in the aftermath of the trial, there are people who get enormously excited about what has happened. And, you know, talking about the garden of in you know eden of course one of those people is gerald win stanley yeah um the digger leader off in surrey um this is kingly power um being brought down the spirit of covetousness and he starts digging doesn't he in the months after that yes yeah after the execution yeah um but then obviously in the long run ted charles's son charles um who's been in exile he returns in 1660 and it's sort of hurrah hurrah the monarchy is back and the regicides

so some of them obviously dead obviously most famously cromwell but the ones who aren't are they they're basically hunted down are they then and and forced to face justice yes yeah yeah um so some of them have already kind of fled into exile um because the the king's general pardon um exempt accepts those who are uh had had a part in his father's murder um as as it's framed um and so some of them have to be you know some of them them are taken back from the United Provinces, from the Dutch Republic, and they are brought to trial. Some flee to America, don't they? Yes. So three of them famously escape to New England,

William Goff, Edward Wally and John Dixwell. And all of them escape justice. So what they do is actually, certainly, nobody ever finds out, I think, that Dixwell is over there, because he basically goes to the continent, first of all, and they think that he's somewhere in Germany, and they never kind of twig that he's actually gone over to New Haven and is living under an assumed name in New Haven. So in the wake of Charles's execution, there are statues of Charles and of his father James, I think in St. Paul's, and they get taken down and demolished. And there's a statue of Charles I by the Royal Exchange and that gets, again, kind of demolished and it gets beheaded. And they kind of put this inscription on it,

death of the last royal tyrant in the first year of England's liberty restored, 1649. And there's something very French revolutionary about that. The idea that the symbols of monarchy have to be toppled. And yet, ultimately, it's as though it never happened and we've got a fight kind of final question here from ian brocci and this this i mean it sounds a very bad thing to ask at the end of what an hour and a half we've been talking about this but with cromwell becoming law protector and then charles ii restored by 1660 do you think that charles ii's execution while very dramatic was ultimately not terribly

significant? Don't say that to Ted of all people, he's writing a book about it. If you compare the impact of Louis XVI's execution with the ideological assault on the idea of monarchy, and you compare it to this, there is obviously a kind of ideological assault, but it's not, it doesn't reverberate very profoundly. And as Dominic said, you know, the monarchy gets restored, we still have a monarchy, we're still, there's still overwhelming support for royalism. Is this something that just gets forgotten? Or does it have a kind of long term effect on American Revolution, French Revolution, and therefore into kind of modern republicanism i mean how how significant is this as a moment do you think i think it's very significant and i think you know i come back to you know the the other question that i that i got

from one of your listeners about the regicides and which circle of hell they were in i mean it lives in infamy uh to the present day i mean and to the present day we have people who commemorate the death of charles i there'll be people on the 30th of this month going to lay wreaths um the base of his statue at the top of white hall um you know there'll be a solemn procession down white hall um this. This is a remarkable event, which is remembered, you know, through the centuries, mainly being remembered in an English context as a tragedy, as a national disgrace, as something which, you know, there has to be regular kind of, you know, remembering and a kind of atonement for as a nation. I mean, January 30th remained a day in the official church calendar for special prayers up until I think the mid 19th century.

So it's something which exerts a really powerful influence in terms of the national memory. But it is also something where we have another narrative going along with it, which is actually that this is a moment in which tyranny is resisted, in which oppressive power is overthrown, and in which liberty, Republican liberty... So that's the kind of campaign... ...is established. Yeah. Yeah, feeding into it. Yeah. And for English radicals, it's always really problematic to acknowledge that and engage with that, even if they did feel sympathetic. It's always it's the place you don't want to go to. I mean, there's the famous Gilray cartoon of the 18th century radical Richard Price as his writing desk. And the sort of symbolized figure of Edmund Burke is behind him with the Bible and, you know, the crucifix coming behind him sort of representing king and church.

But just, you know, above Richard Price, above his writing desk is this image of Charles I's execution. And the subtitle is the execution of Charles I or The Glory of Great Britain. And so the implication is that all of these sort of reasonable reformers of the 18th century are actually in their hearts regicidal Republicans. So this is something that they're always, most of them, except for people like Paine, trying to distance themselves from a lot of English radicals. So Charles has kind of great posthumous victory in a way. He loses the war.

I think it is a great victory for the royalist cause. Yes, certainly. But it is also something that has an important legacy in Republican circles as well. And I think it is something that is influential internationally as well as within England too. So, you know, it is something that influences the French Revolution. I mean, Louis XVI is famously kind of contemplating the fate of Charles I

when he is on trial. It's also something I think that, you know, the American revolutionaries, I mean, Jefferson and Adams were both deeply read in the history of the Civil War. It's something that is part of their DNA. Yeah, thinking too. Well, that's brilliant, Ted. Thanks so much.

Some amazing stuff, isn't it? To find at the end that it is important. It would be terrible if it wasn't we wasted our time yeah but we haven't at all so thanks so much and when is the book out uh i had no idea the book will be out when when i can actually get to write it yeah no no i mean it's i i changed my byline um when i was doing a literary review um review and I said I'm writing a book very slowly on the trial of Charles I so my hope is that this year

I might write a couple of chapters and get a book contract together basically and get them signed up so we're talking like you know three or four years down the line okay well worth hanging out for. Thanks so much, Ted. Thanks so much for listening.

We will be back very soon with, what are we going to be back with? We've got diseases and we've got Babylon. Yeah. We've got all history. All the stuff. All right. Bye-bye.

Thanks so much. Bye-bye. 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 restishistorypod.com. That's restishistorypod.com That's restishistorypod.com 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 therest 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.