Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jgo

(924 posts)
Sat Jan 20, 2024, 10:23 AM Jan 2024

On This Day: King who "can do no wrong" put on trial, later beheaded - Jan. 20, 1649

(edited from Wikipedia)
"
[Charles I]

[Charles I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland,] was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of England.

The charge against Charles I stated that the king, "for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented", that the "wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation". The indictment held him "guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby".

Establishing the court

After the King had been moved to London, the Rump Parliament passed a Bill setting up what was described as a High Court of Justice in order to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The bill initially nominated 3 judges and 150 commissioners, but following opposition in the House of Lords, the judges and members of the Lords were removed. When the trial began, there were 135 commissioners who were empowered to try the King, but only 68 would ever sit in judgement. The Solicitor General John Cook was appointed prosecutor.

Although the House of Lords refused to pass the bill and royal assent naturally was lacking, the Rump Parliament referred to the ordinance as an "Act" and pressed on with the trial anyway. The intention to place the King on trial was re-affirmed on 6 January by a vote of 29 to 26 with An Act of the Commons Assembled in Parliament. At the same time, the number of commissioners was reduced to 135 – any twenty of whom would form a quorum – when the judges, members of the House of Lords and others who might be sympathetic to the King were removed.

The commissioners met to make arrangements for the trial on 8 January when well under half were present – a pattern that was to be repeated at subsequent sessions. On 10 January, John Bradshaw was chosen as President of the Court. During the following ten days, arrangements for the trial were completed; the charges were finalised and the evidence to be presented was collected.

Trial Proceeding

The trial began on 20 January 1649 in Westminster Hall, with a moment of high drama. After the proceedings were declared open, Solicitor General John Cook rose to announce the indictment; standing immediately to the right of the King, he began to speak, but he had uttered only a few words when Charles attempted to stop him by tapping him sharply on the shoulder with his cane and ordering him to "Hold".

Cook ignored this and continued, so Charles poked him a second time and rose to speak; despite this, Cook continued. At this point Charles, incensed at being thus ignored, struck Cook across the shoulder so forcefully that the ornate silver tip of the cane broke off, rolled down Cook's gown and clattered onto the floor between them. With nobody willing to pick it up for him, Charles had to stoop down to retrieve it himself.

When given the opportunity to speak, Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch. He believed that his own authority to rule had been due to the divine right of kings given to him by God, and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that of force of arms.

[Claim of illegal trial]

Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining, "No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King ... one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong." Charles asked "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful [authority]". Charles maintained that the House of Commons on its own could not try anybody, and so he refused to plead.

The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'."

The court proceeded as if the king had pleaded guilty (pro confesso), rather than subjecting Charles to the peine forte et dure, that is, pressing with stones, as was standard practice in case of a refusal to plead. However, witnesses were heard by the judges for "the further and clearer satisfaction of their own judgement and consciences". Thirty witnesses were summoned, but some were later excused. The evidence was heard in the Painted Chamber rather than Westminster Hall. King Charles was not present to hear the evidence against him and he had no opportunity to question witnesses.

Death warrant of Charles I

The King was declared guilty at a public session on Saturday 27 January 1649 and sentenced to death. His sentence read: "That the court being satisfied that he, Charles Stuart, was guilty of the crimes of which he had been accused, did judge him tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of the nation, to be put to death by the severing of his head from his body." To show their agreement with the sentence, all of the 67 Commissioners who were present rose to their feet. During the rest of that day and on the following day, signatures were collected for his death warrant. This was eventually signed by 59 of the Commissioners, including two who had not been present when the sentence was passed.

Execution

King Charles was beheaded in front of the Banqueting House of the Palace of Whitehall on 30 January 1649. He declared that he had desired the liberty and freedom of the people as much as any;

but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having government. ... It is not their having a share in the government; that is nothing appertaining unto them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.


Background

The English Civil War had been raging for nearly an entire decade. After the First English Civil War, the parliamentarians accepted the premise that the King, although wrong, had been able to justify his fight, and that he would still be entitled to limited powers as King under a new constitutional settlement.

By provoking the Second English Civil War even while defeated and in captivity, Charles was held responsible for unjustifiable bloodshed. The secret "Engagement" treaty with the Scots was considered particularly unpardonable; "a more prodigious treason", said Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell up to this point had supported negotiations with the king but now rejected further negotiations.

In making war against Parliament, the king had caused the deaths of thousands. Estimated deaths from the first two English civil wars has been reported as 84,830 killed with estimates of another 100,000 dying from war-related disease. The war deaths totalled approximately 3.6% of the population, estimated to be around 5.1 million in 1650.

Following the second civil war, the New Model Army and the Independents in Parliament were determined that the King should be punished, but they did not command a majority. Parliament debated whether to return the King to power, while those who still supported Charles's place on the throne (mainly Presbyterians) tried once more to negotiate with him.

Furious that Parliament continued to countenance Charles as King, troops of the New Model Army marched on Parliament and purged the House of Commons in an act later known as "Pride's Purge" after the commanding officer of the operation. On Wednesday, 6 December 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride's Regiment of Foot took up position on the stairs leading to the House, while Nathaniel Rich's Regiment of Horse provided backup. Pride himself stood at the top of the stairs. As Members of Parliament (MPs) arrived, he checked them against the list provided to him. Troops arrested 45 MPs and kept 146 out of parliament.

Only seventy-five people were allowed to enter and, even then, only at the army's bidding. On 13 December, the "Rump Parliament", as the purged House of Commons came to be known, broke off negotiations with the King. Two days later, the Council of Officers of the New Model Army voted that the King be moved to Windsor "in order to the bringing of him speedily to justice". In the middle of December, the King was moved from Windsor to London.

Aftermath

Following the execution of Charles I, there was further large-scale fighting in Ireland, Scotland and England, known collectively as the Third English Civil War. A year and a half after the execution, Prince Charles was proclaimed King Charles II by the Scots and he led an invasion of England where he was defeated at the Battle of Worcester. This marked the end of the civil wars.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice_(1649)

---------------------------------------------------------

On This Day: Army starts crossing of the Andes to liberate Chile - Jan. 19, 1817
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016371569

On This Day - Cook is first European to visit Hawaii, killed by Hawaiins one year later - Jan. 18, 1778
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016371515

On This Day: Ike warns of military-industrial complex. What the numbers now reveal. - Jan. 17, 1961
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016371427

On This Day: Hitler moves into multi-room underground dwelling for 3 months - Jan. 16, 1945
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016371345

On This Day: Wikipedia officially launched, now "last best place on the Internet"? - Jan. 15, 2001
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016371303
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

GreenWave

(6,766 posts)
1. Charles I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland,] was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue
Sat Jan 20, 2024, 10:27 AM
Jan 2024

Charles I, King of England, Scotland, and Ireland,] was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of England.

Who does this remind you of?

MiHale

(9,782 posts)
3. You just gave me goosebumps...
Sat Jan 20, 2024, 10:39 AM
Jan 2024

Imagining his head roll down the platform steps like a deranged slinky. Thump, roll, thump, roll, thump. Glazed over eyes staring out, wondering in his last nanosecond what’s going on.

raging moderate

(4,310 posts)
4. Also, one English king had already allowed himself to be whipped for a crime, right?
Sat Jan 20, 2024, 11:37 AM
Jan 2024

I believe I read, long ago, that the English king featured in Murder in the Cathedral had burst out, in a private meeting, "Will noone rid me of this awful man?" and then some of his subordinates had carried out his wishes and murdered Thomas a Becket. And then there was a huge uproar against this murder, and finally the king agreed to be publicly whipped for it.

jgo

(924 posts)
5. Well over 240 blows by my count for Henry II's penance
Sat Jan 20, 2024, 04:00 PM
Jan 2024

(edited from Wikipedia)
"
The Becket controversy or Becket dispute was the quarrel between Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket and King Henry II of England from 1163 to 1170. The controversy culminated with Becket's murder in 1170, and was followed by Becket's canonization in 1173 and Henry's public penance at Canterbury in July 1174.

The dispute concerned the respective rights of crown and church. The king attempted to reassert royal prerogatives and the archbishop resisted. A significant point of contention was jurisdiction over criminal cases regarding clerics, even if only in minor orders. The matter dragged on for a number of years as both sides appealed to the pope, who attempted to bring the parties to a negotiated settlement, but to no avail. Both sides resorted to actions that escalated the dispute with the king confiscating property and the archbishop issuing excommunications.

Effects of the dispute

For the ten years that the dispute ran, Henry was unable to appoint any new bishops in England to replace those who had died. It was only in 1173 that new bishops were finally appointed.

Aftermath [and penance]

In May 1172, Henry negotiated a settlement with the papacy, the Compromise of Avranches, in which the king swore to go on crusade as well as allow appeals to the papacy in Rome. He also agreed to eliminate all customs to which the Church objected. In return, the king managed to secure good relations with the papacy at a time when he faced rebellions from his sons.

After Becket's death, his sentences of excommunication were confirmed, as well as the suspensions from ecclesiastical office. The pope in his confirmation referred to Roger of York, Foliot, and Josceline of Salisbury as the "Gilbertine trinity". The excommunication was absolved for Foliot on 1 August 1171, but he remained suspended from office. He secured his restoration to office on 1 May 1172, after clearing himself of any involvement in Becket's murder.

The king performed a public act of penance on 12 July 1174 at Canterbury, when he publicly confessed his sins, and then allowed each bishop present, including Foliot, to give him five blows from a rod, then each of the 80 monks of Canterbury Cathedral gave the king three blows. The king then offered gifts to Becket's shrine and spent a vigil at Becket's tomb.

Legacy

Although little actually changed from the position that Henry took early in the dispute – he was still able to appoint his own choices as bishops, as well as enjoying many of the rights King Henry I had enjoyed in the Church – the controversy was one of a number of similar disputes between the papacy and secular governments in the 12th century.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy

Aristus

(66,467 posts)
7. As I understand it, Henry II's whipping was symbolic, rather than authentic.
Wed Jan 24, 2024, 05:16 PM
Jan 2024

Those doing the "whipping" were literally going through the motions, whiffing the rod or the lash at him, without any real intent or effort to cause pain or harm.

So.

Some penance...

jgo

(924 posts)
8. Hi - do you have a reference?
Thu Jan 25, 2024, 12:22 AM
Jan 2024

I couldn't find anything definitive. I found all possibilities as theories - lightly ceremonial as you suggest, to drawing a little bit of blood, to a thrashing. Seems to be an unknowable aspect of history?

Aristus

(66,467 posts)
9. I'm sorry; I don't.
Thu Jan 25, 2024, 11:30 AM
Jan 2024

It's one of those 'I read it somewhere' things. I know; real reliable.

But it does seem to square with the idea of the divine right of kings. Symbolic punishment and a public show of penitence, rather than any real consequences. I don't imagine that Henry, of all people, would ever actually allow himself to be genuinely whipped.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»On This Day: King who "ca...