What were the main factors that led to Charles I’s execution
What were the main concerns surrounding Charles I’s execution trial?
Answer to Question: HIST3312 The British Civil Wars And Interregnum
The Driving Factors behind Execution Of Charles I
Charles I succeeded King James I to the English throne.
Charles I, the reign’s first year, married Henrietta Maria a Catholic French Princess.
He was unable to control the political opposition and dismantled Parliament multiple times.
In 1629, his decision was made to control the entire country himself without the aid of parliament.
The first English civil war was triggered by the conflict between the King and Parliament in 1642.
Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the parliamentarians, was present during that conflict.
Cromwell led the Ironsides force that defeated the Royalist force of King Charles I at Marston Moor, 1644, and at Naseby, 1645.
Charles I was forced to appear in front of a high tribunal that was controlled entirely by his enemies after this defeat.
He was convicted for treason and sentenced.
As Charles I lost the civil battle to the parliamentarians, it is obvious that he was executed.
This execution has more to it (Randall 2016).
There are two main questions that must be answered in order to understand the motivations behind Charles’ execution. They are: “How did Charles I cause the outbreak Civil War in the years 1642” and “Why did that result?” The Civil War brokeout in England due to a variety of reasons.
It is clear, however that Charles I wasn’t responsible for all of them.
The greatest example of this is the English state’s long-term structural problems. (Holmes (2010), p.289).
These problems are not what caused Civil war to break out, but it created an environment which forced the war to break out.
However, the Three Kingdoms’ problems, financial difficulties of the crown, deep religious and political divisions of the country created a tension that could easily ignite.
It is also true to say that Parliament had a negative reaction after Charles was elevated to the throne.
He was not only denied the right to tonnage, poundage and customary rights but was also attacked by Parliament for attacking royal prerogatives.
Kelsey (2001. p. 1) suggests that war could have been avoided if a competent monarch was in place.
These issues were evident even under the reigns James and Elizabeth.
Queen Elizabeth was an expert at maintaining equilibrium by balancing interests that were not in harmony.
James was on the other side, a great judge. James knew when to push an issue while allowing people to choose their path.
Peacey 2001 says that James was always available to take over the throne, negotiate and persuade (Peacey 2001).
It’s surprising to see that Charles could not duplicate more of James’s strengths.
In many ways, he contributed to the outbreak of World War II.
Charles was seen as untrustworthy, as not many people once had faith in him.
Particularly, parliamentary leadership had absolutely no faith.
He became the most untrustworthy person living in England, after violating the Petition of Right to which he had submitted in 1628.
While negotiating with the Scottish government, he was also building an army that could deal with them forcefully.
After he was taken prisoner by parliamentarians in 1647, he spent his time encouraging uprisings all over the country.
It is evident that it is difficult work with such an individual.
Charles I was an uncompromising man, however (Bonney, 2001, page 247).
He was not flexible and didn’t consider the possibility that other people could be right.
Such a person is bound to create divisions where there wasn’t one.
There are many factors that can be divided into these factors. These include social, economic and religious.
The English Crown’s biggest weakness under Charles I’s rule was its poor financial situation.
It has been the responsibility of Parliament to allow any taxation, even though monarchs were not able to impose it arbitrarily. This is a tradition that goes back centuries.
This shows that Parliament holds a central place in England’s politics, and the crows depend on them (Orr2002).
This principle was deeply ingrained into the English people’s thinking.
This meant that the monarch had no power to tax the English people directly.
Charles’s financial creativity rules and regulations, including Ship Money and Forest Fines, were met with strong opposition from the regime.
John Hampden faced the strongest opposition in the 1637 year to Charles’s ship money.
Charles and his followers managed to collect the majority of that ship money.
Over the years that ship money was the most popular tax policy in Britain’s entire history,Religious Factor:
Charles’ decisions in religion were the major reason for Civil War, which led to Charles being executed.
Charles was believed by many parliamentarians to be a secret Catholic and Papist.
But it was clearly false.
He was a staunch supporter of the Church of England (Wedgwood 2012).
But it is true that his views were strongly aligned with the Church’s “right wing”.
His beliefs were all described as High Church or Laudian.
Charles was an advocate for more ceremonies and rituals in Church of England.
Charles was, for instance, the one who encouraged the practice of kneeling at the altar rails. He is a wealthy, powerful clergyman.
Bremer (2015) said that he also began frivolous athletic activities after Sunday church services.
These “popish creativities,” which were disliked by puritans who were extreme Protestants, were also rejected by moderate Protestants.
Charles I was bitterened by the question of religion.
Charles attempted to force Laudian prayer books on the people of Scotland.
This led to a popular Prayer Book Rebellion.
Possibly, the consequences of this event led to Civil War in England.
Other than the obvious reasons, there were other short-term causes that helped to facilitate the English Civil War (Carlton2002).
The Irish Rebellion is one of the reasons. Other causes include the Army Plots. The attempt on the Five Members. And the Grand Remonstrance.
All these factors have a connection to Charles I’s execution.
He believed in the Divine Right of Kings.
He misunderstood their political traditions and people.
Charles also made another major mistake, trying to govern without Parliament for more then a decade.
Charles began using backdoor taxes to circumvent the tradition of asking for permission from Parliament when implementing taxation strategies (Sharp 2001).
These backdoor taxes were used in a manner and extent that was unrivalled by any precedent.
Charles used this method even if there was no unexpected disbursement.
There is already talk of his bringing several religious changes to the country that many perceived as a backsliding in Catholicism and Protestantism.
Particularly, the people of Scotland were violently opposed to these new religious rules.
Charles I was able to create an army to address the needs of the people in Scotland.
Charles I was unable to afford to raise an army, so he used his backdoor tax revenues.
The result was that he had to re-summon Parliament after a long delay (Holmes, 2007).
The parliament members showed no emotion despite a decade-long backlog of confined grievances.
Charles quickly dismissed parliament.
His problems in Scotland were not resolved and he needed to raise money for an army.
He called another parliament to express his anger, and they were more outraged than the one he had previously called.
Charles declared war against parliament and was ultimately defeated.
The potential consequences of war were becoming more likely as the war continued.
After huge numbers of deaths, destruction and disruption, it was less likely that there would be a negotiated cease-fire (Bremer, 2015 p.105).
Both sides tried to apply a negotiation process, but it is also true.
The process failed to take place. Even though parliamentarians knew that Charles would not rule or defend them, how could they trust him now?
Charles started a bloody battle against the parliament. Then he attempted to start a peace accord (Collins, 1974).
He betrayed his friends who helped him negotiate a peaceful settlement and began a new civil war.
Charles lost that battle as well and tried again to negotiate a peace deal.
These incidents influenced more parliamentarians who stopped trusting Charles.
Some parliamentary leaders like Cromwell, Ireton had personal reasons.
For them, it was a “do or die” situation.
These people opposed Charles so often, they were afraid for the safety of their own lives.
They feared Charles would try anything and everything to have them executed if they tried to negotiate (Sellin, Lacy 2000 p.242).
Pride’s Purge had effectively expelled some of the moderators.
Radicals were allowed to continue in the parliament.
Radical leaders, who were at the New Model Army’s helm, are included in this group.
Charles, a prisoner of war, initiated the Second Civil War.
During the second civil War, there were numerous uprisings in the country.
These uprisings failed to rescue the king so many times.
The geography and number of rebellions were so strong that parliamentarians might have trouble dealing with them.
However, the New Army proved so strong that it was able to defeat the rebellions.
Parliamentarians learned from this that Charles cannot be trusted in any circumstance (Bremer 2015.
Many historians believe that Charles is responsible for the beginning of the English Civil War. Charles was then executed as a result.
However, Mark Kishlansky (Kevin Sharpe) and Mark Kishlansky (Mark Kishlansky) believe that Charles was executed and civil war was started by parliamentarians.
It is possible to assume two things after Charles was executed.
Charles and his untrustworthy attitudes and policies were the reason for Charles’ execution.
The execution was also due to the parliamentarians, who refused to obey the king and executed Charles in order not claim the power again.
It is possible to say that the members of parliament have always pledged their loyalty the King or the office of The King (Bonney p.247).
The principle motto of the parliamentarians has been to serve only the king since the beginning.
They believed that “For King or Parliament” was their motto. However they did put Charles, the man who had treasonous intent against the country, on trial.
There are many theories about King Charles I’s trial and execution.
Some historians claimed that parliamentarians conspired to execute Charles I.
Some historians believe Charles deserved it.
However, both historians have been correct after analyzing the information in this essay (Peacey 2001).
Charles attempted to control and implement rules and regulations himself while ignoring the supremacy of parliament.
On the other, he deceived the parliamentarians as well as his followers numerous times.
His constant betrayal meant that parliamentarians could no longer trust King Charles at the end (Randall, Donald 2016).
They also feared Charles’s death would ignite the flame of evolution again.
They therefore executed King Charles I.
ReferencesBonney, R., 2001.
The European Reaction and Response to Charles I’s Execution and Trial.
The regicides, and the execution Charles I (pp. 247-279).
Palgrave Macmillan UK.Bremer, F.J., 2015.
The Role Of the Laity In England’s Puritan Revival.
Lay Empowerment: The Development of Puritanism (pp. 105-126).
Palgrave Macmillan UK.Carlton, C., 2002.
Going to War: The Experience of British Civil Wars 1638-1651. Routledge.Collins, J., 1974.
Treason & Tyranny: Some Thoughts On the Trial and Executionof Charles I.
Rice Institute Pamphlet – Rice University Studies, 60(4).Holmes, C., 2007.
Why was Charles I executed. A&C Black.Holmes, C., 2010.
Charles I., trial and execution.
The Historical Journal, 53(2) pp.289-289.Kelsey, S., 2001.
Staging Charles I.
The Regicides and the Execution of Charles I (pp. 71-93).
Palgrave Macmillan UK.Kelsey, S., 2004.
Politics, Procedure and the Trial of Charles I.
Law and History Review. 22(01), pp.1-25.Lacey, A., 2003.
The cult that killed King Charles the martyr (Vol. 7).
Boydell & Brewer.Orr, D.A., 2002.
Treason, the state and law: Politics, ideology and law in the English civil war.
Cambridge University Press.Peacey, J. ed., 2001.
The Regicides and the Execution of Charles 1. Springer.Randall, J.G.
The Civil War and Reconstruction.
Pickle Partners Publishing.Sellin, P.R. and Lacy-Bruijn, M., 2000.
Royalist Propaganda: Notes toward an Inquiry.
Dutch Crossing. 24(2). pp.241-264.Sharp, A., 2001.
The End of Charles I. and the Levellers.
The Regicides and the Execution of Charles I (pp. 181-201).
Palgrave Macmillan UK.Wedgwood, C.V., 2011.
A King Condemned, The Trial and Executionof Charles I. TaurisParke Paperbacks.Wood, B.I.A., 2015.
Combating heretics within civil war and interregnum England. Doctoral dissertation, Keele University.