The trial of Charles I: justice or show trial?

In this video we explore the trial of Charles I at the end of the English Civil War and ask whether its outcome was a foregone conclusion.

[steveN]

The paintings we have of Charles the 1st are so awesome ! A window into the past 😮

[benjaminslade]

To put the King on trial, Cromwell used the army to stop all but 46 members of Parliament from voting (and of these only 26 voted to put Cromwell on trial). Cromwell appointed the judges, organised the witnesses and in the end certain of the judges were forced to sign the death warrant. While it is interesting to put the question back on the agenda, this video ignores key evidence which would suggest that this was indeed a show trial, and it is difficult to imagine Cromwell relinquishing any of the power he had built up. It wasn't a trial, it was a coup d'état.

[iainholmes]

This is an excellent vid. It was such a significant event. Cheers.

[Oprey]

Charles could have had a deal. He could have stayed on as king and kept most of his powers. Many on the parliament side and most of the people wanted a deal. He tried to buy time by pretending to negotiate with parliament while plotting to land an Irish army to restore him to his traditional role. Cromwell simply felt he couldn't trust him any more.

Charles had the very bad habit of sacrificing his closest allies. When parliament demanded the head of Strafford he gave in and signed the death warrant. Strafford had gone in to bat for him. When Prince Rupert failed to hold Bristol, which he militarily couldn't have done, Charles exiled him. These were two of his most loyal and effective supporters.

Charles was pig-headed, duplicitous, arrogant and didn't have a scrap of statecraft about him. He was unable to compromise. He didn't understand what sort of countries he was king of, particularly in terms of religion. He badly misread the religious thinking in both Scotland and England and his alienation of Scotland was a major factor in his defeat. In short, he self-destructed.

Was it a show-trial? Yes it was. Parliament put him on trial to make a political point. The price you pay for losing a war is that you get put on trial for starting it.e.g. Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. Charles made the wrong decision at a number of critical points and was certainly to blame in large measure for his downfall.

[LongerLasting]

Premodern English treason trials were a virtual death sentence. Juries could and were punished for returning the “wrong verdict.”

[petah-peoplefortheendlesst]

PS The surviving regicides were put on trial at the Old Bailey and London Guildhall NOT Westminster Hall. However the posthumouslly decapitated heads of Cromwell, Bradshaw and Ireton were affixed to spikes on the roof of Westminster Hall, facing the Whitehall Banqueting House where they had put Charles I to death.

[Eza_yuta]

It's show trial as everything orchestrated by Cromwell. But if Charles I could be a good king and satisfied the public's need without all bloody thing he did, he can be prevent it from the first place.

[uncleahane]

This is a very informative video and I thank you for this. Our school is forcing us to watch this and make notes, which I personally think shouldn't be legal but anyway, I wrote a whole page of notes on this video and forgot to do everything else. Therefore, I got a detention.

I really enjoyed this video though.

[hamzasaeed]

Nice video but i got told off for watching during class

[oleeb]

What actual evidence is there of popular opinion regarding thebtrial of King Charles? Was a survey done? No. So there’s no data, only anecdote.

[stevenmajor]

My Lord, is that legal?

I will make it legal.

[lindainglis]

The good King could have saved himself.

[barnesliz]

Any els bored watching this because school made us

[shaungillingham]

He should have been more pragmatic & compromised & made a deal, but no he was plugging away for divine right of Kings.

Cromwell probably remembered what happened to Watt Tyler & you can be sure if Cromwell had lost the war he would have been executed.

Charles was a tyrant & pro papist he definitely got what he deserved. He had the blood of thousands on his hands, bloodshed that could have been avoided, he was guilty of waging war against his own subjects.

Besides it wasn't anything like the French revolution where they slaughtered all their gentry.

The restored monarchy completely lost their marbles by digging up the dead corpse of Cromwell & executing him, pure vindictiveness, as well as a desecration of a Christian burial.

I bet the common folk were glad to see the end I'd Charles 1st, enough of them fought, I don't buy the idea they were against the trial or execution as you portrayed.

[hoarse]

The misinformation concerning Charles 1 continues to this day. Nobody including Cromwell, wanted to execute him. Indeed all negotiations were predicated on Charles remaining king but stripped of the 'divine right' he professed to have. He was, according to his own testimony, only accountable to 'god' and could not be challenged by his 'subjects' . History has tended to sympathise with his plight, however, he probably stands as the most treacherous and deceitful king in English and British history. He consorted with the catholic French, Irish and the Scots with a view to overturning parliament. Never since his execution has any British king adopted a 'divine right to rule' effectively putting the role of the monarch into a more ceremonial one. The civil war and its outcome was the only possible course that could be taken in the circumstances.

[Leon-bchm]

Justice! People and Science > Monarch and a non-existent god.