You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The three years between Charles I's surrender in May 1646 and his execution on 30 January 1649 produced the most radical constitutional rupture in English history. A reigning, anointed king was put on trial by a court erected by his own subjects, condemned as a tyrant and traitor, and beheaded in public before the Banqueting House in Whitehall; the monarchy itself, and the House of Lords, were then abolished by statute, and England was declared a Commonwealth — a republic. Nothing in the English past had prepared contemporaries for the regicide, and nothing quite like it would ever happen again. The central problem of this lesson is to explain how a war fought, on Parliament's side, expressly to preserve the king's person and lawful authority could end with his death on a scaffold.
The previous lesson followed the military struggle to Charles's surrender in 1646. This lesson takes up the story from that surrender and traces the extraordinary sequence that led to the regicide: the failure of every attempt at a negotiated settlement, as Charles played his divided enemies against one another; the radicalisation of the New Model Army as it was threatened with disbandment without pay, and the emergence of the Levellers with their startling arguments about consent and the franchise; the second Civil War of 1648 and the reframing of Charles as a "man of blood"; the military coup of Pride's Purge that created the Rump; the unprecedented trial; the execution itself and the martyr-cult it spawned; and the abolition of monarchy and the Lords that completed the revolution in law. The lesson closes by weighing how genuinely revolutionary the regicide was, in a Britain where the act commanded nothing like national consent.
The organising question is whether the execution of Charles I was driven primarily by political necessity — the impossibility of any durable settlement with a king who would sign anything and honour nothing, proved beyond doubt by the second Civil War — or by ideological and providential conviction: the belief that sovereignty lay with the people, that a tyrant could be brought to account, and that God had already condemned the "man of blood" through the army's victories. Keep the question in view, because the best answer, as so often, lies not in choosing one but in explaining how the two fused: military necessity and religious conviction reinforced one another until regicide came to seem, to a determined minority, both unavoidable and righteous.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y108 (British period study and enquiry): England 1603–1660 — The Early Stuarts and the Origins of the English Civil War. Within our own teaching sequence it is the revolutionary climax of the unit: the point at which the constitutional conflict traced through the reigns of James and Charles, and the war of the previous lesson, culminates in the unprecedented killing of a king and the abolition of monarchy itself. We treat the search for settlement, the trial, and the regicide as a distinct lesson — separated from the war that precedes it and the republican experiments that follow — because the failure of settlement and the decision for death is a self-contained analytical problem of the first importance, and because 1646–1649 is the core of the unit's set source enquiry. This is our pedagogical arrangement, not a transcription of the specification's ordering. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording.)
Keep asking, throughout, why negotiation failed, and why the remedy chosen was death rather than deposition or imprisonment. Those two questions are the analytical spine of the lesson.
Charles surrendered to the Scots in May 1646 not because he had exhausted every army but because he calculated that he could exploit the deep divisions among his victorious enemies and recover his full authority by patience. It was a shrewd reading of a fractured coalition, and it very nearly worked — but it also proved his undoing, for it convinced his opponents that he could never be trusted to keep any bargain. The winning side was anything but united.
| Faction | Position |
|---|---|
| Presbyterians (Parliament majority) | Wanted a negotiated settlement with the king and a national Presbyterian Church, and were anxious to disband the increasingly radical army |
| Independents (allied with the army) | Favoured liberty of conscience for the Protestant sects rather than a compulsory national Church, and looked to the army as their protection against the Presbyterian majority |
| The New Model Army | Owed huge arrears of pay and threatened with disbandment without settlement of its grievances, it was fast becoming an autonomous political force with demands of its own |
| The Scots | Wanted the Presbyterian settlement promised in the Solemn League and Covenant, and held the king until Parliament paid what it owed for their army |
Into this divided landscape Charles projected a series of competing settlement proposals, negotiating with all and committing to none.
| Proposal | From | Key terms |
|---|---|---|
| Newcastle Propositions | Parliament (July 1646) | Parliamentary control of the militia for twenty years; abolition of episcopacy and a Presbyterian Church; severe punishment of leading Royalists |
| Heads of the Proposals | The Army (drafted by Ireton, summer 1647) | More generous to the king: biennial Parliaments, broad religious toleration for Protestants (no compulsory Presbyterianism), parliamentary control of the militia for ten years then return to the Crown |
| The Agreement of the People | The Levellers (1647) | A radical written constitution: a wide, near-manhood franchise, equal and redistributed constituencies, biennial Parliaments, sovereignty vested in the people, and fundamental rights reserved beyond Parliament's reach |
Charles's refusal to close with any of these terms — even the relatively generous Heads of the Proposals — is the key to the failure of settlement. He believed that time was on his side and that his enemies' divisions would eventually compel them to restore him on his own terms; so he temporised, negotiated in bad faith, and secretly sought a better bargain elsewhere. The consequence was fatal to trust. Meanwhile the army, frustrated by Parliament's attempts to disband it without arrears or indemnity, took matters into its own hands: in June 1647 the cornet George Joyce, backed by a party of horse, removed the king from Parliamentary custody at Holdenby House — a decisive assertion that the army would not be the mere instrument of the Presbyterian majority. The initiative in politics had passed from Parliament to the army.
The New Model Army's transformation from a fighting force into a political actor is central to the whole story, and it flowed directly from its situation: unpaid, threatened with disbandment, and convinced by its own victories that it fought in a providential cause. As Parliament tried to break it up, the army organised itself politically — the rank and file electing representatives called Agitators to sit alongside the senior officers (the "Grandees") — and began to advance demands not merely for its arrears but for a settlement of the kingdom. It was in this ferment that the Levellers emerged as a genuinely radical movement, led by civilians such as John Lilburne, Richard Overton, and William Walwyn, pressing for popular sovereignty, a wide franchise, and a written constitution.
The clash between the army's conservatives and radicals came to a head in the Putney Debates of October–November 1647 — among the most extraordinary political discussions ever recorded, as senior officers, elected Agitators, and civilian Levellers debated the very foundations of legitimate government in the church at Putney, their words taken down in shorthand and preserved in the well-attested Clarke Papers.
| Position | Advocate | Argument |
|---|---|---|
| A wide franchise | Colonel Thomas Rainsborough | That the poorest man in England had a life to live as much as the greatest, and that everyone bound by a government ought first to consent to it — an argument from natural right |
| A property qualification | Henry Ireton (Cromwell's son-in-law) | That only those with a permanent, fixed interest in the kingdom — property in land or trade — should have the vote, lest a propertyless majority vote away property itself |
| Containment | Oliver Cromwell | Sympathetic to reform but fearful of anarchy and of splitting the army; he sought to manage and moderate the radicals while preserving unity and discipline |
The confrontation between Rainsborough's appeal to consent and Ireton's defence of a property-based franchise is one of the foundational arguments in the history of English political thought — and it is essential to grasp that it was not resolved at Putney. The debates were overtaken by events: news of the king's escape from custody, the threat of a renewed war, and Cromwell's determination to restore discipline closed them down. The historiography is instructive here. Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down (1972) read Putney as the surfacing of a genuine revolutionary movement that challenged the entire social order — a popular radicalism almost realised. Austin Woolrych offered a more cautious reading, arguing that Leveller influence has often been exaggerated and that the radicals were a minority within the army. More recent scholarship has stressed the diversity of views at Putney, resisting any neat radicals-versus-conservatives binary. The larger question the debate raises — how far the English Revolution involved genuine popular political agency, and how far it remained the work of narrow elites — recurs throughout the Interregnum.
The event that transformed the army's attitude to the king, and made regicide thinkable, was the second Civil War. In December 1647 Charles concluded a secret treaty with the Scots — the Engagement — promising to establish Presbyterianism in England for three years in exchange for a Scottish army to restore him. This was, from the army's point of view, an act of monstrous bad faith: the king they had spared was now bringing a foreign army to renew a war they thought settled.
| Event | Date | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Royalist risings | Spring–summer 1648 | Scattered but serious revolts in South Wales, Kent, and Essex (the siege of Colchester), and parts of the north |
| Scottish invasion | July 1648 | An "Engager" army crossed into England under the Duke of Hamilton to restore Charles on the terms of the Engagement |
| Battle of Preston | August 1648 | Cromwell routed the strung-out Scottish and Royalist forces — the decisive engagement of the second war |
| The army's response | At the prayer meeting at Windsor (April 1648), officers resolved to call "Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to an account" for the fresh blood he had caused to be shed; negotiation now seemed not merely difficult but sinful |
The phrase "man of blood" carried a specific biblical force, echoing the Old Testament prohibition on leaving blood-guilt unpunished — the shedding of blood defiled the land, and the guilt could be expiated only by the blood of the guilty. The second Civil War did not merely harden attitudes; it reframed Charles entirely. To the army's providential reading, a king who had been defeated once and spared, and who had then deliberately provoked a second war costing thousands of lives, stood under divine condemnation. His continued life now endangered the nation and defied the judgement God had pronounced through the army's victories. This is the crucial hinge of the whole lesson: the second Civil War supplied simultaneously the practical argument (no settlement with this king could ever hold) and the religious argument (God has already condemned him), and it was the fusion of the two that made the unthinkable seem, to a determined minority, both necessary and righteous.
Even after the second war, the Presbyterian majority in the Commons persisted in trying to negotiate with Charles — the Newport negotiations continued, and the House voted that the king's concessions were an acceptable basis for settlement. For the army, victorious a second time and now convinced of Charles's blood-guilt, this was intolerable. On 6 December 1648, Colonel Thomas Pride, backed by troops, stationed himself at the door of the Commons and arrested or excluded around 140 members who favoured a treaty with the king. The purged remnant — the Rump — comprised perhaps 200 nominal members, of whom only a fraction attended regularly; it was this body that would erect the court to try the king.
Pride's Purge was, in plain terms, a military coup: soldiers physically excluding elected representatives from Parliament. It poses the central problem of the regicide's legitimacy, and a strong answer must confront it directly. The Rump claimed to act in the name of the people, yet it had been created by force and represented only a minority faction of a single House. Everything that followed — the trial, the execution, the abolition of monarchy — rested on this extremely narrow and coercively secured base, which is precisely why the republic struggled ever afterwards to command legitimate authority. Note, too, the deep irony: the army, whose war had been fought in the name of Parliament against an over-mighty king, had now purged Parliament itself. The supposed champions of parliamentary right had subordinated Parliament to the sword — the unresolved problem of military power that would destabilise the entire Interregnum.
Having purged Parliament, the Rump moved swiftly to try the king. The trial was wholly without precedent in English history, and its irregularity is central to the argument over its legitimacy.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Legality | The Rump alone passed the ordinance establishing a High Court of Justice to try the king; the House of Lords refused to concur and was simply bypassed. Of around 135 named commissioners many stayed away; the court was managed by determined men such as John Bradshaw (president) and John Cooke (prosecutor). Only 59 ultimately signed the death warrant |
| The charge | That as a "tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy" Charles had levied war against the Parliament and people of England, and was responsible for all the bloodshed of the wars |
| Charles's defence | He repeatedly refused to plead, denying that any court could lawfully try a sovereign: he demanded to know by what lawful authority he had been brought there. By challenging the court's jurisdiction rather than answering the charge, he turned the trial into a debate about the legitimacy of the court itself — and scored a real rhetorical victory |
| The verdict | Guilty; sentenced to death as a tyrant, traitor and public enemy |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.