0:00

The Planet Fitness Black Card is packed

0:02

with perks, like other gems. Hi, can

0:04

I bring your friends to work out? Oh,

0:06

okay. Is my membership

0:08

good at other locations? Okay,

0:11

do you have any other amenities? But

0:14

at Planet Fitness, the PF Black Card gets

0:16

you tons of perks. Bring a friend for

0:18

free anytime. Access to any of our 2,500

0:20

plus locations. Relax in

0:22

the Hydro massage and so much more. Join for just

0:24

$1 down 24.99 a month. Cancel

0:27

anytime. Deal in March 15th. See

0:29

Homecoming details. Head

0:41

over to historyhit.com/subscribe.

0:49

In the mid-17th century, a

0:51

remarkable legal event occurred. The

0:54

King of England was put on trial.

0:57

For treason. Against the sovereign

0:59

state. Such a

1:01

process involved a singular determination by parliament

1:03

to find a way to try the

1:05

one they saw as a man of

1:08

blood. Through June legal

1:10

process. To ensure that

1:12

he paid the price for his

1:14

faults and failings, but not through

1:16

extrajudicial summary justice. This would

1:18

be a trial that called witnesses.

1:21

Even a butcher testified against his

1:23

king. To understand how such

1:26

a thing came to be, we have

1:28

to dial back to explain why the

1:30

civil war had broken out and how

1:32

the king himself came to be blamed

1:34

against all historical precedent. And

1:36

we have to wonder at why it was so

1:38

very important to have a trial and whether there

1:40

could have been a different outcome. To

1:43

discuss this, I'm joined by Professor

1:45

Edward Valance of the University of

1:47

Rahampton. Professor Valance has

1:49

written several excellent journal articles pondering

1:51

Charles I trial and his latest

1:54

book is a radical history of

1:56

Britain. Professor

2:02

Ted Vallens, welcome to Not Just the

2:04

Tudors. Thank you, nice to be here. I

2:07

thought we'd start with some simple,

2:09

straightforward questions. So we're

2:11

going to be talking chiefly about the trial

2:13

of Charles I, but we need

2:16

to do some context first. Could

2:19

you answer that sort of old chestnut

2:21

and disclose for us the grounds for

2:23

the civil war? Oh right, brilliant,

2:25

yes. Within a

2:27

couple of minutes, yeah. The

2:29

civil war is really prompted

2:31

by the unpopularity of Charles

2:33

I's regime across the British

2:36

Isles, so not just in England. And

2:39

that's really important because although there's

2:41

growing opposition to his policies in

2:43

England, that doesn't turn into

2:45

rebellion. At least

2:47

first of all, it's in Scotland that

2:50

we first see the outbreak of rebellion

2:52

against the religious policies that Charles I

2:54

is imposing upon his northern kingdom. Primarily,

2:57

that's the trigger for the rebellion in

2:59

Scotland. So religion is a

3:01

huge factor here, and it's Charles' vision

3:03

of the church across his kingdoms, which

3:06

is heightening tension in Ireland

3:08

and Scotland and England. One

3:11

of the main reasons for this is that

3:13

although Charles is a Protestant, his

3:15

kind of vision of what Protestantism

3:17

is something that looks to quite

3:19

a lot of English Puritans as

3:22

something that is moving the church

3:24

back towards Roman Catholicism. So

3:26

in particular, the emphasis upon ceremonial,

3:28

the emphasis upon a kind of

3:30

separation between the sacred and profane.

3:32

The idea that you can have

3:34

some sorts of entertainment on the Sabbath rather than

3:36

the Sabbath being kept for worship alone. These are

3:38

all flashpoints for a lot of the sort of

3:41

hotter sort of Protestants in England. And

3:43

Charles' attempt to bring his churches

3:46

into congruence, if not uniformity, is

3:49

something that also raises a great

3:51

deal of anxiety in Scotland, which

3:53

is predominantly Calvinist in Outlook with

3:56

strong kind of Presbyterian elements there.

3:59

This is also. The connected to

4:01

the way in which the king

4:03

is governing and away in which

4:05

he is supporting his rules are:

4:07

Charles has been governing without parliament

4:09

for eleven years because his disagreements

4:12

with parliament early on in his

4:14

reign over foreign policy i'm taxation

4:16

and he's been basically supporting his

4:18

regime through prerogative means to progressive

4:20

taxation and that has led critics

4:23

inning to feel that to his

4:25

ruling beyond the law and also

4:27

fearing that without parliament be in

4:29

session. There isn't really any kind

4:31

of body organization that can hold

4:34

the king to the council that

4:36

could bring grievances from the country

4:38

to the kings attention said Boudreau

4:40

Anxieties: His go beyond the religious

4:42

feather about Charles the First Government's

4:44

how he is governing stone of

4:46

government. Some of these criticisms are

4:49

going to the extent even at

4:51

this stage in the sixteen thirties

4:53

of my he loses to Charles

4:55

being a tyrant comparable to Roman

4:57

emperors such as Narrow, for example.

4:59

All. These are quite subdued and kept

5:02

under wraps during the sixteenth thirties, but

5:04

we can find them there and. Writings.

5:10

Answer Combination opposition to his

5:12

religious policies and opposition to

5:14

the way in which Charles

5:16

is governing. The anxieties about

5:18

his government that leads to

5:20

the Civil War. First.

5:22

More with the outbreak of rebellion in

5:24

Scotland against the imposition of a prayer

5:26

book that many in Scotland seats and

5:28

English text and the text which introduces

5:31

the Pope is elements into the Scottish

5:33

church. And. The outbreak of

5:35

rebellion in Scotland provides an opportunity

5:37

for Charles's English or Texas. Well,

5:39

I instantly forces Charles to go

5:42

back to Parliament to seek money

5:44

to support the school that he

5:47

needs to wage against the Scottish

5:49

rebels. And that and gets the

5:51

opportunity for critics and parliament to

5:54

start attacking pastoral at all first

5:56

religious and political policies pursuing now

5:58

during Sixty Forty One in particular

6:01

probably moments in which it might

6:03

it impossible for the King to

6:06

if you like build bridges with

6:08

his opponents on to have resolve

6:10

these issues with in parliament. The

6:13

problem again is that British and

6:15

Irish diamonds and because what is

6:17

happening in England Scotland is also

6:20

trigger anxieties and majority Catholic Ireland

6:22

as well. And so the trying

6:25

to feel like if more puritanical

6:27

elements in England Scotland is raising

6:29

anxieties. Amongst. Irish. Catholics and

6:32

there were long standing issues as

6:34

well which relate to tells his

6:36

government in on and to boo.

6:38

We see than is an outbreak

6:41

rebellion in Ireland as well This

6:43

creates a new security situation it

6:45

will say really significant the ramps

6:47

up anxiety about Popery about the

6:49

Catholic threat. There's a fee here

6:52

that actually Charles is not unsympathetic

6:54

to these rebels of has a

6:56

circulation of a fake commission from

6:58

Charles authorizing rebellion and as anxieties

7:00

here. That Charles may use

7:02

any all me this race to

7:05

suppress this are financing not against

7:07

our troubles, but against Parliament itself.

7:10

And that he may even welcome this and are

7:12

Catholic rebels and. So

7:18

the are for by the and

7:20

really stymies, attempts compromised and negotiation

7:22

and plays into the hands of

7:25

more hardline figures with in parliament

7:27

he won't tougher measures, more limitations

7:29

on the King's power, and he

7:32

wants more puritanical, just settlement and

7:34

also ramps up the security concerns

7:36

are increasingly looking more towards that

7:39

of military confrontation. Roslyn. just polemical

7:41

debates with and parliament's and in

7:43

the press as well ultimately this

7:46

breakdown of trust really comes to

7:48

a crunch point in january sixty

7:50

forty two when charles attempts to

7:53

arrest empties that he seizes is

7:55

leading critics within the commons for

7:57

treason he comes to the commons

8:00

with an armed force. All of

8:02

the people are anxious that he's turning

8:04

into a tyrant. This is really fitting

8:06

into that particular picture. Those MPs have

8:08

actually already been warned off. They've fled

8:10

the scene, so Charles is not even

8:12

successful in decapitating, as it were, the

8:14

opposition to him. And very

8:16

shortly after that, as a result, not

8:18

just a sort of parliamentary anger at

8:21

this move, but also public anger, which

8:23

is turning into mass demonstrations against the

8:25

king, the king decides to move out

8:28

of London altogether. We then

8:31

face a sort of gradual move

8:33

into old confrontation, which then breaks

8:35

out in the autumn of 1642.

8:38

Well, that was a magnificent summary of the grounds

8:40

of the Civil War. We do need

8:42

to consider the progress, I suppose, from

8:44

August 1642 onwards and

8:47

when the king is defeated, essentially, the

8:50

attempts to put terms to him, which

8:52

he regularly rejects. Could you briefly give

8:54

us an overview of that? Yes,

8:57

the first Civil War in

8:59

England lasts between 1642 and

9:01

1646, and it's ultimately the

9:03

parliamentarians who emerge victorious from

9:06

this first conflict. I

9:08

think it's important to stress, though, just in terms

9:10

of what happens later, that there are all sorts

9:12

of twists and turns in terms of this military

9:14

conflict, and there are points at which it seems,

9:16

in fact, that the royalists will emerge victorious.

9:20

And this does a number of things which are

9:22

important in terms of our understanding of the events

9:24

which follow. One is

9:26

it brings the Scottish Covenanters,

9:29

so these are the figures who've risen

9:31

to power because of their opposition to

9:33

Charles I religious policies, much

9:35

more into English politics, because the

9:37

English parliament needs a military alliance

9:40

with the Scottish Covenanters in order

9:42

to resist the royalist army. So

9:44

that alliance is forged in 1643,

9:46

and it gives the Scots Covenanters

9:50

a much greater kind of influence

9:52

and role within English politics from

9:54

then on. The other

9:56

thing About that ebbing and flowing is

9:59

really too... The old and has

10:01

impacted a hassles, politics and political

10:03

ideas and also the impact that

10:05

it has on her poems, organizes,

10:07

it's all me with batons and

10:09

or a significant as we move

10:11

on. Actually very early on in

10:13

the Civil war we see a

10:15

shift in the rhetoric from the

10:17

initial position that this is a

10:19

war that is being for not

10:21

against the came self but against

10:23

his evil counts as you've been

10:25

missing icing him a leading industry.

10:29

Comment. Instead will

10:31

be seen as early as Six. See

10:33

Forty Three is some pamphlets which is

10:36

starting say actually no, Look, it's Charles

10:38

is responsible for this is Charles has

10:40

initiated the war. It is Charles. He

10:43

was behaving in a way. Which.

10:45

Is compatible with describing hims the

10:47

time and and which means that

10:50

V should suffer. The fight that

10:52

Tarrance have traditionally faced says the

10:54

kind of radicalizing of ideas that

10:56

we see here. Even caught

10:58

early on in the Civil War. Does

11:01

course a major sisters and his. I mean if

11:03

you think back a century earlier, everything is always

11:05

framed in terms of the evil counts as the

11:07

king because it gives the left out. To

11:09

everybody And it's important. To

11:12

said that a lot of this material

11:14

is anonymous people not really ready to

11:16

put their names to these sorts of

11:18

arguments. but these arguments being voiced fairly

11:20

early on in Civil War I wonder

11:22

reasons why the being aired at that

11:25

point again comes back to that question

11:27

of the suitors ebbs and flows of

11:29

the campaign. Their points as you see

11:31

Forty Three where it actually looks really

11:33

bad for the pollen terror and Coors

11:35

looks as if the rule is to

11:37

to seize control of London. and

11:39

they consider all kinds of ways in

11:42

which they might try and address the

11:44

situation one of the things that is

11:46

disgusted the idea of agenda rising said

11:49

level mass where they will basically recruit

11:51

a citizen all me with in london

11:53

to resist the moines tommy this approach

11:55

in the capital and the people who

11:58

have the architects generalizing are

12:00

people like William Wallen and there are

12:02

also figures who are leading radicals within

12:04

the city itself. Now Wallen is somebody

12:06

who later on we associate with the

12:09

Leveller movement and there's

12:11

a reason for this which is

12:13

the ideas that are supporting this

12:15

campaign for a general rising are

12:17

also founded on notions of popular

12:19

sovereignty, the idea that the people

12:21

are sovereign and establishing a kind

12:23

of people's army as a military

12:25

manifestation of this and also again

12:27

to come back to that point

12:29

around breaking this idea that it's not a

12:31

war against the king, that the

12:34

king in fact is just a

12:36

public officer and there's nothing illegal

12:38

for the people to resist somebody

12:40

who is supposed to be serving

12:42

them ultimately. The other

12:44

thing that is really significant about

12:46

these military ebbs and flows is

12:49

the way in which they force

12:51

parliament to rationalize its military organization.

12:54

One of the difficulties they face is the

12:56

difficulties of getting field armies to fight outside

12:58

of the areas where they're being raised.

13:00

So what they then do

13:02

in 1645 is create one

13:05

main parliamentarian field army that what we know

13:07

is the New Model army and the creation

13:10

of the New Model army is significant because

13:12

what we see from the development

13:15

of that organization is also an

13:17

emerging sense that army is a

13:19

single kind of political entity. It's

13:22

not in their own words a

13:24

mere mercenary army but an army

13:26

that has been created to defend

13:28

the liberties and freedoms of the

13:30

English people. There's also some

13:32

really interesting things that then happen in terms

13:35

of the organization of the army itself. It

13:38

establishes something called the general council of

13:40

the army which is really unusual because

13:42

it's basically a kind of proto-democratic organization.

13:45

So instead of the traditional kind of military hierarchy where

13:47

you've got the officers at the top and the rank

13:49

and file at the bottom, you've now

13:51

got this really important body in which you

13:54

have representatives of the rank and file who

13:56

are basically being put on the same level

13:58

as their commanders. and a

14:00

growing sense in which, certainly from the

14:02

rank and file, this is absolutely appropriate.

14:04

They do have to have commanders, but

14:07

ultimately, because it's a citizen's army, in

14:09

fact, actually, the rank and file must have

14:11

a say in terms of the governance of

14:14

the army itself. And of course, their sort

14:16

of democratic elements are something that we see

14:18

really come to the fore in

14:20

a post-Civil War period. Now,

14:23

what happens in the period after Parliament's

14:25

victory in the Civil War is

14:28

that Charles really plays a sort of game

14:30

of shopping around with his opponents, of

14:33

trying to find the best possible peace

14:35

terms. So first of all, he surrenders

14:37

himself to the Scots Covenanters because

14:39

he thinks they're the most likely to give him generous peace terms.

14:42

That doesn't work for him. So he then is

14:44

passed over to Parliament. He tries to negotiate with

14:46

Parliament. That doesn't work. He's

14:49

taken out of parliamentary custody by the

14:51

army. He negotiates with the army. That

14:53

doesn't come to meaningful fruition. He

14:55

again goes back to negotiating with bits

14:58

of the Covenan regime that we know

15:00

as the Engagers because they enter into

15:02

this engagement with Charles the First. So

15:04

he's basically shopping around for two or

15:06

so years after the end of the

15:08

first Civil War, different parties, both

15:11

trying to get the best possible peace terms out

15:13

of things. But also

15:15

it seems really playing for time in the

15:17

hope that at some point all of these

15:19

different factions are going to fall apart amongst

15:21

themselves, or there'll be an opportunity as

15:24

eventually presents itself to him in late

15:26

1647, which

15:29

is for him to enter into

15:31

some sort of military agreement to

15:33

effectively recover his authority without having

15:35

to negotiate significant concessions in terms

15:37

of his own power. So

15:40

eventually we get to the point in

15:42

which it is decided that Charles must

15:44

be tried. We get to

15:46

January 1649 and the High Court of Justice. And

15:50

given what you've said about the army

15:52

and what we've talked about in terms

15:54

of him trying to negotiate with people,

15:57

can you tell me about the nature of the

15:59

army? the authority of the court that tried

16:01

the king. And what grounds did they have

16:04

the authority to do so? That

16:06

was very problematic for them. And

16:08

actually, there are discussions before the

16:11

court is set up in December

16:13

of 1648, when Cromwell in

16:15

particular is considering this, have meetings with leading

16:17

lawyers where they're trying to get a kind

16:19

of legal view about whether they can bring

16:22

the king to trial. And uniformly, the kind

16:24

of legal opinion is, no, they can't. There

16:26

isn't a court that could try the king

16:28

for treason, because the conception

16:30

of treason is that it's actions or

16:33

conceiving of actions that threaten the

16:35

king's life in person, so on. How

16:37

could the king be guilty of treason? Now,

16:40

what those who are sort of with

16:42

the trial do is that they're not

16:44

trying to set up what we might

16:46

describe as a kangaroo court. They're

16:49

trying as hard as they

16:51

can to establish something that

16:53

has some sort of basis

16:55

in legal precedent and contemporary

16:57

legal frameworks. It is a

16:59

kind of hybrid court. So it

17:02

brings together elements of the English

17:04

common law. It brings together elements

17:06

of civil law procedure. It brings

17:08

together elements of the way in

17:10

which military courts and martial law

17:12

procedure works to try

17:15

and establish some

17:17

sort of arena of

17:19

procedure by which they

17:21

can try Charles. What

17:23

they're building upon as well is

17:25

something that has been happening over

17:28

the 1640s in dealing with some

17:30

of those evil councillors who identified

17:32

Charles I. So figures like Thomas

17:34

Wentworth, the Earl of Strafford and

17:36

William Lord, Archbishop of Canterbury. Now,

17:39

in those trials, Parliament

17:41

had tried to reconfigure

17:43

what treason meant. Instead

17:45

of being this idea of an attack

17:47

upon the king's person, it

17:49

was instead being reconceived as an

17:52

attack upon the kingdom. They

17:54

end up within the trial is a reshaping

17:56

of treason so that what Charles is being

17:58

accused of is a of is

18:01

waging war against his kingdom, against

18:03

his people, the sovereign people

18:05

of England. So it's

18:08

involved this kind of reconfiguring

18:10

of treason within the trial

18:12

and it's also involving a

18:14

reconfiguring of procedure here as

18:16

well. So we don't have

18:18

a judge and a jury,

18:20

instead we've got commissioners who

18:23

occupy status of both jurors and

18:25

also judges at the same time, a

18:27

total of 135 of

18:29

them who are named in the initial legislation,

18:32

although about a third of these don't turn up.

18:35

And there's also some sort of real ebbs and

18:37

flows in terms of the attendance of those who

18:39

do appear as well. In

18:41

addition to these commissioners we've got

18:43

prosecutors who are appointed to lead

18:46

the case against the king and

18:48

again these prosecutors reflect that sort

18:50

of hybrid nature of the court.

18:52

So we've got people here like

18:54

Isaac Doris-Lause who are experts in

18:56

both international law and also in

18:59

martial law as well. And

19:01

we've also got figures like John Cook who

19:03

is an expert in the common law, a

19:05

big advocate of England's common law too. The

19:08

importance of bringing these different traditions into

19:11

play as well is for us to

19:13

understand what the court is trying to

19:15

hold Charles accountable for.

19:18

And in the charges that are brought

19:20

against the king they are essentially focusing

19:23

upon what we might now describe

19:25

as being war crimes and the

19:27

idea of command responsibility. So

19:30

the charges almost exclusively relate

19:32

to what happened during the First

19:35

Civil War. They argue that Charles

19:37

initiated the war, they argue that

19:39

Charles was present on the battlefield

19:42

at various sort of major conflicts

19:44

during the 1640s, basically urging on

19:46

his troops, that he encouraged atrocities

19:49

and abuses of not just combatants

19:51

but non-combatants as well. So

19:54

that presence of experts in military

19:56

law is really important there as

19:58

well as that international dimension. because

20:01

in international law at the time

20:03

there is a growing understanding that

20:05

in fact this idea of command

20:07

responsibility can even extend to a

20:09

king who is held to have

20:11

led his army in a

20:14

war against his people might be

20:16

held to account for the bloodshed

20:18

that has resulted in that particular

20:20

conflict. Hey,

20:31

I'm Ryan Reynolds. At Mint Mobile, we like

20:33

to do the opposite of what big wireless

20:35

does. They charge you a lot, we charge

20:37

you a little. So naturally, when they announced

20:40

they'd be raising their prices due to inflation,

20:42

we decided to deflate our prices due to

20:44

not hating you. That's right! We're cutting the

20:46

price of Mint Unlimited from $30 a month

20:48

to just $15 a month. Give

20:52

it a try at mintmobile.com. $45

20:55

up front for 3 months plus taxes and fees. Promote it for

20:57

new customers for limited time. Unlimited more than 40GB per month. Slows.

20:59

Full terms at mintmobile.com. Hi,

21:03

I'm Eleanor Janaga. And I'm Matt Lewis.

21:05

And all this month on Gone Medieval,

21:07

we're delving deep into the pivotal moments

21:09

that shaped the destiny of England, the

21:12

Battle of Hastings. Three

21:14

men struggle for supremacy. The Saxon

21:16

King, Harold Godwinson. The Viking Warlord,

21:19

Harold Hardrada. And the ambitious Norman

21:21

Duke, William the Conqueror. So

21:24

join me, Eleanor Janaga. And me, Matt

21:26

Lewis, for Gone Medieval from History Hit.

21:28

Listen and follow on Apple, Spotify, or

21:30

wherever you get your podcasts. You've

21:49

alluded to it, but perhaps we can

21:51

address explicitly the fact that there is

21:53

this big historical debate about

21:55

the objective when it came to trying

21:57

Charles I. Was

21:59

his... death predetermined outcome

22:02

of the court proceedings or by contrast was it

22:04

the least likely outcome? Where do you

22:06

fall on this? Yes so

22:08

there is this major debate, it's been the

22:10

big debate around the trial for the last

22:13

decade or so. The historian Sean Kelsey has

22:15

basically argued that the trial was not intended

22:17

to end in the King's death. He

22:20

describes it as a form of extended

22:22

negotiation so this is really another attempt

22:24

to, through this kind

22:26

of legal proceedings, negotiate with

22:28

Charles and get him to

22:30

accept terms. On the other

22:32

side you've got historians such as the Lake Clive

22:35

Holmes who are arguing that no actually

22:37

the intent of the trial was always

22:39

to end in a capital sentence

22:42

and partly this is for not

22:44

just legal reasons or political reasons

22:46

but for religious reasons as well.

22:48

The idea that Charles I was

22:50

a man against whom in Cromwell's

22:52

words the Lord had witnessed. He

22:54

was a man of blood, somebody

22:56

who had to be punished in

22:59

order to assuage the wrath of

23:01

God and there's this sort of

23:03

almost apocalyptic and malaria imperative behind

23:05

the proceedings, inevitably meaning that they

23:07

were going to lead to Charles

23:09

I's death. My

23:11

view about this is that the debate

23:13

between Holmes and Kelsey leads us to

23:15

a point where we start losing sight

23:18

of the fact that this is a

23:20

trial and what those have been involved

23:22

in discussions around what to do with

23:24

Charles I had resolved upon and what

23:26

was really interesting about what they'd resolved

23:28

upon was that they decided to go

23:31

for a public trial of

23:33

the King and that's what's

23:35

really unprecedented here because regicide itself

23:37

is not unprecedented in the early modern

23:39

period or the late medieval period. There are several

23:42

examples of English monarchs who have bumped off by

23:44

their own subjects whether it's on the battlefield or

23:46

whether it's after they've been deposed in the case

23:48

of Richard II for example

23:50

but what's really unique here is

23:53

this trial and this public nature

23:55

of it and

23:57

the reason that

24:00

they decide upon this course

24:02

of action is

24:04

because the number one demand that

24:06

is coming out across the autumn

24:09

of 1648. And

24:11

we have to remember here there's actually quite a

24:13

lot of public activity going on and petitioning activity

24:15

going on in the autumn of 1648. The

24:18

number one demand is for justice. They're

24:21

calling for not just the king but for

24:23

other leading royalists to be brought to account

24:25

for what they're seen to have done in

24:28

the civil wars. Those kinds of texts

24:30

are demanding justice. They're not necessarily demanding

24:33

that the king be killed, although we

24:35

might read that as being kind of

24:37

inevitable conclusion to roar out from those

24:39

kinds of texts. So for

24:41

me the most important thing is the fact

24:43

that they've chosen this path of establishing a

24:45

trial in order to show that

24:48

they're proceeding against the king in a

24:50

way of justice. They're not just going to bump

24:52

him off. They're not just going to do this

24:54

thing, as Thomas Harrison, one of the regicides later

24:56

says, as a thing done in a corner. I

24:59

do not think that there's an option

25:01

here for Charles I, even if he

25:03

were to have accepted the

25:05

authority of the court and entered into

25:07

a plea to have got off. I

25:10

don't think the intent of

25:12

the proceedings is to give him

25:14

an opportunity to actually acquit himself

25:16

of these charges and therefore be

25:18

found not guilty. It

25:21

is, I think, instead, as John Cook

25:23

really frames it in the pamphlet that

25:25

he published after the trial, a way

25:28

of establishing by legal means the crimes

25:30

that he says the king is publicly

25:32

notorious for. So it's a

25:34

way of saying we have investigated these

25:37

matters and we have now proved it

25:39

legally. So can I clarify, are

25:41

you saying there was no way that he could

25:43

have been declared not guilty because of the weight

25:45

of evidence against him, not because you're saying that

25:47

this was an unfair trial? Both, really.

25:50

We should generally say that what we

25:52

might term state trials in the early

25:54

modern period, they're not fair.

25:56

They're not intended to set up an even

25:59

playing field between. the defendant and the

26:01

prosecution, they're intended to demonstrate that the

26:03

state has dealt with its enemies. And

26:05

in this case, the capital enemy is

26:07

Charles I. He is the figure who

26:09

is alleged to have waged war against

26:11

his sovereign people, to have led to

26:13

all this bloodshed, this destruction, all the

26:15

rest of it, and he's now going

26:17

to be brought to book. And that's

26:19

the purpose of these sorts of state

26:21

trials, is to show that justice has

26:23

been performed and the state has emerged

26:25

with its authority intact. But

26:28

it's also about that weight of

26:30

evidence that you're talking about. The

26:32

King's judges go to significant efforts

26:34

to secure evidence against the King.

26:37

So ultimately, 33 witnesses give evidence

26:39

against Charles I. They don't do

26:41

it in open court, they do

26:44

it in private session in

26:46

front of the commissioners. But we

26:48

can see that they went to considerable

26:50

efforts to secure this evidence. For

26:53

example, we know that they actually issue

26:55

public proclamations to try and get people

26:57

to come to Parliament to deliver

26:59

evidence against the King. Although Vatican

27:01

newsletters actually demonstrate there's a pretty

27:04

poor response to those proclamations. It

27:06

says that only one miserable, independent

27:08

soldier, Cobbler, turned up in response

27:11

to this proclamation. But

27:13

there were lots of other witnesses where

27:15

they were doing things like getting people

27:17

from actually quite far away bits of

27:19

the country to come specifically to London

27:22

to deliver evidence against the King. There

27:24

are many other witnesses as well who

27:26

are actually also serving junior officers

27:28

and soldiers within the new model

27:30

army, who also appear as witnesses

27:33

in the trial too. And

27:35

partly we could see this as a product

27:37

of bias. So these are people here who

27:39

are Parliamentarian soldiers. Some of them are actually

27:41

what are described as agitators. So they are

27:43

representatives of the rank and file in the

27:45

army. And some of them are also people

27:47

who are signed up radicals, as it were,

27:50

who have shown their sympathies to the democratic

27:52

level of movement. But

27:54

there are also people who can give

27:56

good evidence that the King was

27:58

actually present on the back. battlefield because

28:01

they were actually there too. I've

28:03

got a number of questions I want to

28:05

ask you about the witnesses. I suppose the

28:07

first thing is, what do we know about

28:09

them? Why them? Are they being induced to

28:12

testify? Are they patches? What is it about

28:14

these particular people apart from that presence on

28:16

the battlefield and they can testify to that

28:18

moment? Are they voluntary? There

28:20

are many questions about who they are. Yeah,

28:22

I think it's a bit of a mixture

28:25

in terms of whether they have volunteered to

28:27

give evidence or whether they're being coerced or

28:29

ordered into giving evidence. Some

28:31

of them later say that they were forced

28:33

by their commanders to give evidence at the

28:35

trial. So one of

28:38

the witnesses, Samuel Burden, who's

28:40

actually a soldier in Daniel Axdal's

28:42

troop, when the regisites themselves

28:45

are put on trial in the restoration

28:47

period, says that he was basically ordered

28:49

by Axdal to give evidence. And

28:52

the reason why Axdal's picks upon Burden in

28:54

particular is because Burden was a former

28:56

royalist as well. It's pretty common during

28:58

the civil war for people to switch

29:01

sides, whether voluntarily or because they're basically

29:03

forced to do so. Burden was able

29:05

to testify about the king's presence in

29:07

the battlefield because he had been in

29:09

the king's army so he was close

29:12

enough to the person of the king

29:14

on the battlefield to see him there

29:16

and to give that testimony. But

29:18

there are others, as I've said, who we

29:21

might imagine were probably very happy to

29:23

give evidence and may well have been

29:25

politically motivated to give evidence. So the

29:28

very last witness who gives evidence is

29:30

a figure called Richard Price. And

29:32

he's just described in the trial journals

29:35

as being a scrivener. But

29:37

in fact, that description doesn't tell

29:39

us really very much

29:41

about who Price was. Price was

29:43

really a key figure in the

29:46

sort of radical movements in 1640s

29:48

London. So

29:50

he's connected to some of those individuals

29:52

who were involved in plans for general

29:55

rising back in 1643. He's an associate

29:57

of level of

30:00

figures like William Wollen. He's involved

30:02

in acting as an Agent Provocateur

30:04

for the parliamentarians in the mid-1640s

30:07

and that's actually what he delivers

30:09

his evidence about, a plot that

30:11

Charles I is allegedly involved in

30:13

trying to orchestrate. And

30:15

he's also one of the figures who's

30:17

involved in late 1648 in discussions about

30:20

settling the kingdom upon the basis of

30:22

the Levellers Agreement of the People instead

30:24

of the ancient constitution of King laws

30:27

and commons. So we've got figures

30:29

like Price who've got this sort of long history

30:31

of involvement in radical activity which is

30:33

now if you like almost in a way coming

30:35

to fruition in their presence here at

30:38

the trial delivering evidence against the king.

30:40

The last thing I'd want to say

30:42

about the witnesses as well, I think

30:45

it's really important to think about how

30:47

revolutionary in a way the calling

30:49

of these witnesses is. Now in

30:52

one sense it's part of affirming a

30:55

murder charge. We've got witnesses who can

30:57

confirm that Charles is present when people

30:59

are being killed on the battlefield and so

31:01

on and they're holding him accountable for that

31:03

and having multiple accounts underwrites that charge. But

31:07

the other element of it as

31:09

well is of having charges against

31:11

the king being substantiated by the

31:13

evidence of individuals of pretty lowly

31:15

social status. So we've got people

31:18

like 22 year old butchers

31:20

who described in the trial

31:22

proceedings Diogenes Edwards giving evidence

31:24

against the king. Now

31:27

as I said this evidence wasn't delivered in

31:29

open court because Charles didn't enter into a

31:31

plea but it was imagined that if he

31:33

had have entered a plea they

31:36

would have been delivering evidence in

31:38

open court before the king

31:40

with the king present there and

31:42

that's a really remarkable and dramatic

31:44

challenge to the traditional social and

31:47

political hierarchy. That's so interesting because

31:49

I wanted to ask you why the witnesses

31:51

had been heard privately and it boils down

31:53

to this legal point that the king doesn't

31:55

tend to a plea because otherwise it doesn't

31:57

seem to quite fit that you're getting witness

31:59

testimony. to encourage wider public

32:01

acceptance of the King's guilt, but then

32:03

the testimonies are given privately. That's

32:06

absolutely right. So the fundamental issue that

32:08

the court commissions are faced with is

32:10

that the King will not recognise the

32:12

authority of the court. He will not

32:14

enter a plea of guilty or not

32:16

guilty. And they try multiple times during

32:19

the trial to get him to enter

32:21

a plea so that they can move

32:23

forward with publicly presenting the case and

32:25

publicly presenting the evidence. What

32:28

is interesting, however, and you've just picked up

32:30

on this really, is that not

32:32

only is the witness evidence heard

32:35

in private, it is also not

32:37

reported in full. The

32:39

trial proceedings in general are being widely

32:42

reported in the press. What

32:44

is happening is you've got shorthand note takers

32:46

within the trial itself. They're

32:49

taking these notes, the notes of them

32:51

being passed on to the publishers of

32:53

contemporary newspapers, newspapers, as they were called

32:56

at the time. And then within 24

32:58

to 48 hours, those proceedings are in

33:00

print available for people to buy. So

33:03

really, for the time, a really rapid

33:05

turnaround in terms of the dissemination of

33:08

that news. But in

33:10

the case of the witness's testimony, there

33:12

are only little fragmentary reports of

33:14

this that come out in the

33:17

news books that don't report the

33:19

evidence in any kind of real

33:21

detail. And in fact, it doesn't

33:23

appear in print at all until

33:25

the post-restoration period, in English, I

33:28

should say. But it does appear

33:30

in French in 1650, because in

33:32

1650, Parliament basically decides to publish

33:34

a French language version

33:36

of the trial for international

33:38

consumption to justify its proceedings

33:41

to an international audience. And

33:43

it reproduces the witnesses' evidence in full

33:46

there in French. It is

33:48

very interesting that they don't publish those

33:50

testimonies from the witnesses during the trial

33:53

itself or shortly after the trial in

33:55

English. And I think one of the

33:57

reasons for that is it

33:59

sheds time. too much of a light on

34:01

the inner workings of the trial. The connections,

34:04

for example, that could have been drawn between

34:06

some of these witnesses and some of the

34:08

military commissions in particular. So we've

34:10

got people here who are providing testimony

34:12

and their commanding officers are commissions on

34:14

the court. And that obviously

34:16

leads to all sorts of questions about

34:19

the independence of their testimony and the

34:21

reliability of their testimony. And

34:24

you've mentioned already that some of what

34:26

the witnesses are saying is, we

34:28

can place Charles at this particular location

34:31

at a certain time. And

34:33

I'm acknowledging the sort of problems we

34:35

have with the depositions of evidence and the fact

34:37

that they're mediated and curtailed and all that sort

34:39

of thing. But what else are they accusing him

34:41

of? Particularly, I suppose

34:44

I'm interested in the way that

34:46

early modern thinking conceived of tyranny

34:48

as being something about character as

34:51

well as action. Yes, I

34:53

think that's a really important observation.

34:55

Tyranny is not just about a leader

34:57

or monarch who breaches the law through

35:00

their actions, through their rule. It's

35:02

also about a type of character.

35:04

The tyrants are unstable. They're almost

35:07

at the mercy of their emotions

35:09

and passions. And this leads

35:11

them to take these kinds of illegal

35:13

actions. And that's something

35:16

that some of the witness testimony

35:18

is also trying to point out.

35:20

So there's one particular deposition from

35:23

a witness which is about the sack

35:25

of Leicester after it's storming by royalist

35:27

forces. And the witness

35:29

basically says that parliamentarians are basically

35:32

telling the king that his

35:35

forces are abusing parliamentarian

35:37

prisoners who've been seized the sack

35:39

of Leicester. And the witness

35:41

says, the king says, I don't care. You can

35:43

abuse them, you can whip them, whatever you want

35:45

to do, they're my enemies. And

35:48

it's exactly that sort of lack of control

35:50

that this testimony is trying to point towards,

35:53

of saying this is not somebody

35:55

who exhibits the characteristics of a

35:57

king. This is somebody who exhibits

35:59

the characteristics of a tyrant. Similarly,

36:01

we get witnesses who give evidence to

36:04

the king's duplicity as well. There

36:06

are accounts of him trying to

36:09

enter into backroom deals with various

36:11

parties and showing him as basically

36:13

unfaithful, somebody who will say that

36:16

he'll negotiate with anyone, and somebody

36:18

whose word cannot be taken with

36:20

any kind of credibility. And

36:23

does that connect up with the idea of the

36:25

man of blood that you were talking about earlier?

36:28

Do they believe that a religious justice is being

36:30

served as well as a legal one then? I

36:33

think some of them certainly do, but

36:35

the language of the man of blood

36:37

doesn't enter into the trial in

36:40

very significant ways. It

36:42

is mentioned in the trial in the

36:44

president of the court, John Bradshaw's closing

36:46

statement after Charles I has

36:49

been condemned and was sentenced. But

36:51

it's interesting the way in which

36:53

Bradshaw uses it. The

36:55

idea of blood guilt is as

36:58

a language and an idea of moral admonition,

37:02

rather than as a way of saying this

37:04

justifies the imposition of this capital

37:06

sentence against the king. He

37:08

picks up upon the biblical story

37:10

of David and his responsibility for the death

37:13

of Uriah the Hittite. So this

37:15

is the story where David basically

37:17

has an affair with Uriah's wife

37:19

Bathsheba and he orchestrates a way

37:21

in which Uriah will get killed

37:23

on the battlefield. And then

37:26

David is basically very remorseful for his

37:28

actions and so on. And as

37:30

a result of this remorse, he's effectively

37:32

forgiven by God. And so

37:34

what Bradshaw is actually trying to say

37:37

through this story is now that you've

37:39

been condemned, if you

37:41

show remorse for your actions, this

37:44

would be a way for you to look

37:46

after your position in the afterlife, not in

37:48

this life. It's not being used in the

37:50

trial as a way of saying the king

37:52

is guilty and therefore he must pay for

37:55

all this bloodshed with his blood. It's

37:57

being used to say actually Charles you've

37:59

been. Having condemned by you should

38:01

reflect on what you've done. I

38:04

should show contrition for it and

38:06

therefore God will forgive you. Do

38:08

you think in the and tent

38:10

that Taos was. A particularly bad

38:12

king was he. A tyrant. I

38:15

think there are ways in which

38:17

his actions both during the sixteen

38:19

thirties and during the succeed forties

38:22

would actually in that contemporary definitions

38:24

of tyranny. Now does

38:26

that make him particularly bad?

38:28

Worse than is for the

38:31

site or worse than his

38:33

sons. I'm not sure that

38:35

he is that much worse than them

38:37

in some ways. The Think: as others

38:39

have said, he's this competence and thereby

38:42

he ends up in the position that

38:44

he ends up in. I think the

38:46

other important thing about Charles his character

38:48

is the way in which he tends

38:50

to view Any sort of opposition to

38:52

him is tantamount rebellion on a direct

38:54

assault on his authority. and this is

38:57

one of things that will get some

38:59

into trouble in the sixty thirties. He

39:01

can't deal. With. The opposition in

39:03

Scotland as something that he can

39:05

negotiate away, will make concessions about

39:07

and deal with. He sees it

39:09

straight from the offices convert billion

39:12

against him and against his authority.

39:14

The doses on hardline position which

39:16

is ramps up. The political

39:18

temperature and he knocks at com stance

39:20

over and over again. And. It's

39:22

the same thing with his approach

39:24

to negotiation or not, really, being

39:27

willing to make concessions in earnest

39:29

and therefore undermining the kind of

39:31

trust in him and ultimately mommy

39:33

gets the trial. He's not temperamental

39:35

in terms of his personality, somebody

39:37

who can enter into play even

39:39

if a plea of not guilty

39:41

and argue for this call. Called

39:45

Essence Harley, Illegitimate and the people

39:47

who are behind it as just

39:49

this terrible rebels And there's absolutely

39:51

no reason. Why he should. Sign

39:59

I I think. necessarily in the

40:01

ranks of the very worst kings if

40:03

we were to make a kind of top ten or anything like

40:05

that. But I think he's

40:08

somebody whose personality as well as some

40:10

of his actions meant

40:12

that it was easier

40:14

to accuse him of

40:17

tyrannical behaviour than perhaps if he

40:19

had a different kind of approach

40:21

towards political challenges. So

40:23

in a nutshell perhaps many

40:25

kings of the period could be accused of

40:28

tyranny quite fairly but he was less good

40:30

at hiding his tyranny. Yeah

40:32

I know also I think probably to

40:34

be an effective king at points in

40:37

time most of them

40:39

were doing things that could be

40:41

represented as tyrannical actions in terms

40:43

of overusing perhaps

40:45

prerogative powers at certain points

40:48

dealing with opponents in certain

40:50

ways and we

40:52

might wonder if they didn't deal with

40:54

them in those ways whether their authority

40:56

would have been maintained. As effectively so

40:59

I think one of the things I keep

41:01

trying to get away from is any sense

41:03

of saying he had it coming or yes

41:05

guilty or so on. They establish

41:08

a case against the king that they feel

41:10

that they can hold him accountable on which

41:12

is the reason why they only try him

41:15

on events primarily to take place during the

41:17

first civil war. They don't try and talk

41:19

about what goes on in the 1630s or

41:21

1620s because they don't think they can provide

41:24

evidence against him of those kinds of charges.

41:27

That doesn't mean that Charles I deserved

41:29

to die or there's some sort of

41:31

moral case that should be made around

41:33

this. I think it's much

41:36

more interesting to think about the

41:38

way in which this was

41:40

a trial which was being

41:42

moved forward not just by

41:44

these commissioners within Westminster but

41:47

it was also being moved forward by

41:49

a much broader body of opinion Within

41:52

the army, but also outside of the

41:54

army in terms of groups of radicals

41:57

in London and in the provinces as

41:59

well. Who had come to

42:01

a point where they believe that the

42:03

way in which the king has to

42:05

be dealt with the through this legal.

42:07

Proceeding. Finally,

42:10

Then you said that he had to be

42:12

out with legally and you said the it

42:14

until it could have been an outcome other

42:16

than guilty. He's. Executed on the

42:19

thirtieth of January. I mean, I was

42:21

taught school. That nothing history is

42:23

inevitable could have been other. Outcome:

42:26

Possibly. So. One

42:28

interesting thing do we might look

42:30

at his. The trolls follow just

42:32

after it. Said. In February

42:34

Sixteen forty nine other rules, Commanders or

42:37

put on fall. By. The same

42:39

caught in the same venue. So

42:41

the High Court of Justice Westminster

42:43

Hall trials that than conclude in

42:45

early March with the conviction of

42:47

on the defendants. But

42:50

the thing then happens is that

42:52

the sentence is referred back to

42:54

parliament for decision. And

42:56

parliament actually to size to prefer

42:59

to. Have. Those. Defendants

43:01

from the imposition of a capital

43:03

sentence Now I think and Charles

43:05

this case is is much more

43:07

difficult because of that failure to

43:09

enter into play. And the difference.

43:11

What happens in February and March,

43:13

a Sixty Forty Nine is that

43:15

defends and to please against the

43:18

charges, but I think that there

43:20

is a possibility of some sort

43:22

of alternative punishment paths being entertained.

43:24

One other piece of evidence that

43:26

might point to this direction is

43:28

what Palms is doing with the

43:30

Kings Children. So is

43:32

young children business and revised custody

43:34

but they are not an orchard

43:36

or things are bad to be

43:39

strung up. Parliament is actually and

43:41

does actually look after them, was

43:43

and remain in custody. Assessing the

43:45

sense in which the not trying

43:47

through this to do a source

43:50

of English concern and by the

43:52

not trying to wipe out the

43:54

entire English royal family and. Them.

43:57

might have been an option pats photos

43:59

to go into exile or to remain

44:01

in prison and for,

44:03

as was being rumoured potentially at the

44:05

time, for his younger son Henry to

44:07

instead become a kind of puppet king.

44:10

And so I think all of those

44:12

sort of potential possibilities are

44:14

there. Ultimately, they

44:16

continue down the route of

44:18

deciding to execute Charles and

44:21

as you've said, he is executed on

44:23

the 30th of January outside his banqueting

44:25

house. But as there are reports

44:27

at the time and as the latest sort

44:30

of alleged after the restoration, even

44:32

in that act of signing the

44:35

death warrant, there's hesitancy. There's reports

44:37

of commissioners saying that their hands

44:39

are forced. There's evidence that the

44:42

warrant itself had names added afterwards

44:44

rather than all at one

44:46

time. So there's evidence really late in the

44:48

stage of things of sort of hesitancy and

44:51

second thoughts about carrying through

44:53

this particular sentence. Well,

44:55

thank you very much indeed for not

44:58

only a wonderful overview of the causes

45:00

of the Civil War and the course

45:02

of the Civil War, but then this

45:05

forensic examination of Charles's

45:07

trial. It's been really fun.

45:09

If one could say that about the death

45:11

of the king. Thank you very much

45:13

for your time. Thank you. And

45:22

thanks to you for listening to Not Just the

45:24

Tudors from History Hit and also

45:26

to my researcher Alice Smith and

45:28

my producer Rob Weinberg. We

45:30

are always eager to hear from you

45:33

so do drop us a line at

45:35

notjustthetudors.historyhit.com or on X, formerly known

45:37

as Twitter, at not just tutors.

45:39

And please remember to follow Not Just

45:41

the Tudors wherever you get your podcasts

45:44

so you get each new episode as soon as it's

45:46

released. Twenty

46:00

twenty four chief parent charity related to a four

46:02

by four for four twenty nine a month for

46:04

thirty nine months with three thousand seven fifty nine

46:06

Do it's name hacks title license extra no security

46:08

deposit required Call one eighty eight

46:10

nine to five G for details requires dealer

46:13

contribution and lease through Stellantis Financial extra charge

46:15

for miles over thirty two thousand five hundred

46:17

Now customers will qualify residency restrictions apply take

46:19

delivery by four one chief is a registered

46:21

trademark History

46:25

is full of extraordinary people the

46:28

Tudors being just a handful in

46:30

my latest film on history hit we

46:32

meet Bess of Hardwick and go inside

46:35

the incredible house that she built a

46:37

house that defines the elegance and grandeur

46:39

of the Elizabethan age a House

46:42

fit for a woman who climbed to the

46:44

top of the Tudor social ladder to

46:46

find out more about the life of Bess

46:48

and many more Fascinating figures from the past

46:50

sign up via the link in the description

46:53

with the code Tudors for

46:55

an exclusive discount