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.
@@Oprey22 that's not true. This video doesn't discuss this point but Charles asked the court by what authority was he being charged And there was never a suitable answer given and frankly he created enough doubt in the court that they removed him from the proceedings. Parliament basically invented rules and used them to place the king on trial which was an abuse of their own authority. It was a shift from royal rule to the tyranny of a legislative body.
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.
I solemnly agree to this comment I've been through the same but unfortunately I was given a 6 week suspension I will be reporting the school to the government
Sorry to hear of your detention but you can tell your teachers you got a 👍 from the History Department at Royal Holloway. 😄 Glad you enjoyed and found the video useful!
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.
But ultimately his unwillingness to compromise is why the monarchy was restored, and republicanism is nowhere today. Louis XVI compromised, for all the good it did him.
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.
well the Charles the First did the biggest Game and Legit right before the verdict he legit ask for a another trial if the judge allowed that they WOULD OF BEEN FAX
he was , the entire court that literally tried him was an illegal institution . Not to say the house of commons declared themselves to be Supreme illegally Also the house of lords and already rejected this court which have tried the king .
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.
@@Oprey22 he was , the entire court that literally tried him was an illegal institution . Not to say the house of commons declared themselves to be Supreme illegally Also the house of lords and already rejected this court which have tried the king .
@@David22092001 he was a good king , the entire court that literally tried him was an illegal institution . Not to say the house of commons declared themselves to be Supreme illegally Also the house of lords and already rejected this court which have tried the king .
Brilliant and informative video. Here are some of the voices of those who witnessed Charles' trial and execution ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mc0NGGSmhNQ.html
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.
You are forgetting the trial was illegal because it ignored the rejection by the House of Lords which is part of Parliment. The deceleration of the House of Commons Supremacy was illegal. Not to mention the massive purge of the House of Commons.
@@TheSniper721 I'm sure your points are valid, technically some circumnavigation of the correct codes were ignored but I still think it was the right thing to do, all this happens after a very bitter war, a bloody war. The Victor's probably felt pretty bullish, in reality the law was the swords they carried & their dead comrades in arms were crying out from the grave for justice which is not always the same thing as the law. So I reckon they did to the king what he would have done to them had the boot been on the other foot. Of course it was every bit as divisive as brexit is today with opinions & loyalty running at almost 50/50. In the end you got to pick a side, I'm in Cromwells camp & I was pro brexit, who would you have sided with & why?
@@shaungillingham4689 Well thats kind of complicated as I am an American of Irish and Polish decent who can place their ancestry on the Irish side to literally the current border between Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland. I believe well if i lived in England I would have sided with the Parlimentarians (if in Ireland i would have fled to the colonies) however, their is the fact of the massive purge of the House of Commons as well I believe the execution was tyrany of the rump legislature I am more on the side of Moderate parlimentarians aka the poltical purge of the House of Commons of the moderates is the bigger objection to the idea of what occurred being legitimate because in a legitimate House of Commons (even after a removal of just the Royalsits) ignoring the well ignorance of the House of Lords it can not well. As for the EU I support the idea of Brexit frankly I wish in an ideal world that Ireland that also left the EU and a similar union to the EU happened between the Irish and Brits happened.
@@TheSniper721 thanks so much I found your point of view fascinating. It certainly was a dramatic time in Englands history, it's still the war with the most English killed, I'm glad they offed the King, I don't know anything of my ancestors of that time, probably farmers, some must have left for far flung places. My maternal grandmother was Irish from Omah, in fact so many English people have Irish ancestors I think Americans don't always seem to realise this. I'm not sure there are any pure English, whatever that might be, I'm of Anglo saxon decent as my surname reflects. So much for the past, I thank you for putting me straight about the legality of the subject & sharing your perspective, I found that refreshingly different. Cheers mate!
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.
