Charles I is subjected to Peine forte et dure

While treason is apparently subject to reading standing mute as a guilty plea, trying a King for treason is legal innovation and so perhaps we could consider that the High Court may have innovated by subjecting Charles I to Peine forte et dure in order to acquire a plea.

What circumstances would produce this contemplation and action by the high court? How could Charles I react? What would be the results of a not guilty plea? Of Charles dying under the press?

Yours,
Sam R.
 
They debated this at the time - the reason that they didn't, or one of the many reasons, was that if you die during the process without pleading guilty you are essentially voiding the process of the trial. Realistically, is Parliament willing to do this? Its a massive roll of the dice that simply threatens to make him a martyr.

Remember as well the coalition among the Parliamentarians to try the King is shaky enough already, with many concerned they don't have a legal right to do it at all, and they lived in terror of a public backlash. I don't see how a group in such fear - remember Bradshaw is wearing a special armoured hat he's so scared of someone trying to slash at him with a sword from the crowds - manages to make the decision to torture the King.

IF it does go ahead, which I think is near impossible, I imagine Charles does go ahead and martyr himself. His faith and his divine 'right' to rule were very important to him, and he was more than willing to do what it took to protect the legacy he was leaving his children. I think Charles very much has it in him to be a martyr for this cause.

The result is a more serious division of Parliamentary ranks. It depends how this has all gone down - is Parliament already purged or is our POD before that?
 
I’m assuming a POD after 6 January 1649 sees a 29 to 26 reaffirmation vote in commons. This is after Prides purge. To see Charles subjected to plea we only need an 11 to 9 vote by the commissioners at minimum quorum. So the question is in a minimal quorum situation are there enough parliamentarians willing to not only kill the king, but to subject him to torture and weather the problem of succession. Would a public confession of Catholicism on behalf of the crown be sufficient to inspire such ire?
 
I’m assuming a POD after 6 January 1649 sees a 29 to 26 reaffirmation vote in commons. This is after Prides purge. To see Charles subjected to plea we only need an 11 to 9 vote by the commissioners at minimum quorum. So the question is in a minimal quorum situation are there enough parliamentarians willing to not only kill the king, but to subject him to torture and weather the problem of succession. Would a public confession of Catholicism on behalf of the crown be sufficient to inspire such ire?

How do they get such a confession considering Charles never said what his views were, and to all accounts was very high church
 
>How do they get such a confession considering Charles never said what his views were

Confession being here a confession of faith. Such a confession being the POD. Laud, who seemed to present much of the King's views on the Anglican church was viewed as suspiciously open to Catholicism in the paranoia of the time. While I've been reminded more than once that the Anglican church isn't protestant, the fears of catholicism and papistry abounded in the church at this time. It isn't unreasonable to see the potential for Charles I having a private Catholic-as-in-Rome faith, and that should he have done so and/or publicly confessed so*1, it could have spurred a desire for the rump to press their point.

*1 Though I see no reason why he'd confess that in the context of a treason trial if it wasn't so.
 
Puritan hysteria about Romish plots notwithstanding, there's no evidence to suggest that either Laud or Charles himself were actual Catholics. Though I suppose you could have a POD which causes Charles to convert. I still wouldn't expect this to lead to his torture, however, though Parliament might declare him unfit to be King on account of his religious beliefs.
 
Puritan hysteria about Romish plots notwithstanding, there's no evidence to suggest that either Laud or Charles himself were actual Catholics. Though I suppose you could have a POD which causes Charles to convert. I still wouldn't expect this to lead to his torture, however, though Parliament might declare him unfit to be King on account of his religious beliefs.

He wouldent be able to sit at the head of the Aglican Church, which would have certainly been a problem in the whole lead up to and operation of the war if he actually held fast enough to the principles that distinguished the two to climb up onto the metaphorical cross for it. For example that cuts out his authority to push the Bishop reforms as a method of crown authority (The Church having investature), so you cant be getting tensions on the rise with say the Scottish Presbyterians. Unless Charly is openly wearing his sacred heart on his sleeve and trying to pull people into conncordance with Rome, in which case the Royalist cause is hit hard even before the violence starts.
 
AIUI, Charles was the first monarch to be entirely raised CoE (not sure what Edward was then - only thing I can think of is that the CoE in the 1540s/50s was in a more nebulous space than by 1603). If he'd been willing to convert (at all) the ideal time would've been in Spain (which would then result in a Spanish match etc). Charles, however, was a stubborn SOB and didn't sway from his beliefs OTL (even when it would've been beneficial to do so) so why would he convert (or seemingly convert) TTL?
 
Why would Charles confess to being a Catholic if that meant certain death and disgrace? Was he that kind of person?

Over the course of his long spat with Parliament he developed into the sort of King who held extremely firm to his royal sovergeinity and prerogatives (Personally, I think this is a justifiable reaction to his situation, since due to parliment thumbing it's nose at the traditional liberties and funds granted to the crown, and intransigence in doing anything more than the strictest letter of the law required in terms of taxation during a period of rising expenses and long neglect of rate adjustments under the previous two regeimes it was really the only policy base on which he could actually run the state). If it was a matter of being told Parliment had the authority to demand the King of all people change his personal religious convictions with the force of law behind it: when HE was the one appointed by God and they men, he might just have a "Here I Stand" moment on principal and spite
 
Top