What should the Commonwealth have done about Charles I?

I heard an interesting discussion on "In Our Time on BBC radio 4 about the trial and execution of Charles I.

The process did look pretty bad and may have weakened the legitimacy of the new regime.

Yet Charles was impossible. He had made agreements and then broken them. There is no doubt he started the second Civil War.

In OTL they took a refusal to plead as a guilty plea. (Apparently the custom of the day was to deal with a refusal to plea by gradually crushing the accused until they pleaded guilty or not guilty but that this was not seen as something that could be done to a King)


I had a thought. Firstly they should have narrowed the charge. Asking Scotish forces (at a time when Scotland was clearly a foriegn state) to invade England probably meets a reasonable definition of Treason.

Secondly they should have treated the lack of a plea as a plea of Not Guilty and should have presented a probably arguable legal case. It would have been even cleverer to appoint a "Friend of Court" to advocate for Charles

Thirdly on convicting him he might have been given the option of abidcation and exile- especially if a Constitutional Monarchy could have been agreed.


Another option might simply to have arranged an 'accident'- to do the killing 'in a corner' as was the previous English tradition in dealing with intolerable Kings.
 
I heard an interesting discussion on "In Our Time on BBC radio 4 about the trial and execution of Charles I.

The process did look pretty bad and may have weakened the legitimacy of the new regime.

Yet Charles was impossible. He had made agreements and then broken them. There is no doubt he started the second Civil War.

In OTL they took a refusal to plead as a guilty plea. (Apparently the custom of the day was to deal with a refusal to plea by gradually crushing the accused until they pleaded guilty or not guilty but that this was not seen as something that could be done to a King)


I had a thought. Firstly they should have narrowed the charge. Asking Scotish forces (at a time when Scotland was clearly a foriegn state) to invade England probably meets a reasonable definition of Treason.

Secondly they should have treated the lack of a plea as a plea of Not Guilty and should have presented a probably arguable legal case. It would have been even cleverer to appoint a "Friend of Court" to advocate for Charles

Thirdly on convicting him he might have been given the option of abidcation and exile- especially if a Constitutional Monarchy could have been agreed.


Another option might simply to have arranged an 'accident'- to do the killing 'in a corner' as was the previous English tradition in dealing with intolerable Kings.


Perhaps a long term imprisonment in the Tower?
 
Your first and second points would not be viable as the King was the "font of all law" and as such (in his mind and possibly in the opinion of all concerned) could not be tried.
Your third point would not work, as he would be obliged to regain his God given right to his Kingdom - He would (or his decendants would) raise an army and invade! A Third Civil War anyone?
 
Your first and second points would not be viable as the King was the "font of all law" and as such (in his mind and possibly in the opinion of all concerned) could not be tried.
Your third point would not work, as he would be obliged to regain his God given right to his Kingdom - He would (or his decendants would) raise an army and invade! A Third Civil War anyone?
Err... No.

Fount of all Law, Divine Right of Kings were things that the Stuarts claimed, but were a) relatively new ideas in England, and b) losing credibility fast.

If you believed those things then ANY trial would be silly.
 
Your first and second points would not be viable as the King was the "font of all law" and as such (in his mind and possibly in the opinion of all concerned) could not be tried.
Your third point would not work, as he would be obliged to regain his God given right to his Kingdom - He would (or his decendants would) raise an army and invade! A Third Civil War anyone?

Are you sure? I thought English tradition held that Magna Carte meant not even the king was above the law. I know that's what many people claimed it said later.
 
err... wouldn't they just force him to abdicate in favour of his son charlesII the merry monarch?
 
Top