‘The king was responsible for his own fate’ assess the validity of this view
(1646-49)
Charles I was executed on the 9th January 1649, even on the stand at his death he still proclaimed
he was “The Martyr of the People” believing the work of parliament and radicals had pushed for
his fate. There is some validity in the belief parliament and radicalism especially in the New
Model Army had caused the fate of Charles I. The radical Rump parliament had bypassed the
House of Lords to push for the trial and execution of Charles, and in the short-term had signed his
death warrant, thereby causing his death. Furthermore, the radical Rump parliament existed
because of the work of the army, expressing beliefs against the king in prayer meetings and
physically removing supporters of the king through Prides Purge. However, radicalism is always
a last resort, it only comes about when people have been ignored and disregarded by those in
power and they are pushed to the edge. The views of the army had been ignored by Political
Presbyterians in parliament. However, the most key aspect of 1646-49 is parliament ultimately
wanted to work with the king, the people wanted to work with the king and restore stability.
Radicalism had very little hold over the majority of the nation in 1646 but refusal to work with
parliament and restore the necessary stability to the nation, fanned the flames of radicalism that
ultimately destroyed Charles’ I. His defiant attempts to strengthen his position and rejection of all
comprise moved the power from those who wanted to work with him to those who wanted to
destroy him. It was his attitude that led people such as Cromwell to state regicide was a necessary
evil, as with Charles no solution would be found and thus he was mostly responsible for his own
fate
Charles’ unwillingness to comprise and his staunch beliefs in his Divine Right impeded any hope
for a settlement to be reached and pushed parliament to his trial and execution. Charles strongly
believed in the Divine Right of Kings, he believed all his decision were God’s decision as his will
was also God’s will. This firstly made him believe every action he took and every mistake he
made was, in fact, the right decision because it came from God but it also drove him to a
complete unwillingness to comprise or negotiate. This was seen throughout the civil war but also
by the end when Charles was clearly in no position to be uncompromising as parliament had
undisputedly won the first civil war. From this in 1646 the Newcastle Propositions, which called
for the establishment of a Presbyterian church, parliamentary control of the militia for 20 years,
the continuation of the Triennial Act and 58 leading Royalists to be punished. Charles did
understand he was in a weaker position at this point but instead of comprising tried to avoid
dealing with this situation and considered the proposals for almost a year before rejecting them in
March 1647. Furthermore, even when offered a more lenient agreement from officers of the New
Model Army in 1647, which allowed the continuation of episcopacy and only asked that previous
royalist would not hold office for five years. Still, Charles rejected these proposals for being too
radical. Charles again rejected the Four Bills on December 14th which he rejected after only two
weeks on 28th December 1647. Finally, in the September 1648, when Charles’s hope for victory
with the Scots had already been outmanoeuvred by Cromwell’s forces. The Treaty of Newport
which was even more lenient asking only for a 3-year Presbyterian settlement while a longer-term
policy was considered. Charles continued to drag out the negotiations to put off having to
comprise or accept them and passed parliaments 40-day stipulation. This was very important as
when parliament agreed to continue negotiations, the radical side by now had had enough and this
marked a major turning as Pride’s purge took place the day after Parliament agreed to continue
negotiations. This reflects how Charles’ uncompromising attitude pushed more radical MPs to
seek any solution possible as they knew no solution would be found negotiating with Charles.
This attitude dictated his entire reign he pushed parliament to the edge and preventing
cooperation between crown and parliament but also within parliament itself, contrary to his
beliefs this did not strengthen his position but rather strengthened radicalism within parliament.
(1646-49)
Charles I was executed on the 9th January 1649, even on the stand at his death he still proclaimed
he was “The Martyr of the People” believing the work of parliament and radicals had pushed for
his fate. There is some validity in the belief parliament and radicalism especially in the New
Model Army had caused the fate of Charles I. The radical Rump parliament had bypassed the
House of Lords to push for the trial and execution of Charles, and in the short-term had signed his
death warrant, thereby causing his death. Furthermore, the radical Rump parliament existed
because of the work of the army, expressing beliefs against the king in prayer meetings and
physically removing supporters of the king through Prides Purge. However, radicalism is always
a last resort, it only comes about when people have been ignored and disregarded by those in
power and they are pushed to the edge. The views of the army had been ignored by Political
Presbyterians in parliament. However, the most key aspect of 1646-49 is parliament ultimately
wanted to work with the king, the people wanted to work with the king and restore stability.
Radicalism had very little hold over the majority of the nation in 1646 but refusal to work with
parliament and restore the necessary stability to the nation, fanned the flames of radicalism that
ultimately destroyed Charles’ I. His defiant attempts to strengthen his position and rejection of all
comprise moved the power from those who wanted to work with him to those who wanted to
destroy him. It was his attitude that led people such as Cromwell to state regicide was a necessary
evil, as with Charles no solution would be found and thus he was mostly responsible for his own
fate
Charles’ unwillingness to comprise and his staunch beliefs in his Divine Right impeded any hope
for a settlement to be reached and pushed parliament to his trial and execution. Charles strongly
believed in the Divine Right of Kings, he believed all his decision were God’s decision as his will
was also God’s will. This firstly made him believe every action he took and every mistake he
made was, in fact, the right decision because it came from God but it also drove him to a
complete unwillingness to comprise or negotiate. This was seen throughout the civil war but also
by the end when Charles was clearly in no position to be uncompromising as parliament had
undisputedly won the first civil war. From this in 1646 the Newcastle Propositions, which called
for the establishment of a Presbyterian church, parliamentary control of the militia for 20 years,
the continuation of the Triennial Act and 58 leading Royalists to be punished. Charles did
understand he was in a weaker position at this point but instead of comprising tried to avoid
dealing with this situation and considered the proposals for almost a year before rejecting them in
March 1647. Furthermore, even when offered a more lenient agreement from officers of the New
Model Army in 1647, which allowed the continuation of episcopacy and only asked that previous
royalist would not hold office for five years. Still, Charles rejected these proposals for being too
radical. Charles again rejected the Four Bills on December 14th which he rejected after only two
weeks on 28th December 1647. Finally, in the September 1648, when Charles’s hope for victory
with the Scots had already been outmanoeuvred by Cromwell’s forces. The Treaty of Newport
which was even more lenient asking only for a 3-year Presbyterian settlement while a longer-term
policy was considered. Charles continued to drag out the negotiations to put off having to
comprise or accept them and passed parliaments 40-day stipulation. This was very important as
when parliament agreed to continue negotiations, the radical side by now had had enough and this
marked a major turning as Pride’s purge took place the day after Parliament agreed to continue
negotiations. This reflects how Charles’ uncompromising attitude pushed more radical MPs to
seek any solution possible as they knew no solution would be found negotiating with Charles.
This attitude dictated his entire reign he pushed parliament to the edge and preventing
cooperation between crown and parliament but also within parliament itself, contrary to his
beliefs this did not strengthen his position but rather strengthened radicalism within parliament.
