Trial of Charles I

The Trial of Charles I was a significant event in English history that took place in January 1649, marking the first time a reigning monarch was tried and executed by his own subjects.

Following years of conflict during the English Civil War, which pitted the Royalists loyal to Charles I against the Parliamentarians seeking to limit his powers, the king was captured by Parliamentary forces in 1646.

In November 1648, after a series of failed negotiations and increasing tensions, the Rump Parliament established a high court to try Charles for treason.

Despite his defence that he ruled by divine right and could not be subjected to the authority of Parliament, Charles maintained a defiant stance throughout the trial, refusing to recognise the court's legitimacy.

The trial and execution of Charles I remain pivotal events that challenged the traditional notions of monarchy and laid the groundwork for the modern British constitutional system.

During the English Civil War, Charles I clashed with Parliament over fundamental issues of governance, authority and religious practices.

His situation deteriorated further as radical elements under Oliver Cromwell gained influence in Parliament and pushed for a more decisive resolution against the king.

[5] The charge against Charles I stated that the king, "for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented", that the "wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation".

[5] The indictment held him "guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby".

[5] Although the House of Lords refused to pass the bill and royal assent naturally was lacking, the Rump Parliament referred to the ordinance as an "Act" and pressed on with the trial anyway.

[6][7] At the same time, the number of commissioners was reduced to 135 – any twenty of whom would form a quorum[7] – when the judges, members of the House of Lords and others who might be sympathetic to the King were removed.

Standing immediately to the right of the King, he began to speak, but he had uttered only a few words when Charles attempted to stop him by tapping him sharply on the shoulder with his cane and ordering him to "Hold".

[10] He believed that his own authority to rule had been due to the divine right of kings given to him by God, and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that of force of arms.

The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'.

His sentence read: "That the court being satisfied that he, Charles Stuart, was guilty of the crimes of which he had been accused, did judge him tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people of the nation, to be put to death by the severing of his head from his body."

Even though the High Court of Justice was an ad hoc tribunal that was specifically created for the purpose of trying the king, the name continued to be used during the interregnum (the period from the execution of Charles I until the restoration).