The judges refused to call the king by his title. Intead, they called him plain "Charles Stuart".
Quote from "Kings & Queens of England: A Dark History".
I know many of you think that I'm really... odd... to say the least, when I tell you guys that I have a crush on Charles I. I mean, there's something about him that I really sympathize with.
In brief, here is his story:
Charles I, son of James I of England (James VI of Scotland), was king of Great Britain from 1625 until his excecution in 1649. He was never trained to be king - the heir was his older brother, Henry, who died in his teens, forcing Charles to become heir apparent, then, later on, king.
Charles spoke with a stutter, and disliked crowds. Where his father, James, was coarse (James once famously threatened to moon a crowd of courtiers: "God's wounds! I will pull down my breeches and they shall also see my arse!"), Charles was prudish. He was a patron of the arts (lucky for me, that means that he comissioned many portraits of himself), bringing over continental painters such as Van Dyke.
However, he made many bad decisions, as a ruler: because he didn't like crowds, that meant that fewer people saw him (he rarely went on processions). Charles also - horror of horrors - married a catholic! Which meant that there were papists at court! D: Oh, and he probably had at least one male lover: Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham (who was also his father's favourite and probably his lover as well). Um. Yeah. And this guy got all of the royal favours - a plethora of titles, land grants, the whole shebang. So he wasn't exactly popular at court - and since he was popular with the king, there was a lot of resentment from courtiers to both men. Charles really, really didn't get along well with parliament, either. Charles stood firm on many decisions in which he probably should have just let parliament be, because he felt it was his moral duty to do so (the stories behind these events are long and complicated, so I won't get into them here) In addition, comissioning fine art was all well and good, but not when your country is being impoverished by oppressive taxes to pay for wars as well. Charles grew so frustrated with parliament (which repeatedly demanded reforms instead of just granting the king money) that he dismissed it and ruled alone for over a decade. This, of course, pissed of the parliamentarians, who were growing in power during this period. Many events accumulated over the course of not only his reign, but James's and even Elizabeth's, came to a head in the breakout of the civil war.
Um. Yeah. Which he lost. Twice. Badly. He almost made it through, playing various factions off of each other, but then one side found letters that he'd sent to the Scots asking them to spring him, and... yeah. Not good.
Long story short, he was accused of treason. Which... was technically impossible under those contemporary laws. Treason = betraying the king. So he technically was being charged with betraying himself. The people who judged him defined the charges more like "not obeying the coronation oath", but really, it was all bullshit, and Charles knew it. He didn't try to defend himself, but pretty much just kept saying that "dude, you don't have a leg to stand on" - they had no jurisdiction, no right to charge the king.
(I should mention that the parliament only authorized this after the pro-regicide faction pretty much ran their opposition out of the House. So really, this "democratic" institution really represented only a very small portion of the British as a whole)
Unfortunately, Charles Stuart (the name he was charged under - they couldn't very well use his full title, if he was a criminal!) didn't quite realize that they were serious - and they were serious about executing him.
I'm just going to quote from that same book again, because it can say it more eloquently than I can:
"January 30, 1649, was a bitterly cold day. Charles asked for two shirts to keep him warm because, he said: "The season is so sharp as probably may make me shake, which some observers may imagine proceeds from fear."
Daaamn. D:
He actually tried to speak to the crowd on his execution day, but wasn't allowed. He tried to speak anyway, but he still had a stutter, and his voice was so weak that nobody heard him. ;_;
And yeah, he was beheaded - the first king of England to be openly executed after a trial. D:
"[The executioner] cut off the king's head with a single blow. As he did so, wrote an eyewitness, "there was such a groan by the thousands tehn present, as I never heard before, and desire I may never hear again!"
Um, so in conclusion: I really do honestly believe that he was a good man, a sweetheart, who really was trying to do his best. He was just a horrible politican. And really, can you hold that against the man?
When I get around to it, I shall make a more exhaustive account of Charles's live and death, with more sources. I took a whole class worth of Tudor History - I swear I can do better than this. But I've been typing for over an hour and I meant to do this in ten minutes.
So yeah. I have a crush on Charles I. Don't judge me. :)
Melancholy Charles I
A portrait of Charles Stuart (reigned 1625-1649), painted by the Dutch artist Van Dyke.
...
<3
Jaunty Charles I
Another portrait of Charles I (reigned 1625-1649). This portrait is useful to show how adorably short he was - the artist has displayed the horse with it's head down, and the servants in the background, to disguise "the fact that the king was only 4 feet 7 inches tall". <3
Note how Charles knew that cowboys would be cool nearly 200 years before the Wild West.
Three angles, three oufits, of Charles I
Another Van Dyke portrait of Charles I.
He's gorgeous from all angles, ladies.
Royal Portrait of Charles I
Note the symbolic crown to the right of the portrait, and his overall awesomeness.
Also, cast your eyes upon his feet - are those royal pompoms I spot?
Victory Arch
This portrait of Charles I depicts him riding through a victory arch... ironically, it was painted when the civil war was going badly for him. ;_;
Horses are always useful metaphors - look at that proud and wild beast (of a country), and see how awesome and badass the ruler is for controling it (the country), almost effortlessly!
Also, note the roman imagery. And the sexy armour.
I know many of you think that I'm really... odd... to say the least, when I tell you guys that I have a crush on Charles I. I mean, there's something about him that I really sympathize with.
In brief, here is his story:
Charles I, son of James I of England (James VI of Scotland), was king of Great Britain from 1625 until his excecution in 1649. He was never trained to be king - the heir was his older brother, Henry, who died in his teens, forcing Charles to become heir apparent, then, later on, king.
Charles spoke with a stutter, and disliked crowds. Where his father, James, was coarse (James once famously threatened to moon a crowd of courtiers: "God's wounds! I will pull down my breeches and they shall also see my arse!"), Charles was prudish. He was a patron of the arts (lucky for me, that means that he comissioned many portraits of himself), bringing over continental painters such as Van Dyke.
However, he made many bad decisions, as a ruler: because he didn't like crowds, that meant that fewer people saw him (he rarely went on processions). Charles also - horror of horrors - married a catholic! Which meant that there were papists at court! D: Oh, and he probably had at least one male lover: Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham (who was also his father's favourite and probably his lover as well). Um. Yeah. And this guy got all of the royal favours - a plethora of titles, land grants, the whole shebang. So he wasn't exactly popular at court - and since he was popular with the king, there was a lot of resentment from courtiers to both men. Charles really, really didn't get along well with parliament, either. Charles stood firm on many decisions in which he probably should have just let parliament be, because he felt it was his moral duty to do so (the stories behind these events are long and complicated, so I won't get into them here) In addition, comissioning fine art was all well and good, but not when your country is being impoverished by oppressive taxes to pay for wars as well. Charles grew so frustrated with parliament (which repeatedly demanded reforms instead of just granting the king money) that he dismissed it and ruled alone for over a decade. This, of course, pissed of the parliamentarians, who were growing in power during this period. Many events accumulated over the course of not only his reign, but James's and even Elizabeth's, came to a head in the breakout of the civil war.
Um. Yeah. Which he lost. Twice. Badly. He almost made it through, playing various factions off of each other, but then one side found letters that he'd sent to the Scots asking them to spring him, and... yeah. Not good.
Long story short, he was accused of treason. Which... was technically impossible under those contemporary laws. Treason = betraying the king. So he technically was being charged with betraying himself. The people who judged him defined the charges more like "not obeying the coronation oath", but really, it was all bullshit, and Charles knew it. He didn't try to defend himself, but pretty much just kept saying that "dude, you don't have a leg to stand on" - they had no jurisdiction, no right to charge the king.
(I should mention that the parliament only authorized this after the pro-regicide faction pretty much ran their opposition out of the House. So really, this "democratic" institution really represented only a very small portion of the British as a whole)
Unfortunately, Charles Stuart (the name he was charged under - they couldn't very well use his full title, if he was a criminal!) didn't quite realize that they were serious - and they were serious about executing him.
I'm just going to quote from that same book again, because it can say it more eloquently than I can:
"January 30, 1649, was a bitterly cold day. Charles asked for two shirts to keep him warm because, he said: "The season is so sharp as probably may make me shake, which some observers may imagine proceeds from fear."
Daaamn. D:
He actually tried to speak to the crowd on his execution day, but wasn't allowed. He tried to speak anyway, but he still had a stutter, and his voice was so weak that nobody heard him. ;_;
And yeah, he was beheaded - the first king of England to be openly executed after a trial. D:
"[The executioner] cut off the king's head with a single blow. As he did so, wrote an eyewitness, "there was such a groan by the thousands tehn present, as I never heard before, and desire I may never hear again!"
Um, so in conclusion: I really do honestly believe that he was a good man, a sweetheart, who really was trying to do his best. He was just a horrible politican. And really, can you hold that against the man?
When I get around to it, I shall make a more exhaustive account of Charles's live and death, with more sources. I took a whole class worth of Tudor History - I swear I can do better than this. But I've been typing for over an hour and I meant to do this in ten minutes.
So yeah. I have a crush on Charles I. Don't judge me. :)
Melancholy Charles I
A portrait of Charles Stuart (reigned 1625-1649), painted by the Dutch artist Van Dyke.
...
<3
Jaunty Charles I
Another portrait of Charles I (reigned 1625-1649). This portrait is useful to show how adorably short he was - the artist has displayed the horse with it's head down, and the servants in the background, to disguise "the fact that the king was only 4 feet 7 inches tall". <3
Note how Charles knew that cowboys would be cool nearly 200 years before the Wild West.
Three angles, three oufits, of Charles I
Another Van Dyke portrait of Charles I.
He's gorgeous from all angles, ladies.
Royal Portrait of Charles I
Note the symbolic crown to the right of the portrait, and his overall awesomeness.
Also, cast your eyes upon his feet - are those royal pompoms I spot?
Victory Arch
This portrait of Charles I depicts him riding through a victory arch... ironically, it was painted when the civil war was going badly for him. ;_;
Horses are always useful metaphors - look at that proud and wild beast (of a country), and see how awesome and badass the ruler is for controling it (the country), almost effortlessly!
Also, note the roman imagery. And the sexy armour.