Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rightfully or wrongly, other than execution, what else were they going to do with him? Charles had proven that defeat on the battle field did not translate into his political defeat and no matter the circumstances it was clear that Charles would do everything in his power to retain the throne.
So if not executed what? Interned in the Tower of London where he would remain a rallying point of loyalist forces in England, Scotland and Europe? Exile perhaps? Leaving Charles free to roam Europe gathering loyalist support to renew the civil wars and take back his crown? I think not.
So what was to be done with the King? I would suggest, the only thing from a Parliamentarian perspective was to execute the man which of course they did.
"Deserved" had nothing to do with it. He was killed to remove the threat.
"Tyrant" - that's debatable. If you compare him to Continental rulers, not so much. The royal powers in Britain have long been restricted compared to France or Spain, he was trying to grasp more power from Parliament, but failed largely due to his personal shortcomings.
In the end, Parliament failed as well, and England went back almost to the status quo ante bellum.
There was a reluctance almost to the very end to execute him.
Parliament would have been more than happy to keep him on the throne stripped of his powers, but his treachery and constant plotting with Royalist and Catholic forces in Ireland and with France eventually persuaded Parliament that he could never be trusted and so had to be removed.
As stated above, alive, even in custody, he would be a rallying point for any Royalist insurrection so his execution was the only step.
Ironically his execution was such a shock to the then national psyche - the diaries of ardent parliamentarians & republicans are full of the sense of disbelief and shock of how things had gone that far - that it probably eased the practically bloodless restoration of the monarchy 2 years after death of Cromwell as the nation went into almost a state of self denial.
It is worth noting that Richard Cromwell, Oliver's son and successor as Lord Protector, was allowed by the state to go peacefully into exile without any threat and eventually allowed to return to England where he died peacefully a very old (for the time) man over 50 years later. Such an act of mercy in a country and continent devastated by unbelievably savage warfare was practically unheard of.
It is worth noting that Richard Cromwell, Oliver's son and successor as Lord Protector, was allowed by the state to go peacefully into exile without any threat and eventually allowed to return to England where he died peacefully a very old (for the time) man over 50 years later. Such an act of mercy in a country and continent devastated by unbelievably savage warfare was practically unheard of.
But you have to admit that disinterring Oliver Cromwell and having the corpse hung and then to have his head placed atop a 20' pike was pretty vengeful stuff.
There was a reluctance almost to the very end to execute him.
Parliament would have been more than happy to keep him on the throne stripped of his powers, but his treachery and constant plotting with Royalist and Catholic forces in Ireland and with France eventually persuaded Parliament that he could never be trusted and so had to be removed.
As stated above, alive, even in custody, he would be a rallying point for any Royalist insurrection so his execution was the only step.
Ironically his execution was such a shock to the then national psyche - the diaries of ardent parliamentarians & republicans are full of the sense of disbelief and shock of how things had gone that far - that it probably eased the practically bloodless restoration of the monarchy 2 years after death of Cromwell as the nation went into almost a state of self denial.
It is worth noting that Richard Cromwell, Oliver's son and successor as Lord Protector, was allowed by the state to go peacefully into exile without any threat and eventually allowed to return to England where he died peacefully a very old (for the time) man over 50 years later. Such an act of mercy in a country and continent devastated by unbelievably savage warfare was practically unheard of.
Charles II seems to have learned a lot from his father's ordeal.
But you have to admit that disinterring Oliver Cromwell and having the corpse hung and then to have his head placed atop a 20' pike was pretty vengeful stuff.
Its not like he was in any position to complain about it though.
Yeah, there were a few executions of those still alive and not in exile who signed the death warrant of Charles I. And more than likely quite a few clandestine acts of vengence that didnt see the light of day, and quite a lot of seizure and restoration of property between parliamentarian and Royalist, but by the standards of the era it was practically the summer of love.
Charles II seems to have learned a lot from his father's ordeal.
Well it wasn't like Charles II rode into London at the head of a massive army of rightful vengeance. In order to return from exile Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda which pardon all most of those involved in the ouster of his father, a promise of religious tolerance, and certain powers of Parliament.
Well it wasn't like Charles II rode into London at the head of a massive army of rightful vengeance. In order to return from exile Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda which pardon all most of those involved in the ouster of his father, a promise of religious tolerance, and certain powers of Parliament.
Yes, but he was also smart enough to live by his promises.
Yes, but he was also smart enough to live by his promises.
It didnt stop him chancing his arm, as we say over here. If he thought he could have restored the monarchy to absolutism he would have.
He was financially dependent on 'loans' from Louis XIV, as Parliament very much held on to his purse strings, and secretly converted to Catholicism. He encouraged a hugely unpopular war with Protestant Holland which ended in a humiliating defeat and the Dutch fleet sailing up the river Medway to destroy the Royal Navy. This war was waged mainly for the benefit of supporting French imperial objectives in the Netherlands.
He had his father's Stuart pigheadedness, but was saved by a lack of will to see things through. That and being smart enough to realise what it might eventually cost him, saved him from implementing some more even more potentially disasterous ventures at the behest of France that could possibly have cost him his crown.
As indeed it did for his not particularly bright and equally stubborn brother James.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
