Royal history rewritten: How King Charles I almost escaped execution
KING CHARLES I was famously executed almost 400 years ago - but according to a report, most of his enemies initially had no intention of killing him until days before his death.
Princess Diana: Charles Spencer reveals royal bloodline
Charles’ death signalled the abolition of the monarchy and meant England was established as a republic. These tumultuous years under Oliver Cromwell drew to an end just 11 years later, when Charles’ son, King Charles II, was restored as a constitutional monarch. Yet, Charles I’s execution triggered a revolution in the way future sovereigns ruled in England and later the UK.
Despite the significance his demise would carry in history, his death was actually “unthinkable” for most of his enemies just days before his execution in 1649, according to History Extra.
His reign had been difficult from the beginning, in 1625.
Parliament objected to his generous military spending and religious tensions ran across the country.
Charles himself was a High Anglican while his wife was a Catholic — and many Britons were strong Protestants.
He consequently decided to dissolve parliament several times during his first few years on the throne, meaning he ruled alone.
Civil war between Charles and his parliamentary enemies then erupted in 1642.
At the time, Parliament wanted to “rescue” Charles from evil counsellors, with the leading general of the commission for parliament requesting the “preservation of the king’s person”.
However, amid growing rivalries between the two factions, the opposition stopped calling to preserve Charles’ life by 1645.
Even so, by 1648 parliament swung in favour of restoring Charles — before yet again swinging the other way when the army purged the MPs opposed to a trial.
The success of the anti-Charles faction resulted in the first trial for a king of England.
Historian Leanda DeLisle explained: “Charles was to be charged with having ‘a wicked design totally to subvert the ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and, in their place, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government’: crimes, it was declared, that deserved ‘exemplary and condign punishment’ – in other words, death.”
READ MORE: Royal row unveiled as alternative cause of death for Edward V exposed
Yet, she pointed out: “There was no certainty of outcome. Executing the king risked provoking foreign reprisals, or a popular rising.”
However, she argued if Charles accepted the legality of the tribunal he would have no control over the Commons’ decision.
He was accused as a “tyrant, traitor, murderer and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England”.
Ms DeLisle said: “Ministers fulminated from pulpits against the sin of regicide, while the Scots, French and Dutch ambassadors made veiled threats about what they might do if he were to be executed.
DON'T MISS
Truth behind Rasputin’s supposed affair with last Tsarina exposed [INSIGHT]
Why Queen who forged modern Britain has been ‘forgotten in history’ [EXPLAINED]
Theory ‘Henry VIII was going stop Anne Boleyn’s execution’ uncovered [EXPOSED]
“Charles was, after all, a king of Scots, the uncle of the king of France and father-in-law of the Prince of Orange.”
Yet, Charles refused to plead for days in a row during his trial, which actually accelerated the process.
His behaviour left the prosecuting counsel —- John Cooke — furious.
Mr Cooke said: “The king must die and the monarchy must die with him.”
By refusing to answer to the court, Charles had denied that the House of Commons was more powerful than him.
He was therefore seen as a risk to the parliament if he stayed alive, meaning, despite resistance, he had to be executed.
He was found guilty of treason and beheaded on January 30, 1649.