'The King's Revenge ' Dan Jordan and Michael Walsh
Book Review
'The King's Revenge' , about Charles II attempt to punish those that he held responsible for the execution of his father Charles I, was first published in 2012. The first book devoted wholly to the regicides appears to be Mark Noble's 'The Lives of the English Regicides;And other Commissioners of the Pretended High Court of Justice. Appointed to sit upon their Sovereign, King Charles I' from 1798.
Since 2012 Charles Spencer's .'Killers of the King ' (2015) and James Hobson's ' 'Charles I Executioners' (2020) have been published. Following a discussion in The British and Irish Civil Wars Facebook group on this subject, thought that it was time to highlight 'The King's Revenge' .
Kings had been removed from power and killed before 1648, in both England and Scotland. This book shows that the trial of Charles I, opening on 20th January 1649, was to be a rather different affair : Parliament appointed 153 judges to try Charles, only 53 turned up for a preliminary hearing. Four prosecutors were appointed, two failed to show. The number of judges reduced to 45 when the trial began.
The judicial process, even the killing of the king itself, was done in public, which added to the king's humiliation and to that of the Royalists. Charles I was charged with tyranny and waging war against his own subjects. The authors compare the prosecution to modern heads of states being charged with war crimes. And those who took part in condemning Charles I left themselves wide open to retribution, both before and after the Restoration, particularly the 59 signatories of Charles' death warrant.
The authors are quite sympathetic to the regicides and their associates . Neither Charles II nor the process against the accused is depicted in a favourable light. Though Mr Jordan and Mr Walsh come over as not being admirers of Cromwell, particularly due to how the war in Ireland was conducted, the regicides are praised ; Despite a generally bad press, the regicides were men of principle who stood for many of the liberties that today we take for granted. The Glorious Revolution merely restored some of what the men who judged Charles I had achieved. Modern Britain has much to thank them for. So possibly this book would not be well received by those who nurture the 'Old Rowley' /'Merry Monarch' view of Charles II.
At the start of the Restoration Charles II was pragmatic enough to realise that he had to maintain power through a degree of compromise. There were Royalists who wanted revenge and compensation for the property, land and other losses they had incurred during the Interregnum . Yet Charles II had to keep enough former Parliamentarians on his side....most noticeably General Monck , who became Duke of Albermarle, and General Tom Fairfax who faced no proceedings against him. Also Charles II had to disband the Army, which he largely managed after levying a poll tax to pay the soldiers off.
An Act of Free Pardon and Generall (sic) Indempnity (sic) and Oblivion was passed to try to reconcile former Parliamentarians to the Restoration, with those who signed the Charles I death warrant being exempted, and therefore liable for prosecution. The authors show originally the intention was to make an example of a handful of those regicides who were still living, and how this got extended to cover other Parliamentarians that Charles II wanted rid of. Puritan preacher Hugh Peter ( sometimes called Peters), Daniel Axtell who commanded the soldiers present at Charles' trial, General John Lambert ( given life imprisonment), Sir Harry Vane the Younger ( who strangely the authors count as being a regicide) were amongst those who found themselves on trial for their life, though had not signed Charles' I death warrant. The corpses of Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton were dug up and hanged in irons. Nine signatories were executed along with four individuals who were connected to Charles I execution. Others were transported or given life imprisonment, or pardoned.
According to the authors, the death warrant of Charles I could not be immediately found, but it was discovered that one of the regicides already in custody, Colonel Francis Hacker, had taken possession of the original. His wife Jane was asked if she could go home and find the document. Jane Hacker did as she was told, and handed the warrant over, providing evidence against her husband and many others. Colonel Hacker was executed and his wife condemned to destitution .
The book gives a useful and thoughtful account of the conviction and punishment of the captured regicides. The actual manhunt started with the Royalists in exile assassinating prosecuting counsel Doctor Isaac Dorislaus when he was representing the Parliamentarian regime in The Hague in 1649. The manhunt spread to Spain, New England ,Switzerland. A spy working for Lord George Downing lured three regicides in exile- John Oakey, John Barkstead and Miles Corbert - to dinner at a house in the Delft. They duly appeared , and Lord Downing and his men forcibly returned them to London for trial. Yet other regicides died peacefully abroad, such as Sir Edmund Ludlow who lived in Switzerland before passing away in 1679. The manhunt is covered quite extensively in Sir Charles Spencer's 'The Killers of the King'.
Quite intrigued by the section concerning the identity of the actual executioner of the king (and their assistant) . They were both disguised on the day . Richard Brandon , the common hangman, was most likely candidate for the role, but the question has not been resolved. If found the executioners were due to be condemned to death at the time of the Restoration. Brandon had already died on 18th June 1649. Also interesting to be reminded of the work of John Milton in justifying the Republic and the execution of the king in print, and how narrowly he was to being charged with treason.
A couple of minor criticisms. A lot is made by the authors concerning how rigged the trials of the regicides were . Examples of men only being told at 9.00 the night before what the charges against them were include General Harrison and Sir Harry Vane .By contrast Charles I was given breaks from his trial to encourage him to plead. Yet it has to be said that during the Interregnum captured rebels could be sent off to the plantations without trial, such as after the Penrrudock uprising in Wiltshire of 1655, or severely ill treated after the Battle of Dunbar 1650. The question of how we judge the 17th century legal system, and the wretched plight of those caught on the 'wrong side, is incredibly complex. Also the question of whether there was - and still is - a legal basis to put a ruling monarch on trial in English law, could have been expanded upon.
I would like to have known how the authors thought that Henrietta Maria, as the widow to Charles I , featured in all of this. Was she inciting Charles II to more bloodshed against the regicides? Also have been wondering how far other members of the royal family thought that revenge should be taken against those who were active on the Parliamentarian side.
But overall I think that this book needs revisiting. It makes an important contribution on how the regicides should stand in British history.
The King's Revenge Charles II and the Greatest Manhunt in British History, Don Jordan & Michael Walsh is published by 'Hatchet Books' , and also available by kindle.
A new biography of Thomas Marten, a regicide who was spared execution, and died in prison in relatively lenient conditions in 1680, titled Regicide The Trials of Henry Marten by John Worthen,is due out on 24th March 2022.
As ever I welcome all blog readers from different parts of the world, and thank you for your interest. Please stay safe and well
Michael Bully
Brighton,
January 2022
Review of Charles I Executioners by James Hobson from 2020
Link to other blogs by Michael Bully
13th century history No longer active
World War 2 poetry No longer active
Comments
Post a Comment