The Second Civil War and the regicide of Charles I marked a turning point in English history, challenging monarchy and redefining political authority.
Causes of the Second Civil War (1648)
Following the unresolved tensions of the First Civil War, the Second Civil War erupted due to a mix of political frustrations, religious divisions, and royal duplicity.
Charles I’s Intransigence
Despite his imprisonment after the First Civil War, Charles remained unrepentant and manipulative.
The Engagement (December 1647): Charles signed a secret agreement with the Scottish Engagers, promising to establish Presbyterianism in England for three years in exchange for military support.
His duplicity—negotiating with both Parliament and the Scots—deepened mistrust and reignited conflict.
Political Fragmentation
Division persisted between Presbyterians and Independents in Parliament.
Presbyterians wanted a negotiated settlement with the King and opposed the growing influence of the Army.
Independents were more radical and aligned with the Army, favouring religious toleration and limiting royal power.
The politicisation of the New Model Army made reconciliation increasingly difficult.
Popular Unrest and Royalist Resurgence
Royalist sentiment still held strength, especially in areas disillusioned by the parliamentary regime.
Uprisings in South Wales, Kent, Essex, and Yorkshire signalled coordinated Royalist efforts supported by Scottish intervention.
Key Battles and Events of 1648
Rebellions Across England
South Wales Uprising: Royalist forces under Colonel Poyer seized Pembroke Castle. Cromwell responded decisively and laid siege, eventually securing victory.
Kent and Essex: Royalists seized Maidstone and later retreated to Colchester, leading to a prolonged siege.
Northern England: Royalist and Scottish forces coordinated in an effort to invade England from the north.
Battle of Preston (17–19 August 1648)
The most decisive engagement of the Second Civil War.
Cromwell, leading the New Model Army, confronted the combined Scottish-Royalist forces under the Duke of Hamilton.
Despite being outnumbered, the disciplined New Model Army achieved a crushing victory.
Over 10,000 enemy troops were killed or captured.
The defeat of the Scots eliminated any hope of Royalist resurgence and signified the collapse of Charles’s cause.
Consequences
The outcome shattered Royalist hopes and left Parliament and the Army in control.
However, the war intensified divisions about how to deal with Charles.
The radicalisation of the Army grew, leading to unprecedented political actions.
Divisions in Parliament and the Army
Following the end of the Second Civil War, England faced an acute crisis of governance, with deepening rifts between Parliament and the Army.
Parliament’s Conservative Elements
The Presbyterian majority in Parliament continued to seek a settlement with the King.
The Treaty of Newport (September–November 1648) was a final attempt at negotiation.
Parliament's willingness to restore Charles under limited terms outraged Army leaders and radicals who felt betrayed.
The New Model Army’s Radical Position
Many soldiers and officers believed Charles had shown he could not be trusted.
The Army issued Remonstrance of the Army (20 November 1648), calling for Charles’s trial and punishment.
They argued that justice demanded accountability for the bloodshed caused by Charles’s duplicity.
Pride’s Purge (6 December 1648)
Colonel Thomas Pride, under Army orders, forcibly excluded or arrested over 140 MPs.
This purge removed moderate and royalist-sympathising MPs.
The remaining body became known as the Rump Parliament, dominated by radicals sympathetic to the Army’s goals.
The purge was effectively a military coup, demonstrating the Army’s supremacy over civil governance.
The Trial of Charles I
The trial of a reigning monarch was unprecedented and raised fundamental questions about law, authority, and legitimacy.
Legal Basis and Justification
Parliament passed an Act of the Rump establishing the High Court of Justice, bypassing the House of Lords, which opposed the trial.
Charles was charged with high treason against the people of England, accused of waging war on his own subjects.
Proceedings and Charles’s Defence
The trial began on 20 January 1649 in Westminster Hall.
Charles refused to recognise the legitimacy of the court, arguing he was accountable only to God.
He maintained the principle of divine right monarchy and would not enter a plea.
Despite his defiance, the court proceeded in his absence, and witnesses were called to testify to his role in the wars.
Opposition to the Trial
The trial was highly controversial, even among Parliamentarians.
Many MPs, lawyers, and international observers viewed it as unlawful.
No precedent existed for trying a monarch, and opposition mounted both at home and abroad.
Even some in the Army were uncomfortable with the direction events were taking.
Verdict and Sentencing
On 27 January 1649, Charles was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death.
The sentence was carried out three days later on 30 January 1649, outside the Banqueting House in Whitehall.
The Execution of Charles I (30 January 1649)
The execution of the King was a moment of profound national and international shock, unprecedented in English history.
The Execution Itself
Charles met his fate with composure and dignity, asserting he was a “martyr of the people.”
His last words included the affirmation: “I am the King of England; I am the martyr of the people.”
He was beheaded with one stroke of the axe; the executioner’s identity was masked and remains unknown.
Public Reaction
The execution provoked mixed responses:
Some saw it as necessary justice for a tyrant.
Others viewed it as a blasphemous and illegal act that would provoke divine wrath.
Royalist propaganda quickly portrayed Charles as a martyr, especially through the publication of Eikon Basilike, a book of supposed meditations.
Significance and Precedent
The regicide of Charles I was more than a political act; it was a revolutionary event that redefined governance and sovereignty in England.
Constitutional and Legal Precedent
The execution challenged the traditional notion of monarchy, asserting that the King was not above the law.
It introduced the radical idea that sovereignty derived from the people, not divine right.
Collapse of Monarchical Authority
For the first time, England became a republic—the Commonwealth of England—governed without a monarch or House of Lords.
The monarchical institution was dismantled in legal and symbolic terms.
Influence on Future Political Thought
The execution inspired radical thinkers and legitimised revolutionary republican ideals.
It became a symbol for resistance against tyranny, referenced in later revolutions such as the French and American revolutions.
Limitations of the Precedent
Despite its revolutionary nature, the regicide failed to secure lasting republicanism.
Many viewed the event as the act of a minority rather than a popular movement.
The lack of broad-based support for regicide meant that monarchical restoration would become possible in the near future.
Legacy
Charles I’s death created a political and religious vacuum.
His son, Charles II, would remain in exile, but the issue of monarchy was far from resolved.
The execution marked the beginning of England’s republican experiment, but its foundations were deeply unstable.
The Second Civil War and the regicide of Charles I thus represent the climax of revolutionary change, ideological conflict, and military dominance in mid-17th-century England. These events redefined power relationships between monarch, Parliament, and people, though the republic they created would prove short-lived.
FAQ
By the end of the Second Civil War, the New Model Army had transformed from a military force into a highly politicised institution. This development was rooted in several key factors. First, the Army’s experience during the First Civil War had convinced many soldiers that Parliament and the political elite were not adequately addressing their grievances—particularly regarding pay arrears, indemnity for wartime actions, and future political settlement. Second, the increasing influence of religious Independents and radical political ideas, including those of the Levellers, created a sense of ideological mission among soldiers. The Second Civil War further radicalised the Army as they viewed Charles I’s alliance with the Scots as treacherous and proof that traditional elites could not be trusted. This led to a belief that only they could defend the revolution. The Army’s politicisation culminated in Pride’s Purge and support for the King’s trial, as they sought to reshape England’s political future through direct intervention.
The Remonstrance of the Army, issued on 20 November 1648, was a critical document expressing the political and moral reasoning behind the Army’s desire to try and punish Charles I. Drafted by Henry Ireton and others, it reflected the Army's belief that the King had committed high treason by waging war against his own people twice and could not be trusted in any future settlement. The document demanded that Charles be brought to trial and that a republic replace the monarchy. It also criticised Parliament for continuing negotiations with the King, accusing it of betraying the cause for which so many had fought. The Remonstrance was not just a declaration—it was a warning and a justification for further action. Its significance lies in its role as a public rationale for Pride’s Purge and the subsequent trial, demonstrating the Army’s ideological resolve and readiness to act against both royal and parliamentary authority to achieve their vision of justice.
International reactions to the execution of Charles I were overwhelmingly negative and placed the new English Commonwealth in a diplomatically precarious position. Monarchies across Europe—particularly France and Spain—viewed the regicide as an assault on royal legitimacy and divine right kingship. Charles’s cousin, Louis XIV of France, and other Catholic rulers were appalled, fearing similar revolutionary impulses in their own realms. The Dutch Republic, despite being a republic itself, condemned the act due to strong dynastic and trade ties with the Stuarts. The execution alienated England diplomatically, leading to strained relations and, in some cases, trade disruptions. Furthermore, Charles II received sympathy and support abroad, especially from the Dutch and the French courts, which he would later leverage in his attempts to reclaim the throne. The execution also made foreign powers wary of engaging formally with the Commonwealth regime, viewing it as an unstable and illegitimate government. England's revolutionary politics isolated it internationally and heightened the need for internal stability.
Propaganda was a central tool used by both sides to shape public perception before and after the execution of Charles I. Royalist propaganda sought to portray Charles as a martyr, unjustly killed by a radical minority. This was most effectively accomplished through the publication of Eikon Basilike shortly after his death, which claimed to contain the King’s personal reflections and spiritual meditations. It painted Charles as a pious, suffering servant of God and helped rally sympathy for the monarchy. On the other side, Parliamentarian and Army publications attempted to justify the trial and execution by framing Charles as a tyrant and enemy of the people. Pamphlets and sermons defended the concept of popular sovereignty and the rule of law over monarchy. These competing narratives were widely circulated in print and oral form, influencing how different social groups perceived the execution. The success of Royalist propaganda in martyring Charles would have long-term consequences, especially in facilitating the Restoration in 1660.
The exclusion of the House of Lords from the process of trying Charles I was both tactical and ideological. After the Second Civil War, the Lords remained largely conservative and many were sympathetic to monarchy. When the Commons proposed the trial of the King, the Lords refused to support it, seeing it as unconstitutional and lacking legal precedent. In response, the Commons passed an ordinance on 4 January 1649 declaring itself the supreme authority in the land, effectively nullifying the role of the Lords. This marked a radical break from traditional English governance, where the Lords served as a crucial legislative body. The Rump Parliament’s decision to proceed without their consent reflected a broader revolutionary mindset, rejecting hierarchical institutions that protected the monarchy. Their exclusion was thus both a practical necessity—since they would not cooperate—and a statement that legitimacy now derived from the Commons and, by extension, the people. It also paved the way for the abolition of the House of Lords later that year.
Practice Questions
‘The execution of Charles I in 1649 was primarily the result of his actions during the Second Civil War.’ Assess the validity of this view.
The execution of Charles I was largely driven by his actions during the Second Civil War, particularly the Engagement with the Scots which revealed his duplicity. His betrayal confirmed to the New Model Army and radical Parliamentarians that he could not be trusted to negotiate in good faith. However, broader factors such as growing radicalism within the Army and the collapse of trust in monarchy also played a role. Nonetheless, Charles’s personal responsibility in reigniting conflict after the First Civil War was the immediate catalyst for regicide, making this a largely valid interpretation.
To what extent was the trial of Charles I a revolutionary challenge to traditional authority?
The trial of Charles I was a profound revolutionary act that directly challenged the principle of divine right monarchy. By asserting that the King could be held accountable by his subjects, Parliament and the Army redefined sovereignty as residing with the people. The unprecedented use of a High Court without royal or House of Lords approval illustrated a radical departure from tradition. While the trial lacked broad legal legitimacy and was driven by military power, it set a lasting precedent, shifting the political discourse towards accountability and constitutional governance, thereby marking a major revolutionary moment in English history.
