History 3152: British History Since the 17th Century

I think this is really the first time that the English populace and Parliament have not only openly defied a Monarch, but actually killed him. When Henry VIII converted the entire country to the Church of England and declared himself the head, there was little outspoken opposition (exception: Sir Thomas More, beheaded in 1535). But when Charles I defies Parliament, he is actually EXECUTED. This was a pretty big step backwards for the Divine Right of Monarchs.

As Bennett said, defying Parliament, which is to say, defying the powerful and wealthy, isn't going to sit well. Ultimately, power and money are going to force the beheading in order to restore order. But this act ultimately brings about chaos, not order. This seems to be a common motif throughout history. In order to bring about change, the killing of the King brings chaos, yet out of this chaos comes order again, in the form of a new King. And its not that these wealthy, powerful men of gentry and professionalism can't cope with the irrational idea of a state without an absolute monarch. It is that they can't cope with their own strongly held religious beliefs which were far too diverse, spread among the populace, to accommodate everyone's view. And thus, chaos ensues. As history unravels, eleven years of Parliamentary rule without a monarch ends with the invitation of Charles Stuart to come back and reign. Is it not that these men recognized a corruption of their ideals by Charles I that, without fear of divine persecution and with the rational capacities of almost an enlightened magnitude, allowed them to take such strong measures?

I think what we are looking at here is a very clear and strong message that not only does Charles need to be removed from power but he needs to be destroyed. It simply wasn't enough for him to flee and have the Loyalists defeated on the field of battle by Cromwell's Army. It was necessary to show that the Parlimentarians were convinced in their beliefs that the rule and tyranny of Charles was overwith and not to be resurrected.

I agree with my colleages said about the message that the Parlamient send executing the king, the chaos that provoked, but the act is HUGE. No country in Europe had laws that contemplate the execution of a monarch, who was beyond the law. It was also the religious connotation. The king is king by God's grace, and killing him is going against God's will. Removing the king meaning renounce to the "natural" way of government; without a king you need another structure, a republic, a dictatorship, something unthinkable in the XVII century.

The act of killing a king must have signifigance. For something to be discussed hundreds of years after it happened must be important. Charles I had the basic problem of needing to keep power but not wanting to sacrifice his authority by giving into the demands of parliment.as a result charles cancelled parliment and used other means to get money for as long as he could. I feel this was a legitimate strategy and actually clever. charles didnt want to weaken the power of the throne by giving into demands. once more comprimises are made the royal family could eventually turn into a puppet goverment. a simple figure head in which wealthy land owners and aristocrats can control behind the scenes. Charles decided to make a difficult stand which ultimately cost him his life. for this and the complicated games he played with the aristocrats he deserves credit. his gamble for absolute power could have payed off if a few things turned out differently.

I have some questions about the Francis Bacon "New Organon" writing. Bacon seems very much like an early enlightenment thinker to me. It is clear that he is trying to come up with a set of rules (a method) to evaluate the natural world. It seems like he is taking the middle ground of philosophy somewhere between the "human's can't truly know anything" philosophers and the empiricists. Of course this could all be very wrong. I am confused by some of Bacon's archaic wording. For example, he believes the human mind should be "constantly controlled" like a machine. What does he mean by this? Is he making a commentary about authority or simply stating that when interpreting nature one must constantly adhere to a set of specific scientific axioms? Bacon also believes the human mind must be assisted, just like human hands, with tools. What types of mental tools is he referring to? Lastly, it seems as if Bacon is making a statement about the scientific process of interpreting nature, does this really have anything to do with philosophy?

I find it hard to imagine beheading a monarch, both for the symbology and the practicalities. If you 'cut off the head' of the monarch, you have also symbolically cut of the head of your governing body, of your country. Perhaps the English people were so frustrated/upset/disappointed in the way their country had been run that the only way to deal with it was it's death? Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, they hoped for something better? My question is, and I don't know that we can answer it without being in that position, how do you know that the new head of state will be any better? How did they expect their country to be cared for without the head of state? Who did they expect to fill the position?

I think the way that the aristocrats deemed what they did acceptable was by claiming that if he was in fact the embodiment of all his subjects, then the situation would have turned out different for him, and his actions would not have caused his people to turn against him. However, since he was such a poor decision maker, and chose to try to take more power, and leave out the aristocrats, they, the aristocrats, felt that he was not the embodiment of his people, and was thus not worthy of his rule. It was also because of his need to acquire more power that he lost the parliament. The fact that parliament was so tied into the government was one of the main reasons why he lost control. Because Parliament was the primary way for the government to collect revenues through taxes, Charles had no way to collect enough money to run a country, let alone raise an army. Charles made some very large mistakes that would be very hard to make successful because so much power was already in the Parliament. The fact that he tried to do something so large at one time was the reason of his downfall. Had he sat back and slowly taken away Parliaments powers, he then at some point would have been able to dissolve them with much less chaos than what occur after his imediate termination of them.

I believe that when there's a Monarch, it is very similar to communism or Hitler's ruling, and for the head of the ruler to be chopped off, that is very uncommon. Even though the people of Parliament disagreed with the way Charles was ruling, it is unbelievable for them to even think about disobeying their king, their most righteous ruler, the person that is only below god, but higher than every one else. YOu did not see the Jews get together and try to cut Hitler's head off, (even though they were quite unhappy with him) because they could not. THe king made a big mistake because he was so dependent on Parliament that he lost his power. Parlimament felt like they could do fine without him, so they went ahead and beheaded the king. I am actually suprised still that they had enough guts to do such deeds, because to behead a king not only means that you are betraying the king, you are betraying all the people of england.For all they knew, if the people of ENgland were more united, Parliament could have been killed after the beheading of the king by the people for revenge of their beloved ruler, but since the people of england were so weak and divided under the ruling of Charles, Parliament had all the power.

If Charles I was believed to be the embodiment of all his subjects, than I think that it was his attempt to remove himself, represented here as the symbolic head, from his subjects, the body, that eventually lead to the loss of his physical head. Charles I wanted an overabundance of power without the aid of the members of Parliament. He dismissed them and then attempted personal rule. In doing this he was separating the most necessary part of his subjects from him. He felt as if without Parliament he would have more power and be better off, but in fact their dismissal caused his power to fade and he did not have a leg to stand on, so to speak. By the time he realized that he needed them to gather the money necessary to run his country, it was too late, the damage was already done and his nation would be divided in a civil war. If he would have been a wiser ruler, he would have recognized the fact that he needed Parliament more than they needed him. Parliament became aware of this and saw his weakness as a ruler. They realized that he was not just replaceable, but expendable. They made the decision to chop off his physical head, which was a symbolic act itself. Yet it was initially Charles I poor decision to sever his ties to his subjects that would not only cost him his power and respect, but eventually cost him his physical head.

The beheading of the king is about as radical an act as one could have imagined in England at that time. During the Civil War and the events leading up to it, In giving Parliament power, Charles made a very self-destructive decision in then trying to take it from the very same people. It is true that only the aristocrats could have staged such an action at the time. Historically, this has often been the case, since people often rebel once they have a certain amount of power and can fend for themselves. As far as the perspective of Parliament is concerned, their consensus was probably that the head of government (in both the literal and figurative sense) was corrupt and simply had to be executed. The aristocrats could use the same principle of divine right to their own degree to justify their actions. Both sides felt that negotiations were futile and likely saw the destruction or incapacitation of the other as the only solution.

The beheading of Charles I was a huge step. The people actually had enough guts to actually take action against someone who was seen as a god (so to speak) because they themselves were unhappy with his rule. Even though kings were considered the absolute power on earth, I think we should remember the torso of the body - the monarchs' "subjects" who play a major part in everyday life. To me it's basically like if you have a broken part, you either try to fix it or you get rid of it - and the people decided to get rid of Charles.

Hobbes (some of what he said in the last parts of the article for class, along with other stuff from his works) wrote his work as a reaction to the horror of seeing the monarch murdered, by a seemingly anarchist-like mob. Hobbes’ whole theory on government was very pro-monarch—-centralized and strong power was imperative. He saw it really as the only way to forestall such insanity (regicide), in that the regular people in society were selfish and ever eager to take power whenever and however they could get it. That issue then leads to the whole “human nature� issue. In our article, he referred to “the weakest has the strength enough to kill the strongest…� It is interesting that he dealt with the fact that such equality is inherently bad—-which brings me bad to the point about why strong government is necessary to control the wild populace. Anyways, I thought that the readings really tie in the new 'reason' of the time; yet for being the beginning of the age of enlightenment, beheading kings sure seems a bit out of the loop.

I think that the beheading is a new radical step but physically beheading the king, i dont believe, necessarily symbolized to the people of the time that they were loosing the entire populace into a headrush of anarchy. Especially since the role of a monarch was perpetuated by Thomas Cromwell's position as Lord Protector; he served the same purpose and had many of the same duties and also ignored Parliament just under a different title.

I tend to agree with many of the points stated above, however I tend to see the position and power of the King to be in much more disarray. The people and parliment have seen what has happened in their past with the role of God and their King and how they have related to each other ie Henry VIII. It seems the Kings of England see themselves as authority enough to grant "God's Approval and Will," and this appears to have been Charles's downfall.

As radical as it seems, I believe that the beheading of Charles I was a step in the right direction. Such a monumental challenge to the throne puts the power back in the people's hands and divine right is questioned. All of this leads to a discourse in the idea of rule (ie who has the right to rule, how should one rule, etc.) Not only does the question of who should rule and how arise, but ideas of how society should respond to rule and what rights are given and taken from citizens when they are governed upon.

Thinking about what we talked about in class last week, I cannot say that I agree with the decision that was made by Parliment to behead Charles I. This is not for reasons which have been discussed above: (the symbolism of severing the head of the government from the populace body...) Rather, I believe that parliment's decision to behead King Charles was not prudent because Charles was, at the time of his beheading, a minor threat to Parliment at best. He did, however, still hold the title of King, therefor was, to the people of England, still the one chosen by God to rule. Yet instead of keeping him alive, holding onto that control, and using him as a puppet of Parliment, giving them control of the nation. Instead, they kill the king, which only acts as a catalyst for anarchy, while Oliver Cromwell controls a dominant military force loyal not to England, or the government, but rather to it general. When armies are loyal to men and not govenments, you may end up with the next Sulla (who blacklisted the Roman Senate) marching into your parliment.

I think that the crowd's reaction as the king was beheaded shows what type of impact this event had on the English citizens. Even if they disagreed with him and the monarch's ideals, the thought of actually beheadeding the king was incomprehensible to them. With religion playing such a large role in almost everyone's lives at that time, beheading the king, who was thought of as only below God, must have seemed an impossible step. I think that after this event took place, the English people could see that they had a say in how they lived their lives. Before it happened they wouldn't have expressed doubts or complaints against the king for fear of the consequences. Now they see that clearly the king isn't as godly as they once believed, because the people were able to overcome him, and rise above him.

I have several ideas/questions from the above thoughts:

-As pointed out, the killing of Charles I not only signified the killing of the Head of State, but also the Head of the Anglican Church. This act struck at the core of divine right and the “untouchable� nature of the monarchy’s power, confronting both political and religious hegemony. The Anglican Church as well as many Anglicans in England must have been outraged. Were their opinions felt in society? If the King was the flesh of not only government, but also God on Earth what happens when that flesh is removed? Not only did the English have to reformulate the political map, but also spiritual map of their domain.

-This brings my second question. If we were to redraw the image on the front of Hobbes’ Leviathon what would it look like after the King’s beheading? Hobbes would likely envision this new image with all of the people that made up the body of the King as many smaller Kings fighting each other in a “state of nature.� Indeed it seems that these were the exact circumstances of the ensuing decade as bickering political factions replaced the monarch. I feel that for many Englishmen it was unthinkable to leave power in the hands of a legislature, requiring a huge mental leap that only happened later. However, at this time we do see the introduction of vastly different institutions to fill the void of a “king-less� country, like Cromwell’s Model Army, which changed the political landscape of England.

-Ultimately the killing of Charles I was a staged event. After a show trial, he was brought before the people and had his head chopped off in front of a rather mellow audience. As pointed out in class this was a vastly different demise from the one that Louise XVI faced as he was guillotined in front of a cheering crowd. This begs the question on what was the role of “the people� in the Glorious Revolution? The Revolution was one directed from the top down as aristocrats enacted all of the changes. This excludes the majority of English populace as historical actors in the Revolution. Were common people this far separated from government that they were indifferent to who ruled them from day to day? Their voice is certainly difficult to attest from the historical archives. However, if they could write, how would they see the Revolution? Did they see more political or economic gain from a government run by a Legislature or one run by a King?

As you say, the king, at the time around the civil war, was said to have two main 'components' to his body. One component was the actual flesh part of the body. The other was was the spiritual embodiment of the people of the realm. This theory is also shown in the picture of Hobbes' Leviathan book cover. As such, when the king had his head cut off, there was a very significant responce from the people of england.
First of all, this was the first time in the history of England for a kind to get beheaded. To people both riach and poor, powerful and common, this is new territory for them. It's almost like starting over; I'm sure everyone was wondering what they should do next (politically) and what are the reprecussions from what they did?
Also, as it was thought that the king embodied all of the people of the land, what were people to think when a figure with that sort of representation gets beheaded? Now, yes, the king DID get beheaded for a reason; but for someone who represents all of the people, should surely be acting appropiately with that power. What were they to think when someone with this power is focibly taken out of power?
It only adds to my point that the caption on the picture reads "There is no power on earth which can be compared to him." Of course there were significant consequences to the beheading.

If we were to live as common people during this time period, we would not know much about anything. The only things we were to believe and know were the things that were told to us by the people in power. What religion to believe in and what to think of the country and what was the best for the country. During this time period most of the common people were to think that the king was chosen by God to rule them. If your king was to have his head chopped off, for what ever reason, of course its going to have a significant reaction to almost everyone. The guy we are suppose to believe to be the chosen is going to die for doing or not doing something that the other people below him wanted to do or not do. This would confuse everyone if they were to see their king get beheaded. If they should still believe what the king wants them to believe, and will they also be executed if they continue to believe what the king tells them to believe. So beheading the chosen one does have a significant role on the common people.

To me, looking over several revolutions where monarch's head been cut off, represents a very desperate move of the revolutionaries. This happened during the French Revolution and Russia October Revolution (no cutting of the head but shooting down the whole family). This violent move of capital punishment represents the new begging and that everything old that connect to the old regime being cut off with the life of the monarch.