January 30, 2005

Regicide. On this day in 1649, the death warrant of Charles Stuart, King of England, Scotland and Ireland was served on a scaffold hastily erected in Whitehall. The event shook Europe and had profound constituional implications that were crucial in defining the polity of successive governments throughout the English-speaking world. For some Charles was to become a martyr, others have remembered the event with less reverence.
posted by Abiezer_Coppe 19 years ago
  • Charles' demeanour at his execution inspired the famous lines in Andrew Marvell's Horatian Ode upon Cromwell's Return from Ireland:
    That thence the Royal actor borne The tragic scaffold might adorn: While round the armèd bands Did clap their bloody hands. He nothing common did or mean Upon that memorable scene, But with his keener eye The axe's edge did try; Nor call'd the Gods, with vulgar spite, To vindicate his helpless right; But bow'd his comely head Down, as upon a bed.
  • I'm having trouble finding out whether 30. January is the new date or the old one. If it's the old one, then Charles was executed on 10. February by today's calendar. If it is the new calendar, then Charles was executed on 19. January back in his day. The difference is the 11 days that were "stolen" in 1753, and which cause a heap of trouble for Stuart scholars.
  • The first link in the OP (the death warrant sports 30. January as the date of death) suggests that we should wait 11 days before marking this day. Note to self: always read the original links before making a fool of yourself.
  • That completely slipped my mind Skrik. I read an interesting account somewhere on the riots that accompanied the calendar reform, as many people thought they were losing 11 days off there lives. I read a biograpny of Dr. Dee that mentioned him proposing reforms to Elizabeth, but as I recall it was too closely associated with 'Popery' at the time. Actually, a quick Google turns up this which may relegate the rioting to the realms of myth.
  • Always wondered whether the Old Style calandar had a leap day in February, too -- I suspect not. Afraid I've more respect for the Stuart Charley than the Windsor edition. Fine links, Abiezer_Coppe -- )))!!!
  • This is fascinating stuff. I never really thought about how this event changed the concept of monarchy in the UK. It's like the Watergate effect, times a million.
  • Is Jan. 30 still accepted for the celebration? My guide to dates isn't much good for this sort of thing, as it doesn't differentiate Old and New style for the regnal dates. But the days don't matter as much as the year - with the new year beginning in March for many people, (our) Jan/Feb 1649 could be written as either Jan/Feb 1648 or Jan/Feb 1649. My guide has Charles' last regnal year (24) 27 March 1648 -30 January 1649. I'm guessing that is an Old Style Month and Day, but a New Style Year (because even then, some reckoned the year from Jan., just not so many). What's funny is that the English, so fond of complaining about, restraining, ousting or chopping off the heads of their kings in the seventeenth century, should be one of the few major European monarchies left. Maybe something worked about all those compromises brought in.
  • Celebration? But the day is important to us, not the year. How many revolutions of the sun has this panet made since the celebrated(?) date? We should be in much the same position in relation to the sun when we celebrate. Whether they called it 1648 or 1648 matters little to us, so long as the solar years are counted correctly. But I do get your point. I have a copy of David Ewing Duncan's Calendar, and will now move it to the front of my reading list. Understanding this kind of thing is great for after-dinner chat.
  • Monkeyfilter: Understanding this kind of thing is great for after-dinner chat. Interesting link and great discussion.
  • In his series of essays on Cromwell God's Englishman Christopher Hill contends that although there were a few avowed republicans in the Army and parliament at the time, Oliver wasn't one of them:
    In 1653 he was reported as telling London aldermen 'that the King's head was not taken off because he was King... ..but because [he] did not perform [his] trust'. It was a pragmatic not an ideological objection.
    I detect a similar spirit in later revolutionary crises - e.g. 1790s, 1840s, post WWI - that I think supports jb's point about compromise. Settling some of the questions about power in the State earlier than, say, France went some way to defusing these later situations and avoiding a Bastille or Winter Palace.
  • I meant important in terms of knowing what order stuff happened in. In addition to being able to know the chronology of things on both sides of the Channel, you need to know if April 1649 was earlier or later than January 1649. I've run into this problem. When I take my notes, I always write January-March dates with two years (i.e. 1648/49), but I don't bother converting the days (since I can always look that up later if I need to, but I do only English history). Here's a question: Had George III not been across the ocean, do you think the colonies would have executed him to become a republic? (Ignoring the fact that the war was a lot about the fact that he and the Parliament were too far for the colonists' liking.)
  • The other relevant question being (of course): Are you Wrong but Romantic, or Right but Repugnant?
  • I have just bought the above book. Only took me two years!