Charles I (1600-1649), English king (since 1625) from the Stuart dynasty.

Like his father, Charles was a staunch supporter of absolute monarchy. Parliament was considered by him only as an auxiliary tool of the state machine. This caused extreme wariness in the House of Commons, vested with the power to fund the crown.

Requests made by Charles to Parliament for subsidies necessary for waging war with Spain and France remained unanswered. The parliamentarians were also irritated by the first minister, the Duke of Buckingham, who actually ruled the country (he was killed in 1628). After his death, Charles, taking the reins of government into his own hands, made peace with external enemies.

The king was a supporter of strengthening the power of bishops in the Anglican Church, which was considered by the Puritans (orthodox Protestants) as papism. Married to a Catholic, the French princess Henrietta, Charles actually advocated a softening of attitudes towards Catholics in England. Such tolerance aroused the indignation of the Puritans, who gradually won a majority in the House of Commons. Charles dissolved parliament four times, pursuing a strict tax policy between sessions. On the other hand, wanting to secure subsidies, he convened Parliament again and again, making concessions unprecedented in English history. The most significant of these was the approval of the "Petition on the Right" (1628), which guaranteed the inviolability of the individual.

In 1639 an attempt to place Anglican bishops over the Scottish Puritans sparked a mutiny. The king, having been defeated in the war with the Scots, was again forced to resort to the help of Parliament. The so-called Long Parliament, which met in London in 1640, relying on the support of the townspeople, made Charles completely dependent on himself. The king made more and more concessions. At the request of Parliament, he even sent Strafford, his closest associate and personal friend, to the scaffold. Parliament, meanwhile, put forward further demands regarding the limitation of royal power and the abolition of the episcopate. The situation was aggravated by the uprising of Catholics in Ireland - the Puritans accused Charles of being involved in the rebellion.

In 1642 the king tried to seize the initiative and arrest the Puritan leaders. When the attempt failed, he left London and began an army recruit. Civil war broke out in England. At first, success was on the side of Charles, but in 1645, in the battle of Nezby, his troops were defeated. In 1646, the king surrendered to the Scots, who handed him over to Parliament for 400,000 pounds. After that, Charles finally turned into a prisoner and a toy of the warring parliamentary parties.

The Independents (orthodox Puritans), led by O. Cromwell, captured the king in 1647, using him to blackmail the parliamentary majority. After the entry of Cromwell's army into London, Charles managed to escape to the Isle of Wight. From here he tried to get his supporters united with the Presbyterians (moderate Puritans). But these plans were thwarted.

The second civil war ended with the victory of Cromwell. Carl was in his hands. In 1649, Parliament (more precisely, the Independents of the House of Commons without the consent of the House of Lords) sentenced the king to death on charges of "high treason."

On a cold January morning in 1649, not an ordinary criminal, but a king who had ruled his people for twenty-four years, rose to the scaffold set in the center of London. On this day, the country completed the next stage of its history, and the execution of Charles 1 became the finale. In England, the date of this event is not marked on the calendar, but it has entered its history forever.

Scion of the noble family of the Stuarts

The Stuarts are a dynasty descended from an old Scottish home. Its representatives, more than once occupying the English and Scottish thrones, left their mark on the history of the state like no other. Their rise dates back to the beginning of the 14th century, when Count Walter Stuart (Steward) married the daughter of King Robert I Bruce. It is unlikely that this marriage was preceded by a romantic story, most likely, the English monarch considered it good to strengthen his connection with the Scottish aristocracy with this union.

Charles the First, whose tragic fate will be discussed in this article, was one of the descendants of the Honorable Count Walter, and, like him, belonged to the Stuart dynasty. With his birth, he "made happy" future subjects on November 19, having been born in the old residence of the Scottish monarchs - Denfermline Palace.

For the subsequent accession to the throne, little Charles had an impeccable origin - his father was King James VI of Scotland, and his mother was Queen Anne of Denmark. However, the case was spoiled by Henry's elder brother, the Prince of Wales, who was born six years earlier, and therefore had a priority right to the crown.

In general, fate was not particularly generous to Charles, of course, if this can be said about a boy from the royal family. As a child, he was a sickly child, somewhat delayed in development, and therefore later than his peers began to walk and talk. Even when his father succeeded to the English throne in 1603 and moved to London, Charles could not follow him, as the court physicians feared that he would not endure the road.

It should be noted that physical weakness and thinness accompanied him all his life. Even in ceremonial portraits, the artists failed to give this monarch any kind of majestic appearance. Yes, and the growth of Charles 1 Stuart was only 162 cm.

Path to the royal throne

An event occurred that determined the entire future fate of Charles. That year, a terrible typhus epidemic broke out in London, from which it was impossible to hide even within the walls of the royal castle. Fortunately, he himself was not injured, since he was in Scotland at that time, but his older brother Henry, who was trained from birth to rule the country, and on whom all high society had high hopes, became a victim of the disease.

This death opened the way to power for Charles, and as soon as the mourning ceremonies ended in Westminster Abbey, where Henry's ashes rested, he was elevated to the rank of Prince of Wales - heir to the throne, and over the next years his life was filled with all kinds of preparations for the execution of such a high mission.

When Charles was twenty years old, his father took care of arranging his future family life, since the marriage of the heir to the throne is a purely political matter, and Hymeneus is not allowed to shoot at him. James VI stopped his choice on the Spanish infanta Anna. This decision aroused the indignation of members of parliament who did not want a dynastic rapprochement with the Catholic state. Looking ahead, it should be noted that the future execution of Charles 1 will have largely religious overtones, and such a reckless choice of the bride was the first step towards her.

However, at that moment, nothing foreshadowed trouble, and Charles went to Madrid with the desire to personally intervene in the marriage negotiations, and at the same time look at the bride. On the trip, the groom was accompanied by a favorite, or rather, his dad's lover - George Villiers. According to historians, VI had a big and loving heart, in which not only court ladies, but also their venerable husbands could fit.

Unfortunately, the negotiations in Madrid stalled, as the Spanish side demanded that the prince convert to Catholicism, and this was completely unacceptable. Charles and his new friend George were so stung by the obstinacy of the Spaniards that, upon returning home, they demanded that Parliament break off relations with their royal court, and even the landing of an expeditionary force to conduct hostilities. It is not known how it would have ended, but, fortunately, at that moment a more accommodating bride turned up - the daughter of Henry IV Henrietta Maria, who became his wife, and the rejected groom calmed down.

At the pinnacle of power

Charles 1 Stuart ascended the throne after the death of his father, which followed in 1625, and from the very first days began to conflict with parliament, demanding subsidies from him for all kinds of military adventures. Not getting what he wanted (the economy was cracking at the seams), he dismissed it twice, but was forced to convene it again each time. As a result, the king obtained the necessary funds by imposing illegal and very burdensome taxes on the population of the country. History knows many similar examples, when short-sighted monarchs plugged budget holes by tightening taxes.

Subsequent years also did not bring improvements. His friend and favorite George Villiers, who after the death of James VI finally moved to the chambers of Charles, was soon killed. This scoundrel turned out to be dishonest, for which he paid the price by collecting taxes. Not having the slightest idea in the economy, the king always considered the only way to replenish the treasury more and more requisitions, fines, the introduction of various monopolies and similar measures. The execution of Charles 1, which followed in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, was a worthy finale to such a policy.

Shortly after the assassination of Villiersom, a certain Thomas Wentworth stood out from the circle of courtiers, who managed to make a brilliant career during the reign of Charles the First. He owns the idea of ​​establishing absolute royal power in the state, based on a regular army. Subsequently, becoming the viceroy of the king in Ireland, he successfully implemented this plan, suppressing dissent with fire and sword.

Reforms that caused social tension in Scotland

Charles the First did not show far-sightedness in the religious conflicts that tore the country apart. The fact is that for the most part it consisted of followers of the Presbyterian and Puritan churches, which belonged to two of the many branches of Protestantism.

This often served as a pretext for conflicts with representatives of the Anglican Church, which dominated England and was supported by the government. Unwilling to seek a compromise, the king tried to establish her dominance everywhere by violent measures, which caused extreme indignation among the Scots, and eventually led to bloodshed.

However, the main mistake, which resulted in the civil war in England, the execution of Charles 1 and the subsequent political crisis, should be considered his extremely ill-conceived and mediocre policy towards Scotland. Most of the researchers of such a sadly ended reign unanimously agree on this.

The main direction of his activity was the strengthening of unlimited royal and ecclesiastical power. Such a policy was fraught with extremely negative consequences. In Scotland, traditions have developed from ancient times that consolidated the rights of the estates and elevated the inviolability of private property to law, and the monarch encroached on them in the first place.

The shortsightedness of royal policy

In addition, it should be noted that the biography of Charles 1 was tragic not so much because of the goals he pursued, but because of the ways they were realized. His actions, usually overly straightforward and ill-conceived, invariably caused popular outrage and contributed to the strengthening of the opposition.

In 1625, the king turned against himself the vast majority of the Scottish nobility by issuing a decree that went down in history under the name of the Act of Revocation. According to this document, all the decrees of the English kings, starting from 1540, on the transfer of land plots to the nobles were annulled. To preserve them, the owners were required to contribute to the treasury an amount equal to the value of the land.

In addition, the same decree ordered the return to the Anglican Church of its lands located on the territory of Scotland, and seized from it during the Reformation, which established Protestantism in the country, which fundamentally affected the religious interests of the population. It is not surprising that after the publication of such a provocative document, many protest petitions were submitted to the king from representatives of various sectors of society. However, he not only defiantly refused to consider them, but also aggravated the situation by introducing new taxes.

Nomination of the episcopate and abolition of the Scottish Parliament

From the first days of his reign, Charles I began to nominate Anglican bishops to the highest government posts. They were also given the majority of seats in the royal council, which significantly reduced the representation of the Scottish nobility in it, and gave new reason for discontent. As a result, the Scottish aristocracy was removed from power and deprived of access to the king.

Fearing the strengthening of the opposition, the king from 1626 practically suspended the activities of the Scottish Parliament, and by all means prevented the convening of the General Assembly of the Scottish Church, into whose worship a number of Anglican canons alien to them were introduced by his order. It was a fatal mistake, and the execution of Charles 1, which became the sad end of his reign, was an inevitable consequence of such miscalculations.

Beginning of the first civil war

When it came to the infringement of the political rights of the nobility, such actions provoked protest only in their narrow class circle, but in the event of violation of religious norms, the king turned the whole people against himself. This again caused a flood of indignation and protest petitions. Like last time, the king refused to consider them, and added fuel to the fire by executing one of the most active petitioners, presenting him with the usual charge of treason in such cases.

The spark that blew up the Scottish powder magazine was an attempt to hold a divine service in Edinburgh on July 23, 1637, built on the basis of the Anglican liturgy. This caused not only the indignation of citizens, but also an open rebellion that swept most of the country, and went down in history as the First Civil War. The situation escalated with each passing day. The leaders of the noble opposition drafted and sent to the king a protest against the church reform alien to the people, and the widespread rise of the Anglican episcopate.

The king's attempt to defuse the situation by forcibly removing the most active oppositionists from Edinburgh only exacerbated general discontent. As a result, under pressure from his opponents, Charles I was forced to make concessions by removing the bishops hated by the people from the royal council.

The result of the general unrest was the convening of the National Convention of Scotland, which consisted of delegates from all social strata of society, and was headed by representatives of the highest aristocracy. Its participants drafted and signed a manifesto on the joint actions of the entire Scottish nation against attempts to make any changes in their religious foundations. A copy of the document was handed to the king, and he was forced to accept. However, this was only a temporary lull, and the lesson taught to the monarch by his subjects did not go to the future. Therefore, the execution of Charles 1 Stuart was the logical conclusion of the chain of his mistakes.

New civil war

This arrogant, but very unlucky ruler disgraced himself in another part of his subordinate kingdom - Ireland. There, for a certain and very solid bribe, he promised patronage to local Catholics, however, having received money from them, he immediately forgot about everything. Offended by this attitude, the Irish took up arms to refresh the king's memory with it. Despite the fact that by this time Charles I had finally lost the support of his own parliament, and with it the main part of the population, he tried with a small number of regiments loyal to him to change the situation by force. So, on August 23, 1642, the Second Civil War in England began.

It should be noted that the commander Charles I was as mediocre as the ruler. If at the beginning of hostilities he managed to win several fairly easy victories, then on July 14, 1645, his army was utterly defeated in the battle of Nesby. Not only was the king captured by his own subjects, but an archive containing a lot of compromising material was also captured in his camp. As a result, many of his political and financial machinations, as well as appeals for military assistance to foreign states, became public.

crowned prisoner

Until 1647, Charles I was held in Scotland as a prisoner. However, even in this unenviable role, he continued to make attempts to negotiate with representatives of various political groups and religious movements, generously distributing promises right and left that no one believed. In the end, the jailers got the only possible benefit from it, transferring (selling) for four hundred thousand pounds sterling to the English Parliament. The Stuarts are a dynasty that has seen a lot in its lifetime, but it has never experienced such a shame.

Once in London, the deposed king was placed in Holmby Castle, and then transferred to Hampton Court Palace, under house arrest. There, Charles had a real opportunity to return to power, accepting the proposal with which he was approached by a prominent political figure of that era for whom the execution of Charles 1, which had become quite real by that time, was unprofitable.

The conditions proposed to the king did not contain any serious restrictions on royal powers, but even here he missed his chance. Desiring even greater concessions, and starting secret negotiations with various political groups in the country, Charles evaded a direct answer to Cromwell, as a result of which he lost patience and abandoned his plan. Thus, the execution of Charles 1 Stuart was only a matter of time.

The tragic outcome was accelerated by his escape to the Isle of Wight, located in the English Channel, not far from the British coast. However, this adventure also ended in failure, as a result of which house arrest in the palace was replaced by imprisonment in a prison cell. From there, Baron Arthur Capel tried to rescue his former monarch, whom Charles once made a peer and elevated to the very top of the court hierarchy. But, not having sufficient strength, he soon found himself behind bars.

Trial and execution of the deposed king

There is no doubt that the most characteristic feature of this offspring of the Stuart family was a penchant for intrigue, which as a result ruined him. For example, while giving vague promises to Cromwell, he was simultaneously negotiating behind the scenes with his opponents from Parliament, and receiving money from Catholics, he also supported Anglican bishops. And the execution of King Charles 1 itself was largely accelerated due to the fact that, even while under arrest, he did not stop sending calls for an uprising everywhere, which in his position was complete madness.

As a result, most of the regiments submitted a petition to Parliament demanding a trial of the former king. It was 1649, and long gone were the hopes with which British society greeted his ascension to the throne. Instead of a wise and far-sighted politician, it received a proud and limited adventurer.

To conduct the trial of Charles I, Parliament appointed one hundred and thirty-five commissioners, headed by a prominent jurist of the time, John Bradshaw. The execution of King Charles 1 was a foregone conclusion, and therefore the whole procedure did not take much time. The former monarch, a man who only yesterday commanded a mighty power, was unanimously recognized as a tyrant, traitor and enemy of the fatherland. It is clear that the only possible sentence for such grave crimes could be death.

The execution of the English king Charles 1 took place in the early morning of January 30, 1649 in London. We must give him his due - even having ascended the scaffold, he retained his presence of mind, and addressed the assembled crowd with his dying speech. In it, the convict stated that civil liberties and freedoms are provided exclusively by the presence of a government and laws that guarantee citizens life and inviolability of property. But at the same time, this does not give the people the right to claim to rule the country. The monarch and the crowd, he said, are completely different concepts.

Thus, even on the verge of death, Charles defended the principles of absolutism, to which all the Stuarts were adherents. England still had a long way to go before a constitutional monarchy was fully established, and the people, contrary to their opinion, got the opportunity to participate in the government of the state. However, the foundation for this has already been laid.

According to the memoirs of contemporaries, the execution of the English King Charles 1 gathered a huge crowd of people who were in a state close to shock throughout this bloody performance. The climax came when the executioner lifted the severed head of their former sovereign by the hair. However, the traditional words in such cases that it belongs to a state criminal and traitor were not heard.

So, 1649 put a bloody end to the reign of this king. However, another eleven years will pass, and in the history of England there will come a period called the Restoration of the Stuarts, when representatives of this ancient family will again ascend the throne. The second civil war and the execution of Charles 1 were its threshold.

Revolution in England. Trial and execution of Charles I

While preparations for the trial were going on day and night in Whitehall, it was decided to move Charles I closer to London. Windsor Castle was chosen as the new place of detention. The mission of transferring the king from Hurstcastle to Windsor, fraught with many complications, was entrusted to Colonel Garrison, one of Cromwell's closest associates. The supporters of the king were preparing his escape.

One of his options was the attack of the nephew of Charles I, Prince Rupert, on Hurstcastle, but he was too late: the king was no longer there. The second attempt to capture it was made during a stop at Bagshot, on the estate of Lord Newburgh. Under the pretext of the need to change the horse on which the king sat on the way, it was supposed to give him a trotter from the famous stable of the hospitable host. On it, in the event of a chase, he would be inaccessible. Harrison accepted the trotter with gratitude, but ordered the king to give the horse of one of the soldiers of the convoy. Not far from Windsor, an interesting conversation took place between Karl and Harrison. "I heard," Karl said, "that you are involved in a conspiracy to kill me." Garrison replied, "As for me, I despise such base and hidden undertakings." The king can be calm about this. What happens to him "will happen before the eyes of the whole world."

At Windsor, the guard of the prisoner was entrusted to Colonel Tomlinson. He received instructions to transfer the king to a stricter regime: reduce the number of his servants, constantly guard the door behind which Charles was, one officer should be with the king day and night. Walking was allowed only on the terrace of the castle. Dates were forbidden. The servants of the king, under oath, were obliged to immediately report everything they learn about the impending escape.

From now on, the preparation of the court was accelerated. Members of the Military Council switched to the barracks regime. During the day, many of them, as members of Parliament, sat in the House of Commons, at night - in the Army Council. There was general excitement and tension. Fell in fits and starts. And the political passions around the impending trial only flared up. Meanwhile, parliament as a mechanism of power was essentially paralyzed. The meetings of the House of Commons often did not collect the quorum necessary for the voting of the issues under consideration - 40 members.

When, on December 23, the House decided to create a committee to consider the question of how the king could be brought to justice, members of Parliament began to flee from London - the most experienced lawyers and clerks, that is, precisely those on whom the development of the legal formula of the court depended . London left Selden, Whitelock, Waldrington. Chief Justices Henry Roll, Oliver St. Johns, John Wilde refused to participate in the trial. All of them were appointed to these positions by Parliament, were in his service as staunch opponents of the royal prerogative, and yet they all did not want to become participants in the court. Where for them was the line between the right to fight against the king and the right to judge him, between self-interest and principles, what were these principles in fact? All these questions are difficult to answer.

On January 1, 1649, Henry Marten introduced a draft ordinance in the House of Commons on behalf of the "preparatory committee", which read:

“Since it is known that Charles Stewart, the present King of England, not content with the many infringements on the rights and freedoms of the people, committed by his predecessors, set out to completely destroy the ancient and fundamental laws and rights of this nation and introduce in their place an arbitrary and tyrannical government, for which he unleashed a terrible war against Parliament and the people, which devastated the country, exhausted the treasury, suspended useful employment and trade, and cost the lives of many thousands of people ... treacherously and maliciously sought to enslave the English nation ... To the fear of all future rulers who may try to do something likewise, the king shall be brought before a special judicial chamber, composed of 150 members, appointed by this parliament, presided over by two chief justices.”

This is an extremely important and very curious historical document. First of all, it clearly and unequivocally condemned absolutism as a political (state) system, but at the same time it did not condemn royal power as such. England continued to be conceived of as a monarchy. Charles I was brought to trial for abuses of royal power, but he remained king in the dock, moreover, it was as a king who abused his power that he had to stand trial.

But events were clearly ahead of plans: they led even the most cowardly independents of the army and parliament forward.

The fact is that the resolution of the House of Commons we have quoted could acquire the force of law only by being approved by the House of Lords. This chamber, since 1642 (i.e., the first civil war between the King and Parliament), has existed more formally than in fact. The vast majority of peers, having, as expected, on the side of the king, left Westminster - 80 out of 100 members of the House of Lords. By the end of 1648, there were usually six Lords in the House of Lords, presided over by the Earl of Manchester. In mid-December, the Lords adjourned their session for the Christmas holidays. On January 2, 1649, 12 Lords came to the House in view of the exceptional importance of the issue. The most interesting thing is how they behaved in such a delicate matter. The Earl of Manchester, who commanded the parliamentary divisions of the so-called Eastern Association in the war against the king, now declared: "The king alone has the right to call or dissolve parliament, and therefore it is absurd to accuse him of betraying the parliament, over which he towered as the highest legal authority in the country." The Earl of Northumberland, who supported Parliament throughout the civil war, expressed his opinion as follows: “It is unlikely that even one person in 20 will agree with the statement that the King, and not Parliament, started the war. Without a preliminary clarification of this circumstance, it is impossible to accuse the king of high treason. Approximately the same behaved and other peers.

As a result, the House of Lords unanimously rejected the ordinance proposed by the House of Commons to bring Charles I to trial. Following this, the lords announced a week-long break in meetings and hastily left the capital. However, the House of Commons "cleansed by the Pride" was ready for such a course of events. On January 4, she declared that as the only chamber elected by the people, and the people are the source of all just power, she is the highest authority in the country and her decisions do not need to be confirmed by any other chamber. The few names of peers that appeared there were deleted from the list of members of the special court. It was a truly historic step.

The official proclamation of the principle “the people are the source of all power under God” was not only a forced constitutional act in order to eliminate the House of Lords from the future state structure, but at the same time it most clearly indicated where the source of political courage and determination of the organizers of the court should be sought. An unprecedented step in politics was possible only as an expression of the will of the people of England who took up arms.

This constitutional act did something unexpected for its authors and inspirers: it crossed out the old, monarchical constitution of England, according to which Parliament legislates in two chambers, headed by the king. Henceforth, the parliament actually declared itself unicameral. Consequently, formally the republican system was in fact introduced much earlier than the official declaration of England as a republic, and the House of Lords - non-existent. On January 6, the House of Commons passed an act establishing a special high court for the trial of the king, consisting of 135 members appointed by Parliament.

This finally stopped all attempts to influence the parliament and the army in order to prevent a trial. And there have been many such attempts. Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I, who was in Paris, addressed the Parliament and Fairfax with personal messages. The French Resident in London made an official presentation to Parliament on the same occasion on behalf of his Government. The Scottish Commissioners in London asked the House of Commons to prevent a trial. Street sermons of the enemies of the army - Presbyterians, an extensive stream of leaflets, Presbyterian and royalist, exhorted, threatened, intimidated with the mortal sin of "shedding innocent blood", "Egyptian executions of inevitable retribution." England, and above all the capital, was filled with disturbing and contradictory rumors. The streets and squares looked like anthills. Everyone eagerly caught the news, shouts of heralds were heard somewhere, dumps and street fights arose. But several regiments stationed in the city quickly restored order.

It is characteristic that in these critical days he "washed his hands" - went north "on personal business" - none other than John Lilburn, the illustrious leveler, champion of the "natural rights" of the poor people of England. What guided them? After all, he was a staunch enemy of the monarchy and the tyranny of the House of Lords, he demanded the establishment of a republic with a unicameral parliament in the days when Cromwell and Ayrton were still outspoken monarchists and supporters of the traditional constitution. Most likely, Lilburn finally and irrevocably lost faith in the democracy of "his recent allies - the officer elite." He feared that the execution of the king would lead to the establishment of an open, unlimited dictatorship of grand officers in the country, and did not want to forge "new chains of England" with his own hands. When his fears came true, Lilburn publicly recognized the execution of the king as an illegal act and preferred the traditional monarchy to the arbitrariness of the officers' council.

Finally, among the king's judges there was not another prominent figure in the Independent party - a member of parliament, Sir Henry Vane. And this is astonishing, for, not long before, he had used all his influence and eloquence to get the Presbyterian agreement with the king repealed by Parliament. However, after the "Pride Purge" of the chamber, he stopped attending its sessions. He was against the trial of the king, not on political principles, but because he considered it an illegal act of forcible "cleansing of the chamber" by the Pride. The open violation of parliamentary privilege by the army foreshadowed the nature of the government that was to be established in the not too distant future in the country. Yi Wen was unwilling to participate in the establishment of a military dictatorship by passing the death sentence on Charles I.

Let us now turn to those who did not leave, for political or personal reasons, could not leave the organization of the court. Far from all the supporters of parliament could bear this burden, for it is one thing to come out, even with a sword in hand, against the arbitrary rule of the king, and quite another thing to swing this sword at the head of the crowned bearer.

In the meantime, the list of 135 members of the Special Trial Chamber has been published. It opened with the noble name of Thomas Fairfax, although his baronial title is of Scottish and not English origin. Then came Lord Musoy, whose title was of Irish origin, and the two eldest sons of English peers, Lord Gray and Lord Leslie. Finally, the list of "noble judges" included 11 baronets, whose titles were in most cases bought for money in the recent past.

Further we find among the judges representatives of the gentry of many counties and decent mayors and aldermen of the most important cities (York, Newcastle, Hull, Liverpool, Cambridge, Dorchester, etc.). In a word, the compilers of the list clearly took care to present the court as a national matter, the matter of the entire English people. John Bradshaw, Chief Justice of Cheshire, was appointed President, as the Chief Justices of England, as we have seen, decidedly refused this mission.

The first meeting of the High Court of Justice (as the tribunal was called) took place on 8 January at the Palace of Westminster. Judges were appointed to draw up a formula for accusing the king - they turned out to be John Cook, Anthony Steele, John Ele and a scientist, an immigrant from Holland, Isaac Dorislau.

On January 19, it was time to transport the prisoner from Windsor to the court. A carriage with six horses was brought to the castle; on both sides of the road to the outer gates of the castle stood ranks of musketeers, and as soon as the carriage left the castle, it was surrounded by a detachment of cavalry under the command of Harrison. When the king was taken to the Thames, he was transferred to a barge waiting on the shore, which was escorted along the river by boats with soldiers on board. At the wharf of Sir Robert Cotton, the king was put ashore, and between two close ranks of foot soldiers was brought to the house chosen as the residence of Charles for the duration of the trial. The house was guarded around the clock by 200 infantrymen and a detachment of cavalry. On January 20, at about two o'clock in the afternoon, the members of the court, preceded by 20 guards armed with halberds, and clerks carrying a sword and scepter - signs of supreme power, entered the hall and took their places. Their benches were covered with red cloth. The chairman's chair was on a raised platform. On both sides of it were the chairs of his two assistants - William Say and John Leslie. All three were wearing black judicial robes. In front of them was the secretary's desk and, a little way off, a chair upholstered in red for the defendant. First, an act of parliament was read, according to which the court received its powers. Bradshaw then ordered the accused to be brought in. While waiting for him, the secretary proceeded to the roll call of the members of the court. When Fairfax's name was called, a masked woman in one of the nearby galleries shouted something. It was Lady Fairfax who said the famous line, "He's too smart to be here." But then the king appeared in a black dress, surrounded by 12 soldiers. As a sign of non-recognition of the powers of the court, he deliberately kept his hat on. Without looking around, Carl quickly walked over and sat down in the chair designated for him with his back to the audience. The guards took their places at the barrier.

Bradshaw spoke: “Charles Stewart, King of England, the Commons of England, assembled in Parliament ... in accordance with their duty to God, the nation and to themselves, in accordance with the authority and confidence that their people have endowed, established this high court of justice. before which you appeared. Hear the accusation against you." Accuser John Cook arose from his seat and said: “My lords, in the name of the communities of England and all the people of the country, I accuse Charles Stewart, who is present here, of treason. In the name of the communities of England, I wish that the charge be read."

During the reading, the king tried several times to interrupt the reader, but to no avail.

The main charges were: “As king of England, Charles was endowed with limited power to govern the country in accordance with the laws, and not otherwise. However, he took on the cunning purpose of establishing and appropriated for himself an unlimited and tyrannical power in order to rule at will, destroying the rights and privileges of the people; pursuing this goal, he treacherously and maliciously declared war on parliament and the people represented in it. Then Charles was accused of preparing a "foreign invasion" of England, and the criminality of the second civil war unleashed by him was pointed out. "And all this was taken for the sole purpose of upholding personal interest, arbitrariness and a claim to prerogatives for himself and the royal family, to the detriment of the public interest, common law, freedom, justice and peace of the people of this country." So, "Karl is responsible for all treason, murder, violence, fires, robberies, losses ... caused to the nation in these wars." In the name of the people of England, "the aforementioned Charles is called to account as a tyrant, a traitor, a public and merciless enemy of the English state."

The execution took place on January 30, 1649. The day turned out to be surprisingly frosty. The Thames was covered with ice. On the square, fenced on three sides by the buildings of the royal palace of Whitehall, the sound of axes was heard - there were final preparations for a public execution. Here a platform was built on which Karl was to die. At two o'clock in the afternoon, the king, dressed in black, accompanied by a reinforced military escort, appeared in the square. The platform was surrounded by several lines of cavalry, which separated the place of execution from the audience. The whole area was crowded with people, many climbed onto the street lamps, balconies and roofs of the surrounding houses. The executioner and his assistant stood ready on the platform. The duties of the latter included raising the severed head high, shouting: "Here is the head of a traitor!" They were wearing half-masks and, besides, they were made up (mustache and beard were glued to them), in the clothes of sailors. The platform was draped in black. The king ascended the scaffold, accompanied by the bishop, chosen by him as confessor. Looking around, he took a folded sheet out of his pocket and turned to the guards, for others could not hear him, with a "parting word." Then, kneeling down, he laid his head on the chopping block and after a few moments stretched his hands forward - this was a sign to the executioner, and he cut off his head with one swing of the ax.

The deed was done. The cavalry quickly dispersed the crowd, and the square was deserted. By this act, the first social revolution of modern times most visibly revealed a number of connections from which it is more than inadmissible to be distracted when analyzing the history of it and those like it: firstly, a revolution, if it is really a popular one, cannot but reflect the level of civilization of its leaders; secondly, the lower ranks of the people for centuries went through a school of cruelty shown to them by those in power, could they forget these lessons at the moment when they prevailed over those who instructed them in this ethics for so long; finally, thirdly, really great revolutions, opening up new world-historical epochs, breaking open the citadel of the old order, collide with fierce resistance from its arbiters and guardians; those who dare to rebel are plunged into a bloody civil slaughter. Such is the course of history: the pioneer peoples pay dearly for the progress of all mankind.

Legal and illegal printed leaflets quickly spread the news of what had happened throughout the country. The impact of this event was enormous. It was difficult for a resident of the counties remote from London to believe in its reality. “A neighbor, meeting a neighbor on the street, speaks with difficulty with him, and this is not so much from horror at what has happened, but from surprise that such an unheard-of deed has nevertheless happened” - this is how a Yorkshire resident draws a reaction to the execution of the king.

Charles was executed as king, but even after his execution, England was still a monarchy. The Republic was not proclaimed. Thus, there was a legal possibility for the supporters of the king to immediately proclaim the king of the heir to the crown, who was in exile, the Prince of Wales - the future Charles II. Parliament, literally on the day of execution, caught on and hastily voted a bill forbidding this kind of act under pain of severe punishment. The Lord Mayor of the capital, known for his royalist sympathies, refused to proclaim it.

Many days passed before the "regicides" led by Cromwell became convinced that they would have to become nominal Republicans willy-nilly.

This term has other meanings, see Charles II. Charles II Charles II ... Wikipedia

King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who ruled in 1625-1648. Son of James 1 and Anna of Denmark. Woman: from June 12, 1625 Henrietta Maria, daughter of King Henry IV of France (b. 1609, d. 1669). Genus. November 29, 1600, d. Jan 30 1649… … All the monarchs of the world

King of England and Scotland from the Stuart dynasty, who ruled in 1660-1685. Son of Charles I and Henrietta of France. Woman: from 1662 Catherine, daughter of King João IV of Portugal (b. 1638, d. 1705). Genus. May 29, 1630, d. Feb 16 1685 In the very ... All the monarchs of the world

Charles I of Anjou Charles I d Anjou Statue of Charles of Anjou on the facade of the royal palace in Naples ... Wikipedia

King of Spain from the Bourbon dynasty, who ruled in 1788 1808. Woman: from 1765 Maria Luisa, daughter of Philippe, Duke of Parma (b. 1751, d. 1819) November 11, 1748, d. Jan 19 1819 Before taking the throne, Charles lived completely idle ... All the monarchs of the world

Wikipedia has articles about other people with the name Karl. Charles VI Mad fr. Charles VI le Fol, ou le Bien Aimé ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Charles II. Charles II Carlos II ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Charles IV. Charles IV Carlos IV ... Wikipedia

Charles II Evil Charles II de Navarre, Charles le Mauvais ... Wikipedia

Charles V (Charles I) Karl V., Carlos I Portrait of Charles V in an armchair by Titian Emperor ... Wikipedia

Books

• Writings, Karl Marx. PREFACE TO THE FIRST VOLUME The first volume of the Works of K. Marx and F. Engels contains works written by them in 1839 1844, before the start of the creative community of the founders of scientific ...
• Collection of Monarchs, Tatiana Vinnichenko, Elena Butakova, Mikhail Dubinyansky. The collection `Monarchs` includes twelve biographical essays, the heroes of which are: King of the Franks Charlemagne, Queen of England and France Eleanor of Aquitaine, founder of the Timurid Empire...

A. VENEDIKTOV - This is “Everything is so”, our author Natalia Basovskaya and Alexei Venediktov. Today we are talking about Charles I of England - I almost said which dynasty he belongs to, I won’t say! Charles I of England, what do we know about him? "20 years later", Dumas, cut off his head - perhaps this. Then, we know "The White Glove" by Mine Reed, then we know ... everything.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Good afternoon!

A. VENEDIKTOV - Good afternoon!

N. BASOVSKAYA - Indeed, Karl provides material, his life, not for one novel, for many. But we will try to look at it today not through the eyes of novelists, but through the eyes of historians who ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - But romantic historians.

N. BASOVSKAYA - It seems to me that if a historian is real, he is necessarily a little bit romantic. Because a great novel... history is a great novel that humanity writes about itself endlessly, it must somehow influence our nature. With an element of romanticism, but we will try and get closer to the truth. I would call Charles I a man repressed by the revolution.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Oh my God!

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, yes. Here's how strange it sounds. I will start with this explanation. For he was sentenced by a revolutionary court according to the laws of the revolution, quickly - in just ... less than a month. In early January, this court was created by a decision of Parliament, no such courts were provided for by the famous English constitution, which is not a book, but a series of very strict laws beginning in the 13th century. There were no such courts. And on January 30 they were already executed. Less than a month has passed. And at the trial, Charles I defended the right - that, that feudal, in essence, the right by which he received the throne, by which he tried to rule, making grandiose mistakes, of course, but he always showed the judges what such a law is to judge and to execute the king, there is not even a hint of this in parliament. Because there was a long tradition after the Magna Carta, worked out for a long time, sealed by an agreement between the king and parliament, what parliament has the right to and what not. Of course, he did not understand that a revolution was taking place. In essence, the word is something well-known, with the Latin root "revolutio" - "rollback, coup." It has been used in the natural sciences since the 14th century. The work of Copernicus "On the rotation of the celestial spheres", as translated into Russian, contains just "De revolutionibus" - about movement, rotation, rotation and return movement.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Rotation.

N. BASOVSKAYA - And from the 17th century, just, right, from the time of the ill-fated Charles I, they began to apply this concept of "revolution" to the events of social life, where, in general, in the assessment of the 17th century - then the 18th, 19th will change this - contained a negative assessment. It is a rollback of social life from order to disorder.

A. VENEDIKTOV - A rollback from order to disorder.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Of course. To chaos, to arbitrariness, to misfortunes. I compared it here ... revolutions are often compared to natural disasters. There is only one very ... indeed, it seems: destruction, a lot of grief, it is impossible to stop until some stage. But it is difficult to imagine that people, some large part of society, were so happy about this chaos, as in a revolution, so, for example, in a natural disaster. "Hurray, tornado!" “What happiness, finally an earthquake!”. We cannot imagine this. And in social life, most of society says "Hurrah!" and performs a demonstration execution of the king. Charles I, so to speak, is especially significant in history, that this execution was indicative. On behalf of the people, according to revolutionary law, publicly, publicly. Well, we know a certain party that shot the royal family in the basement somehow ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - But that was much later.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Somehow stealthily, yes. And it was a historic event. And the British, most of the English society understood this very well. This is how Charles I is known. But, in general, it was a man, in any case. And let's take a look at his personal biography, his personality. What is he? Why so proudly ascended the scaffold? Proudly. Why didn't you repent? The bishop who received his last, there, confession, on the scaffold already says to him: “There is one last step left, sir. Difficult, scary, but very short. You will exchange the temporary kingdom for the eternal kingdom – a good change.” I wanted to comfort you like this. But regardless of this, Charles personally with his head held high - here Dumas conveyed all this correctly ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Well, yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - And with the word "remember", "remember", which he hardly addressed to d'Artagnan, although d'Artagnan is a real person, a contemporary of events - this is true, but he fought in the southwest there. But in fact, remember, I think he was speaking to humanity - well, to English society. Remember, remember that this was not a righteous, not a faithful execution. Well, you and I know that they returned to the monarchy.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Well, yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - And they returned very quickly. But not to the way Karl, the heir to the Middle Ages, wanted to see her. He wanted to exercise traditional one-man rule. And time has gone. And he was pursued only by failure. And yet, first of all, what a life. Born November 19, 1600.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Baby Millennium.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, and one of the researchers called him "an unfortunate, unlucky nature." That's absolutely right. Here is such a round date of birth, everything seems to be fine. He lived, spent his childhood in the shadow of his charming older brother Henry...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes, he is the second son - very important.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, the second son.

A. VENEDIKTOV - He was not the heir.

N. BASOVSKAYA - This is extremely important for the royal family. From the very beginning it was clear to him, he knew that he would not be king. There will be Henry, older, attractive, self-confident, popular in English society, on whom hopes are pinned. Because Charles's father, James I, is, of course, a gloomy creature. Villainous, I would say. And so, all hope ... society always places its hopes on something, under a monarchy - on an heir. And this heir died in 1612, when this second brother, our character, Karl, was only 12 years old. So, he…

A. VENEDIKTOV - In the 5th grade. In the 5th grade.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Boy. Child.

A. VENEDIKTOV - A boy, yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - An accidental heir. And, as one of the English explorers put it, sadly unfit to rule. Why? Well, let's take a closer look: a slight stutter, shyness, which instantly turns into arrogance - not only among kings. And he will become king. There is almost no border between shyness and outward arrogance.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Protection.

N. BASOVSKAYA - This is a defense against shyness.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Self-defense, yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - This is the wall that he is building. And sudden fits of anger are added to this. Those. all these personal qualities are not very good. As experts write, he began - narrow specialists in this field - they began to prepare him for the throne from the age of 12. First, it's late. This is really already a person, especially in the Middle Ages, this is just a young man. Secondly, I, well, did not have a chance to establish in detail what this training consisted of, but at a superficial glance, mainly dances, manners, music and the history of ancestors, like everything ... how to rule - he learned all this.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes, but dad is still a disgusting person.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Dad is a villain, conspiracies are all around, but the sciences, the real high intellectual development of the child, as it were ... either it was too late to show interest, or there were no people who would prompt, and he limited himself to dancing, court manners, courtiers behavior, court traditions - which then he tried to blindly follow, to fulfill this, in an era that, in essence, had already turned upside down. He became king in 1625. Young, very young. And as the sources show, very benevolent towards this mission - in what sense? His first speech in parliament... such a mechanism: the king commands, the parliament executes. It is strictly known that the parliament, first of all, limits the king in financial matters, and in the rest he commands and commands. And he makes his first speech: about his youth, about his good intentions...

A. VENEDIKTOV - He is 25 years old, yes, somewhere? 23, 25 ... He ascended in the 25th year, right?

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, in the 25th he ascended ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - So, 25 years.

N.BASOVSKAYA - 25 years old.

A. VENEDIKTOV - 25 years old.

N. BASOVSKAYA - I don’t care about arithmetic ... Well, it happens ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - What am I for? What am I here for? Count!

N.BASOVSKAYA - Thank God! (laughs)

N.BASOVSKAYA - And he speaks about his good intentions. About the good-heartedness with which he is ready to interact with Parliament. But already in this first speech sounds what will become, in essence, the mourning motif of his life. “I agree that the parliament participates in something there, corrects my actions - but only at my command.” This idea of ​​a command was just almost maniacal in him. But for her it was. In fact, all the interactions between the Parliament and the royal power in England for several centuries were formed, took shape as an agreement. Like an agreement between two parties. And what the royal power agrees to, then Parliament will get it. And so, young, attractive, set up in this way, having stated at the first steps that he would command, he was not yet doomed. Still could be corrected. But failed. First of all, he found his evil genius - Karl's first favorite. Ultimately, Karl turned out to be a man, well, for his position in society, morally proper. As it happens - the irony of fate - they executed so publicly and so demonstratively not the worst in the moral sense. But on the first steps in his youth, even before the coronation, two years before he became a king, a prince - but already a prince-heir.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - He chose as his favorite, as a confidante, a man only 8 years older than himself - George Villiers, the Duke, known as the Duke of Buckingham. Of course Duma...

A. VENEDIKTOV - You are well acquainted with the Duke of Buckingham.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Yes, Dumas paid tribute to him, but in Buckingham he looks like ... in Dumas he looks like the real Buckingham, as they sometimes joke, like a schooner to a cruiser. Those. completely different.

A. VENEDIKTOV - A schooner for a cruiser, yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - There is no this noble ... in reality there was not that noble handsome man, I don’t know, an ardent romantic, but there was a completely different person. Frivolous, defiantly frivolous. Adoring flattery and petty, petty, petty ambitious. He had to stand out in everything, even in a suit, to be richer than everyone else, more beautiful than everyone else, more luxurious than everyone ... he adored court adventures, he adored court adventures. And he pushed Karl on one famous adventure: in 1623 he persuaded the prince incognito ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Then still a prince.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Prince - two years before the coronation.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Go incognito to Madrid in order to see his supposed bride, the Spanish Infanta, ahead of time. Well, a completely unconventional act, well, frankly, a trick. But come on ... here are two fairly young people, one is very young, the second ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Well, 30 years old and 22, yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, that's enough. Charles called himself on this journey a knight-errant, Buckingham - his servant. At the same time, everyone in Spain knew who they really were. And Spanish society was shocked – strict, Catholic, super-Catholic, a society where the Counter-Reformation triumphed, where Calvinistic ideas were impossible, etc., where there was a ferocious inquisition, where there was a strict court. This frivolous adventure, somehow not even in English, but rather in the French spirit - why Dumas was then so fond of these plots - it shocked them. He did not see the Infanta, but ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - It was impossible.

N. BASOVSKAYA - But the marriage was, in fact, destroyed by this, because this trick spoiled ... well, there were also political motives, but, in any case, personal ones too. And then Buckingham, a little later, distinguished himself again: he was sent as a negotiator, an ambassador-negotiator, to France to talk about another marriage, with a French princess. And in essence, he had to simply strictly follow these instructions, to persuade the French princess ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - For the heir to the English throne.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, for the heir, absolute, an honorable marriage. But Buckingham behaved so wildly in France, gave a lot of material for Dumas. He simply defiantly and shockingly for that society began to court the young Queen Anne of Austria.

A. VENEDIKTOV - And he almost raped her, in fact. She called for help. She called for help!

N.BASOVSKAYA - Rape in the spirit of that time. He probably wanted to see her ankle. But she screamed as in the most brutal rape.

A. VENEDIKTOV - This was the favorite of the young heir Charles, and he remained his favorite when Charles ascended the throne. We will continue after the news.

NEWS

A. VENEDIKTOV - Natalia Basovskaya and Alexei Venediktov, we settled on the fact that the Duke of Buckingham still betrothed the French princess ...

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes.

A. VENEDIKTOV - ... despite the scandals at the French court, Karl also got married.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Let's just explain more precisely on whom.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Buckingham came to marry the English heir to the sister of Louis XIII of France, Maria Henrietta, and at the same time began to personally court Louis XIII's wife Anna of Austria, making an unfavorable impression. He appeared at some royal reception all sprinkled with diamonds, in satin, in silks, in furs ... i.e. this is not the best description he gave to the future English king. But by the way, it was a mistake. In the moral, so to speak, domestic life, Charles I later turned out to be very moral for that ... in terms of that time, he was very devoted to his wife, this very Maria Henrietta. At first they had a somewhat distant relationship, they also attribute this to Buckingham, as it were, an evil genius, and then, after Buckingham's death, they became very close ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Who was stabbed with a dagger after all.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, Buckingham was killed by a religious fanatic in 1628, John Felton. This is very colorfully described by Dumas, there is Milady ... there was a Milady, there was a certain Lady Carlisle, who really cut off the pendants - this whole story is true. But now it's not about her. Buckingham was killed, as it were, for personal reasons by this Felton, but unlike Dumas' version, there was jubilation in London. The king imprisoned the murderer in the tower - so the people gathered around this tower, the poets sang about "our little David", who opposed Goliath-Buckingham, called him the liberator, etc. Of course, they were very mistaken: Buckingham was replaced by others - Strafford, Laud, people who were also quite biased and acting in the traditions of extreme absolutism - something that corresponded to the convictions of Charles I Stuart. And this is his conviction, this discrepancy between the times, in essence, has already moved him to the scaffold. Parliament, the so-called long parliament, which is already showing obstinacy, disobedience, “we will develop new laws”, which has a religious ... a powerful religious banner - a powerful banner of the Protestant religion, the Protestant reform. They are divided into currents - there, for example, dependents, levelers, then extreme leftists, diggers, will appear. But they have a banner, they have the conviction that absolutism must, at least in the first steps, be severely limited. And Charles I at this very time gives the order: in all the churches of England to preach the doctrine of blind obedience. And reinforces his arrogant tone in dialogue with Parliament, "by birthright," as he says. Violates, well, for example, an age-old tradition ... just examples of his erroneous steps. Personally appears at the meeting of Parliament, accompanied by 400 armed men - this is a gross violation of centuries-old traditions - to arrest the leaders of the opposition. The same Countess of Carlisle warned them, they fled - he did not arrest anyone. And he caused anger and irritation that he violated these centuries-old traditions.

A. VENEDIKTOV - By the way, even then he uttered the historical phrase "and the birds flew away."

N.BASOVSKAYA - They flew away. He, as if, in some sense, like this, moral and emotional, behaved on the scaffold. Here are all these actions, deeds, tones that do not correspond. When he realized that a war with parliament was inevitable, instead of avoiding this war, he went to meet it. Because for the sake of those ideals that he considers so high, so important - absolute obedience, and all rights are given only by the king, including parliament - with this, in general, a medieval feudal shield, he wants to break into the beginning industrial revolution. Those. he is thus doomed. But where he got such individual blindness is hard to say. But I have some kind of such a version, I want it ... It is not scientific at all, it is just emotional, for reflection. Here the Stuart family looks somehow cursed. You mentioned, Alexey Alekseevich, quite rightly, that his own grandmother, after 20 years of imprisonment, was executed - not as defiantly as Karl, not as revealingly, not by the verdict of the people, but, as it were, on charges of conspiracies, and conspiracies, maybe they were. The execution was cruel, the executioner failed to cut off this woman's head with the first blow, i.e. it was some wicked story. But it is characteristic of the Stuart family in general. They are from Scotland. What are they? They are from Scotland - origin. And from the bottom, not from a high family. In general, "Stuart", literally - "manager of the house." And in a sense, a servant. And a certain Stuart in the 11th century married the daughter of the legendary Scottish king Robert I the Bruce. And on this occasion they become - not by blood - they join the kingdom. Firstly, and Bruce is not a born king, but rather a folk hero-liberator - this is ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - But still a count's family.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, but ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Still, Tan.

N. BASOVSKAYA - But he is an aristocrat.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes. Still Tan.

N.BASOVSKAYA - And not the Stuarts. And the Stuarts are servants, strictly speaking. And now, damn it, it has been in effect for several centuries. I will name only a few examples from the 15th century. James I - stabbed to death by the barons. They live in eternal contradiction with the barons, because the Scottish barons are almost yesterday's tribal leaders, special Douglases. Wild and absolutely not obeying any laws - well, field commanders. Jacob II - died when a cannon burst. So why did she suddenly break?

A. VENEDIKTOV - Scottish. These are not English, Scottish kings.

N.BASOVSKAYA - These are the Scottish kings.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Everything is in Scotland. Died when the gun exploded.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Scottish numbering, yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Exactly, it exploded right next to him. James III of Scotland died in battle, but was presumably stabbed in the back by his own traitors. James IV - everything seems to be fine: married to the daughter of the English king, Henry VII - fell in battle with the British at the Battle of Flodden - the Scots have been fighting for their independence all their lives. James V, father of Mary Stuart, abandoned by the barons in battle with the English, lost two sons in battle, went mad on this ground, and died insane a few days after the birth of Mary Stuart - i.e. something so gloomy has already been written for her, too. Well, VI is the father of our Charles I ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - James VI of Scotland, aka James I of England.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes. Elizabeth's will...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - I think that at the very source of his power is a terrible, unseemly moral deed. He gave moral consent to the execution of his mother. Without this execution, he would not have been recorded as the heir.

A. VENEDIKTOV - ... to the kings, yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Silent, but unconditional moral consent. Those. damned clan, a clan in which there are many dark pages, gloomy, and in the person of this Charles I, his representative, he, as it were, was punished once again for everything, for everything, for everything, so colorful, so demonstrative, so ... to the whole world of that time. And the face of Charles I itself is not the most, upon close examination, unattractive. It's just that he was absolutely not prepared for the era, and I think this was a big fault of those who surrounded him. Teaching the dances of a ruler is important, but not enough. And therefore, he was, as it were, preparing a sentence for himself all the time. But I must say, not without a struggle. We will be unfair if we do not say that Jacob I tried to fight for his monarchical convictions, for what he considered a boon for England, he was a warrior - he was not limited to dancing, no. And in essence, he went towards the first civil war of 1642-46. He saw that it was impossible to do without it, and he staked on the monarchical-minded North of England - the nobility of the north - and on Scotland. Still...

A. VENEDIKTOV - At home.

N. BASOVSKAYA - ... that native, where there were roots. But then they sold it. In the truest sense of the word, for 400 thousand pounds sterling ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Not a bad amount.

N. BASOVSKAYA - ... they sold him ... Just, here, they sold him right away. And handed over to this very court of parliament. But after. And so, he organizes resistance, he fights ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - This is called "raising the royal standard."

N.BASOVSKAYA - Raises high, and the standard, symbolizing exactly, in the truest sense of the word, absolute obedience. But he has supporters - royalists, Scots, to a certain extent, Irish - but to a certain extent. They support as long as they think they are acting in the name of their independence. Therefore, they are very unreliable allies. But the war has begun. What again he did not understand, as it seems to me, is very important: that the same revolutionary country stands against his efforts, with that new meaning of the revolution, which he has not yet digested, the epoch has not digested. And this country has got its own charismatic leader Oliver Cromwell, a man, of course, gifted, talented, can be a character in one of our programs.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - An excellent commander, truly religiously deeply believing in the reformed ... in the idea of ​​​​a completely reformed church, in Protestantism. Strong man. But the most important thing - he would not have done anything alone - he creates a new one ... step by step, with the support of parliament, a new revolutionary army is born, which the parliament recognizes as legitimate. For the mentality of the British, this is very important - the parliament considers it legal. Cromwell's "round-headed" or "iron-sided" - who are they? This is this very rebellious people who no longer want to live under extreme absolutism - they will then be horrified by the horrors of the revolution, they will correct themselves, but now they do not want to. These are artisans, these are peasants, these are people who believe in their justice and are very religious. The strength of this army, which Karl Stuart did not understand, also consisted in the fact that these are people going into battle not just singing psalms, like a soldier's song for a rhythmic step - no. They sing with their hearts, they believe that God is on their side, everyone carries this faith in their hearts, and the "iron-sided" become an insurmountable barrier for the traditional royal army, where everything is completely different, where there is just a symbol, a sign, a standard, military discipline, combat techniques coming from the Middle Ages, but there is no such thing ... well, you say "fanaticism" - it seems like you want to say something bad - but deafening faith. And Cromwell's army, in essence - Charles I realized this late - it was irresistible, invincible for his royal efforts and for his traditional royal army. Charles I had to surrender to the Scots in 1646. And after a few...

A. VENEDIKTOV - He even decided to take refuge with them, let's say so.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes. He thought that after all, here are the roots ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - His countrymen, direct subjects.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Direct. He considered himself Scottish.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Passed for 400 thousand pounds. And yet there was a second civil war, in 1648. Charles I fled, and again to the Scots. Nowhere.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Nowhere, nowhere. To the Isle of Wight, yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - There is nowhere else to go. They are losing. I must say that the Scots, and in general, the fate of Scotland in the Middle Ages is a very interesting story, it is a constant ongoing battle for the independence of a very small, very few ethnically different people - these are the descendants of the Celts, not the Germans, like the Angles, Saxons, Britons, Jutes and others inhabiting Britain. This is a different tradition, a different culture, this is a different stage of social development - there, beyond the Scottish mountains. Their tribal structure collapsed much more slowly. And such is this wildness of the highlanders, it was very strong. But they were ready to do anything to defend their independence. They entered into an alliance with France, which is completely logical: if this is the sworn enemy of the British, then this is their ally. And there was a long, complex, legally worked out union. But they knew how to fight only in the conditions of their mountains, where, behold, their partisan tactics, semi-barbarian, were completely irresistible. But as soon as they entered the English expanses, with their military organization, they were sure to be defeated by a more structured, more organized even feudal English army - and there’s nothing to say about the “iron-sided”, they are not material for resistance for them. And so his bet on the Scots, so understandable, so humanly natural, was just as hopeless. The Scots endured...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Well, in general, he was quite an idealist in his personal life, in general.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes.

A. VENEDIKTOV - In people, including people. Which, by the way ... he handed them over. That he betrayed Strafford, who was executed ...

N.BASOVSKAYA - Passed.

A. VENEDIKTOV - ... Count Strafford, gave his adviser, he was cut off his head.

N.BASOVSKAYA - And Loda.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes, Archbishop Lod. Weak.

N. BASOVSKAYA - These were his ardent followers. Let them do...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Advisors, advisors.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Advisers, yes. … made mistakes with him. But I must say, what is noted, here, the surviving sources, he was not very deeply worried. Even Buckingham's departure ... he, however, then supported his relatives, did not repress anyone, but so that he suffered, suffered, tried, there, to commit suicide on the basis of the death of his closest associates - no, he didn’t have this, somehow then such detachment - apparently, again from the idea that he is completely special.

A. VENEDIKTOV - State wisdom. state wisdom.

N. BASOVSKAYA - He is one - everything. He is from God, his power is from God. He had another interesting -- one important interesting touch in politics. He was ready, perhaps due to his nature, some such inner detachment from some aspects of life, he was ready to accept ... well, not that religious tolerance is impossible in this era - but a certain element.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Tolerance, for the era - religious tolerance.

N.BASOVSKAYA - A certain element. Yes, he was not a religious fanatic. And the revolution united religious fanaticism, reformist fanaticism ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - Puritans, yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Although this is a kind of liberation of the spirit, but liberation from the former prison, from the thousand-year dominance of the orthodox Catholic Church. But this is a different prison, also a prison of fanaticism, which I understood very well - what we talked about at one time -

Erasmus of Rotterdam never wanted to say "I join Luther." And no one could understand why - yes, because this is also fanaticism. Here it was not peculiar to Charles I. And in the era of extreme fanaticism - from all sides.

A. VENEDIKTOV - It is very important from all sides.

N. BASOVSKAYA - From all sides.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Because the wife was a fanatical Catholic - this French princess ...

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, yes. Quite right.

A. VENEDIKTOV - ... Henrietta Maria. The Puritans on the other side, led by Cromwell, were also… I imagine how they met…

N. BASOVSKAYA - They are all fanatics.

A. VENEDIKTOV - That's when he was captured in 1946, when the Scots sold him, and they all met in the palace. He lived like a prisoner, but honorably - he was a king.

N.BASOVSKAYA - Honorable, honorable, honorable.

A. VENEDIKTOV - With family ...

N. BASOVSKAYA - He was the king to the last step of the scaffold.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes. And so they met. And he refused to talk about religious topics.

N. BASOVSKAYA - He did not want ...

A. VENEDIKTOV - He spoke in poly ... he didn't want to, so he didn't want to. All Englishmen are my children. All Englishmen are my children.

N. BASOVSKAYA - And religious fanatics, on both sides, were not very happy with this. Those. he did not please anyone. I do not want to claim that he was ready for real religious tolerance. But he did not want to fall into this fanaticism. Behind him were examples of such religious fanaticism - well, Tudor, for example: Bloody Mary.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes, yes, yes.

N.BASOVSKAYA - I.e. etc. It was all known that these were regular rivers of blood. He probably had enough of these rivers that the revolution spilled. And so, he did not fall into the religious. And he didn't like it either. That is, it did not suit the then agitated revolutionary bubbling world in any way. An example is a very interesting story with the so-called ship tax. Indeed, in general, in the sub-base of this revolution, of course, are interests - monetary interests, economic interests, the interests of the development of a country that is approaching industrial shifts and a revolution. And here is the shipping fee. So he wants to introduce such, such, such a duty, which is very important for him, for raising funds, for waging wars ... All his wars are unsuccessful, external - with Spain, with France, whatever he starts, everything is unsuccessful, straight, here, some kind of curse, the same curse. But he wants to bring her in. Parliament is resisting, because it will be a lot of money for the king, it will be for them, for many merchants who are very influential in this parliament, this is unprofitable. Well, the dialogue, the traditional argument - it was in the XIV century: Edward III of England wept in parliament when he was not given money for the so-called future Hundred Years War against England. He doesn't, it's different. Well, I would burst into tears of evil tears, I would even like it. No, he claims that “you have no right to object, because all your rights to influence duties, they were given in their time by the kings. So, the royal will is over everything. And with this, this arrogant tone, this super-absolutism, which took time, the train left - it is on the platform.

A. VENEDIKTOV - But at the same time, he spoke to his judges in the same arrogant tone, already knowing the result. He didn't flinch.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Certainly. Here, he did not flinch until the last second, and probably this execution is worth talking about ... it’s worth saying about the trial and execution - you, Alexei Alekseevich, as always, hinted in time that we were just approaching the last, final tragic scene in the life of this king . The court, created by the decision of Parliament, is considering - after all, in public, some people are present, but not the masses, not the crowds, but then they take it around London. And he is insulted along the way, the people behave terribly. When he was already being led to his execution, a certain soldier got so excited that he spat in his face. Karl outwardly remained imperturbable and said: “Unhappy! Give them 6 shillings and they will do the same to their leaders." And in this aristocratic magnificence and arrogance, he was absolutely right. But the essence is trying to prove to Charles - and this is very important: these judges understood that this was a precedent - to prove to Charles that they have the right to pass sentence on the king. And he, legally competent ... and he says: there is no clause in the English constitution that allows you to judge the king. The House of Commons appointed 135 judges. 50 immediately refused. The rest, under various pretexts, many did not sign the verdict. Because this is his position that there is not a line, not a word either in English traditions or in the constitution about the right to execute the king - by this he was very embarrassed. He defended what-no, but the right. And you and I, as historians, are well aware that law, jurisprudence, and justice are the most inappropriate concepts in the era of great revolutions. And by doing so, he only brought himself closer to that last step of the scaffold, which he ascended as a king without repentance. They read out the accusation that he is accused of being an enemy of the English people, an enemy of the kingdom ... everything is so, but of course, pathetically verbally. Well, of course, he executed - he executed, which king did not execute? There were external defeats during his reign - were there, where was it not? In short, it was a shaky verdict. And then, in the future, the next bourgeois revolutions - the American in the form of a war of liberation, the French great revolution of the 18th century - will take care to record in their ... on their tablets the right of subjects to resist despotism. Because the fragility of this process, these 50 people did not accidentally hide somewhere ... by the way, some of them were later executed from among the regicides.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Judges. 13 people in total.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Yes, they were called regicides.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Yes.

N. BASOVSKAYA - And yet, the following revolutions learned from this sad experience to write down the right of subjects to resist despotism, in order to somehow cling to the right to destroy centuries-old foundations. The revolution cannot but destroy, such is its unfortunate property, but the English revolution, dragging on for almost 20 years, painful, protracted, fanatical, is one of the clearest examples of this grave social natural disaster.

A. VENEDIKTOV - This was our hero, Charles I the English Stuart - for those who did not hear. In general, he was probably a decent person in the everyday sense of the word. But his fate, his actions, his actions as a king, as a head, were… caused a tragedy. And he died.

N. BASOVSKAYA - Rather, they contributed to the tragedy.

A. VENEDIKTOV - We contributed to the tragedy.

N. BASOVSKAYA - The tragedy was already underway.

A. VENEDIKTOV - Natalia Basovskaya, Alexei Venediktov in the program "Everything is so!".