The Trial and Execution of King Charles I

Audio

While you listen

oCoder Education - English listening Audios are suitable for learners with different levels of English. Here are some ways to make them easier (if you have a lower level of English) or more difficult (if you have a higher level of English).
You can choose one or two of these suggestions – you don't have to follow all of them!

Making it easier

Read all the exercises before you listen to the audio.
Look up the words in the exercises that you don't know or don't understand in a dictionary.
Play the audio as many times as you need.
Play each part of the audio separately.
Answer all questions in the exercise.
Read the transcript after you have listened to the audio.

Making it harder

Listen to the audio before you read the exercises.
Only play the audio once before answering the questions.
Play the whole audio without a break.
Don't read the transcript.
Now, listen to the audio and do the exercises on the following tabs.
If you do not complete all the question, you can play the audio again. After that, read the dialog to make sure that you understand all word in the audio.
Why does the speaker mention Shakespeare and Marlowe?
They were popular among English kings.
Their works criticised the English monarchy.
They had written about murdered kings.
They were ashamed of the violence against monarchs.
Why does the speaker mention King Edward II?
As an example of medieval criminal justice
As an example of a king's natural death
As an example of death on the battlefield
As an example of a secret murder
What difference between the Tudor kings and Charles I does the speaker point out?
Tudor kings were accepted as representatives of God.
Tudor kings were Protestant, unlike Charles.
Tudor kings were all talented leaders.
Tudor kings seized power through violence.
What evidence does the speaker give for seeing the trial and execution of King Charles I as a 'modern idea'?
The king was tried as a private citizen.
The institution of the monarchy was on trial.
The trial was organised by an army general.
Later trials were modelled after it.
How does the speaker describe Charles's actions during his trial and execution?
Charles argued his case well.
Charles was useless as a lawyer.
Charles was afraid of dying.
Charles refused to defend himself.
What is the main purpose of the speaker's talk?
To correct any misunderstanding of a widely-known event
To point out mistakes in a historical trial
To explain the historical significance of an event
To show a historical event influencing modern thought
The trial and execution of Charles I, January, sixteen forty-nine. In the Middle Ages, many English kings had been disposed of violently, and not a few on the continent. And then, in the fifteen nineties, the fate of these kings was written up, by Marlowe and Shakespeare. We can give plenty of examples. Marlowe's Edward VII, sorry, ha ha, my mistake. Marlowe's Edward II. Murdered in a horrible way in thirteen twenty-seven. Um, Shakespeare wrote about Richard II, murdered thirteen ninety-ni- no, fourteen hundred, maybe. Um, Henry VI, also written by Shakespeare, murdered after capture in the Battle of Tewkesbury, after being captured. Then Richard III, not so much directly murdered as killed in hot blood, on the battlefield of Bosworth, fourteen, eighty-five. The very tragic, pathetic fates of the two boys, um, King Edward V and his brother Richard Duke of York, who were, possibly, murdered by Richard III, so he could seize the throne. He was their uncle. Which means that, if that was the case, Richard III got his comeuppance, two years later. Then the first Tudor king who benefited, Henry VII, didn't get a comeuppance. Died in bed, in fourteen oh ni- fifteen oh nine, a bit fearful. Mind you if, he was the one who had, murdered the boy King Edward V and his brother, then perhaps he deserved a comeuppance. But, anyway, he didn't get one. Um, what I've said, that in the Middle Ages, um, it was no, unusual event, for kings, to die a violent death. As Shakespeare said, 'uneasy lies the head, that wears the crown. ' So what was new, about the trial and execution of Charles I, in sixteen forty-nine. Well, medieval regicides, were hole in the corner affairs. Shamefaced. Essentially, what had happened is, a new monarch, maybe the son, or cousin, or whatever, of the successful_ unsuccessful deposed monarch had seized the throne. And obviously you just couldn't allow, the deposed one to live. Because there'd be a revulsion in his favour and he'd, have a come_ make a come back. You had to kill him if you wanted to carry on being king yourself. So, the poor chaps were usually deposed of, um, done away with, in some cell somewhere. All rather nasty. The nastiest death, was rumoured to be that of Edward II, in thirteen twenty-seven. The precise circumstances of which I won't go into. And then fake stories were given out, that, the king had died naturally, or died of despair or something. The imprisoned king. Um, rather nobler, at least, was Richard III's death in battle. But, Charles's, execution, came after a very long period, over one hundred and fifty years. When all that was supposed to be behind us. The Tudors, naturally, thought that it was, very much behind us. They had a great interest in doing so. Um, they pushed the idea that monarch was sacrosanct. Indeed the representative of God on Earth. Which was all the easier to do when England became Protestant. So then you didn't have the Pope as a rival for that role. And, indeed, that the monarch was a sort of lay Pope, God's anointed. And this had been hammered remorselessly in, from the time of, Henry VII, who didn't have too much claim to be a g_ um, God on Earth. He was a talented chancellor_ a talented chancer, sorry. Who managed to grab the throne by luck, Bosworth Field, we just dealt with. Hammered in remorselessly from his time in the fif- fourteen eighties, to Charles I's own time in the sixteen thirties. The only problem is, it seemed to work for the Tudors. It obviously didn't work for Charles. And that's the surprising thing. Um, then came, after all this propaganda, there came the Civil War against the king. Culminating, in this open public example. Um, and it was a new sort of regicide. Cromwell said, the organiser and leader, the man who made it all possible, was Thomas Crom- not Thomas, Oliver Cromwell. The, the general of the new model army. Who was really the most powerful man in the kingdom. If you can still call it a kingdom, by sixteen forty-nine. And, Cromwell said, 'we will cut off the king's head, with a crown on it. It will be open and public. 'Um, the monarch himself, and the whole institution of monarchy, was put on trial. This is a rather modern idea. It looks to the future. Little to do, with, sordid medieval assassinations. And, in fact, Charles's trial, parallels the Nuremberg war crimes trials, of nineteen forty-five in some ways. Or the trials now being, rather unsuccessfully, mounted in theory, of various, um, Balkan, cut-throats, um, just as I speak. Um, the king was accused of abuse of office. Betrayal of responsibilities, of making war, on his own people. He was condemned to death on those grounds. Charles Stuart, condemned to death as Charles Stuart, King of England. Nothing, no fiction that he'd abdicated, or anything like that, so he'd be killed as a private man. And this was a savage early contribution, to democratic accountability. The idea that a ruler could be called to account, deposed, and punished. Um, it was also, at a less, exalted level, a political party move. Cromwell, the militarist, and extreme republicans, wanted to show there was no going back, to a monarchy. Uh, this didn't work because it merely passed on Charles's claims to his nineteen-year-old son, who hadn't offended, any- anybody. And was a young, good looking, and dashing lad in exile. Beyond the clutches of, uh, the, parl_ of the Cromwellian party. Against this, the king argued, the divine right position of monarchy. Um, and, he argued it very well. Um, the idea that the king had been put, in his position by God, and was accountable only to God. Charles behaved extremely well at his trial. He argued a very good case. He knew a lot of law, and he did it himself. Where it shows that Charles, was, a lousy, useless politician, in a way. Otherwise he wouldn't have got in this position. But, a clever and cultivated man. The only problem is, all this was futile. No one was very int_ as_ at the time anyway, no one was very interested in hearing him. And he duly got executed. And, we all_ we all know, or, lots of British people know, the hieratic scenes of so many of the executions of Whitehall. So England, had the first revolutionary republic in Europe, ever. The Dutch case, um, seventy years earlier, is a somewhat different thing. Um, and followed reluctantly by Scotland, who abolished the monarchy, a few months later. Um, and this sets the example for the, execution of Louis XVI of France in seventeen ninety-three. And, f- for that of the Tzar Nicholas and his family in nineteen eighteen. Although there was no trial of Tzar Nicholas. It was more like, uh, old fashioned medieval-style murder. But then that's Russia for you. But, in fact, um, the trial and execution, of Charles, did not have popular support. It was the work, of, a faction, who were powerful, because they were the new model army. But they were, too radical, for the vast majority of English, and certainly Welsh people. The Welsh, by the way, were very royalist. Um, when news of the execution of the king got about, pregnant young women had spontaneous abortions, and aging men dropped down dead of a stroke on the spot. Even though they were not expected to die there and then. The shock was too much. And these are well-authenticated. Um, secondly, the king, behaved in exemplary fashion personally, both on the trial, and at the scene of his execution. He even said_ requested two vests for this cold January day, because he said, 'i, don't want to shiver with cold, in case, onlookers think I'm shivering with fear. It's not the way for a king to die. ' And the Anglicans, of course, then canonise him as St. Charles the Martyr. In St. Mary Magdeline Church in Oxford, a commemorative service for St. Charles the Martyr is held every thirtieth of January, on the commemoration of his execution. And you can see his image, with candles round, any, any time you go into the church. So it could be argued that England's revolution, or revolutionary phase, came too early. It was premature. It ended in a compromise, sixteen sixty, when Charles II gets back. And it actually saved the monarchy, in a constitutional form. Uh, the monarchy, is after all, still here today.