Charles I Slain in Hull

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
It is 23d April 1642 and Charles, with his numerous escort is trying to get entrance to Hull, but is denied by the governor sir John Hotham. After considerable back and forth Charles, with gritted teeth, accepts the earlier Hotham's offer of entrance with an escort of twelve men. Hotham was unable to go back on his word and admitted the king and the twelve men.

What happened next is still matter of debate. Royalist propaganda claims that Hotham tried to treacherously seize the king, while Parliamentarian propaganda claims that Charles broke his vow and tried to take over the city by inciting the uprising. Some sources claim that Charles harangued Hotham and aldermen on slights inflicted on his royal persona, with some members of his escort also arguing with the members of militia, with situation brewing over into fight when prince Rupert of Rhine and John Hotham younger came to blows. What is certain that Charles and most of his escort were killed in the ensuing fight, despite many loyal townspeople coming to his aid. With cries of king's foul murder, some of Hotham's troops and city trained bands changed their allegiance, and some of them managed to drop the drawbridge and opened the gate to the main body of the king's escort.
What followed was chaotic bloody fight as king's men besieged the defenders who were making their stands in various buildings through town and hunting down anyone with presumed parliamentarian loyalties, bloodshed and plundering going on until the bells rang on midday of 24th.
Hotham and his son escaped on a boat but most of the garrison and the aldermen faced the sword.

There was intense debate within parliament on what to do, most were quite willing to send Hotham to the executioner and were proposing that the parliament should take over the regency of the Charles II until he comes of age. For some reason they were surprised when hastily assembled regency council declared them all regicides.

How does the situation evolve from there?

Can Parliament even assemble an army, as even in 1649 the killing of the king was seem as extremely extreme act, possible only due to the fact that army was fully loyal to commanders and it was the decisive political tool in the country at the time.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
It is 23d April 1642 and Charles, with his numerous escort is trying to get entrance to Hull, but is denied by the governor sir John Hotham. After considerable back and forth Charles, with gritted teeth, accepts the earlier Hotham's offer of entrance with an escort of twelve men. Hotham was unable to go back on his word and admitted the king and the twelve men.

What happened next is still matter of debate. Royalist propaganda claims that Hotham tried to treacherously seize the king, while Parliamentarian propaganda claims that Charles broke his vow and tried to take over the city by inciting the uprising. Some sources claim that Charles harangued Hotham and aldermen on slights inflicted on his royal persona, with some members of his escort also arguing with the members of militia, with situation brewing over into fight when prince Rupert of Rhine and John Hotham younger came to blows. What is certain that Charles and most of his escort were killed in the ensuing fight, despite many loyal townspeople coming to his aid. With cries of king's foul murder, some of Hotham's troops and city trained bands changed their allegiance, and some of them managed to drop the drawbridge and opened the gate to the main body of the king's escort.
What followed was chaotic bloody fight as king's men besieged the defenders who were making their stands in various buildings through town and hunting down anyone with presumed parliamentarian loyalties, bloodshed and plundering going on until the bells rang on midday of 24th.
Hotham and his son escaped on a boat but most of the garrison and the aldermen faced the sword.

There was intense debate within parliament on what to do, most were quite willing to send Hotham to the executioner and were proposing that the parliament should take over the regency of the Charles II until he comes of age. For some reason they were surprised when hastily assembled regency council declared them all regicides.

How does the situation evolve from there?

Can Parliament even assemble an army, as even in 1649 the killing of the king was seem as extremely extreme act, possible only due to the fact that army was fully loyal to commanders and it was the decisive political tool in the country at the time.

Good question.Probably royals would win after short war,but what next?
 

Buba

A total creep
but what next?
Let me guess - Stalin comes and kills everybody?
even in 1649 the killing of the king was seem as extremely extreme act
The execution of a Monarch by Revolting Subjects not sworn to a rival claimant was indeed novel and controversial. But a king dying in battle? That's the cost of doing business ...

Who had control over the Heir at that time?
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Prince of Wales was with the court, so he would be at Hull but not part of the king's escort in the town, parliament had two youngest children of Charles in their hands.
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Well-known member
This brutal act of regicide -- for, without question, that is how it would (in the short term) be near-universally perceived by a shocked public -- would swing back the pendulum of opinion. By marching into Paliament to (attempt to) arrest several of its members, Charles had hurt his own cause immensely. Doubly so because it was also a failure.

But by essentially being martyred, he becomes a King betrayed. A man who was completely right to accuse his enemies of treasonous action. Have these cretins not murdered their sovereign in cold blood?

His heir is still a minor, so a Regency Council it is. And Parliament now has two options: persist in attempting to subdue the Royalists (which means affirming to the world that they are traitors, in league with regicides) or attempt to find a compromise. Charles I was personally unwilling to strike any kind of 'deal', but with the country in disarray, newly-installed Regents may well be more willing to reach an accord.

Parliament will certainly have to kneel. The men that Charles sought to arrest (John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode, Arthur Haselrig and Lord Mandeville) will have to be denounced as traitors. They will have the options of separately throwing themselves at the mercy of the Regents (which may well be a successful strategy, although their career in politics will be over) or they can refuse, which renders them outlaws (to be executed if caught).

Beyond that, however, it'll presumably be a course of moderation. Parliament will be affirmed in its traditional prerogatives, but the Militia Ordinance (and any future attempts to circumvent the Lords that way) will be declared illegal and void. Possibly, the ability of Parliament to impeach members of the Royal Family (as they intended to do with Charles's wife, which was the proximate cause of the crisis) may permanently be abrogated. Thus ensuring that such a threat can never again be used.

Obviously, the regicides themselves (Hotham and his son) will be the foremost public enemies in the realm, and marked for death. Parliament will have to uniquivocally denounce them, and in fact underwrite the warrant for their arrest (and inevitable execution) for treason and regicide.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
Let me guess - Stalin comes and kills everybody?

The execution of a Monarch by Revolting Subjects not sworn to a rival claimant was indeed novel and controversial. But a king dying in battle? That's the cost of doing business ...

Who had control over the Heir at that time?
Good joke - but we probably butterflied him.
1917 was possible thanks to 1789,and 1789 in turn was possible thanks to England example,so - no executing King,no future Revolutions,no sralin as commie leader.

And,he do not died in battle,but was cold-bloody murdered during parley.That change everything.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Good joke - but we probably butterflied him.
1917 was possible thanks to 1789,and 1789 in turn was possible thanks to England example,so - no executing King,no future Revolutions,no sralin as commie leader.

And,he do not died in battle,but was cold-bloody murdered during parley.That change everything.

That's what his supporters will claim but that will be contradicted by parliamentarians, As the OP makes clear its uncertain what happened and given Charles stupidity and arrogance its quite possible that he and his supporters were the ones who initially breached the parley.

Given that most of the educated people and hence those with access to printing presses are Parliamentarians their likely to win any hearts and minds war if a regency council continues Charles's failed policy.

Don't forget as well that an alternative name for the conflict is the war of the three kingdoms - sorry Wales your only a principality;). Ireland will continue to be a chaotic mess but Scotland is already going the republican way and they have a powerful army developing. OTL they intervened three times in the English civil wars, 1st in support of Parliament then afterwards two devils deals with 1st Charles then his son - which I suspect both sides planned to break their word. As such if the interests of Parliament falter in England the Scots have a vested interest in helping them out as a reactionary monarchist regime would be a serious threat to them as well.

Defeating the revolutions in Britain and restoring autocracy is unlikely to last and won't necessarily prevent other revolutions either. People rebel when either vested interests are threatened or with more widespread revolts when the survival of them and their families is threatened. You will still have social and political change unless you really manage to repress technological and social development for centuries - i.e. basically the Japanese option. Where and when they occur is likely to change and definitely the people involved as they simply won't be born but totalitarian dictatorships don't last indefinitely any more than any other system.
 

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Given that most of the educated people and hence those with access to printing presses are Parliamentarians their likely to win any hearts and minds war if a regency council continues Charles's failed policy.
Defeating the revolutions in Britain and restoring autocracy is unlikely to last and won't necessarily prevent other revolutions either.
If you assume that the bolded parts are what happens, your post is accurate. Honestly, though, I don't expect things to turn out that way. Charles himself was bloody-minded as all hell, but a Regency Council would almost certainly be far more cautious. All the existing compromises (which were essentially forced on Charles because he lacked the acumen to force a more favourable outcome) would stand as agreed upon.

Oh, sure-- the Militia Bill is going to be voided, and the Parliament's ability to legislate via ordinance is going to be removed. Likewise, Parliament will be explicitly barred from impeaching any member of the Royal Family thenceforth. The Grand Remonstrance will be treated as ordinary legislation, having passed the Commons, and will be struck down by the Lords. In other words: the (to-be-)executed most radical members who actively conspired against the Crown will see their plans of the preceding months reversed and defeated.

But everything Parliament had won before that point (so: before November 1641) will be confirmed. Parliament will not be able to ever be dissolved without its consent, making it a permanent legislative body that the Crown cannot dismiss. Ship money, fines in distraint of knighthood and excise without parliamentary consent are confirmed again to be unlawful. Furthermore, all taxation without Parliamentary legislation at its basis is confirmed to be unlawful. Secret trials are also confirmed to be unlawful.

Eventually, Charles II comes to the throne. We avoid the whole war, Charles II marries earlier and marries someone else, and quite realistically has a male heir. There's no reason to believe that everything will go to hell. In fact, the radicals on both sides have ended up eliminating each other('s influence), and a more moderate course prevails.
 
Last edited:

Buba

A total creep
Lovely write-up @Skallagrim
Any foreign meddling?
Malicious Spain? Devious France? Cankerous United Provinces? Machiavelan Empire? Conniving PLC? Muscovite bots?
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Well-known member
Lovely write-up @Skallagrim
Thanks!

Any foreign meddling?
Is there ever a timeline without foreign meddling? It's unlikely to be more pronounced than average, however.

Malicious Spain?
Are they ever otherwise?

Devious France?
It's in their nature.

Cankerous United Provinces?
They just can't help themselves.

Machiavelan Empire?
Niccolò Machiavelli having been dead for 115 years might put a spanner in the works, but if there's anyone we might suspect of using a time machine...

Conniving PLC?
POLAND CAN INTO BRITAIN!

Muscovite bots?
Are we talking the Putin internet ones, or is the Tsar acting as a stand-in for Doctor Doom here?
 
Last edited:

stevep

Well-known member
If you assume that the bolded parts are what happens, your post is accurate. Honestly, though, I don't expect things to turn out that way. Charles himself was bloody-minded as all hell, but a Regency Council would almost certainly be far more cautious. All the existing compromises (which were essentially forced on Charles because he lacked the acumen to force a more favourable outcome) would stand as agreed upon.

Oh, sure-- the Militia Bill is going to be voided, and the Parliament's ability to legislate via ordinance is going to be removed. Likewise, Parliament will be explicitly barred from impeaching any member of the Royal Family thenceforth. The Grand Remonstrance will be treated as ordinary legislation, having passed the Commons, and will be struck down by the Lords. In other words: the (to-be-)executed most radical members who actively conspired against the Crown will see their plans of the preceding months reversed and defeated.

But everything Parliament had won before that point (so: before November 1641) will be confirmed. Parliament will not be able to ever be dissolved without its consent, making it a permanent legislative body that the Crown cannot dismiss. Ship money, fines in distraint of knighthood and excise without parliamentary consent are confirmed again to be unlawful. Furthermore, all taxation without Parliamentary legislation at its basis is confirmed to be unlawful. Secret trials are also confirmed to be unlawful.

Eventually, Charles II comes to the throne. We avoid the whole war, Charles II marries earlier and marries someone else, and quite realistically has a male heir. There's no reason to believe that everything will go to hell. In fact, the radicals on both sides have ended up eliminating each other('s influence), and a more moderate course prevails.

That's definitely a possibility but I was replying to a suggestion that the Regency council would continue seeking royal absolutism. In that case the war would go on as too many people have too much to lose.

Plus there would still be the need to suppress revolt in Scotland and Ireland. The English civil war started because the king was seeking to suppress those revolts and after one attempt against the Scots failed the English parliament refused to fund more such actions without restrictions on Charles's power.
 

ATP

Well-known member
That's what his supporters will claim but that will be contradicted by parliamentarians, As the OP makes clear its uncertain what happened and given Charles stupidity and arrogance its quite possible that he and his supporters were the ones who initially breached the parley.

Given that most of the educated people and hence those with access to printing presses are Parliamentarians their likely to win any hearts and minds war if a regency council continues Charles's failed policy.

Don't forget as well that an alternative name for the conflict is the war of the three kingdoms - sorry Wales your only a principality;). Ireland will continue to be a chaotic mess but Scotland is already going the republican way and they have a powerful army developing. OTL they intervened three times in the English civil wars, 1st in support of Parliament then afterwards two devils deals with 1st Charles then his son - which I suspect both sides planned to break their word. As such if the interests of Parliament falter in England the Scots have a vested interest in helping them out as a reactionary monarchist regime would be a serious threat to them as well.

Defeating the revolutions in Britain and restoring autocracy is unlikely to last and won't necessarily prevent other revolutions either. People rebel when either vested interests are threatened or with more widespread revolts when the survival of them and their families is threatened. You will still have social and political change unless you really manage to repress technological and social development for centuries - i.e. basically the Japanese option. Where and when they occur is likely to change and definitely the people involved as they simply won't be born but totalitarian dictatorships don't last indefinitely any more than any other system.

Social changes would happen,revolution with killing Kings - no.
And,to be frank,all so called revolutions were conspiracies of elites.How many times opressed people fought and win in soviets,China or other commie state?
They always lost - becouse you need rich people support to win.And other country money,too.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Social changes would happen,revolution with killing Kings - no.
And,to be frank,all so called revolutions were conspiracies of elites.How many times opressed people fought and win in soviets,China or other commie state?
They always lost - becouse you need rich people support to win.And other country money,too.

I wouldn't rely on that. A fair number of kings have been killed by internal revolts. Agreed that most have been organised by other members of the establishment but a number have relied on broad popular support - as have monarchies improving their power against feudal nobles for instance.

A number have seen widespread popular groundings. There were many peasant revolts and in places like China they could be successful. Similarly with the English, American & French revolutions, although that latter ended up very badly for just about everybody in France. In Russia it was a massive popular rejection of the existing order but they did end up ruled by a regime even more brutal than the one they overthrew.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I wouldn't rely on that. A fair number of kings have been killed by internal revolts. Agreed that most have been organised by other members of the establishment but a number have relied on broad popular support - as have monarchies improving their power against feudal nobles for instance.

A number have seen widespread popular groundings. There were many peasant revolts and in places like China they could be successful. Similarly with the English, American & French revolutions, although that latter ended up very badly for just about everybody in France. In Russia it was a massive popular rejection of the existing order but they did end up ruled by a regime even more brutal than the one they overthrew.
Dunno about England,but USA happened becouse France send army to help them.
1789 happened,becouse England to pay back them pay Crown enemies till at least 1791 - and Filip Egalite supported and schielded revolution,too.Which cost him his head,but dude deserved it.
1917 - both germans and Wall Street payed for revolution there.

Only succesfull people revolutions we had in China - Ming dynasty,and probably few older.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Dunno about England,but USA happened becouse France send army to help them.
1789 happened,becouse England to pay back them pay Crown enemies till at least 1791 - and Filip Egalite supported and schielded revolution,too.Which cost him his head,but dude deserved it.
1917 - both germans and Wall Street payed for revolution there.

Only succesfull people revolutions we had in China - Ming dynasty,and probably few older.

The US probably succeeded because France and Spain helped them but it started without external help.

The French revolution was internal and while liberal groups in the UK were favourable to it - until it got as brutal and bloody as its predecessor - but the government and establishment being deeply conservative were against it.

The Germans gave support to Lenin yes.
 

Buba

A total creep
The US only succeeded because France and Spain helped them .
FTWY.
I agree that it started on its own. Entitled brats rioting over finally having to foot the bill for defence.
Defund the Redcoats!

there would still be the need to suppress revolt in Scotland and Ireland.
Would there still be revolts? With Charles I dead - would there be a cause for the Scots revolt? Weren't they revolting over something he was pushing yet the English dominated Regency Council would not care about? Couldn't they come to an understanding?
I do not know enough about the Irish Situation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

stevep

Well-known member
FTWY.
I agree that it started on its own. Entitled brats rioting over finally having to foot the bill for defence.
Defund the Redcoats!


Would there still be revolts? With Charles I dead - would there be a cause for the Scots revolt? Weren't they revolting over something he was pushing yet the English dominated Regency Council would not care about? Couldn't they come to an understanding?
I do not know enough about the Irish Situation.

On the Irish revolt that was partly due to the fact that Charles was head of a Protestant government and while possibly not as brutal as on the continent - in the latter stages of the TYW - they had rebelled against English/Protestant rule. There was a royalist army stranded in the Dublin region for several years because parliament had the loyalty of the navy and their now likely to be supported by more forces if the war ends. Fighting will occur in Ireland as their in rebellion against the crown as well as the state religion - albeit the latter was Anglican in England and now the Kirk in Scotland. - Actually checking the Bishop's war the Irish revolt didn't start until 1641 so its probably less than a year old at this stage. However rebellion is still rebellion and Ireland is too important geographically to be allowed to fall under Catholic control in this time period.

In terms of the Scottish rebellion that was related to the Bishop's Wars, due to Charles I seeking to impose uniform practices on the kirk in line with the Anglican church in England. It would depend on the Regency Council's stance on the issue. They might be more willing to compromise on the issue, if only because to avoid further fighting in England they would have to compromise somewhat with the puritans and other non-Anglicans. It could be that some compromise could be achieved with the Scots or that further war is inevitable. Another issue of course is that if the Scots [and the English parliamentarians] think that the Council is going to be hostile their likely to seek a protective alliance so fear of hostility might prompt further conflict. Could go either way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top