Year 2, 2000. QMC Original College Essay: To What Extent Was The Execution Of King Charles I His Own Fault? Answer is based on close analysis of the syllabus. UCAS Reference: http://www.slideshare.net/RKGILL8682/ucas-26175529 www.QMC.ac.uk http://www.qmc.ac.uk/

1. Rupinder K Gill
Original Essay
A Level History: Year 2
Coursework
Queen Mary’s College
Tutor: Sue Gillis
To what extent was the execution of King Charles I his own fault?
By the end of the first Civil War (1642-6) there was no clear evidence suggesting that King
Charles I should be executed, it was highly unlikely that such a thing should occur. This leads to
the suggestion that it can only be argued and explained between the years 1646-9. The
proceeding events from 1646-9 show that the trial and execution of king Charles I was the
unexpected and unintended result of errors, misjudgements and continuous failures to reach
suitable negotiations and settlements.
However when Charles surrendered in 1646 his execution was not inevitable, or even likely at
this stage, it was assumed by parliament that the defeated king would now accept a negotiated
settlement. This was the aim taken by both parliament and the army at the end of the Civil War
through to 1647. It is now important to consider what factors prevented this settlement from
being reached, and why some believed that a conclusion without the king was a better option.
The first most apparent reason for the failure to reach an agreed settlement after the first Civil
War was the king’s refusal to accept any proposals put to him. In 1646-7 he rejected the
Newcastle propositions put forward by parliament and then the Heads of Proposals offered by
the army. These decisions made by the king were largely to do with differences in attitude and
values held by him and his opposition. The king’s rejection of these proposals was influenced by
his convictions concerning kingship and his role of power in both Church and State. Charles saw
kingship as being appointed by God and any reductions in his role as king would be seen as a
failure of doing his duty. He saw his right to govern the church through the ancient constitution
of bishops as a religious obligation. Therefore these matters were not, in fact, negotiable.
Charles was prepared to make short-term concessions; however, genuine agreement was never
his intention. This was further encouraged by the obvious divisions among his enemies. There

2. were fears among parliament that Charles would come to an agreement with his Scottish allies,
based upon the introduction of a Presbyterian Church system in England in return for his legal
and constitutional powers. However by the end of the year this danger had been replaced by a
growing concern of radical activities among the parliamentary army. The following actions of
trying to remove any radical threat, by disbanding the army backfired resulting in an open revolt.
Army unity was now under the power of leading officers such as Oliver Cromwell and Fairfax
and not parliament, therefore creating yet another political force to further complicate processes
of settlement. The new politicised army had huge success against the royalists encouraging
beliefs that such victories were influenced by God and that the army itself was the instrument of
God’s will. The army can be seen as justified in intervening in the process of a settlement as it
was representing the section of population which would otherwise be ignored, they represented
God’s people and God’s cause. There purpose was to reach an agreement with the king, not to
dethrone him. However it is clear that if this interest were ever put at risk the army would be
capable of resorting to quite radical solutions.
In the short-term, events so far had worked to the advantage of Charles as he was there to grasp
every opportunity. Charles was successful in playing off both parliament and the army against
each other but when this failed; he pursued Scottish fears to start another Civil War. This lead to
the Scots signing of the Engagement in 1647 by which they would invade England in return for a
Presbyterian settlement of the Church. Due to the threat of another war parliament and the army
were able to put aside their differences. This second Civil War was of little military importance;
however its political significance was colossal. Increasing Royalist uprisings strengthened the
support for the king showing conservative desires for a return to a traditional form of
government. However the war also convinced the army that a settlement with the king was
impossible and for the first time this created the potential threat of reaching an agreement
without him.
By the end of the second Civil War Charles had once again been defeated and parliament were
faced with a huge decision whether to have one last attempt negotiating a settlement with
Charles or to carry on without him as it was clear from the start of the second Civil War that
Charles could not be trusted. The threat of imposing radical groups and the resentment of the
constant interference in political matters from the army, meant that beliefs in social hierarchy
were high, and the fears of social disintegration lead to parliaments dependence on the cooperation of the king in any settlement, even at the cost of any concessions to the king.

3. However the army disagreed. Charles betrayal of trust with those who wanted peace had finally
convinced them that no settlement could be reached because Charles could not be trusted to
maintain it. His continuous will to break promises could be traced back to the Petition of Right
1628, and his behaviour in the long-term had been full of distrust and had now reached high
levels with the army. The Second Civil War was seen as the finial straw, proof that Charles was
unfit as king. An army Remonstrance was written up and presented to parliament on 20
November it declared that due to the betrayal and untrustworthy intentions of Charles in starting
yet another war there was no other option but to depose of him in concern for the nation’s
stability and safety.
The army leaders saw religion as a more important factor. For most puritans, events were seen as
being the evidence of God’s will. The victory of parliament in 1646 and then again in 1648 was
interpreted as the verdict of God and the New model army were positioned by God to protect his
cause, which was why Charles renewal of war in 1648 was seen as a betrayal of God’s trust,
threatening his own position as king. Therefore it was seen as the duty of those who served God
to bring him to justice.
Now it is true to say that by 1648 a combination of conditional factors made the trial and
execution of King Charles I possible, but not yet certain. The result of war had strengthened
radical beliefs creating radical forces, capable of extreme solutions. These could easily have been
controlled if king and parliament had reached an agreement in 1646-7, but due to Charles
character and beliefs this was impossible. The second Civil War had convinced the radical forces
that negotiations with the king were hopeless; the traitor should be brought to justice due to no
other option and because of God’s will. However at this point the outcome was still uncertain,
saying that you wanted to get rid of the king was one thing acting upon it was entirely another.
The armies petitions were intended to persuade parliamentary support not coerce them. The
ability to impose a settlement didn’t provide the ability to do so; it was the actions of the
conservatives in parliament, and of King Charles himself that finally brought about his trial and
execution.
The contingent factor or the catalyst which sparked off the final crisis was the persistence of the
conservatives to reach an agreement with Charles which would enable them to destroy any
radical threat in existence. The threat of a settlement between the king and the conservatives

4. betrayed all what the army had fought for, forcing the army to act. On December 6, the army
purged parliament, this being approved by Cromwell was the start of the process by which king
Charles was to be brought to trial. The significance of this purging left no other option but for
Charles execution, as all support for him had been excluded, support for his death was all that
was left. However, this wasn’t the final decision as Charles was again given another chance to
avoid trial and possibly his execution by making some concessions. It was the king’s own refusal
to do so which finally convinced Cromwell that trial and execution were the will of God. The
decision was supported with huge determination and once the trial began the outcome was to be
inevitable. To leave Charles alive would give him the chance to again cause more trouble and
more wars so his death was the only option regarding the safety of the nation.
It is now clear that Charles I wasn’t the only important factor in explaining his trial and
execution although he played a significant part many other factors also played crucial parts in
helping to make it happen. Religious and political conflict, and the character and beliefs of the
king were apparent at the end of the First Civil War, yet there was no suggestion that the king
should be brought to trial for his actions and the idea of his execution was never considered.
These factors alone help to create the pre-conditions which allowed the king’s execution to
happen but they do not explain it. The death of the king was not the result of underlying
religious, social or political changes. By autumn 1648 the army became convinced that the king
should be brought to justice.
However they did not themselves have the ability to put this into action not without parliament.
The attitudes of the conservatives in parliament at the time gave the army all the support they
needed. There were three main factors of development which occurred between 1646-8. The first
was growth of radicalism and the politicising of the army, which created a revolutionary force
capable of extreme action. The second crucial factor was the king’s continuous uncompromising
nature; his inability to reach any settlements removed all other viable alternatives. The third
important factor was Charles responsibility of the Second Civil War, which itself provided the
need for a radical solution and provided justification.
Therefore it can be said that it was the fusion of these factors that brought about the king’s
execution. It is important to realise that in 1646 king Charles execution was never intended and
that his trial was the result of unforeseen errors and miscalculations of his own and of his
opposition which enabled the radical minority to take action. The king’s continuous rejections of

5. God’s will to reach a peaceful settlement, firstly led him to Civil War in 1642, then another war
in 1646; the proceeding changing conditions of events and attitudes which followed upto1649,
led to his own defeat, and that of the monarchy.
From evaluating all the possible factors which lead to King Charles trial and finally his
execution, it can be said that the one most important factor which lead to his death was his
determination to keep all his given power, his strong attitudes towards kingship which prevented
him from reaching agreements. If he had been open to negotiation his death would have been
avoided. This can clearly be seen after the First Civil War where Charles was given the chance to
compromise and settle peace with the Newcastle Propositions and the Heads of Proposals, but
due to his attitudes and values held towards his position as king, any reduction in his divine
power lead him to refuse any long-term concessions.
If at this stage he had been willing to compromise some of his power an early settlement would
have been reached, thus avoiding conflicts between the Scots and parliament, a Second Civil
War and also the rise of the New Model Army. Charles’ determination to keep his own power
leads him to radical solutions to maintain it, such as starting a Second Civil War between
England and the Scots. This determination led to breaches of trust and peace this lead to the
politicising of the army, as he betrayed what they saw as God’s will. Once the New Model Army
was in power, their determination to get rid of the king forced them to purge parliament, making
Charles death now almost certainly inevitable. However, even in the end Charles was still given
one final chance by parliament to negotiate peace and avoid trial and execution, but his beliefs of
kingship and duty pulled him back. It was his duty to hold on to the powers God had given him
right to his, now inevitable, death. Throughout 1646-9 Charles had chance after chance to settle
peace and avoid execution; it was his character, his belief in maintaining his God given kingship
and duty which lead him to his own death.

6. Rupinder Gill
Original Essay
A Level History: Year 2
Coursework
Queen Mary’s College
Tutor: Sue Gillis
Demonstrate how hypothesis A and B can contribute to an explanation of the
development of Russian political institutions.
Hypothesis A and hypothesis B offer two conflicting developmental accounts of Russian
political ideas and institutions. Hypothesis A emphasises that each major turning point in
the development of Russian political ideas and institutions have been influenced by regular
borrowing from the West. However, hypothesis B claims that it was the continuity of
autocratic traditions, which characterized Russian political development and the continuous
changes made to this autocratic power helped to maintain it over time.
According to hypothesis A, major developments in Russian political ideas and institutions
have been characterised by the adoption of Western European influences. Due to the
Mongol invasion Russia, politically, were lagging behind western and northern Europe, and
were forced to borrow and copy from its more advanced neighbours in an attempt to catch
up. Europe by this time had experienced a great number of modernising changes, such as,
a scientific revolution and the Renaissance. The Mongol period had kept Russia in a
stabilised position where no political changes had been made. The consequence of this was
felt with constant defeat in war against Europe.
However, it was not until Peter the Greats reign that European links showed a big impact
on Russian political life. Peter the Greats defeat against Sweden led to a number of wideranging westernising reforms. His ‘Great Embassy’ to the west was a turn to Europe for
models of political practice.
He borrowed knowledge from European government,
economy, societies and culture to modernise Russia, specifically borrowing from Swedish,
Prussian, and the Dutch. Peter focused the interests of the Russian elites onto ‘Europe’.
Russian economy and modern technology was continuously improving, which was largely
due to its constant contact with Europe. This was further developed by the reign of

7. Catherine the Great (1762-96). Catherine reformed the principals of a much-influenced
western European idea entitled the ‘Enlightened Despotism’.
This ensured that the
government operated within a legal framework. These modernising reforms generated
more demands for change in reform such as, personal freedom and a constitutional
government. Catherine’s charter to the nobility (1785) gave the nobles absolute rights over
their ownership of land and serfs. This gave them more power and influence over their
administrative role in the government of their districts, rather like the proprietors of the
west. This wave of aristocracy wiped out the ‘Boyars’ of Ivan the terrible, which had
previously taken land for themselves. Contact with Western Europe had now further
increased, and the autocratic limitations of the country were made more apparent.
However, it was Russia’s defeat in the Crimean war, which further exposed the military
and technological backwardness of Russia. Alexander II adopted European ideas to help
improve the Russian state. Firstly, he to an extent abolished serfdom, by granting personal
freedom to the serfs. The first system of genuine government was also established under
the name of the zemstvos, which contained local assemblies with elected representatives,
similar to European forms of government. Trial by jury was a major democratic reform
enacted in 1864. This again was based on European ideas.
The Bolshevik Revolution enabled Russia to become the most politically advanced country
in the world. The Bolshevik Revolution created a political system encouraged by the
socialism of the German Karl Marx. In theory, all political power would be given to the
people. The people would then express their motivation through the Communist Party,
who would then dictate the order of Russia. These ideas proved difficult to put into
practice, especially in a country with a long autocratic tradition.
However, many Communist Party leaders used European influences to strengthen the
Russian state. Stalin is a good example of this as he continuously emphasised the need to
fight Russia’s backwardness. His introduction of the first ‘Five year plan’ as well as a
second borrowed technological and military techniques from Europe, such as farming and
industrial, in order to strengthen Russia’s industrial power. The success of these plans saw
Russia as the world’s third greatest industrial power. By improving the outdated methods
of industrial production, Stalin had formed a defensive, powerful and modern state, which
only worked due to the influence of European ideas.

8. Khrushchev disposed of Stalin’s reforms in 1955 for more democratic forms of
dictatorship. This further strengthened relationships with Europe as he began to increase
European democratic influences in Russian politics.
By now Russia was heavily
influenced by European ideas so much so that Brezhnev during the 1970’s was unable to
stop the demand for western culture and style. This strong demand for reform led to the
eventual collapse of communism in 1990, which finally brought democracy to Russia.
It was western European ideas and institutions, which characterized major turning points in
Russian political life. These European ideas, once influenced, have never completely
disappeared from Russia, but have simply continued or changed with it’s history.
According to hypothesis B, it was the continuity of autocratic traditions and not European
influences, which characterized Russian political development and the continuous changes
made to this autocratic power helped to maintain it over time.
The Mongol rule imposed upon the country traditions of autocracy, state service and
political oppression that have lasted at least until the end of the communist period.
Russia’s huge expanse of land and lack of homogeneity left if with severe weaknesses. It
needed to be controlled and the only way to do this was by force. Autocratic rule was used
to keep the nation together. The Mongol invasion introduced an autocratic rule by fear,
secret police, universal censorship and taxation.
The Mongol conquest had divided
Russians into two categories: those who were the agents and servants of the Mongol Khan
and those who paid taxes to him and were able to conscription into his armed forces.
The tsars of Russia continued the autocratic political traditions established under the
Mongol Khans. The tsars regarded the Russian state as their personal property and claimed
the sovereignty of all land, as the Mongol Khans had done. They strengthened the class of
state servants (‘pomeshchicki’) at the expense of the nobility (‘Boyars’) and used terror as
an instrument of state policy, most notably seen under the reigns of Ivan III and Ivan IV.
Ivan III confiscated the lands of the nobility, extinguished the political institutions of the
‘Veche council’, and instead created the pomeste system. Ivan IV fused his already
extensive powers, with the effect of political savagery, as used by the Mongol Khans in

9. their rule of terror, in order to extend his own authority. Ivan IV increased his power of
autocracy by exterminating the Boyars and replacing them with ‘Pomste’.
He also
introduced the first assembly of land known as the ‘Zemskii Sobor’, which contained
members all under the control of the Tsars. The muscovite period continued Mongol
autocracy, but simply adapted it to their personal form of rule and in turn made it stronger.
The reforming tsars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sought to modernize the
administration of the Mongol-muscovite state, whilst maintaining existing hierarchical
structures. Traditions of autocracy were still clearly used by these tsars as shown by the
creation of the ‘Secret Chancery’ by Peter the Great to act as a much-feared secret police
force. Peter made the church subservient to him by creating the ‘Holy Synod’ whereby he
controlled the church council.
The French revolution threatened the position of the
monarchy, which prompted Catherine the Great to impose stricter controls on censorship.
Further demands for major changes caused the tsars to react by imposing repression on
society. By making people obedient, they were keeping Russia under a form of social
control. Secret police were used to criminalize anyone who challenged the government’s
authority and constitutions. The government had remained essentially autocratic and state
terror was still practiced as a form of quelling the opposition.
The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 replaced the royal family with the Communist Party.
The communist leaders developed the powers and methods of government, which the tsars
had inherited from their Mongol predecessors further. The way in which the communist
system worked was no different to any previous forms of rule. The state still owned the
land and the people still owed service to the state. Police and labour camps were still there,
and terror remained the ultimate political weapon.
Stalin proved to be the most significant example of this. Stalin’s autocratic power and
leadership further emphasised the use of strict censorship over the country, propaganda,
and methods of absolute fear in order to maintain social and political order. Everyone was
socially controlled by the constant threat of secret police and labour camps. Russia and its
people were effectively under Stalin’s control. Thus, communism further strengthened
Russia’s autocratic influence, and further proved that autocratic power was needed in
running Russian political life. Autocracy in time has never changed in the way in which it

10. has been used, but only in the ways in which it has been maintained. It was autocracy,
which characterized Russia’s political ideas and institutions.
In conclusion, Russia has been influenced by both western European, democratic forms of
institutions and by eastern autocratic traditions throughout it’s political history. A better
explanation would be that autocratic and western-democratic traditions in Russian history
coexisted and interacted with each other to bring about many of the important changes that
have occurred in Russia. Peter the Great needed military technology to fight the west and
so imported western technologies and promoted European forms of education. However,
he wanted to preserve and extend his own position of power so he imposed his own stricter
controls over the church.
The ideas, which he enforced, helped to generate nobility to become more interested in new
European ideas. Once these ideas had been more openly discussed, Catherine the Great
extended European links to the interest of the enlightenment. The nobles were encouraged
to be free and further demand was created for more European reforms. However, the
French revolution generated panic over the stability of the monarchy. Stricter controls on
censorship were enacted to keep the country under the control of the tsars. The impact of
this censorship and stricter controls resulted in more demands for change to occur. Wars
with the revolutionary France brought back military ideas from Western Europe.
This ended in a further increase of demand for reform; however, the tsars’ reaction to this
was fuelled into the repression of society. The more people were repressed into obedience
the less obedient they became. This led to the Decembrist revolt, which resulted in favour
of a constitutional monarchy.
Stalin was a major reformer.
His European based
modernization techniques made Russia into a major world power. However, all of this
created further demands for change in line with Europe. Nevertheless, in the context of
Russian history there was no room for democratic power to exist.
This lead to a
considerable increase in purges, secret police activity, political persecutions and labour
camps. Propaganda became the most important method of control as it attempted to
indoctrinate people under the control of Stalin.
However, indoctrination lead to
questioning but, the more questioning that occurred the more people there were, which
were sent to prison. The impact of technology and different forms of communication lead
to tighter and tighter censorship and control. The more influence Russia received from the

11. west the more she had to control it. Russia’s position became increasingly undermined and
increasingly repressive until both sides fell apart with the collapse of communism in 1990
and the introduction of a democratic state.
Therefore, the autocratic and western-
democratic traditions in Russian history coexisted and interacted with each other to bring
about many of the important changes that have occurred in Russia.