The Significance of the Execution of Charles I

 Generally British monarchs are remember for their prowess in international battles. However Charles I will always be remembered as the first monarch to be put on trial for treason – which led to his subsequent execution. Nowadays the monarch has little power all thanks to the actions of King Charles. In the last 3 centuries parliament has dominated domestic and international policies and that is a result of Charles' trial in 1649.

Charles I - The First Monarch to be charged for treason.

 Charles' beliefs were very traditional; he believed he was chosen by god to rule the nation and parliament was surplus to requirement. Thus began the infamous 'eleven year tyranny' which resulted in the civil war and his beheading. The actions of Parliament in 1628 justified his reasoning, after the 'petition of right' was passed – limiting the King's spending. Parliament was dissolved on March 2 giving Charles complete control over the nation.

 The four major problems from 1629-40 were: The Kings Advisers, The Church, Scotland and The Finances. The King's personal advisers were all royalists or former rivals who had made peace with the king. Britain was a protestant country, however, and many suspected of Charles wishing to return it to Roman Catholicism. The appointment of William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury did not help his case. He wished to restore the wealth of the church, including the reintroduction of the tithe, the dismissal of non conformist ministers and suppression of puritan ideologists.

 Charles was crowned King of Scotland in 1633, yet his unpopularity in England was equally as bad for their Northern neighbours. His decision to introduce a long and complex prayer book in Scottish services led to a rebellion against the King, starting of with an invasion of Newcastle and Durham. This resulted in the recalling of parliament or the 'short parliament' however Charles at that point (1640) had undoubtedly lost control of the nation.

 Yet his financial reforms are arguably the largest reason for the civilian unrest and consequently the civil war. His lust for money was apparent in 1628, so it seemed inevitably that he created ridiculous taxes. An example is the 'Distraint of Knighthood' – forcing anyone with land worth over £40 to attend his coronation or face a fine. Not only that, but they had to pay for their knighthoods as well as face extra dues. The Court of Wards was also exploited, as well as people inhabited within royal forests being fined and the granting of monopolies.

 Albeit unjust, these measures were not the main reason for the Kings unpopularity. England had always utilised it's status as an island with a large population living in coastal cities. Therefore the reintroduction of ship-money took a turn for the worst. Civilians found themselves paying for the upkeep of England's naval fleet. To rub salt into the wounds the King moved this tax inland making the entire country pay. The reason for the outrage was due to the absence of parliament in this move. Although the people were heavily exploited before, that was simply the king abusing his prerogative. The king passing a law without the judgement of parliament, however, showed he was moving toward the way of a dictator and destroying all senses of democracy in Britain.

 January 30 1649: The King is executed. So where does that leave England? 20 years of Cromwell following the return to the throne. James II also attempted to abuse the divine rights of kings and being dismissed. It is apparent that the result of Charles' actions and defeat in the civil war reduced the power of the monarch severely. Parliament now had a significant role in the running of the country although it is arguable that the monarchy still had a prominent role up until the death of Queen Victoria.

The Execution of Charles I - It is believed there was a large groan throughout
the crowd following his execution.

 Despite the crown regaining power in Britain, the falling of rulers throughout Europe was soon to follow such as the French revolution, although the bulk of monarchs fell 200 years later however the spirit of the English fight was arguably a motivational tool. As well as that, the American fight for independence was arguably a result of the Civil War, with the nation filled with anti-royalists who came to America to escape the tyrant British rulers. It is undoubted, however, that the execution of King Charles I was a key event in both English and global history.  

Why Franz Ferdinand Was Assassinated

 100 years ago on 4 August, Britain declared war against Germany –initiating the heavy British involvement in the Great War. Some people may find it hard to believe that the assassination of the Archduke resulted in a war which cost the lives of 16 million people. However, the event in the current capital of Bosnia & Herzegovina – Sarajevo – is widely though of as the event which sparked World War I.

 The questions that have to be asked are why Franz Ferdinand? And why did Austria-Hungary react by declaring war on Serbia?

Archduke Franz Ferdinand: 1863-1914

 Historically – there have always been tensions between the Serbians and the Austro-Hungarians. A prime example is the Bosnian Crisis of 1908, where Serbia responded with hostility towards the annexation of their neighbours – which had been “occupied and administered” by Austria-Hungary following the demise of the Ottoman rule in Bosnia. The Serbs did not agree the annexation of their Slav brothers thus responded by mobilizing their army. Yet 6 years later and Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasic did not want war with their them, however his hands were tied once finding out about the Black Hand's plan to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand. Not telling the Austro-Hungarian government would result in immediate blame, telling them would result in his name being tarnished in Serbia. In the end he opted with the former but Jovan Jovanovic's warning to Dr Leon von Bilinski were not taken seriously, allowing the Black Hand to continue it's operation.

Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914

 Serbia was always an easy target for the Austro-Hungarians. Being a small nation beside their vast empire – alongside the many trouble's it had been attempting to cause in Bosnia. The assassination gave them an excuse to take over their rivals – and gave the Germans an excuse to invade France. The Austro-Hungarian government knew they could beat Serbia on their own – however Russian support was inevitable due to them being “Protector of the Slavic People”. Therefore the help of Kaizer Wilhem II's Germany was successfully requested, resulting in the Schlieffen Plan being written up by the German Army to avoid fighting a war on two fronts. The basis of this was that the Russian army would take 6 weeks to fully mobilize – and in that time they could go through Belgium to outflank the French army thus avoiding this problem. However the British had a 75 year guarantee with Belgium about an invasion as such – and the rest is history.

 On July 28 1914, there were a couple of attempts on Archduke Ferdinand's life which shows clear intent from the Black Hand that they wanted him dead. Of course the actual incident happened because of unfortunate timing – the driver of the car happened to turn into the wrong road which contained Gavrilo Princip – however it is presumable that there were members of the Black Hand stationed throughout Sarajevo. One way of looking at the assassination is that it was a statement of intent against the Austro-Hungarian rule of the Serbs. However with the dire repercussions being fairly obvious I highly doubt that would be their reasoning. In fact the true reasoning was entirely political.

 Ferdinand was due to rule the Austro-Hungarian empire following the death of his Uncle – Franz Joseph I and his plans for the empire conflicted with both Russian and Serbian views. Ferdinand wished to make concessions towards the Slavs, allowing them to have sovereignty and an impact in the empire. Of course that would make unification much harder – which the patriotic Black Hand would not stand by. The assassination would have to take place before he took over the throne.

 There was clearly conflicting objectives between the two largest European countries at the time, and the Serbian actions were clearly applauded by the Russians and detested by the Austro-Hungarians. Russia had no problem turning a blind eye to the incident nor supporting the Serbians who's act undeniably sparked the Great War, prevented a Greater Austria-Hungary and led to the demise of the ever flourishing empire.