The Execution of Charles - Providence or Necessity?

Before the 1640s, even those vehemently opposed to the politics of Charles neglected to blame him personally for their grievances. Pym, the spearhead of the Parliamentarian cause in the 1630s, was quoted exclaiming in the commons that “the king had been corrupt’d by not one but many of his evil counselors”. This apprehension to lay the blame upon the shoulders of the monarch emphasises the power he still had over even his most ardent opposition, and makes this sudden reversal in Parliamentary policy even more puzzling. It would therefore be unlikely that such a change in opinion was purely political. Of course the Second Civil War did indeed further tarnish Charles’ political reputation, but to go from a complete avoidance of criticism to an execution, one must assume a divine belief to be the only explanation. This heavy focus on religion is best illustrated by the New Model Army’s cult-like prayer meetings after the beginning of the Second Civil War. They believed that victory in the First Civil War proved their backing from God and therefore the idea of a second challenge from Charles seemed baffling. The heads of the regiments sat and prayed for 4 days to try and find some enlightening answer and concluded that this second war was at the hands of a lucifer-like Charles. The belief that his destruction was God’s plan is the fundamental reason for the sudden hostility from the army towards Charles. Yes it can be seen as a necessity that Charles should be dethroned and even executed, but no intelligent Parliamentarian would have ever challenged Charles personally on political grounds, as the early years of his reign shows. Only God could turn that many men against their king and this therefore explains such a sudden reversal of blame.