维基百科

用户:Ayitu/沙盒4

< User:Ayitu

早年生涯

编辑
 
西蒙·德帕斯（英语：Van de Passe family）约在1612年所刻制的的查尔斯与其父母的雕刻画

查尔斯在1600年11月19日生于苏格兰法夫的邓弗姆林宫，是苏格兰国王詹姆斯六世与王后丹麦的安娜的次子[1]。同年12月23日，查尔斯于爱丁堡荷里路德修道院的王家礼拜堂举行的新教仪式上，受罗斯主教（英语：Bishop of Ross (Scotland)）大卫·林赛（英语：David Lindsay (d. 1613)）施洗，并获册封苏格兰国王次子的惯例头衔——奥尔巴尼公爵（英语：Duke of Albany），同时也获附带头衔——奥蒙德侯爵（英语：Earl of Ormond (Scottish)）、罗斯伯爵（英语：Earl of Ross）和阿德蒙诺赫勋爵（Lord Ardmannoch）[2]。

1603年3月，英格兰女王伊丽莎白一世无嗣驾崩，詹姆斯六世作为其外甥孙而继承了她的王位，成为英格兰国王詹姆斯一世。同年四月至六月上旬，查尔斯的哥哥和姐姐跟随着他们的父母前往英格兰即位。然而查尔斯由于自小身体羸弱而无法承受长时间的路途劳顿[3]，被留在了苏格兰，其父王任命时任苏格兰最高民事法院院长（英语：Lord President of the Court of Session）的好友费维勋爵（英语：Alexander Seton, 1st Earl of Dunfermline）担任其监护人[4]。

1604年，当三岁半的查尔斯可以在邓弗姆林宫的大厅中独自行走时，便开始了前往英格兰的长途旅行。同年6月中旬，他离开了邓弗姆林宫前往英格兰与他的家人团聚，而在那里他将度过以后的生活[5]。在英格兰，查尔斯被交由当时朝臣罗伯特·凯里爵士（英语：Robert Carey, 1st Earl of Monmouth）在荷兰出生的妻子凯里夫人伊丽莎白（Elizabeth, Lady Carey）教养，凯里夫人教给查尔斯如何说话，并且坚持让他穿西班牙皮革和黄铜制成的靴子以帮助他脆弱的脚踝适应行走[6]。查尔斯的语言表达能力发育亦迟缓。因此在他的余生中，保留着口吃或言语吞吐不清地毛病[7]。

1605年1月，查尔斯获册封英格兰君主次子的惯例头衔——约克公爵，并成为了一位巴斯骑士[8]。一个长老宗苏格兰人托马斯·穆雷（英语：Thomas Murray (provost of Eton)）被任命担任其导师[9]。查尔斯平日里学习的是文学名著、语言、数学、宗教[10]。1611年，他被授予一枚嘉德勋章[11]。

 
罗伯特·皮克（英语：Robert Peake the elder）约在1610年所绘的约克及奥尔巴尼公爵查尔斯肖像

最终，查尔斯克服了可能由佝偻病引起的[6]身体缺陷[11]，成为一名马术能手、神枪手以及击剑高手[10]。尽管如此，但其公众形象[a]与他身材魁梧的兄长威尔士亲王亨利·弗雷德里克相比，仍然相形见绌。查尔斯也非常崇拜兄长亨利，并在各方面都极力地效仿他[12]。可是在1612年11月上旬，年仅十八岁的亨利疑似因患伤寒（或可能是卟啉症）病逝[13]，距十二岁还差两周的的查尔斯遂成为了王位的法定继承人（英语：heir apparent）。身为英伦三岛最高统治者幸存的最年长的儿子，查尔斯自动获得了好几个头衔（包括康沃尔公爵和罗斯西公爵）。四周后，他在1616年11月获册封为威尔士亲王和切斯特伯爵[14]。

王位继承人

编辑

在1613年，他的姐姐伊丽莎白与普法尔茨选侯弗雷德里希五世结婚，并搬到了海德堡居住[15]。在1617年，天主教徒哈布斯堡奥地利的费迪南德大公当选为波希米亚国王。翌年，波希米亚反叛者将其信仰天主教的两名大臣及一位书记官扔出窗外。1619年8月，适值费迪南德被御选（英语：imperial election）为神圣罗马皇帝之时，波希米亚人节食（英语：Diet (assembly)）推举身为新教联盟领袖的弗雷德里希五世为他们的国王。弗雷德里希不顾皇帝而接受波希米亚王冠标志着最终发展成三十年战争的动乱的开始。起初，这场动乱冲突仅局限于波希米亚，随后却逐渐演变成一场大规模的欧洲战争。欧洲大陆上的天主教徒和新教徒迅速分化为两极并开始了冲突，这给英格兰国会与公众留下了难以磨灭的印象[16]。1620年，查尔斯的姐夫弗雷德里希五世于布拉格附近的白山战役中被击败，其世袭领地普法尔茨亦遭到了自西治尼德兰（英语：Spanish Netherlands）而来的哈布斯堡家族的武力侵袭（英语：Palatinate campaign）[17]。然而，詹姆斯却开始谋求费迪南德的侄女西班牙哈布斯堡家族的玛丽亚公主同新威尔士亲王的婚姻，并意识到同西班牙王室联姻（英语：Spanish match）是可以实现欧洲和平的一种外交手段[18]。

不幸的是，事实证明无论是公众还是内阁都普遍不喜欢与西班牙的这种外交谈判[19]。英国国会对西班牙及天主教徒持敌对态度，因此，国会在1621年向詹姆斯表决，议员希望执行不服国教（英语：recusancy）法令，以此开展反西班牙海军运动，并让威尔士亲王同新教徒结婚[20]。与此同时，詹姆斯的大法官弗兰西斯·培根被以受贿为名遭到了上议院的弹劾[21]。这是自1459年以来未有国王首肯，而是利用剥夺公民权议案（英语：Bill of Attainder）展开的首次弹劾动议。这一事件成为了一个非常重要的先例，如这一弹劾动议过程，在后来被用以对付查尔斯及其支持者白金汉公爵、大主教劳德以及斯特拉福德伯爵。詹姆士坚持认为，下议院（英语：House of Commons of England）只能专注于国内事务。而下院议员们则抗议说他们在下院内有言论自由的特权，并要求向西班牙开战以及给威尔士亲王娶一位信仰新教的威尔士王妃[22]。查尔斯像他父亲一样，认为下议院讨论他的婚姻大事是在盛气凌人，并侵害了其父王的王家特权[23]。詹姆斯对他所体会到的鲁莽无礼和毫不妥协的议员非常气愤，并在1622年1月解散了国会[24]。

 
丹尼尔·迈腾斯（英语：Daniel Mytens）约在1623年为威尔士亲王查尔斯所作画像

詹姆斯的宠臣白金汉公爵曾对身为威尔士亲王的查尔斯有着巨大的影响力[25]，1623年1月，查尔斯同白金汉公爵微服前往西班牙，他们试图为同西班牙王室长期悬而未决的联姻达成协议[26]。可是，这趟西班牙之旅在最终成了一件令人尴尬的失败[27]。公主认为查尔斯是个异教徒，他眅依罗马天主教是西班牙同意联姻的首要条件[28]。西班牙坚持要求英格兰信仰天主教并废除刑法，但查尔斯知道国会不会同意此要求。而在成婚后，公主也要在西班牙滞留一年，以确保英格兰履行条约中所有的条款[29]。由于相互的误解，白金汉公爵和西班牙首相奥利瓦雷斯伯爵之间发生了私人争吵，最终致使查尔斯的这场协商成为徒劳[30]。查尔斯在10月返回伦敦，因为没有带来新娘而受到了如释重负地群众的热切欢迎[31]，随即，他和白金汉公爵敦促厌战的詹姆斯国王向西班牙宣战[32]。

詹姆斯在其新教顾问的鼓动下，在1624年召集国会以便获取战争经费。因经费问题反战的财务大臣米德尔塞伯爵莱昂内尔·克兰菲尔德（英语：Lionel Cranfield, 1st Earl of Middlesex）在查尔斯和白金汉公爵的策划下，很快被以和培根几近相同的方式弹劾[33]。詹姆斯说白金汉公爵是个傻瓜，并有先见地警告儿子说他会为这一弹劾动议的重新上演而感到后悔[34]。与此同时，恩斯特·冯曼斯费尔德（英语：Ernst von Mansfeld）组建的一支军备资金不足的临时军队开始动身收复普法尔茨，但由于这支军队财匮力绌，从未超越荷兰的海岸线[35]。

1624年之后，詹姆斯一病不起，国会也变得愈发不受其控制。当詹姆斯在1625年3月驾崩时，查尔斯和白金汉公爵认为他们实际上已经掌控了整个王国[36]。

初期统治

编辑

随着联姻西班牙的失败，查尔斯和白金汉公爵将注意力转向了法兰西[37]。在1625年5月1日，查尔斯同缺席的十五岁法兰西公主亨利埃塔·玛丽亚于巴黎圣母院门外举行了代行婚礼（英语：Proxy marriage）[38]。他在从巴黎前往西班牙的途中，见到了亨利埃塔·玛丽亚[39]。1625年6月13日，这对新人于坎特伯雷正式完婚。为防范任何异议于未然，查尔斯先发制人，将他首次国会开幕典礼推迟至第二次仪式完成后[40]。下议院多数议员因担心国王会解除对天主教不服英国国教者的限制，从而削弱正式建立的英格兰国教会，皆反对他迎娶一位罗马天主教徒。尽管查尔斯信誓旦旦地向国会宣布保证不会放松宗教限制，但做的却是他在一份秘密婚约中所答应法王路易十三的事[41]。此外，该婚约使英国海军力量处于法兰西的控制下，并将会用于压制在拉罗歇尔地区活动的雨格诺新教派。查尔斯在1626年2月2日于威斯敏斯特教堂加冕（英语：Coronation of the British monarch），不过，其妻子因拒绝参加英国国教仪式而未在他身旁[42]。

因为查尔斯支持一位具有争议的反加尔文主义（英语：History of Calvinist-Arminian debate）牧师——声名狼藉的清教徒——理查德·蒙塔古（英语：Richard Montagu），使人们对他的宗教政策的不信任感与日俱增[43]。蒙塔古在回应天主教小册子《给新式福音的新口衔》（A New Gag for the New Gospel）的一本名为《给老鹅的新口衔》（A New Gag for an Old Goose (1624)）的小册子中，极力反对加尔文教派的双重预定论，并认为灵魂拯救和罚入地狱（英语：damnation）是上帝的教义。反加尔文主义者——被称为阿民念教派——相信人类可以凭借意志自由来支配自己的宿命[44]。阿民念主义神学家是查尔斯同西班牙王室联姻为数不多的几个支持来源之一[45]。蒙塔古在詹姆斯国王的支持下，在1625年老王驾崩新君即位后不久，臆造了另一本名为《上诉凯撒（英语：Richard Montagu）》（Appello Caesarem）的小册子。查尔斯为保护被国会清教徒议员苛责的蒙塔古而以他为王室随军牧师，这使得愈来愈多的清教徒怀疑查尔斯因在暗中尝试帮助天主教复苏而青睐阿民念主义[46]。

英国国会更喜欢用一种相对廉价的作战方案，借助海军力量攻击西班牙殖民地，并希望能够捕获西班牙珍宝船队借以补充军费。而非是直接卷入欧洲大陆战争。尽管国会投票批准了总额为十四万英镑的战争经费，但这些钱对于查尔斯的战争计划来说是远远不够的[47]。此外，尽管自英格兰国王亨利六世以来，国王都被授予终身征收吨税和磅税（英语：tonnage and poundage）（两种关税）的权利，但此次下议院却限制批准王室征收此两种关税的期限为一年[48]。国会可能以如此方式，将批准税收的期限延迟至全面审视海关税收之后[49]。不过该议案未在上议院过往首读中有过任何进展[50]。尽管未有国会法案获许查尔斯征收吨税和磅税，但他还是继续征收税款[51]。

 
杰拉德·凡·洪特霍斯特（英语：Gerrit van Honthorst）于1628年为查尔斯所绘肖像

A poorly conceived and executed naval expedition against Spain under the leadership of Buckingham went badly, and the House of Commons began proceedings for the impeachment of the duke.[52] In May 1626, Charles nominated Buckingham as Chancellor of Cambridge University in a show of support,[53] and had two members who had spoken against Buckingham – Dudley Digges and Sir John Eliot – arrested at the door of the House. The Commons was outraged by the imprisonment of two of their members, and after about a week in custody, both were released.[54] On 12 June 1626, the Commons launched a direct protestation attacking Buckingham, stating, "We protest before your Majesty and the whole world that until this great person be removed from intermeddling with the great affairs of state, we are out of hope of any good success; and do fear that any money we shall or can give will, through his misemployment, be turned rather to the hurt and prejudice of this your kingdom than otherwise, as by lamentable experience we have found those large supplies formerly and lately given."[55] Despite Parliament's protests, however, Charles refused to dismiss his friend, dismissing Parliament instead.[56]

Meanwhile, domestic quarrels between Charles and Henrietta Maria were souring the early years of their marriage. Disputes over her jointure, appointments to her household, and the practice of her religion culminated in the king expelling the vast majority of her French attendants in August 1626.[57] Despite Charles's agreement to provide the French with English ships as a condition of marrying Henrietta Maria, in 1627 he launched an attack on the French coast to defend the Huguenots at La Rochelle.[58] The action, led by Buckingham, was ultimately unsuccessful. Buckingham's failure to protect the Huguenots – and his retreat from Saint-Martin-de-Ré – spurred Louis XIII's siege of La Rochelle and furthered the English Parliament's and people's detestation of the duke.[59]

Charles provoked further unrest by trying to raise money for the war through a "forced loan": a tax levied without parliamentary consent. In November 1627, the test case in the King's Bench, the "Five Knights' Case", found that the king had a prerogative right to imprison without trial those who refused to pay the forced loan.[60] Summoned again in March 1628, on 26 May Parliament adopted a Petition of Right, calling upon the king to acknowledge that he could not levy taxes without Parliament's consent, not impose martial law on civilians, not imprison them without due process, and not quarter troops in their homes.[61] Charles assented to the petition on 7 June,[62] but by the end of the month he had prorogued Parliament and re-asserted his right to collect customs duties without authorisation from Parliament.[63]

On 23 August 1628, Buckingham was assassinated.[64] Charles was deeply distressed. According to Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, he "threw himself upon his bed, lamenting with much passion and with abundance of tears".[65] He remained grieving in his room for two days.[66] In contrast, the public rejoiced at Buckingham's death, which accentuated the gulf between the court and the nation, and between the Crown and the Commons.[67] Although the death of Buckingham effectively ended the war with Spain and eliminated his leadership as an issue, it did not end the conflicts between Charles and Parliament.[68] It did, however, coincide with an improvement in Charles's relationship with his wife, and by November 1628 their old quarrels were at an end.[69] Perhaps Charles's emotional ties were transferred from Buckingham to Henrietta Maria.[70] She became pregnant for the first time, and the bond between them grew ever stronger.[71] Together, they embodied an image of virtue and family life, and their court became a model of formality and morality.[72]

Personal rule

编辑

Parliament prorogued

编辑
 
Charles depicted as a victorious and chivalrous Saint George in an English landscape by Rubens, 1629–30.[b]

In January 1629 Charles opened the second session of the English Parliament, which had been prorogued in June 1628, with a moderate speech on the tonnage and poundage issue.[76] Members of the House of Commons began to voice opposition to Charles's policies in light of the case of John Rolle, a Member of Parliament whose goods had been confiscated for failing to pay tonnage and poundage.[77] Many MPs viewed the imposition of the tax as a breach of the Petition of Right. When Charles ordered a parliamentary adjournment on 2 March,[78] members held the Speaker, Sir John Finch, down in his chair so that the ending of the session could be delayed long enough for resolutions against Catholicism, Arminianism and tonnage and poundage to be read out and acclaimed by the chamber.[79] The provocation was too much for Charles, who dissolved Parliament and had nine parliamentary leaders, including Sir John Eliot, imprisoned over the matter,[80] thereby turning the men into martyrs,[81] and giving popular cause to their protest.[82]

Shortly after the prorogation, without the means in the foreseeable future to raise funds from Parliament for a European war, or the influence of Buckingham, Charles made peace with France and Spain.[83] The following eleven years, during which Charles ruled England without a Parliament, are referred to as the personal rule or the "eleven years' tyranny".[84] Ruling without Parliament was not exceptional, and was supported by precedent.[c] Only Parliament, however, could legally raise taxes, and without it Charles's capacity to acquire funds for his treasury was limited to his customary rights and prerogatives.[86]

Finances

编辑
 
Sixpence of Charles I

A large fiscal deficit had arisen in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I.[87] Notwithstanding Buckingham's short lived campaigns against both Spain and France, there was little financial capacity for Charles to wage wars overseas. Throughout his reign Charles was obliged to rely primarily on volunteer forces for defence and on diplomatic efforts to support his sister, Elizabeth, and his foreign policy objective for the restoration of the Palatinate.[88] England was still the least taxed country in Europe, with no official excise and no regular direct taxation.[89] To raise revenue without reconvening Parliament, Charles resurrected an all-but-forgotten law called the "Distraint of Knighthood", in abeyance for over a century, which required any man who earned £40 or more from land each year to present himself at the king's coronation to be knighted. Relying on this old statute, Charles fined individuals who had failed to attend his coronation in 1626.[90][d]

The chief tax imposed by Charles was a feudal levy known as ship money,[92] which proved even more unpopular, and lucrative, than poundage and tonnage before it. Previously, collection of ship money had been authorised only during wars, and only on coastal regions. Charles, however, argued that there was no legal bar to collecting the tax for defence during peacetime and throughout the whole of the kingdom. Ship money, paid directly to the Treasury of the Navy, provided between £150,000 to £200,000 annually between 1634 and 1638, after which yields declined.[93] Opposition to ship money steadily grew, but the 12 common law judges of England declared that the tax was within the king's prerogative, though some of them had reservations.[94] The prosecution of John Hampden for non-payment in 1637–38 provided a platform for popular protest, and the judges only found against Hampden by the narrow margin of 7–5.[95]

The king also derived money through the granting of monopolies, despite a statute forbidding such action, which, though inefficient, raised an estimated £100,000 a year in the late 1630s.[96][e] Charles also raised funds from the Scottish nobility, at the price of considerable acrimony, by the Act of Revocation (1625), whereby all gifts of royal or church land made to the nobility since 1540 were revoked, with continued ownership being subject to an annual rent.[98] In addition, the boundaries of the royal forests in England were extended to their ancient limits as part of a scheme to maximise income by exploiting the land and fining land users within the re-asserted boundaries for encroachment.[99]

Religious conflicts

编辑
 
Charles I with M. de St Antoine by Anthony van Dyck, 1633

Throughout Charles's reign, the issue of how far the English Reformation should progress was constantly brought to the forefront of political debate. Arminian theology emphasised clerical authority and the individual's ability to reject or accept salvation, and was consequently viewed as heretical and a potential vehicle for the reintroduction of Roman Catholicism by its Calvinist opponents. Charles's sympathy to the teachings of Arminianism, and specifically his wish to move the Church of England away from Calvinism in a more traditional and sacramental direction, were perceived by Puritans as irreligious tendencies.[100] In addition, Charles's subjects followed news of the European war closely[101] and grew increasingly dismayed by Charles's diplomacy with Spain and his failure to support the Protestant cause abroad effectively.[102]

In 1633, Charles appointed William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury.[103] Together, they began a series of anti-Calvinist reforms that attempted to ensure religious uniformity by restricting non-conformist preachers, insisting that the liturgy be celebrated as prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, organising the internal architecture of English churches so as to emphasise the sacrament of the altar, and re-issuing King James's Declaration of Sports, which permitted secular activities on the sabbath.[104] The Feoffees for Impropriations, an organisation that bought benefices and advowsons so that Puritans could be appointed to them, was dissolved.[105] To prosecute those who opposed his reforms, Laud used the two most powerful courts in the land, the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber.[106] The courts became feared for their censorship of opposing religious views, and became unpopular among the propertied classes for inflicting degrading punishments on gentlemen.[107] For example, in 1637 William Prynne, Henry Burton and John Bastwick were pilloried, whipped and mutilated by cropping and imprisoned indefinitely for publishing anti-episcopal pamphlets.[108]

 
Charles I in Three Positions by Anthony van Dyck, 1635–36

When Charles attempted to impose his religious policies in Scotland he faced numerous difficulties. Although born in Scotland, Charles had become estranged from his northern kingdom; his first visit since early childhood was for his Scottish coronation in 1633.[109] To the dismay of the Scots, who had removed many traditional rituals from their liturgical practice, Charles insisted that the coronation be conducted in the Anglican rite.[110] In 1637, the king ordered the use of a new prayer book in Scotland that was almost identical to the English Book of Common Prayer, without consulting either the Scottish Parliament or the Kirk.[111] Although written, under Charles's direction, by Scottish bishops, many Scots resisted it, seeing the new prayer book as a vehicle for introducing Anglicanism to Scotland.[112] On 23 July, riots erupted in Edinburgh upon the first Sunday of the prayer book's usage, and unrest spread throughout the Kirk. The public began to mobilise around a re-affirmation of the National Covenant, whose signatories pledged to uphold the reformed religion of Scotland and reject any innovations that were not authorised by Kirk and Parliament.[113] When the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland met in November 1638, it condemned the new prayer book, abolished episcopal church government by bishops, and adopted Presbyterian government by elders and deacons.[114]

Bishops' Wars

编辑
主条目：Bishops' Wars

Charles perceived the unrest in Scotland as a rebellion against his authority, precipitating the First Bishops' War in 1639.[115] Charles did not seek subsidies from the English Parliament to wage war, but instead raised an army without parliamentary aid and marched to Berwick-upon-Tweed, on the border of Scotland.[116] Charles's army did not engage the Covenanters as the king feared the defeat of his forces, whom he believed to be significantly outnumbered by the Scots.[117] In the Treaty of Berwick, Charles regained custody of his Scottish fortresses and secured the dissolution of the Covenanters' interim government, albeit at the decisive concession that both the Scottish Parliament and General Assembly of the Scottish Church were called.[118]

Charles's military failure in the First Bishops' War caused a financial and diplomatic crisis for Charles that deepened when his efforts to raise finance from Spain, while simultaneously continuing his support for his Palatine relatives, led to the public humiliation of the Battle of the Downs, where the Dutch destroyed a Spanish bullion fleet off the coast of Kent in sight of the impotent English navy.[119]

Charles continued peace negotiations with the Scots in a bid to gain time before launching a new military campaign. Because of his financial weakness, he was forced to call Parliament into session in an attempt to raise funds for such a venture.[120] Both English and Irish parliaments were summoned in the early months of 1640.[121] In March 1640, the Irish Parliament duly voted in a subsidy of £180,000 with the promise to raise an army 9,000 strong by the end of May.[121] In the English general election in March, however, court candidates fared badly,[122] and Charles's dealings with the English Parliament in April quickly reached stalemate.[123] The earls of Northumberland and Strafford attempted to broker a compromise whereby the king would agree to forfeit ship money in exchange for £650,000 (although the cost of the coming war was estimated at around £1 million).[124] Nevertheless, this alone was insufficient to produce consensus in the Commons.[125] The Parliamentarians' calls for further reforms were ignored by Charles, who still retained the support of the House of Lords. Despite the protests of Northumberland,[126] the Short Parliament (as it came to be known) was dissolved in May 1640, less than a month after it assembled.[127]

 
 
The Earl of Strafford (left) and William Laud (right): two of Charles's most influential advisors during the personal rule[128]

By this stage Strafford, Lord Deputy of Ireland since 1632,[129] had emerged as Charles's right hand man and together with Laud, pursued a policy of "Thorough" that aimed to make central royal authority more efficient and effective at the expense of local or anti-government interests.[130] Although originally a critic of the king, Strafford defected to royal service in 1628 (due in part to Buckingham's persuasion),[131] and had since emerged, alongside Laud, as the most influential of Charles's ministers.[132]

Bolstered by the failure of the English Short Parliament, the Scottish Parliament declared itself capable of governing without the king's consent and, in August 1640, the Covenanter army moved into the English county of Northumberland.[133] Following the illness of the earl of Northumberland, who was the king's commander-in-chief, Charles and Strafford went north to command the English forces, despite Strafford being ill himself with a combination of gout and dysentery.[134] The Scottish soldiery, many of whom were veterans of the Thirty Years' War,[135] had far greater morale and training compared to their English counterparts, and met virtually no resistance until reaching Newcastle upon Tyne where, at the Battle of Newburn, they defeated the English forces and occupied the city, as well as the neighbouring county of Durham.[136]

As demands for a parliament grew,[137] Charles took the unusual step of summoning a great council of peers. By the time it met, on 24 September at York, Charles had resolved to follow the almost universal advice to call a parliament. After informing the peers that a parliament would convene in November, he asked them to consider how he could acquire funds to maintain his army against the Scots in the meantime. They recommended making peace.[138] A cessation of arms, although not a final settlement, was negotiated in the humiliating Treaty of Ripon, signed in October 1640.[139] The treaty stated that the Scots would continue to occupy Northumberland and Durham and be paid £850 per day, until peace was restored and the English Parliament recalled, which would be required to raise sufficient funds to pay the Scottish forces.[140]

Consequently, in November Charles summoned what later became known as the Long Parliament. Once again, Charles's supporters fared badly at the polls. Of the 493 members of the Commons, over 350 were opposed to the king.[141]

Long Parliament

编辑
主条目：Long Parliament
参见：Wars of the Three Kingdoms

Tensions escalate

编辑

The Long Parliament proved just as difficult for Charles as had the Short Parliament. It assembled on 3 November 1640 and quickly began proceedings to impeach the king's leading counsellors of high treason.[142] Strafford was taken into custody on 10 November; Laud was impeached on 18 December; Lord Keeper Finch was impeached the following day, and he consequently fled to the Hague with Charles's permission on 21 December.[143] To prevent the king from dissolving it at will, Parliament passed the Triennial Act, which required Parliament to be summoned at least once every three years, and permitted the Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and 12 peers to summon Parliament if the king failed to do so.[144] The Act was coupled with a subsidy bill, and so to secure the latter, Charles grudgingly granted royal assent in February 1641.[145]

Strafford had become the principal target of the Parliamentarians, particularly John Pym, and he went on trial for high treason on 22 March 1641.[146] However, the key allegation by Sir Henry Vane that Strafford had threatened to use the Irish army to subdue England was not corroborated and on 10 April Pym's case collapsed.[147] Pym and his allies immediately launched a bill of attainder, which simply declared Strafford guilty and pronounced the sentence of death.[148]

 
维基文库中的相关原始文献：Speech against the attainder of Strafford

Charles assured Strafford that "upon the word of a king you shall not suffer in life, honour or fortune",[149] and the attainder could not succeed if Charles withheld assent.[150] Furthermore, many members and most peers were opposed to the attainder, not wishing, in the words of one, to "commit murder with the sword of justice".[151] However, increased tensions and an attempted coup by royalist army officers in support of Strafford and in which Charles was involved began to sway the issue.[152] The Commons passed the bill on 20 April by a large margin (204 in favour, 59 opposed, and 230 abstained), and the Lords acquiesced (by 26 votes to 19, with 79 absent) in May.[153] Charles, fearing for the safety of his family in the face of unrest, assented reluctantly on 9 May after consulting his judges and bishops.[154] Strafford was beheaded three days later.[155]

On 3 May, Parliament's Protestation had attacked the "wicked counsels" of Charles's "arbitrary and tyrannical government"; while those who signed the petition undertook to defend the king's "person, honour and estate", they also swore to preserve "the true reformed religion", parliament, and the "rights and liberties of the subjects".[156] Within a week, Charles had assented to an unprecedented Act, which forbade the dissolution of the English Parliament without Parliament's consent.[157] In the following months, ship money, fines in distraint of knighthood and excise without parliamentary consent were declared unlawful, and the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission were abolished.[158] All remaining forms of taxation were legalised and regulated by the Tonnage and Poundage Act.[159] The House of Commons also launched bills attacking bishops and episcopacy, but these failed in the Lords.[160]

Charles had made important concessions in England, and temporarily improved his position in Scotland by securing the favour of the Scots on a visit from August to November 1641 during which he conceded to the official establishment of Presbyterianism.[161] However, following an attempted royalist coup in Scotland, known as "The Incident", Charles's credibility was significantly undermined.[162]

Irish rebellion

编辑
主条目：Irish Rebellion of 1641

In Ireland, the population was split into three main socio-political groups: the Gaelic Irish, who were Catholic; the Old English, who were descended from medieval Normans and were also predominantly Catholic; and the New English, who were Protestant settlers from England and Scotland aligned with the English Parliament and the Covenanters. Strafford's administration had improved the Irish economy and boosted tax revenue, but had done so by heavy-handedly imposing order.[163] He had trained up a large Catholic army in support of the king and had weakened the authority of the Irish Parliament,[164] while continuing to confiscate land from Catholics for Protestant settlement at the same time as promoting a Laudian Anglicanism that was anathema to Presbyterians.[165] As a result, all three groups had become disaffected.[166] Strafford's impeachment provided a new departure for Irish politics whereby all sides joined together to present evidence against him.[167] In a similar manner to the English Parliament, the Old English members of the Irish Parliament argued that while opposed to Strafford they remained loyal to Charles. They argued that the king had been led astray by malign counsellors,[168] and that, moreover, a viceroy such as Strafford could emerge as a despotic figure instead of ensuring that the king was directly involved in governance.[169] Strafford's fall from power weakened Charles's influence in Ireland.[170] The dissolution of the Irish army was unsuccessfully demanded three times by the English Commons during Strafford's imprisonment,[156] until Charles was eventually forced through lack of money to disband the army at the end of Strafford's trial.[171] Disputes concerning the transfer of land ownership from native Catholic to settler Protestant,[172] particularly in relation to the plantation of Ulster,[173] coupled with resentment at moves to ensure the Irish Parliament was subordinate to the Parliament of England,[174] sowed the seeds of rebellion. When armed conflict arose between the Gaelic Irish and New English, in late October 1641, the Old English sided with the Gaelic Irish while simultaneously professing their loyalty to the king.[175]

In November 1641, the House of Commons passed the Grand Remonstrance, a long list of grievances against actions by Charles's ministers committed since the beginning of his reign (that were asserted to be part of a grand Catholic conspiracy of which the king was an unwitting member),[176] but it was in many ways a step too far by Pym and passed by only 11 votes – 159 to 148.[177] Furthermore, the Remonstrance had very little support in the House of Lords, which the Remonstrance attacked.[178] The tension was heightened by news of the Irish rebellion, coupled with inaccurate rumours of Charles's complicity.[179] Throughout November, a series of alarmist pamphlets published stories of atrocities in Ireland,[180] which included massacres of New English settlers by the native Irish who could not be controlled by the Old English lords.[181] Rumours of "papist" conspiracies in England circulated the kingdom,[182] and English anti-Catholic opinion was strengthened, damaging Charles's reputation and authority.[183]

 
Henrietta Maria by Sir Anthony van Dyck, 1632

The English Parliament distrusted Charles's motivations when he called for funds to put down the Irish rebellion; many members of the Commons suspected that forces raised by Charles might later be used against Parliament itself.[184] Pym's Militia Bill was intended to wrest control of the army from the king, but it did not have the support of the Lords, let alone Charles.[185] Instead, the Commons passed the bill as an ordinance, which they claimed did not require royal assent.[186] The Militia Ordinance appears to have prompted more members of the Lords to support the king.[187] In an attempt to strengthen his position, Charles generated great antipathy in London, which was already fast falling into anarchy, when he placed the Tower of London under the command of Colonel Thomas Lunsford, an infamous, albeit efficient, career officer.[188] When rumours reached Charles that Parliament intended to impeach his wife for supposedly conspiring with the Irish rebels, the king decided to take drastic action.[189]

Five members

编辑

Charles suspected, probably correctly, that some members of the English Parliament had colluded with the invading Scots.[190] On 3 January, Charles directed Parliament to give up five members of the Commons – Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode and Sir Arthur Haselrig – and one peer – Lord Mandeville – on the grounds of high treason.[191] When Parliament refused, it was possibly Henrietta Maria who persuaded Charles to arrest the five members by force, which Charles intended to carry out personally.[192] However, news of the warrant reached Parliament ahead of him, and the wanted men slipped away by boat shortly before Charles entered the House of Commons with an armed guard on 4 January 1642.[193] Having displaced the Speaker, William Lenthall, from his chair, the king asked him where the MPs had fled. Lenthall, on his knees,[194] famously replied, "May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here."[195] Charles abjectly declared "all my birds have flown", and was forced to retire, empty-handed.[196]

The botched arrest attempt was politically disastrous for Charles.[197] No English sovereign had ever entered the House of Commons, and his unprecedented invasion of the chamber to arrest its members was considered a grave breach of parliamentary privilege.[198] In one stroke Charles destroyed his supporters' efforts to portray him as a defence against innovation and disorder.[199]

Parliament quickly seized London, and Charles fled the capital for Hampton Court Palace on 10 January 1642,[200] moving two days later to Windsor Castle.[201] After sending his wife and eldest daughter to safety abroad in February, he travelled northwards, hoping to seize the military arsenal at Hull.[202] To his dismay, he was rebuffed by the town's Parliamentary governor, Sir John Hotham, who refused him entry in April, and Charles was forced to withdraw.[203]

English Civil War

编辑
 
A nineteenth-century painting depicting Charles (centre in blue sash) before the battle of Edgehill, 1642
主条目：English Civil War

In mid-1642, both sides began to arm. Charles raised an army using the medieval method of commission of array, and Parliament called for volunteers for its militia.[204] Following futile negotiations, Charles raised the royal standard in Nottingham on 22 August 1642.[205] At the start of the First English Civil War, Charles's forces controlled roughly the Midlands, Wales, the West Country and northern England. He set up his court at Oxford. Parliament controlled London, the south-east and East Anglia, as well as the English navy.[206]

After a few skirmishes, the opposing forces met in earnest at Edgehill, on 23 October 1642. Charles's nephew Prince Rupert of the Rhine disagreed with the battle strategy of the royalist commander Lord Lindsey, and Charles sided with Rupert. Lindsey resigned, leaving Charles to assume overall command assisted by Lord Forth.[207] Rupert's cavalry successfully charged through the parliamentary ranks, but instead of swiftly returning to the field, rode off to plunder the parliamentary baggage train.[208] Lindsey, acting as a colonel, was wounded and bled to death without medical attention. The battle ended inconclusively as the daylight faded.[209]

In his own words, the experience of battle had left Charles "exceedingly and deeply grieved".[210] He regrouped at Oxford, turning down Rupert's suggestion of an immediate attack on London. After a week, he set out for the capital on 3 November, capturing Brentford on the way while simultaneously continuing to negotiate with civic and parliamentary delegations. At Turnham Green on the outskirts of London, the royalist army met resistance from the city militia, and faced with a numerically superior force, Charles ordered a retreat.[210] He over-wintered in Oxford, strengthening the city's defences and preparing for the next season's campaign. Peace talks between the two sides collapsed in April.[211]

 
Charles depicted by Wenceslaus Hollar on horseback in front of his troops, 1644

The war continued indecisively through 1643 and 1644, and Henrietta Maria returned to Britain for 17 months from February 1643.[212] After Rupert captured Bristol in July 1643, Charles visited the port city and lay siege to Gloucester, further up the river Severn. His plan to undermine the city walls failed due to heavy rain, and on the approach of a parliamentary relief force, Charles lifted the siege and withdrew to Sudeley Castle.[213] The parliamentary army turned back towards London, and Charles set off in pursuit. The two armies met at Newbury, Berkshire, on 20 September. Just as at Edgehill, the battle stalemated at nightfall, and the armies disengaged.[214] In January 1644, Charles summoned a Parliament at Oxford, which was attended by about 40 peers and 118 members of the Commons; all told, the Oxford Parliament, which sat until March 1645, was supported by the majority of peers and about a third of the Commons.[215] Charles became disillusioned by the assembly's ineffectiveness, calling it a "mongrel" in private letters to his wife.[216]

In 1644, Charles remained in the southern half of England while Rupert rode north to relieve Newark and York, which were under threat from parliamentary and Scottish Covenanter armies. Charles was victorious at the battle of Cropredy Bridge in late June, but the royalists in the north were defeated at the battle of Marston Moor just a few days later.[217] The king continued his campaign in the south, encircling and disarming the parliamentary army of the Earl of Essex.[218] Returning northwards to his base at Oxford, he fought at Newbury for a second time before the winter closed in; the battle ended indecisively.[219] Attempts to negotiate a settlement over the winter, while both sides re-armed and re-organised, were again unsuccessful.[220]

At the battle of Naseby on 14 June 1645, Rupert's horsemen again mounted a successful charge, against the flank of Parliament's New Model Army, but Charles's troops elsewhere on the field were pushed back by the opposing forces. Charles, attempting to rally his men, rode forward but as he did so, Lord Carnwath seized his bridle and pulled him back, fearing for the king's safety. Carnwath's action was misinterpreted by the royalist soldiers as a signal to move back, leading to a collapse of their position.[221] The military balance tipped decisively in favour of Parliament.[222] There followed a series of defeats for the royalists,[223] and then the Siege of Oxford, from which Charles escaped (disguised as a servant) in April 1646.[224] He put himself into the hands of the Scottish Presbyterian army besieging Newark, and was taken northwards to Newcastle upon Tyne.[225] After nine months of negotiations, the Scots finally arrived at an agreement with the English Parliament: in exchange for £100,000, and the promise of more money in the future,[f] the Scots withdrew from Newcastle and delivered Charles to the parliamentary commissioners in January 1647.[227]

Captivity

编辑

Parliament held Charles under house arrest at Holdenby House in Northamptonshire, until Cornet George Joyce took him by threat of force from Holdenby on 3 June in the name of the New Model Army.[228] By this time, mutual suspicion had developed between Parliament, which favoured army disbandment and Presbyterianism, and the New Model Army, which was primarily officered by Independent non-conformists who sought a greater political role.[229] Charles was eager to exploit the widening divisions, and apparently viewed Joyce's actions as an opportunity rather than a threat.[230] He was taken first to Newmarket, at his own suggestion,[231] and then transferred to Oatlands and subsequently Hampton Court, while more ultimately fruitless negotiations took place.[232] By November, he determined that it would be in his best interests to escape – perhaps to France, Southern England or to Berwick-upon-Tweed, near the Scottish border.[233] He fled Hampton Court on 11 November, and from the shores of Southampton Water made contact with Colonel Robert Hammond, Parliamentary Governor of the Isle of Wight, whom he apparently believed to be sympathetic.[234] Hammond, however, confined Charles in Carisbrooke Castle and informed Parliament that Charles was in his custody.[235]

From Carisbrooke, Charles continued to try to bargain with the various parties. In direct contrast to his previous conflict with the Scottish Kirk, on 26 December 1647 he signed a secret treaty with the Scots. Under the agreement, called the "Engagement", the Scots undertook to invade England on Charles's behalf and restore him to the throne on condition that Presbyterianism be established in England for three years.[236]

The royalists rose in May 1648, igniting the Second Civil War, and as agreed with Charles, the Scots invaded England. Uprisings in Kent, Essex, and Cumberland, and a rebellion in South Wales, were put down by the New Model Army, and with the defeat of the Scots at the Battle of Preston in August 1648, the royalists lost any chance of winning the war.[237]

Charles's only recourse was to return to negotiations,[238] which were held at Newport on the Isle of Wight.[239] On 5 December 1648, Parliament voted by 129 to 83 to continue negotiating with the king,[240] but Oliver Cromwell and the army opposed any further talks with someone they viewed as a bloody tyrant and were already taking action to consolidate their power.[241] Hammond was replaced as Governor of the Isle of Wight on 27 November, and placed in the custody of the army the following day.[242] In Pride's Purge on 6 and 7 December, the members of Parliament out of sympathy with the military were arrested or excluded by Colonel Thomas Pride,[243] while others stayed away voluntarily.[244] The remaining members formed the Rump Parliament. It was effectively a military coup.[245]

Trial

编辑
主条目：High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I
 
Charles at his trial, by Edward Bower, 1649. He let his beard and hair grow long because Parliament had dismissed his barber, and he refused to let anyone else near him with a razor.[246]
 
Charles (in the dock with his back to the viewer) facing the High Court of Justice, 1649[247]

Charles was moved to Hurst Castle at the end of 1648, and thereafter to Windsor Castle.[248] In January 1649, the Rump House of Commons indicted him on a charge of treason, which was rejected by the House of Lords.[249] The idea of trying a king was a novel one.[250] The Chief Justices of the three common law courts of England – Henry Rolle, Oliver St John and John Wilde – all opposed the indictment as unlawful.[251] The Rump Commons declared itself capable of legislating alone, passed a bill creating a separate court for Charles's trial, and declared the bill an act without the need for royal assent.[252] The High Court of Justice established by the Act consisted of 135 commissioners, but many either refused to serve or chose to stay away.[253] Only 68 (all firm Parliamentarians) attended Charles's trial on charges of high treason and "other high crimes" that began on 20 January 1649 in Westminster Hall.[254] John Bradshaw acted as President of the Court, and the prosecution was led by the Solicitor General, John Cook.[255]

Charles was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of the country.[256] The charge stated that he, "for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented", and that the "wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation."[256] Reflecting the modern concept of command responsibility,[257] the indictment held him "guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby."[258] An estimated 300,000 people, or 6% of the population, died during the war.[259]

Over the first three days of the trial, whenever Charles was asked to plead, he refused,[260] stating his objection with the words: "I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority...?"[261] He claimed that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch,[250] that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God and by the traditional laws of England, and that the power wielded by those trying him was only that of force of arms. Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining that,

no earthly power can justly call me (who am your King) in question as a delinquent ... this day's proceeding cannot be warranted by God's laws; for, on the contrary, the authority of obedience unto Kings is clearly warranted, and strictly commanded in both the Old and New Testament ... for the law of this land, I am no less confident, that no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King, they all going in his name: and one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong ... the higher House is totally excluded; and for the House of Commons, it is too well known that the major part of them are detained or deterred from sitting ... the arms I took up were only to defend the fundamental laws of this kingdom against those who have supposed my power hath totally changed the ancient government.[262]

The court, by contrast, challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and proposed that "the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern 'by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise'."[263]

At the end of the third day, Charles was removed from the court,[264] which then heard over 30 witnesses against the king in his absence over the next two days, and on 26 January condemned him to death. The following day, the king was brought before a public session of the commission, declared guilty and sentenced.[265] Fifty-nine of the commissioners signed Charles's death warrant.[266]

Execution

编辑
 
Contemporary German print of Charles I's decapitation

Charles's decapitation was scheduled for Tuesday, 30 January 1649. Two of his children remained in England under the control of the Parliamentarians: Elizabeth and Henry. They were permitted to visit him on 29 January, and he bid them a tearful farewell.[267] The following morning, he called for two shirts to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear:[268][269]

"the season is so sharp as probably may make me shake, which some observers may imagine proceeds from fear. I would have no such imputation."[268]

He walked under guard from St James's Palace, where he had been confined, to the Palace of Whitehall, where an execution scaffold was erected in front of the Banqueting House.[270] Charles was separated from spectators by large ranks of soldiers, and his last speech reached only those with him on the scaffold.[271] He blamed his fate on his failure to prevent the execution of his loyal servant Strafford: "An unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect, is punished now by an unjust sentence on me."[272] He declared that he had desired the liberty and freedom of the people as much as any, "but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having government ... It is not their having a share in the government; that is nothing appertaining unto them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things."[273] He continued, "I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."[274]

At about 2 p.m.,[275] Charles put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready by stretching out his hands; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke.[276] According to observer Philip Henry, a moan "as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again" rose from the assembled crowd,[277] some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in the king's blood as a memento.[278]

The executioner was masked and disguised, and there is debate over his identity. The commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common hangman of London, but he refused, at least at first, despite being offered £200. It is possible he relented and undertook the commission after being threatened with death, but there are others who have been named as potential candidates, including George Joyce, William Hulet and Hugh Peters.[279] The clean strike, confirmed by an examination of the king's body at Windsor in 1813,[280] suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman.[281]

It was common practice for the severed head of a traitor to be held up and exhibited to the crowd with the words "Behold the head of a traitor!"[282] Although Charles's head was exhibited,[283] the words were not used, possibly because the executioner did not want his voice recognised.[282] On the day after the execution, the king's head was sewn back onto his body, which was then embalmed and placed in a lead coffin.[284]

 
Cromwell was said to have visited Charles's coffin, sighing "Cruel necessity!" as he did so.[285] The story was depicted by Delaroche in the nineteenth century.
 
Another of Delaroche's paintings, Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers, is an allegory for later events in France and the mocking of Christ.[286]

The commission refused to allow Charles's burial at Westminster Abbey, so his body was conveyed to Windsor on the night of 7 February.[287] He was buried in the Henry VIII vault in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, in private on 9 February 1649.[288] The king's son, Charles II, later planned for an elaborate royal mausoleum to be erected in Hyde Park, London, but it was never built.[128]

Legacy

编辑
参见：English Interregnum

Ten days after Charles's execution, on the day of his interment, a memoir purporting to be written by the king appeared for sale.[284] This book, the Eikon Basilike (Greek: the "Royal Portrait"), contained an apologia for royal policies, and it proved an effective piece of royalist propaganda. John Milton wrote a Parliamentary rejoinder, the Eikonoklastes ("The Iconoclast"), but the response made little headway against the pathos of the royalist book.[289] Anglicans and royalists fashioned an image of martyrdom,[290] and Charles was recognised as a martyr king by his followers. From the latter half of the seventeenth century, high Anglicans commemorated his martyrdom on the anniversary of his death and churches, such as those at Falmouth and Tunbridge Wells, were founded in his honour.[128]

Partly inspired by his visit to the Spanish court in 1623,[291] Charles became a passionate and knowledgeable art collector, amassing one of the finest art collections ever assembled.[292] His intimate courtiers including the Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Arundel shared his interest and have been dubbed the Whitehall group.[293] In Spain, he sat for a sketch by Velázquez, and acquired works by Titian and Correggio, among others.[294] In England, his commissions included the ceiling of the Banqueting House, Whitehall, by Rubens and paintings by other artists from the Low Countries such as van Honthorst, Mytens, and van Dyck.[295] In 1627 and 1628, he purchased the entire collection of the Duke of Mantua, which included work by Titian, Correggio, Raphael, Caravaggio, del Sarto and Mantegna.[296] Charles's collection grew further to encompass Bernini, Breughel, da Vinci, Holbein, Hollar, Tintoretto and Veronese, and self-portraits by both Dürer and Rembrandt.[297] By Charles's death, there were an estimated 1760 paintings,[298] most of which were sold and dispersed by Parliament.[299]

With the monarchy overthrown, England became a republic or "Commonwealth". The House of Lords was abolished by the Rump Commons, and executive power was assumed by a Council of State.[300] All significant military opposition in Britain and Ireland was extinguished by the forces of Oliver Cromwell in the Third English Civil War and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.[301] Cromwell forcibly disbanded the Rump Parliament in 1653,[302] thereby establishing The Protectorate with himself as Lord Protector.[303] Upon his death in 1658, he was briefly succeeded by his ineffective son, Richard.[304] Parliament was reinstated, and the monarchy was restored to Charles I's eldest son, Charles II, in 1660.[305]

Carolina in North America – later North and South Carolina – was named after Charles I. To the north in Virginia, Cape Charles, Charles River Shire and the Charles City Shire were all likewise named after him; the king personally named the Charles River.[306]

Assessments

编辑

In the words of John Philipps Kenyon, "Charles Stuart is a man of contradictions and controversy".[307] Revered by high Tories who considered him a saintly martyr,[128] he was condemned by Whig historians, such as Samuel Rawson Gardiner, who thought him duplicitous and delusional.[308] In recent decades, most historians have criticised him,[309] the main exception being Kevin Sharpe who offered a more sympathetic view of Charles that has not been widely adopted.[310] While Sharpe argued that the king was a dynamic man of conscience, Professor Barry Coward thought Charles "was the most incompetent monarch of England since Henry VI",[311] a view shared by Ronald Hutton, who called him "the worst king we have had since the Middle Ages".[312]

Archbishop William Laud, who was beheaded by Parliament during the war, described Charles as "A mild and gracious prince who knew not how to be, or how to be made, great."[313] Charles was more sober and refined than his father,[314] but he was intransigent and deliberately pursued unpopular policies that ultimately brought ruin on himself.[315] Both Charles and James were advocates of the divine right of kings, but while James's ambitions concerning absolute prerogative were tempered by compromise and consensus with his subjects, Charles believed that he had no need to compromise or even to explain his actions.[316] He thought that he was answerable only to God. "Princes are not bound to give account of their actions," he wrote, "but to God alone".[317]

头衔、称号、荣誉和纹章

编辑

头衔和称号

编辑
  • 1600年12月23日 –1625年3月27日：奥尔巴尼公爵、奥蒙德侯爵、罗斯伯爵及阿德蒙诺赫勋爵[318]
  • 1605年 1月 6日 –1625年3月27日：约克公爵[318]
  • 1612年11月 6日 –1625年3月27日：康沃尔及罗西斯公爵[318]
  • 1616年11月 4日 –1625年3月27日：威尔士亲王及切斯特伯爵[318]
  • 1625年 3月27日 –1649年1月30日：国王殿下

查理一世作为国王的官方头衔（英语：style (manner of address)）是“查尔斯，蒙上帝恩典，英格兰、苏格兰、法兰西和爱尔兰国王，信仰的守卫者（英语：Fidei defensor），等[319]。”其中“法兰西国王”只是名誉称号，从爱德华三世时始到乔治三世时止，每一位英格兰君主无论实际上对法兰西领土有着怎样的控制，都会在自己的官方称号中宣称自己是法兰西国王[320]。然而，判处他死刑的那些人不想在称号中使用和信仰相关的部分，他们只称呼他为：“查尔斯·斯图亚特，英格兰国王[321]”。

荣誉

编辑

纹章

编辑

作为约克公爵，查尔斯的王室纹章以一条有三间的银白色（英语：Argent）横条（英语：Label (heraldry)）作区分（英语：Cadency），而每间横条都绘上了红色的（英语：Gules）小圆盘（英语：torteau）[323]。威尔士亲王的王室纹章以一条共三间无特别之处的纯银白色横条作区分[324]。作为国王，查尔斯的王室纹章式样未有太大变化。他的纹章盾面可以纵横地分成四部分（英语：Quartering (heraldry)）。位于左上的第一部分和位于右下的第四部分再被等分成四部分，第一部分和第四部分的左上和右下边绘上天蓝色背景（英语：Azure (heraldry)），并代表法兰西的三个金色（英语：Or (heraldry)）鸢尾花图案，而左下和右上边则绘上红色背景，并代表英格兰的纵向排列（英语：Pale (heraldry)）的三只面向其左并向前直走（英语：Attitude (heraldry)）的金色狮子；位于右上的第二部分绘上饰有鸢尾形花纹之双边带（英语：tressure）的金色背景，并代表苏格兰的一只后腿站立（英语：Attitude (heraldry)）的红色狮子；而位于左下的第三部分绘上天蓝色背景，并代表爱尔兰的一把有三根银弦的金色竖琴。至于苏格兰纹章，位于左上的第一部分和右下第四部分绘上代表苏格兰的图样，位于右上的第二部分被细分成四部分，并绘上代表英格兰和法兰西的图样[325]。

  •  
    查尔斯作为威尔士亲王时的纹章图样
  •  
    查理一世身为英格兰国王的纹章图样
  •  
    查理一世身为苏格兰国王的纹章图样

子嗣

编辑
 
查理一世在1637年时的五个最年长的孩子，从左至右为：玛丽（英语：Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange）、詹姆斯、查尔斯、伊丽莎白（英语：Elizabeth Stuart (1635–1650)）和安妮

查理一世有九个孩子，其中有两个最终当了国王，亦有两个在出生不久后夭折[326]。

姓名 生日 卒日 备注
康沃尔及罗斯西公爵查尔斯·詹姆斯 1629年5月13日 1629年5月13日 出生当天即去世，以“威尔士亲王查尔斯”的名义下葬[327]。
查理二世 1630年5月29日 1685年2月6日 1663年与布拉甘扎的凯瑟琳（1638年-1705年）结婚，没有合法子嗣。
长公主玛丽（英语：Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange） 1631年11月4日 1660年12月24日 1641年与奥兰治亲王威廉二世（1626年 - 1650年）结婚。她有一个孩子，即日后的奥兰治亲王威廉三世。
詹姆斯七世及二世 1633年10月14日 1701年9月16日 第一次和安妮·海德（1637年–1671年）在1659年结婚，子嗣包括日后的玛丽二世和大不列颠女王安妮；
第二次和摩德纳的玛丽（英语：Mary of Modena）（1658年–1718年）在1673年结婚。有子嗣。
伊丽莎白公主（英语：Elizabeth Stuart (1635–1650)） 1635年12月29日 1650年9月8日 无子嗣。
安妮公主 1637年3月17日 1640年11月5日 夭折。
凯瑟琳公主 1639年6月29日 1639年6月29日 出生当日夭折。
格洛斯特公爵亨利（英语：Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester） 1640年7月8日 1660年9月13日 无子嗣。
亨莉雅妲公主（英语：Princess Henrietta of England） 1644年6月16日 1670年6月30日 1661年与奥尔良公爵菲力浦一世（1640年 - 1701年）结婚，有子嗣。

祖先

编辑
先祖
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
高祖父：第三代论诺克斯伯爵约翰·斯图尔特（英语：John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Lennox）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
曾祖父：第四代伦诺克斯伯爵（英语：Earl of Lennox）马修·斯图尔特[328]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
高祖母：伯爵夫人伊丽莎白·斯图尔特（英语：Elizabeth Stewart, Countess of Lennox）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
祖父：苏格兰配王亨利·斯图尔特（英语：Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖父：第六代安格斯伯爵（英语：Earl of Angus）阿奇博尔德·道格拉斯（英语：Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
曾祖母：伯爵夫人玛格丽特·道格拉斯（英语：Margaret Douglas）[328][g]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖母：苏格兰王后玛格丽特·都铎
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
父：英格兰及苏格兰国王詹姆斯一世及六世
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖父：苏格兰国王詹姆斯四世
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外曾祖父：苏格兰国王詹姆斯五世[328][g]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖母：苏格兰王后玛格丽特·都铎（同上）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
祖母：苏格兰女王玛丽一世
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖父：第一代吉斯公爵克洛德·德·洛林
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外曾祖母：苏格兰王后玛丽·德吉斯[328]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖母：公爵夫人安托瓦内特·波旁（英语：Antoinette de Bourbon）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
英格兰及苏格兰国王查理一世
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖父：丹麦国王弗雷德里克一世
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外曾祖父：丹麦国王克里斯蒂安三世[328][h]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖母：丹麦王后安娜（英语：Anna of Brandenburg）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外祖父：丹麦国王弗雷德里克二世
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖父：萨克森-劳恩堡（英语：Saxe-Lauenburg）公爵马格努斯一世（英语：Magnus I, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外曾祖母：丹麦王后多萝西娅（英语：Dorothea of Saxe-Lauenburg）[328]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖母：公爵夫人凯瑟琳郡主（英语：Catherine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Duchess of Saxe-Lauenburg）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
母：英格兰及苏格兰王后安娜
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖父：梅克伦堡公爵阿尔布雷希特七世（英语：Albert VII, Duke of Mecklenburg-Güstrow）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外曾祖父：梅克伦堡公爵乌尔里希（英语：Ulrich, Duke of Mecklenburg）[328]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖母：公爵夫人安娜（英语：Anna of Brandenburg, Duchess of Mecklenburg）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外祖母：丹麦王后索菲（英语：Sophie of Mecklenburg-Güstrow）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖父：丹麦国王弗雷德里克一世（同上）
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外曾祖母：公爵夫人伊丽莎白公主（英语：Elizabeth of Denmark, Duchess of Mecklenburg）[328][h]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
外高祖母：丹麦王后苏菲（英语：Sophie of Pomerania）
 
 
 
 
 
 

参见

编辑

注释

编辑
  1. ^ 查尔斯最终长到了5英尺4英寸（163厘米）[7].
  2. ^ Rubens, who acted as the Spanish representative during peace negotiations in London, painted Landscape with Saint George and the Dragon in 1629–30.[73] The landscape is modelled on the Thames Valley, and the central figures of Saint George (England's patron saint) and a maiden resemble the king and queen.[74] The dragon of war lies slain under Charles's foot.[75]
  3. ^ For example, James I ruled without Parliament between 1614 and 1621.[85]
  4. ^ For comparison, a typical farm labourer could earn 8d a day, or about £10 a year.[91]
  5. ^ The statute forbade grants of monopolies to individuals but Charles circumvented the restriction by granting monopolies to companies.[97]
  6. ^ The Scots were promised £400,000 in instalments.[226]
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 詹姆斯五世与玛格丽特·道格拉斯均为英格兰国王亨利七世长女玛格丽特·都铎所生: 詹姆斯五世为苏格兰国王詹姆斯四世所出, 玛格丽特为阿奇博尔德·道格拉斯（英语：Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus）所出.[328]
  8. ^ 8.0 8.1 克里斯蒂安三世与伊丽莎白均为弗雷德里克一世所生: 克里斯蒂安为勃兰登堡的安娜（英语：Anna of Brandenburg, Duchess of Mecklenburg）所出, 伊丽莎白为波美拉尼亚的苏菲（英语：Sophie of Pomerania）所出.[328]

参考文献

编辑
  1. ^ Cust 2005，第2页; Weir 1996，第252页.
  2. ^ Gregg 1981，第4–5页.
  3. ^ Cust 2005，第2页.
  4. ^ Carlton 1995，第2页.
  5. ^ Carlton 1995，第3页; Gregg 1981，第9页.
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 Gregg 1981，第11页.
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 Gregg 1981，第12页.
  8. ^ Gregg 1981，第13页.
  9. ^ Gregg 1981，第16页; Hibbert 1968，第22页.
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 Carlton 1995，第16页.
  11. ^ 11.0 11.1 Gregg 1981，第22页.
  12. ^ Gregg 1981，第18–19页; Hibbert 1968，第21–23页.
  13. ^ Gregg 1981，第29页.
  14. ^ Gregg 1981，第47页.
  15. ^ Hibbert 1968，第24页.
  16. ^ Hibbert 1968，第49页; Howat 1974，第26–28页.
  17. ^ Gregg 1981，第63页; Howat 1974，第27–28页; Kenyon 1978，第79页.
  18. ^ Cust 2005，第5页; Hibbert 1968，第49–50页.
  19. ^ Coward 2003，第152页.
  20. ^ Gregg 1981，第67–68页; Hibbert 1968，第49–50页.
  21. ^ Carlton 1995，第31页.
  22. ^ Cust 2005，第8页.
  23. ^ Cust 2005，第5–9页.
  24. ^ Carlton 1995，第33页; Gregg 1981，第68页.
  25. ^ Cust 2005，第4页; Hibbert 1968，第30–32页.
  26. ^ Carlton 1995，第34–38页; Cust 2005，第32–34页; Gregg 1981，第78–82页; Quintrell 1993，第11页.
  27. ^ Gregg 1981，第87–89页; Quintrell 1993，第11页; Sharpe 1992，第5页.
  28. ^ Gregg 1981，第84页.
  29. ^ Gregg 1981，第85–87页.
  30. ^ Carlton 1995，第42–43页; Cust 2005，第34–35页.
  31. ^ Carlton 1995，第46页; Cust 2005，第31页; Gregg 1981，第90页; Hibbert 1968，第63页; Quintrell 1993，第11页; Sharpe 1992，第5–6页.
  32. ^ Carlton 1995，第47页; Cust 2005，第36–38页; Gregg 1981，第94页; Sharpe 1992，第6页.
  33. ^ Gregg 1981，第97–99页.
  34. ^ Carlton 1995，第52页; Gregg 1981，第99页; Hibbert 1968，第64页.
  35. ^ Carlton 1995，第56页; Gregg 1981，第124页; Kenyon 1978，第92页; Schama 2001，第65页.
  36. ^ Trevelyan 1922，第130页.
  37. ^ Carlton 1995，第47页; Gregg 1981，第103–105页; Howat 1974，第31页.
  38. ^ Gregg 1981，第114页; Hibbert 1968，第86页; Weir 1996，第252页.
  39. ^ Carlton 1995，第38页; Gregg 1981，第80页.
  40. ^ Gregg 1981，第126页; Trevelyan 1922，第133页.
  41. ^ Carlton 1995，第55, 70页.
  42. ^ Carlton 1995，第76页; Gregg 1981，第156页; Weir 1996，第252页.
  43. ^ Gregg 1981，第130–131页.
  44. ^ Cust 2005，第84–86页.
  45. ^ Coward 2003，第153页.
  46. ^ Gregg 1981，第131页.
  47. ^ Cust 2005，第46页; Gregg 1981，第129页.
  48. ^ Carlton 1995，第68–69页; Gregg 1981，第129页.
  49. ^ Gregg 1981，第129页; Smith 1999，第54, 114页.
  50. ^ Smith 1999，第54, 114页.
  51. ^ Gregg 1981，第138页.
  52. ^ Carlton 1995，第71–75页; Cust 2005，第50–52页; Gregg 1981，第138–147页; Quintrell 1993，第21–28页.
  53. ^ Gregg 1981，第150页.
  54. ^ Carlton 1995，第80页; Gregg 1981，第149–151页.
  55. ^ Loades 1974，第369–370页.
  56. ^ Carlton 1995，第75, 81页; Quintrell 1993，第29页.
  57. ^ Carlton 1995，第86–88页; Gregg 1981，第154–160页; Hibbert 1968，第91–95页.
  58. ^ Howat 1974，第35页.
  59. ^ Gregg 1981，第173–174页.
  60. ^ Coward 2003，第162页; Cust 2005，第67页.
  61. ^ Gregg 1981，第170–173页.
  62. ^ Carlton 1995，第101页; Cust 2005，第74页; Quintrell 1993，第39页.
  63. ^ Cust 2005，第75页; Gregg 1981，第175页; Quintrell 1993，第40页.
  64. ^ Carlton 1995，第103–104页; Cust 2005，第76页; Gregg 1981，第175–176页; Kenyon 1978，第104页.
  65. ^ Quoted in Cust 2005，第77页.
  66. ^ Carlton 1995，第104页; Gregg 1981，第176页.
  67. ^ Carlton 1995，第110–112页; Sharpe 1992，第48–49页.
  68. ^ Howat 1974，第38页; Kenyon 1978，第107–108页.
  69. ^ Carlton 1995，第112–113页; Kenyon 1978，第105页; Sharpe 1992，第170–171页.
  70. ^ Carlton 1995，第107页; Sharpe 1992，第168页.
  71. ^ Carlton 1995，第113页; Hibbert 1968，第109–111页; Sharpe 1992，第170–171页.
  72. ^ Cust 2005，第148–150页; Hibbert 1968，第111页.
  73. ^ Gregg 1981，第190–195页.
  74. ^ Carlton 1995，第146页; Cust 2005，第161页; Gregg 1981，第195页.
  75. ^ Carlton 1995，第146页; Cust 2005，第161页.
  76. ^ Cust 2005，第114–115页.
  77. ^ Quintrell 1993，第42页.
  78. ^ Cust 2005，第118页; Gregg 1981，第185页; Quintrell 1993，第43页.
  79. ^ Cust 2005，第118页; Gregg 1981，第186页; Robertson 2005，第35页.
  80. ^ Cust 2005，第118页; Gregg 1981，第186页; Quintrell 1993，第43页.
  81. ^ Carlton 1995，第121页; Hibbert 1968，第108页.
  82. ^ Cust 2005，第121–122页.
  83. ^ Carlton 1995，第169–171页; Gregg 1981，第187–197页; Howat 1974，第38页; Sharpe 1992，第65–68页.
  84. ^ Carlton 1995，第153–154页; Sharpe 1992，第xv页.
  85. ^ Sharpe 1992，第603页.
  86. ^ Starkey 2006，第104页.
  87. ^ Gregg 1981，第40页.
  88. ^ Sharpe 1992，第509–536, 541–545, 825–834页.
  89. ^ Gregg 1981，第220页.
  90. ^ Carlton 1995，第190页; Gregg 1981，第228页.
  91. ^ Edwards 1999，第18页.
  92. ^ Carlton 1995，第191页; Quintrell 1993，第62页.
  93. ^ Adamson 2007，第8–9页; Sharpe 1992，第585–588页.
  94. ^ Cust 2005，第130, 193页; Quintrell 1993，第64页.
  95. ^ Cust 2005，第194页; Gregg 1981，第301–302页; Quintrell 1993，第65–66页.
  96. ^ Loades 1974，第385页.
  97. ^ Coward 2003，第167页; Gregg 1981，第215–216页; Hibbert 1968，第138页; Loades 1974，第385页.
  98. ^ Carlton 1995，第185页; Cust 2005，第212–217页; Gregg 1981，第286页; Quintrell 1993，第12–13页.
  99. ^ Carlton 1995，第190页; Gregg 1981，第224–227页; Quintrell 1993，第61–62页; Sharpe 1992，第116–120页.
  100. ^ Cust 2005，第97–103页.
  101. ^ Donaghan 1995，第65–100页.
  102. ^ Howat 1974，第40–46页.
  103. ^ Cust 2005，第133页.
  104. ^ Coward 2003，第174–175页; Cust 2005，第133–147页; Gregg 1981，第267, 273页; Sharpe 1992，第284–292, 328–345, 351–359页.
  105. ^ Coward 2003，第175页; Sharpe 1992，第310–312页.
  106. ^ Coward 2003，第175–176页.
  107. ^ Coward 2003，第176页; Kenyon 1978，第113–115页; Loades 1974，第393页; Sharpe 1992，第382页.
  108. ^ Coward 2003，第176页; Sharpe 1992，第680, 758–763页.
  109. ^ Cust 2005，第212, 219页; Sharpe 1992，第774–776页.
  110. ^ Cust 2005，第219页; Sharpe 1992，第780–781页.
  111. ^ Cust 2005，第223–224页; Gregg 1981，第288页; Sharpe 1992，第783–784页; Starkey 2006，第107页.
  112. ^ Carlton 1995，第195页; Trevelyan 1922，第186–187页.
  113. ^ Carlton 1995，第189–197页; Cust 2005，第224–230页; Gregg 1981，第288–289页; Sharpe 1992，第788–791页.
  114. ^ Cust 2005，第236–237页.
  115. ^ Carlton 1995，第197–199页; Cust 2005，第230–231页; Sharpe 1992，第792–794页.
  116. ^ Adamson 2007，第9页; Gregg 1981，第290–292页; Sharpe 1992，第797–802页.
  117. ^ Adamson 2007，第9页; Cust 2005，第246–247页; Sharpe 1992，第805–806页.
  118. ^ Adamson 2007，第9–10页; Cust 2005，第248页.
  119. ^ Howat 1974，第44, 66页; Sharpe 1992，第809–813, 825–834, 895页.
  120. ^ Cust 2005，第251页; Gregg 1981，第294页.
  121. ^ 121.0 121.1 Adamson 2007，第11页.
  122. ^ Loades 1974，第401页.
  123. ^ Loades 1974，第402页.
  124. ^ Adamson 2007，第14页.
  125. ^ Adamson 2007，第15页.
  126. ^ Adamson 2007，第17页.
  127. ^ Carlton 1995，第211–212页; Cust 2005，第253–259页; Gregg 1981，第305–307页; Loades 1974，第402页.
  128. ^ 128.0 128.1 128.2 128.3 Kishlansky & Morrill 2008.
  129. ^ Gregg 1981，第243页.
  130. ^ Cust 2005，第185–186页; Quintrell 1993，第114页.
  131. ^ Quintrell 1993，第46页.
  132. ^ Sharpe 1992，第132页.
  133. ^ Stevenson 1973，第183–208页.
  134. ^ Gregg 1981，第313–314页; Hibbert 1968，第147, 150页.
  135. ^ Stevenson 1973，第101页.
  136. ^ Cust 2005，第262–263页; Gregg 1981，第313–315页.
  137. ^ Cust 2005，第264–265页; Sharpe 1992，第914–916页.
  138. ^ Carlton 1995，第214页; Cust 2005，第265–266页; Sharpe 1992，第916–918页.
  139. ^ Gregg 1981，第315页; Stevenson 1973，第212–213页.
  140. ^ Loades 1974，第404页; Stevenson 1973，第212–213页.
  141. ^ Carlton 1995，第216页; Gregg 1981，第317–319页.
  142. ^ Gregg 1981，第323页.
  143. ^ Gregg 1981，第324–325页.
  144. ^ Cust 2005，第276页; Russell 1991，第225页.
  145. ^ Carlton 1995，第220页; Gregg 1981，第326页.
  146. ^ Gregg 1981，第327页; Hibbert 1968，第151–153页.
  147. ^ Carlton 1995，第222页; Gregg 1981，第328页; Hibbert 1968，第154页.
  148. ^ Carlton 1995，第222页; Hibbert 1968，第154页 and Sharpe 1992，第944页 assume that Pym was involved with the launch of the bill; Russell 1991，第288页, quoting and agreeing with Gardiner, suspects that it was initiated by Pym's allies only.
  149. ^ Carlton 1995，第222–223页; Cust 2005，第282页; Gregg 1981，第330页.
  150. ^ Hibbert 1968，第154–155页.
  151. ^ Gregg 1981，第330页; see also Cust 2005，第282页 and Sharpe 1992，第944页.
  152. ^ Cust 2005，第283–287页; Russell 1991，第291–295页
  153. ^ Gregg 1981，第329, 333页.
  154. ^ Carlton 1995，第223页; Cust 2005，第287页; Gregg 1981，第333–334页; Hibbert 1968，第156页.
  155. ^ Coward 2003，第191页; Gregg 1981，第334页; Hibbert 1968，第156–157页.
  156. ^ 156.0 156.1 Kenyon 1978，第127页.
  157. ^ Hibbert 1968，第156页; Kenyon 1978，第127–128页.
  158. ^ Gregg 1981，第335页; Kenyon 1978，第128页.
  159. ^ Kenyon 1978，第129页.
  160. ^ Kenyon 1978，第130页.
  161. ^ Carlton 1995，第225–226页; Starkey 2006，第112页.
  162. ^ Carlton 1995，第226页; Kenyon 1978，第133页; Stevenson 1973，第238–239页.
  163. ^ Carlton 1995，第183页; Robertson 2005，第42–43页.
  164. ^ Gillespie 2006，第125页.
  165. ^ Coward 2003，第172页.
  166. ^ Carlton 1995，第183, 229页; Robertson 2005，第42页.
  167. ^ Gillespie 2006，第130页.
  168. ^ Gillespie 2006，第131页.
  169. ^ Gillespie 2006，第137页.
  170. ^ Carlton 1995，第229页; Cust 2005，第306页.
  171. ^ Russell 1991，第298页.
  172. ^ Gillespie 2006，第3页.
  173. ^ Loades 1974，第413页; Russell 1990，第43页.
  174. ^ Cust 2005，第307–308页; Russell 1990，第19页.
  175. ^ Schama 2001，第118页.
  176. ^ Starkey 2006，第112页.
  177. ^ Gregg 1981，第340–341页; Loades 1974，第415页; Smith 1999，第127页; Starkey 2006，第113页.
  178. ^ Kenyon 1978，第135页; Smith 1999，第128页.
  179. ^ Loades 1974，第414页.
  180. ^ Carlton 1995，第230页; Schama 2001，第118–120页.
  181. ^ Gillespie 2006，第144页; Schama 2001，第118–120页.
  182. ^ Loades 1974，第416–417页; Schama 2001，第118–120页.
  183. ^ Gregg 1981，第341–342页.
  184. ^ Coward 2003，第200页.
  185. ^ Kenyon 1978，第136页.
  186. ^ Carlton 1995，第237页.
  187. ^ Smith 1999，第129页.
  188. ^ Kenyon 1978，第137页.
  189. ^ Carlton 1995，第235–236页; Cust 2005，第323–324页; Gregg 1981，第343页; Hibbert 1968，第160页; Loades 1974，第417页.
  190. ^ Starkey 2006，第113页.
  191. ^ Carlton 1995，第232页; Cust 2005，第320页; Hibbert 1968，第177页.
  192. ^ Cust 2005，第321–324页; Gregg 1981，第343页; Hibbert 1968，第178页; Starkey 2006，第113–114页.
  193. ^ Carlton 1995，第232页; Cust 2005，第320–321页; Hibbert 1968，第179页.
  194. ^ Carlton 1995，第233页; Gregg 1981，第344页.
  195. ^ Robertson 2005，第62页.
  196. ^ Starkey 2006，第114页.
  197. ^ Loades 1974，第418页; Starkey 2006，第114–115页.
  198. ^ Gregg 1981，第344页.
  199. ^ Loades 1974，第418页.
  200. ^ Cust 2005，第326–327页; Hibbert 1968，第180–181页.
  201. ^ Carlton 1995，第234, 236页; Hibbert 1968，第181页.
  202. ^ Carlton 1995，第237–238页; Hibbert 1968，第181–182页.
  203. ^ Carlton 1995，第238页; Cust 2005，第338–341页; Gregg 1981，第351页.
  204. ^ Cust 2005，第350页.
  205. ^ Cust 2005，第352页; Hibbert 1968，第182页; Loades 1974，第422页.
  206. ^ Loades 1974，第423–424页.
  207. ^ Gregg 1981，第366–367页.
  208. ^ Carlton 1995，第248页.
  209. ^ Gregg 1981，第368页.
  210. ^ 210.0 210.1 Carlton 1995，第249页.
  211. ^ Carlton 1995，第254页; Cust 2005，第371页
  212. ^ Gregg 1981，第378, 385页; Hibbert 1968，第195–198页.
  213. ^ Carlton 1995，第257页.
  214. ^ Carlton 1995，第258页.
  215. ^ Gregg 1981，第381–382页.
  216. ^ Carlton 1995，第263页; Gregg 1981，第382页
  217. ^ Gregg 1981，第382–386页.
  218. ^ Carlton 1995，第268–269, 272页; Cust 2005，第389页; Gregg 1981，第387–388页
  219. ^ Gregg 1981，第388–389页.
  220. ^ Carlton 1995，第275–278页; Gregg 1981，第391–392页
  221. ^ Cust 2005，第404–405页; Gregg 1981，第396页
  222. ^ Cust 2005，第403–405页; Gregg 1981，第396–397页; Holmes 2006，第72–73页.
  223. ^ Carlton 1995，第294页; Cust 2005，第408页; Gregg 1981，第398页; Hibbert 1968，第230, 232–234, 237–238页.
  224. ^ Carlton 1995，第300页; Gregg 1981，第406页; Robertson 2005，第67页.
  225. ^ Carlton 1995，第303, 305页; Cust 2005，第420页; Gregg 1981，第407–408页.
  226. ^ Carlton 1995，第309页; Hibbert 1968，第241页.
  227. ^ Gregg 1981，第411页.
  228. ^ Carlton 1995，第310页; Cust 2005，第429–430页; Gregg 1981，第411–413页.
  229. ^ Coward 2003，第224–236页; Edwards 1999，第57页; Holmes 2006，第101–109页.
  230. ^ Gregg 1981，第412–414页.
  231. ^ Carlton 1995，第311页; Cust 2005，第431页.
  232. ^ Carlton 1995，第312–314页.
  233. ^ Cust 2005，第435–436页.
  234. ^ Gregg 1981，第419页; Hibbert 1968，第247页.
  235. ^ Gregg 1981，第419–420页.
  236. ^ Cust 2005，第437页; Hibbert 1968，第248页.
  237. ^ Carlton 1995，第329–330页; Gregg 1981，第424页.
  238. ^ Cust 2005，第442页.
  239. ^ Carlton 1995，第331页; Gregg 1981，第426页.
  240. ^ Coward 2003，第237页; Robertson 2005，第118页.
  241. ^ Hibbert 1968，第251页; Starkey 2006，第122–124页.
  242. ^ Gregg 1981，第429页.
  243. ^ Carlton 1995，第336页; Hibbert 1968，第252页.
  244. ^ Coward 2003，第237页; Starkey 2006，第123页.
  245. ^ Edwards 1999，第84–85页; Robertson 2005，第118–119页; Starkey 2006，第123页.
  246. ^ Carlton 1995，第326页; Gregg 1981，第422页.
  247. ^ Gregg 1981，between pages 420 and 421.
  248. ^ Carlton 1995，第335–337页; Gregg 1981，第429–430页; Hibbert 1968，第253–254页.
  249. ^ Edwards 1999，第99页; Gregg 1981，第432页; Hibbert 1968，第255, 273页.
  250. ^ 250.0 250.1 Robertson 2002，第4–6页.
  251. ^ Edwards 1999，第99, 109页.
  252. ^ Cust 2005，第452页; Gregg 1981，第432页; Robertson 2005，第137页.
  253. ^ Gregg 1981，第433页.
  254. ^ Edwards 1999，第125–126页; Gregg 1981，第436页.
  255. ^ Gregg 1981，第435–436页; Robertson 2005，第143–144页.
  256. ^ 256.0 256.1 Gardiner 1906，第371–374页.
  257. ^ Robertson 2005，第15, 148–149页.
  258. ^ Gardiner 1906，第371–374页; Gregg 1981，第437页; Robertson 2005，第15, 149页.
  259. ^ Carlton 1995，第304页.
  260. ^ Carlton 1995，第345–346页; Edwards 1999，第132–146页; Gregg 1981，第437–440页.
  261. ^ Carlton 1995，第345页; Robertson 2002，第4–6页.
  262. ^ Gardiner 1906，第374–376页.
  263. ^ Robertson 2005，第15页.
  264. ^ Carlton 1995，第347页; Edwards 1999，第146页.
  265. ^ Gregg 1981，第440–441页.
  266. ^ Edwards 1999，第162页; Hibbert 1968，第267页.
  267. ^ Carlton 1995，第350–351页; Gregg 1981，第443页; Hibbert 1968，第276–277页.
  268. ^ 268.0 268.1 Charles I (r. 1625–49), Official website of the British monarchy, [20 April 2013] .
  269. ^ Carlton 1995，第352页; Edwards 1999，第168页.
  270. ^ Carlton 1995，第352–353页; Gregg 1981，第443页.
  271. ^ Carlton 1995，第353页; Edwards 1999，第178页; Gregg 1981，第444页; Hibbert 1968，第279页; Holmes 2006，第93页.
  272. ^ Carlton 1995，第353页; Edwards 1999，第179页; Gregg 1981，第444页; Hibbert 1968，第157, 279页.
  273. ^ Gregg 1981，第444页; see also a virtually identical quote in Edwards 1999，第180页.
  274. ^ Carlton 1995，第354页; Edwards 1999，第182页; Hibbert 1968，第279页; Starkey 2006，第126页.
  275. ^ Carlton 1995，第354页; Edwards 1999，第183页; Gregg 1981，第443–444页.
  276. ^ Hibbert 1968，第279–280页; Robertson 2005，第200页.
  277. ^ Hibbert 1968，第280页.
  278. ^ Edwards 1999，第184页; Gregg 1981，第445页; Hibbert 1968，第280页.
  279. ^ Edwards 1999，第173页.
  280. ^ Robertson 2005，第201页.
  281. ^ Robertson 2005，第333页.
  282. ^ 282.0 282.1 Edwards 1999，第183页.
  283. ^ Edwards 1999，第183页; Gregg 1981，第445页.
  284. ^ 284.0 284.1 Gregg 1981，第445页.
  285. ^ Edwards 1999，第197页; Gregg 1981，第445页; Hibbert 1968，第280页.
  286. ^ Higgins 2009.
  287. ^ Edwards 1999，第188页; Gregg 1981，第445页.
  288. ^ Edwards 1999，第189页; Gregg 1981，第445页.
  289. ^ Gregg 1981，第445页; Robertson 2005，第208–209页.
  290. ^ Cust 2005，第461页.
  291. ^ Gregg 1981，第83页; Hibbert 1968，第133页.
  292. ^ Carlton 1995，第141页; Cust 2005，第156–157页; Gregg 1981，第194页; Hibbert 1968，第135页.
  293. ^ Millar, Oliver. Rubens:the Whitehall Ceiling. Oxford University Press. 1958: 6. 
  294. ^ Gregg 1981，第83页.
  295. ^ Carlton 1995，第145页; Hibbert 1968，第134页.
  296. ^ Gregg 1981，第167–169页; see also Carlton 1995，第142页; Cust 2005，第157页 and Hibbert 1968，第135页.
  297. ^ Gregg 1981，第249–250, 278页.
  298. ^ Carlton 1995，第142页.
  299. ^ Carlton 1995，第143页.
  300. ^ Edwards 1999，第190页; Kenyon 1978，第166页.
  301. ^ Edwards 1999，第190页; Kenyon 1978，第166–168页; Loades 1974，第450–452页.
  302. ^ Holmes 2006，第121页; Kenyon 1978，第170页; Loades 1974，第454页.
  303. ^ Edwards 1999，第190页; Loades 1974，第455–459页.
  304. ^ Holmes 2006，第174页; Kenyon 1978，第177页; Loades 1974，第459页.
  305. ^ Holmes 2006，第175–176页; Kenyon 1978，第177–180页.
  306. ^ Stewart 1967，第38页.
  307. ^ Kenyon 1978，第93页.
  308. ^ Cust 2005，第414, 466页; Kenyon 1978，第93页.
  309. ^ Carlton 1995，第xvi页; Coward 2003，第xxiii页; Cust 2005，第472–473页.
  310. ^ Carlton 1995，第xvii页; Coward 2003，第xxii页; Cust 2005，第466页.
  311. ^ Coward 2003，第xxii页.
  312. ^ Quoted in Carlton 1995，第xvii页
  313. ^ Archbishop Laud, quoted by his chaplain Peter Heylin in Cyprianus Angelicus, 1688
  314. ^ Kenyon 1978，第93页; Robertson 2005，第32页.
  315. ^ Cust 2005，第466–474页.
  316. ^ Kenyon 1978，第94页; Sharpe 1992，第198页.
  317. ^ Gardiner 1906，第83页.
  318. ^ 318.0 318.1 318.2 318.3 Weir 1996，第252页.
  319. ^ Wallis 1921，第61页.
  320. ^ Weir 1996，第286页.
  321. ^ Edwards 1999，第160页; Gregg 1981，第436, 440页.
  322. ^ 322.0 322.1 Cokayne, Gibbs & Doubleday 1913，第445页; Weir 1996，第252页.
  323. ^ Ashmole 1715，第532页.
  324. ^ Ashmole 1715，第531, 534页.
  325. ^ Johnston 1906，第18页.
  326. ^ Weir 1996，第252–254页.
  327. ^ Cokayne, Gibbs & Doubleday 1913，第446页.
  328. ^ 328.00 328.01 328.02 328.03 328.04 328.05 328.06 328.07 328.08 328.09 Louda & Maclagan 1999，第27, 50页.

延伸阅读

编辑
  • Ashley, Maurice. Charles I and Cromwell. London: Methuen. 1987. ISBN 978-0-413-16270-0.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助)
  • Hibbard, Caroline M. Charles I and the Popish Plot. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1983. ISBN 0-8078-1520-9.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助)
  • Kishlansky, Mark A. Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity 189. 2005: 41–80. doi:10.1093/pastj/gti027.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助); |journal=被忽略 (帮助); |issue=被忽略 (帮助)
  • Lockyer, Roger (编). The Trial of Charles I. London: Folio Society. 1959.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助)
  • Reeve, L. J. Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989. ISBN 0-521-52133-5.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助)
  • Wedgwood, Cicely Veronica. The Great Rebellion: The King's Peace, 1637–1641. London: Collins. 1955.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助)
  • Wedgwood, Cicely Veronica. The Great Rebellion: The King's War, 1641–1647. London: Collins. 1958.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助)
  • Wedgwood, Cicely Veronica. A Coffin for King Charles: The Trial and Execution of Charles I. London: Macmillan. 1964.  已忽略未知参数|separator=（建议使用|mode=） (帮助)
检索自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ayitu/沙盒4&oldid=42511610”