A King Condemned: The Trial and Execution of Charles I

The Great Rebellion #3

by C.V. Wedgwood, Clive Holmes

The reign of Charles I, defined by religious conflict, a titanic power struggle with Parliament, and culminating in the English Civil Wars, the execution of the king, and the brief abolition of the monarchy, was one of the most turbulent in English history. Six years after the First Civil War began, and following Charles’ support for the failed Royalist uprising of the Second Civil War, an act of Parliament was passed that produced something unprecedented in the history of the trial of an English king on a capital charge. There followed ten extraordinary weeks that finally drew to a dark end on January 30, 1649, when Charles was beheaded in Whitehall. In this acclaimed account, C. V. Wedgwood recreates the dramatic events of the trial and Charles’ final days to bring vividly to life the main actors in this tragic and compelling story

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, English Civil War, British Literature, European History, School

264 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1964

About the author

Dame (Cicely) Veronica Wedgwood OM DBE was an English historian who published under the name C. V. Wedgwood. Specializing in the history of 17th-century England and Continental Europe, her biographies and narrative histories "provided a clear, entertaining middle ground between popular and scholarly works."

Reviews

[Manray9 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dame Cicely Wedgwood's A Coffin for King Charles is the final volume of her trilogy of Charles I and the English Civil Wars. It is a well-told conventional narrative history, but lacks insight into the key figures of the era and their motivations. It is the weakest of the three volumes -- oddly seeming both long-winded and rushed. Wedgwood did leave me with great respect for Charles due to his regal bearing, stately calm, and admirable courage during the sham trial and, in particular, his execution. He died with dignity.

A Coffin for King Charles just crossed the threshold to Four Stars from me.

[Orsolya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Charles Stuart, better known as King Charles I of England and Scotland, holds a monumental role in English history as the first (and only) king to be the victim of regicide and convicted (wrongfully) in a court of law as a, “Tyrant, traitor, a murderer and a public enemy to the commonwealth of England” and beheaded as a martyr. Kings have been brutally murdered prior to Charles but never while reigning as King – meaning, they were already usurped and then disposed of or killed while on the battlefield. Charles I was merely a tragic pawn of Oliver Cromwell’s puppets/beliefs and such action resulted in a period of non-monarchical rule before Charles I’s son, the future King Charles II, triumphed and re-claimed the throne for his bloodline. C.V. Wedgwood explores theses hideous events in, “A King Condemned: The Trial and Execution of Charles I”. Note: I read the first-print publication titled simply, “The Trial of Charles I”

“A King Condemned” is a decisive, fresh, unique approach into the regicide of King Charles I eschewing a standard portrait or biography for that of a criminal investigation/exposé analysis in the vein of court reports and documentation. Wedgewood introduces readers to King Charles I with a brief background look at the political breakdown and class divisions that led to civil war, Oliver Cromwell’s rise and the reasoning behind why Charles was put to death. Even without being a super-in-depth foundation; readers garner a better understanding of the events at play and the emotions that were on the rise.

Wedgewood’s attention to detail is riveting and especially impressive as “A King Condemned” was first published in 1964 before the advent of the internet or ease of source accessibility. Wedgwood offers all sides/angles thus procuring a complete macro-view of the fall of Charles I. Yet, Wedgwood is never pushy with opinions/biases and instead of picking sides; the emphasis is placed on the overall heartrending importance of the events. “A King Condemned” is emotive and genuinely shows the history rather than merely re-telling it.

“A King Condemned” is the definition of “fast-paced” which quickens even more when investigating the arrest of Charles I and the subsequent trial. Even though Wedgwood flourishes with demonstrating the suspense that was felt during the time; he doesn’t forget to maintain an academic/scholarly essence by focusing on facts and debunking myths. Few books exist focusing solely on the arrest and trial of King Charles I; so even those readers familiar with the subject will find some juicy morsels of historical significance within the pages of “A King Condemned”.

That being said, readers will have some unanswered questions mostly in the realm of, “Why?”: Why didn’t the common civilians protest/riot against Cromwell in favor of their King? Why didn’t foreign nations start a war backing Charles? Etc. The fact of the matter is that there are no documented answers to these questions and Wedgwood skips assumptions or conjectures (thankfully!) in “A King Condemned”. However, these occasional ‘holes’ do not weaken the text and merely encourage further research, philosophy and assessment.

Although the actual trial coverage feels slightly rushed; the impact is felt and gut-wrenching. The climax of the text is certainly Charles’s preparation to meet his death and the actual beheading. Wedgwood’s imagery is vivid and concise being both entertaining and informative.

Wedgwood concludes “A King Condemned” looking into the after math of the murder (let’s accurately call it what it was); concerning the public and foreign reactions, the resultant political climate and the eventual arrests/imprisonments/deaths of those key figures who brought down the king. This perfectly rounds out “A King Condemned” on a collective and strong note. “A King Condemned” is supplemented with photo plates throughout the text and a ‘light’ bibliography and notes section.

“A King Condemned” is an informative, readable and moving exploration of the criminal regicide and murder of King Charles I. “A King Condemned” is recommended to all readers interested in Stuart England and/or monarchical history/Cromwellian rule. Wedgwood’s “A King Condemned” would be perfect to read in tandem with Charles Spencer’s 2014 text, “Killers of the King: The Men Who Dared to Execute Charles I”.

[Bibliobites Veronica]

This book is part of the Ambleside Online curriculum and I’ve made most of my children read it, but this was my first time reading it. I apologized to my children. 😅 I can see its merit in historical writing but my, it was rather boring. It got interesting about 75% of the way through, so it definitely ended better than it began. That said, I kind of want to read the first two books in the trilogy 🤷🏻‍♀️ And this, friends, is why we don’t trust our feelings to be reasonable judges.😄

[George Ilsley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading now about James I, and slowly very slowly realized that this Charles was his son, the younger son.

My grasp of British monarchy is sketchy and fuelled by indifference. And yet my ignorance is not entirely unsullied.

A Coffin for King Charles is a detailed yet accessible account, drawing on many original sources, of a singularly fascinating episode in English history.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wedgwood absolutely excels herself in this book. Exceptionally scholarly, detailed and clearly painstakingly researched, she attempts to construct a narrative image of the final days of the life of King Charles I. She achieves this with great success, managing to interweave motive, historiography and just damn-good storytelling all into one holistic item. Would highly recommend this to anyone with a vague interest in constitutional history as well as 17th century political conflicts.

[Dawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very detailed, thoroughly-researched, balanced discussion of all aspects of both sides of the last months of Charles' reign, trial, execution, and its impacts. Not having a good understanding of the conflict between Charles I and Parliament and the civil war before we started reading Coffin it was a bit hard to understand at first, especially to sort out which group was who (Puritans, Parliment, Cavaliers, Independents, etc.). It was even harder to keep track of all the different names that were mentioned and where they fit into the overall picture. If I were to read it again, I would keep a list or chart with notes about who was who. She also moves back-and-forth in time, discussing one area before backtracking to discuss the same time period from a different angle, so keeping a timeline would have been helpful, too. However, I did eventually get the main people put into place and learned enough about the years that came before from another source to have a better sense of context.

Overall I learned a lot from this book about the personalities and motives, strengths and faults of those involved and hope to go through it again at some point, taking notes and keeping a timeline as described above. With these tools and a better understanding of the times before starting this book, I'd get a lot more out of it.

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

What can I say?
It's C.V. Wedgwood.
She's the historian other historians want to be when they grow up. I can count the good historians on my fingers--Robert K. Massie, Cecil Woodham-Smith, Winston Churchill, Macaulay, Elswyth Thane, and C.V Wedgwood. Wedgwood may be the most impressive of them all. She excels in the good qualities they all have in common---beautiful literary style, solid facts, strong characterization etc.
This book only covers the final events leading to the execution of Charles I. It's not, in that respect, a satisfying read. I wouldn't mind Wedgwood talking longer about Charles and Cromwell and all their friends. But then, I've always had a bit of a thing for the English Revolution. Maybe that's just me.
Her handling of the famous trial is impartial and fair. She admits Cromwell was both wrong and right, both admirable and cruel, and that Charles was a good man and a stupid king. Her ending lines are in themselves enough to make the book worth reading. Simple and beautiful. :)

[Richard Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

There has been much recent historiography recently on the period from 1630 to 1660 which has particularly re-directed the emphasis to the wider context of what was a revolution in the islands. Notwithstanding this, this book remains as good an account of the trial of Charles the First as you'll find and deserves to be read with her other histories of the English Civil War. C V Wedgwood wrote extremely good narrative history and with such a strong grasp of her subject, she was able to let herself go on the details and background to what was a shocking and historic event. It was unparalelled for a king to be tried by his subjects, found guilty and executed so before, when kings fell it was by assassination, defeat and death in battle or palace coups; the victors in the Civil War, aided by Charles Stuart's stupidity were able to behead him and set up what amounted to a republican government.

[Rosie Gearhart · Rating 4 out of 5]

I almost quit halfway through. So glad I didn’t, though. From the beginning of the trial, the rest of the book was fascinating. Interesting look into human nature - some standing strong on their convictions, most just trying to save their skin. Whether or not he was in the right, I was impressed with King Charles’ composure and certainty about his position. Going into this book, I knew next to nothing about this period in English history but was able to follow it well enough, especially once I got past the halfway point.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alternating between dry and fascinating, I'm not sure why this is part of the Mustich 1,000 books to read, but so be it.

[W. A. Brooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Coffin For King Charles masterfully details the process of Charles I's trial and execution from his retrieval from the Isle of Mann in November 1648 until his demise the following January. Despite a relatively limited scope, C.V. Wedgwood wades through and interprets mountains of both contemporaneous source material and accounts following the restoration of Charles II eleven years later. She delicately balances the perspectives of the king, who for the first time during his many conflicts with parliament was convinced that he could not come out on top, and the Roundheads, who were driving themselves mad trying to fit the square peg of executing their sovereign into the round hole of English Common Law. Despite the grave subject matter for all involved, Wedgwood finds just enough humor and irony in events to keep the material from becoming too dry, and her prose creates a cinematic backdrop for one of the most consequential events in English history.

A broad familiarity with the events of the English Civil War is recommended, but not an absolute prerequisite, for reading.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was extremely well done and conveyed both the confusion of the time and the certainty some felt. I liked her narration of the restoration and the punishment (or not) of those felt responsible.

[Jill Bowman · Rating 2 out of 5]

It’s too dry for me. I’ve skimmed it and there was definitely interesting information in here but never at any point did I just lose myself into the book. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[Linda · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nearly everyone who knows a little bit of English history knows the name of Oliver Cromwell. His "dictatorship" caused a backlash against the Puritans and lead to the restoration of the monarchy. The restoration occurred because Cromwell and his cronies were responsible for the first execution of a ruling monarch.

Not that Charles hadn't done things that warranted punishment. However, the legality of the court that tried him and the punishment meted out have always been considered dubious.

This book deals only with the trial and execution. Some background is given to explain the reason for the trial, however.

Wedgwood spends a great deal of time on the legality of the proceedings. The Army was against Charles. The Army managed to ensure that members of Parliament who actually attended during this time were their supporters. Many members of the House of Commons refused to attend or were prevented from attending sessions, so that the House barely had a quorum. When they passed the denouncement accusing Charles of treason, it had to go to the House of Lords for confirmation. However, the House of Lords had dissolved itself and there WAS no House of Lords at that time to confirm the action. So the first dispute with the trial is that it was not properly established as law. A mere quorum of the House of Commons had passed it.

Next was the supporters' attempts to establish the legality of the action. As in the case of Mary Queen of Scot two generations before (and Charles' grandmother), what court could possibly judge the highest authority in the land - a King? There was no authority higher. The supporters of the trial made a feeble attempt to legalize their actions by insisting that the King was "ruled" by the people and had to act on their "orders." (Forgetting conveniently that they did NOT represent The People, only some.) Wedgwood goes into this issue in great detail. It IS the crux of the issue.

Charles was not innocent of crime, but many argued that he could be reasoned with and that some agreement could be found to satisfy the rebels and maintain the monarchy. The rebels disagreed, with good reason, since Charles had been offering and rescinding compromises for quite a while.

Again, Wedgwood does a good job of addressing these issues. Eleven years after the execution, people rebelled against the rule of Cromwell and restored the monarchy.

Another interesting point that Wedgwood makes is how little Cromwell had to do with the actual trial and execution. He wisely kept himself behind the scenes so that when he did take over the power, it could not be said that the king was killed so he could benefit.

Anyone interested at all in this period of time and the interesting political thought being developed then should read this.

[Andrew Canfield · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Coffin for King Charles: The Trial and Execution of Charles I is the concluding book in C.V. Wedgwood's English Civil War trilogy.

Told, as were the first two books, from the perspective of King Charles, this work wraps up the regidical story in respectable fashion.

It begins with the king still held as a prisoner on the Isle of Wight, where he is still holding out hope that divisions between the Presbyterians and Independent sectarians in Parliament can be skillfully played to secure a slap on the wrist for his role in the just-concluded English Civil War. (Hopes of a successful escape attempt become increasingly remote early on in A Coffin for King Charles: The Trial and Execution of Charles I.)

The doomed king is then moved to Hurst during the lead up to his trial in London.

The Presbyterians' capacity for Parliamentary impact had been badly damaged by the purging of Parliament courtesy of Oliver Cromwell's Army partisans, and it looked like the latter were gaining the political upper hand at the book's outset. It is made clear by the author that the Leveller and Leveller-adjacent movements had-by creating societal upheavals and causing many in the New Model to become convinced of their righteous cause vis a vis royalty-created a genie which could not easily be put back in the postwar bottle.

Previous kings such as Richard II, Henry VI, and Edward II had been dethroned then privately executed, and even Queen Elizabeth had caved in and allowed Mary Stuart's death. But in 1648 the anti-Charles factions believed they were following the Divine Will and were acting as instruments of God's purpose in killing a man who still bore the royal title.

Not only Charles, but the idea of British royalty itself, might soon be on the chopping block.

Charles is still permitted to be waited on by attendants like the Earls of Richmond and Lindsay, Anthony Mildmay, James Harrington, and Thomas Herbert who were not rabidly anti-Cavalier during the war. But it quickly becomes apparent that Parliament is not going to go easy on their despised and defeated monarch. To hear Wedgwood tell it, much of England-including the capital-was in a wretched postwar state and therefore not willing to grant forgiveness toward a king largely held responsible for launching it.

"Trade and industry had been much depressed. The wool trade had been interrupted because for several years the King's Army had held key positions which cut off London from the graziers and clothiers of the Cotswolds and the Berkshire downs. The cloth industry of West Riding had been dislocated by fighting in the earlier part of the war. The northern mines had been damaged by flood, and the coal export of Newcastle-a Royalist stronghold-had been choel for two years by Parliamentary blockade."

To top this off, "A series of three disastrous harvests had caused wide-spread distress and the price of wheat, barley, and oats (in London) was the highest in the country."

Initially, there was skepticism toward the motivations behind Charles's trial. Wedgwood notes that "Rumour had it that both Cromwell and (former Cavalier general) Henry Ireton were unwilling to process to extremities...(one) story was that the projected trial was a manouevre to enable the King to acquit himself and so to prepare the way for his restoration by Cromwell and the Army. Conversely, it was asserted by others that he as to be tried and condemned, and then worked on by the fear of death to buy back hils life and Crown by giving up all his power-renouncing not only his control over the Army and the Church, but even his right to veto bills submitted to by Parliament."

But some who had opposed the king during the English Civil War, particularly those associated with the largely defenestrated house of Lords, got cold feet as a potential trial approached. Men like the Earls of Manchester, Pembroke, and Denbigh had once opposed Charles but helped to defeat a House of Commons-produced Ordinance announcing his prosecution in the House of Lords.

Chief Justices Oliver St. John and Henry Rolle as well as Lord Chief John Wilde declined when asked to preside at the king's trial.

But the hard charging Cromwell in the Commons would all but completely ignore the wishes of the Lords in moving ahead with a trial for Charles at Westminster Hall. Following the 1660s Restoration, many who had played a role in his prosecution and beheading would make excuses for their behavior in late 1648 and January 1649.

The trial begins roughly halfway through the book on Monday, January 8th, 1649, at Westminster Hall's Painted Chamber. The trio of lawyers who ultimately were charged with prosecuting Charles were John Cook, John Aske, and Isaac Dorislaus.

Lord President John Bradshaw oversaw the prosecution, and started out by emphaszing "the great calamities that have been brought upon this nation, and the innocent blood that had been shed" courtesy of Charles mean the High Court needed to be brought to bear to bring him to justice.

Cook would even label him a "Murder, Traitor, and Tyrant" during the trial's opening.

Charles initially sits silent during his own trial. Wedgwood does a nice job making it a courtroom drama of sorts, which is not an easy task considering the king's silence thanks to his refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the body sitting in judgment of him. This turns out to only be a losing strategy but a foolish one given the kingdom has no Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination by way of silence.

By the time he realizes they are serious about beheading him, the king would finally ask for the court to Parliament to hear him out "concerning those great imputations that you have laid to my charge" only for Bradshaw, after days of hearing him impugn and outright deny their authority as a body of judgment, fire back that the king "have not owned us as a Court, and you look upon us as a sort of people met teghet; and we know what language we receive from your (Royal) party."

Wedgwood makes clear that what Parliament was engaged in was difficult to align with English Common Law thanks to the lack of precedent in trying a sitting monarch. And there is no really way to keep the end a mystery: Charles is convicted by his bitter courtroom opponents.

But there is a nagging question once he is sentenced to be beheaded: would his son become the new king upon his death? This is answered when Palriment hurridly passses an Act of Parliament which made illegal the proclaiming of a successor which preceded the next act that abolished the monarchy. (The mayor of London, Abraham Reynardson, was jailed for refusing to publish this.)

He would be beheaded on January 30th, 1649, and this is where the book begins to wrap up. It briefly touches on the disorders which followed in the ensuing decade, as former Army leaders like Cromwell sought to put together a coherent form of (dictatorial) government during England's only royalty-free experiment since its inception as a nation in 1066.

A Coffin for King Charles is a really solid conclusion to this trilogy.

C.V. Wedgwood weaved together the story of the English Civil War in a way that seemed easier to pull off than it likely was. While keeping it centered on King Charles I's perspective, it nevertheless allows readers to understand the full tapestry of what happened immediately before, during, and immediately after the conclusion of the conflict.

Those who crack open its pages with zero knowledge of the years 1637-1649 will finish this third volume appreciative of what they will surely have learned courtesy of the author's supple prose and understanding of the subject matter.

It is nonfiction writing which stands (intact, pun intended Charles) head and shoulders above a majority of works in its category.

-Andrew Canfield Denver, Colorado

[Michael David · Rating 3 out of 5]

When you set a people, as their Sovereign, against themselves, you become a murderer. This is what Charles I did to England by in the 1600s. In one of the few times that England stopped being a monarchy, the House of Commons, led by Cromwell, sentenced Charles to death - and executed him.

Was it legal? Definitely not. After all, there had never been a precedent, and the House of Lords dissolved itself. Both the House of Lords and House of Commons could be a judicial body if both of them acted together as the Parliament, but the House of Commons wasn't supposed to decide if a King were to live or die by itself.

Was it righteous?

As someone who looks toward the spirit of the law instead of merely its letter, Cromwell's decision sure felt right to me. A king who lets his people kill each other for his whims should not be one .

Charles, despite his rational and impassioned defense, was an incompetent and horrible ruler and administrator. I admire Cromwell for being one of few exemplary men in politics like Sulla: both saw something incorrigibly wrong in the ruling party, corrected it through violence, and then never let the power they usurped get to their heads, instead attempting to address the problems that the usurped left them. As Lord Protector, Cromwell did a lot in his decade of power than Charles did in his own rule.

[Geoff Boxell · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have this book as "The Trial of Charles I". It is the final book in Wedgewood's trilogy on Charles I and his troubles with Parliament that resulted in The War of the Three Kingdoms, aka The English Civil War (though, of course, there have been many!).
I have given it just three stars (the preceding two I have five stars) as it covers the second Civil war, which was the reason Charles was tried and then executed, only in mention and not in detail. So, if you are wanting to know about said war you have to find another book to fill in the gaps.
So, having caused by his scheming and double dealing a fresh out break of war The New Model Army took possession of the King and demanded that "Charles Stuart - that man of blood" be held to account for his actions. Who was the prime driver for the King's trial and subsequent execution? Sir Thomas Fairfax was basically neutral, Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton shewed signs of reluctance, though their own dealings with Charles meant that they knew him to be both courageous, devious and totally untrustworthy. No, the prime drivers were in fact the Officers and other ranks in the Army - they had seen and experienced the fighting and bloodshed the King had caused.
With the knowledge that no peace made with King Charles would be permanent or safe, what else could be done but try him and execute him. Nol Cromwell is reputed as saying that it was "Cruel necessity". If you have done any serious study on the subject you must come to the same sad conclusion.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 3 out of 5]

"A Coffin for King Charles" is a must read for anyone who has read the first two volumes of C.V. Wedgewood 's history of the English Civil War (a.k.a. the Great Rebellion) simply because readers require conclusions.
The fundamental problem is that the trial and execution of Charles I inevitably reflects badly on Cromwell and his radical Puritan supports (a.k.a. sectaries, a.k.a. Independents). Charles I, a legitimate monarch, had been deposed by rebels who had sworn to uphold his regime. The tribunal that tried him was a grotesque kangaroo court and the execution was an outrage. While there are ways to justify Cromwell's career, the beheading of Charles I was simply a disgrace. "A Coffin for King Charles" is a book that tells a story that has only one side.
Nonetheless, "A Coffin for King Charles", is unquestionably well written. The style is superb and the choice of detail is inspired. I particularly enjoyed the story of how there was no service at entombment of Charles I, because the sectaries would not allow Bishop Juxon to use the Anglican book of Common Prayer.
While "A Coffin for King Charles" closes Wedgwood's trilogy in a satisfactory manner I am still disappointed that it was no more than a rant against Oliver Cromwell and his puritan supporters. Nobody had ever thought much of them in the first place.

[Vel Veeter]

This is a popular history of the end of the English Civil War. And I mean popular, as my copy is a Time Life Books edition, which I associate with cheaply bound (although fake fancy) copies of older books. I specifically bought this book because of recommendations from James Mustisch, and also because I have another CV Wedgwood book about the Thirty Years War that I have had for a long time.

The book, like I said, is a history of the end of the English Civil War in that this is the third of a trilogy, but rather than as a continuing story, or rather in addition to being a continuing story, this book is a singular volume about the arrest, trial, conviction, and execution of the king. This is of note because of everything I think is possible in the world today, I can’t really imagine the king of England being tried and executed. In fact, I can’t envision a monarch in the UK being tried for almost anything going back at least three hundred years. Perhaps this event is so singular that that’s the reason it happened, exactly once. Though of course prior to this there’s been other deposed English monarch, Mary though being tried after being overthrown, and not in the process of it. Regardless, this is a short, pithy, and interesting exploration of a wild time, and maybe the last real wild time in English history.

[Will Eifert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book because I had listened to an audiobook version of "The Thirty Years War" by the same author. I had found Wedgewood's writing style made the complicated subject matter interesting. I was not disappointed. In "A King Condemned," C.V. Wedgewood makes a page-turner out of what might for many readers be a very little-known time in history.

What the book doesn't provide is a lot of historical context around the events leading up to the execution of King Charles I. For someone who is not acquainted with the English civil wars, it is at times difficult to understand who opposed who and why. There are also times in which readers might find themselves longing for personal background on some of the main players, particularly Cromwell.

In fairness, the author did not set out to provide the big picture, focusing rather on the drama of the trial. Even not knowing the surrounding history, the narrative of King Charles's path from imprisonment to execution is exciting and Wedgewood's style makes old history easy and fast-paced.

[Leah Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

SPOILER only for those of you who've never heard of English history before.
How to rate this book? Important history, but the execution left much to be desired (both the book's and King Charles').
Most of this book was very... dry. I wanted to like it, and I had a gorgeous barely-used copy, so at least it was nice to read. But most of the chapters seemed to go on and on. I will say, the chapter detailing King Charles' execution was absolutely riveting. I had tears in my eyes when his daughter came to bid him adieu (although it was super late at night and I may just have been very tired and emotional 😆). Mr. Wedgwood is not a bad writer, but I think this book could have been a little less verbose. Overall, 3 stars because my copy was beautiful and the chapter on his execution was... well-executed 😉

[DanSk · Rating 3 out of 5]

In a sense, I enjoyed this book. It tells the story of an interesting moment in time.
The author’s sentence structure, however, makes it a challenging read. She frequently included phrases within longer clause contructs that muddy understanding. I often found myself having to re-read entire paragraphs in order to make meaning.

[Joe Walton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Coffin for King Charles is an interesting and very emotional telling of an important event in the history of England and by way of relationship to the USA. The stress and division between the components of government and what is considered "the people" has existed for centuries and continues to modern times. We understand the present by learning the past. I was glad to gain knowledge of Oliver Cromwell and felt sympathy for King Charles.

[Tania Bingham · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this aloud to my 12 and 13 year olds as part of their history curriculum. It was well written and engaging, painting a vivid picture of the time and the people involved in the execution of King Charles I. It was sympathetic to Charles and critical of the regicides. It demonstrated the humanity of the King and the strength of the opposition against him.

[C.F. Dombroski · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent account of the trial of King Charles. While perhaps not as exciting as the previous two books in the series, there were some very touching moments. The prose was particularly evocative when discussing Charles's children. Excellent.

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Trilogy is quite a historical and gripping ride.

[Enrique Wedgwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

excellent account of the trial and execution of charles I

[Sonia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The beginning was slow but I started to get into it during the king's trial, reading some of the actual words he spoke.

[Christie Wessels · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting bit of British history I knew very little about, the trial and execution of Charles I.

[Backoff51 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent telling of the execution of England's Charles I.

And the resulting pay back time.

What about that Oliver Cromwell, quite a guy.

Charles Stuart has his fatal flaws.