Charles attitude to negotiations
- Lay at heart of difficulties in drawing up settlement from start -- Attitude to Newport negotiations ''How to make a handsome denying answer is difficult,'
- Private letters to HM revealed he never had any intention to compromise
- Felt had lost war because of giving up divine power 1641-42 & allowing death of Strafford- god given duty to duty to reclaim them by any means possible,
- Saw all of his enermies as rebels an dtraitors
HOWEVER- Parliament's original demands too harsh- unlikely that Charles would accept punishment of 58 royalists and Presbyterian state church (denied this in 19 propositions 1642)
- Charles aware his enermies were deeply divided over future settlement- PPs + PIs- unable to agree
Politicalisation of the army
- Introduced new factor into search for settlement with new demands- horrified old political elite
- Growing religions / political radicalism horrified moderates (PPs) in parliament- when Army produced moderate petitions for pay widows pensions in 1647- par overreacted and condemned army in 'Declaration of Dislike'= army mutiny and issue their own demands - Heads of the Proposals' DETAILS
HOWEVER- Charles continued to negotiate in bad faith with army leaders, despite more linent army terms- only 8 royalists punished, bishops stay in chuch
Charles failed to see only army could enfore settlement= convinced he had more power than he acctually did.
HOWEVER- politicalisation of army convinved C even more his enermies were divided and to continue to play his enermies off against each other
J- Equal combination of Army politicalisation and Charles' attitude
Splits in Army 1647
- Made a settlement even more unlikely- further convinved C to double cross his enermies
- LEVELLERS- infiltrated rank and fil (low ranks of army) by late 47- turned them against senior officers Crom/ Ireton- made worse by growing pay arrears
- Led to Putney Debates Oct 1647- Levellers and army agitators forced debate on future franchise- suggested army politically divided
- Convinced C even more that his enermies were falling apart and he could emerge victorius
J- Equal between Army and Charles
Events of 1648
- Emphasis interlinked factors mainly led to lack of settlement
- Charles' Engagement' with Covenanters- agreed to state Presbyterian church for 3 yrs, in return Covenanters would provide army to crush NMA- C now had chance to sabotage chances of settlemt
- However- divisions in enermies, especially army that had convinved C to double cross army and parliament- suggests both responsible
- C continued to negotiate in bad faith in Newport Negotiations in Sept 1648
- C's attitude now convinved Army has was a 'Man of blood' and should be tried for his crimes = Army Remonstrance, demanded Trial of king and Prides Purge (Dec 6th 1648) to remove any MPs that rejected trial
J- suggests both to balme for failre to negotiate settlement and instead abolition of the monarchy.
It was the EQUAL combination of the politicalisation of the army and Charles I's attitude that were the main reasons for the failure to find a final settlement.
Other factors were important- parliaments demands too harsh and victors of CW were too divided over plans for final settlement- BUT army / king made it impossible to draw up a settlement that would satisfy all groups.