Do we know the identity of Charles I’s executioner?
Graham Wride, via Facebook
Upon his restoration, A
Charles II began a manhunt for those responsible for his father’s death, eventually turning up a man called William Hulet on evidence that he had been unexpectedly promoted and that his voice had been recognised by a spectator – albeit one standing a half mile from the scaffold.
Hulet claimed he had been in army detention on the fatal day and produced witnesses who swore Richard Brandon, common hangman of London, had confessed to the act before his death. Brandon’s friends, however, stated that he had been replaced at the last minute by a roundhead fanatic.
The French ambassador was convinced Oliver Cromwell had wielded the axe himself, while others placed the blame on Cromwell’s chaplain Hugh Peter. Both are unlikely candidates; not only did they have alibis, but it is unlikely either would have lowered his dignity by taking on the role of executioner. Moreover, it was in the interests of the regicide to make the king’s execution seem as normal and efficient as possible: normal, by using a regular London executioner, and efficient, by ensuring a clean blow was struck.
A 19th-century study of Charles I’s embalmed body revealed the cut that severed his neck to be almost surgical in its precision, a skill that would seem to point to a professional. Brandon’s alleged confession, too, seems to represent the likely moral discomfort attendant upon regicide. But to say the case against him is proven beyond reasonable doubt is a step too far, and we are unlikely to ever know with any real certainty.
Despite his strong defence, Hulet was found guilty, but he stirred up enough doubt in people’s minds to ensure he was later reprieved.