GETTY IMAGES X3 (HERITAGE IMAGES, DE AGOSTINI, BRIDGEMAN IMAGES), ALAMY X2 Hubert le Sueur’s equestrian
statue of King Charles I
The statue now stands at the top of
Whitehall. Commissioned by the Portland
family in 1633, it was sold in 1650 to John
Rivett, a brazier from Holborn, who buried
it in his garden. Following the Restoration,
Rivett was ordered to surrender the
statue to the Portland family, who sold it
to Charles II for £1,600. It was unveiled in
1675, on the spot where the regicides
were executed, looking down Whitehall
towards the site of Charles I’s execution. Anthony Van Dyck’s
towering equestrian
portrait, Charles I with
M de St Antoine
Painted in 1633, the painting took pride
of place in St James’s Palace Gallery.
The trustees valued it at £150, but it did
not sell until 1652, when a former royal
groom paid the asking price for it. It
was sold on to a Flemish painter, who
failed to sell it abroad. Charles II’s
enforcers were told of its whereabouts
and returned it to the royal galleries.Everything must go
Charles I was a voracious purchaser of art and
had amassed a valuable collection reflecting
his royal status. But after his death, it was split
up and sold to the highest bidderCharles I / Crown jewels
Liverpool Street proudly displayed
Bernini’s bust of the dead king, valued at
£400, whilst in Southwark the king’s
brewer took possession of tapestry and
pictures by Van Dyck.
Some took advantage of their good
fortune to sell the finest pictures, statues
and tapestry to international buyers,
including the Spanish and French
ambassadors – their purchases provided
the basis for the collections now at the
Prado and Louvre. Others quietly absorbed
the new possessions into the rhythms of
their everyday domestic existence.
Ultimately, the sale did not achieve its
political objectives. When Cromwell
wound it down in 1654, around £100,000
had been raised from the sale, but although
the Navy and various creditors saw most of
this money, parliament had reserved goods
for its own use valued at over £50,000.
Charles II inherited these goods when he
returned to take the throne and restore the
monarchy in 1660. Within months of his
return, Charles passed legislation reversing
the sale and demanding the return of his
dead father’s goods. It was a shrewd move,
that played on his father’s growing
martyrdom, and insisted on royal business
as usual, but unfortunately the methods
used quickly turned into a corrupt witch
hunt. The new king’s repossession men
repeatedly targeted republican
sympathisers (including Oliver Cromwell’s
widow), demanding the return of royal
goods they never owned. Even worse,
Charles II refused to compensate those
who returned goods, even though many
were loyal royalists, given royal possessions
in lieu of debts incurred by the dead king.
The sale of Charles I’s goods and
estate was not a misguided act of asset
stripping, as many have assumed. It was
a bold attempt to redistribute the wealth
of a monarch many believed had waged
war on his people, which became bogged
down in political factionalism and insider
trading. Charles II’s behaviour in
reclaiming the late king’s goods was
as arrogant and autocratic as many
of his father’s actions. The only
difference was that Charles II
was a better judge of the
political climate than his
father had been.Jerry Brotton is Professor of
Renaissance studies at Queen
Mary, University of London. His
book The Sale of the Late King’s
Goods: Charles I and his Art
Collection was published by
Macmillan in 2006