Charles Spencer's story of bloody vengeance

To me, it is THE period of British History – when Medieval concepts of kingship were overturned, and Parliament began to assert its authority. The very earliest stirrings of democracy date from the mid to late 17th century, and the Constitutional Monarchy of today – which more than 80 per cent of British people say they approve of – began to be formed after the Civil War.

I assumed I would sympathise more with King Charles the First, but my research made me side increasingly with those who opposed him. As I went through contemporary documents, it became clear that the king could not be trusted, and that he represented a real threat to the well being of this country.

I hadn't previously appreciated quite how bloody the civil wars were – they remain the most costly conflicts this nation has ever suffered, in terms of deaths per head of population. More than the First World War, even.

History is not one of the prime subjects taught in school. Teachers - trying to justify their jobs - understandably cherry pick the most attractive parts of the curriculum. This means that some really important parts slip down through the cracks. I believe the Restoration is just such a period.

They were brave. They believed they were doing the right thing - putting one man to death in an attempt to put a line under the bloodshed of the civil wars. Hardly any of them actively disliked the King, but they felt he had to die.

I don’t think they got their minds round how life might be, after the death of Oliver Cromwell. He was such a huge figure in the nation's life, that no individual was able to fill the void after his sudden death. The English went to their default position, and reverted to monarchy. Few saw that coming. It left the killers of the king vulnerable.

If Charles hadn't made some pay with their lives, he would have been viewed as weak. The vengeance then got a life of its own, driven by the House of Lords’ wish to settle old scores, and by the people's desire to find scapegoats for the years of civil war. I suspect Charles II was only looking for a few sacrifices - but that wasn't enough for everyone else. A lazy man, he fell in with what others wanted.

This was a unique act. Many believed the king to be God's lieutenant on Earth. Those who prosecuted him decided to hold him to account instead as a tyrant, who had caused terrible bloodshed in his three kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland). Killing the king astonished all of Europe. It remains quite shocking today.

We haven't changed much as a species in the past few hundred years. We remain as flawed as ever. We are capable of noble and shabby behaviour now, as was the case in the 1660s.

My Spencer ancestor died at the first battle of Newbury - shot in the groin by a cannonball. He was one of several lords to die that day. The real tragedy is, he did not believe in the Royalist cause, but he felt unable to draw his sword against his king. He was therefore killed by men he agreed with, defending a cause he found distasteful. It doesn't get much sadder than that.

It takes at least a decade to understand the best way to run your festival. Stay alive to ways of improving it, and listen to your audience!