In relevance to the events leading to the Civil War of 1642.
2006-08-21 23:53:04 · 6 answers · asked by fluorescentnz 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
I think it depends on which side of the fence you sit. Certainly the Royalist cause benefitted from the insinuation that Charles I was a deeply religious man and therefore a Martyr - ideaology mainly drawn from a book of his 'supposed' meditations during his final months. To parliament and the Puritans and those who suffered during the Civil War he was most certainly a Tyrant; BTW he has something in common with Saddam in that he refused to recognise the authority of the high court trying him for treason and therefore refused to answer the charges against him...!!!
2006-08-22 00:23:51 · answer #1 · answered by the_contentious_mouthpiece 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You know I think he was a bit of both. I think he did do things with out much concideration of Parliment or the people in general. But at the end he certainly did stand up for his beliefs in a way that was admirable. I wouldn't call him a martyr as I am not Catholic but I do admire principles and he did stay very dignified during the whole thing. I have a lot more respect for him then for Cromwell who spouted freedom and democracy and the declaired himself "Lord Protector". Kind of a hypocrite.
2006-08-22 12:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by Constant_Traveler 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well to the royals he was a martyr but to the common people he was definitely a tyrant
2006-08-22 09:35:20 · answer #3 · answered by katlvr125 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he was a man that events went out of his control. I think that even with a capable ruler this still would have happen.
2006-08-22 15:03:29 · answer #4 · answered by Sakura ♥ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
None He was a bad ruelr and mismanaged teh Goverment.
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html
2006-08-22 11:28:37 · answer #5 · answered by pelancha 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a fool - he treated the countries taxes as his own money
2006-08-23 09:17:00 · answer #6 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋