Whether Charles I of England was such a bad guy? Or a victim of the times and of the civil war?

Question

Everybody disagrees with me on this point, considering what he had done to parliament. But honestly does not Charles reflect a pure King? Considering England had previously had 2 Queens, a child and a Fop. Charles seems to been stable and a pious man, who simply was a victim of circumstance as opposed to his own failings as a king (though one can recognize a failing in the fact he failed to grasp change).

I read over my question and I am by no means taking anything away from the previous monarchs, since Henry VIII, but one must confess they are unique and not what one would expect to find in a male -dominant kingdom. Charles fits the kingly role more easily than the others (considering the times).

Answer 1

There used to be an old saying about the Stuarts, "They forgot nothing, and remembered nothing."

In a sense you're right. But Charles' real problem was that he was a Scot. When his father James first came south to claim his crown, his party chanced upon a thief, and James immediately ordered the man's execution on the spot. His English advisors had to restrain him and remind him that in England such things aren't done without a trial. In England, the power of the king is not absolute. This came as quite a surprise to James, who, alas, in classic Stuart tradition, promptly forgot it.

By the time of the Stuarts, England had over 400 years of slow but steady increase in Parliamentary power, and the Stuarts didn't know how to deal with it. Charles took his lead from the French, and believed that Kings were answerable to God alone. He wanted complete uniformity throughout his realm, and he had no problem employing force to get it. He forced his prayerbook on the Scots (making them rebel), and then he forced his taxes (and forced loans) on the English without benefit of Parliament (making the English rebel). Plus, he singlehandedly alienated everyone by forcing them to adopt his High Church Anglican ways in their individual parishes on pain of having their ears lopped off. (Not a classic way to win friends and influence people). And he felt justified doing all of these things because he was king. If you didn't like it -- too bad -- off with your ears. No Parliament -- just the king's say-so. This might have worked for William the Conqueror; but it wouldn't work in 17th century England.

Unfortunately, Charles was raised as a Scot, and was not educated in the English Constitution (as was Elizabeth, who knew exactly how far she could push). So you can't say that Charles was simply a man of his time, because Elizabeth, who ruled much earlier, had a far more advanced understanding of the mechanics of Constitutionalism than any of the Stuarts ever would. If anything, Charles was far behind the times. Given his complete lack of understanding, he behaved like one of the Bourbon French. And this guaranteed his downfall.

Personnaly, you're right, he was a pious man. But it was a self-satisfied, sinister piety that says, "I am virtuous and right with God, and mine is the only way to achieve it. So do as I do, or I'll mow you down." I don't think of that as piety so much as pomposity and arrogance.

He was no victim of circumstance. To conclude that is to assume he was simply being carried along by events over which he had no control; and that is totally false. He could have prevented the Civil War on several occasions by opening his eyes, accepting reality, and guaranteeing the privileges of Parliament. But he was foolishly immovable in his insistence that Kings are Divinely ordained, and therefore unanswerable to any men. He was no victim -- his blind obstinacy and total disregard for English Constitutional history made him the principal architect of his own demise.

At no time did he ever entertain the notion that he had an obligation to understand the ways of the people he ruled; but in classic Stuart tradition, he took for granted that his subjects had a solemn obligation to comform to his ways. This kind of pig-headed arrogance guarantees a beheading.

Answer 2

I believe that no one is ever right or wrong when it come to war. Since we were never present during that time, what information we have is by historians who basically wrote about what they believed in. But back to your question let us also remember that Oliver was a ruthless man who became worse with the increase of power. So was he really any better than King Charles that begs the question. King Charles was by no mean a bad king you only have to read about King William known as William the conqueror to realize what a ruthless king can do. If King Charles is guilty of anything, that is of being a king as himself as what he was raised to believe in. Can you really condemn a man for what he believes in especially when he does not know any better. He was, in a time that was changing and if he is guilty of anything it is that he was not able to adopt and we are all guilty of that same crime to a certain degree.

Answer 3

Remember that Charles made a deal with France to back their invasion of England. Thats hardly the behavour of a responsible ruler, selling out your own country

Answer 4

very no longer likely. Succession is set by way of Parliamentary regulation besides as start. in accordance to Parliamentary regulation, Charles would be king. His reign would be a short reign wherein he paves the way for William. that's how people who study the monarchy have seen it in view that William's start. there will be no warfare.

Answer 5

I believe that he was a good but foolishly stubborn man. He believed in the 'Divine Right of Kings'. He saw no need to compromise, because he thought being the lord's anointed was enough to ensure that his reign endured.