One of the first things I found to be interesting was the fact that “Get History” article uses the phrases “present himself” and “paint himself” as if what he was doing was not a true depiction of who he was. Along with this, as using his rhetoric to persuade the people. This made me think of Charles I as more manipulative. However, going on to see how he was God-fearing and constantly did things to look out for his son’s future made me think differently. I do not think that Charles I should have been executed but I also do not think he should have continued to be king. It seems like his execution wasn’t solely due to his activities with warfare, but as a response to his overall relationship with Parliament. Charles’ judgement wasn’t the best, and he does not seem like the decisions that he was making were for the good of the country.
However, if it was a direct response to whatever conspiracies with Scotland and his bad decision making with war, then it would make more sense, although still not morally justified. It seems like this is what parliament was banking on for his execution. However, because it does not seem like he was making the best decisions during such troubling times he should not have been king, but I do not believe that is grounds for execution. Both arguments, to kill or not to kill, can be understood however I can more easily see the not to kill, and parliamentary conspiracy argument.
The Rump Parliament definitely conducted some shady business. Similar to your argument of whether he should have been executed or not, I am starting to think that maybe Parliament executed him to symbolize something or to prove a point, like maybe trying to usher in a new political era or thought. Maybe the events were just right that Parliament saw they could use the king for their own self interest, and capitalized on his political errors.
While I agree that maybe Charles I did not need to be executed, if they did not do something about it, such as just saying he cannot be king again, he would have potentially carried out his plans with Scotland to invade England and retake the throne so it is hard to tell what action is really justified. Should they have let him be and had another war going on and a possible invasion or was it “smart” of them to take him out because of all the bad things he did while he was king and the time between his surrender and execution where he did not try to make amends?