Charles I

Given the extent to which Charles I acted in order to regain power, I believe that his execution was justified. His “Engagement” plan, which consisted of a Scottish invasion, destroyed the post-war peace of his country. As the author of Did King Charles I deserve to be executed? described in his pro-execution argument, “[Charles] was willing to cause immense bloodshed rather than forge a new society with Cromwell.”  Not only did Charles perform an act of treachery, but he was also reasonably recognized as a ‘man of blood’ due to the innocent lives that were sacrificed as a result of his plan. To me, Charles’ decisions reflect his betrayal towards his own nation, as well as his tyrannical traits. 

The Jacobean Theory of Kingship highlights a very interesting controversial topic about the law of the land versus divine right. James, for example, argued that kings were not bound by law because they were above the law. This speculation generates high risks of conflict because it is very likely that there will come a time when the people of the land and the king disagree on an issue – in which case the king would act according to his ideals and potentially anger the public (which is what seemed to have happened with Charles’ attempt to restore himself to the throne). Overall, James had a clear vision of absolute power when it came to kingship. However, he assured his citizens that he would always obtain reasoning for his actions, which is something that Charles lacked. In fact, the main reason why I believe that Charles’ execution was justified is due to the fact that he showed no signs that he would be a better ruler if he was given another chance. Therefore, England was better off without him.