Charles I was known as a very stubborn leader. He made bad decisions in difficult situations and also got into disagreements with other powerful men. He seemed to be gracious and loyal only when he wanted to which caused problems. Charles showed time after time that he could not be trusted.
Although Charles I had tyranny behaviors, I do not believe he was a tyrant leader. He was not a good leader and could not be trusted but in the end he didn’t deserve to die, in my opinion. Yes, he was an awful leader but there have been bad leaders in the past and will continue in the future. I also found interesting that he died in what he believed in. He did not want to take the plea deal and I think that showed the public a positive side to him. I think by killing Charles he became more famous and known by the public.
I agree with your statement in saying that he shouldn’t of died. I like that you mentioned that he was a bad leader and there will continue to be bad leaders in the future because there will and although he didn’t have the right means to lead and did commit murder while in “office”. He got caught up in his own ego and didn’t know how to handle the power.
I agree that Charles I was not a tyrannical leader. Although he risked his peoples’ lives in order to prove a point to Parliament, his overarching goal was to protect England, as well as his throne. At the end of the day, a monarchy was reestablished and is still somewhat intact today, so maybe Charles I knew was he was doing.
I agree with you when you say that he wasn’t a tyrannical leader despite his unethical actions. Another point I agree with is when you said how dying for what he believed in showed the public a positive side of him.
its weird how a known leader like Charles I can be such a dichotomy within life but… that is people for you. Good, Bad, Ugly, and Beautiful. it’s just funny how we remember only some qualities with others and not other peoples qualities.