Although I think that King Charles was very stubborn and let his personal decisions get in the way of his thought process, I believe that Charles did not deserve to die, but argue that his death actually helped his legacy. I think that while Charles backstabbed the Parliament and other members of the government, he was not a tyrant. Yes, he had tyrannical behaviors, but was not thinking of himself at every given second. I think that this is seen during his trial, as it is heavily debated and if he were truly that horrible, there would’ve been no problem killing him immediately. In addition, he was not the first ruler during this time to have selfish motivations, and not the worst the world could’ve had. I also think that they ruled to kill him in a political effort to “win” against King Charles as he publicly put up such a fight.
While I believe that Charles did not need to be killed, I actually believe it helped the public to see him in a more positive light, as it looked like he was dying for a cause he believed in. King Charles did not need to be executed, and could’ve easily argued his way out of it in the years between the war ending and his actual death. But, I think that part of his appeal is that he died, and the words that he gave before his death. Therefore, in this situation, I not only think that choosing to kill him was the wrong decision, but I think that it helped give Charles fame.
I found it interesting that you think that Charles I shouldn’t have been executed as there is a lot of controversy in his execution. I think that you have a well written argument and back up your opinion with facts and make a good case for what you believe.
I think that the point you make about his legacy is interesting due to him dying for what he believed in which made him look better in the public eye . I also find it interesting with your claim that he was not meant to be executed nor was he considered a tyrant .