I think the question of whether Charles I deserved to be executed is an interesting one. I can’t think of many leaders in which the answer is ambivalent. However, Charles I’s execution is a gray area because he became a martyr, a figurehead for The Time Parliament Went Too Far (probably a saga) and paved the way for his son Charles II who successfully ruled England, Scotland, and Ireland. However, his father was beheaded and, even in the 1600s, I think that’s excessive. Of course, according to the Jacobian Theory of Kingship, Parliament was defying God, so from that point of view, it’s clearly wrong. Jacobian Theory states that even a tyrant cannot be removed/invalidated by Parliament or the people; the king can only be removed by God. And while that concept is ridiculous and, like Carroll said is “virtually a synonym for ‘tyranny.” I kind of see the reason for such an approach after somewhat removing myself from my democratic ideals.
Yes, Charles I went behind his country’s back to recruit the Scottish so he could get his throne back, but killing a king without public support? Isn’t that just worsening the instability? When dealing with a figurehead that was not elected, nor is susceptible to election, shouldn’t the law be taken with a grain of salt? I mean, we are talking bloodlines and divine right here. If you just start killing leaders when they screw up, that system will come into question (and, as we know, it has). I really don’t like to think any leader is above the law, but I am American and a King is not synonymous with President. Cromwell or no Cromwell, I don’t think Ragtag Rump Parliament had the right to do what they did, and it seems like the country felt the same way.
I also thought it was an interesting question to pose about if it was right to execute Charles I. It seems to me that while Charles did make many mistakes and ignite a civil war, it was nothing extremely out of the ordinary for kings to have done historically. I would say that Cromwell is more the main force behind the beheading of Charles I because of his manipulation of Parliament.
I agree with your point about that Charles I was not a great leader and did have tyrannical trates, but the way in which his execution was went about was not just. I think that the corruption of Cromwell has made the discussion of whether or not Charles I deserved to be executed a very hard one.
I agree that it is very interesting to look at the execution of Charles I and to determine if it was justified or not. In most cases there is never a clear yes or no answer because most of the time leaders do both terrible and just things. There is also the question of if they assumed that what they were doing was to benefit their people. No one but the leader can know the answer to that question and what their true intentions were.
I liked how you looked at both sides of the argument as to whether Charles I should have been executed before coming to your conclusion. I know when I read the pro-side to the article about his execution, I didn’t think anything of it. However, after learning that the majority of people were opposed, I had a new outlook. Everyone makes mistakes, and although Charles I betrayed his country and went behind Parliament’s back, did that mean he had to die?