Regardless of whether or not Charles I deserved to be executed, I was fascinated by the fact that he felt confident in the fact that he was destined to go to Heaven after his execution. A short paragraph in “The Trial and Execution of Charles I” stuck out to me because it was unlike the majority of the passage and other passages; it was not merely weighing the validity of his actions. It seems to me that it was almost as if Charles I was not even concerned with the justification or validity as long as he was going to be saved by going to Heaven. This is interesting to me because in modern day if leaders were to be assassinated or executed, many of them would be very concerned and focus most of their attention on the truthfulness and fairness of the reasoning behind their executions.
It would also make sense that during this time period the citizens would also be comforted by the notion that even if Charles I was wrongfully executed, at least he was going to go to Heaven. This could mean that they would potentially disregard the morality of the sentence because they felt so confident in the wildly unknown. Killing a leader even if he or she is likely a tyrant just because of the sureness of Heaven is not necessarily morally permissible. Thus, the concept of the punishment of an unjust leader being contingent on civilians’ faith in the possibility of an enchanted world and afterlife is very shocking to me. Conclusively, I was surprised to see that even Charles I thought that as long as Heaven was on the horizon, any consequence served for potentially being a poor leader was permissible.
You make a very interesting point about Charles I’s execution coming with the caveat that he will at least go to Heaven when he is executed. In many cases of tyrannicide or the execution of a deemed martyr, followers gain comfort from religious beliefs about an afterlife. You could make the same argument for leaders who are resented by followers who may justify that death is worse than life in prison because they will burn in Hell.
I was also very intrigued with the fact that Charles I did not seem concerned about the validity or justification and only with the fact that he was going to go to heaven. I think that this shows how Charles I’s main concern was God and that he wanted the people to know that he would be going to heaven.
I think it was very interesting that you bring up the point of the validity of his actions. This is an important point to see why he was viewed as a martyr after his death.
I also find it very interesting that he was satisfied that he was bound to go to heaven after his execution. Ignoring the reasoning behind his execution yet comforted by the thought of going to heaven is a good point within the reading.
I also noted his nonchalance regarding his own execution. I think part of this may have stemmed from his belief that the entire process was against the will of God because the king is supposed to be above the law (according Jacobean theory of kingship). Therefore, why would he be concerned with the opinions of disobedient people when he knew he lived out “God’s will” and they would have to answer to His judgement?
I disagree with the idea that it was not morally permissible because the people had Heaven on the horizon. the people of that time period were very religious. They believed in the after life and did think it was morally permissible which is why they dismissed it in the first place. and honestly we are no closer to determining if they were right or not so why judge it as morally strange.