Wow. What an interesting historical story. Charles I is said to be made out to be this honourable and righteous man, “but it was this very sense of righteousness that was his undoing”. I see nothing righteous in a man or a king who takes attacks on his policy as an attack on him personally. Once I read that Charles was a man who thought he was a voice of God solely because of his “divine” right as king, I knew there was blood to come. Anyone with this sort of belief should not be in charge of anything, they are toxic to say the least.
As depicted in the articles, Charles I was truly “a man of blood” who had goals that took absolutely no consideration for the lives of the innocent. This man had the audacity to quite literally start a second civil war in the hopes of reclaiming the thrown. For this reason, I absolutely believe that he deserved to die. I see this man in the same light as John Wilkes Booth. Both of them attempted to reignite a civil war within their country as a part of the losing side, the only difference being that Booth failed to do so. And because Charles I efforts actually resulted in a second civil war, I believe his actions are worse than those of Booth.
And finally, because he refused to plea during the duration of his whole trial, I have absolutely no sympathy for this man who thuroughly believes he did nothing wrong. Charles I is a coward.
To start an entire war for personal gain is an act of a tyrant. To say he deserved to die may be a stretch, but he for sure needed to be stripped of his position as king. I feel like if they had the power to formally execute him, they also had the power to relieve him of his duty, or imprison him.
Charles I’s egocentric attitude contributes to his tyrannical figurehead– you have a strong argument in defending the idea that he deserved to die. However, I think the other side of the argument is equally as valid in that his execution was purely resentment by Oliver Cromwell and others who despised him as king. Both arguments are interesting and it can be difficult to choose a side in a debate as controversial in history as this one!
It is a tough statement to claim that someone “deserved” to die. This idea does not sit with me well, although I understand and agree with your claim in saying that he started a 2nd civil war just to be back in power. Who knows, maybe this man thought that he was an unbelievable leader and made the world a better place with the crown on his head, but to the same argument, when your time is up one must recognize this and a good leader is interested in the overall good of the people and if he isn’t producing and the public is notifying him of this, he should for sure give the position to the next person.
I think it is a fair assessment to call Charles I and egomaniac. As the Get History article points out, Charles I often picked fights with his enemies over honor, which is a dangerous situation because the problem becomes more about the two personalities than the political issue. With this kind of ruling style, it’s no wonder that his reign included the deaths of thousands of people. While from a 21st century perspective I don’t think he deserved to die, I can see how people who lived through his tenure as king would want him killed.