Toxic leadership is a subjective idea, but it gets more complicated when it relates to 17th century English society. Though King Charles actions may have been tyrannical, his legacy paints him more as a man who stood up for his ideals. One of the articles elaborates on this point when describing how, “Charles therefore managed to present himself as standing ‘more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges’, turning it into a piece of successful propaganda. Not only did it give him a chance to show the tyranny of the Rump Parliament but it allowed him to paint himself as the honourable, Christian protector of the constitution and of the people.” This speech was obviously a political play in order to ensure the future of the monarchy in England, but at the same time it portrays King Charles as a champion of the people and the Parliament as corrupt. King Charles’ decision to essentially restart the civil war, causing thousands of deaths, may also have been justified in this context. This is because it not only ensures his, and future royals, rule over Parliament, but shows that his actions were done with the people in mind. I am unsure of King Charles’ leadership because though he firmly believes what he did was necessary to protect the liberties of all English people, his decisions to protect that freedom indirectly caused the deaths of many of those people. In the case of King Charles, I believe intent matters. The readings do attack some of Charles’ actions, but they do clearly highlight his belief that he is doing the right thing for him, the people, and England as a whole. For all of these reasons, King Charles’ reign should not be classified as a case of toxic leadership, rather misguided ethics or beliefs.
King Charles I as a toxic leader?
Published inUncategorized
I really agree with your point about how complicated toxic charisma gets when we try to apply it to historical England! It seems like most of the events surrounding Charles’s execution boil down to a simple power struggle between him and parliament, and Cromwell manufacturing a biased Parliament to dispose of Charles, who may or may not have even been that bad by historical standards.
I liked how you brought up the point that it is important to look at toxic leadership in context with the time period. While we might classify Charles I as toxic according to today’s standards, we have to look at the bigger picture: the right to rule was considered a divine right. Therefore, Charles I had legitimacy to rule that was respected by his people. On a similar note, history is written by the victors. Because Charles I was executed, he is not remembered fondly. However, when reading the article arguing that he shouldn’t have been executed, it becomes more clear that his execution wasn’t widely supported.
I agree that intent matters because tyrants are defined as acting solely in their own self interest. The issue becomes we can’t see inside Charles’s head, not only because he is dead but also because we can’t peer into anyone else’s mind. I agree that his actions sent mixed messages about his intentions which is why I am conflicted on whether his execution was necessary.
I agree that the idea of toxic leadership is a complex one, but I think that Charles was not a toxic leader and he definitely was not a tyrant. Although they may have been controversial, he made his decisions for the good of the country, not for his own gain. Tyrants must do everything to further themselves and he really was trying to help his people and protect them from the Rump parliament.