Through the debate around Charles I execution, I am most perplexed by the immediate aftermath of his death. He was ordered to be executed by the Rump Parliament for \u201clevying war against the said Parliament and people,\u201d however the people immediately mourned him (Get History). Despite tradition, \u201cthe executioner did not say the usual phrase of behold the head of a traitor,\u201d rather his beheading was met with groans and mass sadness (Get History). The last article even said, \u201cno monarch \u2018ever left the world with more sorrow.\u2019\u201d He became a martyr in England and people worshiped his name. Yet, they had killed him.<\/p>\n
The attitude of the people makes me wonder about how easy it is for a society to forget. Charles I was guilty of unnecessarily raging war on his people and causing the death of many. He was described in the readings as stubborn, hard to work with, and believed that \u201cthe king was not bound by the law, for the king came before the law\u201d (Discourse of Sovereignty <\/em>208). \u00a0His reign became a tyranny according to our readings, but his legacy was much more positive. People, Royalists especially in the 1650s, found strength and hope in the myths that surrounded his death and the way he held himself till the very end. Cromwell, in the last reading, was accused of making Charles\u2019s execution happen out of personal vengeance. He cleared out Charles\u2019s supporters from Parliament and pushed his case through. I wonder, how did an entire country allow their leader to be killed? How did Parliament succumb to one man\u2019s angry orders? Why was there not more noise around the issue?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Through the debate around Charles I execution, I am most perplexed by the immediate aftermath of his death. He was ordered to be executed by…<\/p>\n