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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/p>\n