• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Was Charles I responsible for his execution?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Was Charles I responsible for his execution? Rosa Morley Souter In order to consider whether Charles the first was responsible for his execution it is important to explore a number of different issues. Some of the factors could were under Charles' control, others were unavoidable. The factors that were under his control include, most importantly, his policies that eventually led to disagreements with Parliament. However his involvement in the English Civil War was also important as was his relationship with parliament, the popularity of the monarch at the time and his strong belief in Divine Right. The factors that might be considered not under his control might be Oliver Cromwell, who was determined to bring Charles to trial. To start with the most important factor which the nature of Charles' policies and why they were so unpopular. Charles had had many bad relations with other European countries such as Spain and France. Feelings towards Spain were already strained because of the Spanish Armada that had taken place in 1588. From 1625 to 1629 his policies mainly consisted of trying to bring in money for the wars he was currently fighting. He tried to impose heavy taxes, but parliament refused to finance his wars until he dismissed the Duke of Buckingham. Charles also had married Henrietta Maria, a Catholic French Princess, and so had brought her Catholic friends and courtiers with her. Parliament were afraid of Charles bringing a Catholic influence into the country and also Charles was not as harsh on the Catholics as his predecessors had been. Charles finally dismissed Parliament in 1629 after long and bitter arguments and they were not allowed to meet for eleven years. ...read more.

Middle

But even though there was a growing amount of a new, more radical, group of Puritans, the vast majority of the House of Lords and Commons wanted to support the king. They were hoping to make more peaceful compromises with the King; they were not expecting war and would not have wanted to because war would have damaging effects to their lives. They mainly consisted of the governing classes such as lawyers and merchants and war would not have been good for their income. However, the more the King refused to compromise with them and the more he dismissed them the less they trusted him. Even the royalists were losing their trust in King Charles. Both the Royalists and the Parliamentarians wanted to be able to have a more productive relationship with the King and both had more or less the same interests at heart such as religious and economic issues. However, with doubts over whether Charles was suitable to govern the country, they found themselves on opposite sides. The distrust was used in the trial as evidence of betraying the people of England, the prosecution said the charges were against "Charles Stuart, King of England." And they were acting "on behalf of my clients, the people of England." This is clear evidence that they recognised him to be a King, in they seem to put great evidence on it, but they put him on trial anyway. This shocked and scared many people, including the parliamentarians, but the tactic was to put not just Charles himself on trail, but the whole idea of a monarchy. The accusations of mistrust and tyranny were used as ways of linking these traits to the monarchy. ...read more.

Conclusion

He not only wanted to throw out Charles, but the monarchy as well. In conclusion, there are only a few factors that suggest that Charles the I was responsible for his own execution. Many of the factors of his execution such as his behaviour at the trial and his behaviour as King were under his control and could have meant that he did not have to be beheaded. For instance; he did not have to continue the tradition of Divine Right because he knew it could cause opposition. He did not really have the political knowledge or skill to assert himself without causing discontent amongst his advisors. In many ways he was one of the main factors in the Civil War and the Civil War was then brought up as one of the charges against the King in his trial. His unshaken belief in the Divine Right then led to what seemed like arrogance crossed with bravery at his trial, it is hard to judge whether he really was trying to be a proud and brave king or he that was being too arrogant to see that he could have prevented his death. If he had not treated the court with the contempt that he did then he might have lived. The only thing he could not have done anything about was Oliver Cromwell, but even then Cromwell might have tried to negotiate with Charles and agreed to abdicate. Then again, it may be possible that Charles knew that if he was executed then people would not agree with it and what he meant by the quote above was that it would not be long until the monarch will come back because that is what the people want. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?

    5 star(s)

    All titles were kept, again pleasing the upper classes. Cromwell was extremely successful in this area, although the gentry were not completely behind the government, very few attempts were made to overthrow it and they slowly grew to realise this regime was an effective one.

  2. Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?

    A judge and a jury were present in the trial and Charles was allowed to speak for a limited time. Here is a quote from the speech that Cromwell spoke at the Parliament -"When it was first suggested that the King should be put on trial for treason.

  1. This essay examines the actions of Charles VII in relation to events pertaining to ...

    For this reason, Charles had to substantiate Joan's honour for the validity of his kingship was at stake.42 After her victory at Orl�ans, Joan had escorted Charles to the cathedral at Rheims where he was formally crowned as the King of France in the traditional coronation ceremony.

  2. An unmitigated disaster. How valid is this assessment of Oliver Cromwells experiment with the ...

    The decline of Turkish power during the nineteenth century drained this image of much of its powers, and during the twentieth century hostile historians were forced to employ other negative reference points to condemn the Major Generals' rule. Another major strand of criticism has concentrated the unashamedly military nature of their rule.

  1. History Independant study - Oliver Cromwell

    reeling from the effects of civil war and so anyone trying to install some form of leadership even if it was a military dictatorship was not necessarily entirely self-motivated. The country lacking any true form of leadership was constantly at risk of the advances of revolution from groups such as

  2. Was Charles I Trying to Establish Royal Absolutism during his Personal Rule?

    English people in different regions there would always be people not willing to conform to the Establishment's religious alignment. Because England was divided religiously more by region rather than household, e.g. Lancashire was particularly Catholic, Charles could not have persuaded the local government to impose religious uniformity in that area under a non-absolutist system.

  1. Unknown Bravery.

    "It's my conscription papers" Charles declared passively, and hurled the package into the bin in the corner. Mr and Mrs Smith were initially taken aback by their son's open defiance of the law. After, the shock off the situation wore off all three came to their senses.

  2. Was Edith's Behaviour Unreasonable?

    I think here that Edith should have written exactly what Anna said or had written a note at the bottom of the letter saying that she was writing on Anna's behalf. Edith then ignores what Anna writes completely and is writing her own feelings from the inspiration of the incident when he misplaced his hand into her glove.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work