• 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)

    A criticism you can give, in hindsight, is that 20 months after the death of Cromwell the monarchy was restored. You can't place the blame on Cromwell however, if he had stayed alive there is every chance the republic would have carried on.

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

    Rather than ally himself with one group as was customary due to the complexities of Irish politics, Wentworth decided to treat them all equally and be equally authoritarian towards all of them. This made him many enemies both in Ireland and back in England.

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

    (Christopher Hill, The Century of the Revolution, 1603-1714, 1961) For other historians the Major Generals were above all else the agents of centralisation who were resented and opposed primarily because they represented a threat to long-established traditions of local autonomy and self government. Paul Christianson declared in 1976 that their role was 'the most stringent central invasion of local privileges and customs of the century'.

  2. How far were the actions and beliefs of Charles responsible for the crisis of ...

    'Petition of Rights' to plead for money, yet set out his rights at the same time, which angered Parliament, who agreed to give him money if he reversed the judges decision and he reluctantly agreed. The balance of power continues to shift from king to parliament and back again, when

  1. Was Oliver Cromwell a hero or a villain?

    According to Cromwell, God might have made Charles lose, and thus, God wanted Charles to die. The second reason is that Charles could not be trusted, because he talked peace before but then he deceived the ordinary people and started another war.

  2. How far does the evidence of the sources below suggest that Oliver Cromwell was ...

    The most convincing statement, if not the most reliable, protesting Cromwell's innocence in the matter has to be the words of Oliver Cromwell himself when writing to his cousin Robert Hammond, one of his closests consulates. He says, 'I hope the same experience (when he and the army leaders 'burned their fingers' in 1647)

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

    There was the initial worry of whether the Church would allow its members to testify against their initial verdict, however the conditions in France favoured an outcome beneficial to the French monarchy. Polly Schoyer Brooks expresses the supposition that as Charles gained total control, the diminishing power of the Church needed his support.

  2. Unknown Bravery.

    Smith began to clear the table off the breakfast items and Mr. Smith rose out off his seat and left seemingly to prepare for work, but stopped in the doorframe and beckoned for his son to follow him. Whilst taken aback Charles did as he was told and followed

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