The reason that Charles’ policies were so unpopular was because it seems as if he was simply getting more money to fight wars in Europe and was not consulting parliament. It seems like autocracy to parliament, who are agitated that they do not get to have a say in these important proceedings. Also, the policies such as the ship tax and the Court of the Star Chamber were felt particularly keenly by parliament because they were closely connected to trade and the gentry and the heavy taxes hit them hard. There was a rebellion by a man named John Hampden who refused outright to pay the King’s Ship tax. He was tried and found guilty, but he was revered as a hero, in particular by Parliament. This is evident of a growing feeling of resentment towards the king’s policies especially from Parliament. Also it showed a struggle of power already beginning between the King and Parliament, both wanted to have more control over the two most important factors of the realm: Religion and money, but since both the King and parliament refused to compromise which caused more and more distrust between them.
One of the main charges that came up against Charles at his trial was tyranny and the policies he used would have certainly been used as convincing evidence.
It could be argued that it was this struggle of power that finally caused war between the King and parliament. There were many short term and long term causes of the Civil War, the long term causes stretched back to Charles’ father King James who had had a terribly unsettling relationship with parliament. He, as his son was soon to be, was a firm believer in the divine right of Kings, but it could be argued that he had more political tact than Charles would have, but he still expected Parliament to obey and agree with his every decision. He, like Charles, argued with Parliament over money and, in 1611, did not allow them to meet for ten years. James also used his friends to help him run the country and rewarded them with titles and this further embittered parliament. When he finally did recall parliament in 1621 he wanted to discuss with them the marriage of his son Charles to a Spanish princess and this increased the fear of Catholicism in England because of the Spanish influence. Also the Spanish Armada had not been forgotten. This damaged the relationship further and it was never mended, even when his son Charles succeeded him to the throne.
It seems that one of the most important short term causes of the civil war was Charles’ inability to compromise. Since he was a firm believer in the Divine Right of Kings he took many of parliament’s proposals for reform as personal attacks on his Kingship. Parliament saw these actions as arrogance and Charles felt that his power was being undermined by Parliament’s seemingly unreasonable demands. This led to accusations of tyranny on Charles’ part, these accusations mounted when he then in 1642 stormed into Parliament to arrest five of its leaders. It seems that this was rather tyrannical, but Charles then went to Oxford to raise an army to fight Parliament for control of England.
It could be said that Charles was trying to carry on the traditions of the King that had been passed onto him from his father, but he was neither politically experienced nor did he have the proper confidence to firmly establish the Divine Right. His seemingly erratic way of governing, not being able to assert his authority, but at the same time did not back down in the face of fierce opposition were some of the important factors that led to the Civil War. There also seemed to be an element of power struggle between the two sides, both wanting more control over the country. After the King raised an army against his own parliament it does not seem possible that the civil war could have been avoided.
The causes of the civil war, the long term and short term effects, shows that King Charles had a very strained relationship with Parliament, the main element of the arguments stemmed from mistrust.
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.
This seems to be evidence that Charles was put on trial to be made an example of by parliament, so that people would draw their own conclusions about the monarchy.
Charles’ belief in the Divine Right was certainly a strong factor in the outcome of his trial, because it led to most of his important decisions. It was traditional for him to believe in the Divine Right and it seemed to him to be the duty of a monarch. Divine Right is the belief that a king is appointed by and only answerable to God.
Because of this, Charles felt that Parliament were not only disobeying him, but also disobeying God. Therefore, judging by the nature of Charles’ policies, Parliament might have felt he was abusing his position and therefore abusing God’s trust.
Also it is evident that Charles’ behaviour at his trial, which could be argued as one of the main elements leading to his execution, was heavily influenced by his belief in Divine Right. His behaviour at the trial has been the source of historical debate as to whether he was acting out of arrogance or bravery.
On the one hand it could have been that he was keeping his pride and his principals as an act of bravery to a court that he felt had no authority to judge him because he was a lawful servant of God. This is evident in this quotation:
“I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.”
However, this might be seen as an indication of the King’s arrogance. He might think that since he is King then Parliament had no right to try him because the King is above the law. The quote could be seen as that he thinks himself as a kind of Christ figure because he says “…you shall hear more of me.”
On the other hand, maybe Charles has a feeling that the people will not stand for his death, so even if Parliament executed him a new king will succeed to the throne. Of course, with hindsight we see that this actually happened. So maybe Charles had an idea of how History would eventually come back round in a circle. Parliament might have known this as well, there was some reluctance to sign the King’s death warrant and there was some support for the King before the Civil War. It could be possible that there was a minority of supporters for the King because they believed in Divine Right as well.
The issue of the monarchy’s popularity is quite important. If the monarchy was not popular in Charles’ reign then it could have been that Parliament had to execute Charles because that’s what the people wanted. However, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
For instance, it is reported that the president at Charles’ trial wore a steel lined hat for fear of assassination attempts during the trial, the famous reaction of the people watching the King’s death at Whitehall is that they groaned as the axe fell and ran forward to dip handkerchiefs in the King’s blood, but this was after the King’s trial. It might not necessarily mean he was popular in his reign.
But the monarch must have suffered a blow in popularity during the seventeenth century, especially in King James the first’s reign. He had an attempt on his life made when the Gunpowder plot was discovered, but they could be seen as minority malcontents. James had united England and Scotland which had brought a certain amount of peace to the country. So the monarchy might have had some sort of popularity with the people, but James, as had already been mentioned, had had bitter arguments with Parliament. Many of the problems that Charles had were similar to the ones that his father had.
It could be possible that there was a traditional love of the King amongst the public because, Stuart England having a heavy Christian tradition, they also believed in Divine Right. There was very clear proof that the monarchy had popularity after the short lived republic, when Oliver Cromwell died in 1658 and the monarchy was restored there was reported to have been lots of celebrating and street parties.
One man who played a very prominent part in the execution of the King was Oliver Cromwell. He had been a key figure in many of the Civil War battles because of his reputed skill as a soldier and he had played a central role in the bringing the King to trial.
Since he played such a deciding part in bringing about the outcome of the Civil War, he is a very important figure in the trial and its outcome. He was one of the many members of Parliament who signed the Warrant for the King’s death.
Cromwell was a strong Puritan and he was one of many who feared Charles might bring in Catholicism, so he would have believed it would have been for the good of the country to execute the King. It is believed that, since the King had been so distrustful so many times, he would start the Civil War again. Cromwell felt that the only way to restore peace and trust amongst the ruling bodies in England was to get rid of the monarchy.
So he would have been a very important part to the execution of Charles because it seems that he put a lot of effort to make sure that Charles was executed. There is a lot of evidence that he might have wanted to make an example of Charles and the nature of the monarchy, he supposedly said;
“We will cut off his head with the crown on it.”
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.
