# Did King Charles I really deserve his fate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2005, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398 "2005-08-24T09:33:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sarah\_Woodruff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sarah\_Woodruff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarah_Woodruff)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/1 "2005-08-24T09:33:45Z")
Charles I was executed in 1649 on the orders of Cromwell after being found guilty of high treason. Between 1629 and 1640 he had refused to call Parliament - From [this site](http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page76.asp) [which may have a bit of familial bias, but don’t we all?] > [@](#): > > Although opponents later called this period ‘the Eleven Years’ Tyranny’, Charles’s decision to rule without Parliament was technically within the King’s royal prerogative, and the absence of a Parliament was less of a grievance to many people than the efforts to raise revenue by non-parliamentary means. Charles was offensive to many of his subjects for reasons of religion - he married a Catholic - as well as financial reasons; he thought he had a Divine Right to rule over the country as he personally saw fit, and he decided to solve his funding problem by arresting several [Members of Parliament](http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html) on trumped-up charges. Nightmarish times, no? Yet I would submit that he was hardly the first monarch to display these traits, and, well, maybe it’s just me but this [frail stammerer](http://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/history/portraits/images/034%20King%20Charles%20I.jpg) hardly comes across as Evil Incarnate. Henry VIII died in his bed, for crying out loud. Why didn’t Charles also die a natural death? There must be more to it than Cromwell = Good hardworking democratic founding father and Charles I = despotic parasitic national blight. Was Charles merely the fall guy for several centuries of other peoples’ despotism? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/2 "2005-08-24T10:18:14Z")
Whether he “deserved it” is a value judgement. Executions were commonly carried out for political reasons. You can’t be a claimant to the throne if you’re dead. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/3 "2005-08-24T11:46:08Z")
I don’t know about Charles I, but this part : > [@](#): > > Cromwell = Good hardworking democratic founding father made me cringe… ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/4 "2005-08-24T12:05:30Z")
This question doesn’t really have a factual answer. ---
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/5 "2005-08-24T12:21:50Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > Executions were commonly carried out for political reasons. True for a bunch of folks, but executing the King was a unique event in British history. [Henry VIII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_viii#The_King.27s_Great_Matter) had two wives executed. There was the whole [princes/tower](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_tower) debacle. [Edward II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England#Life_in_captivity_and_death) had the whole red hot poker thing going. But trying a king? In a time when kings ruled by divine right and weren’t subject to parliamentary rule? Didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/6 "2005-08-24T13:30:25Z")
In moral or legal terms, no he probably didn’t, and Cromwell was a jerk. Aside from that, who cares? Cromwell killed him because of political reasons, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/7 "2005-08-24T13:36:39Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > In moral or legal terms, no he probably didn’t, and Cromwell was a jerk. Aside from that, who cares? Cromwell killed him because of political reasons, nothing more. Right. You just can’t tolerate an ex-king hanging around stirring up trouble. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/8 "2005-08-24T15:48:58Z")
As a factual question, consider this alternate formulation: Why did the rebels think Charles deserved to die? Of the many books addressing the topic, I particularly liked and recommend Simon Schama’s [History of Britain, vol. 2](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0786867523/qid=1124898530/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2054688-7532838?v=glance&s=books). Like the rest of the series too, incidentally, but think this is the strongest volume. No need to buy, BTW; it’s a well-known book and probably available from your local library. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/9 "2005-08-24T17:08:07Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Right. You just can’t tolerate an ex-king hanging around stirring up trouble. Except there is a good argument that on a strategic political assessment, the trial and execution of Charles I was a major political blunder by the Commonwealth men. As long as they had Charles I in their control, they had the head of the Royal government. Under a monarchical system founded on personal rule, that was a real stymie for the Royalists. As soon as they executed him, there was a new King, Charles II, at liberty in France, able to stir up trouble, appoint a government in exile, intrigue with royalists in England, seek support from the French king, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/10 "2005-08-24T17:09:32Z")
Hit reply instead of preview. Meant to add - perhaps this thread should be shifted to GD? ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/11 "2005-08-24T18:15:38Z")
Off with your h– Off to GD, I mean. bibliophage moderator GQ ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/12 "2005-08-24T18:32:37Z")
From the Lord President of the Court’s comments to the king during his trial. > [@](#): > > Sir, you have held yourself, and let fall such Language, as if you had been no ways Subject to the Law, or that the Law had not been your Superior. Sir, The Court is very well sensible of it, and I hope so are all the understanding People of England, That the Law is your Superior, that you ought to have ruled according to the Law, you ought to have done so. Sir, I know very well your pretence hath been that you have done so, but Sir, the difference hath been who shall be the Expositors of this Law, Sir, whether you and your Party out of Courts of Justice shall take upon them to expound Law, or the Courts of Justice, who are the Expounders; nay, the Sovereign and the High Court of Justice, the Parliament of England, that are not only the highest expounders, but the sole makers of the Law. Sir, for you to set yourself with your single judgment, and those that adhere unto you, to set yourself against the highest Court of Justice, that is not Law. > > Sir, as the Law is your Superior; so truly Sir, there is something that is Superior to the Law, and that is indeed the Parent or Author of the Law, and that is the People of England, For Sir, as they are those that at the first (as other Countries have one) did choose to themselves the Form of Government, even for justice sake, that Justice might be administered, that Peace might be preserved, so Sir, they gave Laws to their Governors, according to which they should Govern, and if those Laws should have proved inconvenient, or prejudicial to the Public, they had a power in them and reserved to themselves to alter as they shall see cause. . . .This we learn, the end of having Kings, or any other Governors, it’s for the enjoying of Justice, that’s the end. Now Sir, if so be the King will go contrary to that End, or any other Governor will go contrary to the end of his Government; Sir, he must understand that he is but an Officer in trust, and he ought to discharge that Trust, and they are to take order for the animadversion and punishment of such an offending Governor. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/13 "2005-08-24T18:38:57Z")
Since the beginning of history there probably have been at least a half dozen or so kings that wouldn’t have been improved by hacking off their heads. I’m sure I’d be able to come up with a list if I thought a while. Hmmm…uhh… ---
**Author:** ![garius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e19b73/32.png) [@garius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garius)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/14 "2005-08-24T20:47:40Z")
> [@](#): > > There must be more to it than Cromwell = Good hardworking democratic founding father Think of Cromwell as an “accidental democrat”. He believed in power and position based on ability, and that everyone, regardless of class or religion\* should have the opportunity to reach that position. Everyone was equal in the eyes of God, and everyone was equal in the eyes of the State and subject to the rules thereof - be they King or Carpenter. It was this that put him into conflict with the King and, later, with Parliament. > [@](#): > > Was Charles merely the fall guy for several centuries of other peoples’ despotism? Partially, but he also brought it on himself. You can probably argue that by the time of his execution Charles completely embodied the idea of absolute monarchy, and that, ultimately, this contributed greatly to his trial and death, since he represented everything that was politically anathaema to the new State. What’s important to remember however is that Charles embodied this not just because he was King, but because _he himself cultivated this image_. Why? Well Charles was a fervent and unwavering believer in the Divine Right of Kings. This was the idea that the King was accountable to no-one but God and that, by definition, not only was the King not subject to the will of his people and the state but that to ever go _against_ the King’s wishes was to go against the Will of God. Now ever since the Magna Carta, most English Monarchs had been smart enough not to mention the whole “Divine Right” thing in polite conversation (at least not unless they had a sufficiently large army to back them up). In return, the ruling classes (be they Barons or Parliament) had agreed not to bring up the matter and question its validity in an age no longer plagued by rampaging Vikings or anti-Norman sentiment. So basically, by the 17th Century the unwritten rules of government where that the King could do whatever he liked as long as: 1. He asked Parliament first and at least _pretended_ to listen to what they were saying. 2. He didn’t mention the whole “Divine Right” thing within their earshot or brag about it to his mates. 3. He didn’t do anything outrageously and obviously fucking stupid and/or expensive. So when, after a few years in power, Charles starts saying that: 1. I don’t need your permission to do anything. I’ll ask you sometimes if i think you’ll agree with me and even then only if i remember. 2. I’ll tell the whole fucking country if i want. 3. If i want to start expensive wars with Spain and France i will. Oh yeah, and i’m putting my mate Buckingham in charge of the campaigns, even if he is one of the worst Generals ever. You can imagine that politically he wasn’t exactly making friends or adhering to the principles of English Government. The lines for the Civil War were drawn. So you can probably imagine that, since Charles had come to represent everything that the war had been fought _against_ it would be impossible _not_ to do something suitably extreme with him after the war. Don’t make the mistake though of assuming that the moment hostility ceased, Charles was doomed to the executioners axe. Truth be told, no one knew what to do with him (mainly because they hadn’t expected to win). The concept of Divine Right may have run contrary to their political beliefs, but the step from that to killing a _reigning_ monarch was enormous. Sure, they’d mouthed off about it, but no one was seriously expecting to have to go through with it - it was a Magna Carta situation again - beat the King, humble him a bit, then go back to business as usual. This is where, again, Charles’ own behavior and beliefs came into play and helped seal his fate. Not only would he still not shut up about the whole issue (talk about a sore loser) but he also _knew_ that Parliament was unsure what to do with him and played an incredibly complex political game with himself at the centre and the Army, Parliament and the Scots/Royalists as the rival players. This was a massive risk to take - Charles was now deliberately gambling with his own life. He knew that the longer he could stall a decision on his fate through political manoeuvring and playing the unrepentent Absolule Monarch, the more likely Parliament was to chicken out of making any decision at all and collapsing in on itself. It was an all-or-nothing play of course, because now not only did he continue to embody everthing that the war had been fought over, but he also posed a significant threat to the stability and indeed very existence of the new State. “I am King and therefore i am the originator of law, not subject to it. Kill me or agree with me. I ain’t moving” was pretty much his message. He was trying to call Parliament’s bluff. He would almost certainly have got away with it too, if Cromwell hadn’t stepped in. Cromwell, backed up by the army, forced Parliament to put its money where its mouth was. It was he who almost singlehandedly forced through Charles’ conviction for treason, it was he who _literally_ forced the judges to sign the King’s death warrant and it was he who pretty much made sure that events progressed to their gruesome end. I’m guessing neither the King or Cromwell was someone you’d ever want to play poker against. So i guess the short answer to your question is this: Charles I was defeated for what he represented, but he was killed for who he was. \*unless you were a catholic obviously ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4da419/32.png) [@Gala\_Matrix\_Fire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gala_Matrix_Fire)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/15 "2005-08-24T21:37:34Z")
I’m no expert, but if memory serves he twice hired foreign armies to wage war on his own subjects. Seems execution-worthy to me. ---
**Author:** ![Sarah\_Woodruff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sarah\_Woodruff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarah_Woodruff)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/16 "2005-08-24T22:23:55Z")
> [@mks57](#): > > Whether he “deserved it” is a value judgement. Executions were commonly carried out for political reasons. You can’t be a claimant to the throne if you’re dead. No no no - he was the first Head of State to be tried in a court of his own realm and executed. _That’s_ what makes the whole situation jump out at you from a period of heads going off left right and centre. I had no idea whether this was a GQ or a GD question - sorry people. I’ll come back after work and have a go at digesting the other answers. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/17 "2005-08-25T01:36:22Z")
> [@bluethree](#): > > I’m no expert, but if memory serves he twice hired foreign armies to wage war on his own subjects. Seems execution-worthy to me. By the standards of the time, wholly unremarkable. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/18 "2005-08-25T01:48:57Z")
> [@Tapioca Dextrin](#): > > True for a bunch of folks, but executing the King was a unique event in British history. [Henry VIII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_viii#The_King.27s_Great_Matter) had two wives executed. There was the whole [princes/tower](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_tower) debacle. [Edward II](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England#Life_in_captivity_and_death) had the whole red hot poker thing going. But trying a king? In a time when kings ruled by divine right and weren’t subject to parliamentary rule? Didn’t happen. IIRC, Richard II was tried and deposed, but not executed. (Killed by the new regime, almost certainly, but not under color of law.) ---
**Author:** ![Sarah\_Woodruff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df788c/32.png) [@Sarah\_Woodruff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarah_Woodruff)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2005, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/19 "2005-08-25T08:34:41Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I don’t know about Charles I, but this part : > made me cringe… I was being a bit sarcastic…Cromwell always struck me as resembling The Boss from Hell. 😉 That was an amazing analysis, **garius.** It seems like Charles very foolishly and delusionally decided to push his luck as far as it could run. He was the Head of State, nothing could touch him…he was God’s Anointed! It’s interesting that Capt’n Amazing posted that exerpt from the trial. The reason I got to thinking about Charles was that the weekend paper reviewed a new book by [Geoffrey Robertson Q.C.](http://www.randomhouse.com.au/WEB_ASP/ttle_detail.asp?ISBN=0701176024) which is supposed to be the first biography of the man who led the prosecution case against Charles. From a legal point of view, to try a Head of State for treason was an incredible thing to contemplate. I can’t quite equate Charles I with Slobodan Milosevic in my head. It leads me to think that Cromwell, although he liked to be thought of as Holier than Thou, really just saw the ruthless option as likely to have the best political outcome for himself, and grabbed for it with both hands. I’ll be ferreting out the Schama book - I saw some of the TV series but missed the Stuart episode. ---
**Author:** ![garius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e19b73/32.png) [@garius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garius)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398/20 "2005-08-25T14:09:30Z")
> [@](#): > > It seems like Charles very foolishly and delusionally decided to push his luck as far as it could run. He was the Head of State, nothing could touch him…he was God’s Anointed! Kinda, but then, as i mentioned, he probably would have got away with it if it hadn’t been for Cromwell. Don’t forget that at the time of the execution Cromwell was still a long way from the peak of his power - he was still just an MP and was not yet supreme commander of the army. You can’t really blame Charles for not expecting him to throw a spanner in the works. So yeah, maybe Charles was foolish for taking the gamble, but he came desperately close to pulling it off. You gotta give the bloke his due 😃 > [@](#): > > It leads me to think that Cromwell, although he liked to be thought of as Holier than Thou, really just saw the ruthless option as likely to have the best political outcome for himself, and grabbed for it with both hands. Cromwell could be a bit of a pompous arsehole sometimes but generally he was pretty down-to-earth. We tend to remember Cromwell the General and Cromwell the Dictator but forget Cromwell the Family Man, Cromwell the Good Mate and Cromwell the Keen Practical Joker - by most accounts he was a great bloke to be friends with, he just didn’t have a lot of 'em! Also, its worth remembering that Cromwell never really sought power for the sake of power, his rise was largely the result of his wish to see England as a meritocracy - he wanted the best bloke for the job to be in charge. Initially he thought this was Parliament, but after they repeatedly fucked it up, he decided to take on that role himself until they could be trusted with it. Eventually of course, he just decided that they would never be better at it than he was, so had himself declared Lord Protector. So basically Cromwell thought power should rest with whoever would be best at the job. He just happened to furvently believe that that was himself :rolleyes: (although he may have had a point 😃 ). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-king-charles-i-really-deserve-his-fate/318398.md?page=2)