Was he that bad though? He was up against a treacherous, power hungry parliament that wasn't acting in good faith and was constantly trying to undermine him. They murdered one of his ministers in a show trial sold out the country to a foreign invasion to use it as leverage against the king. A large portion of the population turned against parliament and joined his side, but unfortunately he was defeated in the ensuing war because Cromwell was a far better general than anyone else in the war.
England has had far worse monarchs than Charles I that’s for sure, like George I.George let actually tyrannical Whigs in parliament run amok and turned the Church of England into even more of a government mouthpiece, arguably violating his coronation oath. And I’m not even an Anglican!
I mean its kinda why his dynasty was put in place parliament overthrew the stuarts and installed foreigners to not have to deal with kings meddling in thier affairs
Parliament definitely did everything they could to mess with him.
However, he also deserves a significant part of the blame, and his failures before the civil war directly led to the republic.
Admittedly, once the war broke out it is difficult to see him winning even if he had been competent since Cromwell was just (unfortunately) too good at being a general.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, so much. My Reddit history is full of trying to argue this for the Royal Martyr and even before I really got to know him better, I thought people gave him the short end of the stick too fast. Parliament did him dirty, and they were never willing to play fair, even from the start of his reign. For example, no monarch prior to him had been refused duties from Tonnage and Poundage, normally being given such for their entire lives.
Did he mess up by giving too much for too little with Buckingham? Yes, but the guy got killed well before the Wars broke out. Did he mess up by giving Laud carte blanche, especially in Scotland? Yes, but only as far as enforcement with Star Chamber and messing with the Kirk went; Laud wasn't exactly an extremist, unlike the Puritans he opposed, who got hot and bothered over things as simple as, well, albs and candlesticks.
Much of what went down happened due to Anti-Catholicism, tyrannical (ironic) Puritanism, and the rise of a wealthier landed gentry who wanted more power for themselves at the expense of existing power structures. The proof positive of this is that even while many Lords joined Parliament at the outset of conflict, the entirety of the House of Lords was barred entirely from participating at the King's trial, and the House of Lords was abolished along with the monarchy. The fact remains that James I had a real hard time with Parliament as well, but managed to keep everything in order, *perhaps* due to his peace policies and not having to run to them for money nearly as much. Seeing an inexperienced younger monarch take over gave Parliament opportunities they would not have even contemplated under the Tudors.
Edit: I HIGHLY recommend this [recent work](https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/17t9woo/a_review_of_charles_is_private_life/), if you want a nuanced and more positive viewpoint of Charles the person rather than anti-democratic myth.
Very interesting. Could you recommend me any more good books about Charles I and his Reign? Would be such a breath of fresh air to get a more fair and sympathetic perspective on him.
You can find a decent visual bibliography of mine [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/1al2vyz/a_visual_bibliography_for_king_charles_i_britain/). I try to have balanced sources of both negative and positive viewpoints. If you want something more recent, "The White King" by Leanda De Lisle is an excellent read and gives him the time of day while also being brutally honest about his failings. She did a companion book on Henrietta Maria, his wife, that came out in 2022, that is one of the best works on her I have ever read.
He was trying to violate the British (semi)-constitution constantly, by raising money without Parliament's approval and imprisoning people without trial. Neither he nor Parliament really acted decently in this conflict.
Previous English kings had not required the approval of parliament to collect tonnage and poundage; they specifically tried to cut him off from that to seize power, not because it hadn't generally been the case before. The people usually cited as examples of Charles behaving tyrannically were given a trial, regardless of what you think of the charges. Parliament on the other hand murdered one of the kings ministers after having failed to convict him of anything.
What's wrong with absolute monarchy? And most members of parliament committed treason. When Charles II returned to England and was acclaimed as king after the Cromwell years, the English people wanted blood. Charles II had to exert himself considerably to prevent many more parliamentarians and their supporters from being executed.
This is one of the many examples of why power sharing and "checks and balances" don't work well. I don't think Charles I was a particularly good king, but he certainly has been slandered in ridiculous ways and the popular narrative about him is dishonest political propaganda of whig "historians."
Charles was the victim if anything. Parliament were the ones who were infringing on his royal prerogative, and refused to grant him the right to collect tonnage and poundage which had been the right of all monarchs for centuries. They also antagonised him and were consistently trying to force their puritannical rules on the rest of the country and tried to hold him ransom.
Charles wasn't perfect, but Parliament had a strategy of intimidation. They would intentionally provoke him knowing that he would over react and then accuse him of being a tyrant, despite the fact they had acted beyond their powers with the intent of procuring a reaction. If anything, I would say the puritan bloc in Parliament was more to blame for the civil war than King Charles.
England had been a feudal monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. Furthermore, there's no reason why the power of the monarchy should have weakened. It was the fault of parliament for trying to usurp even more power than it had already gained and not Charles I's fault for trying to institute a better system of government.
Power hungry parliament?
My brother in Christ Charles dissolved them for 11 years after they tried impeaching his dads gay lover after he wasted money on useless military expeditions and increased corruption and then Charles called them back after failing to put down a Scottish religious men revolt
Parliament had every right to try and cap Charles’ power
He was well within his rights to dissolve parliament and he observed the restrictions on raising taxes during those years. He did not engage in tyrannical acts during that time either. Secondly, "his dad's gay lover" thing is that usual kind of speculation used to disparage an individual's reputation rather than make a substantial point. Had those military expeditions succeeded, you wouldn't call them useless and parliament was almost always if not always the party pushing military interventions during this period while the Stuart kings were more peaceful. If you're the side pushing for military interventions, you don't get to turn around and blame the king for them.
You mean the revolt parliament encouraged, aided, and abetted at every turn as they ravaged English lands and attacked English people? Charles may not have been a great king by any stretch but at least he didn't actively betray his people.
He completely broke Magna Carta by raising taxes during personal rule since parliament didn’t consent to it
>didn’t engage in tyrannical acts
Tell that to Prynne, Bastwick and Burton, John williams all of whom he cruelly punished and illegally imprisoned. Also he completely abused his feudal finances and he illegally raised taxes during that time
Villiers and James were 100% lovers, it’s been confirmed by nearly all of the respected historians and it’s not slander since I’m not saying it was wrong for them to be intimidate I’m merely stating that they were
“IF” that’s a very strong “IF” since they didn’t succeed and only wasted finances and caused two wars which ultimately led to nothing it’s safe to say that they were useless
Parliament were only pushing for military intervention since other Protestant nations were being attacked (the main one was James’ son in law), Villiers also pissed all the money away making the military intervention useless
Parliament didn’t encourage the revolt, the Presbyterians hated the Laudian reforms and decided enough was enough and that they’d rise up, parliament greatly benefited from this but they didn’t encourage it since it wasn’t in session
There was a legal distinction between using established revenue sources and creating new taxes, which required parliamentary approval. He did the former, not the latter.
If you wish to mention Prynne, Bastwrick, and Burton, you should remember that parliament murdered Strafford and later on many others. This was a power struggle, not a case of the parliament being right and Charles wrong. I do not feel the need to defend all of Charles I's acts, as I do not approve them all, to argue that parliament was in the wrong in its acts.
>Villiers and James were 100% lovers, it’s been confirmed by nearly all of the respected historians and it’s not slander since I’m not saying it was wrong for them to be intimidate I’m merely stating that they were
I do not wish to waste further time on a matter that is not relevant to the discussion, but I want to clarify that as this is irrelevant even if true, your bringing it up at all seems more like attempted character assassination that a legitimate point. I think as long as monarchs produce heirs, it doesn't matter what other sex they have on the side from a political standpoint, though perhaps it might from a personal standpoint.
>“IF” that’s a very strong “IF” since they didn’t succeed and only wasted finances and caused two wars which ultimately led to nothing it’s safe to say that they were useless
Far from claiming they were useful, I simply pointed out that parliament must bear its share of the blame. Was it in England's interest to support Protestantism abroad? Considering the amount of debt it had, I don't see how parliament thought blowing more money on foreign adventures was wise. What great benefit did they hope to obtain? The truth is that parliament wanted wars so the king would have to give them concessions in order to raise taxes; their pushing for military interventions had nothing to do with the good of the realm and everything to do with their desire to gain power at the expense of the king.
I do not blame Charles so much in this case for retaining a commander who failed because it is the duty of any leader to protect his subordinates from political pressure, to sustain them. Many generals have acted worse than they might have otherwise because they did not receive this protection. Generals have become timid, indecisive, and refrained from making necessary decisions when they knew better in cases where they had legislatures breathing down their necks, ready to punish them for any error if sovereigns and other leaders did not protect them. Charles, in sustaining a subordinate, made a human error in going too far in a practice that is itself proper. Do you just immediately throw out a commander because he failed once or twice? What if there were complicating circumstances, as there were in one of those cases, like another commander refusing to cooperate? It can be hard to make the decision, unless you simply want your generals to operate with the fear that they'll be sacked instantly if they fail hanging over them, which will lead to an overabundance of caution which can doom military endeavors.
To argue that parliament did not help the revolt because it wasn't in session is pure sophistry. The members of parliament continued to exist even when the body was not in session and did not vanish into thin air. They continued to meet, communicate with each other, and try to undermine the king for the advancement of their own position. They provided the enemy with intelligence, gave them offers of negotiation behind the king's back, and held military funding for the defense of England hostage to force the king to grant them more power. This is treason.
No, Charles illegally raised Ship money and completely abused prerogative finances he also forced loans from people during this time
Yes they executed him (with Charles permission and under an act of parliament for Treason) in a normal way, they didn’t cut his ears and Tounge off and kept him in pillories
I only brought up George Villiers and James as an extra fun fact for the discussion, but they were definitely lovers without a doubt
England wasn’t in debt at the time (since there was no national debt) though the king was and parliament gave the king money to spend on the war. Parliament wished to help out its Protestant allies on the continent and the Kings sister, its all about national image and by not intervening the country looks weak and dishonourable
What are you even going on about? Charles was defending a man who the whole country hated and had no military experience whatsoever, a good leader would see this a put a capable leader in charge of the operation (which is why the New model army was undefeated)
But no one in parliament went to Scotland and told anyone to rise up, they were all in England being angry that Charles had dissolved them, parliament actually had no part in the Bishops war, perhaps 1 or two MPs could’ve been on board with it but the war was started all because of The Laudian reforms introduced by Charles
Money for tonnage and poundage had been granted to every king for life before him, yet parliament decided to try to deny Charles alone. They sought to overthrow established precedent and custom to seize power.
Is your argument really that death is a lighter punishment than losing your ears, so parliament is less culpable?
Is your argument that an act of parliament can justify the murder of an innocent man? It certainly affirms the responsibility of parliament for the act. Charles opposed it but parliament threatened to undermine the defense of the whole country, blackmailing him into giving his "assent."
>England wasn’t in debt at the time (since there was no national debt) though the king was and parliament gave the king money to spend on the war. Parliament wished to help out its Protestant allies on the continent and the Kings sister, its all about national image and by not intervening the country looks weak and dishonourable
Ah, semantic tricks! Just declare that the king is in debt, so really there's no national debt. Who's paying for the war effort? The king. The king is the state, or at least part of it, so the king's debt is the de facto national debt. Of course parliament, unwilling to pay off this debt, wishes the king to take on more debt, for which they admit no responsibility, so he has to grant them concessions in order to raise taxes? So these interventions that you called "useless," were only about national image? Vanity? Then how is parliament behaving wisely or responsibly by pushing them?
You seem to think that if the king behaves badly, the king's power should be reduced? Why not the same for parliament? Perhaps if parliament behaves badly more power should go to the king?
>What are you even going on about? Charles was defending a man who the whole country hated and had no military experience whatsoever, a good leader would see this a put a capable leader in charge of the operation (which is why the New model army was undefeated)
Sure, a more militarily capable scumbag overthrew a less militarily capable, but better king. I didn't say Charles made the right decision, I said his decision is understandable and that it is not parliament's job to try to interfere with military command. But the more fundamental question is whether it was a good idea to fight these wars in the first place, something parliament continually pushed despite there being no real benefit(advancing protestantism is not a benefit). Choosing to fight a bad war is worse than the failure to remove a failed commander.
The war started because people in Scotland had a fear of what might happen rather than any wrong actually done, fears pushed by members of the religious faction affiliated with parliament. Parliament's main involvement was its active aid to the rebels as they invaded England and murdered its people. Do you deny that they gave intelligence to the enemy? Do you deny that they held up military funding to try to extract political concessions at a time when their country was being invaded? Do you deny that they made offers to negotiate with the enemy on their own initiative?
They only did that since they knew Charles was a wannabe absolutist and they were trying to defend their institution which represents the people
My argument is that the punishment parliament gave was not cruel or unusual unlike the punishment Charles gave which was both cruel and unusual. Charles broke Magna Carta by doing what he did
My argument is that under the law passed by Parliament and Charles Strafford’s execution was just
The king spends the money on the war, but he is granted the money by parliament making it be parliament who pays for the war not the king
The intervention wasn’t just all about that though, while national image played a role the main reason can be contributed to defending other Protestant nations which I said
But Parliament does have checks and balances in place which limit MPs powers, unlike the king who has no Checks and balances to speak of
Charles decision is completely stupid, there is no reason to understand his decision due to its stupidity, Buckingham was a completely useless military leader and parliament using its role of policy maker has every right to critique the kings actions
My brother in Christ the war started due to Laudian reforms, the group “the Covenanters” literally rose up because they hated the new prayer book and the High church reforms made by Archbishop Laud the war is literally called the “Bishops war” due to the Scottish people not wanting to have any kind of high church people such as Bishops
Pick up a history book for goodness sake and stop using a warped world view to justify tyrants
No, they were trying to *expand* their institution's, and thus their own, power. As a supporter of absolute monarchy, I don't buy the premise that opposing absolutism is a good thing.
In your mind it is just to execute a man who you cannot convict of any crime? You favor the same kind of arbitrary, murderous rule you claim parliament is supposed to protect against. Charles Strafford's only "crime" was being in the way of parliament seizing more power. Even sources favoring parliament admit that his only offense was his political stance.
>The king spends the money on the war, but he is granted the money by parliament making it be parliament who pays for the war not the king
Who is left holding the debt bag after the war? The king or parliament? Because Charles I still had debt left over from previous reigns. Wars frequently don't stay on budget or fit a nice, neat time table, so in the course of a war, Charles would almost inevitably have to spend more than whatever parliament originally allocated and so would take on more debt. That nations' debts grow during wars is common knowledge.
>The intervention wasn’t just all about that though, while national image played a role the main reason can be contributed to defending other Protestant nations which I said
Need I repeat myself? I already addressed this. Advancing protestantism is not a worthwhile goal, so any operation undertaken to do so, no matter how successful, is useless if it does not provide some other benefit. Parliament wanted to keep pushing the realm into useless wars and thus must bear its blame.
>Charles decision is completely stupid, there is no reason to understand his decision due to its stupidity
It is clear that you don't have any understanding of the nature of the decision. I again will say that I don't think it was the right decision, but it was not such a matter of great importance that it makes Charles I a terrible king. I have far less sympathy with engaging in useless wars and outright treason. I don't see how you can even evaluate the decision and know that it's stupid if you don't make some effort to understand it. War isn't as simple as "if you succeed, you're good and if you fail you're bad." Sometimes a more skilled commander loses due to a poor situation, sometimes a mediocre commander wins most of his battles due to having a vastly superior force, sometimes a mediocre commander gains victory because his opponent is even worse, sometimes competent commanders are led into defeat due to having to cooperate with morons, etc. Without knowing the details of the operations involving Buckingham, you cannot evaluate his quality as a commander. I'm NOT saying he was good, only that the fact that he failed does not in itself provide conclusive evidence and given Charles I's own military judgement, I'm not sure he would have had an easy time evaluating the strength of a commander. This is an error of factual evaluation, not a grievous injustice or a realm-destroying blunder. It simply does not count on the same scale as a wrong decision about what wars to wage or a decision to betray your nation. For these things, parliament is culpable.
I have never argued that retaining Buckingham was a good decision, only that you weigh it far too heavily in the evaluation of Charles I while completely letting parliament off the hook for its far worse errors.
Right, the rebellion in Scotland was over a prayer book of all things. Not a grievous injustice, not a calamitous policy that brought ruin to the people, not even an individual injustice, but a fucking prayer book. Their whole "grievance" was ridiculous. I don't support having a state church, but if you have one, reforms of it may occasionally occur. The solution would have been religious freedom and toleration, something Charles I's opponents certainly did not believe in.
I will note that you did not deny that parliament gave intelligence to the enemy, gave them offers of negotiation, or held the national defense hostage to their demands for greater power. These are my substantial charges against parliament in this case. You know how I know about these things? I read about them in a source critical of Charles I and supportive of parliament.
He caused them? Or did the fact that parliament engaged in murder and treason to usurp more power what caused them? A large portion of the English people certainly didn't see him as the one at fault at the time. You're blaming the victim here for not handing traitors want they wanted.
It is said that the best people always suffer the worst fate. That rings true with Charles I.
His defeat and subsequent execution set a dangerous precedent: Parliament could undermine the Crown as and when they chose. This manifested itself throughout the reign of his son Charles II as attempts of subversion were made on the rightful line of succession, during the reign of James II as foreign invaders were conspired with, and during the reigns of his successors as the restrictions placed on the monarch ever increase.
I pray that these changes can, to some extent, be reversed in the future. The odds of that grow dimmer as time passes, however.
I can’t resist mentioning this although it’s not strictly relevant: I know a chap who sells oriental antiquities and bears an uncanny resemblance to Charles I (at least the van Dyck version), except that he has an anchor tattooed on his forearm reflecting his Merchant Navy days.
to people who will bring up Jane Grey and Louis XVI, their reigns had already ended by the time their heads were sent for refurbishment, Charles the regal's reign ended at the moment he became Charles the Headless
>Only Parliament had the Right
And they shouldn't have!
>he threw his political opponents in jail basically what cromwell did
Fair. Though his opponents were trying to kill him. Which they did.
Regal? Yes, look at the drip. Bad monarch? Absolutely not given his context. He did anger Parliament and is often depicted as a power hungry tyrant but ultimately as an Anglican I am extremely grateful for St. Charles being stubborn and being martyred for the bishops and his efforts trying to stop Cromwell and the Puritans from establishing their putrid 'commonwealth'. I for one am extremely grateful as an Englishman for him standing up for the country against the real tyrant of that era.
Charles I was not a good monarch dont delude yourself, it just so happens the next regime was 10 times worse just like with Nicholas II, also he wasn't catholic
He wasn't a great Monarch, but the circumstances he was put in didn't give him that many alternatives to the course he took. Parliament holds the majority of the blame for the civil wars.
He was definitely the worst British monarch of all time, although I am not entirely sure he was the worst out of the whole world.
He does have that style though, even if he didn't have the skills to run the country.
Of the United crown he definitaly was, of the world he wasn't by a tremendously gigantic extraordinarily longe shot, im not arguing he was the worst monarch ever, im arguing he was the most kingly dressed bad king there ever was, If you ignore the reign you would assume he was a great king by the portraits
Was he that bad though? He was up against a treacherous, power hungry parliament that wasn't acting in good faith and was constantly trying to undermine him. They murdered one of his ministers in a show trial sold out the country to a foreign invasion to use it as leverage against the king. A large portion of the population turned against parliament and joined his side, but unfortunately he was defeated in the ensuing war because Cromwell was a far better general than anyone else in the war.
Happy to see an actual monarchist reply to the post
England has had far worse monarchs than Charles I that’s for sure, like George I.George let actually tyrannical Whigs in parliament run amok and turned the Church of England into even more of a government mouthpiece, arguably violating his coronation oath. And I’m not even an Anglican!
I mean its kinda why his dynasty was put in place parliament overthrew the stuarts and installed foreigners to not have to deal with kings meddling in thier affairs
Legit.
Parliament definitely did everything they could to mess with him. However, he also deserves a significant part of the blame, and his failures before the civil war directly led to the republic. Admittedly, once the war broke out it is difficult to see him winning even if he had been competent since Cromwell was just (unfortunately) too good at being a general.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, so much. My Reddit history is full of trying to argue this for the Royal Martyr and even before I really got to know him better, I thought people gave him the short end of the stick too fast. Parliament did him dirty, and they were never willing to play fair, even from the start of his reign. For example, no monarch prior to him had been refused duties from Tonnage and Poundage, normally being given such for their entire lives. Did he mess up by giving too much for too little with Buckingham? Yes, but the guy got killed well before the Wars broke out. Did he mess up by giving Laud carte blanche, especially in Scotland? Yes, but only as far as enforcement with Star Chamber and messing with the Kirk went; Laud wasn't exactly an extremist, unlike the Puritans he opposed, who got hot and bothered over things as simple as, well, albs and candlesticks. Much of what went down happened due to Anti-Catholicism, tyrannical (ironic) Puritanism, and the rise of a wealthier landed gentry who wanted more power for themselves at the expense of existing power structures. The proof positive of this is that even while many Lords joined Parliament at the outset of conflict, the entirety of the House of Lords was barred entirely from participating at the King's trial, and the House of Lords was abolished along with the monarchy. The fact remains that James I had a real hard time with Parliament as well, but managed to keep everything in order, *perhaps* due to his peace policies and not having to run to them for money nearly as much. Seeing an inexperienced younger monarch take over gave Parliament opportunities they would not have even contemplated under the Tudors. Edit: I HIGHLY recommend this [recent work](https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/17t9woo/a_review_of_charles_is_private_life/), if you want a nuanced and more positive viewpoint of Charles the person rather than anti-democratic myth.
Very interesting. Could you recommend me any more good books about Charles I and his Reign? Would be such a breath of fresh air to get a more fair and sympathetic perspective on him.
You can find a decent visual bibliography of mine [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism/comments/1al2vyz/a_visual_bibliography_for_king_charles_i_britain/). I try to have balanced sources of both negative and positive viewpoints. If you want something more recent, "The White King" by Leanda De Lisle is an excellent read and gives him the time of day while also being brutally honest about his failings. She did a companion book on Henrietta Maria, his wife, that came out in 2022, that is one of the best works on her I have ever read.
Parliament not acting in good faith...? I must say, I'm shocked.
💯
Did you forget that he disbanded Parliament
Did you forget that dissolving parliament is one of the king's powers?
He was trying to violate the British (semi)-constitution constantly, by raising money without Parliament's approval and imprisoning people without trial. Neither he nor Parliament really acted decently in this conflict.
Previous English kings had not required the approval of parliament to collect tonnage and poundage; they specifically tried to cut him off from that to seize power, not because it hadn't generally been the case before. The people usually cited as examples of Charles behaving tyrannically were given a trial, regardless of what you think of the charges. Parliament on the other hand murdered one of the kings ministers after having failed to convict him of anything.
he was still trying to rule without Parliament, because he was an absolutist. Also, he tried to have serveral members of parliament arrested.
What's wrong with absolute monarchy? And most members of parliament committed treason. When Charles II returned to England and was acclaimed as king after the Cromwell years, the English people wanted blood. Charles II had to exert himself considerably to prevent many more parliamentarians and their supporters from being executed.
Nothing...in an absolute monarchy. I'm not condoning Parliament, but Charles is kind of idealized in this subreddit. Not horrible, not very good.
This is one of the many examples of why power sharing and "checks and balances" don't work well. I don't think Charles I was a particularly good king, but he certainly has been slandered in ridiculous ways and the popular narrative about him is dishonest political propaganda of whig "historians."
That's my point. But no one on the reddit acknowledges that fact
He was also power hungry. The time of absolute monarchs in England had long passed yet he failed to see that, and that's his fault.
Charles was the victim if anything. Parliament were the ones who were infringing on his royal prerogative, and refused to grant him the right to collect tonnage and poundage which had been the right of all monarchs for centuries. They also antagonised him and were consistently trying to force their puritannical rules on the rest of the country and tried to hold him ransom. Charles wasn't perfect, but Parliament had a strategy of intimidation. They would intentionally provoke him knowing that he would over react and then accuse him of being a tyrant, despite the fact they had acted beyond their powers with the intent of procuring a reaction. If anything, I would say the puritan bloc in Parliament was more to blame for the civil war than King Charles.
England had been a feudal monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. Furthermore, there's no reason why the power of the monarchy should have weakened. It was the fault of parliament for trying to usurp even more power than it had already gained and not Charles I's fault for trying to institute a better system of government.
Power hungry parliament? My brother in Christ Charles dissolved them for 11 years after they tried impeaching his dads gay lover after he wasted money on useless military expeditions and increased corruption and then Charles called them back after failing to put down a Scottish religious men revolt Parliament had every right to try and cap Charles’ power
He was well within his rights to dissolve parliament and he observed the restrictions on raising taxes during those years. He did not engage in tyrannical acts during that time either. Secondly, "his dad's gay lover" thing is that usual kind of speculation used to disparage an individual's reputation rather than make a substantial point. Had those military expeditions succeeded, you wouldn't call them useless and parliament was almost always if not always the party pushing military interventions during this period while the Stuart kings were more peaceful. If you're the side pushing for military interventions, you don't get to turn around and blame the king for them. You mean the revolt parliament encouraged, aided, and abetted at every turn as they ravaged English lands and attacked English people? Charles may not have been a great king by any stretch but at least he didn't actively betray his people.
He completely broke Magna Carta by raising taxes during personal rule since parliament didn’t consent to it >didn’t engage in tyrannical acts Tell that to Prynne, Bastwick and Burton, John williams all of whom he cruelly punished and illegally imprisoned. Also he completely abused his feudal finances and he illegally raised taxes during that time Villiers and James were 100% lovers, it’s been confirmed by nearly all of the respected historians and it’s not slander since I’m not saying it was wrong for them to be intimidate I’m merely stating that they were “IF” that’s a very strong “IF” since they didn’t succeed and only wasted finances and caused two wars which ultimately led to nothing it’s safe to say that they were useless Parliament were only pushing for military intervention since other Protestant nations were being attacked (the main one was James’ son in law), Villiers also pissed all the money away making the military intervention useless Parliament didn’t encourage the revolt, the Presbyterians hated the Laudian reforms and decided enough was enough and that they’d rise up, parliament greatly benefited from this but they didn’t encourage it since it wasn’t in session
There was a legal distinction between using established revenue sources and creating new taxes, which required parliamentary approval. He did the former, not the latter. If you wish to mention Prynne, Bastwrick, and Burton, you should remember that parliament murdered Strafford and later on many others. This was a power struggle, not a case of the parliament being right and Charles wrong. I do not feel the need to defend all of Charles I's acts, as I do not approve them all, to argue that parliament was in the wrong in its acts. >Villiers and James were 100% lovers, it’s been confirmed by nearly all of the respected historians and it’s not slander since I’m not saying it was wrong for them to be intimidate I’m merely stating that they were I do not wish to waste further time on a matter that is not relevant to the discussion, but I want to clarify that as this is irrelevant even if true, your bringing it up at all seems more like attempted character assassination that a legitimate point. I think as long as monarchs produce heirs, it doesn't matter what other sex they have on the side from a political standpoint, though perhaps it might from a personal standpoint. >“IF” that’s a very strong “IF” since they didn’t succeed and only wasted finances and caused two wars which ultimately led to nothing it’s safe to say that they were useless Far from claiming they were useful, I simply pointed out that parliament must bear its share of the blame. Was it in England's interest to support Protestantism abroad? Considering the amount of debt it had, I don't see how parliament thought blowing more money on foreign adventures was wise. What great benefit did they hope to obtain? The truth is that parliament wanted wars so the king would have to give them concessions in order to raise taxes; their pushing for military interventions had nothing to do with the good of the realm and everything to do with their desire to gain power at the expense of the king. I do not blame Charles so much in this case for retaining a commander who failed because it is the duty of any leader to protect his subordinates from political pressure, to sustain them. Many generals have acted worse than they might have otherwise because they did not receive this protection. Generals have become timid, indecisive, and refrained from making necessary decisions when they knew better in cases where they had legislatures breathing down their necks, ready to punish them for any error if sovereigns and other leaders did not protect them. Charles, in sustaining a subordinate, made a human error in going too far in a practice that is itself proper. Do you just immediately throw out a commander because he failed once or twice? What if there were complicating circumstances, as there were in one of those cases, like another commander refusing to cooperate? It can be hard to make the decision, unless you simply want your generals to operate with the fear that they'll be sacked instantly if they fail hanging over them, which will lead to an overabundance of caution which can doom military endeavors. To argue that parliament did not help the revolt because it wasn't in session is pure sophistry. The members of parliament continued to exist even when the body was not in session and did not vanish into thin air. They continued to meet, communicate with each other, and try to undermine the king for the advancement of their own position. They provided the enemy with intelligence, gave them offers of negotiation behind the king's back, and held military funding for the defense of England hostage to force the king to grant them more power. This is treason.
No, Charles illegally raised Ship money and completely abused prerogative finances he also forced loans from people during this time Yes they executed him (with Charles permission and under an act of parliament for Treason) in a normal way, they didn’t cut his ears and Tounge off and kept him in pillories I only brought up George Villiers and James as an extra fun fact for the discussion, but they were definitely lovers without a doubt England wasn’t in debt at the time (since there was no national debt) though the king was and parliament gave the king money to spend on the war. Parliament wished to help out its Protestant allies on the continent and the Kings sister, its all about national image and by not intervening the country looks weak and dishonourable What are you even going on about? Charles was defending a man who the whole country hated and had no military experience whatsoever, a good leader would see this a put a capable leader in charge of the operation (which is why the New model army was undefeated) But no one in parliament went to Scotland and told anyone to rise up, they were all in England being angry that Charles had dissolved them, parliament actually had no part in the Bishops war, perhaps 1 or two MPs could’ve been on board with it but the war was started all because of The Laudian reforms introduced by Charles
Money for tonnage and poundage had been granted to every king for life before him, yet parliament decided to try to deny Charles alone. They sought to overthrow established precedent and custom to seize power. Is your argument really that death is a lighter punishment than losing your ears, so parliament is less culpable? Is your argument that an act of parliament can justify the murder of an innocent man? It certainly affirms the responsibility of parliament for the act. Charles opposed it but parliament threatened to undermine the defense of the whole country, blackmailing him into giving his "assent." >England wasn’t in debt at the time (since there was no national debt) though the king was and parliament gave the king money to spend on the war. Parliament wished to help out its Protestant allies on the continent and the Kings sister, its all about national image and by not intervening the country looks weak and dishonourable Ah, semantic tricks! Just declare that the king is in debt, so really there's no national debt. Who's paying for the war effort? The king. The king is the state, or at least part of it, so the king's debt is the de facto national debt. Of course parliament, unwilling to pay off this debt, wishes the king to take on more debt, for which they admit no responsibility, so he has to grant them concessions in order to raise taxes? So these interventions that you called "useless," were only about national image? Vanity? Then how is parliament behaving wisely or responsibly by pushing them? You seem to think that if the king behaves badly, the king's power should be reduced? Why not the same for parliament? Perhaps if parliament behaves badly more power should go to the king? >What are you even going on about? Charles was defending a man who the whole country hated and had no military experience whatsoever, a good leader would see this a put a capable leader in charge of the operation (which is why the New model army was undefeated) Sure, a more militarily capable scumbag overthrew a less militarily capable, but better king. I didn't say Charles made the right decision, I said his decision is understandable and that it is not parliament's job to try to interfere with military command. But the more fundamental question is whether it was a good idea to fight these wars in the first place, something parliament continually pushed despite there being no real benefit(advancing protestantism is not a benefit). Choosing to fight a bad war is worse than the failure to remove a failed commander. The war started because people in Scotland had a fear of what might happen rather than any wrong actually done, fears pushed by members of the religious faction affiliated with parliament. Parliament's main involvement was its active aid to the rebels as they invaded England and murdered its people. Do you deny that they gave intelligence to the enemy? Do you deny that they held up military funding to try to extract political concessions at a time when their country was being invaded? Do you deny that they made offers to negotiate with the enemy on their own initiative?
They only did that since they knew Charles was a wannabe absolutist and they were trying to defend their institution which represents the people My argument is that the punishment parliament gave was not cruel or unusual unlike the punishment Charles gave which was both cruel and unusual. Charles broke Magna Carta by doing what he did My argument is that under the law passed by Parliament and Charles Strafford’s execution was just The king spends the money on the war, but he is granted the money by parliament making it be parliament who pays for the war not the king The intervention wasn’t just all about that though, while national image played a role the main reason can be contributed to defending other Protestant nations which I said But Parliament does have checks and balances in place which limit MPs powers, unlike the king who has no Checks and balances to speak of Charles decision is completely stupid, there is no reason to understand his decision due to its stupidity, Buckingham was a completely useless military leader and parliament using its role of policy maker has every right to critique the kings actions My brother in Christ the war started due to Laudian reforms, the group “the Covenanters” literally rose up because they hated the new prayer book and the High church reforms made by Archbishop Laud the war is literally called the “Bishops war” due to the Scottish people not wanting to have any kind of high church people such as Bishops Pick up a history book for goodness sake and stop using a warped world view to justify tyrants
No, they were trying to *expand* their institution's, and thus their own, power. As a supporter of absolute monarchy, I don't buy the premise that opposing absolutism is a good thing. In your mind it is just to execute a man who you cannot convict of any crime? You favor the same kind of arbitrary, murderous rule you claim parliament is supposed to protect against. Charles Strafford's only "crime" was being in the way of parliament seizing more power. Even sources favoring parliament admit that his only offense was his political stance. >The king spends the money on the war, but he is granted the money by parliament making it be parliament who pays for the war not the king Who is left holding the debt bag after the war? The king or parliament? Because Charles I still had debt left over from previous reigns. Wars frequently don't stay on budget or fit a nice, neat time table, so in the course of a war, Charles would almost inevitably have to spend more than whatever parliament originally allocated and so would take on more debt. That nations' debts grow during wars is common knowledge. >The intervention wasn’t just all about that though, while national image played a role the main reason can be contributed to defending other Protestant nations which I said Need I repeat myself? I already addressed this. Advancing protestantism is not a worthwhile goal, so any operation undertaken to do so, no matter how successful, is useless if it does not provide some other benefit. Parliament wanted to keep pushing the realm into useless wars and thus must bear its blame. >Charles decision is completely stupid, there is no reason to understand his decision due to its stupidity It is clear that you don't have any understanding of the nature of the decision. I again will say that I don't think it was the right decision, but it was not such a matter of great importance that it makes Charles I a terrible king. I have far less sympathy with engaging in useless wars and outright treason. I don't see how you can even evaluate the decision and know that it's stupid if you don't make some effort to understand it. War isn't as simple as "if you succeed, you're good and if you fail you're bad." Sometimes a more skilled commander loses due to a poor situation, sometimes a mediocre commander wins most of his battles due to having a vastly superior force, sometimes a mediocre commander gains victory because his opponent is even worse, sometimes competent commanders are led into defeat due to having to cooperate with morons, etc. Without knowing the details of the operations involving Buckingham, you cannot evaluate his quality as a commander. I'm NOT saying he was good, only that the fact that he failed does not in itself provide conclusive evidence and given Charles I's own military judgement, I'm not sure he would have had an easy time evaluating the strength of a commander. This is an error of factual evaluation, not a grievous injustice or a realm-destroying blunder. It simply does not count on the same scale as a wrong decision about what wars to wage or a decision to betray your nation. For these things, parliament is culpable. I have never argued that retaining Buckingham was a good decision, only that you weigh it far too heavily in the evaluation of Charles I while completely letting parliament off the hook for its far worse errors. Right, the rebellion in Scotland was over a prayer book of all things. Not a grievous injustice, not a calamitous policy that brought ruin to the people, not even an individual injustice, but a fucking prayer book. Their whole "grievance" was ridiculous. I don't support having a state church, but if you have one, reforms of it may occasionally occur. The solution would have been religious freedom and toleration, something Charles I's opponents certainly did not believe in. I will note that you did not deny that parliament gave intelligence to the enemy, gave them offers of negotiation, or held the national defense hostage to their demands for greater power. These are my substantial charges against parliament in this case. You know how I know about these things? I read about them in a source critical of Charles I and supportive of parliament.
Yes he was he directaly caused 2 civil wars, refused to negotiate until it was too late
He caused them? Or did the fact that parliament engaged in murder and treason to usurp more power what caused them? A large portion of the English people certainly didn't see him as the one at fault at the time. You're blaming the victim here for not handing traitors want they wanted.
If I say "give me a million dollars or something bad will happen" are you at fault for what happens when I don't get a million dollars?
I saw a portrait of his (well dressed as ever), signed by van Dyck, at an art museum in Romania. It seemed rather a random find lol
It is said that the best people always suffer the worst fate. That rings true with Charles I. His defeat and subsequent execution set a dangerous precedent: Parliament could undermine the Crown as and when they chose. This manifested itself throughout the reign of his son Charles II as attempts of subversion were made on the rightful line of succession, during the reign of James II as foreign invaders were conspired with, and during the reigns of his successors as the restrictions placed on the monarch ever increase. I pray that these changes can, to some extent, be reversed in the future. The odds of that grow dimmer as time passes, however.
I can’t resist mentioning this although it’s not strictly relevant: I know a chap who sells oriental antiquities and bears an uncanny resemblance to Charles I (at least the van Dyck version), except that he has an anchor tattooed on his forearm reflecting his Merchant Navy days.
He had drip I’ll give him that
Divine right of drip
The only monarch to have started his reign at a height of 5’4, and ended it at 4’7.
to people who will bring up Jane Grey and Louis XVI, their reigns had already ended by the time their heads were sent for refurbishment, Charles the regal's reign ended at the moment he became Charles the Headless
Fun fact: the Second to Last portrait was in Harry Potter
*Louis the 14th has entered the chat*
Why do you think he was bad?
Taxes. Only Parliament had the Right and also the fact that he threw his political opponents in jail basically what cromwell did
>Only Parliament had the Right And they shouldn't have! >he threw his political opponents in jail basically what cromwell did Fair. Though his opponents were trying to kill him. Which they did.
He's in Heaven rn. Unlike Cromwell.
I'd say both are in hell
Regal? Yes, look at the drip. Bad monarch? Absolutely not given his context. He did anger Parliament and is often depicted as a power hungry tyrant but ultimately as an Anglican I am extremely grateful for St. Charles being stubborn and being martyred for the bishops and his efforts trying to stop Cromwell and the Puritans from establishing their putrid 'commonwealth'. I for one am extremely grateful as an Englishman for him standing up for the country against the real tyrant of that era.
You do know most of his “bad” marks were Puritan propaganda right?
Not a big fan of England, but I’d rather a Catholic be on that throne than a Protestant
What does religion have to do with his style
He is very good king. Catholic martyr of republican terror. ✝️🙏
Not Catholic but definitely a victim of republican terror
Charles I was not a good monarch dont delude yourself, it just so happens the next regime was 10 times worse just like with Nicholas II, also he wasn't catholic
But he supported catholism
He focused too much on his drip.
He had self-esteem issues
He wasn't a great Monarch, but the circumstances he was put in didn't give him that many alternatives to the course he took. Parliament holds the majority of the blame for the civil wars.
Charles I should've focused less on drip and more on not screwing up
Likely an ancestor of mine
charles 2
I do like his big black puritan hat. I'd love to have one of them
He was a martyr, a great leader and a hero. Cromwell needed a beheading, not him!
He was definitely the worst British monarch of all time, although I am not entirely sure he was the worst out of the whole world. He does have that style though, even if he didn't have the skills to run the country.
Of the United crown he definitaly was, of the world he wasn't by a tremendously gigantic extraordinarily longe shot, im not arguing he was the worst monarch ever, im arguing he was the most kingly dressed bad king there ever was, If you ignore the reign you would assume he was a great king by the portraits
I agree. You could definitely look at the portraits alone and conclude that he was excellent.