Charles the First - A Character Sketch

I have spent a lot of time studying the English Civil Wars this past year, and I find them very interesting. As the instigator of the Civil Wars, Charles I provides intriguing discussion matter.

Responsible for one of the bloodiest periods in English history, and the first King in the history of England to be tried and executed by a court of law, Charles I deserves some examination. He was a devout man, by all appearances, and constantly assured himself and his followers that their side was the right and just one. It seemed that he was very convinced in the belief that his cause was right, but it is difficult to think that anyone could honestly believe the Royal Prerogative was worth dividing England in civil war over. Yet this he was willing to do.

Later on, when the war was well under way, he championed, in the eyes of the world, the finest elements of chivalrous Old England, the ancient tradition of the monarchy, and a large percentage of the nation - all these things gathered to make a noble stand against the rebellious, divided, greedy and unstable Parliament, Cromwell’s Ironside Army, and the threat of foreign invasion by the Scottish army. Then the conflict over Royal Prerogative was brushed aside, the original ideas of Pym were all but forgotten, and the King’s cause was for awhile seen as good and just by many - then even he may have been able to see it as simply crushing a rebellion, defending God’s chosen, the sovereign King.

But that was not how it started, and he, of all people, must have known it. Going back to the root of the matter, it was not so. Because the things the Parliament originally fought for were worthy things - the right of the freeman to be fairly tried in a court of law, the right of appeal, the freeman’s rights to his property, laws against arbitrary taxes levied by the King without the consent of Parliament, laws to avert the threat of Popery, prevention of absolute monarchical power, opposition to the Personal Rule. There is not a wide selection of explanations to justify the King’s hostility towards such rational and necessary reformation.

The conclusion we must draw is obvious. Charles wanted absolute power. He did not want to be governed or counseled. He had no justifiable reason to spill the blood of his own people, fighting for or against him in the unnecessary bloodshed that ravaged England for several years. He was a dictator. Not the first in the history of the world, nor in the history of England, but the bare facts are that his cause was not just in any sense of the word, and while we cannot know whether or not he believed it to be, we can make a reasonable guess.

Not that the King’s selfish intentions excuse the monstrous behavior of Cromwell and his henchmen. It is still quite impossible to choose sides. By the end of it, the war had become nothing more than a power struggle between two dictators - the only notable difference is that one of them had at least a hereditary right to the throne and the other did not. The original conflict was almost completely abandoned. But even during the dark hours of Cromwell’s reign, (in which we see that his means of governing the country were no different than his predecessor’s) hope is in sight. The Restoration of what the nation liked to think of as the Old Kingship, but what was really the New Monarchy, brought about the fulfillment of the original purpose of the Opposition.