Was Charles I a murderer or martyr? | Was Charles I a bad king? | 5 Minute History

[Music] this Court is satisfied that Charles Stewart is guilty of levying war against Parliament and the people for all which treasons and crimes this court daughter judge that he is a tyrant traitor murderer and public enemy to the good people of this nation shall be put to death by the severing of his head from his body to his accusers Charles Stewart King Charles the first was a man of blood he was responsible for the terrible Civil War which had engulfed history kingdoms resulting in 180,000 casualties in England alone killing a higher proportion of men than would be killed during the first world war yet soon after Charles was executed handkerchiefs stained with his blood were reportedly causing miracles and a book of the Kings last prayers became a national bestseller at the time of the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 the church declared Charles to be a martyr which was it as Charles a murderer or a martyr mark Kish Lansky writes that Charles is the most despised monarch in Britain's historical memory to his critics at the time and since he was a petty tyrant determined to create an absolute monarchy in the French or Spanish style but lacking political intelligence charisma or skill he was incapable of realizing his vision GM Trevelyan called him stupid and selfish LG Reeve concluded that Charles was a bad ruler because he was a weak man as Graham Goodlett explains Charles expected his wishes to be accepted without a need for discussion and view criticism as a mark of disloyalty that needed to be confronted and crushed this coupled with a strongly felt sense of personal honor led him to personalise issues in an unhelpful way so that he approached negotiations without a genuine desire to comprehend or resolve the grievances of the other side however this view has not been without its challenges Kevin shops detailed study of the 1630s when Charles ruled without parliament reveals a conscientious King working with his ministers to implement reform and Kish lansky reminds us that Charles had many characteristics which made him an ideal monarch he promoted the arts and led a refined Court he was a devoted husband and father was religious and wanted to make England a great European power Leander de Lisle describes Charles as a brave and radical king who deserves respect and understanding was Charles then simply confronted by circumstances which would have got the better of any king and queen it is true the Charles faced significant challenges perhaps none greater than attempting to govern three still very separate kingdoms each with different social structures with the evil traditions and most importantly religious practices Charles's desire to create a uniform of religion across his three kingdoms was not unusual but proved disastrous in practice Charles was also not unique among his fellow rulers in wishing to project the prestige of kingship or to engage in expensive Wars but the nature of the English Constitution which had limited tax raising powers to Parliament made this particularly difficult as de Lisle explains Charles never really understood the significance of Parliament in English culture nor was he able to accept the compromises and slight to his regal authority that the messy business of politics sometimes required these proved fatal for the king and hundreds of thousands of his subjects in England Scotland and Ireland [Music] despite coming to the throne on a wave of popular enthusiasm within five years child presided over the complete collapse of the relationship between the crown and Parliament during the personal rule that followed it was the king's attempt to raise money without Parliament's agreement and imposed William Lords religious reforms which alienated large parts of the political community it was Charles as heavy-handed attempts to then impose this religious program on the Scots to provoked rebellion requiring him to finally summon Parliament in 1640 and then rather than compromise with Parliament which was understandably slighted by its absence of eleven years Charles recklessly attempted to arrest five of its most outspoken critics of his policies as Goodlett explains this achieved the worst of both possible worlds his willingness to use force against MPs outraged the political community while his failure to capture his targets and having to leave London as opinion turned violently against him was a public humiliation Charles proved no more effective as a war leader and then failed to take seriously various peace proposals which would have allowed him to retain the throne albeit with reduced powers instead his attempts to play his opponent off against one another left his enemies with little choice and every excuse to remove him permanently from the political scene Charles was neither the murder of black parliamentary propaganda or the martyr of later restoration imagination but each test of his reign Charles allowed his personal sense of honour and royal entitlement to outweigh the political need for compromise could have saved his throne and his head you