Why was Charles I executed?

griffinj

He was sentenced to die as a "Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer, and public enemy to the good people of the Nation". On the death sentence it reads "attaynted and condemned of high Treason and other high Crymes". Mostly it was a battle between the nobles and gentry in Parliament against royal prerogative and the (Stuart) doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. By my interpretation (note serious qualifier), Charles and Nicholas II of Russia had a lot in common. Both were personally shy, physically unimpressive and remarkably chaste for their families and times (even to the point of being prudish), both were charming in personal contact and aloof and cold in public appearances. Both were strong nationalists and deeply devoted to their countries. Despite their many sterling qualities, their personal convictions forbade them from bending to the popular (or in Charles's case the most powerful) trends of their time. Both believed they were divinely appointed and to abdicate their responsibilities to an elected legislature would be a betrayal of their God and their people. These truly religious convictions set them unequivocally against what we today would call democratic reforms, and tend to prejudice our modern views of both men. Interestingly, both were replaced by dictatorships that were far more repressive than their own autocracies. Fortunately the English were able to escape the Puritan commonwealth, an opportunity the Russians never got. Feb 06 05, 1:14 PM

MaggieG 5

This is a very interesting site which explains things fully. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/monarchs_leaders/charlesi_execution_01.shtml Feb 06 05, 2:32 PM

Baloo55th

As griff points out, Charles was unable to bend and change. Unfortunately for him, so were the Puritans and they won the war. Both sides believed they were right and that God was on their side. There were republican tendencies on the Puritan side, and quite a few extremists, and it was touch and go as to whether the excesses of the French Revolution would have happened in England before the French got the idea. Cromwell managed to steer a course between the extremes (despite a massacre or two in places like Ireland that didn't really matter - to the English at least!) Had Charles been left alive, there would have been a continuation of the troubles and attempts to free him. They could never have allowed him to go into exile. Charlie 2 was 19, and the money had more or less run out, so he went into exile (as he wasn't caught first!) Simplified a bit, but more or less what went on. Feb 06 05, 3:23 PM

griffinj

In Charles' case ticking off a few important people was much more important than having the support of many unimportant ones. p.s. Everything I know of Charles comes from British historians. http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page76.asp Feb 06 05, 3:26 PM