Was King Charles 1st always a hero to the British?

Answer 1

Charles I has not always been a hero to the British. Indeed, for most of English history since his execution he has been seen more as a villian than a hero. To a certain portion of the British he is a hero -- he was the last saint canonized by the Church of England. The reason for this mixed perspective is that Charles has always been a controversial figure. A king who presides over such a cataclysmic event as the English Civil War is a king in who's reign matters must have gone very badly. Was that Charles' fault? There isn't a clear answer, even though historians have been putting forward theories for three centuries now with no sign of stopping.

If Charles had been a better politician, or more flexible in his principles, there might never have been a Civil War. But he firmly believed in the established institutions of England as they were when he took the throne and refused to see them overthrown while he had the power to stop them. Unfortunately, religious and economic changes were occurring that threatened the old ways. Parliaments were becoming more ambitious, and fanatical religion, typified by the Puritans of the Parliamentary army during the civil war, was a growing force of iconoclasm, naturally seeking to overthrow established power to institute a rule of the godly. A better politician might have known how to maneuver those troubled times or play the factions off one another successfully. Likewise, if Charles were willing to compromise his principles (though it is widely claimed otherwise, Charles willingly compromised on many occasions, but this only seemed to embolden his enemies) he might have had the flexibility to avoid the civil war.

This is all to say that Charles was not able to lead his country successfully through a troubled period, but it is not to say, as his enemies claimed, and many historians have rashly affirmed, that Charles is primarily to blame for the civil war. He was, as a king, beset from the very beginning by disloyal opposition from religious bigots. He was constantly accused, entirely contrary to the truth, of attempting to return England to Roman Catholicism. The only truth of the matter is that Charles did not share the anti-Catholic bigotry of his enemies. Indeed, while Charles sought to establish a common religious practice throughout his three kingdoms, he was very tolerant of a wide variety of religious belief, so long as it did not disrupt the peace of the country.

Without chasing down every strand of the complicated turmoils that shook England under Charles, I think it safe to say that it was in his last days that he won for himself the everlasting admiration of his people and of historians. Even his most ardent critics have a difficult time criticizing his actions in his final days, and at most seem capable of claiming that it was an act -- a claim rendered suspicious by a lifetime of action.

To read accounts of his behavior in his final days, stripped of all power and almost completely alone and at the mercy of his enemies, strikes one full of admiration. He smiled at those who spit on him, challenged and ably got the better of his learned accusers, showed at all times a graciousness and strength of character that won him, too late, the admiration of his people.

On the day he was to be executed he wore two shirts so that he would not shiver in the cold and be thought shaking from fear. Showing charity and a keen insight, he said from the scaffold, "God forbid that I should lay it upon the two Houses of Parliament; there is no necessity of either, I hope that they are free of this guilt; for I do believe that ill instruments between them and me has been the chief cause of all this bloodshed; so that by way of speaking, as I finde my self clear of this, I hope (and pray God) that they may too; yet for all this, God forbid that I should be so ill a Christian as not to say that Gods Judgments are just upon me. Many times he does pay Justice by an unjust Sentence, that is ordinary; I will onely say this, That an unjust Sentence (Strafford) that I suffered for to take effect, is punished now by an unjust Sentence upon me; that is, so far as I have said, to shew you that I am an innocent man."

While later on he laid out his political creed, "For the people. And truly I desire their Liberty and Freedom as much as any Body whomsoever.But I must tell you, That their Liberty and Freedom, consists in having of Government; those Laws, by which their Life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in government that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a soveraign are clean different things, and therefore until they do that, I mean, that you do put the people in that liberty as I say, certainly they will never enjoy themselves. Sirs, It was for this that now I Am come here. If I would have given way to an Arbitrary way, for to have all Laws changed according to the power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here; and therefore, I tell you, (and I pray God it be not laid to your charge) That I Am the Martyr of the People."

Shortly thereafter he had his head chopped off to the dismay of the crowd gathered round to see, and many of the people rushed forward to collect his blood, it being the belief of that time that the blood of a king was capable of working miraculous cures (and for the next century there were claims that his blood did just that, if one is credulous enough to believe such stories).

King Charles I was, in his private life, a man of of many virtues, and his faults, as Hume says, hardly deserved to be called so, so mild were they. He was a faithful father and husband, loyal to his friends, and forgiving of his enemies. He was, I believe, indeed the Martyr of his People, and will be remembered at least by a few as a hero so long as he is remembered at all.