Was King Charles I of England a bad man, or just a bad leader?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,710
Sydney
#51
To rule is to project a perception , Charles might think whatever ,
it doesn't matter , the political truth is what his subjects perceived

Charles was narrow minded on his importance and didn't understand power and its limits , something his father did
 
Likes: betgo

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,212
#52
To rule is to project a perception , Charles might think whatever ,
it doesn't matter , the political truth is what his subjects perceived

Charles was narrow minded on his importance and didn't understand power and its limits , something his father did
Yes, there is an expression that someone "thinks he is a king". That was much of Charles I's problem. He thought he was a king. Well, he was a king, but there were limitations on a king's power, and he kept pushing those.

There were probably more people high church or Roman Catholic than low church or dissenting protestant. However, due to the political situation with France and Spain and the de facto religious toleration with allowing high church and low church not many really wanted to make England Roman Catholic again.

When Charles I made war on Scotland to try to make them use a more Catholic religious service, what would people think?
Why would he go to such lengths over an issue like that? Maybe it was part of a Roman Catholic plot?
 
#53
I think, overall, that he was a bad man.
In many ways, the question depends on whether one believes that a political leader's personal life and qualities can be separated from his political attributes and experiences.
For instance, lots of people believe that President Clinton was a bad man but a good president. In a hereditary monarchy, like mid-seventeenth century England (and Scotland and Ireland) however, such a distinction was impossible.
Charles' obstinacy and absolutist tendencies that led to the Civil War, coupled with his even more unforgivable duplicity in scuppering negotiations after the end of the first civil war and leading to the pointless bloodshed of the second Civil War makes him a bad man who put his personal whims above the good of the nation he was entrusted to care for.
No personal positive character traits like piety and loyalty to his wife and children make up for these actions.
 
Jun 2016
1,843
England, 200 yards from Wales
#54
I think, overall, that he was a bad man.
In many ways, the question depends on whether one believes that a political leader's personal life and qualities can be separated from his political attributes and experiences.
For instance, lots of people believe that President Clinton was a bad man but a good president. In a hereditary monarchy, like mid-seventeenth century England (and Scotland and Ireland) however, such a distinction was impossible.
Charles' obstinacy and absolutist tendencies that led to the Civil War, coupled with his even more unforgivable duplicity in scuppering negotiations after the end of the first civil war and leading to the pointless bloodshed of the second Civil War makes him a bad man who put his personal whims above the good of the nation he was entrusted to care for.
No personal positive character traits like piety and loyalty to his wife and children make up for these actions.
I agree about his obstinacy etc, and his responsibility for prolonging the bloodshed., but I think it was more than whim at stake. I am sure he felt he had a duty to uphold a certain vision of church and state because that one was right (and ordained by God), and that bloodshed and even duplicity in the service of that was justified.
His opponents probably felt much the same about their view of things.
Deep sincerity and conviction can probably be more damaging than whim, in certain circumstances.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,710
Sydney
#55
It is my personal experience than God is in the eye of the beholder
being enthralled with the Glory is fine for a mystic , but royalty require a different skill set