Was the trial and execution of Charles I justified?

Was his execution justified

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 44.6%
  • No

    Votes: 38 41.3%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 13 14.1%

  • Total voters
    92
#1
Charles I was found guilty of high treason and executed by Parliament in 1649. 59 men signed his death sentence which read: "out of wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the ancient rights and liberties of the people, and to take away and make void the foundations thereof, and of all redress and remedy of misgovernment, which by the fundamental constitutions of this Kingdom were reserved on the people’s behalf in the right and power of frequent and successive Parliaments"

I think it was justified at the time. he refused to compromise or except a new constitutional settlement with parliament, who were willing to bargain with him. putting him into exile would have made him a rallying point for royalists and probably would have put england under the threat of invasion
 

unclefred

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
6,729
Oregon coastal mountains
#2
Didn't keep them from civil war in 1651. Or the anglo-dutch war the next. I think they were all about war. And executions.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,503
Stockport Cheshire UK
#4
They had completely defeated him and had him captive, yet they were willing to allow him to regain the throne if he would agree to lose some of his Royal powers, instead he tried to do a deal with foreign nation's in order to regain his throne by force :confused:
I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
 

Salah

Forum Staff
Oct 2009
23,284
Maryland
#5
They had completely defeated him and had him captive, yet they were willing to allow him to regain the throne if he would agree to lose some of his Royal powers, instead he tried to do a deal with foreign nation's in order to regain his throne by force :confused:
I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
I imagine most men who have had a taste of power would've done the same in his shoes.
 
Apr 2011
1,461
Melbourne Australia
#7
They had completely defeated him and had him captive, yet they were willing to allow him to regain the throne if he would agree to lose some of his Royal powers, instead he tried to do a deal with foreign nation's in order to regain his throne by force :confused:
I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.
Nor I. The Stuarts were an untrustworthy bunch and Charlie One was untrustworthy and not too bright. Charlie Two was much smarter, but you wouldn't have bought a used car off him.
 
Dec 2010
1,946
Newfoundland
#8
Heck no. Charles I may have had his flaws, but he was the King of England, and Parliament had no authority or right to execute him let alone put him on trial. Charles I was a good guy, who wanted the best for England. And I wouldn't let words like "democracy" and "liberty" taint your views here. It was the 17th century, barely anyone could vote, and parliament was just a bunch of elitist nobles who wanted more power for their own selfish ends. Not to mention Charles I advocated religious freedom while Parliament would burn Catholics at the stake.