Life of Religion, War, and Treason of Charles I - Essay Example

Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason Hibbert, Christopher, and David Starkey. Charles I: [a Life of Religion, War and Treason]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print. Introduction The subject of the book is the life of Charles I, since he was born until the time he was executed for having been accused of being disloyal to the state, soon after the English civil war, when the House of Commons back then passed the ordinance for the King’s trial (Hibbert, 255). The book seeks to trace every aspect of the King, starting with his childhood and how fate landed him the position of the king after the death of his elder brother, highlighting his marriage life and the difficulties it was characterized with. The book also ventures into his full term at the helm of the throne, and the conflicts that characterized his term, emanating from his perceived loyalty to the Catholicism, leaving the Protestants to feel aggrieved. The conflict with the parliament soared so high to the point of having the structure of leadership change after his execution and the parliament ruled without the monarch, when fifty-nine among the commission of judges signed a death warrant and committed him to be executed (Hibbert, 273). While covering the life story of Charles I, the book has also sought to give the backgrounds that led the King to act in the manner he acted in different situations of his leadership, seeking to create a full understanding of the life and the circumstances that surrounded the life of the King. This book covers an important aspect of the history of England, most especially by delving deeply into the aspect of the conflict between the parallel systems of leadership; the monarchial system and the parliamentary system. Additionally, the book covers the core of the emergence of a constitutional monarchy while also highlighting the role that religion has played to influence the politics of England throughout its history. Thus, this subject needs to be covered, so that it can create deeper insights into the history of the conflicts between parliamentary system and the monarchial system and the reason as to why the two parallel system works in present day without much of a conflict. Through this subject, the history of religion and religion conflicts also will be understood, thus creating an understanding of religion and how it has shaped religion, thus enabling an appreciation how things work the way they work in present day. Summary of the author’s thesis and main points The thesis of this book points to the idea that; Charles I was not suited to the throne when assessed by his physical appearances, and neither was his father King James. Because of the negative things that he was perceived to have done to some people, which deprived them of their rights over land, while increasing their customs burden, even the much good that he did for the country, in terms of reviving the economy and setting it for better growing path, was not appreciated enough. The essence of this background as given in the book is to show that; the life of Charles I during his tenure as the King of England was not pleasant to many, more especially because he could make his own rules that would affect the people negatively, such as introducing new taxes without consulting the parliament, where “during his tenure, customs were collected as of right” (Hibbert, 138). Nevertheless, he had done more good for the better of England, but fate had perceived this lack of appreciation by the English people right from the hesitant perception of his father by the people, the first time he arrived in England. The people did not consider his father pleasant in his physical appearance, and similarly they did not consider Charles I attractive too. Thus, the tenure of Charles I was destined to be antagonistic to the peoples’ mind, and so it was in real sense. About his father the book says, “the Englishmen whose duties now brought them into direct contact with James for the first time, realized how difficult their future might well prove to be” (Hibbert, 18). And in relation to Charles I, the book states, he “was a little poor sickly thing who was not expected to live long” (Hibbert, 21). The essence of this background as given by the book is to simply understand that; it is the circumstances from Charles I’s birth that destined him to be detached and resentful. It was his destiny to walk against the grain and to do what was unconventional, so that he could feel in control, since fate had destined him to be unappreciated and he sought everything to the contrary. Therefore, every aspect of his life during his tenure at the helm of leadership was just portraying what life had made him from the beginning. Reaction to the book The book has fully realized and exploited the thesis that Charles I was destined for a difficult leadership, not much as a matter of personal character, but more of the influence of his father and his ways. The stage for a difficult tenure on the throne for Charles I was set by his father, who had constantly collided with the parliament during his tenure, and at one point he dissolved it, surprised at how “ancestors could have permitted such an institution to come into existence” (Hibbert, 49). Similarly, his devotion and leaning to the Catholicism was an influence from his father, who implored on him to marry a princess from Spain, by the advice of the Catholic family members. It is at this point that the stage for opposition was actually set, since the intention of the Spanish royalty was to lure England back into Roman Catholicism, an aspect that put the relationship of the monarchy on one hand and the Protestants and the parliament on the other hand, at crossroads. Therefore, the fact that Charles I had a difficult tenure is not essentially because he was an absolute monarch and could not listen to the advice of the parliament, but because the conducive environment for a smooth relationship had been altered some decades in the past (Hibbert, 72). Despite the fact that his intended marriage with the Spaniard princess failed and a new marriage resulted from the French Royalty, there was something of Catholicism that Charles I could not depart from, and he was constantly perceived to have favored them over the Protestants (Hibbert, 51). Therefore, the conflict was a matter of time before it actually occurred, and in fact it did occur, during the Scot conflict, when the parliament failed to agree with Charles I and it was eventually dissolved (Hibbert, 149). The political problems that had followed King Charles I from the onset of his tenure as the King did not seem to go away, but rather the conflicts on his table kept increasing with each passing month and year of his term, thus he had persuaded himself that by getting rid of the parliament, his problems would be over (Hibbert, 138). The problems of King Charles I were added to, by the fact that he also had pressure from the family, which also seemed to put him into loggerheads with the parliament and the authorities such as the judges, to the extent that at times, he completely acted out of coercion and not of free will. His wife had constantly threatened him that she would leave and go back to France or retire in a convent, “if he would not show his enemies who was the master of his kingdom” (Hibbert, 178). Therefore, it can rightly be put that the book seeks to demonstrate King Charles I as an individual who experienced a series of misfortunes in his life, which deliberately landed him into the final but even shameful and vile bow of his life, through execution. His choices at times were influenced by lack of other options, since at the later stages of his reign as the king, more pressure mounted from the society calling for reforms (Hibbert, 182). Religion was an even stronger factor in pressuring Charles I, so much so that the re-instituted parliament, which was predominantly Presbyterian, would not allow the king much of a breathing space. Even so, the King now became obsessed with the religious doctrines out of frustrations, that even his court was observant of ritualistic formalities (Hibbert, 110). The conflicts eventually led to the breakout of the English civil war, which saw the King lose his throne under the defeat of the parliament army, but eventually decided to escape from where he was kept captive to establish an engagement with the Scots, so they could invade England and restore him to the helm of leadership. In his assessment, King Charles I had planned that to overcome both the Scots and the English rivals, “playing off one side against the other, he could solve all his difficulties” (Hibbert, 242). However, the plan did not work, and it was the beginning of his path towards being executed, since a series of negotiations that followed thereafter did not yield any results, and at some point, the King himself gave up on the intended negotiations, and conceded to the will of his enemies in parliament. Thus, “he resolved to die rather than lay any further burden on his conscience” (Hibbert, 255). He believed in his divine role, a power granted by God to the monarch and which no laws made by man would override. In essence therefore, the very thesis of the book that King Charles I was not destined to succeed at the helm of the throne, actually came to pass. Works Cited Hibbert, Christopher, and David Starkey. Charles I: [a Life of Religion, War and Treason]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print. Read More

 

Read More