Brave...but mistaken.

Today, 30th January, is the anniversary of the execution of Charles I in 1649 (or 1648, since the year didn't end on 31st December back then but in March, I think. Sorry, but I'm a history geek. I know these things). I've always had somewhat mixed feelings about Charles. Having studied his views and the way he tried to put them into practice during his reign I can't help thinking he was arrogant, stubborn, and fairly incompetent (like most of the Stuart kings, to be honest). Nor is he a character that I warm to- the fact that he felt so far above his people that he didn't need to explain why he felt such-and-such a policy was the correct one, or to make a case for his beliefs, is something I immediately dislike.

Yet I admire Charles' courage when he was facing death, and in refusing to give up the things he believed in. Stubbornness it was, but courageous too. And although I think his beliefs in the right of the king to do basically anything he liked were mistaken, I hope that if I am ever called on to stand up and face possible death for the things I believe in that I could do so with as much constancy as he showed. I have less time for his defence against the court that tried him (or rather his lack of defence, since he refused to admit the legality of the court which, while the court's legitimacy was dubious, doesn't excuse what he was accused of) since it has recently been used by Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.

Charles' confrontation with Parliament was important as part of the progress of England (and later Britain) towards our current parliamentary democracy. Despite the limited success of experiments in running the country without a king in the decade after Charles's death, and despite the attempts of Charles' sons to restore some of the king's previous power, the principal that Parliament was the only body that could legitimately raise taxes was established. Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, were now seen as a force to be reckoned with and future monarchs could not afford to ignore them.

That's not to say that the later Stuart monarchs didn't have power. The points of dispute during the civil wars of the 1640's were not really settled until the Glorious (or Bloodless, both fairly inaccurate terms) Revolution of 1688, when Stuart king James II's attempts to reinstate Catholics in public office, despite laws passed by parliament, backfired and led to him fleeing the country from his invading son-in-law, William III. William was mainly interested in Britain for its strategic position in his country (Holland)'s war against France, and agreed to Parliament's constitutional demands in return for their support. When, a few decades later, the throne passed to a couple of Georges who didn't speak much English and were more concerned about their little German principality Parliament's control on the government of the country was confirmed, as men like Robert Walpole, in all but name the first Prime Minister, did most of the work on the king's behalf.

Where does that leave Charles? I think he'd be very puzzled and disappointed if he were to see the state of the country today. Not just the fact that the monarch has almost no direct power, but also the general lack of trust in the people running the country, and their perceived lack of values. Say what you like about modern politicians (or more often what you don't like!) but they are elected. If they're too much of a pain, we can get rid of them. On that day on the scaffold in Whitehall, the principal of accountability for the head (no pun intended!) of government was established. I don't think that's a bad thing.



Note to any historians of the period who may happen to be reading this: the history above is extremely simplified and the reasons given for the occurrence of events include only some of the contributory factors!