Was Charles the Architect of His Own Downfall? Essay
Was Charles the Architect of His Own Downfall?
Charles I was James I son and Charles got executed because of the events that happened. People argued about this because the king made lots of wrong decision for example he married a French catholic and betrayed protestants and that’s how he lost control over the country however as the king was losing control parliament became more powerful and protestants trusted parliament more than the king. The civil war begun because of money, religion and power. However if the king did not care about these three things then the civil war would of never begin and Charles would have been in control and protestants would of able to trust him and it wouldn’t lead him to his own execution. Do you think it was because of Charles greedy and selfishness that lead him to he’s own execution? Charles I created his own death because he insisted on ruling England without listening to parliament for example, Charles needed more money to fight the Scottish people so he needed to reopen parliament. The MPs used this as a chance to get together and criticise Charles.
This made Charles weaker because parliament took this as an advantage and criticise him. And also this was ruining he’s reputation as a king because parliament was saying stuff that people didn’t know about and people knowing about this may have lost faith or felt annoyed about the king. But if the king listened to parliament then Charles wouldn’t be in war with the Scottish people and he’s reputation as a king wouldn’t go down and people would have respected him more even though he married a catholic. They would have been happy that parliament is there to support them and this wouldn’t lead him to his own death. Another example was in 1640 some MPs, such as John Pym criticised Charles I. Parliament passed new laws which controlled what Charles could or couldn’t do. For example, one new law said that Charles could not close down parliament unless parliament agreed. Charles didn’t like being criticised or told what to do by parliament. This made him look like a king who can’t control he’s own country because he wasn’t ruling England properly and he didn’t take any advice from parliament instead he shut them down and when he reopened them he only needed them for money.
However if he listened to parliament in the first place then no mps would have been criticising him and parliament wouldn’t have to make new rules that Charles could or couldn’t do and he Charles would have able to control England properly with the help of parliament. Charles was the architect of his own downfall because too many Protestants didn’t trust him, for example after Charles became king he married a French catholic, Henrietta-Maria de Bourbon. This made him a weak king because he betrayed and dishonoured his own religion and people by marrying a catholic and because of these event lots of protestants thought that he was a secret catholic, so they couldn’t trust whether he was really a catholic or a protestant. This led to a lot of confusion because protestant wasn’t sure whether Charles was a catholic and also they didn’t know why Charles married a catholic in the first place. Marrying catholic made Protestants furious, disrespected and offended because the king married a catholic who was there enemy.
Which then Protestants lost trust and faith in the king. If the king didn’t marry a catholic then Protestants wouldn’t be suspicious of Charles being a Catholic and also Protestants would have trusted Charles more and there wouldn’t be any confusion going on if Charles never married a catholic which wouldn’t have lead to the civil war. Another example is in 1637 archbishop laud tried to force strong Scottish protestants to use his new prayer book but the covenanters thought that this new prayer book wasn’t protestant enough in fact it was almost like the catholic which made them furious. This made him a weak king because he forced the Scottish people to read the new prayer book and by doing that Scottish Protestants hated him for doing that which tells us that the Scottish people felt offended because the king tried to change their religion. Also Charles reputation went down because he lost against the Scottish people and by losing against them makes him look weak and powerless and after that he couldn’t force them to read the new payer book. But if Charles didn’t force the Scottish protestant of using the new prayer book then he wouldn’t have to waste money on the war against the Scots and he wouldn’t have lost trust against the Scottish people in the first place and he’s reputation as king wouldn’t have gone down. Parliament was determined to have a fight with Charles and they pushed England to civil war.
For example parliament kept trying to cut Charles power, by saying that he couldn’t charge new taxes without parliament’s permission. This made him a very weak king because he had to listen to whatever parliament says which shows people that the king can’t make his decisions, so parliament has to take that responsibility. And people will see that Charles can’t charge new taxes without parliament’s permission. However if Charles listened to parliament before then parliament wouldn’t want to have a fight with Charles. Also if he didn’t marry a catholic then everybody would have been happy and parliament wouldn’t have to fight with Charles if he listened to what their ideas were. As I said before that parliament made new laws that Charles could not do which was that he wasn’t allowed to close parliament without parliament’s permission.
Parliament took this as an advantage and was able to control Charles whether he liked it or not. Also they had the chance to fight back and become more powerful then the king. If Charles didn’t close parliament down and took their advice of how to rule the country then there wouldn’t be any civil war. And Charles wouldn’t be executed which wouldn’t lead him to his own death. Charles was the architect of his own downfall because he was wasting people’s money. For example in 1628 Charles used ship money to raise money which was against the law because it wasn’t war time. This made Charles a weak king because he took people’s money and wasted it on things like paintings or clothes. And he didn’t use the money very wisely, all he cared about was himself and this made people think that the king doesn’t care about the country which made him look weak, as a king. Also he looked careless because he used the money for unnecessary stuff when he could have given it to the poor people who need it the most. But if Charles didn’t use ship money then people who were living near the coast would have enough money to feed their family and he wouldn’t have gone against the law if he didn’t use ship money on things like paintings, jewellery etc..
Another point is that in 1635 Charles charged ship money again but this time he went even further by charging people who lived inland and lots of MPs thought that was illegal. This also made him a very weak king because now he was doing whatever he liked and no-one could stop him. Because he was doing whatever he liked, the country wasn’t controlled properly and because he charged ship money again, people who lived near the coast were angry and frustrated. Also some people start losing trust in the king because he took their money and he spended it on unnecessary things which wasn’t important and he wasn’t behaving like a king. However if he didn’t raise ship money again then people on the coast wouldn’t be frustrated or worried about how they are going to feed their families and people wouldn’t have felt that the king has gone out of controlled. Also if Charles never raised ship money then people wouldn’t have to get that angry on him and also he wouldn’t have done that many things that may have hurt people if he didn’t raise ship money again. In my opinion it was all Charles fault of his execution because he did whatever he liked and didn’t listen to anyone.
My first reason is that if he listened to parliament and listened to what their opinion is then maybe he wouldn’t be in this mess. Also if he didn’t marry a French catholic and didn’t betray his religion then there wouldn’t be a big fight and he wouldn’t be executed and if he was more wise of using the ship money for something else which is important. Also if he didn’t give important roles to he’s friends just for money and didn’t force the Scottish protestant of reading the new prayer book. If he never done any of those events he wouldn’t be executed and parliament wouldn’t be more powerful then the king. Also if he didn’t marry a catholic then the Protestants wouldn’t think that he was a secret catholic and he made a wrong decision by putting catholic stuff in a protestant church. Which made Protestants very angry and disrespected because of what Charles was doing and because of he’s behaviour he was executed. This is why Charles was the architect of his own downfall because he betrayed he’s own religion and he was being greedy and selfish with money and he wasn’t ruling England properly. This is why it’s all Charles fault which lead him to his execution.
University/College: University of Arkansas System
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
Date: 16 March 2016
Let us write you a custom essay sample on Was Charles the Architect of His Own Downfall?
for only $16.38 $13.9/page