Was Charles the Architect of His Own Downfall? Essay

Published: 2020-01-06 00:31:28
1676 words
7 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Christianity

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

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 thats 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 wouldnt lead him to his own execution. Do you think it was because of Charles greedy and selfishness that lead him to hes 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 hes reputation as a king because parliament was saying stuff that people didnt 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 wouldnt be in war with the Scottish people and hes reputation as a king wouldnt 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 wouldnt 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 couldnt do. For example, one new law said that Charles could not close down parliament unless parliament agreed. Charles didnt like being criticised or told what to do by parliament. This made him look like a king who cant control hes own country because he wasnt ruling England properly and he didnt 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 wouldnt have to make new rules that Charles could or couldnt 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 didnt 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 couldnt trust whether he was really a catholic or a protestant. This led to a lot of confusion because protestant wasnt sure whether Charles was a catholic and also they didnt 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 didnt marry a catholic then Protestants wouldnt be suspicious of Charles being a Catholic and also Protestants would have trusted Charles more and there wouldnt be any confusion going on if Charles never married a catholic which wouldnt 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 wasnt 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 couldnt force them to read the new payer book. But if Charles didnt force the Scottish protestant of using the new prayer book then he wouldnt have to waste money on the war against the Scots and he wouldnt have lost trust against the Scottish people in the first place and hes reputation as king wouldnt 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 couldnt charge new taxes without parliaments permission. This made him a very weak king because he had to listen to whatever parliament says which shows people that the king cant make his decisions, so parliament has to take that responsibility. And people will see that Charles cant charge new taxes without parliaments permission. However if Charles listened to parliament before then parliament wouldnt want to have a fight with Charles. Also if he didnt marry a catholic then everybody would have been happy and parliament wouldnt 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 wasnt allowed to close parliament without parliaments 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 didnt close parliament down and took their advice of how to rule the country then there wouldnt be any civil war. And Charles wouldnt be executed which wouldnt lead him to his own death. Charles was the architect of his own downfall because he was wasting peoples money. For example in 1628 Charles used ship money to raise money which was against the law because it wasnt war time. This made Charles a weak king because he took peoples money and wasted it on things like paintings or clothes. And he didnt use the money very wisely, all he cared about was himself and this made people think that the king doesnt 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 didnt use ship money then people who were living near the coast would have enough money to feed their family and he wouldnt have gone against the law if he didnt 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 wasnt 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 wasnt important and he wasnt behaving like a king. However if he didnt raise ship money again then people on the coast wouldnt be frustrated or worried about how they are going to feed their families and people wouldnt have felt that the king has gone out of controlled. Also if Charles never raised ship money then people wouldnt have to get that angry on him and also he wouldnt have done that many things that may have hurt people if he didnt raise ship money again. In my opinion it was all Charles fault of his execution because he did whatever he liked and didnt listen to anyone.

My first reason is that if he listened to parliament and listened to what their opinion is then maybe he wouldnt be in this mess. Also if he didnt marry a French catholic and didnt betray his religion then there wouldnt be a big fight and he wouldnt be executed and if he was more wise of using the ship money for something else which is important. Also if he didnt give important roles to hes friends just for money and didnt force the Scottish protestant of reading the new prayer book. If he never done any of those events he wouldnt be executed and parliament wouldnt be more powerful then the king. Also if he didnt marry a catholic then the Protestants wouldnt 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 hes behaviour he was executed. This is why Charles was the architect of his own downfall because he betrayed hes own religion and he was being greedy and selfish with money and he wasnt ruling England properly. This is why its all Charles fault which lead him to his execution.

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read