Charles I was King of England but was overthrown by Parliamentary forces led by Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was Britain's only military dictator and his reign of terror led to the deaths of 25% of the population of Great Britain and Ireland through war, famine and massacre. When he died, the English people invited Charles II to take the throne. Cromwell's son, Richard Cromwell was the origin of all the pejorative expressions involving the word Dick. Cromwell's body was dug up and hung on a gibbet. Eventually his head was put on a pike on London Bridge and his body thrown into the Thames. Charles I was regarded as a martyr for upholding the episcopal nature of the Church of England and there are Anglican churches dedicated to his name.
Correct. Generally known as The English Civil War. King Charles was at war with the English Parliamentarians. King Charles had many supporters in England but eventually lost. He was beheaded.
From my understanding the civil war was between the royalists who supported the system of the king ruling everything and making all the country's decisions, and those who felt the people should be making the important decisions about their lives so needed a democratic government. King Charles was fighting for his right to rule England but from my understanding the democratic people won the war and the power of the monarchy was largely ended.
King Charles was at war against his Parliament. Parliament was at war against its King. The deep down issue was who was entitled to rule England.
Past history and traditions proclaimed the King ruled. Parliament, the judges, the army and navy, the court, what we now call the civil service - all served "in the King's Name" New Acts of Parliament - the written laws of England - began "Charles, by the Grace of God King ..." and were signed into law by the king. The King's Council was His Majesty's Government. The Council was what is now the Cabinet. The Ministers were His Ministers, not Parliament's.
The problem was that Parliament over the previous centuries had little by little acquired power, particularly through holding the nation's purse. The king could not govern the realm, maintain royal splendor and wage war without money. If Parliament did not vote to raise taxes to pay for his government, tough times for HM Government. Parliaments have respectfully said in effect, "We'll give you the money if you do this thing for us." They had wanted Queen Elizabeth to marry and have children. Heirs were vital to national stability. Elizabeth prevaricated, then told them "How dare you dictate to your Sovereign?" They backed down. Charles' House of Commons, when they finally were allowed to convene, did not. Charles did not want to rule through Parliament, but he needed the money. He was a crypto-Roman Catholic and they were stalwart Protestants, so they already hated each other.
So, according to Charles, Charles was not fighting against England because he was King and the King was England. A group of disaffected Protestant M. P.s in the Commons were acting treasonous.
According to Parliament, they, the representatives of the cities and counties, were England. King Charles was opposed to his realm's representatives, arresting them if they would not do what he wanted. He was not a true Christian but a hypocrite, and his queen was an open papist. He refused to let them meet and pass laws in his name. That meant he did not do his job for his people and his country but worked against his people, probably for the Pope. That meant he was a traitor.
So, who was "England"? The King? The House of Commons? Each side thought he/they were England.
No. No, he wasn't. He played the part of Ireland. England was played by Englebert, the Prince-Bishop of Battenburg, while Scotland was played - with gusto - by Mustafa Shaddam Ali, the Great Khan of the Golden Horde. Hope this helped.
He and his supporters were at war with Parliament and its supporters. Parliament won, and was therefore able to define Charles's crime as having waged war against the country, i.e., treason. But to say that he "was" at war with England, as if it were a fact like his height or weight, is not accurate; that's just how Parliament defined his actions.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Charles I was King of England but was overthrown by Parliamentary forces led by Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was Britain's only military dictator and his reign of terror led to the deaths of 25% of the population of Great Britain and Ireland through war, famine and massacre. When he died, the English people invited Charles II to take the throne. Cromwell's son, Richard Cromwell was the origin of all the pejorative expressions involving the word Dick. Cromwell's body was dug up and hung on a gibbet. Eventually his head was put on a pike on London Bridge and his body thrown into the Thames. Charles I was regarded as a martyr for upholding the episcopal nature of the Church of England and there are Anglican churches dedicated to his name.
No, he was a Scot (born in Dunfermline, Scotland), his mother was a Dane.
Yes. His only people revolted against him. That's how Civil war works.
Correct. Generally known as The English Civil War. King Charles was at war with the English Parliamentarians. King Charles had many supporters in England but eventually lost. He was beheaded.
From my understanding the civil war was between the royalists who supported the system of the king ruling everything and making all the country's decisions, and those who felt the people should be making the important decisions about their lives so needed a democratic government. King Charles was fighting for his right to rule England but from my understanding the democratic people won the war and the power of the monarchy was largely ended.
King Charles was at war against his Parliament. Parliament was at war against its King. The deep down issue was who was entitled to rule England.
Past history and traditions proclaimed the King ruled. Parliament, the judges, the army and navy, the court, what we now call the civil service - all served "in the King's Name" New Acts of Parliament - the written laws of England - began "Charles, by the Grace of God King ..." and were signed into law by the king. The King's Council was His Majesty's Government. The Council was what is now the Cabinet. The Ministers were His Ministers, not Parliament's.
The problem was that Parliament over the previous centuries had little by little acquired power, particularly through holding the nation's purse. The king could not govern the realm, maintain royal splendor and wage war without money. If Parliament did not vote to raise taxes to pay for his government, tough times for HM Government. Parliaments have respectfully said in effect, "We'll give you the money if you do this thing for us." They had wanted Queen Elizabeth to marry and have children. Heirs were vital to national stability. Elizabeth prevaricated, then told them "How dare you dictate to your Sovereign?" They backed down. Charles' House of Commons, when they finally were allowed to convene, did not. Charles did not want to rule through Parliament, but he needed the money. He was a crypto-Roman Catholic and they were stalwart Protestants, so they already hated each other.
So, according to Charles, Charles was not fighting against England because he was King and the King was England. A group of disaffected Protestant M. P.s in the Commons were acting treasonous.
According to Parliament, they, the representatives of the cities and counties, were England. King Charles was opposed to his realm's representatives, arresting them if they would not do what he wanted. He was not a true Christian but a hypocrite, and his queen was an open papist. He refused to let them meet and pass laws in his name. That meant he did not do his job for his people and his country but worked against his people, probably for the Pope. That meant he was a traitor.
So, who was "England"? The King? The House of Commons? Each side thought he/they were England.
No. No, he wasn't. He played the part of Ireland. England was played by Englebert, the Prince-Bishop of Battenburg, while Scotland was played - with gusto - by Mustafa Shaddam Ali, the Great Khan of the Golden Horde. Hope this helped.
Yes. Which was very silly of him.
He and his supporters were at war with Parliament and its supporters. Parliament won, and was therefore able to define Charles's crime as having waged war against the country, i.e., treason. But to say that he "was" at war with England, as if it were a fact like his height or weight, is not accurate; that's just how Parliament defined his actions.