Despite the simplistic fact that King Charles I was the legally lawful leader of England, Parliament was more than justified in executing Charles I due to the divergent and passionate views of law and life between the people and the king in politics, society, and religion.
Parliament never desired a position where they could control England with full-fledged power. They simply wanted enough limitations on the king’s power that would guarantee the people certain rights that the king cannot take away, which juxtaposes the belief of divine right. Parliament tried numerous ways to create a structured administration where the king’s power was restricted and Parliament, including the people that they represented, was given a voice in government but their countless tries were futile and a disappointment. Preceding the Civil War and many times after it, Parliament tried to approach the king to present to him their ideas of how power should be distributed and used. They came up with laws and regulations to resolve political problems with the king, such as the Petition of Rights, Nineteen Propositions, and Grand Remonstrance. The king declined to acknowledge these laws as genuine laws. He either signed and disregarded it or he absolutely refused to bother himself with the minor complaints of Parliament. This eventually led to the conclusion that King Charles I was the type of man who could not be trusted with the legal promises he made to his people. The worries of Parliament were not seen as a major concern of his and he repudiated to consider any negotiations with whatever Parliament had to say. The king’s intractable ways caused Parliament to break away from his power before England became a place of political disaster.
Although the obstinate king refused to recognize Parliament’s authorized power and influence, he turned his back on his Protestant country to form foreign alliances against his own people. If that wasn’t ghastly enough, the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document