Was Parliament Justified In Killing the King? :: essays research papers

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 concourse and the king in politics, society, and worship. Parliament never desired a position where they could control England with full-f conductged federal agency. They simply wanted enough limitations on the kings power that would guarantee the people certain rights that the king cannot cook away, which juxtaposes the belief of divine right. Parliament tried numerous ways to create a structured administration where the kings 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 subsequently 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 aureate 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 kings 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 Parliaments authorized power and influence, he turned his back on his Protestant country to form foreign alliances against his own people. If that wasnt ghastly enough, the k ing acted in an outrageous and appalling way when he put religion into the conflict and made it worse. He asked for military assistance from the Catholic pope and agreed to certain terms that could have shattered his already-destabilized country. The king denied the fact that he had been defeated by his own subjects, and he did anything he could do in his power to prevent the loss of his throne. It is not right of a true and authoritative king to overlook his people and betray them in such a horrendous and unthinkable way as to destroy the pride of his countrys religion.