King Charles I (1600-1649) and Queen Henrietta Maria

[KingCharles]

One of the most controversial monarchs of this country and not even a mention here so I thought I would start the topic - King Charles I.

Some of you may or may not know that King Charles I was involved and perhaps instigated the English Civil War.
Along with other Stuart King's - Charles believed in the 'Divine Rights of Kings' which appalled Parliament and caused friction between the two parties.
At the time the King was an absolute ruler and did not reign as a constitutional monarch as we have in our country today.
Parliament suggested to the King about turning England into a constitutional monarchy because they had thought that Charles was out of control. Of course, Parliament got what they wanted with William and Mary as joint monarchs, of whom agreed that a constitutional monarchy would be the best way for the UK to progress.
Charles would not acknowledge the notion of being the national figurehead, while letting Parliament to make all the decisions of the land without any Royal interference or input.
Charles did not sign anything and created more problems for Parliament as he decided to dissolve parliament and did not call for them again until 11 years later when the King was - to put it bluntly - skint.
This is when Parliament thought this would be the best time to get what they wanted and proposed that the King accept a Bill which limited the powers of the monarchy on a whole and gave parliament more power in return for the money, Charles so desperately wanted.
Charles would never, and as a royalist myself, agree with him not backing down to parliamentary pressure.
When Charles attempted to arrest five members of parliament, namely Oliver Cromwell who ordered the execution of the King, this instantly caused parliament to form an army and initiate a civil war against the King and anyone who rallied to the monarch's cause.
Charles, lost, fled and was captured in the end - then with the coercement of Oliver Cromwell, members of parliament signed a death warrant for His Majesty after the ILLEGAL trial of Charles.
King Charles was the fount of justice in every sense of the word. He was above the law. So, the sentencing was illegal and un-justified.

I wonder what life would have been like if Charles had not been executed or in fact had won the Civil War. I personally, would like to see this country run by the monarchy instead of the monarch's ministers.
Charles - was a fantastic politician, a great leader and was a believer in his God given rights to rule.

I would like a debate on, in my opinion, the most prolific monarch this country has had along with King Henry VIII and King John.

God Save The King.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by KingCharles

I wonder what life would have been like if Charles had not been executed or in fact had won the Civil War. I personally, would like to see this country run by the monarchy instead of the monarch's ministers.

Show me one European country that is still a real monarchy and not a democracy with the label of monarchy? Why do you think Charles' fate would have changed European history so much? Eg I doubt Napoleon with his Code Civil and his enormous influence on Central Europe could have been prevented with a different kind of monarchy in Britain. What about WWI and the changes this brought to the European monarchy? I doubt an absolutistic regime in Britain would ahve changed things so much.

[KingCharles]

If the monarchy had been absolutist througout all the historical changes we had been through and William & Mary had not signed away Royal powers, maybe things would have been different.

[Elspeth]

If the monarchy had been absolutist all the way through to the first world war, I'm pretty confident that we'd be a republic now, just like the other European countries that had absolute monarchies in the 20th century.

[KingCharles]

When the Egyptian Monarchy was overturned. The King who was ousted said this:

I predict that by the 21st Century there will be only 5 Kings in the World; The King of Hearts, The King of Diamonds; The King of Spades; The King of Clubs and The King of England.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by KingCharles

When the Egyptian Monarchy was overturned. The King who was ousted said this:

I predict that by the 21st Century there will be only 5 Kings in the World; The King of Hearts, The King of Diamonds; The King of Spades; The King of Clubs and The King of England.

But he was wrong, wasn't he? There's The King of Norway, The King of Sweden, The King of Spain and The King of Thailand - but no king of England, because
a) it's not longer England but since the 1700s the United Kingdom
b) it's still a queen on the throne...

[Elspeth]

Fortunately for Norway, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, and so on, he was wrong about the staying power of constitutional monarchies.

As to the other, if the Queen's own website mentions the English Crown, King Farouk can surely be forgiven for doing so.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

As to the other, if the Queen's own website mentions the English Crown, King Farouk can surely be forgiven for doing so.

But that has a certain reasons:

The Queen has a special relationship with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom, but are dependent territories of the English Crown.
Both have their own forms of self-administration, although the United Kingdom government is responsible for certain areas of policy.
The Queen has a special relationship with both Crown dependencies, and is known there by unique titles.

From: The Monarchy Today > How the Monarchy works > Queen and Crown dependencies

[Elspeth]

Yep, but they could have said "British Crown." Unless the countries of the United Kingdom really are separate. I mean, I know that for this reign, unlike some previous ones where everything was lumped together, the Queen is monarch of each of her countries individually, but I don't know if that includes the countries of the UK individually. I know she's often referred to as Queen of Scotland when she's in residence there, but I don't know how official that is.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Yep, but they could have said "British Crown." Unless the countries of the United Kingdom really are separate. I mean, I know that for this reign, unlike some previous ones where everything was lumped together, the Queen is monarch of each of her countries individually, but I don't know if that includes the countries of the UK individually. I know she's often referred to as Queen of Scotland when she's in residence there, but I don't know how official that is.

You're right but I think the special status of the Channel Islands and of Man makes it necessary to still say "English Crown". I would have to do a check as I don't know for sure but I can imagine that the Channel islands and the Isle of Man did not agree to the formation of the United Kingdom and stressed that while they are attached to England, they don't want to be attached to the UK but stay attached to the English Crown only. Which obviously is possible.

Another hint that the kingdoms still exist may be the way the kings or queens are counted. Even though there never was a queen Elisabeth I. of Scotland and none of the Uk, the current queen counts herself to be the Second, thus declaring that she still follows her ancestor James VI. of Scotland who officially called himself James I after inheriting the crown of England.

[Ithil]

I'm quite sympathetic to the plight of Charles I, but personally I'm glad that there are so few monarchies in the world left. As a man, he was a saint, almost, but as a king, he stunk, period. He faced his failure to win the English Civil War and his death very courageously, I think, so he should get some credit for that at least.