Skip to main content

View Diary: Richard III’s Body Found? (310 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Charles was a nice guy, but in over his head (5+ / 0-)

    He had terrible political judgement, thought it was his way or the highway (he, like his dad, was a total believer in the Divine Right of Kings, which by that time was already getting questioned) and thought he could bully Parliment to do whatever he said. He clearly had no idea what to expect when Cromwell arrived on the scene.

    I don't care for James I either, because he was the guy who drove the Puritans to leave England and settle in the New World. And thanks to that, we still have to deal with the influence of those killjoys ever since.

    •  That "divine right of Kings" thing (0+ / 0-)

      also rather deeply connected to the Catholic monarchs, and some folks have argued that part of Charles I's downfall was his marriage to and more than slight flirtation with Roman Catholicism in a very Protestant England of the day and age

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:14:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, that certainly didn't help his case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Especially since Cromwell was a fanatical Protestant who, after he became Lord Protector, engaged in horrible atrocities against Irish Catholics.

        At least Charles wasn't as stupid as his son James II, who apparently learned nothing from his dad's fate and acted exactly like him, only worse (going full Catholic at a time when England was firmly Protestant). He was lucky to escape with his life when his own daughters and son-in-law threw him out.

    •  Charles I always seems the dupe (0+ / 0-)

      The problem is that he's guilty enough to not elicit that much pity. He picks up Buckingham right after James, for example. Now, that could be just the same way that Geo. II picks up Walpole -- sophisticated political advisors make sure that the new guy needs them.

      However, during the interregnum, he started seeming less and less divine right-y and more and more reasonable. All during the time, his efforts at reconciliation loomed large, while Parliament's TEA Party-like ultimatums started to seem less and less reasonable. That really helped the martyr talk.

      Charles II had enough sense, though, to play that just the right amount.

      Everyone is innocent of some crime.

      by The Geogre on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:20:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Charles was a Romney, in a way (0+ / 0-)

      Charles was a man of personal family virtue, but also held the belief that his lies to the world didn't count.  So he'd tell his new allies a few lies so they would help him, or his captors a few lies to make them think he was going along with them, because in his enclosed, royalist God-annointed king world  anything he did was "right".  While this worked with the Scots and the Irish, it came to an end when he tried it on the New Model Army and Cromwell.

      I don't think James really believed in divine right (he had a horrible, powerless childhood - anything but divine) because he knew not to push his luck with Parliament or war, while Charles was reclusive and pampered enough to believe whole heartedly in his father's propaganda.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site