Crimes of Charles I

[discovery1]

Question(plz don't flame me for not knowing):What treasonable acts did Charles I commit? That was one of the charges brought against him, but I don't know why. Any help will be appreciated.

[Jacque Schtrapp]

guide to British loons... er I mean monarchs (http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[BDC]

He was given plenty of oppotuinity to not be killed, he just had to give over some power. He didn't and deserved what he got basically for being so damn stupid.

[Duke Malcolm]

I'm disappointed with that site, it says that the kings shown are all British kings, but Britain was only a country aftewr the Act of Union was signed many centuries ago (curse those fools) and the British Royal family (currently ruling: Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) descend directly from the Kings of the Scots and the Picts.

[king steven]

they were english, but it's 'politerly (sp) correct' that
we're 'british'

[discovery1]

Thanks for the replies all. And yes this is for a school project, I and some of my comrades get to try and execute Charles I. May I ask another question? During the English Civil War, Charles' supporters were mostly rual land owners(nobles and gentry) as well as peasants, and they were more numerous farther away from London. I can see why the landowners would support Charles I, to curb the power of city merchants. But why peasants? Were they simply controled by the nobles? Any help will be appreciated.

[frogbeastegg]

Quote[/b] (discovery1 @ Nov. 18 2003,05:33)]But why peasants?
Because he was the king, simple as that. Back then the king was a lot more important and many people would follow him simply because he had been crowned. There are instances of men joining Charles army when they hate him as both a man and as a king - they were only there because he had a crown and it was their duty to fight for him. Of course many others were more....forward looking and decided that duty wasn't all it was cracked up to be, they joined parliamnet.

Charles, and many of his subjects, believed in the divine right of kings. This means they thought God had placed Charles on the throne and therefore supported his every move. The king was chosen by God to rule and could do no wrong. Going against the king was going against God. You also need to remember that people at this time were very, very religious.

Getting Charlie executed should be simple - mention how many times he broke his word, mention how he raised an army against his people, how he had neglected his country and sacred duty, how he had caused a second civil war almost immediately after the first one, and how he had broken his corronation oath and therfore betrayed his people and God.

Mind you getting him off the hock is equally simple - he was the king therefore he was right. He was the king therefore we cannot kill him. Job done http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (King Malcolm @ Nov. 17 2003,15:13)]I'm disappointed with that site, it says that the kings shown are all British kings, but Britain was only a country aftewr the Act of Union was signed many centuries ago (curse those fools) and the British Royal family (currently ruling: Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom) descend directly from the Kings of the Scots and the Picts.
The British monarchy is more German than anything else. The current line is descended from the Royal House of Hanover, via George I who was the Great Grandson of James I, a distant relative and not what most would call direct descent from Scots and Picts. Added to this is Prince Albert, the Husband of Victoria, who was from the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, also German. Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, and husband of Elizabeth II is, I believe Dutch, although he is described as Greek royalty. The whole point of Diane Princess of Wales was that she was from the House of Spencer, a decidedly more English house than the other Royals. Incidentally the Royal family adopted the name Windsor in 1917, changed from Saxe-Coburg Gotha, because of the war and anti-German feelings in Britain.
There is no direct descent from Scots and Picts except for the fact that George I was 1/8th Stuart but the Stuarts only claimed the crown because they were part English via the house of Tudor, I don't know where you got that idea that they were direct descendants of Scots and Picts. The Scottish blood in the House of Hanover was heavily diluted by not only the Germans that make up the House of Hanover but also by the fact that James I was not entirely Scottish himself, and the Picts weren't really a factor in Scottish nobility for a long long time before the 18th century.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

This is how the story goes, as far as I know:

Charles I was Scottish most of all...

His father was James I, first of all king of Scotland, and later King of England after the death of Elizabeth I, and there were no direct heirs.

Up untill that point in time, most women maaried into the royal family were either English or French, but definately NOT German, as the German states were non/entities at the time, and there was no political advantage to be gained by marrying into their family. The counties and Duchies of Holland, Flandres and Brabant were considered more important at the time.

IIRC the houses in the Britis Roay family go something like this:

William the Conqueror and decendants.
Plantagenet (through the husband of the empress, the Duke of Anjou).
Lancaster and York.
Tudor.
Stuart.
Hannover.
Sachsen-Coburg (the same as the Belgians) (later changed to Windsor for political reasons).
[/list]

The rise of German states only started in the 17th century....

The vast majority of the Royal families in Europe is German... sole exceptions AFAIK being Spain (which is French or Spanish) and Sweden (which is French as well).

[Duke Malcolm]

Actually, The current royal family of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does descend directly from King Kenneth MacAlpin of the Picts and Scots, and is really quite holy. This link is really about how Prince Charles of Wales is the antichrist but shows what I am saying a little bit down the page, you can't miss it.http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/chart.html
And since David and Solomon are in capitals, I think it means the ones from the bible. And when it says Ethas begat Alpin, Alpin begat Kenneth ('begat' means 'son of' if you didn't know) that means King Kenneth MacAlpin, and Alpin is King Alpin of the Scots, the last one of just the Scots, and was executed about half a mile behind me, on the Dundee Law, which is now the site of a war memorial.

[Duke Malcolm]

Elizabeth and Sophia, after James VI and I lived in Germany, and I think Elizabeth married into the German royal line, and George I came over and ascended the throne.

[Cazbol]

Quote[/b] (discovery1 @ Nov. 17 2003,12:08)]Question(plz don't flame me for not knowing):What treasonable acts did Charles I commit? That was one of the charges brought against him, but I don't know why. Any help will be appreciated.
As has been pointed out, Charles was supposedly king by the grace of God, because he was king and God had at least not prevented him from becoming the king. Charles became king because it was his fate, a fate decided by God.

What did Charles do to get himself killed? He lost to his opponents. God did not prevent this so he was hardly king by the grace of God anymore. He must have killed by the grace of God.

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (King Malcolm @ Nov. 18 2003,13:26)]Actually, The current royal family of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does descend directly from King Kenneth MacAlpin of the Picts and Scots, and is really quite holy. This link is really about how Prince Charles of Wales is the antichrist but shows what I am saying a little bit down the page, you can't miss it.http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/chart.html
And since David and Solomon are in capitals, I think it means the ones from the bible. And when it says Ethas begat Alpin, Alpin begat Kenneth ('begat' means 'son of' if you didn't know) that means King Kenneth MacAlpin, and Alpin is King Alpin of the Scots, the last one of just the Scots, and was executed about half a mile behind me, on the Dundee Law, which is now the site of a war memorial.
I have my doubts about that website. Anything on predicting the anti-christ, and the very odd picture of a winged Charles statue, doesn't seem like a very good source unless you are into rabid anti-English/anti-monarch nationalism.
The genoeology is as follows, The Stuarts take their claim back the the House of Bruce via the Grandson of Robert the Bruce (Robert I), who in turn is related to Kenneth MacAlpin as his 4x great grandson, in other words he is the grandson, of the grandson, of the grandson of Kenneth MacAlpin, a slight relation. From Robert the II you get James I who is even further removed, and related to the house of tudor through one of Henry the VII's sisters. We get to the current monarchs only through James I's great grandson George I. This is hardly a direct descent considering that the current Queen is a fraction of a fraction related to Kenneth. Besides I'll take anything with a grain of salt if it is coupled with the implication that the current British Monarchs are related to biblical figures between that and Charles being the anti-Christ it is doubtful that the above referenced site is anything approaching accurate or well researched history.

[Black Arrow]

An interesting question.

Charles was charged with High Treason which is defined as: Actions which undermine the head of state or gives succour to his enemies.
However since Charles was the head of state this implies he was acting against himself. Therefore he is legally innocent. A point he made rather effectively at his trial.

He did however plot to depose parliament and entered into alliance with a foreign power against his own countrymen His Guilt was therefore predetermined.

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (Black Arrow @ Nov. 19 2003,08:38)]An interesting question.

Charles was charged with High Treason which is defined as: Actions which undermine the head of state or gives succour to his enemies.
However since Charles was the head of state this implies he was acting against himself. Therefore he is legally innocent. A point he made rather effectively at his trial.

He did however plot to depose parliament and entered into alliance with a foreign power against his own countrymen His Guilt was therefore predetermined.
I think what was at issue was the argument over whether or not the king embodied the state, and was therfore the state and therfore could not commit treason as you said, or whether the king was a representation of the state, the state not being embodied in any one person but rather in the totality of individuals that exist within what is called the state, in which case any one person can commit treason regardless of their individual status within the state. The state could be seen as existing above the mass of people that make it up.

[Gregoshi]

Hello there Black Arrow. Welcome to the Entrance Hall. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Thanks for contributing to this rather interesting topic.