To What Extent Was Charles I Responsible to Reach a Negotiated Settlement?

780 Words4 Pages
To what extent was Charles I responsible for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement 1646-1649? It can be argued that to a large extent that Charles’ behaviour was responsible for his execution in the beginning of 1649. Losing both civil wars, escaping from the New Model Army and secret letters to his wife claiming that he will delay negotiations for as long as possible suggests reasons why he was executed. However, Parliament and the New Model Army were also factors which were responsible for the failure to reach a negotiated settlement as Parliament were divided and because the New Model Army were highly influenced from the Levellers. The King being the most important figure in England assumed he had all authority within England as he firmly believed in the ‘Divine Rights of Kings’ which is the belief that God has given the King his authority and so the King lives through God’s ‘legacy’. However, little did he know that his life would soon be very different to how it was. Charles’ army had been dissolved, and you would think that Charles should just compromise with Parliament as it would make everything a whole lot easier, but he knew there were divisions between Parliament which he then exploited. Being defated from Parliament and a superior New Model Army, the King thought he could surrender to Scotland and even that didn’t work out as he planned. ‘’In fact, the Scots took advantage of Charles and sold him to Parliament for £400,000 in January 1647’’. Somewhere where Charles thought he could hold trust and return to one of his Kingdom’s had disowned him to Parliament. However, once Parliament had captured the King, they were keen to set a negotiated settlement. ‘’I immediately acquainted his majesty… who seemed not well edified by it, and did believe, that all proceeded out of the use of Cromwell and the army had of his majesty, without whom, he thought,
Open Document