Comparing Charles II and Charles I: A Better Ruler?

In the historical discourse surrounding the Stuart monarchy, Charles I and Charles II are often compared and contrasted due to their differing approaches to governance. Understanding the reasons why Charles II is considered a better monarch than his father involves examining their respective styles of rule, the outcomes of their reigns, and the historical context in which they governed.

Governmental Styles and Civil War

One significant difference between Charles I and Charles II lies in their approach to governance, particularly their relationship with Parliament. Charles I ruled through absolute monarchy, believing strongly in the divine right of kings. This belief in his inherent right to rule without the need for consent from his subjects or Parliament allayed concerns about taxation and legislative matters. In contrast, Charles II used Parliament strategically and ruled more through parliamentary means, avoiding the precipitating factors that led to the English Civil War during his father's reign.

The English Civil War, which began in 1642, was a complex conflict involving political, religious, and social tensions. Charles I's tax policies, which he used to finance his wars, led to widespread discontent among the populace and Parliament. The imposition of ship money, a tax on ship owners without parliamentary approval, further straddled the king's authority with the people's resistance.

Listening to Advice

Another crucial factor that distinguishes Charles II from his father is his willingness to accept advice and counsel. Charles I was rigid and inflexible, adhering to his belief that his decisions were always right. This narrow-minded approach led to significant conflicts with Parliament and ultimately, his downfall. Charles II, on the other hand, was more open to the input of others, recognizing the value of diverse perspectives in maintaining a stable and effective government.

Survival of the Monarch

Perhaps the most tangible contrast between Charles I and Charles II is the survival of the monarch during their respective reigns. Charles I lost his head in the execution following the English Civil War, becoming the first British monarch to be tried and executed for high treason. Charles II, meanwhile, managed to navigate the tumultuous times and remained on the throne after the Restoration in 1660.

Family Line and Succession

The line of succession under the Stuarts also offers insights into the differences between Charles I and Charles II. Charles I had eight ancestors who were or claimed to be kings, tracing back through various generations. These predecessors include notable figures such as:

James VI/I of Scotland and England Great grandfather, James V Great great grandfather, James IV Great-great-great-grandfather, James III Great-great-great-great-grandfather, James II Great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, James I Younger son, James VII and II Grandson, James the “Old Pretender”

Notably, Charles I's grandfather was not named James, but Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, who was the second husband of Mary Queen of Scots and a key figure in Scottish history.

Popularity and Noble Governance

Charles II understood the importance of maintaining public support. Unlike his father, he realized that his survival as a monarch hinged on avoiding confrontation with Parliament. This practical approach, combined with a more flexible and inclusive governance style, contributed to Charles II's reign lasting longer and achieving greater stability than that of his father.

Ultimately, the differences in governance style, the ability to listen to advice, and the survival of the monarch distinguish Charles II as a more successful ruler than Charles I. While both faced significant challenges, Charles II's strategic and adaptive approach proved more effective in maintaining the monarchy's stability and continuity.