Essay about The Death Of Charles I, And The Trial And Execution

1281 Words Dec 1st, 2016 6 Pages
Both, Sean Kelsey’s, “The Death of Charles I,” and “The Trial and Execution of Charles I,” written by Clive Holmes are historical articles that present detailed accounts on the trial and execution of King Charles I. Although these historians compare in their attempts to evaluate the significance of the incident, their works contrast radically in terms of developing these views. Where Kelsey believes that the trial of King Charles was never intended as a pretext to execution, Holmes disagrees. This variation is expressed through the key aspects of political relationships and the temperament of the military as an institution. It is through these trends, that this paper will serve as a demonstration to how the prevailing polarization between Kelsey and Holmes creates different perceptions as a result. However, given these dissimilarities, this essay will also illustrate how both authors explore the similar stance that it was ultimately Charles who facilitated his own death.
One of the main issues that divides both Kelsey and Holmes in their assessment on the trial of King Charles I is their analysis of political relationships. Kelsey surmises that the King’s position as an asset to Parliament is due to his ability to maintain England’s national security. Without his “political capital,” Parliament’s advantage over Royalist supporters would decline, causing a loss of governmental control, and subsequent insurgency under the influence of Charles II. In this way, Charles I’s…

Related Documents