Why should king Charles 1 not have been guilty and/or executed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/charles_i_king.shtml

http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/kingsandqueensoftheunitedkingdom/thestuarts/charlesi.aspx

To ascertain whether King Charles I should have been guilty and executed, let's examine some arguments that are often put forth in his defense:

1. Divine Right of Kings: Supporters of King Charles I argue that he was the rightful monarch and that his authority was derived from a divine source. According to this belief, any attempt to hold him accountable or execute him would have been an act of treason against the monarchy itself. However, it's important to note that the concept of divine right of kings was not universally accepted and was subject to political and religious debate during that period.

2. Legal Authority: Some supporters claim that the court which tried and sentenced Charles I (the High Court of Justice) did not possess the legal authority to do so. They argue that the trial was conducted in an illegitimate manner, without adequate representation for the accused. However, it is essential to recognize that the authority of the court was established by the Rump Parliament, which deemed itself lawful after the dissolution of the monarchy.

3. Negotiation Attempts: Advocates for Charles I contend that he made sincere efforts to negotiate with Parliament to avoid the civil war that eventually led to his execution. They argue that he took steps toward compromise and sought peaceful resolutions to the conflict. While negotiations did occur, the breakdown in trust and polarization of political factions made successful compromise difficult to achieve.

4. Precedent and Symbolic Importance: Critics of Charles I's execution argue that it set a dangerous precedent for the power of the parliamentary system over the monarchy. They contend that his execution signaled a shift towards a more authoritarian form of government. However, it is worth noting that the English Civil War and Charles I's execution were part of a broader context of political change, and the events were driven by complex societal, religious, and constitutional factors.

Ultimately, whether King Charles I should have been considered guilty and executed is a matter of interpretation and historical perspective. The arguments provided above represent some of the viewpoints in his defense. However, it's important to note that counter-arguments exist as well, asserting that Charles I's actions, particularly his absolutist tendencies and disregard for parliamentary authority, justified his trial and execution as a necessary measure for the preservation of Parliament's power and the establishment of a more constitutional monarchy.