Abstract

This essay explores the contested reputation of Charles, comparing the judgments of contemporaries and posterity. Whereas apologists considered Charles the best of all monarchs, some historians have declared him unfit to govern. Far from being anachronistic, as hyper-Revisionists have protested, this view echoes extreme expressions of dissatisfaction from the 1620s to the 1640s. David Cressy reviews contemporary understandings of the business of kingship, whereby a monarch could be judged. He concludes that Charles I was largely responsible for his troubles.

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1544-399X
Print ISSN
0018-7895
Pages
pp. 637-656
Launched on MUSE
2016-02-24
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.