WI: Charles I Stuart was more gifted

As we all knew, Charles I of England wasn't the best king in history. In fact, he failed miserably in almost anything, and become a first king executed by his own people. He didn't aquired anything remarkable, he wasn't handosme, he wasn't to skilled in politic, he didn't support his most skilled mens.

However, let's just say that king James I & VI was more lucky, and his second son was made from "better material". He is far more taller, more physically attractive, more inteligent and can't be dominated so easily. Also he is more skilled tactician and politic, also charismatic leader with strong will. However, he still belives in his divine right to rule and still seems to al least accept Catholics.

Any chance that more skilled ruler with identical belives could beign a better king for England in this hard times? Is tactical sense and charisma is enough to crash Puritans and Parlament at least for a while?
 
As we all knew, Charles I of England wasn't the best king in history. In fact, he failed miserably in almost anything, and become a first king executed by his own people. He didn't aquired anything remarkable, he wasn't handosme, he wasn't to skilled in politic, he didn't support his most skilled mens.

However, let's just say that king James I & VI was more lucky, and his second son was made from "better material". He is far more taller, more physically attractive, more inteligent and can't be dominated so easily. Also he is more skilled tactician and politic, also charismatic leader with strong will. However, he still belives in his divine right to rule and still seems to al least accept Catholics.

Any chance that more skilled ruler with identical belives could beign a better king for England in this hard times? Is tactical sense and charisma is enough to crash Puritans and Parlament at least for a while?


You will also have to lose his catholic wife, who caused him troubles as well, so have him married off to Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg, who will also bring her children up as protestant.
Maria was described as the most beautiful queen in Europe, so it would be fitting to see two attractive monarchs married.
He can still be friendly towards catholics, but not have them in important offices.
 
Isn't Charles marriage a effect of his father will to turn House of Stuart into equal power to Hapsburgs and Bourbons?

I wonder is it possible for skilled monarch to find a effective way arround "No army rule". Or is there any chance for dealing with Puritans without civil war.
 
Isn't Charles marriage a effect of his father will to turn House of Stuart into equal power to Hapsburgs and Bourbons?.
It was an attempt, but if this young prince is more skillful, he will try and perswade his father to not follow in these footsteps but make their own path.

I wonder is it possible for skilled monarch to find a effective way arround "No army rule". Or is there any chance for dealing with Puritans without civil war.
If he is able to have better debating skills then he should be able to fight the Puritans in a battle of wits in Parliament, rather then fighting a battle with Parliament on the Battlefield.
 
His problem was far less lack of skills/gifts, and far more a personality problem.

The Stuarts were (almost?) all self-centered arrogant A**-****s who thought that the world revolved around them, and that people who disagreed weren't loyal opposition, but traitors. They also strongly believed in the Divine Right of Kings. And they were all sympathetic to (at minimum) or actually (at maximum) Roman Catholic, which REALLY put a spoke in their own wheels in a Britain that was thoroughly Protestant/Anglican by that point.

With that kind of attitude, all the gifts in the world won't help. Even Henry VIII was more flexible (and HAD those gifts).
 
His problem was far less lack of skills/gifts, and far more a personality problem.

I think the OP is saying that the attitude would also be gone. But I agree with you. Stuart is as Stuart does...

The Stuarts were (almost?) all self-centered arrogant A**-****s who thought that the world revolved around them, and that people who disagreed weren't loyal opposition, but traitors.

Almost? Giving James I kudos for the King James Bible? Typical:rolleyes:

They also strongly believed in the Divine Right of Kings. And they were all sympathetic to (at minimum) or actually (at maximum) Roman Catholic, which REALLY put a spoke in their own wheels in a Britain [1] that was thoroughly Protestant/Anglican by that point.

I really think that it is difficult to underestimate the influence the Houses of Valois/Bourbons had on the Stuarts of Scotland. After all, Scotland and France had been allies against England for many centuries. Add on the skills of the scheming Richeliu, Mazarin, and Louis XIV compared to the likes of the Stuarts, and the contrast is most striking.:eek:

1] Only if by "Britain" you mean England, Wales, and the Scottish Lowlands. The Scottish Highlands and most of Ireland was still thoroughly Roman Catholic.

With that kind of attitude, all the gifts in the world won't help.

Indeed, there was a reason why the Stuarts kept getting their heads handed to them by the Tudors, Yorkists, Lancastrians, Plantagenets, Romans, Brigantes, Strathclyders, etc, etc, etc...well, they WOULD have if they were around for those latter guys!:p

Even Henry VIII was more flexible (and HAD those gifts).

Catherine, Anne, Anne (again), Catherine (again), and Catherine (again!) would like a word with you...:mad:

It worked fairly well for Charles II.

Who IIRC had a deathbed conversion to Roman Catholicism, giving a last minute finger to his people:mad:, and setting up his very Catholic brother for a fall.
 
Last edited:
You could get what you want with Charles' older brother Henry Frederick not dying of typhoid fever. He was popular, intelligent, educated and greatly interested in practical matters - politics, strategy, the good running of the country. I don't know if he was going to be a good king, but he would have definitely run things very differently from his father and his brother.

This could probably butterfly away the Civil War, and almost certainly the rise of the Hanoverians.
 
You could get what you want with Charles' older brother Henry Frederick not dying of typhoid fever. He was popular, intelligent, educated and greatly interested in practical matters - politics, strategy, the good running of the country. I don't know if he was going to be a good king, but he would have definitely run things very differently from his father and his brother.

This could probably butterfly away the Civil War, and almost certainly the rise of the Hanoverians.
I doubt that Henry Frederick could be less despotic than his father and brother. After all, he was raised by James I & VI, and why strong, inteligent and charismatic ruler should give up his strong position? Only real difference is that Henry IX, as a devoted protestant, he should be more acceptedable for many. And my question was: Is there any chance for much more stronger, skilled and charismatic monarch with exactly the same belives (Pro-Catholic and Pro-Absolutism)as Charles I in Pre-Civil War England. After all, most of pople fighting for Parlament just wanted to remind their ruler that he did t all wrong way.
 
There were deep-rooted structural problems going on, beyond Charles' personality and incompetence.

Most notably: the ramshackle taxation system inherited from Elizabeth I. Charles' administration was reduced to extremely creative ways of raising revenue (Ship Money), which angered parliamentarians, despite the fact that Charles and his ministers had a country to run. Parliament earlier on was extremely keen on war with Spain, but unwilling to pay for it, which soured relations with the crown from the very beginning.
 
There were deep-rooted structural problems going on, beyond Charles' personality and incompetence.

Most notably: the ramshackle taxation system inherited from Elizabeth I. Charles' administration was reduced to extremely creative ways of raising revenue (Ship Money), which angered parliamentarians, despite the fact that Charles and his ministers had a country to run. Parliament earlier on was extremely keen on war with Spain, but unwilling to pay for it, which soured relations with the crown from the very beginning.

There were constant attempts to reform the taxation system. There was the attempt of Great Contract in 1610, that collapsed because of distrust between James I and Parliament. The whole crisis of 1625-1628 was unintended and due to mutual distrust and acknowledged need for tax reform: the Parliament was expected to vote taxes for the whole reign of new king, instead proposed to vote them for a short time only, pending the expected tax reform - King interpreted it as an attempt to deny him the traditional prerogatives and keep him on short purse strings, and the relationship went worse from that.

A more competent and charismatic king might have pulled off a tax reform approved by Parliament, giving him a viable budget without serious supervision by later Parliaments. Which would have eliminated the main pretext for Great Rebellion.
 
If there was no religious separation at all, then what was the inspiration for the later Jacobite rebellions? Tax rates?:confused:

Cultural differences. Highlanders and Lowlanders didn't get along very well, with the Highlanders being on the losing end of the bargain. While every Jacobite force in Scotland had its share of Catholics, it also had its share of Protestants. As a rule, Scots weren't fighting for their faith--though some were--they were fighting for their clan.
 
1] Only if by "Britain" you mean England, Wales, and the Scottish Lowlands. The Scottish Highlands and most of Ireland was still thoroughly Roman Catholic.

Yes, but the Highlands, whilst producing good fighting men, were too poor and out-of-the-way to be of much importance, and Ireland was important chiefly because of the threat that the French or Spanish might use it as a staging-post for an invasion of England. England, Wales and the Lowlands were by far and away the most important parts of the Stuart kingdom.
 
As we all knew, Charles I of England wasn't the best king in history. In fact, he failed miserably in almost anything, and become a first king executed by his own people. He didn't aquired anything remarkable, he wasn't handosme, he wasn't to skilled in politic, he didn't support his most skilled mens.

However, let's just say that king James I & VI was more lucky, and his second son was made from "better material". He is far more taller, more physically attractive, more inteligent and can't be dominated so easily. Also he is more skilled tactician and politic, also charismatic leader with strong will. However, he still belives in his divine right to rule and still seems to al least accept Catholics.

Any chance that more skilled ruler with identical belives could beign a better king for England in this hard times? Is tactical sense and charisma is enough to crash Puritans and Parlament at least for a while?

I'd say yes, a more intelligent and politically-savvy king would be able to avoid the Civil War. The idea of overthrowing your own king was pretty unthinkable to most people -- even IOTL, the Civil War was officially fought against the king's "evil counsellors", as the phrase want, and it was only Charles' scheming after he was captured and attempts to incite a new war in Scotland that convinced the Parliamentarian leaders that he needed to die. So, yes, if Charles was a better politician he would totally have able to avoid effing up to such a degree.
 
Well, maybe without Buckhingham's bad influene, his wife bad influence (propable even with different wife) and few terrible organized interventions in France at the beggining of his reign, and situation in 1628 could be different. After all, he was a loser, no doubt that they weren't happy to give him all money he wanted.
 
Top