Charles was horrified with the stark reality of casualties from his own people in the war and he always tried to exert a moderating influence on fighting. The fact he had his supporters fighting men who supported his enemies crossed over two of his duties as King and Commander. On the one hand, as King he was responsible for all his people's welfare, but on the other, as commander, he was responsible for his side's victory over the an enemy also comprised of his subjects. This often upset and dismayed the King.
"Have a care of spilling innocent blood...and hereof fail not, as you desire the good of us, who desire nothing more than the good, happiness and peaceable government of our kingdom and not the effusion of the blood of our subjects, mercy being the brightest attribute of a king." King Charles to Prince Rupert, 1643.
The King obviously made many efforts to spare as much blood, whether it was either side, as he could. Charles believed and hoped that the outcome of the war would be quick, once everyone had seen the effects and superiority of his cause. As such, he often gave up and refused to consider opportunities of winning with his army, believing that Parliament would eventually sue for peace once they saw how close he was to winning.
Several times, as after Edgehill, when he could easily have taken London, Charles halted and let the advantage slip away, preferring not to capture his capital with an army - it was not his ideal way to impose himself on the nation as victor, with his army marauding through the capital.
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Mark Turnbull's U.K. History topic, please visit the Discussions page.