The Persona of Charles - Essay Example

Lecturer: CHARLES Introduction The question of the influence the persona of Charles I had on England is the ultimate question that this book addresses. The personalities of Kings are thought to influence the general culture of the kingdoms in which they rule and the subject of Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason presents nothing more than a perfect picture of this ideology. As a biography about Charles, Hibbert approaches the life story of Charles from a perspective that gives a subject of the influence of kings’ persona on their kingdoms. This approach to writing biography is not one that has often been used, especially when writing about kings. But once this was approached in a very open ended perspective by Hibbert, the question of the influence of a king’s persona on his kingdom became important to the history of England and its world of today. Indeed, a powerful kingdom like England cannot be unconcerned about what its royal leadership is made up of. The central question of the book therefore comes as a wakeup call for England to reflect on its history to identify how this history influences life today. The basis of the argument above is that as long as England has remained a monarchy, it has continued to take inspiration from the leadership styles of its Kings and Queens. Meanwhile, the leaders have led the country as an extension of the personas they are made of. This situation gives several answers to questions that have to do with why there exist differences in the reigns of some leaders of the Great Kingdom. Again, answering these questions will bring out the need for much consideration to be made, especially when it comes to the nurturing of the Royal Family members of England. This is a very important exercise because once a person ascends the throne, that person influences the entire kingdom with his or her persona, just as Hibbert exemplified of Charles. The question would therefore keep resonating as to what the kingdom can do about the personalities of its future leaders before they ascend the throne. Summary of Author’s Thesis From a very objective author’s point of view, Hibbert was doing nothing different from thinking aloud on the impact of King Charles’ personality on his people. To this end, Hibbert focused on two themes, which were the weight of power and management of power. From a close perspective of the author’s argument, one is quick to notice that Hibbert drums home the point that once a person ascends the throne, there is virtually nothing much that can be done to chance the personality of the person. It is for this reason, and the fact that power is such a powerful property that it should not be handed to a person as though it was gift. Rather, because ought to justify indeed, personality and merit that they deserve the throne. The basis of this point, as reflected in the author’s theme on of weight of power is that once power is handed to weak people, their kingdom becomes weak with them because they are hardly able to manage their kingdoms in a manner that is set apart from who they really are in personality and makeup. The author argued that because the weight of power is very heavy, power never becomes well managed when left in the hands of less powerful or ill-prepared people. But then again, there seem to be a problem with the government system of the Kingdom of which Charles was head. The problem is seen in the fact that Kings and Queens are determined through a specific line of lineage and that the factors that disqualifies a person from ascending the throne once the person is next in command does not really include issues of competence and personality. Because of this, there seem to be a total disregard for the need to weigh a royal son or daughter who should be next on the throne to know whether or not the person has the heaviness to carry the weight of power that the author wrote about. From the presentations that Hibbert makes in this historical biography, it would be noted that if such considerations were made, Charles I might not have become the King of England given the fact that right from his infancy, he was portrayed as a weak person, too light to bear the heavy weight of power. Reaction to Author’s Arguments The arguments and thesis of the author given above may be sub-divided into three major themes, each of which can be adequately reacted to as either being convincing or not. The three thematic points are discussed below. Influence of weak childhood physical strength on a grown King Charles In most parts of the early chapters of the book such as chapters 1 to 3, Hibbert dedicates much time to reflect on the days of Charles as a child growing up in the royal home of England. The book gave accounts of various biological, psychological and physical descriptions of Charles that exemplified the fact that Charles was indeed a weak person right from the onset. For example biological accounts are given of how “he was three years old then; yet he had not the strength to walk and he could not talk” (Hibbert 21). Such weakness is what the writer demonstrates as having taken over the persona of Charles even though he had all the royal opportunities to become a very formidable and strong person who could control not just himself but also others who were under him. This notwithstanding, Charles never seemed to have grown out of his weakened developmental days. In a personal reaction to this position taken by the author, the position that Charles’ weak beginning spelled doom right from the beginning cannot be agreed with. This is because it is important to emphasise that Charles grew up to be a leader and not just a soldier. Meanwhile, leadership is a shared responsibility, which even though may require some level of physical strength, does not entirely depend on physical strength. It is acceptable to argue that wars and battle were common in the days of Charles I but he still had the potential of growing up to be a critical thinker who could use his administrative and managerial abilities to overcome his physical and military weakness. Charles I as an Unskilled Politician The writer also builds a lot of defence on the theme of power management to the effect that Charles was generally an unskilled politician who was profoundly unhappy with the messy nitty-gritty of politics (Hibbert 14). In effect, the writer perceived Charles as not just being an unskilled politician but one who was also so unlucky that he was met with a messy political situation in his days as a king. It is therefore not surprising to read of the numerous political problems that the King counted himself as facing, the result of which led to the dissolution of parliament. Based on most of the actions that Charles took in an attempt solving his perceived political problems, the author could be agreed with for referring to the king as being unskilled. This point is held especially when it is known that most of the actions and steps taken by the king and his counsel were noted to lack legal basis and highly unpopular (Hibbert 138). It can be admitted that the uprising of political problems do not necessarily constitute a claim that the politician in whose tenure problems arise is unskilled. This is because such problems could come as opportunities for the politician to exhibit profound leadership skills. This was however not the case with Charles as we did not read of him taking advantage of the challenges he was presented with to show great leadership skills. Rather, very ineffective interventions were taken towards some of these problems, including “a ragged array of discontented raw recruits neither inspired by their cause nor encouraged by the prospects of a good pay” (Hibbert 145). Better man outside the palace To further emphasise the argument that Charles did not have what it took to be an effective political leader and execute efficient political management, Hibbert dedicated some chapters of his book to contrast the political personality of Charles with his personal characteristics outside of politics. This was done to drum home the fact that even though a person may have weaknesses in some aspects of his life, such a person may not be total failure with everything. In the case of Charles, art and a quest to live a noble lifestyle were the best points of his life. It is not surprising that in contrast to his political life, “King Charles’ Court was decorous, orderly, elegant, and ceremonial” (Hibbert 111). Charles was also devoted to religion and made this a revolting part of his daily life. On the stand taken by the writer that most of these better sides of Charles added a shine to his life and gave him some level of glorification even in his death cannot be agreed with. This is because as much as it is important for leaders to possess some of the out-of-politics characteristics that Charles did, it is also important to appreciate the fact that Charles’ calling was in the palace and to be a good leader who could bring his people political victory and not to merely show-off home based deeds. Conclusion The review will be ended with the question of whether Charles should have been the King of England and whether in modern times, anything can be done to change the conditions that determines who takes the high seat of royal highness in England. Certainly, Hibbert convinces the reader that Charles was a good man but not a good leader. Again, it is established that the personality of Charles as not having the potentials to be a good leader was seen in his young days so why was nothing done about it? There could have been some specialised training to alter the way of thinking of the yet to be king but nothing is seen in this regard. Based on this, it can be concluded that the failures of the king is not associated to him alone but the larger institution of English monarchy. Cited Work Hibbert, Christopher. Charles I: A Life of Religion, War and Treason. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 2007. Print. Read More