Charles I: Killing a King

Charles 1 was no different to any other European king - they all believed in their "divine right" - which is why a King or Queen is annointed. Previous kings had been disposed of by other means but as the programme states no King had been put in trial, no matter how brutal. Legally he was right. It was a military trial, normal customary procedures had been set aside. It was a Show Trial. He didn't even know what exactly he was charged with. He had no legal defence. The idea that Cromwell was acting for the people is not credible but they did make statements that ring true today about rule by the people. However in the real world Cromwell crushed all the real democratic movements like the Levellers. It was a show trial.

The people didn't like what they got in the end - a cheerless Puritan world that banned Christmas, singing and dancing and all such frivoliy. So got the next king back Charles ii.

Probably all these historians are royalists. I would have been happy to see Guy Fawkes succeed but the programme is about how Parliament managed to kill a King - by using the Army and inventing their own legality. That's undeniable. They didn't create a Republic so there was nowhere to go it was a bourgeois reviluy, if you take a Marxist view. The People's revolution was once again there but silenced by the bourgeoisie establishment.

Thoroughly researched and convincingly portrayed, 'Charles I: Killing a King' is a moving and engaging investigation into a narrow but key period of history. It cleverly divides its focus between public and private opinions at the time and correctly engages in a more human and personal account, particularly that of the monarch.

I was most impressed by the many documents and historical artifacts that are closely shot in sharp detail displaying the beauty of classic English hand writing and early print book pressing.

History is all about perspective, and this documentary takes on a sympathetic view and I appreciate that it doesn't dabble on about the civil war and keeps its focus tight and well versed.

This is a fascinating period in English history but this series was spoilt by its taking a very pro royalist slant, It failed to point out that Charles the first completely disregarded the parliament and tried to arrest its elected MPs. The supporting commentators were not given to a fair view. Disappointing and considering the BBCs aim should be unbiased this it made worse

I have to fully endorse the previous reviewers assessment of this quite pitiful love letter to the, largely accepted in history, tyrant Charles 1st. After bleeding the people dry, and exhibiting many other contempts, he shamefully went before his subjects. Largely unrepentant and contemptuous, convinced that the divine right of kings, he payed the price and the monarchy was humbled.

This documentary could not have recruited a more one sided, pro royal chorus of voices, if it had tried. Every contributor is such an uncritical Royalist. It's just so deliberate, a real deliberate attempt at revisionism. I'm a humble peasant, I'm not even a republican. But even I know, in that moment, he had to go. He was plotting yet another bloody war against his own people, it wasn't a tragedy.

I have to say that the preenter of this 3 part sreies was IMO very annoying and came across as a simpering Royalist. Thankfully some of the other opinions a least adde dsome perspective. If you knew nothing of this period and events, after watching thsi you would think Charles 1 was a sadly misunderstood and hard done by King. He was a tyrant and arrogant beyond measure, if he had not been there would not have been a civil war at all. This series quietly ignored all this and portayed him simpathetically and the parlimentarians as hard and underhanded, forgetting that they had just fought a war to remove this King. I doubt that if Charles had won that he would have given any of the parliamentrian any trial at all.