Charles the First

The king, Charles the First, actions were legitimate, under the ideology he ruled with, absolutism. Though never stating it Charles the First, justified by his wife, was an absolutist. So from his perspective his practices are not at fault, and that is the bias this editorial will be written from, the viewpoint of someone who believes the king should be an absolute Monarch.
What Oliver Cromwell, a majority of Parliament, and the Parliamentary forces did was a direct violation of the King's power. To take a quote from Louis the XIV, "L'?tat, c'est moi", a phrase meaning "I am the state", is a phrase that could be used to describe the absolutist rule that Charles the First was supposed to have. But actions taken by adversaries of the King and Country, including Civil War, attack on English troops, trespassing, treason, arresting the King, having soldiers march on parliament, and murder of King were treasonous actions against the King and consequently against the Country of England. Because as mentioned earlier in reference to the King, "L'?tat, c'est moi". So any crimes against the King are against the state. Making all who were involved in the fight against the king in the civil war are basically defeating the idea that it was a civil war since by definition they were fighting against there own country, and being extremely treasonous at the same time. To sum up my previous statements the King is the Country so any crimes against the King are against the Country
So the English Civil war was in fact not a civil war but a separatist movement against the Country of England. With aims to establish a military rule and discriminate against those of the Catholic faith.
Cromwell's followers were upset over many things and tried to change them, violating the king's power. Cromwell was upset over remnants of the Catholicism in Anglicans churches and he wanted those things removed. But he had no right to do that since the King is head of the Anglican Church a right established by Henry the VIII and thus Cromwell could not set church policy. They tried to apply laws to the King such has treason. Which they can not do since according to absolutism the king is above the law and can not be controlled by any person, organization, governmental body for such a thing could be a threat to the sovereignty of England itself. This makes sense in the following example. If the king were to be ever controlled by a group with sinister intentions then they could control the polices and laws that the King sets, giving them untold power over the destiny of England, that has you can see is why the king must rule above all others. Which leads me to my next statement. If the king is above the law he should have control over all those under the law which is why the king should be able to command parliament, another major gripe of Cromwell's. People were upset when the king takes land away from the people, well he had every right to has the absolute ruler of England, in addition these people should have been proud to be serving there country by giving up the land for the betterment of England.
By now you may be asking what gives the king the claim to all this privilege. Divine Right does. What mortal man would ever question God's very own choosing, Oliver Cromwell did, making him a heretic too.
In conclusion the English Civil war was nothing but an uprising lead by traitorous heretics out to question the King's Divine Right over England and satisfy there own cravings for power.