Was King Charles II of England a good king?

Question

I mean, I know the king before him was hated, more or less, and his brother who ruled after him, James II, was also very disliked, but I don't know what he was. I also am aware of the Whig and Tory parties, but what king, president, teacher, parent, etc. isn't going to have groups liking or disliking them? So if you can, PLEASE help me!!!

Answer 1

He was a distinct improvement on his father, Charles I, in the eyes of Parliament since he was willing to listen to them rather than ride roughshod over their decisions. He was the beginning of the constitutional monarchy that Britain has today as certain aspects of his power were curtailed (which was eventually to be written into law after his brother, James II, was exiled and William III & Mary II became joint monarchs).

Charles II was an extremely popular King with the general populace. He was known as "the Merry Monarch" as he reopened all the theatres, inns, brothels, breweries and places of entertainment that had been forced to close under the dictatorial uber-religiousness that had been the Puritan interregnum - most Englishmen were quite glad to see many of them clear off to the American colonies.

Charles was seen as a King close to his people, approachable and willing to make contact, unlike his distant relatives. He would regularly walk through the streets of London rather than use the Royal carriage, stopping to talk or purchase items from stall holders and shopkeepers. During the Great Fire of London (1666) Charles, against the wishes of his advisors, stayed to help battle the flames.

The negative aspects of his personality were his profligate spending which seemed to keep the Royal revenue permanently in debt and his inability to remain faithful to his wife. He had a range of mistresses (the most notorious being the theatre orange-seller Nell Gwynne) and about 17 illegitemate children (many of today's British aristocracy are descendants of these children).

To decide whether he was a good or bad King depends on how you rate good or bad. All in all he was probably exactly what England needed after the dour, depressive and restrictive 11 years of Puritan rule.  

Answer 2

No he was a jackass.

Answer 3

i think so...

Answer 4

I think he was a n00b!