Revising the Six-Stage Tyrant Formation Model: A Mechanism-Based Comparison of King John, Mary I, and Charles I

This article revises the Six-Stage Tyrant Formation Model through a structured qualitative comparison of the historical reputations of King John, Mary I, and Charles I. The original model was developed in an earlier study of Richard III to explain how contested political rule could be transformed into a durable cultural image of tyranny. The present study reassesses that sequential formulation and replaces it with a non-sequential, mechanism-based framework.

The comparison identifies five recurrent mechanisms: political triggering, selective retention, moral personalization, narrative compression, and cultural reproduction. It also reformulates the former stage of bodily encoding as embodied and iconographic intensification, treating it as a contingent amplifier rather than a necessary component of tyrant formation. This element is comparatively weak in the case of King John, gendered and dynastic in the case of Mary I, and strongly devotional and visual in the case of Charles I. Charles’s reputation further demonstrates that the same political crisis can generate durable and competing memories of tyranny and martyrdom.

The principal contribution of the study is methodological. It does not determine whether any ruler was objectively tyrannical. Instead, it develops a comparative heuristic for examining how political conflict, historiography, religion, literature, visual representation, and institutional transmission contribute to the formation of durable moral identities. The study also distinguishes political conduct, contemporary representation, and posthumous memory, and separates counter-memory from later historical rehabilitation.

The revised framework is probabilistic, falsifiable, and designed for comparative testing. The three cases provide preliminary evidence of its usefulness within a connected English historical tradition, while further research is required to establish whether the framework can be applied to other political cultures, periods, and media environments.

【Previous and Related Studies】

1.0 How a Tyrant Is Made: A Six-Stage Model of Richard III from Tudor Historiography to Shakespearean Villainy

This earlier study introduced the Six-Stage Tyrant Formation Model and examined how Richard III’s reputation developed through Tudor historiography, dramatic representation, and later cultural reproduction. The present article revises and tests that model through comparison with additional English monarchs.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21427951

2.0 Family-Office Differentiation among the Gōshi Class in Early Modern Northern Sanriku under the Morioka Domain: The Oda Family’s Matsugawara Main House and Ichō-no-ki Branch House in Sources Related to the Noda-dōri Magistrate Office

This microhistorical study examines the distribution of administrative, documentary, economic, and coordinating functions between branches of a local gōshi family. It forms part of the author’s broader research on institutional functions, historical representation, and the transmission of local competences.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20182480

3.0 Layered Institutional Accumulation and the Conditions of Productive Fragmentation: Japan, China, and Modernization Pathways in Comparative-Historical Perspective

This comparative-historical study develops the concept of layered institutional accumulation and examines how political fragmentation, regional institutions, and institutional continuity shaped different modernization pathways in Japan and China.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20564716

4.0 Administrative Capacity Mobilization and Japan’s Modern State Formation: Incomplete Political Integration, Layered Institutional Accumulation, and the Direction of Local Competences in Comparative-Historical Perspective

This study examines how administrative capacities produced under earlier political orders were preserved, reclassified, and mobilized during modern state formation. It contributes to the author’s broader research program on institutional persistence, functional transformation, and historical comparison.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21276293