Final answer:
King Charles I would have objected to John Locke's ideas, which emphasized the consent of the governed and the social contract as opposed to the absolute rule of a monarch. Locke's perspective that people could judge and overthrow a government if it failed to protect their rights would be contrary to Charles's views on divine right and unconditional royal authority.
Step-by-step explanation:
King Charles I would have found the ideas of John Locke particularly objectionable regarding the role and powers of a king. Locke's theory directly challenged the notion of absolute monarchy and divine right, which Charles I staunchly believed in. In his 1690 defence of William's accession to the throne, Locke argued that government derived its authority from the consent of the governed and that the people had the right to judge whether a monarch was acting contrary to their trust. This idea was radically different from Charles's view that subjects had no role in government, and a king's authority was not to be questioned.
Additionally, Locke's concept of a social contract, wherein people consent to be governed in exchange for the protection of their lives, liberty, and property, places the origin of government in human agreement, not divine decree. The notion that a monarchical government could be overthrown if it failed to protect the people's rights would be anathema to Charles I. This was evident during the English Civil War and following the Glorious Revolution, where Parliament held onto power and established William and Mary as monarchs under a constitutional and more limited form of monarchy.