This is a good question and your citations throughout reveal significant familiarity with the topic! Still I'll offer my opinion, some observations, and maybe even some new links in the historiography.

I'm with Kishlansky in riding this wave of royalist revisionism that seemed to originate in the 1980s. What ties these scholars together is their objection that there's still too much "Whig-Parliamentarian hermeneutic," the kind of ideology that culminated in the (ridiculous) High Victorian ideology of British and especially English history as being an inevitable, unusually orderly, and highly legal narrative culminating in then present times. The "glorious" narrative if you will.

I've been highly impressed by a number of works beginning from this point that go on to demolish the myth with respect to particular issues: in the case of the Civil Wars the alternative is to understand Parliament as the radical force in 1641, making unprecedented and ambiguously legal moves, with Charles as the (admittedly sometimes creative) upholder of legal norms. To my knowledge the most detailed version of that argument, and one Kishlansky often cites, is made by Glenn Burgess.

Personally by far the greater part of knowledgeable people (keeping in mind that a tiny percentage of 17th c. scholars actively publish on Stuart politics) I've ever spoken to have been persuaded by this overall trend towards revisionism in general and the caveated rehabilitation of Charles in particular. While he was in no way a competent personality as a judge of character or decision maker, his judgment as to his powers was essentially the prevailing Constitutional law.

I expect this shift in judgment to last a while. Burgess is very persuasive. Of course at a certain point shifts in the historiography more than anything reflect changes in the values of the historians writing, and there's a definite element of that here. A now commonplace postmodern anti-teleology courses through the veins of the revisionist position.

Not a professional historian, but IMHO it's a mistake to paint any historic figure as 100% one thing or another. Charles I could very well have been a perplexing mixture of a fool, villain, and victim, like most humans who have lived on this Earth. You may not be interested in my personal opinion, but here it is:

Was he a fool? Well, in hindsight, one almost seems to have had to be a fool to be the first king in thousands of years to fail so utterly at his role. On the other hand, one has to consider that in Charles' time, it was perfectly normal for him to have believed that his will was God's will and that he could, essentially, do no wrong. It's understandable, from his viewpoint, why he did the things he did. He probably felt justified in his decisions, just as modern scholars feel justified in the belief that kings are not divinely appointed. It's all a matter of perspective.

Was he a villain? If we judge him by modern ethical standards? Probably. But, I would argue that by those standards, most kings of England were villains, and many far more villainous than Charles I were not beheaded. Modern historians' views on the subject will always be unfortunately skewed by the propaganda of each side; Elizabeth I, for instance, is viewed by posterity in a relatively positive light, yet she did just as (if not more) horrible things to her subjects than Charles I was accused of.

Was he a victim? Of his time? Of course! Do I think he would have been overthrown if he were king in 1400? Not even a chance! England was primed and ready for revolutionary political change in the later half of the 1600's. While Charles I obviously didn't help the cause of monarchy very much, the English people were starting to question monarchy as a whole before he even came to the throne. They were questioning monarchy and the "chain of being", as a whole, not just Charles, himself. Charles was an unfortunate bystander in the great, sudden changes which sometimes happen in history. He has also been a victim of the propaganda I referenced above; it was in Oliver Cromwell's best interest to paint Charles as evil. Was he? I don't think so. Probably just a man, like every other man, trying to do his best and ultimately failing at it.

D.H. Pennington, who died unfortunately in 2005, was an expert in the area of the English Civil War and authored a number of works on or relating to it. I recommend his "Seventeenth Century Europe," which covers the topic in broad strokes. Here's his take (authored in 1970):

"The eleven year 'personal' rule of Charles is frequently seen as an 'interlude' of unprecedented tyranny. But James had, for most practical purposes, escaped parliaments for almost as long . . . Royal government was in some ways moderately good government. Though it is absurd to praise the personal rule as a 'welfare state,' the Crown could not by any stretch of the imagination have been said to use its instruments of prerogative rule- the Council in the North, the Court of Star Chamber, and the rest- exclusively for tyrannical purposes . . . the government in some of its activities showed an element of paternal interest in the poor and a vague notion of equal rights for subjects that had not been upheld enthusiastically by those to whom protection of property was the principal function of the law."

Nevertheless, Pennington views him as ill-intentioned and incompetent in his managing of Parliament and "on 30 January 1649 Charles showed more strength of character at his death than at any time in his life, and helped to establish the legend of the martyr-king." (Seventeenth Century Europe, pp. 396-402.)

This is Charles I of England, right?