King Charles I did nothing wrong. The literal definition of "treason" at the time of his trial meant, "Violence against the King" so it would have been impossible for him to be guilty of the charge the House of Commons set against him in the first place.

>if the King does it, it's not a crime
Retard logic

>>17800667
Treason wasn't understood to mean, "Violence against the state" it only meant, "Violence against the King (as the embodiment of the state)." Therefore treason was the one crime a King couldn't ever be held accountable for because it wouldn't make sense. His prosecutors had to complete shift the meaning of "treason" towards our more modern understanding just to justify themselves.

>>17800673
>Violence against the King (as the embodiment of the state).
>as the embodiment of the state
Therefore violence against the state, even by the King as he embodies it, is still violence against state, no? So Charles was still guilty of violence against the state.

>well actually Spopes has fact checked this and technically there's no law that says the King can't start 3 civil wars out of petty seething over not getting infinite free money from parliament so you have to let me g- ACK

>>17800691
The idea of popular sovereignty hadn't originated yet

>>17800859
Ok, and...?

>>17800664 (OP)
>King Charles I did nothing wrong. The literal definition of "treason" at the time of his trial meant, "Violence against the King" so it would have been impossible for him to be guilty of the charge the House of Commons set against him in the first place.
>"sounds even better the 15th time you said it Charlie"
>*gets executed*

>>17800664 (OP)
Yeah but no matter of legal wrangling saved him from getting his head chopped off now did it

>>17800664 (OP)
>definition of "treason" at the time of his trial meant, "Violence against the King" so it would have been impossible for him to be guilty of the charge
sounds like some jew lawyer bullshit desu

he had divine right, and was killed by the redditor middle class. a true saint and martyr of the same class as nicholas II.

>>17800691
>the king is guilty of self harm
cool but by executing the king (the embodiment of the state) his executioners themselves become guilty of treason.

>>17801465
Making epic quips and snarking off at the trial where your execution has been predetermined seems like something a redditor would do

>>17800664 (OP)
The parliament full of early freemasonry (neo-Templar)

>>17800691
>violence against the state
The king is the state

>>17800664 (OP)
Charles I was the worst English monarch in history. He was worse than John, Edward II, Richard II, and Henry VI. He deserved it for that reason alone.

>>17800664 (OP)
The rise of the Parliamentarians was one of the first victories for the low-church bourgeoisie. It was a coup against the ecclesiastical and aristocratic elite which had ruled in England for at least a thousand years. It wasn't about what the King had the right to do, it was simply negating that he had any such rights to begin with.

>>17801465
this, Parliament is able to make bullshit nanny state authoritarian laws is rooted in the English Civil War and them killing Charley 1, its the reason Charley 3 cant just dissolve Parliament for the bullshit they pull today

>>17800859
Uh yes it had that's why he got his head cut off

>>17800664 (OP)
>you can’t revolt because the king said so!!
You are 12 years old.

>>17801408
This.

>>17802002
We've spent the better part of a decade watching le based Harry publicly humiliate himself with a busted american quadroon that used to sell her ass for C-list acting roles, you're delusional if you think Charley III would have any interest in removing that shit even if he had the power to

>>17800673
>His prosecutors had to complete shift the meaning of "treason" towards our more modern understanding just to justify themselves.
Good, that's a better definition.

>>17800664 (OP)
Chuck's actions were driving people to rebel against him. Therefore his was guilty of fomenting dissent against the king, therefore he was commiting treason

>>17801468
>self harm
WRONG
The executioners removed what was damaging the state. Simple as.
You can't even explain how the fuck it was "self harm" because this is just pure cope

>>17801975
As its protector. But Charlie kept fucking that up so they had every reason to dethrone him.

>>17800664 (OP)
Vae victis

>>17803236
If the King is the embodiment of the state then killing the King amounts to treason regardless of the reasons why. The only way a King could technically commit treason (which was at that time defined as violence against the King) was by suicide.

>>17800664 (OP)
He did everything wrong considering he literally lost his head.

>>17802001
>The rise of the Parliamentarians was one of the first victories for the low-church bourgeoisie. It was a coup against the ecclesiastical and aristocratic elite which had ruled in England for at least a thousand years. It wasn't about what the King had the right to do, it was simply negating that he had any such rights to begin with.
Britain (england and lowland scotland really) never had an ecclesiasiastical and aristocratic elite
It was always a relatively egalitarian and socially mobile kingdom reaching back into the 1100s at least but likely long before that

>>17803441
>Britain (england and lowland scotland really) never had an ecclesiasiastical and aristocratic elite

William the Conqueror would like to have a word with you here...

>>17803393
>which was at that time defined as violence against the King
And the King embodies the state, so if the King is committing violence against his own sworn protectorates (the people) than he is committing treason. Same reason James got dethroned after Charlie 2.0 - he went full retard and tried to impose Catholocism. See >>17802265 as well. If the King is acting like such a retard that he has the populace opposed to him than he is committing treason.

>>17800667
>what is lèse-majesté
The king is more than just a person due to his office
He represents the entire country and as such can only be judged by God or the Emperor (if applicable)
They should have brought the case to his majesty Ferdinand III for arbitration if they wanted to do it legally
>but the HRE never controlled England
irrelevant because old Rome did and the HRE was its legal successor

>>17803501
>He represents the entire country
So then he's guilty of treasonous behavior if he commits acts against it, which is exactly what Charlie did.

>>17803504
>if he commits acts against it
He can't, by definition
What the parliament did was treason, and they were no better than the jacobins in France
(you) have poor reading comprehension or maybe you don't understand what a king is supposed to be. It's an old ideology that goes back all the way to Sumer and maybe beyond

>>17803532
>>He can't, by definition
>if the King does it, it's not a crime
Retard logic
>What the parliament did was treason
>nnnnoooooooo you can't just stop a tyrant from oppressing you!!!
Uh-huh
>no better than the jacobins in France
LMAO the Jacobins were unironically justified.
>nnnoooooo you can't just be mad that Louis ran the country into the ground!!! He's... le King!!!
Literally why the fuck not? By this retarded logic humanity would have stalled out centuries ago, and for what? So that an inbred retard with no idea how to run a country could LARP that he was still as great as his grandfather?
>It's an old ideology
So what? Should we still be scalping our enemies in wars because "it's an old ideology"?

>>17803549
>all that seethe
You agree with Robespierre and the rest of those psychopaths so you would never get it
There are ways and mechanisms to deal with bad monarchs, beheading them is what shit disturbers do.
>muh scalping
false equivalence and practiced by savages. Real civilizations practice flaying, you would know that if you read a book once in a while

>>17803568
>hurrrrr you're seething durrrr
Tell me you've conceded without telling me
>dude the Jacobins were literally all just like Robespierre bro just trust me
Concession status: accepted
>shit disturbers
Take your gay euphemism elsewhere
>Real civilizations practice flaying
>nnnoooooo scalping is for savages!!!! REAL civilizations commit even more heinous acts!!!
And you're calling Robespierre and his band of autists psychopaths? Oof

>>17800664 (OP)
The reasoning was he committed treason against the Commonweal of England and Scotland. They already had ideas about the state being an entity beyond the king.

>>17803549
>>17803568
Let's split the difference!

I would support maintaining Republican government if we went back to deciding conflicts by single combat with swords and other melee weapons followed by ritual scalping AND flaying with subsequent offer of the loser's still-beating heart to the eldritch god K'shum'dah, Lord of Carrion

Let's all be friends and settle this amicably!

>>17803605
>>>/reddit/

>>17803604
>They already had ideas about the state being an entity beyond the king.
Ideas =/= codified law. You can't try someone for what "ought to be a crime"

>>17803578
>Oof

>>17800664 (OP)
Would a monarch committing self-harm be considered treason?

>>17803778
What a compelling counterargument. You're right anon, the English people should have just bent over further and continued to let a retarded monarch continue to ride roughshod over them. How stupid of me not to see such a hard reality before you posted that pic of yourself.

>>17803764
If the law is unjust it isn't a good law.

>What a compelling counterargument. You're right anon, the English people should have just bent over further and continued to let a retarded monarch continue to ride roughshod over them. How stupid of me not to see such a hard reality before you posted that pic of yourself.

>basedjaks, and not even good ones, in current year
What's your counter-argument that what Charlie did was good for the nation?

>>17803830
>>17803838
The King only took up arms to defend his own station. Parliament was trying to wrest control of his own military from him, which was a step too far for any Monarch. It's easy to judge him with the benefit of hindsight but any other King would've done the exact same thing under his circumstances.

>>17803788
Technically it would be, especially suicide.

>>17803838
Enforcing Religious Uniformity is a good thing. A United Kingdom cannot have 5 different religions. Charles was trying to bring religious uniformity to his kingdom, which as everyone agreed was his absolute right as head of the Church.

>>17803612
>

>>17800664 (OP)
Fuck yes, I love these threads

>>17803578
you're a child and very likely not White as well
beheading a king is the least desirable option in most cases, including Charles and Louis. You need to read more and speak less.

>>17803851
>his own military
Who paid for it?

>>17803861
>nnnoooooo that's wrongthink!!
A good sovereign would be wise enough to realize how that might backfire, or at least back off once it proved to be a disaster. King's aren't gods, they're men and always ought to be treated as such.

>>17803908
>y-y-you're n-not w-white
And you'll never breed.

Why do charles simps ignore the fact that the monarchy has been subservient to the people ever since 1215?
Absolutism was a foreign ideology not native to england
Overthrowing kings was more heckin trad and based than submitting to them

>>17803929
>darktroon malding
kek I knew it ramshit
you are not even human you shouldn't talk about monarchies
go back to defecating on the streets please and thank you

>>17803936
Tactically trvthnvked

>>17803961
>darktroon malding
What the fuck does this even mean you terminally online retard

>>17804001
first post your paternal haplogroup then I'll tell you

>>17804009
Bro you have me confused for somebody who comes to this shithole board to LARP. Where do you even find that out.

>>17804016
you send saliva to non-jewish lab
you pay service fee
you get result

>>17804023
Nigger are you for real

>>17804036
In your case it may be unnecessary because you're already brown