Starting with an obvious one.

Anyone who disagrees belongs in his place under the rope

Justice can't be miscarried because it doesn't exist.

>>17860421
just because people don't mutually understand justice doesn't mean it isn't contemplateable, or else "justice" would not be discussed at all, being inexistent. Contemplateability =/= Understandability
I've seen this fallacy used countless time in order to dismiss something as inexistent.

>>17860387 (OP)
King Charles 1st was a tyrant found guilty of treason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

>>17860421
Giving low IQ faggots like you access to the internet will prove to be humanities greatest mistake of the 21st century

>>17860433
At the time of his trial "treason" was understood to mean "violence against the King" so it would've been impossible for him to be found guilty of that charge had Bradshaw and pals not completely revised what the charge meant to better align with our more modern understanding of treason as a crime against the population.

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

>>17860438
Divine right of kings is the crazy idea that the king is a god that can rule capriciously and make any law he wants on a whim thats tyrannical,

A modern parallel to that is US presidential executive orders like Trump likes to abuse I think Trump is treasonous and should be impeached or even arrested ans immediately removed from power and placed in a maximum security federal prison

>>17860442
Magna Carta never sought to strip the right of absolute power from Kings, which the Parliament did in King Charles I's case by attempting to wrest control of his military from him. Critics of King Charles I love to conveniently forget that part of the preamble to the Civil War.

>>17860387 (OP)
>>17860392
both of these are examples of justice prevailing in controversial circumstances, you just don't like the outcome
a better example would be something like this

>>17860452
>I would know by what power I am called hither ... I would know by what
authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities in the world;
thieves and robbers by the high-ways ... Remember, I am your King, your
lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of
God upon this land. Think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go
further from one sin to a greater ... I have a trust committed to me by God, by
old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority;
therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/charlesi.pdf

Bradshaw never answered that question (because the House of Commons had declared their supremacy illegally).

>>17860449
>Magna Carta never sought to strip the right of absolute power from Kings
It literally did
>which the Parliament did in King Charles I's case by attempting to wrest control of his military from him. Critics of King Charles I love to conveniently forget that part of the preamble to the Civil War.
Charles Simps love to conveniantly forget that Charles declared war on his own subjects in scotland which was unpopular and opposed in England

>>17860463
Charles I had no choice but to declare war on his own subjects as Parliament had attempted to take control of his military from him / enact a coup. Any King in his position would've had to rally outside allies to overthrow the corrupt insurgents, popular or no with the people.

death of Ann Boleyn, obv she wasnt fucking her brother which she was accused of

>>17860467
>Charles I had no choice but to declare war on his own subjects as Parliament had attempted to take control of his military from him / enact a coup. Any King in his position would've had to rally outside allies to overthrow the corrupt insurgents, popular or no with the people.
Charles Simp doesn't even know that i'm referring to the unpopular bishops wars and not the english civil war at all
You absolute retard

TODAY I WILL REMIND THEM that Parliament had no legal authority to execute Charles, and did not even have the consent of the people who they allegedly represented. Most of the elected members of Parliament were removed/arrested by the army or refused to participate. It was a military coup that gave control of the house of commons to a small group of hardline anti-royalists. The house of lords never participated and the trial flew in the face of all established legal precedent. You can defend the removal of Charles and say he was a bad king, but nobody can defend the trial as being legitimate, or parliament at that time as being representative of the people of England in any way beyond a few rich P*ritans that tried banning Christmas because fun is sinful.

>>17860520
>TODAY I WILL REMIND THEM that Parliament had no legal authority to execute Charles
The Magna Carta
>and did not even have the consent of the people who they allegedly represented
Nor did Charles

>>17860537
Magna Carta is such a bullshit argument. The House of Commons illegally declared their supremacy in the first place, rendering any appeals to precedent moot.

>>17860580
Not an argument
The monarchy has been inferior in power to the people ever since the BVLL barons made john the cuck sign it at 1215

>>17860537
>Long parliament elected in 1640
>After eight years with no elections because lolcivilwar close to half of the remaining MPs are either purged out by the military or resign in disgust
>Tiny fucking remnant body of hardliners who remain vote to execute the King after throwing out all established legal precedent and embarrassing themselves in a kangaroo court
>One of them ends up becoming a dictator anyway and they all just go along with it.
"muh magna carta" doesn't apply. You were never able to answer by what lawful authority Charles was being put on trial. He ran intellectual circles around all of them and died the undisputed debate club chad president and nothing you can say will change that.
I can sense it though, deep within you, the temptation to post your anti-intellectual trump card.
>MIGHT MAKES RIGHT MUFFUGHA.
Go on, I dare you. Post it. Post "vae victis" I fucking dare you.

>>17860392
>John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini’s attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

Brownfags blown the fuck out (by Lincoln of all people)

>>17860433
>treason
Against whom? Himself?

>>17860387 (OP)
>Lindy and Michael Chamberlain (even accounting for "a dingo ate my baby" being seemingly as ridiculous as it sounds, there was no evidence whatsoever to indicate that they had murdered their own child)
>Tomoyuki Yamashita (at least of the very specific charges he was convicted and executed for)
>Erich Hartmann
>Henry Wirz
>any trial Roland Freisler oversaw

>>17860392
>John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini’s attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

Brownfags blown the fuck out (by Lincoln of all people)

>>17860681
Against the people of England, Scotland & Ireland

>>17860623
Magna Carta does apply
>muh legal precedent
Shouldn't have sperged out and tried to fight against the english people even after you had been forgiven
>b-but cromwell was a tyrant
Which is why sidney was based
>copes with posting cromwells head
What happened to the stuarts again?
Oh yeah dutch BVLL billy kicked them out
Vae Victis, nigger

>>17860387 (OP)
i think the parliamentarians were a bit over zealous but charles had every chance to keep his head if he would get off his high horse and accept some responsibility for his actions
all and all- the roundheads died still bitter- monarchy was restored
and maybe England learned some things about letting their nation be hijacked by unchecked, incompetent monarchs and religious fanatics

>>17860513
Based
>no replies
Me thinks this ends the matter

>>17860702
>An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them.
Pretty ironic considering what Abe would go on to do

>>17860853
>Oh yeah dutch BVLL billy kicked them out
B A S E D
A
S
E
D
James's righthand man Johnny calling up his friend Billy in order to throw that cathtard faggot clean off the throne was the greatest team-up of the 17th century

> “At dinner we talked much of Cromwell; all saying he was a brave fellow, and did owe his crown he got to himself as much as any man that ever got one.” - Samuel Pepys (1666)

> “It is strange how every body do now-a-days reflect upon Oliver, and commend him, what brave things he did, and made all the neighbour princes fear him; while here a prince, come in with all the love of his people, hath lost all so soon.” - Samuel Pepys (1667)

> L&M note the Medway disaster had heightened Cromwell's posthumous reputation, although none of this admiration was allowed to appear in print. Sobière in 1664 had reported that the coffee-house talk consisted of complaints about taxes, and regrets that the achievements of Cromwell were glories now gone. Megalotti remarked in almost the same terms in 1669 that people 'cannot refrain from odiously comparing the present government with the late one of Cromwell, magnifying the power of the fleets, the alliances, and the reputation of their nation in those times, with many other reflections of like nature...'.

CHARLESBROS...NOT LIKE THIS

>>17860712
Not how treason was defined at the time of the trial.

>>17860950
>t.

>>17860950
>Causes destruction only in English isles, kills English king gets English king replaced with foreign dutch prince
>Corr bloimey 'e sure showed those foreign countries and rulers by killing the english king and english people!
Why britishers are so stupid!

>>17861030
>gets replaced with foreign dutch prince
the glorious revolution happened long after cromwell's death you absolute retard
In reality Cromwell btfo'd the dutch in war, cromwells troops were feared across europe and performed well in the battle of the dunes and cromwell expanded britain's empire with his conquest of the carribean

>>17861030
>gets English king replaced with foreign dutch prince
>foreign
East Anglia Chads had already been highly welcoming to their DvtchBvll trading partners by this point, retard

>>17861038
>and cromwell expanded britain's empire with his conquest of the carribean
Based and Cromwell-pilled
Homeboy also saved the New World colonies without even fully meaning to

>>17861038
>>17861057
lololol say heckin based cromwell when a west indies roadman guts you like a pig with a heckin wholesome knife

>>17861070
>schizoid spergout
I accept your concession

>>17860442
not the point retard

>>17861070
>cromwell was heckin woke
Cope monarcuck retarrd, Queen liz and king charles were and are the ones seeing englands ethnic replacement and doing nothing about it

>>17861057
is that book any good?

>>17861198
Yes, but beware that it was originally Webb's thesis that he expanded upon so it's not for the layman. If you already have some grasp of the Cromwellian era though it's great
I would also reccomend his other volumes: 1676 - the End of American Independence, Churchill's Coup, and Marlborough's America

>lololol say heckin based cromwell when a west indies roadman guts you like a pig with a heckin wholesome knife

>>17861030
>monarchist tard thinks cromwell was behind the glorious revolution
They're not sending their best, folks

>>17861261
>>monarchist tard thinks cromwell was behind the glorious revolution
"I just - you're telling me now for the first time. He led an amazing life. What else can you say?"

>>17861240
what are marlboroughs america and 1676 end of american independence about ?