Was the trial and execution of Charles I justified?

Was his execution justified

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 44.6%
  • No

    Votes: 38 41.3%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 13 14.1%

  • Total voters
    92
The communist revolutions in Germany in 1918 all failed and the government that took over in Berlin in 1919 was not a revolutionary one but one of the progressive Middle Classes and Nationalists. Contrary to perceived wisdom the Kaiser did not abdicate or flee to Holland. Prince Max von Baden just announced that he had abdicated and had him summarily kicked out of the country.

He wasn't "kicked out tof the country", because he wan't in the country at the time. He was with the army in occupied Belgium, and went from there straight to the Dutch frontier without attempting to return to Germany. This wasn't particularly due to anything Max said, but because his generals told him that the Army would not support any attempt to keep him in power.
 
I'm talking assassination.

Wouldn't necessarily succeed, and even if it did would only transfer the crown to another Stuart. What would be the point?

They'd had their publicity stunt by killing Charles I, and if they had to go on knocking off other members of the family, all that would prove was that the trial and execution hadn't settled anything.
 
Aug 2012
717
We're discussing related, but different questions on this thread.

1) Did Parliament, leaving aside their right to try the sovereign, have sufficient cause to kill him? Are we considering here ethical cause, practical cause, etc.?

2) Did Parliament have the right to try and condemn him? Where would this right come from, the English Constitution, Natural Law, etc.?

Since the English Constitution is one of precedent, where would this precedent arise? Certain rights of Englishman were already well established at this time. Did they include corporate rights (versus individual), and could they have included the ultimate right of governmental power to reside in the people (the presupposition for their trying the sovereign)?

It seems that the rights in any Constitution, even a written one, are ultimately found in experience. It's interesting that the English Constitution, being one given to the gradual accretion of tradition, could absorb such a rupture, and eventually go on it's merry way.

But I think a 17th c. person would have had common sense and history on their side if they answered the questions above in the negative.
 
It seems that the rights in any Constitution, even a written one, are ultimately found in experience. It's interesting that the English Constitution, being one given to the gradual accretion of tradition, could absorb such a rupture, and eventually go on it's merry way.
They even have a term for it: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_breach_of_legal_continuity]Revolutionary breach of legal continuity[/ame].

Got to love the English. The Rule of Law is in their DNA.