He was killed illegally and you expect me to believe republican forms of government are superior when they don't even respect the rights of individuals, most importantly a king, either?
>king doesn't respect his subjects >literally tries to raise an army against them>not once, but twice because he gets btfo'd >it's le bad when they kill him Why are monarchfags such massive cuckolds?
>>16892687It was illegal
>>16892695The civil war was an illegal uprising of upstarts from Parliament and it had no constitutional basis, in other words, an unrighteous, unjust rebellion
>>16892695Furthermore the very act of regicide without the full consent of Parliament is tyranny in itself.
>>16892693>raised an army against his own people, twiceAnd that part wasn't?>>16892695Seek mental help jfc
>>16892718That's not the point, the point is: republicans think they're better than these supposed tyrants when they're just as tyrannical. The government whoever it maybe, is not to be trusted in the hands of anyone.
yes the humanists called themselves the first terrorists. The french branch of the humanist sect is very violent. They are the ones creating the Terror.200 years later, the palestinan cannaanites are the one terrorizing the first terrorists. The student has become the master
>>16892687Kings have the right to uphold the law and prosecute traitors
>>16892734>is not to be trusted in the hands of anyone.Did baby just find out what anarchism is?>>16892810And his subjects have every right to behead him when he tries to raise an army against them, gets btfo'd and then learns nothing and tries it again
>>16892704The very foundation of the English constitution, the Magna Carta, was rooted in rebellion against the king. That wasn’t even the last time. There was fair precedent in rebelling against the king to make him listen to and redress the grievances of his subjects. The Earl of Essex led Parliament’s forces along with other prominent nobles as well, and the sons of prominent nobles who stood to inherit well, so you can hardly call them all upstarts.
>>16892819Not if those particular subjects are traitors, which they were.
>>16892828It isn't traitorous behavior if the King started it, tard. He owes his power to the people that finance his NEET lifestyle not the other way around
>>16892834He didn't start it though.
>>16892837Yes he did
>>16892843Why would he raise an army against loyal subjects?
>>16892845>Why would he raise an army against loyal subjects?Because he was a bad king.Nta but Charles was the one who marched an army into Scotland and was the first one to raise his standard against parliament when parliament was still just expressing distrust of the King’s Catholic and Laudian courtiers and trying to get the king to listen to their grievances.
>>16892845Because he was a retard who thought he could just forcefully impose his will upon his countrymen
>erm sorry you hecking chuds but this has been debunked, you're all my slaves so I can't commit trea -ACK
>>16892693>muh law and orderA tyrant is no monarch.
>>16892851No, he raised an army because the entire parliament showed that they were traitors when they prevented him from arresting the 5 members who had already commited treason.
>>16892869The five members hardly committed treason and parliament didn’t resist any arrest. Those members fled before the king could bumble his way into a legal session of parliament with armed men.
>>16892819>a person who dislikes all types of government means they're an anarchist>Ill just automatically assume this person's political views with the scant amount of evidence because uh.. I can!You're an idiot
>>16892936>a person who dislikes all types of governmentDefinition of anarchismWhat's your solution then, tard?
>>16892484>On Saturday 27 January 1649, the parliamentarian High Court of Justice had declared Charles guilty of attempting to "uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his will, and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people" and sentenced him to death by beheading.[2]how was it illegal nona
>>16892971Not here to debate my political views, at any rate, the Parliamentarians were just as tyrannical after the king was unceremoniously decapitated, without legal support mind you.
>>16892976It was illegal because he was not given the same rights and liberties as any other Englishman.
>>16892988Based on what? He was not "any other Englishman," he had been the King. Back then Lords and Commons were very different social classes.
>>16892976A king cannot commit treason against himself
>>16893004A king can also cause unspeakable ruin to the country thru his actions.
>>16893007As can a parliament, which is what happened.
>>16893013No, what happened is that the King fucked up the country and despoiled it, running roughshod over the rights of Englishmen as he did so.
>>16893015No, it was the parliament that ran roughshod over the rights of the King.
>>16892687>>king doesn't respect his subjectsProof?>>literally tries to raise an army against themPeople raised an army against themselves? >>not once, but twice because he gets btfo'dBecause oligarchs tried to turn him into a puppet and murdered his allies>>it's le bad when they kill himYes
>>16893004>>16893023Individuals cannot hold sovereignty over other individuals, much less so the entirety of the people. The social compact is one that, by its very nature, must be upheld through a generalized agreement amongst all in order to prevent a war of all against all, as would eventually be under the natural state of independence. The purpose of preventing such a war is, inherently, to maximize the number of liberties enjoyed by all, without descending into complete chaos.Tyranny is the rejection of these liberties to uphold order for order's sake. A king may not necessarily inherently be a tyrant, but it's far more likely for a king to become a tyrant, or for a royal line to descend into tyranny, than it is for a body of a republic to do so, especially if that republic enumerates the liberties it plans to uphold. Charles was a tyrant, and he deserved the beheading. The only shame is that Cromwell also deserved the same fate.
>>16892484>starts a civil war because the parliament doesn't give him an allowanceto take part in dumb military campaigns to pad his own ego>lose and get rightfully punished
>>16893323>republicuckOpinion disregarded
>>16893369>No argumentUtterly destroyed monartard. Another win for republichads.
you will pay the ship moneyyou will worship the Popeyou will let Spain take over the countryand you will be happy
>>16893376>you will pay the ship moneyTaxes are needed to pay for the defence of England, yes.>you will worship the Pope>you will let Spain take over the countryRoundhead lies.
>>16892704Vae victisThe conquered endure what the conquerer will dish out
>>16893392>Taxes are needed to pay for the defence of England, yes.It was for the king's private war; since the parliament told him to fuck off
Are monarchtards actual bug men with no conception of right and wrong beyond legal/illegal? How demoralized do you have to be to adopt this paradigm?
>>16893323>ndividuals cannot hold sovereignty over other individuals, much less so the entirety of the people.They can if the law says so. Law is above all.
>>16893023The King had no rights and was deposed.Fuck him.
>>16892994Based on precedent of the country's laws, I don't really care how you view this. It seems to me however you're looking at it from the lens of a socialist with your preference for class. >>16893357Be that as it may he was not given a fair trial at all.>>16893424Yes but we are talking about legality here.>>16893448I am aware of other perspectives on this but the legality of it was wrong.>>16893458He had as much a right to a fair trial as every Englishman during that period, and he was not tried fairly even by the best lawmen of the land, a certain Judge Bradshaw.
>>16893834If it was an actual fair trial the case would have been immediately dismissed as a king could not really be charged with anything, least of all treason.
>>16893878If the House of Lords was there, it's possible he could've been executed.
>>16893914It is possible that he could have been executed as he was infact executed, but there was no way at all that he could have been given a legal death sentence.
>>16892693>It was illegalSo was Henry VII claiming the throne of England which he had no blood right to.
>>16893925>>16893926England is kind of a mess really, legally speaking. However knowing Parliament could do whatever it wanted after the King died is also a tyrannical extreme that shouldn't be allowed.
>>16892484I think a republic is well within it's rights to kill a king that fought two civil wars and lost against them. His death speech was kino tho
>>16893834If someone tries to kill you twice there is no legal issue with giving them the death penalty
>>16893926Who had a blood right to it?
>>16893448>bug men with no conception of right and wrong beyond legal/illegalthat's the partisans for republics
>>16893940Don’t listen to him. Henry VII did have a blood right to the throne by being Edward III’s 3xgreat grandson. Even if it wasn’t the strongest, he was a blood descendant of a king.
>>16892484Yes BUT the title of "Lord Protector" is badass. I love republican dictatorships
>>16894020Based aesthetics prioritizer
>>16893993His great grandfather was a bastard though, a legitimized bastard, but still a bastard. He was only really a legitimate king through his marriage with Elizabeth of York.
