The House of Commons had no authority to try King Charles I as the "Supremacy of the Commons" was established without the consent of the House of Lords. It was little more than a coup d’état.
>>18025096>It was little more than a coup d’état.And that was a good thing. Almost as good as '88.
>>18025096>You can't heckin prosecute me!>source: I said so
>>18025096Why did he listen to his c*thtard wife and considering using foreign mercenaries against his subjects, then?Charlie fucked around found out, simple as
>>18025096amazing that literally the only good thing monarchists and others have to stan Charles 2 for is that he was able to be technically right while the court was sentencing him to death. he wasn't even particularly clever about it, just pointing out the obvious that this wasn't normal procedure. had he actually been clever there would be some witticisms from him dealing with parliament to quote, instead of him just shouting at them and acting like a child.
>>18025187Bradshaw was the one getting rage baited into shouting matches not the King
>>18025191there was time before the civil war you know, when charlie couldn't even make sure any of the five guys he were trying to arrest were actually in parliament before making a fuzz
Is there any English/British king worse than Charles I? I think he was even worse than John, who’s typically considered the worst. At least John wasn’t executed by his own subjects and his fuck ups didn’t ruin his dynasty or almost kill the monarchy.
>>18025187>Charles 2He was Charlie 1. His son, Charlie 2, wasn’t that bad, except for his inability to fuck his own wife.
>>18025240Harold ended anglo-sexon aristocracy because he couldn't wait some time to get his retinues in order
>>18025260Harold was skilled enough to defeat Hardrada and turn the Battle of Hastings into a slog. He might be on the same tier as Richard III, potentially promising losers, but he had only one chance to fuck it up and did okay all things considered. Charles I had numerous chances to change course and kept fucking up. I also think there’s a difference in dignity between dying on the battlefield and being forced through a show trial and executed.
>>18025275yeah, true. worst as in consequences (anglo saxon civilization was destroyed, its aristocracy destroyed, etc) but it truly takes something special to make a civil war start against you, lose it, run away and then lose again
>>18025240>Is there any English/British king worse than Charles Ijames the second
Where Crommers really messed up was not fixing rules of what to do when something happened to him as Lord Protector. Having it so his son carried on the title as Lord Protector was a total flub, and had he instituted a proper way to have a republican or theocratic transfer of power either on death or via election he would be remembered much more favourably than he is even now.
>>18025197>when charlie couldn't even make sure any of the five guys he were trying to arrest were actually in parliament before making a fuzzCharlie went full retard there
>>18025096>Divine Right of Kings nibbas when their falsely ordained king gets killed by actual divinely ordained actions
>>18025096The most interesting thing about King Charles the First was that he was 5 foot 6 inches at the start of his reign and was 4 foot 8 inches at the end....
>>18025260William would have fucked him up anyway. Normans had superior cavalry.
>>18025302James II was one of the worse kings, but not as bad as Charles I. At least James II managed to put down the Monmouth Rebellion and escaped into exile after the Glorious Revolution, instead of flopping multiple times before being executed.
>>18025491eye but superior cavalry does not mean you automatically win and the normans were fighting in foreign terrain. like it usually happens any procrastinated war would have probably favored the defenders, it would at least have allowed them to negotiate a handover of power instead of the historical total conquest
>>18025096How about not conspiring with the Scots to commit treason then
>>18025535At the time, treason literally meant, "Violence against the King." Bradshaw and pals had to reinvent the definition of the term to our more modern understanding in order to justify leveling that accusation.
>erm technically there's no law that says I can't invade my own lands with a foreign army to punish them for not paying illegally levied taxes, Spopes has fact checked this trial and rated it pants on f- ACK
>>18025550which would make the kings speech even more pathetic since Bradshaw and pals definition won out over his
>>18025556Based take
>Hi, I'm Charles I, former King of England, Scotland, and Ireland - welcome to Jackass! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhLgvDX_J1I
>>18025607look at his smile :)
>>18025535>conspiring against himself
a very interesting time, kind of fun in that it strips the mask off of both the king and england itself, neither had the "right" to do what they did, but both did and the chips fell where they did
>>18025556is charles I one of the earliest examples of a ruler drinking his own kool aid?the previous tudor and stuart kings understood that they weren't literally the source of english law and had to placate/work with the nobility and growing merchant class that actually generated political power in the kingdom. then charlie comes along and insists he really is the Law itself so by definition anything he does is legal. what a shock it must've been for him when he felt, for a brief moment, the blade cut into his neck as he realized he was just another dude, and that power grows from the barrel of a gun (or edge of a blade) rather than from some god given superpower bestowed upon him
>Actually my books say technically i can do whatever i want and you have to just bend over and take it so please release me now so i can execute all of you and burn half the countryThe only people who defend Charles I are insecure teenagers who jerk off while fantasizing about being a tyrant king and doing whatever they want without consequences.
>>18025902Part of it was his French c*thtard wife whispering "ultimate royal power" in his ear every chance she got because she was, to her credit, smart enough to realize that if Charlie just let Oliver and the boys steamroll him it could cause a domino effect on the Continent. Royal power had to be upheld as Divine Right or what the fuck was her dad even doing when he reigned? What of her brother, Louis XIII? By what power did he then reign? By what right did she claim as Queen of England? The real tradegy is that Charlie had to be the sacrificial lamb for the sake of Protestantism in England, just as Jimmy would be symbolically sacrificed after him.
Cromwell was a great movie, but it had the incredibly unfortunate side effect of making tons of people think that Charles was a complicated intelligent man instead of an insufferable adult toddler. Even by monarch standards he was ridiculously childish, he was constantly throwing public temper tantrums, kicking and screaming, shouting over people in formal settings, failing to comprehend even the most basic consequences for his actions, etc. He was basically an adult sized 6 year old who had absolutely no thoughts in his head other than "im da king i can do whatever i want!"
>>18025933No wonder James came out the way he did
>>18025143>vgh is that an ANGLICAN in cahoots with a forren CATHLIK?>I'm going to help kill him, murder all the Irish people, and then import JEWS, that'll learn 'emProddy dog moment.
>>18025096>It was little more than a coup d’état.Yes.
>>18026320Can't you shit up some other thread, tostiloco
>>18025260>Nevah mind 'Arold Godloseson If I'd been at 'aystings William de bastid wouldn't 'ave got off that boat. If I'd a been at Stamfid bridge I'd a turnt 'arold 'Ardcunt into gravadlax.
>>18025920>>18025933>I think lots of people>one person in all cases
>>18025096Authority is always arbitrary and backed up by forced. In prosperous times, we can go along with the lie, but once authority runs counter to real economic power, we panic; hundreds of thousands or millions (soon to be billions) are killed, raped, maimed and humanity implodes into chaos. Then a just as arbitrary power restores prosperity until the next technological upheaval.
>>18026352what?
>>18025902He was effectively the OG Nicholas II, literally fucked up everything his predecessors were smart enough to do to keep things from going to shit. (Don't fuck with Finland's level of autonomy for example).
>>18026320>and then import JEWSAren't you late for a Fag Fuentes livestream jerk-off right now?
why did he want to abolish parliament? wasn't it the most effective institution for passing taxes and drafting people in europe? if you werent to retarded to work with it which I guess sharles was
>>18025240John lost Normandy while Charles gained New England. Admittedly, he did it by alienating his subjects to the point they moved there, but Boston would be the fulcrum of English power in North America for the rest of the 17th century (and a necessary condition for gaining New York and Philadelphia, which would prove more important in the 18th)
>>18027304>he did it by alienating his subjects to the point they moved thereAnd thank the Lord he did, otherwise the future US would have been irredeemably shaped by those inbreeding, miscegnating retards the c*valiers in the backwater swamps of the South
>>18027457Most of the lower classes of the south were descended from cromwellian soldiers and believers in cromwell's cause and all the anglican cavaliers became whigs at the time of the glorious revolution anyway
>>18025503>James II was one of the worse kings, but not as bad as Charles IJames was arguably worse>At least James II managed to put down the Monmouth Rebellionjames brutally putting down the monmouth rebellion is what contributed to his being ousted. he started confiscating firearms from civilians lmao>and escaped into exile after the Glorious RevolutionBilly let him escape rather than letting him die and become a martyr
>>18027483>Most of the lower classes of the southSource? Most of them were the dregs of society that got thrown into indentured servitude before being shipped off or were so poor they had no choice but to take temporary servitude as a potential route to a better life outside of the slums of England. A huge chunk of the South's population were also the dissident Scots-Irish that fled following Queen Anne's Popery Act, which was Cromwellian if anything. >all the anglican cavaliers became whigs at the time of the glorious revolution anyway>all doubt.jpg
>>18025933I mean, there is the scene where Cromwell with complete, sincere loyalty to the idea of Charle’s reign tries to negotiate with him even after winning the war and Charles just throws a fit and doesn’t even read the terms.
>>18025096There's always a first time for everything bay-beh! Sometimes you've gotta set precedent and tell the system to go fuck itself. It wasn't made by God, but is flawed as Man.
>"Be good for your mother in France children, for I must stay here and continue to throw a raging autistic fit because my subjects do not wish for me to be a tool of popery or unleash foreign mercenary hordes upon them."What did he mean by this?
>>18027536>Source?Saunders webb 1679 >A huge chunk of the South's population were also the dissident Scots-Irish that fled following Queen Anne's Popery Act, which was Cromwellian if anything.Firstly, The "scots irish" were always a minority in the south and scots irish ancestry is highly exagerrated. Majority of southerners descend from southern english lower classes whose lifestyle and folkways were indisintguishable from the later scots irish which is why they are so often conflatedSecondly, the scots irish did not immigrate in any sort of large numbers prior to the 18th century, and we're talking about the 17th century hereLastly, conflating queen anne and cromwell is disingenous. the modern day "scots irish" in ulster literally paint murals of cromwell and celebrate him>doubt.jpgOf course there were a minority but the vast, vast majority of virginians agreed with the glorious revolution. See the glorious revolution in america by lovejoy
>>18027577And there's the additional fact that states like the carolinas were founded by whig glorious revolution types like the earl of shaftesbury
>>18027577>Saunders webb>See the glorious revolution in america by lovejoyHoly based. It's so rare to see an actually educated anon on here anymore Webb's four volumes are the pride and joy of my bookshelf
>>18025902>when he felt, for a brief moment, the blade cut into his neck as he realized he was just another dude, and that power grows from the barrel of a gun (or edge of a blade) rather than from some god given superpower bestowed upon himI believe that even as he was being executed, he must believed that he was being unlawfully executed, indeed, no different from Americans receiving an extrajudicial execution by ISIS members.The issue here is that Charles I probably didn't see himself as the source of power, but rather as the source of legal authority. In a sense, he saw himself as the supreme massa in a plantation full of black slaves (English commoners), so even if his slaves put up an insurrection against him, it would just be, to put in in /pol/ish words, "nignogs having a chimpout". There is no amount of violence or use of force that can convince someone that they are wrong, only that they are being threatened.
bump
>>18025096Doesn’t matter, they did it anyways. Make a time machine and go stop them if it bothers you so much.
>>18025556Lmao
>>18027631Tis true. He tried to treat good English protestant lads like slaves and got btfo for it. George III repeated his mistake with the colonies and also got btfo for it, but at least he was only dumb enough to piss off the ones that were far away and not a physical threat to him. Hopefully the lads of England will teach their government this lesson again before it's too late.
>>18025526>procrastinated warLul
>>18025096>It was little more than a coup d’étatAnd since it succeeded, this means it was a little more than legitimate.
>>18025136You're joking, but that was literally the point. This wasn't a modern country with modern ideas of justice; he was literally 'The Sovereign'. The parliamentarians pulled some very late nights coming up with the phrasing for the charges, because technically he was literally above the law and could only have been charged with treason against himself or some other similarly retarded nonsense.
>>18025933that's a side effect of selecting great actors for historical flawed characters. Both the real Charles and Cromwell were insufferable, Charles for the reasons you mentioned, Cromwell because he was a depressed chud seething at the world changing around him
>>18030294yeah the movie kind of left out the part where he immediately killed a trillion irishmen and banned fun as soon as he took power
>>18025096This quip would have been even more based if he actually won
Protestant approved thread, consider yourselves of the elect.
>>18025121This. It was a top 100 most based event in world history.
>>18025611Imagine how good doing that felt.
>>18025550>At the time, treason literally meant, "Violence against the King." Bradshaw and pals had to reinvent the definition of the term to our more modern understanding in order to justify leveling that accusationthere's interesting ways to counter bradshaw's definition>>18025556>erm technically there's no law that says I can't invade my own lands with a foreign army to punish them for not paying illegally levied taxesHe should have brought up how God himself often did that thus it is a divine ordained action
>>18032090>I am the voice of god achtually
>>18030294think the guy who rose from obscurity to the dictator of england had a slightly stronger personality than the guy who did the opposite
>>18030375>he immediately killed a trillion irishmenAnd that's a bad thing, because.....?
>>18032273he didnt finish the job
>>18032280Based
do the irish actually think that cromwell was uniquely bad for the time period or that the few english are alone in celebrating someone like him? would be silly if.
>>18025096>It was little more than a coup d’état.You're quite right but the issue, as ever with this period, was Charles and his WOAT-level political instincts. The obvious thing to do if you've lost to a revolt as king is to agree to some sort of settlement, let the people who took up arms against you disband with indemnity, consolidate your position, then row back on the settlement under some nonsense pretext, with reprisals against the ringleaders once you manage to regain the whip hand. The coup happens because Charles doesn't play this game. He doesn't negotiate in good faith, constantly schemes to raise more forces against the men who have beaten him, and makes key figures in the Army feel like they have no choice but to kill him. This drives a wedge between the Army and Parliament - Charles' death having become a necessity for the former - hence the coup.
>>18030375well they did cast an irishman to play him
>>18025096>It was little more than a coup d’état.from what I understand, it was not a iota more than a coup d'etat.
