Was the beheading of Charles II justified?
Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg
Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.
I was looking on wikipedia for another Charles II, thinking maybe I missed something.
I'll answer only because I'm awake. I don't know much about him except that he was a bit arrogant and lost a civil war and then tried to start a new one. So, it was not so much justified or not, it was necessary.
Anyway, how can justice be measured in this situation? A divine right king tried by the "winners," sort of. Whose judging?
Yes, that is my confusion. There is no legitimate authority in this case. The king, an absolute monarch, has lost. Now who judges him? Since Charles I ruled by divine right and hasn't deposed himself, he theoretically is still king and should be judging himself. So, maybe he was right...
But, I'm confused as to the legitimacy. If one country conquers another, the winning King gets the new country. The loser, by divine right or not, loses all. Now, if a country conquers itself and the winning side doesn't have king, it still gets the country, right? So, it gets to make it's own laws.
But, then Charles I was left as king after losing (I'm getting this from wikipedia). So, is he still the divine monarch, or does he now "rule" only within a new system defined by the winner? If the latter, then no, he was wrong. He lost and needs to play by the winners rules.
I'm partial to the later, now I think it was fair.
Not sure I would call Charles I's stand heroic...bold maybe, or suicidal.