On 30 January 1648 (1649 New Style) King Charles I of England and Scotland was either (a) executed, or (b) murdered, depending upon your point of view. Which view do you hold, and why?
Given that the Parliamentary forces had won the war, it seems fair to say he was executed. Had the Royalists won. no doubt it would have been the heads of Cromwell etc that were chopped.
I agree - executed. He was tried and convicted. Execution: the act of carrying out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person)
I suspect a BeachBall trap. Was he really tried and convicted in a legal trial? Does the divine right of kings(which I don't give any weight to myself) overrule any court. Also, consider this: Edwards 1999, pp.*99, 109
Was he tried by a lawfully constituted court, though? Remember his Defence? "It is the right of every free-born Englishman to be tried by a Jury of his peers ... and I do not see in this court room any of my peers". That was his procedural point ... which was never answered. And then there was his substantive point. "I am charged with treason. Treason is an offence against the King. I am the King. How can I commit an offence against myself?" The Court redefined the offence for the purposes of the trial ... but is that, in itself, lawful? Particularly in relation to a capital offence? These are not mere quibbles ... they are important points which go to the very foundation of the concept of the rule of law.
Didn't they also maintain that "king" was a position that was held and not a person. I'm probably wrong on that. I could have misread.
Yes ... that was indeed the way they tried to "work around" the problem. The fallacy is that exactly the same reading could apply to Duke, Earl, Vicount, Marquis ... and yet the right of these to elect for trial by the House of Lords (thereby giving them a jury of their peers) was well established. Thereby the argument may have worked against the proposition that the individual who held the post of King could not commit an offence against the king; but it would not assist with the question of the constitution of their court. They tried to argue that the King was chosen from among the people and therefore any of his people were competent to judge him ... but that one falls down too. Charles argued that "England does not have and never has had an elective monarchy". The "never has had" may have been pushing the point - there was no primogeniture in Anglo-Saxon England, and the king was elected by the Witan - BUT he had to be elected from a limited number of candidates, the "king worthy" (or Athelings), so at most this argument would have gone so far as to establish that a court of Athelings might be competent to try a king.
I wonder what else they could have done with Charles? They could hardly allow him to live and be a rallying point for Royalists. As I recall, and I haven't read a word about the CW for a long time, the argument against Charles Stuart that 'man of blood' as Cromwell called him, was that he refused to accept military defeat, which those religious people took as a sign from God. Since the old order had been defeated, Charles could hardly expect to be treated as someone special, as the divine right of kings had been shown to be the nonsense it was. Whether or not he got a fair trial is a moot point really. Many ordinary people were subject to many cruel and unusual types of punishment under Charles rule. It seems very unlikely that they all got a fair trial either.
Seems to me that - though a trial was convened and took place - "judged by peers"? would have necessitated fellow Kings to make such 'judgement'? In truth, in any war, to the victor the spoils, and the beaten, the head/leader/CIC pays the 'ultimate price' i.e. War crimes = a technical process for justification. History is; of course written by the winners, so it depends on which side of the cause one has a passion for - methinks
