Was the beheading of Charles II justified?
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
(Impossible to answer, since it was Charles I who was executed, you idiot. How do you delete these damn threads?)
:) - you can edit them with the little pencil icon or delete with the little x.
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?
Thanks, but too late! :)
(Though, I was talking about the entire thread, not merely one post. I don't think even the originator can delete one of those. Am I wrong? Tim--are you listening?)
In 17th Century Britain it was every other monarch who had problems. Charles II luckily inherited an "up" reign.
Oh, I think the question makes sense—I mean was the execution fair to Charles, fair to the country, good for the country, etc. Charles himself argued in the dock that he was under the control merely of “a power” (aka the winner, at the moment), not of any legitimate authority. Was he right?
Let me recommend C.V. Wedgewood’s A Coffin for King Charles. In it we are reminded that even evil or, should we say, highly flawed men can have their heroic or virtuous moments. Which is not to, by itself, of course, justify things one way or the other. But life and history can often be interesting and complicated.
(I don't think you can edit or delete a thread, sorry.)
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.
Isn't that kind of what Saddam tried, 'I'm the ruler of this country and what I say goes, and is legal, therefore I did nothing illegal, and you have no authority over me either." (paraphrasing)
Geez Louise! Even in the 17th century one can't get away from the anti-Bushies!
I've been looking for an old movie about Charles II starring Alec Guinness which I've been unable to find in the US. There's alleged to be a great scene towards the end where he drops his walking cane and takes a moment to realize that there's no one around anymore to pick it up for him. Does anybody know the title?
I've seen it here on television, but I do not know whether it is available on DVD.
The movie is called Cromwell (1970) and it is available on DVD. You can purchase it HERE.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.