Last week I said murder is wrong and tyrannicide is murder, therefore tyrannicide is wrong. After reading how highly kings thought of themselves during the 15 and 1600’s it is getting harder and harder to not want to do something to send a message. Okay, maybe not publicly guillotine a king’s head off, but I can certainly understand how and why someone during Charles I’s reign might feel like he deserved to die.
In the article “The Trial and Execution of Charles I” debunked some of the rumors that Charles I was executed because he lost the civil war. What makes Charles more “deserving to die” is the fact that he was given not one, not two but many, many chances to redeem himself and his name with Parliament and his people. This brings me to the major points of “The Jacobean Theory of Kingship”. The three pillars of kingship demonstrate the arrogance and lack of attention to strategy during Charles’ trial. The fact that kingship was said to be God’s lieutenant on Earth, not bound by the law and unable to be deposed almost makes Charles a product of the time and his environment. Is it enough to say he does not deserve to die because he was just doing what kings before him did?
Overall, I am more partial to the opinion that Charles did not deserve to die. Removal from power maybe, but the military coup and manipulation to the democratic process of his death makes his murder all the more undeserving. Killing is really all about vengeance and even if Charles really was an honorable leader, he did not deserve to die.
I wholly agree with you in that execution of a powerful leader is at times counterproductive and an extreme action– removal from power can be just as effective– in the case of Charles I. Losing a war might be detrimental to a country and to the government, but is that action one that deserves capital punishment? That can be up for debate, but I would argue that does not mean a military coup should seize power and kill a leader for it.
I really like your idea about how the execution was extreme and that a more proper response could have been to just ensure he cannot have any sort of power again. However, I can see why something a little more intense was used since he was trying to work with the Scots to take back the throne and in that sense, just not allowing him to have power would not have worked if the throne was taken by outsiders.