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\u2019s it is getting harder and harder to not want to do something to send a message. Okay, maybe not publicly guillotine a king\u2019s head off, but I can certainly understand how and why someone during Charles I\u2019s reign might feel like he deserved to die.<\/p>\n
In the article \u201cThe Trial and Execution of Charles I\u201d debunked some of the rumors that Charles I was executed because he lost the civil war. What makes Charles more \u201cdeserving to die\u201d 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 \u201cThe Jacobean Theory of Kingship\u201d. The three pillars of kingship demonstrate the arrogance and lack of attention to strategy during Charles\u2019 trial. The fact that kingship was said to be God\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/p>\n