Defending the King: Debunking the Legitimacy of Charles I's Trial
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 พ.ย. 2020
- This video explains how the Trial of Charles I in 1649 was outside the law of the time.
To read the Article this video was based on click here - / a-brief-defense-of-cha...
A great source of knowledge of the Trial came to me by reading The Trial of Charles I: A Documentary History edited by David Lagomarsino and Charles J. Wood.
- www.amazon.com/dp/0874514991/...
Consider helping the channel grow by using my Amazon affiliate link.
- www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UT...
▼ Follow me
Instagram - bradleygear...
Twitter - bradleygearhar7?l...
BitChute - www.bitchute.com/channel/MIqG...
My Public Facebook Page - / bradleyegearhart
Consider joining my Patreon! - / bradleygearhart
Amazon Affiliate Link - Please use this link if you plan on making an Amazon purchase. I will get a small cut of your purchase and by doing so, you are helping me be able to make more videos :) - www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UT...
#EnglishHistory #CharlesI #History
As a Aussie of a lot of Irish descent i`m no big fan of Cromwell.He is still hated to this day in Ireland.
Thanks for this video, as an American I really lack proper English history, so this is a great take!
Unfair and/or Unremarkable Monarchs do not change the basic truth of reality that Republicanism Is Cringe.
baste
Pretty interesting video. I hope you continue to upload more.
Thank you. I’m trying. You have a great channel yourself.
Nice video man.
My opinion, from a political standpoint.
The reason why treason is stressed so much.
This passage from Aristotle's Politics explains the case: (although, not fully in agreement w/ Aristotle).
The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the rules of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman.
The Monarch in Monarchy isn't simply viewed as another cog to be replaced.
In Presidential models, the President is effectively limited with term limits & has to take his turn in being governed.
Prime MInisters with their party coalitions also have to concede their place to others and take their turn in being governed.
The Monarch does not view his throne like another seat at the table: the throne is pre-eminent and unique.
Do you know that game children play when they swap chairs? That requires multiple chairs; but in monarchy, there is one throne.
And for the Monarch of Pre-eminence, that Aristotle refers to, there is no killing or replacing him.
The modern view of Monarchy holds the view of pre-eminence perpetually, aka Sovereignty.
So when a tyrant is amok, it is said that the tyrant really kills himself, by defying the laws of God & Nature.
Tyranny is like a fire that consumes itself in due time: it cannot be resolved so easily, for like you say, you simply went from King Charles I to Oliver Cromwell. And that's why it follows that simply killing a tyrant is followed by another tyrant.
For Aristotle says, that it takes nails to whack out nails.
My opinion is controversial. I have to side with Jean Bodin & K. James VI & I I, that it is always illegitimate to kill the Sovereign Monarch, since the State is a Monarchy, & no parliament can effectively constitute a full monarchy on its own even if they pull the maxim that they are loyal to the crown but not the king. Though I would also say on the flipside that Hobbes that in instances of self-defense it really shouldn't be unexpected if such a tyrannical Monarch would try to attempt that person, but equally is the tyrannical Monarch able to muster his forces against that person no matter how just or unjust.
It's the dilemma we're left w/, and with Monarchy there's no easy answer: since to kill the Monarch is to undermine the power of the Monarchy itself and is no less acceptable than the tyranny (which, in effect, sort of does the same thing). So even those who dirty their hands are sometimes resigned to be killed themselves by their successor, who only kill those regicides to protect the power of their Monarchy and cautiously sweep away the precdent to kill the Monarch. Because this is simply artificially making a system where it's ideal to swap the Monarch, like I alluded to at the start, and that the Monarch should take his turn in being governed. For the more Monarchs on the throne who are killed and determined to be replaced, the more viable the idea of having a system where people take their turn in being governed becomes. And that's why even tyrannicide doctrines should also be taboo & carefully tread upon, in a full fledged Monarchy, even if the Monarch deserves it.
& there are many who would call many Monarchs to be tyrants, even if that's up for dispute -- the name of tyranny slips out like a tool, and the more power we give to our fear of tyrants, the greater the tyranny will become. So imo it is best not to let the fear of tyranny override. As many political theorists have pointed out, that it was fear in the first place that empowered the State, like Hobbes says, the fear of each other, or the fear of him, gave power.
Example:
If there were a big red button at a board of executives, where the executives vote to dismiss one of their constituents, and they deemed someone among them to be a king -- and that big shiny red button once pressed dumped the king from his chair, like people so naively idealized w/ monarchy, and their tyranny could be destroyed at the press of a button -- would it really be a Monarchy to begin with? Rather I'd call it a state oligarchical or democratic.
In a Monarchy, the unfortunate truth is that where one person becomes the sovereign, you also have to swallow the fact that potentially a tyranny can follow and it will rock the State no matter. There's no easy answer towards making the state of Monarchy always a perfect form, and whether you deem it worth it or not worth it kill the Monarch when it is imperfect I'll leave to you to decide -- but imo I would say that it is also an attack on the Monarchy as it is basically his Monarchy.
I'm very skeptical and feel that many good monarchs have a bit of tyranny in them, and many bad monarchs have the glory of the king in them, in different ways, and it's never easy to even determine whether said Monarch was fully a tyrant, unless some narrative is shoved down our gullet or we're distanced from the conflict itself.
Great video!
good stuff, thanks
I'm not content with there being a full parliament to decide the fate of the Monarch either.
The Monarch & Monarchy go together.
There's a reason why even those who kill tyrants are sometimes killed by their successors.
Inching towards monarchism
I hate Oliver Cromwell. How was he able to accrue so much power?
It is always easy to sell people on short-term gains at the cost of long-term degeneration. You could say it is just another social manifestation of the law of entropy.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug not to be that person, but it feels sometimes that history is repeating itself (globally) yet again in that regard.
@@yousaywhatnow2195 this is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Civilization moves in cycles. The geography, langauge, technology, etc ma change, but the underling principles do not.
Brilliant and informative video. Here are some of the voices of those who witnessed Charles' trial and execution th-cam.com/video/mc0NGGSmhNQ/w-d-xo.html
Chales made a lot of mistakes but I think looking at everything you can see sorta see where he was coming from. A lot of history of the civil war is sorta told from Parliaments point of view.
1. Yes his personal rule is sorts tyrannical however his fathee also reigned for 7 years without parliment. He also did eventually call a Parliment.
2. If you look at the demands parliment was asking in the early 1640s its undeniable they WERE tryinf to take awat power from Charles. I don't think any king in the 1640s would be fine with thrir demands
3. We hear a lot of the puritans being mad at charles for adding more ceremonal elements to his church but again, im sure a lot of people who werent puritan liked the old ceremonies in church.
Cavalier propaganda.
Lol I thought I’d get that
Thoſe 146 members of parliament merely loſt their way.
@@Hurlebatte You lost me