>I'm King, and by english law I can't be tried for any crime.

>I'm King, and by english law I can't be tried for any crime. This tribunal is completely and totally illegitimate and absent of any sort of authority. In fact, by trying me, you are hurting english liberties more than you are protecting them.
How do you rebuke him? Keep in mind you have to make your government look legitimage

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Scottish soldiers captured him. After invading England.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      was foolish of them to hand him over to parliament, to put it mildly.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Englosh liberties are not worth keeping if they permit a tyrant to stay.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The king of England was always subject to the law. Same as in most European countries.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No (s)he literally still isn't.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Where does this meme come from?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The British law you fartbrain
          The sovereign is deemed the "fount of justice"; although the monarch does not personally rule in judicial cases, judicial functions are performed in his or her name. For instance, prosecutions are brought on the sovereign's behalf, and courts derive their authority from the Crown. The common law holds that the sovereign "can do no wrong", and so cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 allows civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government), but not lawsuits against the monarch personally. The sovereign exercises the "prerogative of mercy", which is used to pardon convicted offenders or reduce sentences.[11][14]

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The sovereign is personally immune from criminal prosecution or arrest, as well as from civil actions, and their property is not subject to execution or foreclosure. The Crown, however, as distinct from the sovereign, can be the subject of proceedings for tort and contract since 1947.[29]

            There are more than 160 laws granting express immunity to the sovereign or their property in various respects. For example, the sovereign is exempt from anti-discrimination legislation and other workers' rights, health and safety, or pensions laws, as well as numerous taxes, and environmental inspectors cannot enter the sovereign's property without permission.[30]

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The British law you fartbrain
              The sovereign is deemed the "fount of justice"; although the monarch does not personally rule in judicial cases, judicial functions are performed in his or her name. For instance, prosecutions are brought on the sovereign's behalf, and courts derive their authority from the Crown. The common law holds that the sovereign "can do no wrong", and so cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 allows civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government), but not lawsuits against the monarch personally. The sovereign exercises the "prerogative of mercy", which is used to pardon convicted offenders or reduce sentences.[11][14]

              She can't do anything without approval from Parliament, and she can't prosecute someone who hasn't broken any law.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I can't be tried for any crime
                At this rate how do you not realise all the lead you consume is damaging your brain?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's irrelevant

                It's entirely relevant. The king isn't going to personally come over and murder all his opponents. What matters is the powers he has as head of state, and those are the powers King Charles abused.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, this is a legal trial. A king cannot be put on a legal trial, as per the law. Meaning that the tribunal is overthrowing the government by doing so. But the tribunal did not state they were a new government. They were claiming they were the legitimate power behind the english throne, that what they were doing was legal, and that they could try a king. This is where the issue lied, why the trial of Charles was so messy, and why the english republic was so frought with rebellion and strife, they had no legitimacy as a government

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's irrelevant

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Same as in most European countries.
      Except for the Prussian king, and the French king and the Austrian emperor, and the tsar, and the Swedish king...

      Wait a minute, that look like a pattern to me...

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Keep in mind you have to make your government look legitimage
    Why? Cromwell didn't. He had to overthrow parliment to hold the trial and the majority of comissioners involved refused to serve.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if im an mp or something i suppose that i bring a pistol and dagger into the court. i shoot him then slit my own throat, which solves the constitutional problem

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He disobeyed the laws of God by accepting the sacred anointment and the responsibilities that come with it, and then being a tyrant and a murderer.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    English custom (Richard II, Henry VI, Edward V) is to execute incompetent kings without trial. If that is your preference, so be it.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    F

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If the king cannot be tried for a crime, why have a king?

Your email address will not be published.