This question came to me while I was listening to a history-based podcast on my iPod. Anyhoo, my question is this: do hapless monarchs or leaders deserve to be executed? They have caused economic and social disorder BUT did not deliberately oppress their subjects. I will provide three examples:
King Charles I (England) - He wanted absolute power, taxed his people without Parliamentary consent (according to Wikipedia) and irked the English by marrying a Catholic (also according to Wikipedia). He met an untimely end by having his head separated from his body, so to speak.
King Louis XVI (France) - Same thing except that prior to his reign, France was always ruled by an absolute monarch, unlike England which was a constitutional monarchy since the 13th century. Now Louis was a nice guy; he just was a weak ruler. He met the same fate as Charles.
Tsar Nicholas II (Russia) - He never wanted to be ruler but obviously felt that God gave him that right. Also was executed.
2006-09-16 06:22:38 · 10 answers · asked by chrstnwrtr 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The podcast I was listening to is either at www.summahistorica.com or www.historyaccordingtobob.com. Great stuff for history buffs!
2006-09-16 06:47:15 · update #1
Um - in my opinion, causing economic and social disorder is a form of oppression. So yes, they deserved to at least be taken out of power. Unfortunately for the rulers you mentioned, the most effective method was open rebellion and the guillotine. The execution of Louis the 16th was probably one of the better things the French people did for themselves. Considering that the King and Queen were of a similar mind regarding their peasants, I give you this quote to consider: "But madam, they have no bread." "Well, then let them eat cake." I'm not a big fan of executing people, but I can accept the rationale that led the peasants to kill their rulers.
2006-09-16 06:28:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
"L'etat, c'est moi" - even if Louis XIV (not XVI) didn't say this, he articulated the actual reason your "hapless" rulers got the axe... literally, in Charles's case.
I Am The State.
Monarchy was actually an improvement over despotism - for the most part. It meant that the order of succession was known in advance. Much less messy than having warlords fight for the throne - which is what happened, after all, when the succession broke down.
But that meant that the State's power was invested in those kings. That is an awful lot of responsibility... and an awful lot of blame.
Imperfections of character that in us, would just make freinds of you and I roll their eyes, in the kings of old led to life-or-death problems, all the time.
There's no "justice" in them being executed. No starving peasant was brought back to life by doing so. No oppression requited. No credits rolled or triumphant hymms burst forth in Dolby sound.
They were killed because they were inept / unlucky enough to be left holding the bag when their options ran out. Powerful men are too bloody dangerous to be left around when the new regime comes into town. It's that simple; "off with his head."
2006-09-16 06:48:47 · answer #2 · answered by wm_omnibus 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with the previous writer. King Louis XVI probably got what he had coming to him. He ignored his peoples and was out of touch with their conditions. He was a lousy ruler and believed he was above it all.
After all that, he still didn't get it. Louis was not a nice guy. The simplist requests from his people was bread and he ignored them.
In my opinion, execution is not the way, but if they have anything to do with killing of their own people (Sadam) thats a different story.
2006-09-16 06:41:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure they do. As for Louis XVI - his people starved under his rule. King Charles I didn't care about his people - he wanted to get as much power as possible.
All the monarchs ruled and lived in luxury and lived off 1000s starving people's sweat. Yet the monarchs considered themselves better than the people they ruled - they wouldn't even speak to them.
And how did the sods came to power? They ancestors were a bunch of militant thugs who'd somehow succeeded in taking over people's lives.
They deserved to be beheaded. And once isn't enough.
2006-09-16 06:32:07 · answer #4 · answered by possum 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's what they did back then. The people took matters into their own hands and did away with them. Otherwise the rulers would gather up a loyal army and perhaps take control again. It happened last century. Anwar Sadat Egypt. THey didn't like him so BOOM he's out of here. John Kennedy, Garfield, Lincoln. It will continue.
2006-09-16 06:31:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Hapless" (meaning 'unlucky') monarchs do not deserve to have their heads lopped off simply based on their bad fortune. Unfortunately, beheadings and stake-burnings and the like were done rather capriciously according to our current standards of jurisprudence.
Still a good beheading, onto itself, is enough to turn a fortunate ruler into a hapless monarch...
2006-09-16 06:28:23 · answer #6 · answered by Clarkie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one deserves to be executed!
How about de-throned?!
Monarchs are monarchs by virtue of their birth - not because they are intelligent or good leaders or were voted in!
So there are going to be a few rotten grapes in the bunch!
But they should perhaps be relieved of their royal duties - pushed into the background so to speak, rather than beheaded or whatever.
2006-09-16 07:07:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bamm! What possum said. Struth.
Btw: Kennedy was loved by the people. That was a controversial death.
2006-09-16 06:34:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not all. Some might. It's an individual thing, just like any other capital case.
2006-09-16 06:32:38 · answer #9 · answered by yahoohoo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. They are human and make mistakes. If this was a capital crime we would all be on death row.
2006-09-16 06:32:14 · answer #10 · answered by malcy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋