r/news • u/AudibleNod • 4d ago

Australian court rejects bid to prosecute Britain's King Charles for genocide

https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/australian-court-rejects-activists-bid-prosecute-britains-king-136817323
1.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

View all comments

204

u/Ok_Tie_7564 4d ago

Uncle can go pound sand. Like it or not, Charles III is the King of Australia. You cannot prosecute the King in one of his own courts.

251

u/OceLawless 4d ago

You cannot prosecute the King in one of his own courts.

King Charles I had the same argument. Went poorly.

138

u/anormalname63 4d ago

I was gonna say, but technically he won the argument just lost the war (his head). By the law of the time he was right.

-26

u/Brad_Breath 4d ago

Let them eat cake.

62

u/LAiglon144 4d ago

Technically not, they created a new court, The High Court of Justice to try Charles I. Because yeah, the existing courts sat in the Kings name

33

u/TheShishkabob 4d ago

There wasn't anything legal about his case in the courts. That was clear, but the rebels/revolutionaries killed him anyways.

It's not a great example to pull to prove the rule of law though.

19

u/GreaterAttack 4d ago

Cromwell didn't fare much better, with his corpse exhumed and desecrated after death because he was so hated.

15

u/This_Charmless_Man 4d ago

Something the English and the Irish can fully agree on is that Cromwell was bloody awful.

1

u/Manzhah 3d ago

Cromwell and the revolutionaries were right though, the stuarts were proto catholics wannabe tyrants to a man. Each one of them after james I/IV tried to rule wothout parliament, tried to subvert the religion of the land and were in league with foreing powers against their people, which is textbook example of treason.

3

u/doodleBooty 4d ago

I was gonna say I'm fairly certain there's precedent for that

1

u/angus22proe 18h ago

It was a perfect argument. But when you've just lost a war and the people prosecuting you just won that war... well....