Category talk:Executed monarchs

Duplicate?
How does this differ from Category:Executed ruling royalty? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This title could be misleading since it implies that these people were all reigning at the time they were executed, which most of them were not. PatGallacher (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of them were not? What then is the point of the category? If they weren't reigning, why aren't they just in Category:Executed royalty? The few ones I've looked at, like Faisal II of Iraq and Charles I of England, certainly were reigning immediately prior to their arrests/executions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Immediately prior" is open to interpretation. I assume this category is supposed to cover monarchs who were executed after what purported to be a legitimate trial (how fair or legitimate the trial actually was is open to interpretation). Faisal II was just bumped off in a coup. There are several cases of monarchs who were deposed and then bumped off in secret e.g. Richard II of England, Edward II of England, Henry VI of England, Edward V of England. Louis XVI of France was deposed before he was executed. As far as I am aware Charles I of England is historically unique, the only person who was regarded as the monarch at the time of his execution. PatGallacher (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then (just to restate my original question)—why does the category exist? What is the point of the category? Why aren't you nominating it for deletion? That said, I don't think a trial is necessarily a pre-requisite for "execution". There are such things as "summary executions" that proceed without trial. What would be required are sources that say the person was executed. Those certainly exist for Faisal. Whether a monarch is the legitimate ruler when he is killed in a coup is also a matter of interpretation. To suggest that Charles I is historically unique as "the only person who was regarded as the monarch at the time of his execution" in all of world history is exceedingly unlikely, in my opinion. It smacks a bit of Anglocentrism (if that's the word)—I can see some English sources claiming this when they really haven't done a thorough research job on the issue. It probably wouldn't be hard at all to find other examples, particularly in Chinese history. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Executed" can sometimes be used rather loosely (e.g. "execution-style killings") I think we should use it to people who were killed after what purported to be a legitimate trial. Of course whether someone is the legitimate monarch is open to interpretation. However Louis XVI was regarded by his supporters as the king, but those who executed him regarded him as Citizen Louis Capet. The English Parliamentarians considered that under the common law of England they did have the right to try the king under some circumstances, the death warrant explicitly described him as king, even the executioner called him "your majesty". This may well be historically unique, can anyone come up with a counter-example? PatGallacher (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dafydd ap Gruffydd is fairly comparable (though he was "Prince" of Wales, not the King of England). If you can find a very similar case in Wales, I'm sure there are others in world history. I don't know enough about Asian history to know one way or the other, but if I had to guess there would be examples from one of the many Chinese dynasties. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)