S8 Ep150: 3/3. The Regicide Debate — Gaius and Germanicus examine the history and implications of killing monarchs and emperors, particularly regarding modern political leadership. Germanicus uses the execution of Charles I in 1649 following the English Civil War a

3/3. The Regicide Debate — Gaius and Germanicus examine the history and implications of killing monarchs and emperors, particularly regarding modern political leadership. Germanicus uses the execution of Charles I in 1649following the English Civil War as the seminal regicide precedent; Charles I was executed publicly after refusing to defend himself in court. Gaius explains that regicide recurs throughout imperial history because the sacred monarch's authority embodies the totality of society itself; metaphorically, the monarch's body represents the body of all citizens collectively. Germanicus distinguishes between legitimate regicide—eliminating a king who betrayed his societal mission (like Caligula)—and capricious execution like Charles I's, Louis XVI's, or Nicholas II's, which constitutes ritual delegitimation. Gaius notes that Charles I's execution ultimately delegitimized the regicides themselves, causing the nation to reject them and resulting in Cromwell's short-lived Protectorship. Germanicus warns that contemporary opposition entertaining regicidal ideas against "Emperor Trump" appears unaware they are entering this long historical tradition of regicide, which invariably triggers general conflict among factions, since millions of faithful supporters embrace the emperor. Gaius emphasizes that while individual men may be killed, opposition attempting to slay the high office itself confronts an institution that is undying, all-powerful, and ultimately indestructible, creating structural conditions for catastrophic escalation and societal fragmentation reminiscent of cracked mirrors that cannot be adequately mended without the binding emotional adhesive of fraternity and shared national purpose.
1649