rbzpr: How was it possible to renounce the thesis of royal inviolability? It is certain that the co
How was it possible to renounce the thesis of royal inviolability? It is certain that the constitution declared the king’s person inviolable and only held ministers responsible, though for certain acts it stated that the king “was esteemed to have abdicated” and decreed his removal. But this constitutional procedure supposes that the constitution is not affected at its roots. If the king’s crimes, if his treason don’t place the nation and freedom in mortal danger, if royalty could survive the king, then yes, it is in accordance with the constitution that the king must be judged, since the constitution remains. But if the king by a long conspiracy has ruined the constitution itself; if through his connivance with foreigners armed to destroy it he has virtually killed it; if the just anger incited by his crime has forced the exasperated and defiant people to a new revolution, how is it possible to apply to a king a constitution of which, because of him, almost nothing remains?
The Trial of the King (Jean Jaurès)
