The Tyrannicide Brief, by Geoffrey Robertson is nothing short of compelling. The audience is guided through the legal process, which lead to Charles I’s execution. Robertson’s assiduity in research is highly visible in The Tyrannicide Brief. Readers are not only presented with facts, but taken on a journey that is more than exceptional. Robertson manages to combine law, politics, and social history in one story. Robertson thoroughly brings to life the story of John Cooke. John Cooke, a man who dared to embrace the prosecution of Charles I. Ironically John Cooke himself would be tried for treason when Charles II rises to power. Robertson paints a very vivid mural of facts that implicitly reveals the extent of research that was dedicated into The Tyrannicide Brief. Despite the phenomenal storytelling by Robertson, it is worth questioning whether Robertson wrote The Tyrannicide Brief with bias. Gruesome details are brought to surface in the book. These gruesome details assist with …show more content…
That is especially if John Cooke is the hero. Charles II merely executes what is also considered is right. Cooke’s prosecution lead to the execution of the king, and this in itself is justification that warranties that Cooke pays with his life. Attempting to view the events that takes place from Charles I’s trial to execution, and then John Cooke’s trial and execution in plain black and white is impossible. Both executions were both justified in their own right in the court of law. If looking at this in the modern view, readers can take away that Cooke is a man who challenged executive power and came out victorious. However, to compare the 17th century monarchy’s “divine rights,” to modern day checks and balances is as if we were to compare night with day. Although, John Cooke did lay the foundation for what would eventually create the system of checks and