en.m.wikisource.org/...
That the said Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England, and therein trusted with a limited Power to govern by, and according to the Laws of the Land, and not otherwise, and by his Trust, Oath and Office, being obliged to use the Power committed to him for the Good and Benefit of the People, and for the Preservation of their Rights and Liberties, yet nevertheless out of a wicked design to erect and uphold in himself an unlimited and tyrannical power to rule according to his Will, and to overthrow the Rights and Liberties of the People, yea to take away and make void the foundations thereof, and of all redress and remedy of misgovernment, which by the Fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom were reserved on the peoples behalf in the Right and Power of frequent and successive Parliaments, or National Meetings in Council.
...
All which wicked designs, Wars, and evil practices of him the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of Will, Power, and pretended Prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this Nation, by and from whom he was instructed as aforesaid.
en.wikipedia.org/...
When given the opportunity to speak, Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch.[13] He believed that his own authority to rule had been due to the divine right of kings given to him by God, and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that of force of arms.[13] Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining, "No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King ... one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong."[13]
If the R’s think this is going to go over smoothly, I think they misjudge us.