both of those things happen in both history and fiction

If your king's such a brokie he lives in a match box instead of an actual fort, it's only natural to overthrow him.

>>18516738
Medieval people were not a wholly different subspecies of man. Their culture was diffren, yes, but they followed the cultural framework which would later result in the world we are currently living in.
Knights were human, as humans they were susceptible to commit treachery, just like people do today. But many, if not most were loyal and believed in what they lived and fought for.

>>18516738
Kings weren't often deposed for no good reason at all owing to how effective the psyop of "Divine Right" was. If a King was deposed, 9 times out of 10 it's because he truly deserved it.

>>18516800
>If a King was deposed, 9 times out of 10 it's because he truly deserved it.

https://youtu.be/fzeEzoupJVQ?si=GTgxk6CaWNmyj9BN

Very few English kinds were killed by knights, specifically, though sometimes they were killed by barons. More often they died in war or shat themselves to death like many of the common soldiers. Things weren't very nice before modern medicine, something oft' overlooked.

>William I
horse accident during siege, infected

>William II
shot by arrow while hunting with nobles, likely an assassination

>Henry I
stable reign, food poisoning, unlikely an assassination due to age and health problems

>Stephen
fever

>Henry II
illness aggravated by needing to fight a war age 56

>Richard I 'lionheart'
crossbow bolt

>John
dysentery on campaign

>Henry III
stable reign, old age

>Edward I
dysentery on campaign

>Edward II
starved to death in prison after defeat by rebel barons

>Edward III
stable reign, old age

>Richard II
starved to death in prison after palace coup

>Henry IV
illness

>Henry V
dysentery on campaign

>Henry VI
murdered

>Edward IV
likely illness

>>18516843
>Very few English kinds were killed by knights

I think you're forgetting the Anglo Saxon Harold the first

>>18516855
and Richard III I suppose, but they were killed by enemy knights in battle not stabbed in the back by those who had professed loyalty to them

barons maybe but not the knights

>>18516800
it took Charles I declaring war on his own people and trying to invade his own country at the head of a foreign army 3 TIMES before Parliament had enough and took his head off, and that was on top of the decades of retardation they put up with before he fully chimped out

>>18516738
As others itt have said: knights were just humans and were just as susceptible to base behaviors as anybody else. In reality however a weaker king would grant privileges to stabilize his reign/make concessions to curb opposition or even rebellion. The goal of the opposing parties was not to replace the king but to extract concessions from him which his successors had to safeguard as well. For example the Charter of Liberties and the Magna Carta for England, the Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis, the Statutum in favorem principum and the Golden Bull of 1356 for the HRE or the Charter to the Normans for France.
>>18516800
The notion of the Divine Right of Kings emerged in the 16th century. Medieval kings ruled in accordance with the Lex Humana, which was the local human interpretation of the Lex Naturalis. All of which were derived from the unknowable Lex Aeterna which was stewarded over by the Church. Or in short: the authority of a medieval king was derived from God as long as God (or his worldly deputies) said so. While the Divine Right of Kings however the authority of an early modern king was derived from God as long as the king said so.

Just remember that there is a period before unification, which meant every minor baron would be a king before then. And after that they would merely have a title, and a lot more land.

>>18516738
This is more like the Praetorian Guard in Rome or Byzantium.

>>18516843
>Edward II
>starved to death in prison after defeat by rebel barons
He was probably smothered. The urban legend that he was killed by having a heated poked stuffed up his bum is probably just that.

>>18516843
>Henry I
>food poisoning
That's one way of putting it

>>18516779
>Their culture was diffren
learn to spell.

>>18516779
Nuanceslop how are you ment to make a reddit funny from that

>>18516738
Kings were constantly dealing with overly ambitious nobles and relatives who tried to undermine their rule. Knights were just retards who swore loyalty to whichever king promised them the most. Were there loyal men? Sure, and there still are. But these have always been exceptional.

File: Reichsritter1721.jpg (690.4 KB)

>>18517125
>Knights were just retards who swore loyalty to whichever king promised them the most.
More so that knights were those who were ennobled by whoever noble. Knights that were actually knighted by the king were part of their personal retinue. A neat concept from the HRE was that of the Imperial Knights (Reichsritter) who were knighted directly by the Emperor and thus enjoyed Imperial Imediacy (but without the right to vote in Imperial Diets). Usually this title is not heritable but in practice the descendants of an Imperial Knight would also get this title bestowed upon them. In the noble hierarchy they were firmly situated in the petty nobility and thus often clashed with the higher nobles over their interests - most famously probably in the Franconian War and the Knights' War of 1523.