Abolished in 1819, after a case in 1818 where the defendant successfully invoked trial by battle, and the plaintiff declined the fight.
Fascinating! It’s like an OJ Simpson trial.
The general Wikipedia article on trial by combat has a medieval illustration, with this caption:
A 1540s depiction of a judicial combat in Augsburg in 1409, between Marshal Wilhelm von Dornsberg and Theodor Haschenacker. Dornsberg’s sword broke early in the duel, but he proceeded to kill Haschenacker with his own sword.
That is badass!
I did not know that. Thanks.
Not really, it just proves that he was in the right, and therefore had God protecting him.
Remember: When your boot in on their neck, God is demonstrably on your side.
Conventional Christianity is such a nice religion.
I saw a comment today on another site where someone said that they’re so used to calling him Prince Charles, that they find themselves calling him King Prince Charles.
Now that would be an ugly spaniel. Probably have 6 legs and three eyes.
She’s a busy lady!
A look back:
Some mountain bikers encounter him going for a walk:
I for one found it quite charming.
Brian
“I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.”
'Ow can you tell ‘es the King?
‘E’s no’ go’ shit on 'im.
As kids my bros and I always maintained there’s a Dr. Strangelove movie quote for any life situation you’ll ever encounter in the USA.
It seems that Monty Python fills that same role in the UK. Whatever happens, however outlandish or unexpected, Monty already has you covered. 
Yes, very charming. But how does this happen? He just goes out for a walk without any security people? I’m amazed.
His mum was fond of going driving alone in Balmoral well up until a few years ago. I’ve got a Scottish friend elsewhere on the net who says she nearly ran him over once.
Well, the King holds very little, if any, political power; so there’s no real point to threatening him. He does what Parliament tells him to do, so if the people, through their representatives in Parliament, tell him to do something, he does it. No quibble, no quarrel, no need for debates, he just does it.
And thus, little need for security. He does what the people want, and that’s that.
I doubt if potential security threats would be concerning themselves with constitutional questions. In this case, he and his security people probably relied on the unlikelihood of anyone else being able to predict exactly where he would be, or to follow him without being seen.
Hiking alone. Think about that. He at least has some bravery.
I mean, he’s also got the advantage that you can’t just waltz into a corner shop and pick up an AR-15 on your way to the chemist.