Talk:Charles I of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charles I of England article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Featured article star Charles I of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 30, 2006.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Saints Charles I of England is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Anglicanism
 Charles I of England is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

needs inline citations --plange 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

Contents

[edit] Blame

I am interested in the assertion that "Charles was not fully to blame". I would contend that he was absolutely to blame (and I think a goodly number of civil war historians will be queuing up behind me in this respect). Or shall we just put it down to society and a deprived childhood :-) user:sjc

I deleted this from the article: "This would appear to indicate that Charles has been canonised as a saint within the Anglican communion." The Anglican Church has no process of canonisation. It does occasionally add saints to its liturgical calendar by acts of councils of bishops. But Charles is either on the calendar or not, and until we find out, we shouldn't guess: the fact that some churches are named for him should suffice. An Anglican saint is fundamentally different, of course, from a Catholic or Orthodox saint, as Anglicans would insist their saints are not to be venerated. -- Someone else 04:30 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

FWIW, the information about Charles I as a quasi-saint, his addition to the Book of Common Prayer, and the withdrawal of the commemoration, was all taken from the Oxford Dictionary of Saints. --User:Ihcoyc

Oy. Please break up this dense text into paragraphs. -- Zoe

I haven't altered the text that baldly states that Charles was attempting to bring the Church of England "closer to Rome", although this is untrue. Certainly that is was how it was perceived by the Puritans, but Laud was in no way seeking a rapprochement with the Papacy, which is what the current text implies. Rather, Laud was a leader of a tradition in the church that regarded Anglicanism as a legitimate part of the universal catholic church. But as the concept of the church in itself as an institution was unimportant to the Puritans, they saw this as a Romanist tendancy. But the article itself is not a place to debate this, so I left it. --djnjwd

You are factually correct so by all means go and change it. You seem to have a far greater grasp of the facts than the person who wrote the current version. ÉÍREman 01:38 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

I know you've all done great work on this article, but I couldn't resist having a dabble myself. I can't believe I've never touched this page before. Deb 21:56 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Should Charles be referred to as "King of England, Scotland, and Ireland," that is to say, of the countries he actually ruled, or as "King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland," that is to say, by the style which he actually used? I think the case can be made either way... john 05:19, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

God Bless Charles defender of the Cathloic faith and sevant of the Holy father. May Cromwell rot in Hell.

--wow, is that really necessary? doesnt seem like it belongs here...

[edit] Succession table

I've changed the succession table to indicate Charles II as Charles I's successora poo ed. Although he did not immediately de facto succeed his father, neither did Cromwell. But Charles II was the next king after his father. Furthermore, under official British jurisprudence, Charles II is considered to have de jure succeeded immediately upon his father's death, and for certain purposes (e.g. peerage creations), this has genuine effect. john 03:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with this... we include "Empress Maud" and "Jane Grey" in the succession, and I feel they had less of an impact than Cromwell did. To a certain extent, I understand your argument that Cromwell wasn't exactly a monarch, but he did indeed act in a monarchical role during his time as Lord Protectorate. I feel that we would be "altering history" so-to-speak to leave him out of the succession menu, as it would confuse the casual reader. Perhaps we could include in that succession menu/table a link to information about the "temporary republic," instead of Cromwell? To at least make clear the fact that there was a gap worth many years in between Charles I and II? --Wolf530 04:23, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wolf530 makes a good point. Cromwell may not have been a king but he was very much a monarch. -- Derek Ross 04:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, I tend to think Maud, at least, should not be in the succession table, and I'd dispute Jane Grey, as well. But a) while Cromwell may have been a de facto monarch, he was certainly not a de jure one; and b) Cromwell's protectorship did not immediately follow upon Charles I's death. There was a period when executive authority was vested by parliament in a Council of State, or some such, from 1649-1653. I would be happy with "Commonwealth" or "Republic" as successor to Charles I and predecessor to Charles II. john 06:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well if it matters whether he was de facto or de jure where does that leave William I ? He was a mere French duke who became a de facto British monarch. He certainly didn't rely on de jure acceptance. He just said that he was king and let anyone who didn't agree take it up with his army. As far as I can see the main reason why there is no "House of Cromwell" is that Cromwell refused to be crowned and was succeeded by a son incapable of matching his father (unlike William). -- Derek Ross 19:24, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A few things to consider:

  1. Perhaps there should be two succession tables? 1 called "Crowned Monarchs of Britain" and another called "Succession of Monarchical Bodies" (or something to that effect)? I believe that one of the problems we're seeing here is that John wishes to list the monarchs strictly as those who've been crowned. On the other hand, it's important for historical sake to preserve the succession of monarch-type persons and bodies which ruled and may have not been crowned. (Maud, Grey, Cromwell, misc. regents, etc.)
Not all "listed" monarchs were crowned; Edward V, for instance, never exercised his powers during his reign and never had a coronation, since he was suppressed by his uncle Richard of Gloucester before any general recognition of his authority could be made.
  1. It appears to me that a good deal of historical documents list Cromwell and his son in the monarch succession. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], as some examples. Most are not encyclopedias, but simple listings, but still are of value for showing that most of the population considers Cromwell in that picture.
  2. On the other hand, the royal.gov.uk doesn't list Cromwell or the Commonwealth as part of the monarchy at all. They go straight from Charles I to Charles II with some mention in both profiles of the civil war.
  3. If we are to use the Commonwealth article as the successor to Charles I, I think it would be good if it was expanded to include more historical information. Right now it's not of much use. --Wolf530 09:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

I note two things which are wrong. 1) There was no vote in the special court which convicted Charles I and the legend about Cromwell is incorrect. Charles was convicted automatically because he refused to recognise the court and enter a plea. 2) There is some doubt as to whether Brandon, the public executioner, did actually behead the King. The executioner was masked. It is known definitely that Brandon refused when first offered. There are many alternative candidates. J.G. Muddiman's 'The Trial of Charles I' discusses the issue in some depth and advances an alternative theory, although the rampant Monarchism of this book makes it somewhat dubious as a source.Dbiv 12:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3) Here's another one. Nice article, by the way. But I have to wince at the lead-in. The British didn't fear he would become an absolute monarch. He was one! That was the issue, whether he was going to continue as absolute monarch in an absolute monarchy or parliament was going to limit his power. Parliament had no right to do that. The king's will was law. Officialy they were only there to help him carry it out. But they were tired of that role and the British were tired of absolute monarchs. No, the question was not whether the king would assume too much, but of whether the British people would assume too much. The king had all the power and didn't feel he could give any up. This was the first overthrow of an absolute monarch in Europe. The last one went away in 1918. To directly oppose any British king before Charles II meant your head on a pole or hanging in chains at the crossroads. I'm not doing this article so I'm not going to change it right now. Somebody should if accuracy is as important as style and format. If not, history needs to be rewritten anyway.Dave 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, PS, gee whiz. The king was not attempting to augment anything by way of power. He was not advocating divine right of kings. The issue was not even in question until parliament raised it! Parliament was only there to serve the king. If it did not the opposing members could be tried for treason. The king was secure in his legal rights. He ruled by divine right. Mary's right was divine. Elizabeth's right was divine. Henry the 8th's right was divine. He didn't even need the pope! Charles I was actually a very nice family man, but a terrible bumbler. He was very hurt and very upset that parliament would not do as he asked; moreover, he did not understand in the least why. If he could have agreed to a limitation of his power they would have let him live, even reign. As for Charles II, he did not establish or reestablish one solitary thing. He was invited, invited, mind you, to come back by parliament at the instigation of the chief puritan general, General Monck, to avoid further disintegration of the state. Charles II was very careful what he said and did. He insisted on nothing and questioned parliament not at all, although he did dismiss it toward the end of his reign when things were going very well. He ruled by being the nicest king ever and with secret French funds. I dare say, someone ought to actually read a book on the topic.Dave 04:46, 30 January 2006 he was a loving man.......but ......(UTC)

This should not have been a featured article - there are some glaring issues. The word "republic" was NOT used contemporaneously to describe the Commonwealth. He was hardly opposed by parliament and by puritans - those puritans who opposed him did so as parliamentarians. --Cruci 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link issue

I just noticed (and forgive me if someone else already did) that the person listed in this article as Charles' father is James I of Scotland. This is incorrect, since his father was James I of England. When you click on the link it takes you to the page James I of Scotland, who ruled some 200 years before James I of England and is not Charles' father. The whole line of succession thing and hyperlinks therein are then also wrong. I do not know how to fix it, but hoping someone will so some poor kid doing research doesn't screw up and adults with a history jones aren't disappointed!

66.44.127.67 05:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)KT

[edit] "Lady Carey"

Who is the Lady Carey who reportedly took care of him in 1604? Any relation to Lady Catherine Carey or her brother Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon? User: Dimadick

Remember people, its worth not getting sucked in towards a particular sway of opinion. I must say I was left aghast by the number of articles that glibly branded Cromwell's regime a "military dictatorship" making no reservations for the spectrum of historical thought. After all, for every Abbott, there is a Coward.

[edit] Trial and execution

Just wondering if anyone has a problem with PoV in this section. Stuff like "tried for the murder" when it's a (more or less) legal execution or refering to the leaders of the revolution "regicides". Yes, they caused a monarch to be executed, but regicide makes me think cloak and daggers, poisoned wine, not public execution. Just seems not as neutral as it could be. Any thoughts?

That may not be what you and I would call it, but that is what they were tried for. -- Emsworth 16:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Regicide" just means "killer of a king" -- doesn't matter whether it involves poisons, daggers, the block or rifles; though killing a king in battle is usually not counted, perhaps because that is (or was) considered a more decorous way for a king to die. Philippe "Egalite", the Duke of Orleans, Louis-Philippe's father, was classified as a regicide because he voted for the death of Louis XVI. The Russian soldiers who shot Nicholas II and his family would also be called regicides.

Don't worry. I've changed them all. The whole article is terribly biased in favor of Stuart Absolutism, and I think this is just plainly ridiculous. The person who wrote the article should himself be first hauled to be Court of Star Chamber, and tortured on the rack, then have his body hanged, drawn and quartered. That would certainly teach him a lesson or two about absolute monarchy.

Ah, I should've known this a little better. The Court of Star Chamber cannot put any man to death. Fine. We'll put this author, whoever he is, on the rack, have him confess to whatever crime not known to the law, and then have him re-tried at the Court of King's Bench, then we'll have him hanged, drawn and quartered. This should definitely satisfy his taste for absolute monarchy.

[edit] Personal Rule

The sentence "members held the Speaker down in his chair whilst three resolutions against Charles were read aloud." confuses me slightly. Why was he unwilling to listen, and why was he made to? --Spudtater 17:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If there is no Speaker in the Chair, then the House cannot continue debate, lacking a presiding officer. -- Emsworth 19:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint?

Charles I is currently in Category:Saints. Surely this is wrong. (If it is actually true, it should be stated explicitly.) Rd232 13:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

He is. Actually the Anglican church only have two post-reformation saints. Many Anglican churches are named after Saint Charles. You have a point, this should be expanded in more detail in the article. --ClemMcGann 14:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Read the article again. Under "Legacy". There isn't need for further expansion. there is a link to the Society of King Charles the Martyr --ClemMcGann 14:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Use the word "saint" or "canonised", then it's clear. I saw "martyr" and didn't see that as specifically implying sainthood. Rd232 22:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
In the early church martyrdom is what conferred sainthood. It was only after Constantine had made Christianity respectable that the definition was widened. The centralised canonisation proceedings which the Roman Catholic Church uses date from the later Middle Ages. Orthodox and Anglican bishops can still authorise the cultus of saints in their own dioceses. At least two Australian Anglican bishops have done so, but the saints concerned would be considered to be local saints, not universal ones. For information about a nineteenth century African Anglican saint check St. Bernard Nizeki. Nennius 12/8/06

I note that Clem claims above that "the Anglican church only have two post-reformation saints". If this is so, then presumably the claim in Charles_I_of_England that "Charles is also the only person to be canonized by the Church of England since the English Reformation" is wrong? Who was the other? How does Charles' canonisation differ from people such as Josephine Butler being added to the calendar? Did the demotion of Charles in Victorian times make him a "saint" no longer in official Anglicanism?--PeterR 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the Ugandan martyrs, various reformation martyrs etc? I know that they all have Book of Common Prayer feast days on this side of the Pond (US) but I don't know what the Church of England has said about them. If they are on the calender, though, as per the comment above that mentioned there isn't anything more for recognition in Anglicanism, I think this would make the whole lot "saints." Wilhelm Ritter 18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually once knew someone who referred to him as "King Charles the Martyr", so I guess that there are people still out there who think of him that way. Being a Welshman of decidedly Roundhead sympathies, I replied that no, he was Charles the Bloody Fool. A frigid silence then fell for the remainder of the car journey. Darkmind1970 16:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title?

It would probably be best to clarify that Charles was Charles I of England, but not of Scotland. He was in fact Charles VII of Scotland. -- QwertyMIDX

No he wasn't. He was Charles I of Scotland. There were no previous kings of Scotland names Charles. Perhaps you are thinking of James II, who was James VII of Scotland? john k 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discriminatory Language

"The oil painting was made on canvas around 1636, and is an example of how Van Dyck tended to mask Charles I's small stature, portraying him in a more dignified manner."

Why is it assumed that tallness is the same as dignity, and that shorter people are therefore undignified? This is rather offensive.
Why was the picture changed at all?? What did the individual who changed it have in mind?
Stature was linked to dignity back in those days. One of the reasons for George Washington's leading of the American Revolution was that he was really tall and would command respect. If Charles I was seen as short, his dignity would diminish in the eyes of the public.

[edit] Not locked before being featured???

I just made a couple of changes to this article eliminating some obvious trolling. I became aware of them while following the link from the front page, where this article is being featured.

Did no one lock the article from editing, or at least check it for trolling, before letting it hit the featured section?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.25.113 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

For some stupid reason, its policy NOT to lock featured articles. Supposedly it encourages new users to 'try out' editting Wikipedia, which is obviously a bad thing since their 'trying out' almost invariably means vandalism or accidentaly damage to the article. Todays featured article should be semi-protected as a matter of course Modest Genius 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that one falls under Don't bite the newcomers. Reverting vandalism is pretty easy, and the FA of the day is high-profile enough that vandalism gets reverted pretty quickly, I think the system works okay as it is. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't protect featured articles for reasons explained here Raul654 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read the link above, but I disagree with the last point of not applying "Semi-protection" to featured articles. I think that Semi-Protection would be a good measure because of the following reasons;
If a vandel comes to the site, the featured article would be seen as a "high profile" target. The arguement of "It brings new users to the project" could be countered by saying, new users normally don't know how to use wikipedia and it's code and could damage a page by trying to learn with it, also if a user is serious about wanting to help wikipedia then he or she wont be put off by not being able to edit a high profile article and will instead be content to edit other articles unregestered or to wait the 4 days before being allowed to edit a major article. -- Faded_Mantis 04:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand what semi-protection is for. Semi-protection is meant for articles that attract a high-degree of vandalism for long term periods of time, like George W Bush, not for articles that have their moment in the sun and then go back to obscurity. Raul654 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Can some one temp lock the article, I've seen the article blanked and some one else had to revert some changes, I don't know what was reverted but something is not right(tm). Could we please get a 24 hour hold or something?
Kode 18:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We've all read the link Raul, its just that I for one happen to disagree with the arguments detailed therein Modest Genius 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Much of the improvement in a front page article consists of removing bad edits that were done AFTER the article became "featured." If anything ... a big "if" ... they might better be frozen from the day they make "featured" until the day the hit the front page.Sfahey 20:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure the ones who have this article on watchlist must have noticed that many unregistered users have started bashing it. is there no way to prevent that? i was thinking maybe a little restriction on who actually edits it, like, allowing only the registered users? i'm getting tired at deleting their stupidities ilya 08:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC) hello everyone

[edit] Lawless Star Chamber?

There is a paragraph beginning: "It should be noted here that the lawlessness of the Court of Star Chamber under Charles I..." This can't be right surely? Whatever its faults it must have been lawful as it was the will of an absolute monarch.217.154.66.11 14:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A small confusion in the text

In the last sentence of the "Early Life", it's not clear to me who the antecedent of "his" and "him" are. From the logic of the paragraph, it could be either Charles I or James VI. I'm guessing it's James, as such a sentence about Charles should occur later in the article, but I'm not sure. Since I didn't know which it was, I was hoping I could point this out and suggest that a Wikipedian who knows this info could fix this sentence. Thanks! --Deville 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Charles I in literature

Maybe it could be interesting to mention that Charles I is also the key character to Alexandre Dumas' novel "Twenty years after", the famous sequel to "The three Musketeers". This is the reason why many French people actually believe Charles I pronounced, while on the scaffold, the word: "Remember", which is totally apocryph. Up to you!

[edit] AFD?

Erm... This is a featured article. You want to get rid of it because? --Young XenoNeon (converse) 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It was a bad faith nomination by a vandal.--Adam (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling error in pic file

The spelling error in the file name of the picture at the top of this article does us no credit. Somebody who knows how please fix it. Guinnog 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

* Or else convince me that 'Charels I' was a correct spelling! Guinnog 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Someone with admin rights needs to move the image page to the correct spelling. Sorry I did not think to go to the image. It is protected while it is on the front page. It goes off the main page in 2 and a half hours. If it isn't fixed by then, I will take care of it then.--Adam (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't move an image page. You have to download it and then upload it to a new name. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martyr

Over the course oftime that this page was on the featured articles list this line from "Trial and execution" was removed and re written.

Origional: When Charles was beheaded on January 30, 1649, a moan was heard from the assembled crowd, some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in his blood, thus starting the cult of the "Martyr" King.

Re-write: Charles was beheaded on January 30, 1949. Do we want the origional refference to the martyr king re added? -- Faded_Mantis 01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's interesting enough - do we know from the edit summaries the reason why it was removed? -- Francs2000 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I was looking at the article at the time, It was changed by an IP address and no reason was given. The user removed from "a moan…" to "…martyr king" as I had spent the last 10 minutes reverting vandalism and had about 3 edits in a row I decided that it would look like I was being controlling if I edited it yet again, so I left it for someone else to do. When I checked again today no one had reverted it or re added it, instead someone had just re worded the sentence to read the re-write shown above.
I personally think it should be re added. -- Faded_Mantis 06:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll go re-add the sentence now then. -- Faded_Mantis 11:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title "of England"

Why does it say this? He was king of all of Britain and Ireland A Geek Tragedy 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about this, but I think it was tradition to name the royalty of britain after england, being the dominant nation in britain.. For example King James the 6th of Scotland later became King James the 1st of England, he ruled all of Britain after that, but his title remained "of england" - Faded_Mantis 10:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, everything you say above is complete rubbish! Move to Charles I of Great Britain anyone? Guinnog 15:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
There was no Great Britain until 1707. Charles was King of England, Scotland, and Ireland. As his most important realm, and the one which gave him the highest precedence, England is the one we use in the title. john k 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the article discusses the causes of Civil War and the Scottish Rebellion c. 1638, naming the articles 'Charles I of England' serves to overlook the problem of multiple kingdoms. It diminishes the case for Charles being to blame for the Scottish rebellion and English Revolution by legitimising, de facto, Charles' rule of England first and Scotland second. Charles was not primarily king of England; he was King of Scotland to an equal extent. England was not any more important than Scotland to the monarch de jure. The fact that Charles happened to give more time to ruling England was a contributing factor in his downfall. The article title should stick to de jure titles and obligations, not de facto elements of his rule. Burzhui 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The title's purpose is to identify its subject, not to highlight the problem of multiple kingdoms. The latter is the job of the article text. And why should we focus on the de jure elements, when it is indisputable that England was de facto a far more important kingdom, and the one in which Charles spent the vast majority of his reign. john k 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with the suggestion of keeping it in its 'de facto' state. The problem of multiple kingdoms is a favourite area of study for many historians studying Tudor and Stewart England, but I think it should always be kept in mind that to most Irish and Scottish, Charles was an absentee King. He only went once to Scotland, and never to Ireland. Even his visit to Scotland came well into his rule, and after much delay (1618?). Some may argue that this led to Charles's downfall; however whether or not it did is tangential to the debate of how to refer to Charles. I think it would be no more relevant to call Charles 'King of France' (even though English monarchs continued to do this until 1802) than it would be to call Charles "King of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland" every time you refer to Charles. Either way, I think that the de facto elements of Charles's rule are probably more important than the de jure elements to the target audience. And of course, as is the historical convention in most historical texts, the de jure status of the multiple kingdoms issue is described; however, Charles is normally referred to as the "King of England" and by no other title when the author is not specifically dealing with the issues of multiple kingdoms.--Deano 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Charles's first visit to Scotland was in 1633, 8 years after his accession. He did, however, return, in 1641 for several months. The rest of his reign was spent in England. I don't think any British "King of Ireland" ever visited while he was king, save William III (and James II, if you consider him still King of Ireland in 1690). I think that for the title, the issue should really be, "What would the person be called in european diplomacy?" Charles would have been "the King of England." His roles in the other kingdoms should of course be mentioned, but I don't see any reason to take them up in the title. john k 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh whoops -- I was thinking of James when I said 'he only went once' -- I think James I went back only once to Scotland after being made King of England even after James' promises to return. --Deano 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cromwell and the Council of State

It is wrong to say that Cromwell assumed power after the execution of the king. Although undoubtedly a commanding voice, he was only one member of the Council of State which established the Commonwealth. His powers gradually increased after he became commander-in-chief of the army in the summer of 1650 (a post held prior to this by Sir Thomas Fairfax.)

One further small amendment. I've removed a reference to James Duke of Monmouth rising against the 'tyranny' of James II because I believe this to be a highly subjective statement. I have no doubt that is how Monmouth and his allies viewed the rising of 1685. Rcpaterson 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regicide

If it was decided by the courts that the king was to be executed, why then was the executioner tried for regicide? That to me is like trying the electric-chair-people in Texas for murder (don't employ someone to do something you don't want them to do) --Username132 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a different regime. I was following orders wasn't a defence at the Nurenburg Trials Bevo74 19:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on the triple portrait.

The information in the note beneath the portrait was not to the point, and innaccurate. The factual information about the portrait had been ommitted in favour of the speculative.

If one says that "this is an example of the way in which van Dyck masked Charles' small stature,portraying him in a more dignified manner", then the question must be asked, more dignified than what? Are tallness and dignity proportional to each other? I suspect that Charles I may have had dignity, whatever his height.

Moreover, because this portrait serves a particular purpose- the creation of a bust, then height is not an issue. The comment is irrelevant to this painting.

In the case of the other van Dyck reproduced here, the comment might be applied more readily, but in fact the artist has portayed Charles as a small man. His short stature is apparent in his proportions, which the artist has done nothing to disguise.

--Amandajm 15:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Historiography + Factual Errors

I think some mention of the historiography relating to Charles would be helpful in this article. Whig historians see Charles' death as the culmination of the 'revolution' in Parliament's power, that had started under Elizabeth; while others see Charles' death simply as the result of strong temporary internal dissatisfaction, linked to larger issues such as financial problems.

There are also some factual errors on this page: "A writ issued in 1634 ordered the collection of ship money in peacetime, notwithstanding statutes of Edward I and Edward III that had prohibited the levying of such a tax except during wars. This first writ of 1634, however, did not encourage much opposition on legal grounds, but a second writ of 1635 did. Charles' third writ demanding ship money, issued in 1636, made it clear that the ancient prohibition on collecting ship money during peacetime had been swept away". Charles claimed that he was collecting a war-time tax, as he fought against Turkish pirates that were disrupting trade in the Channel. Until recently this has been discredited, however it is now thought (c.f. Derrick Murphy's "Britain 1558-1667", published by Collins) that much of the money actually did go toward funding a navy to break up the pirate threat.

This is clearly a fallacy also: "This action of demanding ship money to be raised in peacetime aggravated rebellion thus forcing him to call parliament into session by 1640". Charles was ostensibly forced to call Parliament after his failure in the Second Bishops War, and the Scottish Army encamped itself in Northern England, demanding payment for every day that they stayed. Charles didn't have anything like the funds required, and so had to call Parliament in order to raise an army or pay the Scots. This of course, much retrograde to Charles' desires, resulted in the customary airing of grievances before they would grant the tax. Thus while Ship Money was a contributing factor to Charles' difficulties with Parliament, it was not the sole reason for his calling of Parliament.

This is a misrepresentation: "The Long Parliament assembled in November 1640 under the leadership of John Pym". Pym was not an official leader, he just became head of the Puritan reformers.


I took the lack of response to be accepting the change regarding ship money, so I have fixed that up and referenced Derrick Murphy's book as well. It's only a very basic piece of editing, I'm not sure how well it fits in with the overall scheme of the article, it's the conclusion to the "Tyranny or Personal Rule" part, so feel free to change it round a bit and delete some of the edits I made.--Deano 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) --User:AH DeanDeano 22:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

G'day Deano. I don't have time to edit your additions myself, and am not in any case a Charles I scholar, but offer this: I think that the clarification re. ship money works where you've put it in a limited fashion, however info re. the Scottish rebellion and the recall of Parilament is covered in the next two sections - suggest that you merge your additions/clarifications re. the rebellion and causes of the recall into those sections to avoid repetition. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, I have made that change, thanks for the suggestion -- 'tis a little bit more logical that way, as it splits up the problems of Charles' Personal Rule into the major thematic headings. My major concern that popular (and wildly incorrect) view that ship money caused the rebellion and downfall of Personal Rule has been corrected anyway. I am a little wont to include historiography -- it's an interesting topic, but I think that in relation to the average person wanting to know about Charles, it's probably a little irrelevant. Thoughts?--Deano 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
In another thought, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that England could be called a "police state" given that during this period there was no paid civil service. It's a little difficult I think to refer to Personal Rule as being a time of having absolute central control when the King relied so heavily upon his archaic and unpaid bureaucracy. I recall one of the quotes of Graves and Silcock's book "Revolution, Reaction, and the Triumph of Conservatism, England 1558 - 1700" was that the problem with the Personal Rule period, and indeed all Stuart and Tudor England was that "England did not have all the functions of a modern totalitarian state". Maybe I should modify the somewhat short sighted comment about England being a police state? Censorship ceased before 1640 in England, and the majority of the cases before the Star Chamber were still not politically motivated.--Deano 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Southwell

The inscription can be read at full size
The inscription can be read at full size

The text says that Charles surrendered to the Scots at Newark and was taken to Southwell. However, the Saracen's Head pub in Southwell (then the King's Arms) has an official blue plaque claiming that Charles was arrested there disguised as a clergyman. Who is right? jimfbleak 08:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The plaque does not seem to state that Charles was arrested at the pub, merely that he "spent his last few hours of freedom" there and was "taken" to the army commanders. john k 17:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

here's the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on the subject:

After leaving Oxford with a few companions [Charles] headed for London, apparently planning to spring a surprise on his opponents there. He got to within 10 miles, then decided to take the by-ways to King's Lynn whence he would sail to the continent to rally his supporters from there. He spent four days in Downham Market (again, just 10 miles from his destination), burning his papers and wracked by indecision. And then he opted for plan C. Slipping across the Great North Road, he journeyed up through the back-lanes of Northamptonshire and Rutland to Nottinghamshire, before surrendering himself to the Scots at Newark.

john k 19:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of page

Possibly his has been discussed before but I find the title of the page slightly off-putting. Surely he was Charles 1st of Great Britain? His father was a Scottish monarch who inherited the English throne, not the other way around. Also, the Crowns were already formally united by the time Charles became king. It just seems wrong to have the official listing for him as Charles 1st of England. Why can't it be 'of Britain'? David Lauder 11:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't been discussed before - because he was not king of Great Britain. The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, long after Charles I - Charles, as you would know had you bothered to read the article at all, was King of England, Scotland and Ireland separately. The three crowns were still separate, they just happened to be held in personal union - i.e. it just so happened that one man held all three. Hope this helps! – DBD 11:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

I just noticed on the article that it states: Charles is also the only person to be canonized by the Church of England since the English Reformation. [citation needed]

We are preparing a commemoration service for the Feast of S.Charles and so I was on the Society of King Charles the Martyr's web site. I happened to run across what I thought might be a citation for this article:

http://www.skcm.org/SCharles/scharles_main.html

I am unfamiliar with the citation process on this site but thought I would offer the aforementioned link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.181.200 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/Talk%7ECharles_I_of_England_ca10.html"