Talk:Charles II of England

How to talk about the the Commonwealth
I set off a small conflict when I edited out "de facto Republic". I gather @Urselius feels the wording should not imply that the Commonwealth was legitimate. If he can't have "de facto Republic" he wants to remind us that Cromwell had a standing army. Not sure why that matters – standing armies are a pretty common thing.

Legitimacy is a complicated and controversial thing, especially in the context of English Constitutional history. Opinions about whether the Commonwealth was legitimate vary, so WP:POV means we don't insert own own opinions. Let's just use the same wording as in Commonwealth of England.

-- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Agreed. There continue to be strong and honestly-held academic opinions about the legitimacy or otherwise of the Commonwealth, opinions which we can address in other articles. But here, the inclusion of "de facto" or "whose authority rested on the power of a standing army" makes very clear the editor's opinion of the matter, contrary to WP:POV. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolute rubbish. : You are both wrong. Apart from the former garrison of Calais, the army of the Commonwealth was the FIRST standing army in English history, so it was definitely exceptional at the time, whatever may have become normal later. If you disbelieve this, just look at the difficulty Charles I had in scraping together an army for his Scottish war, an army made up of amateurs: 'Trained Bands', the followers of magnates and 'volunteers' out for plunder. You are further mistaken, the phrase 'de facto republic' was originally employed in the article because the term 'republic' was not formally used about the non-monarchical regime in England, which was referred to as a 'commonwealth' and its later stages are called a 'protectorate' in historical usage. It has everything to do with usage and nothing to do with whether or not the Commonwealth was in reality a republic. It is an undoubted fact that the final arbiter of authority in the Commonwealth was the standing army, and, once various parliamentary and appointed committee experiments had failed, it was Cromwell, backed by the power of the army, who ran the country. I have absolutely no interest in the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Commonwealth regime, none whatsoever. I am only interested in the facts of power. Can you realistically claim that the army was not the bedrock of power in the country when it was the most prominent army general, Monck, who engineered the restoration of Charles II? You have completely misunderstood my position and the situation. BTW I am a borderline Communist and in no way a monarchist by conviction, so you have misinterpreted my position entirely. Urselius (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, you're making my point for me. When you characterize our opinions as "rubbish" and throw a lot of boldface at us, you're making it very clear that you have strongly held opinions. (You're also violating WP:NICE, not that I care that much.) Did I mischaracterize your opinions when I talked about legitimacy? If you say so. The fact remains that your inserting your opinions in violation of NPOV.
 * If you're absolutely determined to make us change the way we talk about the Commonwealth, the best way to start is by editing Commonwealth of England. Not that I'm recommending you do that: you'll get the same pushback there that you're getting here, only more so.
 * And maybe don't edit war.
 * -- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the problem, you do not understand what it is I am saying. What I characterised as 'rubbish' was the false inferences both yourself and the other editor had taken about what my views were. I am strictly interested in exactitude of expression and of the inclusion of relevant historical facts. I really do not care a tinker's cuss about the legitimacy of the Commonwealth from a constitutional law perspective, but I do recognise --- no it's pointless trying to reason with you at all. I note with interest that you have been blocked for edit warring yourself, in the past, not something that has ever happened to me. Urselius (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I leave you with this to ponder, from p. 40 of 'Oliver Cromwell' (2003), by David Sharp, "Cromwell was a shrewd politician who realised that his only secure power base was the army. In the last analysis the army would follow him, but he had no large group of civilian MPs to support him." That sounds a lot like what I have been saying, doesn't it? Urselius (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me what you think the "relevant historical facts" are. Are you arguing that Cromwell was an evil thug? If I knew more about him, I might well agree with you. But that's value judgment that has no place here.
 * And kindly dispense with the personal attacks. They just undermine your case. As does the shouting. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant facts are: that the Commonwealth was not called a republic, though it was one, the army of the Commonwealth was innovative, in that it was a standing army, the first in English history, and that the stability of the Commonwealth and Cromwell's grip on power were directly based on the existence of, and military force embodied in, the standing army. No personal attacks, just observations. I can find secondary sources to back up my claims, can you find secondary sources that gainsay them, or even militate against their importance? Urselius (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "...no it's pointless trying to reason with you at all. I note with interest that you have been blocked for edit warring yourself, in the past, not something that has ever happened to me. " That's a personal attack.
 * And you keep ignoring my point: value judgments have no place here, even if they're based on good historical research. If you're not to address that, I'm done arguing with you. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A historical fact, backed up by the opinion of many academics, is not a value judgment in any universe, including yours. Cromwell's regime was, however it was dressed up, based on the backing of the army. It was not a parliamentary democracy, its was a republic inasmuch as he refused the crown (in 1657, when it was offered to him), but he had many of the powers of a monarch. Urselius (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Enough. We're done here. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This needs to be taken to formal arbitration. Urselius (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * By all means. I think you might find the results disappointing. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let us not prejudge. Urselius (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just going by what happened last time I went to arbitration. The arbitrator's answer boiled down to, "Sorry, Isaac, you failed to convince the other editors, and that's that. Maybe you think they didn't give you a fair listen, but it's not my job to evaluate that." Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC about whether the relation of the army and Cromwellian regime is relevant
Should the lead contain reference to the Cromwellian regime's reliance on the support of the newly embodied standing army? Urselius (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that the body of the article text already contains the following sentence, "Under the Instrument of Government passed by Parliament, Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1653, effectively placing the British Isles under military rule", I hardly think that it constitutes a contentious addition to the introduction. Urselius (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I'd like to see some sources - much of the above is without any sources so it's hard to judge (I do note the one source brought forth) but we should decide these things on sources rather than our own opinions. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources @Urselius offers are perfectly fine. There's no reason to question his characterization of Cromwell's rule. If this were an article about Cromwell or the English Commonwealth, this detail might be important.
 * But this article is about Charles II. Cromwell only comes up here because he's the guy who overthrew Charles's father. Urselius seems to think that we need to emphasize what a bad guy Cromwell was. Initially he insisted that Cromwell's regime was a "de facto republic". That's not what "de facto" means, so he fell back on "republic backed by a standing army."
 * If this fact is important (and I'm not arguing that it isn't), then Urselius needs to go edit Commonwealth of England to place more emphasis on this fact. Inserting it here means contributing to the factoid creep that gradually makes Wikipedia articles unreadable.
 * -- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that such a small issue instantly degenerated into a two-editor argument and then to an RFC. This really should be the sort of thing that can be straightforwardly resolved by calm discussion. For what it's worth, my view is that the existing wording says all that's needed in the lead, bearing in mind that this article is about Charles II, not about Cromwell or his legitimacy. It uses the word "republic" and succinctly explains what that means. Additional glosses such as "whose authority rested on the power of a standing army" are unnecessary. It's not that such glosses are factually incorrect (it's easy to find support for them), but they're not directly relevant to the subject of the article and they read like an obvious interpolation giving the impression of editorial disapproval. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a factor in the involvement of the army in the politics of the time that is directly relevant to Charles II, it was the power of the newly created standing army that was the bedrock of the government of Oliver Cromwell, but it was the naked military power of the selfsame army, through the machinations of its most powerful and influential general, George Monck, that ensured his restoration. Without a prior, and direct, flagging of this political fact, the restoration of Charles II as king makes little sense. It is no coincidence that the majority of senior regiments in the British army trace their origins to this period, The Grenadier Guards originate in Charles' small army in exile, while the Royal Horse Guards (Blues), and many, many other regiments, trace their origins to units of the Commonwealth standing army. The standing army was a huge influence on the politics and history of the period, and had after effects that are still with us. Its importance is hard to exaggerate. Urselius (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think we should find a brief way of explaining the situation after Charles I's deposition that does not require supplementary clauses or raises additional problems or questions. For example, "England entered a period of military rule known as the English Interregnum or the English Commonwealth, with a government led by Oliver Cromwell". Celia Homeford (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's a lot more detail than the context requires. But if it will end this argument, I can live with it. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Urselius (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The fanatic Francophone Charles II was a ‘false Stuart’ (a Medici infiltrator) his true father being Henry Jermyn the Freemasonic grandmaster.
Is it okay to at least the byword the aforesaid?

2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:88B1:DDFD:F9B6:7E51 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am reckoning that Charles ii true father (the Francophone Henry Jermyn) has nowt true royal Stewart blood in him.
 * Forsooth, what nonsense are you two talking about? EEng 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Come on be better than that. Why exactly is it nonsense? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:88B1:DDFD:F9B6:7E51 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it's not cited and not phrased encyclopedically. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Seriously? What is with these conspiracy theorists, and their blatant lies? 76.64.181.63 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No man or woman can ever be kind or queen of Scotland!!!!
It should read King of Scots not Scotland 130.51.240.92 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Specifically the usage of Charles II was, "By the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith". Being a king of a people, rather than a country tended to die out during the later Middle Ages. Urselius (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: A blizzard of policy-based SNOW; consensus will not develop in favour of the proposed title. ——Serial 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Charles II of England → Charles II of England, Scotland, and Ireland – Charles was not only the king of England. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. Per WP:NCROY, when there are multiple states we use the most commonly associated realm. Векочел (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN: Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unnecessarily long. Unnecessary disambiguation. Use the more concise unambiguous title. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)