Talk:Charles II of England/Archive 1

Regnal Dates
According to royal theory Charles succeeded to the English and Scottish thrones in 1649, the moment his father was executed. In 1660 he was in a position to reign with the monarchy's restoration, but he was already in effect king-in-abstentia for 11 years by then. JtdIrL 09:40 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at www.royal.gov.uk. It gives the beginning of Charles II's reign as 1660.  (Mind you, it also lists the "Monarchs of the United Kingdom" as beginning in 1603 - maybe you should correct them!) Deb 17:53 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

I know. There has been a big row among historians and advisors in the Palace as to how to describe the kingdoms post 1603. One historian who has advised BP on some stuff described that entry as bullshit. Most historians apply 'United Kingdom' only from 1801. A minority apply it from 1707. Even if you go by the formal declaration of James VI/VII as to his title, where he mentions Great Brittaine, that occured on 20th October 1604. So even by that definition it should only apply from October 1604 not 1603. By any standards, the BP website is, as the historian put it, bullshit. King Charles II assumed the throne in 1660. He inherited the monarchy in 1649. BP cannot give an earlier without trying to write the Commonwealth and Cromwell out of history, which they know is unrealistic. That in many ways is the difference between the British and French royals, which is why the former still have a throne and the latter don't. The former are flexible enough to accept the reality of the 1649-1660 period, whereas most of the latter stick rigidly to constitutional theory, to the extent of claiming that Louis XVI's dauphin was Louis XVII, hence Louis XVI's younger brother assuming the ordinal XVIII when he reigned as Louis XVIII. JtdIrL 18:39 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm moving here from the British monarchs talk page for obvious reasons. Yes, I'm sure it's true that Charles II regarded himself as king from 1649 (and don't forget that the Civil War was fought largely for the purpose of demonstrating that kings didn't have a divine right to rule without the approval of their people).  However, Charles was also pragmatic enough to realise that he couldn't rule without Parliament's agreement and therefore he didn't press the point.  I think you are going too far with your argument -- the corollary would be that both George I and the Old Pretender were actually king at the same time.  Or, to go back before the Act of Succession, that Stephen and Matilda were both technically monarchs, contemporaneously. Deb 21:57 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

The reason why the English/British monarchy survived while others didn't was because of its pragmatism, as I have said before. It would be a mistake to think that the outcome of the Civil War confined the concept of the divine right of kings to the rubbish bin and replaced it with a parliamentary monarchy. It is not that simple. The central point about accession to the throne is inheritance, not parliament. Parliament may structure that inheritance, it may intervene in extraordinary circumstances, but not otherwise.

This whole discussion started on the central argument, is parliamentary participation a requirement for the succession to the throne. The answer is no. All the constitutional textbooks say that unambiguously. Parliament may be involved if there is a constitutional crisis, but those are rare occasions. In the normal course of events, there is no parliamentary involvement whatsoever. All that happens is that people like the speaker attend the Accession Council. Parliament's role is limited to


 * legislating on the Order of Succession
 * legislation for an abdication

Within that limited framework, succession is automatic. JtdIrL 22:59 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think we're straying from the point here. But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as everyone's happy to leave his accession date as 1660. Deb 19:13 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with 1660 for England as long as the accession and coronation dates are also included in the article. You've got me scratching my head a bit over the most appropriate date to use for Scotland though.  I'd also note that, while JTD's analysis sounds good for mediaeval and later monarchies, there were other governing principles in earlier times -- I'm thinking of tanistry here -- which made some form of coronation/affirmation ceremony much more important than it is nowadays. -- Derek Ross 19:23 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

I added both of his coronation dates to the article a few days ago as well as declarations of succession.Actualy the problem with Scotland is this:He was crowned but for only a brief time before the English armie (of the Parliament) defeated the Scottish armie (of Charles) and occupied Scotland while Charles fled to exile.Should this be considered part of his actual reign or part of his years of claim to the throne?I prefear the second but any other opinions?-User:Dimadick

It is possible but I don't remember any english monarch's coronation being an entry point into office. Coronations normally aren't. Today, the British monarch is the one European monarch who has a coronation. Monarchs in Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Norway have not been crowned for decades, sometimes centuries. Nor were the kings of Greece and Italy crowned. JtdIrL 19:49 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * I couldn't go for the coronation date. After all, Richard I was crowned twice - that doesn't mean he was king twice. Deb 20:53 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Unofficial Prince of Wales
The article and disambiguation says he used the title unofficially because he was not invested but as investing is not necessary does it mean that no the letters patent were issued? Afer all Charles was PoW from 1957, but not invested until 1969. garryq 14:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Featured article?
I noticed the "Featured Article" banner at the top of the page. Does this mean that the article has been featured on the main page of Wikipedia?*Kat* 04:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Frances Stuart
Frances Stuart who was the Duchess of Richmond was not one of Charles II's mistresses. This fact is actually part of her claim to fame. Charles wanted her as his mistress very, very, badly but she didn't want him at all! When she married the Duke of Richmond Charles was so angry that he banished the newly-weds from Whitehall palace.*Kat* 22:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's quite so clear cut.
 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9063600
 * http://www.bartleby.com/65/rc/RchmndLnR.html
 * http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/famousfirst1192.html
 * http://81.1911encyclopedia.org/R/RI/RICHMOND_AND_LENNOX_FRANCES_TERESA_STEWART_DUCHESS_OF.htm

Those are excellent encyclopedias, however even the britannica has been known to be wrong.
 * My sources are:
 * Charles II and Madame by Cyril Hughes Hartmann (London 1934)<correspondence between Charles II and his favorite sister, Henrietta Anne, Duchess d'Orléans. Charles vented his fury towards Frances Stuart in a rather eloquent letter to Henrietta
 * Royal Survivor by Stephan Coote (London 1999)
 * Life and Times of Charles II by Christopher Falkus (London 1974)

I don't know the page numbers off hand, but it shouldn't be too hard to look it up. Frances Stuart is just prominent (sp?) enough to merit her own entry in these books' indexes, but not so well known that she has more than three or four mentions.

I have spent my fall semester immersed in Charles II's life, and I spent about a week focusing on his sex life (just for the fun of it). I'm pretty sure that Frances Stuart didn't sleep with Charles II.*Kat* 22:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Legitimate/Bastard children
While the term legitimate has certain legal ramifications, for both children and monarchs (and this excellent page is rather POV promonarch) illegitimate and bastard have connotations in English which among social workers, legal scholars and most common people are now probably avoided! I've popped in marital and non-marital were it seems appropriate and left legitmate only in reference to the succesion, where it is legally appropriate. The fact that Charles l "legitimised" so many of his children with titles is a good illustration of why these terms are passsing from use. Perhaps a reference page exists to explore this? s-slater


 * Charles legitimized none of his children. He acknowledged them.  I agree with Emsworth that illegitimate is the appropriate word here. john k 17:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Barstady, not "non-maritial"-ity (?).


 * Is it too much of a stretch to wonder whether just about all people of British descent are descended from him, or at least a very large percentage?


 * James F. (talk) 18:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there a parameter in the infobox for illegitimate children? DrKiernan (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fitzcharles was removed from the list of children back in 2007, but she still appears in non-English versions of the article. Is there a source for her being an illegitimate daughter of the king? If not, why does she appear in some versions but not this one? 98.239.7.135 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Elections
The statement that the "people" elected a Royalist Parliament is very misleading as almost nobody could vote! s-slater


 * You're right, it should say the electors elected a royalist parliament. This is the term of art used for elections to the French Chamber between 1814 and 1848, I know.  I'm not sure if it's normally used for Britain - if there's a more standard term, we should use it. john k 19:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wales a kingdom?
He was King of Wales?--MWAK 21:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, for it was (and remains) a principality that had been annexed to England in 1536, sir. He was sovereign over her even though there was no Prince of Wales during his reign. --Anglius 20:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Without a Prince of Wales..surely the Principality remains a seperate independent unity. In fact, effectively as there was no King and no Prince governing, then Wales was rather (and still is!) a prolonged occupied state whereby a puppet sovereignty is in place.


 * No, Wales is part of the Kingdom of England. It was annexed by the Henry VIII in 1536, I think.  Beforehand the Prince of Wales had actual power, I think. BovineBeast 19:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't revert without giving reasons
Silverhorse, please don't just revert to your preferred version without even an edit summary. I gave a reason for my own revert, and it was in line with practice on other similar pages. Please discuss on this page. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Football
Football or soccer was formalised in the 19th century but was already hundreds of years old by then. As such, it was the predecessor of the formalised game that is referenced. Hence my revert. Ian Cairns 17:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Julian and Gregorian calendar dates
During Charles II's time, England still used Julian calendar, so all dates in the article should be further verified.--Jusjih 03:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So, are the dates Julian or Gregorian now? Andres 06:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between the two calendars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.5.226 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time, the Gregorian calendar was 10 days ahead of the Julian one. We use the Gregorian calendar (mostly) today. See Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar for the details. DrKiernan (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * His birth and death dates ought to be corrected to Gregorian dates, as to my knowledge, Julian dating is not supported in Wikipedia... Currently, they are Julian dates. Other articles do not deploy Julian dates as the given dates, so why are they included here? Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All the sources use Julian dates. So do we. DrKiernan (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles II descendent of Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici
Should there not be a section linking HM King Charles II to the Medici?

I have included the linkage back to Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici (1360–1429).

HM King Charles II Son of Charles I King of England and Henrietta Maria from France, daughter of Marie de' Medici (1573–1642) Queen of France, daughter of Francesco I de' Medici (1541–1587), Grand duke of Tuscany, son of Cosimo I de' Medici (1519–1574), Grand duke of Tuscany, son of Lodovico de' Medici (Giovanni dalle Bande Nere) (1498–1526), the most famous soldier of all the Medici son of Giovanni the Popolano (1467–1498) son of Pierfrancesco de' Medici (the Elder) (1431–1476) son of Lorenzo de' Medici (the Elder) (1395–1440), brother of Cosimo de' Medici (the Elder) (1389–1464), son of Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici (1360–1429)

Charles II-a great king?
I'm puzzled by the assertion that Charles II is "still considered" to be one "England's greatest kings." What is the source of this contention? He was so skilled in managing Parliament that he eventually had to manage without it altogether. He spent considerable time and effort in trying to free himself from the uncomfortable financial scrutiny exercized by Parliament by turning himself into a pensioner of Louis XIV. His religious policies-particularly in Scotland- were far from admirable. His Dutch wars were fairly disastrous affairs. Above all, he was manipulative and cynical, and quite prepared to deceive even his closest advisors. Does any of this point to greatness? Finally, on a point of information, Charles supported the sucession of his brother, James, not because he was a Catholic, but because he was the only legitimate heir.

I was tempted to remove the reference to Charles' alleged greatness altogether, but I only make changes in matters of fact rather than matters of opinion. Rcpaterson 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, surely one could make the claim that Charles II duplicity and mismanagement of his conflicts with Parliament created the poisonous political atmosphere which led to the revolution of 1688. In any case, the "England's greatest kings" stuff sounds amateurish, is horribly POV, and has no place in a wikipedia article. csrster

The Merry Monarch
A reference to Charles as "The Merry Monarch" was recently removed, I've put it back in with a citation (E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898) but I am happy to discuss it with anyone that still has reservations. Kaid100 12:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Silverhorse Has deleted the reference again, with the edit summary:
 * (It is NOT an offical title, it does not belong in the first line)
 * I've had a look in the WP guidelines and naming conventions, and I can't find anything that says you that only official titles should be in the first line. These English monarchs not only have a non-official title in the first line, but also as the name of the article: Edward the Confessor Ethelred the Unready.  This one includes a popular non-official name in the first line: William II of England. I don't see why well-known popular titles that aren't official couldn't be included, what do people think? Kaid100 16:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see as "The Merry Monarch" is significant on the same level as "Edward the Confessor" or "William Rufus". Those monarchs are almost always called that.  "The Merry Monarch" is just a nickname.  It should be in the article, but probably not in the first line. john k 16:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

King of Scots and other Matters
KING OF SCOTS

The point about Jersey being the only part of British territory to recognize Charles as king is wrong. As soon as the news of his father's death reached Edinburgh in early February Charles was immediately proclaimed as king. Formal announcement was given at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh on 5 February 1649 by John Campbell, Earl of Loudon, Lord Chancellor of Scotland, who dressed in black for the occasion. Charles remained king in title only until his coronation on 1 January 1651. I suggest you check the situation in Ireland, where I suspect a similar announcement of his title was made. (I see that the point about Charles' Scottish title appears further on in the article, in clear contradiction to the statement made at the outset.)


 * He was certainly proclaimed in Scotland. Royalists in Ireland probably proclaimed him, but they weren't in control of the country in the way the Covenanters were in Scotland. john k 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The title of this page should be changed. Charles was king of "Great Britain and Ireland". The seperate kingdoms of England and Scotland had combined. It is no wonder that so many Americans (in particular) refer wrongly to the United Kingdom as "England". As this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we must get things correct. Acorn897 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

With regards the comment just above, the kingdoms hadn't been combined; it was still the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England at this point - nonetheless the title of the article should change - not to Charles II of Great Britain, but to Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.209.225 (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MERRY MONARCH

Please read the article over-the reference to this title appears twice. It's probably impossible to avoid this rather silly nickname, so well established in popular imagination, in a piece on Charles II -and I note from the above comments that it still has the power to incite passions-but I suspect it was invented long after his death. I am certainly not aware of any contemporary use.


 * According to the Oxford Book of Satirical Verse (and other sources, I'm sure), the term "merry monarch" was used by John Wilmot, earl of Rochester (1647-1680) in "A Satire on Charles II." Wilmot wrote "Restless he rolls about from whore to whore,/A merry monarch, scandalous and poor."  I can't say I've seen many references to the nickname in contemporary prints, but Wilmot was certainly a contemporary of the king.  64.9.58.211 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Rachel

RICHARD CROMWELL AND GEORGE MONCK

The traditional picture of Richard Cromwell as 'incompetent and unwilling to rule' is not accurate. His problem was that he simply lacked the authority of his father; the major-generals were all jealous of his unearned honours, and he had few supporters in Parliament. He had little choice but to abdicate.

Beyond announcing his desire to see a free Parliament, George Monck's intentions remained unclear for some time after he crossed into England in January, 1660. His support for the Restoration of the king only emerged in the spring of that year.


 * You should feel free to edit the article to correct errors or misconceptions you feel it perpetuates. john k 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

REGICIDES

Charles did not renege on any promise to the regicides. They were specifically excluded from the Declaration of Breda and all promises of indemnity. Too much is made of manner of their execution here. Horrible as it was, it was the standard punishment for treason, still in use a hundred years later.

FARNLEY WOOD-WHAT IS THIS?

Could you please explain why so much space has been given this episode? It totally distorts the pace of the whole article, and adds nothing to our understanding of the reign of Charles II. It is also-I am sorry to say-very badly written.

DANBY

The point made about Danby is not just wrong it is amazingly wrong. He did nothing to encourage the repellant Titus Oates, viewing his 'revelations' with the same degree of scepticism as the king. He was duty bound to report the matter to Parliament, but this did nothing to stop later accusations that he had deliberately concealed the details. Rcpaterson 23:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this was my understanding of Danby's role, as well. Again, you should feel free to edit this stuff. john k 15:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article broken
The end of the article (along with wikilinks and categories) seems to have been lost. I have no time to track the changes. The end should be restored in a way that doesn't delete the changes made after that. 88.196.35.220 10:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry Charles Stuart
Twice recently the first paragraph of the articles has had an edit saying that Charles was born "Henry Charles Stuart" (I removed it the first time). I'm pretty sure this isn't true, I've never seen it in a biography of Charles and a google search for "Henry Charles Stuart" comes up with nothing about the Merry Monarch. I'm adding a "citation needed", but if anyone wants to debate it here they can. Kaid100 23:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it. I've read a few biographies of Charles II.  His first name was not Henry.  He did, however, have a brother named Henry who died in 1660.--*Kat* 04:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Conversion
If the conversion of Charles to Catholicism was secret, what is the source of the story of Huddleston being smuggled into the royal bedchamber? Anyone know?--Gazzster 12:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted this passage. There are rumours that he converted, but it is not certain, as far as I know. If someone can find a source, thne it could be put back in.Zeus1234 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the negotiations of 1663 for him to be admitted to the Roman Catholic church? Shouldn't they be mentioned? Charles' Catholic leanings seem to get too little attention in the article. --89.243.11.73 12:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the article on the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, William Sancroft, it is said that he attended Charles II on his death bed. It seems a bit odd that Charles was being received into the Roman Catholic church at the same time. Poshseagull (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There were lots of people there but the Duke of York had the room cleared (supposedly at his brother's request, according to James) and it was then that Huddleston was brought in through a separate door while everyone else waited in an ante-room. DrKiernan (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Greatest Monarch?
I'm just writing to inform everyone that I am removing the reference to him being a "highly skilled manager of parliament", and "still regarded as being one of englands greatest monarchs". Firstly it is totally inappropriate to include in a wikipedia article a value statement of the 'greatest monarchs' kind unless this is an absolutely undeniable and generally accepted view; like saying that "Louis the XIV is generally regarded as being one of France's greatest monarchs". To be honest, apart from perhaps Alfred the Great, I dont think there are any English kings of whom such a statement could be made unequivocally, ie of whom such a statement could be made without someone contesting it. It might be appropriate to note that, for example, Henry V was one of Britain's most warlike and militarily successful kings, or that Edward I or Henry II are regarded as having had the greatest influence on the development of british judicial and governmental systems. So even if the statement regarding Charles the II were fairly accurate, it would probably be inappropriate to express it as it is currently expressed. But the bizarre thing is, it is not even close to being accurate. I have never heard of Charles II referred to as one of britains greatest monarchs, and certainly not in the area of relations with parliament. His whole life was a struggle to get what he wanted from parliament, and he frequently clashed with it and had his proposed taxes or bills rejected. Of all the monarchs britain has had, he was probably the least succesful in terms of relations with parliament, except of course from his father. Both statements seem inappropriate to me, and it seems that several people below agree, although their comments were months ago and have still not been acted upon. So i am going to remove them. If anyone disagrees, please post here before putting them back in 82.3.150.98 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call! I didn't know that stuff was in there. Remove it, definitely. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure I understand why Charles's management of parliament was worse than his grandfather's. Charles had the same parliament for 19 years.  That's a pretty impressive achievement.  Of course he had problems with it - parliament was fucking hard to deal with - but I don't think it's fair to say he did a bad job of it.  You have to look at the context of his situation.  john k 02:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've slightly misunderstood what I was saying. My statement was not that Charles did a 'bad job' of managing parliament. He probably did a fairly decent job in a difficult situation. But the point of this article is NOT to provide a review of his personal performance, or say how 'good' a king he was. Rather it, and especially its opening paragraphs, are meant to give people a broad understanding of what his time as king was like, and the things he experienced. From that point of view,it is undoubtedly inappropriate to describe him as a brilliant manager of parliament, because that would give people the impression that his relations with parliament were highly successful. If someone who knew nothing about charles or the restoration period was to see that, it would give them a false sense what his reign was like. If you read the key line I put in instead in the article, i think it probably gets it about right.

"Much like his father, Charles II struggled for most of his life in his relations with parliament, although the tensions between the two never reached the same levels of hostility. He was only able to achieve true success towards the end of his reign, by dispensing with parliament and ruling alone."

I thnk this is, while not completely perfect,a reasonable way of putting it.

I considered showing it as being essenial a long period of success (with the long-running Cavalier Parliament that you refer too), followed by a short period of conflict (the exclusion Crisis), which would seem to be something close to what you were saying. However, when i really looked into it, it seemed that the evidence just didnt support that kind of interpretation. Even in the period of relative success with the 13 year 'Cavalier' Parliament, charles' relations with parliament were rocky, even when the MPs in question were strong tory royalists, who were supposedly his allies. Nor was this the result of a gradual process over the course of time. Almost from the beginning of his reign, he saw parliament pass laws and motions that were completely against the things he stood for and wanted. The Clarendon codes for example, which were passed within a year or two of his taking office, were completely the opposite of what he wanted in terms of the religious settlement of the country. While he personally favoured a fairly tolerant and open handed treatment of catholics and dessenters, the High Church, anglican royalists in parliment instead adopted a vicioussly aggressive reassertation of anglican values, and the persecuton of religious minorities. And this goes to the heart of the issue discussed above. A successful manager of parliament is not merely one who avoids direct conflict or being challenged, but one who gets through the kinds of measures, laws and taxes that he or she wants. And in this, sense, Charles was extremely unsuccessful. He almost never got the kinds of laws and measures that he wanted, and he frequently had to resort to nonparliamentary (and illegal) measures like the declaration of indulgences. At the same time, he frequently had his wars and military campaigns cut short due to parliament cutting off funds. He rarely ever got exactly what he wanted from parliament, and even when he did, it normally had so many strings attached as to negate its value. So to sum up, charles' relations with parliament do always seem to have been difficult, even in his periods of relative success, and I therefore think that the article as it stands now is a fairly acurate description o his reign, and the things he did and experienced.

Im sorry to go into such detail in response to your query, but it seems to be a topic that frequently comes up on these pages, and which is frequently argued over, so I thought it might be worth exploring in a little more depth.

Mattlav 08:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Death date right?
The Royal Society says he died 6th of Feb 1686. I have no clue whatsoever, just pointing it out... Grye 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was certainly 1685. I'll look up the exact date later today, but the year was definitely not 1686. Coemgenus 12:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it was definitely 1685. At least if you're using a calendar beginning January 1. john k 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what the issue is! The Old Style calendar changed years on March 15, right?.  I should've caught that the first time.  Thanks, John.  Coemgenus 18:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * England's new year started, I believe, on Lady Day/Feast of the Annunciation, which is March 25. I supposed what they were trying to say was that Charles died on 6 February 1685, according to the old calender, but we would consider the year to be 1686?  64.9.58.211 17:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Rachel
 * No, if you use the calendar starting on March 15, he died in 1684, I think. john k 02:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Links to the Gregorian Calendar, and the Julian calendar.
 * Also, here's some calculating tools
 * Grye 02:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Women in Plays
Was he the one to allow women to act or not? I can't find anywhere WHY women were allowed to act, and I need this information ASAP!!!!!!!!!! I'm not logged in, but I'm User:Divya da Animal lvr. PLEASE HELP ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.163.234 (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

This source may have what you need: http://www.gwu.edu/~klarsen/theatre.html#acting

Aldrichio 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great Plague
In this article it states that Charles II evacuated in July 1665 to Oxford as a result of the unbearable conditions the plague was evincing in London. I don't believe it is true that he went to Oxford, and I would like to know where this information came from. As I know it (from at least four different sources), Charles II fled to Salisbury in the summer, not Oxford. And also, if you take a look at the wikipedia article on Salisbury, you will see it mentioned that Charles II held court there during the Great Plague. If possible, please also could someone give the real exact date he left London? Thank you.

Death Bed
Although the article refers to Charles's refusal to have an Anglican cleric at his death bed, the article on Thomas Ken specifically mentions that Bishop Ken was in attendance. Also I presume that Charles's funeral in Westminster Abbey was an Anglican one. Millbanks 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction Too Long
This introduction strikes me as way too long. I'm going to try to rewrite it to comply with Lead section standards. Adam_sk 01:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I've made some changes to the infobox. I removed the references to Charles II as de jure king from 1649. De jure? From whose point of view? Royalists? Or Parliament, who was the supreme lawmaker in England (and governing body of Scotland) at the time? I've also removed Richard Cromwell as Charles II's predecessor. That may seem inconsistent with what I've just explained. But if we're talking about predecessors, it's less confusing to talk about predecession in the line of monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never was a fan of the de jure edits on Wiki articles. Charles II was a Scottish and English pretender only from 1649 to 1660. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wunder Gazz, if we should revert our changes & discuss things here first? IMHO, de jure edits are questionable for all articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Editors are free to revert if they want. I'm confident about the edits though. You're right about the de jure thing. I suspect that many editors aren't sure what de jure actually means, and so it gets used inappropriately.--Gazzster (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, we'll sit & waint. I was gonna add to the succession boxes 'Scottish Pretender' and 'Irish Pretender' sections (along with the 'English Pretender'), but I'm not sure how to do it without messing up the boxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you, but I'm fair sure the de jure rather than pretender status is due to the fact that he was proclaimed King retroactively to his father's death, plus the legal ramifications of whether or not the King's parliament could declare republic against his will, etc. DBD 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the core of my argument - Does 'retroactive proclamations' over-rule historic facts? I'll abide by what the majority wants. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Not even the law can re-write history. Besides, one might just as well argue that every British regime since Richard Cromwell was forced out of office has been illegal according to the Instrument of Government and the Humble Advice and Petition (i.e. the two Cromwellian written constitutions). TharkunColl (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't retroactive in Scotland. The article states that the Scottish Parliament declared him King before the English invaded and occupied the country. MA (Cantab) (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing about the retroactive accession is true. But it is the declaration of a restored regime (which by the by, used the declaration to hunt down the republican leaders and their associates with a vengeance rivalling only the trannies of Charkles I). Any restored regime could retroactively declare its predecessor regime illegal. In fact, most do (case in point, the restored Bourbon monarchy in France). But does that make the regime retroactively de jure?--Gazzster (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I took a peek at Louis XVIII of France & discovered they've got a de jure reign there aswell. I don't know: perhaps these de jure reigns were put in place to appease 'staunch royalist' editors or simply to avoid disputes - my guess is they're compromises reached after many disputes. Any ideas? GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope I'm not unraveling months of compromises. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does tend to attract fringe opinion, so it could be royalist comment. Who knows? De jure (as you know of course) means 'in law'. But who's law? And how do you define what is lawful? Parliament made the law because, in my opinion, England's king would not rule justly. It was the lawful authority by default.--Gazzster (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the official name of the state under Cromwell? Was it the Commonwealth of England or the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland? It seems to me that the state must have changed its name when it enacted parliamentary union with Scotland, then Ireland, but nowhere do those two articles actually say this. TharkunColl (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on the Commonwealth's name at talk: Commonwealth of England concerning the exclusion of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to Cantab, above) OK, on the face of it, a pretty good case could be made for Charles's reign in Scotland from 1649-1652. But one simply cannot make the case for his reign in England and Ireland from 1649. Parliament, the highest authority in the land, debarred him from the succession and abolished the monarchy. Calling him de jure king from that date makes no sense. As I've said before, de jure according to whom? Royalists? Parliament did not recognise him. Neither did the European powers. The intro to the article puts it well. It says he was recognised by royalists from 1649. But the edited infobox gives the impression that the matter is genuinely debateble.--Gazzster (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And another problem. If we say that Charles reigned over Scotland twice (1649-1652), (1660-1685), how do we date the beginning of the second reign? In other words, when was the Tender of Union repealed or annulled?--Gazzster (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In other encylopedias & Scottish lists I've seen, Charles II's reign has been 1660 to 1685. I still feel 'staunch royalist' are behind these de jure reigns across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * De jure ftw & Rule Brittania! DBD 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Peeked at the List of Scottish monarchs & List of English monarchs, they've got Charlie as King of England (1660-85) & King of Scotland as (1649-51, 1660-85). Perhaps that's best for this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would argue for a de facto approach. So far as I can see, Charles did not in any sense rule in England before 1660: the government had specifically barred him from inheritance to the throne. In Scotland, on the other hand (if wikipedia is right - I can't read up on this until I get back to uni and the library, so I have to depend on what sources I have and the dubious information provided by wikipedia itself), the government proclaimed him, and ruled in his name until late-51 to early-52, and then again from 1660. Whatever the legitimacies of rule in Scotland between those two times, England was nonetheless in control, and Charles was not recognised as monarch by the rulers/occupiers of Scotland at that time.

As for England, however, I'd say date his reign only from 1660. He didn't rule England at that time. The monarchy had been abolished, the government didn't obey him or acknowledge him as leader either in name or practice. And I'm not at all certain I've ever seen him claimed as King of England monarch before 1660. Michael Sanders 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I believe Parliament did annul most, if not all legislation of the Long Parliament after 1649, the Rump and the Protectorate on the grounds that they had no lawful authority to act, since Charles II was assumed to have succeeded in 1649. This is of course, the act of a restored regime and cannot in any way lend weight to the idea that Charles was de jure monarch from that date.--Gazzster (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The edits reverted do not use the term "de jure" (which by the way, means "by right" not "in law", which is a subtle difference I know, but a difference nevertheless). They stated quite clearly the nub of the matter, one date is the death of his father, accepted by royalists and Cavaliers as the first date of the reign (as fully explained in the article), and the other is the "traditional" date of the Restoration, which (as also mentioned in the article) was chosen for convenience because it happened to coincide with (1) his 30th birthday, (2) his entry into London, and (3) the assembly of King and Parliament together. Earlier dates could have been chosen, for example the Parliamentary vote recognising him as King since 1649 was on 2 May, the news reached Charles on 8 May, Pepys relates how people (including Monck) openly referred to Charles as "the King" before May (the diary starts on 1 January), with numbers gradually increasing as time wore on.

Statements above that Charles was not recognised as King by the European powers are inaccurate. He was recognised by France and the United Provinces until 1654, but only by Spain and some of the German states thereafter.

The dates of his Scottish reign are variously described in the literature. The start of his reign has been placed at 30 January 1649, 2 February 1649, 5 February 1649 or 23 June 1650, depending on which event the historian chooses to date from, and the end of the first reign has been placed at 3 September 1651, mid-October 1651, or 2 February 1652, depending on which event the historian chooses to date to. Attempts to portray Scotland as somehow the same as England will be resisted strongly.

The dates of his Irish reign are even more confused because Ireland was a mess at the time, with at least three different competing powers, some of which recognised him in 1649 others later (though before May 1660), and things become more confused when you throw in the Cromwellian conquest, the refusal by Charles to accept the crown of Ireland for fear of losing English support, and the legal issue of whether or not the Irish Parliament is subordinate to the English one.

The problem we face is the same problem that people at the time faced: it was a Civil War, things were confused and there were (at least) two sides (in fact, it was multifaceted, but let's not complicate things further). History is not neat. There is no need, and indeed it is disingenuous to do so, to force the article into a convenient straightjacket that portrays things as you want them to be rather than as they are or were. We should re-instate the suggested compromise, which uses dates at either end of the range and avoids use of terms like "de facto" and "de jure". DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael claims that the sources I used to re-write the article are "dubious". I would point out that they are clearly listed and include the three most highly respected academic biographies available (two of which are written by history professors), the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Royal Household itself. DrKiernan (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My take would be that 1660 is the most realistic date to use - but I'm not prepared to die in a ditch over it (yes, yes, I know a lot of people will be disappointed to hear that). In my opinion, we should try to avoid terms like de facto and any other non-English terms that are not in common usage (I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to understand them, but this encyclopaedia should be designed to give its readers the information in the way that is easiest to comprehend for the majority - these days, most people don't even seem to know the difference between e.g. and i.e.!) Deb (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I been thinking of taking my de jure reign concerns to WikiProject Royalty, as I fear such edits might be confusing to less familiar readers. If anybody feels I'm taking this de jure concern too far? Let me know & I'll cease complaining about it (and will restore the defacto & de jure reigns). GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Often a particular term is not properly understood, and used inappropriately. Not only in this article and in regards to de jure and de facto, but elsewhere as well.--Gazzster (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and brought up the de jure thing at WikiProject Royalty. Also, I think Charles's reign as King of Ireland, was 1649-51 & 1660-85. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Succession Boxes
At the bottom of the article, the succession box title needs to be changed, from British royalty to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think 'British' here may be used in a geographical, not political sense.--Gazzster (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, what gives with the separation of England and Ireland? These were a conjoined estate inherited from the Tudors, with only Scotland separate. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What gives is that Ireland was separate, there was no union as yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conor.hogan.2 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Charles II's first reign, 1649 to 1651?
Since the Kingdom of Scotland was abolished in 1652 (later restored in 1660). Should not Charles 'first' reign be 1649 to 1652? Or was the Scottish Throne 'vacant' 1651 to 1652? GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We discussed this before in #Infobox. His reign is until his defeat at Worcester (as in the article currently), his flight from Britain (mid-October 1651) or 2 February 1652 (abolition) depending on personal choice. At present, the article favors de facto dates over de jure ones, so the Battle of Worcester is used as the cut-off. DrKiernan (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of new images
Recently I uploaded several high-resolution high-quality portraits of Charles II, below. I realise this article has many images already, but I hope some of them may be useful. Dcoetzee 09:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Colonel William Careless (Carlos) now has his own article.

Page Title
Why has Scotland been omitted from the title of the page and of the King? Ceartas (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The title is not only anglocentric but misleading. Wasn't Charles II title King of Great Britain, France and Ireland? Or if that is too complicated then Scotland and Ireland should at least be added to the title--Utinomen (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

See Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) for why the article is so titled. -- PBS (talk)

Where is the section on the Clarendon Code?
When I click on it, all i get is a section on the English Penal laws. (71.108.27.241 (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Penal law. 08:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Charles' Successor
According to James II of England's page, he is the successor of Charles II and my knowledge of history also says so. But in this page his successor is the Covenanters. Any sources or evidences that confirms it? if not I will change it to James II of England after a few days. -- An d Re w 02:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * James II succeeded in all three realms in 1685, but what of Charles' first reign in Scotland from 1649 to 1651? After Charles was deposed in Scotland in 1651, who was his successor then? Perhaps "None" would be more appropriate? DrKiernan (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely sorry for my misunderstanding. I didn't notice the "King of Scotland" section, I thought The Covenanters are his successor in england by mistake. -- An d Re w 21:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Charles II's children
Wowsers, what happen to Charlie's kids? they're no longer mentioned in the infobox? Why the inconsistancy with the other monarchial infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a linkage in the infobox, similiar to the one at William IV of the United Kingdom article, would suffice. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the number of his illegitimate children to the infobox. It's not necessaty to name them as the article already does that; however, the infobox should give the number of his offspring even if they weren't born in wedlock.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the linkage has been added. It looks fine now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the names of his notable children should be reinserted the way they were. We always list the notable children of monarchs in the infobox. There is no reason to exclude Charles II's children. Including them does not make the infobox too long, as the introduction itself is rather long. Surtsicna (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the Issue field in the infobox is by no means restricted to legitimate children. If it were, it would be called Legitimate issue as issue alone means all biological children. The fact that his children are listed directly beneath his wife who is not their mother is not a reason to remove them; otherwise we would have to remove the names of all of Henry VIII's children from the infobox in Henry VIII of England article, as none of them was born by his last wife, whose name is given directly above theirs. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just going by the William IV example, which seems neater. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, the William IV example is a bad example. There is no reason to have the names of his legitimate daughters in the infobox while the names of his illegitimate children (the famous FitzClarences) are at the bottom of the article; none of his legitimate daughters survived infancy and none of them was notable while his illegitimate children actually deserved to be mentioned. The same applies to Charles II: his illegitimate children are his issue and as such, they should be listed under Issue. Don't you think that the man who tried to depose James II and ascend the throne should be mentioned in the infobox, along with his siblings? Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've certainly no probs with giving illegitimates equal treatment, children are children. If you've got a better solution? by all mean impliment. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Surtsicna; Charles' and William's illegitimate children should be listed in their infoboxes. We could always list their mothers as well.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it should be like this: (by Barbara Villiers)


 * (Child's name) and so on. That way there's no confusion. I think Surtsicna has an excellent point about the Duke of Monmouth. He should definitely be in the infobox along with his other half-siblings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How are you going to indicate in the infobox that he may not be Charles's son? DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Charles acknowledged him as such. There were cases in history where there was a question as to the paternity of legitimate offspring. Charles VII of France immediatly springs to mind. There were persistant rumours that he was sired by the Duke of Orléans, yet he's listed in Charles VI's infobox. Why should there be a separate rule for illegitimate offspring?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeanne is right. Who was the father of Emperor Paul of Russia? Was it Peter III of Russia or was Catherine II naughty as she claimed she was? A queen consort was not neccessarily more faithful than an official mistress. So, if nobody opposes in next few days, I will reinsert Charles' issue in the field called Issue. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to the way it was before because it misleads readers into thinking they are Catherine's issue. In the Henry VIII example the fact that six women are listed tips the reader off that the issue is not that of a specific woman in the infobox, but that doesn't apply here with the way it was formatted. If you insist on including them, though I think the present link is sufficient for an infobox (which is supposed to be a very brief overview only not an exhaustive list), you'll have to indicate somehow that they are not Catherine's issue. DrKiernan (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a sample infobox in this section. Is that what you meant? Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it, Surtsicna. The article explains who their respective mothers were.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox looks good; only the most notable of his offspring are listed as the article has the rest. Nice work, Surtsicna!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we are all pleased now! Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

who is he how about a quick definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.25.76 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hudson's Bay Company 'governing and colonising'
I'm currently doing research on the HBC and its legal policy prior to Canadian confederation, and I'm afraid I have to dispute the claim in the text (under Foreign and Colonial Policy) that the HBC 'governed and colonised 7,770,000 kilometres'. All the documents I've been able to find that haven't been from the HBC itself seem to present a very different view of the subject; namely, that the HBC actively discouraged colonisation as being detrimental to its profits in the fur trade, and made no effort to govern the affairs of the indigenous tribes, save to attempt to encourage them through bribery to devote all their efforts towards bringing in more furs. As for their internal 'government', it was largely ad hoc and very much raised the ire of the government of Upper Canada at the time.

There are 3 excellent online sources which I can think of off the top of my head that lend weight to my claim and disprove the statement made in the text. These are, in no particular order:

'Hudson's Bay Company: what is it?' Bristol Selected Pamphelts, 1864. www.jstor.org/stable/60242222 'The Hudson's Bay question' Cowen Tracts, 1857. www.jstor.org/stable/60204003 'Long-Distance Justice: The Criminal Jurisdiction of Canadian Courts West of the Canadas, 1763-1859' Hamar Foster, from 'The American Journal of Legal History', Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan. 1990), pp. 1-48 www.jstor.org/stable/845344

I would change the line to: "It started out in the lucrative fur trade with the native peoples, but has grown to be one of the largest department store chains in Canada and played an important role in the history and development of that country."

Thanks,

VF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.216.243 (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Charles 1650 Perth speech
"My Lords and Gentillmen.

"It hath Pleased him who rewleth the nations and in whose hand are the harts of Kings, by a very singular providence to bring me through a great many dificulties into this my aintiant Kingdome; he has moved my hart to be engaged in the Covenant with his People (a favor which no other King can claime to), and that he has inclined me To a resolution by his assistance to live And dye with my people in the defence of it.

"This my resolution I profess it before God, and you. And in testimonie hereof I desire to renew it in your presence: And if it please God to lenthen my daies I hope my actions shall demonstrate it.

"I must confess I never did any thing that has troubled me more, than my late unhappie departure from this towne, both in consideration of the sinne, as well as the follie of it." Scotsman
 * Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC).

Accession and the military scene.
If Cromwell had legally abolished the monarchy just what was Charles Stuarts exact status?

Secondly it would seem obvious that anybody allying themselves with Charles would find themselves eventually facing the New Model Army, the best trained, armed and led army in Europe. Politically, it was easier to sit on the fence, acknowledge Cromwell and wait on future events.AT Kunene (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect statement
"He attempted to raise an army, but failed for lack of finance." - in 1657-1658.

Charles did raise a small army of about 2,500 men. Led by the Duke of York it fought, and was defeated, at the Battle of the Dunes (1658). This small army is of great importance in the history of the British Army as a number of senior units - the Grenadier Guards and Life Guards for example - trace their origins to units in the force raised by Charles in the Spanish Netherlands.

This statement needs to be modified.Urselius (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Images
There are two coin-like images, surely one would do - this isn't a numismatic encyclopedia. Also there are no images of Charles as a young man - though a number are available - he goes from child to early middle aged in the article as it stands. What is the point of including a baby portrait of anyone? - all babies look like Winston Churchill. Additionally, most of the images of him as an adult show him full length or in the distance, at least one head-and-shoulders portrait where his features are clearly apparent should be included.Urselius (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (Begging leave to lodge these comments in umbrage of an able interlocutor.) Apropos of portraits, the royal likeness in the infobox should be the Lely what long reigned there until deposed without fanfare 11 December 2011. It is the better portrait by the better artist, indeed the best portrait of Charles by the best portraitist of the day, his own Principal Painter in Ordinary, and the one still to be found at Euston Hall, seat of his son's heirs the Dukes of Grafton. The current portrait, of uncertain provenance, is stiff and bland by comparison, and, though a closer view, reveals less. Veterans will please to forgive a novice if lately he acted cavalierly and without counsel, as he is a new and enthusiastic conspirator, but one who now resolves to avail of their favor. Awaiting the gentle hand of guidance, he abides the republic, yet longs for a restoration... Danny Sprinkle (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Lely portrait is of his Sacred Majesty in his declining years and, tho' the limner be ever so far famed, perhaps gives a somewhat prejudicial view of him as an "old jade?" Urselius (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the Wright to the Lely because the image file is at a higher resolution and there is no glare across it. The Lely might be OK if the glare was across the face, with the legs in shadow, but unfortunately it's the other way about; so, the focus of the image is on the wrong part of his anatomy (perhaps because his legs look younger than his face?). DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Old Style and New Style dates
I am removing OS from the start of this article as it has two different meanings, and replacing it with a footnote. See WP:MOSDATES -- PBS (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no particular advantage of putting the first footnotes for dates in the first sentence as to be accurate is should be inside the brackets, and placing it there is aesthetically clumsy. It looks far better to place it after "30 January 1649," -- PBS (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it looks fine where it is, and more esthetically pleasing than the alternative. Apart from esthetics, there is a content-based reason for placing it beside the very first dates that the reader sees, as it establishes the calendar for the rest of the article and the question of the dates arises at their first mention not at their third. In addition, placing it beside the execution makes it look like a footnote for the death of Charles I rather than a footnote on the calendar employed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have not addressed my point that to be accurate is should be inside the brackets" (See MOS:REFPUNC). -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It says "may be appropriate" when the footnote applies only to the material within the brackets. That doesn't apply in this case, and it's only a suggestion anyway. In addition, footnote 4 on that page says: "Though a note number normally follows a closing parenthesis, it may on rare occasion be more appropriate to place the number inside the closing parenthesis." DrKiernan (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Give that difference, and given that you made a bold edit that I reverted, I am going to revert the edit again as you have not shown that there is a consensus for your change. -- PBS (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pedagogy is clearly a better rationale than your personal preference. DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Gift
When you read the article on the Dutch Gift you can read there was also a yacht HMY Mary and a bed, used by Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange involved. I am not joking, Dutch sources are quit clear. See also Antonia Fraser (1979) King Charles II, p. 223. The article you are referring to is about 60 years old. Is that State of the Art? Thanks for removing new information. Taksen (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation formatting
I suspect that the citation in my recent addition of the bit about poison is improperly formatted. Would someone modify the citation format to make it amenable to the style used in the rest of this article? Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

King of Great Britain
Is first of all more accurate and second what he called himself (at least in this 1670 treaty with Denmark-Norway). Is there some good reason to emphasize England at the expense of the rest of the realm? — LlywelynII  23:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was James I who began to use the title "King of Great Britain", both in English and Latin, even though there was no country called "Great Britain" for him to be king of. The consensus which seems to have emerged is that this title should be used after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain by the Union of England and Scotland in 1707, and to use it until the creation of the United Kingdom in 1801. If the aim is inclusiveness, one difficulty with using the page name "Charles II of Great Britain" is that Charles was also King of Ireland. Moonraker (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The title of this page should be changed. Charles was king of "Great Britain and Ireland" (the royal claim to the throne France can be ignored). The separate kingdoms of England and Scotland had combined. It is no wonder that so many Americans (in particular) refer wrongly to the United Kingdom as "England". If many historians wrongly use the title "King Charles II of England", that is no reason why we here should make the same mistake! As this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, we must get things correct or be condemned as a joke. Acorn897 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have re-factored you comment from the Dunkirk section to here so that the comment is kept within a matching section and thread. If you do not think it appropriate please move it back. -- PBS (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * See Moonraker's comment immediately above yours. The separate kingdoms of England and Scotland were not combined until the two Acts of Union 1707 -- PBS (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With respect, incorrect. The kingdoms were combined in 1603 (the Union of the Crowns), officially ending the titles of "King of Scots" and "King of England" which is why James Vi and I named the combined kingdom "Great Britain" and adopted it as his title. It was the parliaments that combined in 1707. There is no reasonable reason why this inaccurate title should remain. Wikipedia gets slated for it's inaccuracies. let us not add to them. Acorn897 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"King of England, Scotland and Ireland"
I see there have been two recent attempts to move this page to Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. This presumably aims at including all of Charles's royal titles, but if we were to go in that direction there is the problem of what to do about Charles also styling himself "King of France". Moonraker (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much as I would like to get Scotland and Ireland into the title, it does present a number of problems. If we extended the logic to his successor he would be "James II of England and Ireland and VII of Scotland". Not impossible, but not exactly concise.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another problem is that no one called him that. In the rare event the King rolled out his full title, it included France, too.  But more often -- much more often -- contemporaries and the subsequent historical scholarship refer to him as Charles II of England.  WP:COMMONNAME suggests we ought to do the same.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The existing title is in accordance with WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Also: "It is often desirable to give the other states compensating prominence in the introduction of the article." So I don't see how the current title and layout could actually be improved. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

By getting it correct for a start. He was NEVER styled King of England. He WAS styled King of Great Britain because in the Union of the Crowns (the name tells it all) the thrones were combined, not into England nor Scotland but Great Britain. I do not know what is so hard to understand here, unless we are up against English chauvinism. Acorn897 (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to get it correct for a start, you should first accept that all the Stuarts until 1707 were what they are called here: Kings of England, Scotland and Ireland. Three separate kingdoms united by the fact that one person holds all three crowns. Union of crowns does NOT mean that the crowns merged but that they were held by the same person. There was no Kingdom of Great Britain until 1707 even though the title "King of Great Britain" was used. James I/VI used it first but neither he nor his son actually merged anything. This becomes clear in 1649 when England turned Republic and Scotland did not. Str1977 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles used the title "Great Britain" and as the king ("the font of all honour") his title stands. I know of know royal documents of the time styling him as given in the title of this entry. The Union of the Crowns DID negate the use of the separate titles. One must not confuse parliaments and kingdoms as Great Britain - one kingdom - had two parliaments. Indeed the problem of two parliaments in one kingdom in the island brought about parliamentary union within the kingdom. Compare this with Hanover which later came under the British (sic) monarch. There was never a union of crowns in this case and so "Elector of Hanover" was retained as a separate title. Acorn897 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "The font of all honour" may be so but is irrelevant in this context. This is not about "titles" but about what he was - and he was King of separate kingdoms united merely by the common monarch. There was no union of countries, strictly speaking "union of crowns" is a misnomer". Hannover never came "under the British (sic) monarch" but rather Great Britain (which was a unified kingdom after 1707) came under the electors of Hannover in 1714. That was just as much (or little) a union of crowns but I challenge you to come up with a title that could encompass Britain and Hannover. Furthermore, things are also different due to the fact that Hannover wasn't a sovereign country in the 18th century.
 * "Indeed the problem of two parliaments in one kingdom in the island brought about parliamentary union within the kingdom."
 * First, there is no such "problem" unless one thinks it so. Secondly, it is your claim, supported by nothing and nobody, that there was one kingdom in the first place.
 * One more thing: if England and Scotland became one Kingdom due to sharing the monarch, why was there a separate Kingdom of Ireland until 1801? If the union of parliament of 1707 didn't matter, why did the union of parliaments of 1801?
 * Str1977 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Great Britain' was first and foremost a geographical term, it differentiated the island of Britain (Great Britain) from 'Less Britain' (or 'Lesser Britain'), otherwise known as Brittany in France. Any ruler who could reasonably claim to rule the whole island could be styled 'King of Great Britain', regardless of the states comprising the island. Indeed in the eigth century the powerful Mercian king Offa styled himself "Basileus [Emperor] of the whole world of Britain" when Britain was composed of more than a dozen states. Urselius (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For 17th century Stuart kings to style themselves King of Great Britain, was a highly political issue non more so than when the Parliament of Scotland proclaimed Charles II "King of Great Britain and Ireland in Edinburgh" on 6 February 1648/9. If the Estates of Scotland had restrict themselves to declaring Charley "King of the Scots" they might (possibly but unlikely) have spared themselves a visit from the New Model Army and afterwards a forced union under the Protectorship (see the third English Civil War and the Tender of Union)). The political consensus then, and the historical consensus now, is to regard the two Kingdoms of Great Britain as sovereign nations up until the act of union. I think that to use Great Britain as a political entity (as it would be taken to be in the tile of this article) just confuses the history for the general readership of this article. -- PBS (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Dunkirk
The article says that Charles sold Dunkirk to France in 1662. But how and when did Charles (or the post-1558 monarchs or maybe Cromwell's Commonwealth) gain possession of this town? I (and probably most other people concerned with history) thought England lost its last continental holding (Calais) in 1558. 111.94.13.234 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Dunkirk. DrKiernan (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Anglo-Spanish War (1654) -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)