Talk:Charles II of England/Archive 2

Ghost of Charles?
Good afternoon.

Sorry that this isn't the usual discussion on article talk pages, it seemed like a place which would get more attention. (Admins: feel free to move this if appropriate, and notify me via talk page if you do - thanks)

I was doing my usual volunteering session today, when someone told me that they had seen a ghost of someone at Pitchcroft Racecourse (Worcester, England) a few years ago.

She couldn't say who the ghost was of, but after going through WP with her, I identified the possibility of this ghost being either King Charles II, or David Leslie (historical figure, not the racing driver or other modern equivilant).

She wasn't quite sure as it disappeared before she could get a good look.

Has anyone else come across ghosts of this King or other historical figures, or perhaps evidence of this?

Feel free to comment here or on my talk page.

Regards,

Usual people in life (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Titles
Was Hed known "His Majesty The King" from 1649? or He was known "His Grace the King" untill 1660 when he takes the English throne?Chamika1990 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Interregnum
Roundheads were "right but repulsive" whilst the Cavaliers were "wrong but romantic" (1066 and all that).

In relationship to Oliver Cromwell this article reads like a poor school essay:
 * --- This one is particularly bad as the juxtaposition of the two sentences can easily be read to imply that Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector after the Battle of Worcester in 1651.
 * --- This one is particularly bad as the juxtaposition of the two sentences can easily be read to imply that Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector after the Battle of Worcester in 1651.
 * --- This one is particularly bad as the juxtaposition of the two sentences can easily be read to imply that Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector after the Battle of Worcester in 1651.

The wording of these sentences seem to be from a simplistic great man theory -- If Charles II was a great man then the reason he was dethroned was because of another great man opposed him (his nemesis/hector/Hotspur). The nuances are more complicated, and this article ought to try to reflect those. This can be done by describing the institutions and those in it that opposed the monarchy Cromwell became more important as time passed but he was not the dominate figure until the dismissal of the Rump Parliament in April 1653. "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!". -- PBS (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nickname
I see no mention of H.M.s nickname of Old Rowley. Surely this is worth a line, or at least a redirect? Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Shortened footnote
I propose to link the short citations to the entries in the references section using the harv suit of templates as described in Help:Shortened footnotes. This will be an aid to readers an it will reduce editing mistakes. -- PBS (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Royal Physician William Sermon
What? No article for Royal Physician William Sermon?! ""Top quality UK newspaper puts Wikipedia to shame horror misery".Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cause of Impeachment of Lord Clarendon
This article states Clarendon fled to exile because of being impeached for high treason, without immediately apparent citation, while Clarendon's Wikipedia biography details it was for judicial offences in breaches of Habeas Corpus (of which examples were shown in that article). That too needs clearing up.Cloptonson (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Was Charles II proclaimed King of Great Britain by the Parliament of Scotland on February 6, 1649 or February 5,1649?
the article says that Charles II was proclaimed King of Great Britain by the Parliament of Scotland on February 6, 1649. Other sources seem to have the date as February 5, 1649. http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1649/february_5_1649_37228.html

this wikipedia page has the date as February 5, 1649 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1649

research to clear this up is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.166.88.81 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 February 2014‎


 * I checked, this article had no source, and when I checked a reliable source it was indeed the 5 February, so I have changed it. -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The ODNB says "In England events moved rapidly towards the trial of the king and his execution on 30 January 1649. The exiled court was slow to appreciate the full import of what was happening, and Charles I's death came as a bitter shock. Two days after it the Scottish parliament proclaimed Charles II.." DuncanHill (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hutton says the 5th (p.37). DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The old DNB http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charles_II_(DNB00) says the 5th too. DrKiernan (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to height
Dear DrKiernan, judging by your comment in the edit summary, I'm guessing this is not the first time you've dealt with changes to the sentence concerning the quoted height, so I apologise for causing you a headache. After having a second read, if I understand correctly, your initial intention was to say he was "over six foot" (a round number) and also "over 185cm" (also a roundish number). That's a fair way of trying to describe it, but the reason for my change was a concern that an uninformed person would be left believing that six foot equals 185cm.  Dear PBS, in Australia (a country that uses the metric system) centimetres are normally used for a person's height rather than metres. I can't speak for other countries, but centimetres looks natural to me. Is it possible to use a template that has centimetres instead? Sorry for dragging you both into such a minor matter. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not use over six foot and (1.80 metres)? As to metres and cm that can easily be altered (just change the parameter) but I think metres looks better. -- PBS (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I have made another edit (diff) with this comment "Tweaking the hight thing, I hope the compromise of metres and the fixing to only one decimal place. I do not think that cm is an appropriate measurement because it would indicate more accuracy than is warranted. Easy to convert 1.8 m to 180 cm in head" -- by that I mean that for someone who thinks of height in cms can easily convert 1.8m to 180cm which is not the case with 6 foot to cms and using over 6ft begs a less exact number in the metric system. I have cut and copied a similar measurement used in the lead of the English longbow . -- PBS (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

At what age did Charles become sexually active
There is a conversion over at Talk:Lucy Walter where access to biographies newer that those used as references by the DNB would be useful. The question that needs answering is in what year did Charles become sexually active? -- PBS (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Why on earth would we need to know this? Psunshine87 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Primarily for the reason I have stated above, the DNB sources are over 100 years old and so may not reflect more recent scholarship and the wording takes a 19th century mind (or an expert on 19th century innuendo) to understand what precisely the sources mean, and so I would like to improve the wording of that biography based on modern scholarship. The secondary reason is the reason the DNB raises the issue: it is important for the Lucy Walter biography, because if she was anything other than his very first mistress, it makes it less likely that the allegations of marriage during the Exclusion Bill are founded on anything other than political expediency. However it would be more useful to discuss this over at Talk:Lucy Walter -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then THAT was what your topic for this section should have been, not "when .. active," which on the face value is ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Citations Needed
At the end of several paragraphs (I think upto 7) "Citations Needed" are required. Adamdaley (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A much more useful thing to do, would be to provide the citations. Urselius (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has access to proper sources OR the confidence/expertise to utilize said sources to edit this article. The notice of citations needed is legitimate.  Your comment to the poster has no value. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Exchequer missing
why is there no reference to Charles II closing the Exchequer? it had profound consequences for William III.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Page title: King of Scotland and England
Titling the article as only "of England" smacks of a bias against Scotland. Charles was a Stuart and the Stuarts originated in Scotland not England. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Stuarts were descendants of Alan fitz Flaad, the Dapifer of Dol, so they were Breton in origin. So your point is...? Urselius (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Painting
I don't know if the original painting is really that green tinted as it appears here, maybe this one looks more like it? --Thewizzy (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone near Hampton Court Palace could nip down and have a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original file as users are not supposed to upload new files over different ones. DrKay (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Where's the fun in that! Too easy. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In real life, the picture does not have a sickly green tint... Firebrace (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But it has a Wikipedian onlooker wearing a sweater with a sickly green tint...? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Only at weekends... Firebrace (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Dubious
Art and Diplomacy by Maija Jansson does not explicitly say that Charles was in Jersey on 17 February 1649. She says Charles "spent years in exile ... at Saint-Germain-en-Laye ... Jersey, Cologne, or the Hague." But when she mentions the proclamations she doesn't clarify which of these places he was at on 17 February 1649. The addition also contradicts the other sources that say he passed through Jersey in 1646, travelling from the Scilly Isles to France and the Hague, but then restricted his movements to the Continent from June 1646. DrKay (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The proclamation was made, as quoted by Maija Jansson. The question is, was he there? good point. I think I made an assumption that was wrong.
 * does not say he was in Jersey. Maija Jansson refers to a book by Hoskins, my local library has a copy, I will call in there tomorrow.
 * There is also another book referred to here talking of his second visit to Jersey in September 1649. I can visit this library if necessary. Martin a Donkey (talk)  18:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Charles was in the Netherlands when he heard of his father's death, presumably he was still there when the Channel Islanders proclaimed him king. Urselius (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * totally agree, my mistake, page 250-9 of Vol 2 of Hoskins book. I will change the page. Martin a Donkey 12:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On a slightly different point, does anyone know how or why the royal crown of England got to be in Jersey in 1651? It was stolen from the roof of the Jersey Court House by Ensign Nicholas Robert sometime between October and December 1651 and taken to Castle Cornet in Guernsey, according to a diary I have read. Martin a Donkey 12:35, 10 December 2015

Escape
The coverage of Charles' escape after the Battle of Worcester in 1651 is covered in a remarkably terse fashion in the article. We know that this episode was one that Charles himself considered important, as he is recorded as speaking of it on many occasions - once to Samuel Pepys at considerable length. A number of biographers, including Fraser, have considered that the unusual level of intimate contact Charles had at this time with the humbler of his subjects made him one of the most approachable monarchs to sit on the English/British throne. Because many of the people who aided him in adversity were Roman Catholics (the Penderels, William Careless, the Giffards etc.), this may have affected his attitudes to the religion in a favourable way. Given that his deathbed conversion was carried out by a particular Catholic priest, John Huddleston, who had helped him in his escape decades earlier, the whole escape deserves a more prominent treatment. Urselius (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the coverage here and link to the detailed article is OK as at is. DrKay (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Charles's character was remarkably different to that of his cold and aloof father and inflexible brother. Whilst this could be merely the action of inborn characteristics, biographers have connected his affability and approachability to his experiences during his escape. Surely this needs some comment at the very least? A biographic article which ignores the personality of its subject, when there is evidence available, is not complete. Urselius (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the details of the escape itself that I would consider extraneous, not the inclusion of a character sketch. DrKay (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image caption
Manual of Style says that captions should be succinct. The shorter version is only two lines of text, the new longer one wraps over three and repeats information that is already given in the infobox. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

File:King Charles II by John Michael Wright or studio.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:King Charles II by John Michael Wright or studio.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 29, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-05-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Dubious
What 1682 elections? DrKay (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Municipal elections of course. The Lord Mayor, the Aldermen Council and the Court of Common Council of London were all elected bodies.Dan Gluck (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was indeed not obvious in the previous version that the passage referred to local elections. Thanks for noticing that.Dan Gluck (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

No original research
Per No original research, sources must support material explicitly. For inclusion, sources must explicitly support the material that is attributed to them. DrKay (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with DrKay here ... there are several problems with the information. It's sourced to an extremely old source (1769) and it does not even begin to support the possibility of her being a mistress of the king. This is pretty clearly a classic case of WP:OR. If modern sources say she might be a mistress, we need to use those sources, not 1769 works. And if no modern sources say she was a possible mistress, we don't include it here. --Ealdgyth (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I advised Lobsterthermidor about original research way back in 2013. He's been reminded many times since, but he still doesn't appear to get it. This article is just the very tip of the iceberg. —S MALL  JIM   13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mrs Holford, candidate for "possible mistress"
Mrs Holford, once caught by the king singing the lewd ballad Old Rowley the King, referring to him as a libidinous stallion. A traditional anecdote concerning Mrs Holford, one of the king's mistresses, singing the lewd ballad Old Rowley the King, was first related in 1769 by James Granger (Granger, Rev. James, Biographical History of England from Egbert the Great to the Revolution, Vol.2, 1769, footnote, pp.339-40, describing the prelude to an amourous encounter between Charles and "Mrs Holford, a young lady much admired by Charles". Mrs Holford was singing a song comparing Charles to his libidinous stallion, when the king knocked at her door; in response to her asking "who's there?" he replied "with his usual good humour, 'Old Rowley himself madam'"

Follows text from discussion on:
 * I think that with regard to this source quoted by me, it is important to understand the tone of an antiquated commentator. That's not OR or interpretation, it's understanding what the source is actually communicating. Perhaps it requires some WP:Competence in reading antiquated texts, using antiquated sources requires an understanding of antiquated language. It's still a valid source. He's speaking to a sophisticated audience who understand that when a king renown for being as libidinous as his best stallion knocks at the door of a lady "whom he much admires" (note "much" - how many more hints does he have to give) and finds her in a compromising position (singing about said randy stallion and comparing him to randy owner) then smiles sweetly at her, the sequel is some form of sexual interaction. It does not require to be spelled out, indeed it would be tedious and tiresome of him to have done so. This is sophisticated writing, it's not a dull and dry modern phd thesis. If she had rejected his advances, that would have been the story. So I would contend that WP does not order a slavish and robotic interpretation of sources, but rather an intelligent one. This author was telling his readers in a refined and antiquated manner about an amusing royal tryst. That does not make the lady concerned an "official mistress" like the Duchess of Portsmouth, but certainly makes her a "love interest", which equates to "probable mistress". I'm not even sure there's a definition for "mistress", does sexual intercourse have to have occurred, or is a mere flirtation adequate to qualify? I suspect the reason Mrs Holford has not been picked up by the main biographers of C II is that it is a very obscure reference, a mere footnote, but that does not make it invalid as a source - it was later picked up and elaborated upon elsewhere. I would say the importance of this addition is not to the constitutional history of the United Kingdom, but it's just a bit of fun and amusement, above the level of trivia I would suggest, and worthy of a mention in a list of "probable mistresses". The reader can make his own mind up, we've brought her to his attention.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If we were all historians, then doing the above would be what we do and it would be fine. We are NOT historians, though. We summarize secondary sources. If we have to interpret sources, then we're doing WP:OR and its a bad thing. Is there any modern secondary source that interprets the above passage (from 1769) and comes to the conclusion that Holford was Charles' mistress? Otherwise, it's pure OR. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William III of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Lady Anne Palmer not included among Charles' children in the infobox?
Three children of Charles included in the issues section of his page aren't included in his infobox children, notably Anne Palmer. From the article, Charles never recognized Barbra Fitzroy but he did for Anne Palmer, so should she be included as one of Charles' children in the infobox? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Marking illegitimate children as illegitimate creates an inconsistency with articles in which legitimate children are not marked as legitimate. Editing the pipe to say "more illegitimate children" instead of just "more" achieves the same effect without creating this inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we try something else, like 'detail...' or 'more information...'? Celia Homeford (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Celia Homeford, the issue is the line that says Ilegitimate children, preceding the list of actual children. I find it rather unsightly. Here is another suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are they not included due to their disputed parentage? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Conversion
Charles was promised a load of cash by LouiS XIV in the secret Treaty of Dover if he converted to Catholicism. Did he get it? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:6583:A2D7:3761:3135 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know but I think he converted on his deathbed. Krystal Kalb (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Coat of Arms of England (1660-1689).svg
 * Coat of Arms of Scotland (1660-1689).svg

Title: Charles II of England, Scotland, and Ireland
This article's title is misleading because, as stated in the article, he was Charles II of England, Scotland, and Ireland, not just Charles II of England! S2mhunter (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Charles II of England. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, as this link is a link back to this page, so what is the reply? S2mhunter (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a link to a specific topic within the page. Those get broken when the topic is archived. Presumably that's what happened here.
 * Except I can't seem to find this topic in the archive. Not looking to revive the issue, but I'm curious about the argument. Anyone? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Religion
Add his affiliation to the Church of England to the Infobox. I know he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed but that really doesn't matter since he was a lifelong Anglican up until his final moments. He was also the supreme head of the English Church so there. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)