Talk:Charles I of England/Archive 1

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

A few things to consider:
 * 1) Perhaps there should be two succession tables? 1 called "Crowned Monarchs of Britain" and another called "Succession of Monarchical Bodies" (or something to that effect)? I believe that one of the problems we're seeing here is that John wishes to list the monarchs strictly as those who've been crowned. On the other hand, it's important for historical sake to preserve the succession of monarch-type persons and bodies which ruled and may have not been crowned. (Maud, Grey, Cromwell, misc. regents, etc.)
 * Not all "listed" monarchs were crowned; Edward V, for instance, never exercised his powers during his reign and never had a coronation, since he was suppressed by his uncle Richard of Gloucester before any general recognition of his authority could be made.


 * 1) It appears to me that a good deal of historical documents list Cromwell and his son in the monarch succession. See, , , , , , , as some examples. Most are not encyclopedias, but simple listings, but still are of value for showing that most of the population considers Cromwell in that picture.
 * 2) On the other hand, the royal.gov.uk doesn't list Cromwell or the Commonwealth as part of the monarchy at all. They go straight from Charles I to Charles II with some mention in both profiles of the civil war.
 * 3) If we are to use the Commonwealth article as the successor to Charles I, I think it would be good if it was expanded to include more historical information. Right now it's not of much use. --Wolf530 09:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with listing the Commonwealth in the succession table for the Monarchy. However, it is not usual to regatrd peerages as falling into abeyance during the Commonwealth, and I think Charles II should be shown as immediately succeeding to the Dukedom of Rothesay.
 * The position of Prince of Wales is more tricky: that title is not passed in "succession" in any case, so I'm not sure what sense it makes to call it "vacant" when no one happens to bear the title. No one bore it between 1625 and 1638, but it was not "vacated" by the Commonwealth like the monarchy was; and anyway, Charles I did not become Prince of Wales in immediate succession to Henry Frederick, so logically that ought to be a "Vacancy" as well. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Link issue

 * The link for Chuck's son, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, goes to some 20th century dude. jengod 23:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

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

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


 * Fixed. I left the links to his successor in England as "James I" and his successor in Scotland as "James VI", even though they're the same person. Clockwork (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Trial and execution
Just wondering if anyone has a problem with PoV in this section. Stuff like "tried for the murder" when it's a (more or less) legal execution or refering to the leaders of the revolution "regicides". Yes, they caused a monarch to be executed, but regicide makes me think cloak and daggers, poisoned wine, not public execution. Just seems not as neutral as it could be. Any thoughts?
 * That may not be what you and I would call it, but that is what they were tried for. -- Emsworth 16:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Regicide" just means "killer of a king" -- doesn't matter whether it involves poisons, daggers, the block or rifles; though killing a king in battle is usually not counted, perhaps because that is (or was) considered a more decorous way for a king to die. Philippe "Egalite", the Duke of Orleans, Louis-Philippe's father, was classified as a regicide because he voted for the death of Louis XVI.  The Russian soldiers who shot Nicholas II and his family would also be called regicides.

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

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

Personal Rule
The sentence "members held the Speaker down in his chair whilst three resolutions against Charles were read aloud." confuses me slightly. Why was he unwilling to listen, and why was he made to? --Spudtater 17:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is no Speaker in the Chair, then the House cannot continue debate, lacking a presiding officer. -- Emsworth 19:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The last sentence of this section is broken: "Due to an unstable absolute power, assassination or capture was at risk for the king and many close nobles including instructors Thomas Hobbes and John Pym." I assume it's trying to say that there was an elevated risk of assassination for several people due to the instability brought on by the King's failure to summon parliament. Having no perspective on the issue, I don't want to make the edit myself. Cerowyn (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Saint?
Charles I is currently in Category:Saints. Surely this is wrong. (If it is actually true, it should be stated explicitly.) Rd232 13:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He is. Actually the Anglican church only have two post-reformation saints.  Many Anglican churches are named after Saint Charles.  You have a point, this should be expanded in more detail in the article. --ClemMcGann 14:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the article again. Under "Legacy".  There isn't need for further expansion.  there is a link to the Society of King Charles the Martyr --ClemMcGann 14:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Use the word "saint" or "canonised", then it's clear. I saw "martyr" and didn't see that as specifically implying sainthood. Rd232 22:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * In the early church martyrdom is what conferred sainthood. It was only after Constantine had made Christianity respectable that the definition was widened. The centralised canonisation proceedings which the Roman Catholic Church uses date from the later Middle Ages. Orthodox and Anglican bishops can still authorise the cultus of saints in their own dioceses. At least two Australian Anglican bishops have done so, but the saints concerned would be considered to be local saints, not universal ones. For information about a nineteenth century African Anglican saint check St. Bernard Nizeki. Nennius 12/8/06

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

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

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

There is no reason why you can't be a saint and a fool at the same time. Nennius 9/12/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nennius (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

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


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

In Scotland shouldn't his title be Charles, King of Scots? Nennius, 1/8/07

Discriminatory Language
"The oil painting was made on canvas around 1636, and is an example of how Van Dyck tended to mask Charles I's small stature, portraying him in a more dignified manner."
 * Why is it assumed that tallness is the same as dignity, and that shorter people are therefore undignified? This is rather offensive.


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

Not locked before being featured???
I just made a couple of changes to this article eliminating some obvious trolling. I became aware of them while following the link from the front page, where this article is being featured.

Did no one lock the article from editing, or at least check it for trolling, before letting it hit the featured section? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.25.113 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
 * For some stupid reason, its policy NOT to lock featured articles. Supposedly it encourages new users to 'try out' editting Wikipedia, which is obviously a bad thing since their 'trying out' almost invariably means vandalism or accidentaly damage to the article. Todays featured article should be semi-protected as a matter of course Modest Genius 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that one falls under Don't bite the newcomers. Reverting vandalism is pretty easy, and the FA of the day is high-profile enough that vandalism gets reverted pretty quickly, I think the system works okay as it is.  --  stillnotelf   has a talk page  02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I have read the link above, but I disagree with the last point of not applying "Semi-protection" to featured articles. I think that Semi-Protection would be a good measure because of the following reasons;

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

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

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

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

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

AFD?
Erm... This is a featured article. You want to get rid of it because? --Young XenoNeon (converse) 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a bad faith nomination by a vandal.--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]](talk) 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling error in pic file
The spelling error in the file name of the picture at the top of this article does us no credit. Somebody who knows how please fix it. Guinnog 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC) * Or else convince me that 'Charels I' was a correct spelling! Guinnog 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone with admin rights needs to move the image page to the correct spelling. Sorry I did not think to go to the image. It is protected while it is on the front page. It goes off the main page in 2 and a half hours. If it isn't fixed by then, I will take care of it then.--Adam [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]](talk) 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't move an image page. You have to download it and then upload it to a new name.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Martyr
Over the course oftime that this page was on the featured articles list this line from "Trial and execution" was removed and re written. Origional: When Charles was beheaded on January 30, 1649, a moan was heard from the assembled crowd, some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in his blood, thus starting the cult of the "Martyr" King. Re-write: Charles was beheaded on January 30, 1949. Do we want the origional refference to the martyr king re added? -- Faded_Mantis 01:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's interesting enough - do we know from the edit summaries the reason why it was removed? -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 01:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the article at the time, It was changed by an IP address and no reason was given. The user removed from "a moan…" to "…martyr king" as I had spent the last 10 minutes reverting vandalism and had about 3 edits in a row I decided that it would look like I was being controlling if I edited it yet again, so I left it for someone else to do. When I checked again today no one had reverted it or re added it, instead someone had just re worded the sentence to read the re-write shown above.


 * I personally think it should be re added. -- Faded_Mantis 06:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll go re-add the sentence now then. -- Faded_Mantis 11:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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


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

Since the article discusses the causes of Civil War and the Scottish Rebellion c. 1638, naming the articles 'Charles I of England' serves to overlook the problem of multiple kingdoms. It diminishes the case for Charles being to blame for the Scottish rebellion and English Revolution by legitimising, de facto, Charles' rule of England first and Scotland second. Charles was not primarily king of England; he was King of Scotland to an equal extent. England was not any more important than Scotland to the monarch de jure. The fact that Charles happened to give more time to ruling England was a contributing factor in his downfall. The article title should stick to de jure titles and obligations, not de facto elements of his rule. Burzhui 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The title's purpose is to identify its subject, not to highlight the problem of multiple kingdoms. The latter is the job of the article text. And why should we focus on the de jure elements, when it is indisputable that England was de facto a far more important kingdom, and the one in which Charles spent the vast majority of his reign. john k 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the suggestion of keeping it in its 'de facto' state. The problem of multiple kingdoms is a favourite area of study for many historians studying Tudor and Stewart England, but I think it should always be kept in mind that to most Irish and Scottish, Charles was an absentee King. He only went once to Scotland, and never to Ireland. Even his visit to Scotland came well into his rule, and after much delay (1618?). Some may argue that this led to Charles's downfall; however whether or not it did is tangential to the debate of how to refer to Charles. I think it would be no more relevant to call Charles 'King of France' (even though English monarchs continued to do this until 1802) than it would be to call Charles "King of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland" every time you refer to Charles. Either way, I think that the de facto elements of Charles's rule are probably more important than the de jure elements to the target audience. And of course, as is the historical convention in most historical texts, the de jure status of the multiple kingdoms issue is described; however, Charles is normally referred to as the "King of England" and by no other title when the author is not specifically dealing with the issues of multiple kingdoms.--Deano 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Charles's first visit to Scotland was in 1633, 8 years after his accession. He did, however, return, in 1641 for several months.  The rest of his reign was spent in England.  I don't think any British "King of Ireland" ever visited while he was king, save William III (and James II, if you consider him still King of Ireland in 1690).  I think that for the title, the issue should really be, "What would the person be called in european diplomacy?"  Charles would have been "the King of England."  His roles in the other kingdoms should of course be mentioned, but I don't see any reason to take them up in the title. john k 16:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh whoops -- I was thinking of James when I said 'he only went once' -- I think James I went back only once to Scotland after being made King of England even after James' promises to return. --Deano 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but John Kenny's point about "european diplomacy" is misleading and inaccurate. Charles would have used his titles (plural). I doubt that anyone would argue against the case that 17th century England was a more substantial financial and military subject than Scotland, so I am confident Charles would have emphasised that crown over his other titles. However to suggest that, as England is the big deal, it's the correct title is just wrong. It was one of his titles. There is a disambiguation page for Charles I of Scotland. There should also be one for Charles I of England, Ireland and any other realms to which he had claim. These should all point to a page without one or other of his several titles. This is simply the only correct approach, irrespective of the relative sizes of his realms. Please correct this and restore the high standards we expect. As to Deano's point that he's "usually referred to as Charles I of England" - how does that help us? The current monarch of the UK, Elizabeth, is undoubtedly most commonly referred to as the "Queen of England", yet England does not even have any identifiable legal existence. Sloppy shorthand does not make a justification. Paul Coyne (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

.. . . . ..

>> ..--.- - .- .-

..- . - -.. -.. ..-. -..- .-..- .--. -.-.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.72.7 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * G'day Deano. I don't have time to edit your additions myself, and am not in any case a Charles I scholar, but offer this: I think that the clarification re. ship money works where you've put it in a limited fashion, however info re. the Scottish rebellion and the recall of Parilament is covered in the next two sections - suggest that you merge your additions/clarifications re. the rebellion and causes of the recall into those sections to avoid repetition. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I have made that change, thanks for the suggestion -- 'tis a little bit more logical that way, as it splits up the problems of Charles' Personal Rule into the major thematic headings. My major concern that popular (and wildly incorrect) view that ship money caused the rebellion and downfall of Personal Rule has been corrected anyway. I am a little wont to include historiography -- it's an interesting topic, but I think that in relation to the average person wanting to know about Charles, it's probably a little irrelevant. Thoughts?--Deano 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In another thought, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that England could be called a "police state" given that during this period there was no paid civil service. It's a little difficult I think to refer to Personal Rule as being a time of having absolute central control when the King relied so heavily upon his archaic and unpaid bureaucracy. I recall one of the quotes of Graves and Silcock's book "Revolution, Reaction, and the Triumph of Conservatism, England 1558 - 1700" was that the problem with the Personal Rule period, and indeed all Stuart and Tudor England was that "England did not have all the functions of a modern totalitarian state". Maybe I should modify the somewhat short sighted comment about England being a police state? Censorship ceased before 1640 in England, and the majority of the cases before the Star Chamber were still not politically motivated.--Deano 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is poorly written and shows a clear and obvious bias against King Charles I. Not that it should be rewritten to show him as some paragon of perfection but this article doesn't make any attempt at neutrality. Tsk tsk.--cloviscat 1:44, 01 May 2007

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


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

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


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

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

Title of page
Possibly his has been discussed before but I find the title of the page slightly off-putting. Surely he was Charles 1st of Great Britain? His father was a Scottish monarch who inherited the English throne, not the other way around. Also, the Crowns were already formally united by the time Charles became king. It just seems wrong to have the official listing for him as Charles 1st of England. Why can't it be 'of Britain'? David Lauder 11:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This hasn't been discussed before - because he was not king of Great Britain. The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707, long after Charles I - Charles, as you would know had you bothered to read the article at all, was King of England, Scotland and Ireland separately. The three crowns were still separate, they just happened to be held in personal union - i.e. it just so happened that one man held all three. Hope this helps! – DBD 11:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * I have removed the claim that Charles is the only person canonized by the Church of England. It is probably true that he is the only person to have been added to the calendar in the 1662 Prayer Book, but that was reversed in the 19th century. He is now listed in the calendar of the Church of England (1997), but so are numerous other people not listed in the 1662 Prayer Book, including (just in January, at the same level of importance as Charles) Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Aelred of Rievaulx, Antony of Egypt, Wulfstan of Worcester, Francis de Sales, and Thomas Aquinas. Myopic Bookworm 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Height: 4'7" or 5'4"?

I see that the beginning of the article states that Charles is in the Guinness book of records as the shortest king at 4'7", but that later in the same paragraph it states that he was 5'4". Given that he was an adult throughout his reign, and noting the Monte Python joke quoted at the end of the article, I conclude that he was only 4'7" or 4'8" during the last microsecond of his reign. Therefore, I'm deleting the Guinness reference while leaving in the Monte Python joke.Eldred 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Behold the head of a traitor
There appears to be a contradiction in the article. At one point it states that the words "Behold the head of a traitor" were used, and then a couple of paragraphs later it says that the words were not uttered. 86.1.161.152 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be extremely surprised if those words were uttered before a crowd who by all reports were absolutely horrified and most of the women present burst into tears or fainted. Gardiner, the great expert on this period, doesn't mention such a phrase. I'd just put a citation tag on it for the moment. David Lauder 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to several books (including Barry Coward's texts), no such thing was said. I'll remove it. If anybody wants to add it again, make sure it's sourced. Schizmatic 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ceremonial?
I'm not happy with the sentence about King Charles and Archbishop Laud trying to move the C. of E. in a more ceremonial direction. I think what they were trying to insist on was a bare minimum of order in the way the services of the church were conducted. This included things like clergy wearing a distinctive form of dress while conducting services, reading the services from the Prayer Book, instead of using extempore forms, and not using the communion table for secular purposes. The present wording suggests that they were trying to impose the anglo-Catholicism of later centuries on the C. of E. Nennius, 1/8/07

Taxes during personal rule
Some of this information is incorrect, such as the stating that he reintroduced the "obscelete ship money tax". This was never obscelete, only it was used only during times of emergency and was a one time charge. What he did do however was make it a permanent tax and cause all counties to pay it, rather than just the coastal ones. This area needs to be expanded to included other taxes such as forest fines too. --Chickenfeed9 18:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this back up to FA
James II of England is up for FA and will likely pass, leaving Charles II as the last Stuart monarch that's not an FA. Can someone construct a to-do list so Chuck here can join his forefathers? --Hemlock Martinis 19:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Marriage and issue
What documentary evidence is there that Joanna Bridges was a natural daughter of Charles I, prior to Reginald Heber's Whole Works of Jeremy Taylor and Life of the author, in 1828? Heber obtained his information from Willaim Todd Jones of Lisburn, and his sisters Charlotte Wray and Mary Jones. The references cited are subsequent to 1828 and likely draw on Heber. bill spence 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes
The succession boxes need fixing - Charles was seperately King of England & King of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, British royalty needs to be changed to English, Scottish & Irish GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the boxes to include succession in Scotland, as the current setup suggests that the Commonweath was the immediate de facto successor in all kingdoms, when this was not the case. I have included links to the Covenanters in the new version. Reveilled (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Date forms
Is 30 January 1649 old style or new style? We ought to be clear on stuff like that. john k (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's old style, although it assumes the year begins on 1 January rather than 25 March. Greycap (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone supply correct links & remove misinformation and misdirections
In the current article's "Legacy" section, the following sentence appears:
 * There are several Anglican/Episcopal churches dedicated to Charles I as "King and Martyr", in England, Canada, Australia and the United States.

Of course, assuming that this sentence is actually true, it is informing us that there is at least one Anglican (or Episcopal) church that is specifically dedicated to this particular purpose in England, and in Canada, and in Australia, and in the United States.

Surely, it is obvious that, in order for this sentence to have a full impact, there must be either (a) four separate footnotes identifying each specific church by name and geographical location or, if each of the churches in question already have separate individual articles in the Wikipedia, (b) four specific Wiki-internal linkages to each of those Wiki-articles.

The current article's linkages to the nation states of Canada, Australia and the United States is not only absurd and insulting to the reader, but also significantly increases a (non-specialist) reader's frustration at a contributor who obviously knows so much but is prepared to share so little. So, please, will somebody please remove these irritatingly irrelevant links and, if possible, embellish the article with further relevant information.149.171.241.181 (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues
Okay, as a little favour to Thehelpfulone, and at his request, which I'm happy to oblige too, here is a list of all the issues I can see at first look with the article:


 * Commas are needed in the date of birth and death fields in the infobox to separate the date and year - ✅ -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A date is meant to have the month first, then the day; this is just a minor issue, but its the little things that make the difference. - ✅ -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe include some brief details about his execution (maybe just the date, then you can always elaborate on it further in the prose) - ✅: Seems to be done under death? Also the section is at Charles_I_of_England. -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 17:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the two lines at the very beginning of the lead with the next paragraph, I'd say they're too small otherwise - ✅ The   Helpful   One  (Review) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the references section, you can replace " " with refbegin, then end it with refend, then it makes them the same size as they currently are, but that is the "new way to do it," if you will. - ✅ The   Helpful   One  (Review) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When referencing the full information about the books, you can use Worldcat.org to find the OCLC for the book. - ✅ -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are pictures available on commons, thus you can add below the Wikiquote link - ✅  The   Helpful   One  (Review) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The inline citations within the prose need commas inbetween the date and year when writing about the retrieval date - ✅! -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Inline reference issues (from the Notes section)
 * On ref #6, you can just site the publisher to be "BBC," you don't need the .co.uk link if the publisher has an article. Remember that BBC redirects to British Broadcasting Corporation, so its best to get the links right. - ✅ The   Helpful   One  (Review) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On ref #5, you only need to cite the the authors surname and the page number - ✅ (Already I think) The   Helpful   One  (Review) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref #15 needs putting in to the "Reference" section which cites books - ✅ -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * References need the title of the webpage as said on the website, the publisher, retrieval date and author, if possible

Okay, that is all I can see on first look. Feel free to leave a note on my talkpage if you need help or would like to clarify any of these points. Qst (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The   Helpful   One  (Review) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?] - N/A The   Helpful   One  (Review) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Canonisation
Why is there no mention in the article of the fact that Charles I is considered a Saint in the Anglican Church? Gavin (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need. He's categorised under English Saints and Anglican Saints that should suffice.Kingkong77 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor Vandalism
Someone has put 'the sucker' after his name, I will delete this immediatly. 95jb14 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell
Cromwell was not in the House of Commons when Charles tried to arrest the 5 members. A film about Cromwell suggested that this was so but in fact he fled with the other 5 members.Ojsaunders (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)2/3/2009

Anglocentrism
Legacy section ignores Scotland, where Charles II was proclaimed king as soon as news of the execution arrived. Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bunches of new images
I recently uploaded a collection of several high-resolution high-quality images of Charles I. Although this article has many images already, I hope some of these may prove useful. Dcoetzee 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

General re-write
The sections of this article dealing with the early years of Charles's rule and the personal rule could use a general re-working, hopefully by someone who's well-versed in the historiography of the period. It makes little sense to keep editing sections until they are incoherent connections of "facts."

Also, the sources for the first pre-war sections are out of date or not even relevant in the actual study of the period. Charles did not declare war on Spain, Parliament did (granted at his encouragement), years before Charles became king. War was declared after the Spanish attacked Frederick after his defeat at White Mtn., which James had hoped would end the continental conflict. The resulting religious fervor led to Montagu publishing a New Gagg for an Old Goose. Montagu was (according to Richard Cust) asked by JAMES to clarify his position after "A New Gagg," and that resulted in Appello Ceasarum. Charles made Montagu a royal chaplain to end the Parliamentary debate on his work and encourage Parliament to vote on the funding bills before it instead of arguing about religious policy.

The predestination argument could at least be clarified if this section remains, although the amount of primary source works supporting a sustained dissent in the 30s is not strong at all. Charles was not opposed to compromise (he signed the Petition of Right). These are just from the 1620s.

Whomever wrote this article was either biased, or totally unaware of any historical studies written since 1975. Kevin Sharpe's Personal Rule would be a useful guide, as would Tom Cogswell's or Conrad Russell's work on the 1620s. I have no idea why Simon Schama's work is cited since he's by no means a specialist. Sharpe doesn't even agree that Charles had a stutter, and I've never actually heard that he had a thick Scottish accent. There are numerous historiographical debates smoothed over, at least clarify their existence.

In short, I did not read the post-1638 entries, but most of the pre-war stuff is badly done.Berkenhead (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead -duplication of dates
In the lead, is it really necessary to give the date of his execution in the very same sentence as you have just given the date of his death? SimonTrew (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Charles I of Scotland?
Why is it King of England and not Scotland instead? Yes I'm aware he was King of both Kingdoms, however I think the title should "Charles I of Scotland", then "Charles I of England" should be a redirect. It should be Scotland because he was born in Scotland and because his parents were Scots making him Scottish and not English. The Stuart royal family were a Scottish family. Also the only reason he was King of England is because is Dad King James VI of Scotland was invited to the thrown of England after Elizabeth I died without an heir. I think it would be more logical for the title to be "Charles I of Scotland". IJA (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See . His mother certainly wasn't Scottish. Despite being born in Scotland, he spent his reign in London. The Stuarts were also English royal family from 1603 until 1714. The only reason he was King of England is because he was the eldest son of King James I of England (who was the only child of Mary who was the only legitimate child of James who was the eldest son of Margaret who was the eldest daughter of Henry VII who reigned by the right of conquest). Anyway, the consensus is: England was more important of the two kingdoms and as such it should appear in the title of the article. Unfair, but true. Surtsicna (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

14 great-great grandparents
The text reads: Of Charles's 14 great-great-grandparents, 5 were German, 4 Scottish, 1 English, 2 French, 1 Danish and 1 Polish, giving him a thoroughly cosmopolitan background. How was it that he had only 14 great-great grandparents. Shouldn't this number be 16 instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schreckw (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because he was descended two times from Margaret Tudor and two times from Frederick I of Denmark. See here. john k (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"Many this, many that"
MANY times within this article, statements are made presenting a stance which is strongly bias against Charles with an unsourced statement, which supposed "many" people said. This is a violation of WP:WEASEL. Also this sentence is unsourced." A person who abores Charles has clearly made many biased and unvertified edits to this article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Many of Charles's subjects felt this brought the Church of England too close to Roman Catholicism."
 * "Ruling without Parliament, though an exceptional exercise of the royal prerogative, was supported by precedent. By the middle of the 17th century, opinion had shifted, and many held the Personal Rule to be an illegitimate exercise of arbitrary, absolute power
 * "Those actions were open to misinterpretation, and there were fears as early as 1626 that he was a potential tyrant."

'Many' is legitimate in the article (its used 15 times in total). It is more than one, fewer than all. It is somewhat colloquial, but does not define the number as a majority, nor does it specify only a small minority (as the word 'some' would suggest). 'Many' thus serves to underline the fact that there was a significant number of whatever is specified. In particular, the strength of support for Charles and his policies fluctuated over time, so to say a majority of MPs opposed Charles due to his exceptional use of royal prerogative would be misleading. Moreover, 'many' doesn't have any bias either in favour or in opposition to Charles within the article. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Religious icecream?
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article makes no sense to me: "Religious icecream permeated Shermin's reign." Maybe vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.18.20.155 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pastors pasteurize religious icecream, which is more appetising to puritans' pallets than a diet of worms.

Page should probably be semi-protected to prevent random acts of vandalism. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance
The Oath of Allegiance section appears without any reference to it elsewhere in the article. Why is it there? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say that 'early modern usage of such an oath was instituted by James I'. What about Henry's VIII Oath of Supremacy? I don't see the difference really, especially since Charles' oath retains the idea that Kingly authority is above the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwats (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Warrant signed in Leicestershire
I have removed a suggestion that the death warrant was signed in Leicestershire. The supporting reference seems to be local tittle tattle. I am not aware of any reliable source that suggests the warrant was signed anywhere other than Westminster.

Text removed: ", possibly at the Red Lion Inn in Stathern, Leicestershire on 29 January 1649" Rjm at sleepers (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen the claim in the pub and its unequivocal. However FAQs:I've got...a Death Warrant of Charles I! Is it worth much? suggest copies are ten a penny and I think someone in the past overhyped it. I was surprised the pub wasn't better known.  Belated apologies for the error. JRPG (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Quarrel between Buckingham and the Spanish nation?!
"Moreover, a personal quarrel erupted between Buckingham and the Spanish nation between whom was mutual misunderstanding and ill temper"

How can one have a personal quarrel with a nation?!

Top.Squark (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction with Puritan: Reason for absence of consort at coronation
"Although he stated to Parliament that he would not relax restrictions relating to recusants, he promised to do exactly that in a secret marriage treaty with Louis XIII of France. Moreover, the price of marriage with the French princess was a promise of English aid for the French crown in the suppressing of the Protestant Huguenots at La Rochelle, thereby reversing England's long held position in the French Wars of Religion. The couple were married in person on 13 June 1625 in Canterbury and Charles himself was crowned on 2 February 1626 at Westminster Abbey, but without his wife at his side due to the controversy."

According to this article, Henrietta Maria was absent from the coronation because of the "controversy" i.e. due to the disapproval of the marriage and/or its terms within England. However, according to Puritan:

"...he [Charles] married Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon of France... who refused to attend the coronation of her husband in a non-Catholic cathedral."

That is, Henrietta was absent out of her own choice.

Who is right?

Top.Squark (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Coronation of English monarchs is an Act of Communion of the English Church, and while Charles I was a member, even ex officio head, of the Church of England, Henrietta-Maria was throughout her life an unequivocally declared Catholic, therefore not within the Communion of Church of England and as such uneligible for coronation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.171.38 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic view, Protestant view
Do any "Catholic" churches, besides the Anglican Communion, specifically the Roman Catholic Church, have any official views on Charles I? I know he is not recognized as a Saint in the RCC, but is there an official opinion of him? Are there any Protestants, say- the Lutherans, who include him in their Saint calenders? Or is he purely only a saint within the Anglican Communion? I know he was only canonized in the Anglican Communion, but is his sainthood recognized by others? Or denied by others? Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Anglicans consider him a saint because he died for the Established Church; I don't see why one would expect Lutherans or (especially) Roman Catholics to appreciate this. In general, non-Roman Catholics aren't canonized by the RCC. john k (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that non-Catholics are not canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. I was asking what their views, if there are any official views of him, are.. since he was married to a Catholic and was a very pro-catholic traditionalist within the Anglican Church. Lutheran Saint Calenders include important Christian figures, such as John Wesley, who was not Lutheran but Anglican (and also an Anglican Saint), but is still recognized as "Saints" by Lutheran Churches. So I was wondering if anyone knows if he is in the Lutheran Calender of Saints.. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, since there is now the Anglican Use, or Anglicans who have joined the Latin Rite (Catholic Church), and are now in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church but still maintain Anglican customs, is St. Charles Stuart venerated within that specific form of Catholicism? Since the Roman Catholic Church never canonized or venerated him, other catholics would not. But as he is a Saint of Anglican tradition, would Anglican Use Catholics venerate him? Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Anglican Use observes the [Roman Calendar] with some additions,. Charles Stuart is not amongst them. I doubt that the Catholic Church has an 'official' position toward him. His father favoured episcopacy over presbyterian government, and he himself furthered a liturgy within the Church of England that shared some elements with Catholicism. His wife was of course a Catholic. His first son married a Catholic and probably died one.None of these kings relaxed the penal legislation concerning Catholics however. His second son James II was a Catholic of course, as are his descendants to this day.And Henry IX, the last Stuart pretender, was a cardinal in the Papal Court.Gazzster (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles I was still not a Protestant or an Anglican. If the Stuarts were Anglican, James II wouldn't have been forced to abdicate. 92.20.197.74 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC) James II/VII converted to Catholicism. Also Anglicism is a forms of Protestantism Bevo74 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Successor
Should the sucessor be Oliver Cromwell or Charles II?Cooltiger989 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Alletta Hogenhove
FWIW: Alletta (or, more common in Dutch: Aletta) Hogenhove was not married to Robert Carey, 1st Earl of Monmouth, but to Robert Carey, the son of Sir Edmund Carey of Moulton Park and his first wife Mary Crocker. This Sir Edmund Carey was the brother of the 1st Earl of Monmouth. See for instance Cracroft Peerage [search for "Hunsdon, Baron (E, 1559 - 1765)"] and Genealogics.org. To make things more complicated: according to GenealogieOnline the mother of Sir Edmund Carey's wife Maria Cocker was also called Aletta Hogenhove. Best, Jozefus (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

reference missing
Several times the text refers to "MacCulloch," (notes 83 & 84, a & b both). There is NO SOURCE for this. Please can someone add the source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobears87 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the only reference that is completely missing. This page is really a mess. Is anyone watching?? I spent some time looking back at revisions to find the lost citations, and am tempted to insert notes alongside the footnotes "citation missing". It's not my page, or my expertise, but SOMEONE has to have been paying attention somewhere along the way? Hello? Anyone?? --gobears87 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

When did Charles II become king?
The article says "Charles' son, Charles II, though he became king at the death of his father, did not take up the reins of government until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660".

What about saying "Charles' son, Charles II, who dated his accession from the death of his father, did not take up the reins of government until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660". That Charles II was the king during Cromwell's reign seems to rewrite history. Even say "became king in exile". Something. "Did not take up the reins" seems like a description of the interim rule of a regency council. I dare say that the beheading of Charles I triggered no preparations for the the opening of the reign of Charles II. The fact that he became king only after reaching an agreement with Parliament means that he was not king, in the opinion of many, until that agreement. In that case, that he was king prior to that was generally disputed; ie POV at best. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Malformed possessives
It's annoying to see the possessive form of names such as Charles and James being written with trailing apostophes. They should properly be written Charles's and James's, as they are pronounced. It is a widespread American misapprehension to think that the possessive of any word ending in 's' should be formed by a trailing apostrophe, but in fact this rule applies only to plurals ending in 's'. Please correct these errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mconnally (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tomb opening?
An examination performed in 1813 at Windsor suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman. This means his tomb was opened, right? Wouldn't there have been a good documentation of this, since it would be have been a big deal at the time? The article only contains this one line. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Executioners' masks
This article states that the executioners of Charles I wore masks. Is this correct? It would be unusual and against custom. Most drawings of Charles's execution do not show masks and there is no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.101.77 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment of Henrietta Maria
The article says that Charles moved to arrest the pym et al when he heard that Parliament was intending to impeach Henrietta Maria, and the authority cited is Loades, D.M. (1974), Politics and the Nation, London: Fontana. There is no mention of any such threat in Adamson, Noble Revolt, but only mention of the Parliament moving against her Capuchin monks. I wonder if anyone could shed further light on this? 1f2 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Saint"
Currently we have an explicit reference in the first sentence to a claim that Charles is "a saint in the Church of England", with a section in the main body that claims he was "officially canonised" as a saint. I'm not an expert on royalty or the Anglican Communion, but this leaps out slightly. The only source cited in this article for the claim - this BBC profile - makes no such assertion. Researching it further, the issue seems a little more complex than that - he does possibly have some form of status as a "martyr" and is the object of special reverence by some Anglo-Catholic groups, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say that he is "officially" or formally a saint; or indeed that the CoE has saints at all in the sense they are commonly understood. Regardless, it is hardly the main thing he is known for, or something that is given quite such prominence in other profiles. It's a fairly arcane and technical issue that doesn't need to be among the first things said about him here.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography notes "In 1660 parliament declared Charles a martyr, added him to the calendar of Anglican saints, and ordered prayers to be said in his memory and honour on the anniversary of his death, a practice that quickly became a duty cheerfully taken up by some and ignored by others." It has a single sentence on the subject, and it's not as prominent as the first sentence, perhaps indicating that it's not as significant as Wikipedia's article may suggest. Nev1 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My "research" (aka Google search), which found the main results thrown up were either WP-derived pages or links to obscure groups such as this one, with none to serious biographies or profiles, suggest the same - both that the WP page is giving too much prominence to this and also that some groups have taken up the issue "cheerfully". Anyway, it should definitely be in the body with a bit of explanation and qualification, as currently, but I'm minded to remove the bold explicit statement about sainthood from the first sentence of the lead. I would also lose the BBC source along with it; it's also cited for some other content, about the execution, but doesn't seem to support that either so is redundant both ways.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to assure everyone that the independent Church of England has never "done" Saints (in the Roman sense of accrediting miracles and canonising deceased souls), but then I did some research (excluding this 'pedia) and founds claims that he is either the first or the only Anglican Saint. I even found a claim he was "canonised" (although that may just be used to mean "made a saint" rather than refer to the Roman church's processes). Certainly the Anglican Communion commemorates saints (small s), and King Charles the Martyr is among those, but whether he was canonised as a Saint (in a Romanish sort of way), I'm not completely sure... DBD 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Church of England and broader Anglican Communion does 'canonise' in dividuals, though not frequently. St6 Charles the Martyr was commemmorated every year in the Book of Common Prayer until 1859, when the service was removed. The Collect from January 30: 'BLESSED Lord, in whose sight the death of thy saints is precious; We magnifie thy name for that abundant grace bestowed upon our late Martyred Soveraign; by which he was enabled so chearfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Saviour, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto bloud; and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us, that we may follow the example of his patience, and charity. And grant, that this our Land may be freed from the vengeance of his bloud, and thy mercy glorified in the forgiveness of our sins: and all for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen'


 * Though C of E doesn't follow the same exacting process as the Roman, the Sovereign, as Governor of the Church, may declare some individuals worthy of commemmoration. Gazzster (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

April 2013 Charles as saint
I've removed references to Charles being a saint in this article, Canonization and Society of King Charles the Martyr. I don't claim special expertise and I'm open to considering sourcing, but at the moment it doesn't look to me like there is a basis for saying that he was canonised. He does have a day dedicated to him in the Anglican calendar, but this doesn't seem to be any indication of sainthood. There are many people also commemorated in the same way who are clearly not saints (e.g. Samuel Johnson, Florence Nightingale, William Wilberforce, Josephine Butler - also, surprisingly, non-Anglicans such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther and, though strictly not a non-Anglican, John Wesley). Formerip (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Anglicans have different ways of doing things and formal canonization is not something they do.  However Charles I has been considered a saint (martyr to the faith) by certain parts of the Anglican church for centuries  (other parts have less kind words to say about him).  They also tend to be broad in who they consider Christians in good standing (Catholic Archbishop Romero is considered a saint by many Anglicans).  Erp (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so, with appropriate sourcing, we might say that a handful of/some/many Anglicans consider Charles to be a saint. But that would be very different from saying that he has been canonised or describing him as a saint in Wikipedia's voice. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

date (and day of week) of Charles I's execution
For his execution, I am seeing (in this Wikipedia article) "Tuesday, 30 January 1649". When I run "cal 1 1649" (the Unix calendar command, to plot out January 1649) I do get 30 Jan. on a Tuesday, but the problem is that this is before 1752, and that command, for that time period, is using the calendar of England and its colonies, so I expect to see "Old Style" (Julian). What we now call "New Style" (the Gregorian calendar) wasn't in use yet, and at the time it was 10 days ahead of Julian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Both Gregg and Cust say it was a Tuesday. From Cal (Unix), it looks as though the dates went forward but the days of the week stayed the same. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Over in France, where the Gregorian was in full swing, the same day was called Tuesday 9 February 1649. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you may already understand this but I need to be explicit: Gregorian calendar wasn't in use yet IN ENGLAND, but it's pointed out it was already in use in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's clear. It was in force in France, Spain, Portugal and Poland from 1582, but was not adopted in England until 1752.  See my post above.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we or do we not assume that event dates from England before 1752 are understood to be noted here in Wikipedia as New Style? I recall reading that Jan. 30, 1649 date for Charles I execution very long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Guideline for this is at WP:OSNS. Dates in this article are OS. DrKay (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try to look at that. A footnote would help; consider this from the Wikipedia article about Queen Anne:

"All dates in this article are in the Old Style Julian calendar used in Great Britain throughout Anne's lifetime; however, years are assumed to start on 1 January rather than 25 March, which was the English New Year."

Queen Anne's lifetime stretched across 1700, the year when the gap between Old & New styles widened from 10 to 11 days, but is still entirely during England's use of Old Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a footnote. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I overlook an existing footnote? Apparently, the footnote has been shifted to the death date, which is where Queen Anne's Wikipedia article has it. Looking at 1 or 2 "selected anniversaries" pages (links provided on the page you are reading), I discovered Charles I's execution listed on Jan. 30, but it seems we have an Old-Style date included with at least some events of Jan. 30 New Style. Maybe someone should review the anniversaries pages (and consider footnotes when Old Style is used), because of Charles I's execution being listed with an Old Style date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Citations format
I think the appendix section for notes and citations would be better if the short citations were laid out as they are in the Charles II of England. Unless any objects I will implement the change. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many citations
There are many comprehensive biographies on Charles I, as there is a limit to the primary sources available give or take a few facts they all say much the same.

I think that this article has too may citations. Here are four examples, although there are hundreds (I exaggerate not) of others: -- PBS (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * – Three citations for one date.
 * — Three citations for one quote.
 * — Two citations for one fact
 * – A very well known fact such as this does not need three citations.

Lead picture
If you check out the picture on Wikimedia Commons, (which I have just corrected) you'll find that the painting that was first uploaded there was the original by van Dyck. But someone uploaded a larger clearer image of a studio copy over the top. That is the painting that you are currently looking at. The description says, correctly, that it is a studio copy, but the artist was still listed as Van Dyck (which is what I have corrected.

I was alerted because, on enlarging the image (the lead image) it was clear to me that it was a studio copy and definitely not by Van Dyck. The name of the file still attributes it to the Master, and that should be fixed, except that I don't know how one goes about changing the file names of images.

I would go for the triple portrait as the lead pic, or the Daniel Mijtens, rather than having an image of very dull colouration that turns out of the page instead of inwards. Amandajm (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for requesting the move on Commons Amandajm -PBS (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

King of England?
Why is Charles listed here in the title only as King of England? He was a half-Scot, half-Dane by birth. Born in Scotland and Crowned King of Great Britain and Ireland he is likely to have taken a dimm view of his reduction to monarch of only one of three kingdoms. After all, even when in arms agains the Scots he referred to Scotland as "his native and ancient kingdom". Moreover, he writes his letters not as king of England, but as King of Great Britain. Should we update the rather parochial title here, or should we create duplicate entries for Charles I King of Scotland and Charles I king of Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentsmuir (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As the article title has been discussed before (above), if you wish it to be changed you will need to gain consensus for the move through the process detailed at Requested moves. Duplicate articles are avoided per Content forking. DrKay (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

short section on id of exectioners
If this is going to be extensively discussed as it is being it should have a subsection. There is no value in having nothing but main sections with a grab bag of subjects in them.Overagainst (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The section length looks appropriate to me, and the material in the section is relevant to it. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The length is no the problem it's padding and the different subjects under one heading. The ID of the executioners in my version is consistant with the recent book Killers of the King: The Men Who Dared to Execute Charles I. That and the interment are  subjects deserving of a subsection. The encyclopedic account is  Brandon assisted by  Peter are thought to have did it. Cut the waffle, which makes the section all over the place. I don't know what you have against  subsections.Overagainst (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WIAFA, the table of contents should not be too long - short sections should be merged or use a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style. Wikipedia does not select one view (that it was Brandon and Peters) over other views (that it was others); all views should be represented with due weight, as they are in the article by mentioning Brandon and Peters as candidates but not the only ones. DrKay (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A couple of subsections for the ID and interment is not excessive. They are the ones witnesses and circumstantial evidence from Hugh Peter's trial make a powerful case against. If it is going to be gong into so deep as to cite everyone whose name was put up as a possibility then that is all the more reason for a subsection. Sections should not have unlabeled subsections. It makes finding information in the the article too difficult when people come to find out one thing. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Overagainst (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone wishes to find out about the executioners, they have only to go to the "Execution" section. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At least make it clear who is the likely suspect: Brandon. Peter could not possibly have been selected as the headsman, he had no experience, beheading with an axe was easily botched, he was in late middle age and in bad health. I note that heraldry has little subsections. People are interested in that subject, and can find it easily. That is the way it ought to be.Overagainst (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Finances, especially forests
This line:

In addition, the boundaries of the royal forests in England were extended to their ancient limits as part of a scheme to maximise income by exploiting the land and fining land users within the re-asserted boundaries for encroachment.

seems to me to be rather misleading. From the texts I've read about the actual deforestation programme, fines were just a mechanism for sale, not really an object of policy. Nothing seems to suggest that boundary changes occurred, except in removing the legal forest. The process was one of (a) assessment of value and compensation needed to those entitled to use the common, especially manorial landlords; (b) sale, or agreement to "fines", to be paid by new landlords, in return for enclosure; (c) enclosure, removal of forest law and often riot; (d) legal challenges to enclosure and (d) occasional reversals on the removal of forest law.

I think the general sources may have got this detail a little wrong in their emphasis. But I am only going on the texts I've been reading. Jim Killock (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gregg, Quintrell and Sharpe say the forest courts and law had fallen into disuse and that the policy was to re-assert them to their fullest extent as a means of raising revenue, with an emphasis on (b) above and development of the land. You can't have (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) without first re-asserting the ancient boundary of the forest. Otherwise, you'd just be continuing as before, allowing the current occupiers to enclose and use the land for free or commoners free access to open land, and operating under common law rather than forest law. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but the sentence says: "extended to their ancient limits as part of a scheme to maximise income by exploiting the land and fining land users"– (a) re-asserted is not the same as extended; (b) fining land users—I am a bit worried that this mainly took place as part of a "sale". If so, the sentence is misleading. If other fines regularly took place with a large income resulting, then it is fair enough. According to those sources, was fining land users a major source of revenue? Jim Killock (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Gregg and Quintrell do not mention sales. Gregg says there were new licences to depark and enclose land, and that Charles enclosed his own land. She does say there were some sales of Crown land, which is not the same thing, but that it was less than in Elizabeth's and James's time. Quintrell says the smaller forests were disafforested and the larger ones exploited for their natural resources. Sharpe says inhabitants were offered the opportunity to either pay a fine for encroachment or pay to have their land disafforested, but only gives figures for fines and does not explicitly talk of sales. Gregg gives a figure of £37000 received in fines over 1636–40 and Sharpe gives a figure of £25000 received in fines over 1636–38. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes. I'll try to get some other sources on this for you. This page Western Rising and disafforestation riots and this summary gives a picture of how it seems to have worked in practice, mostly from a book by Buchanan Sharp, but also from some articles about the individual forests that were affected. I've been a bit loose with the term "sold" on these pages but each "sale", usually to a prominent courtier took the form of a "fine" for assart. There's a good description of the process on p56-57 of Sharp's book (and he cites some other general texts on the forests). License to depark may be the same as a sale, or a fine.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015
Suggested external resource -


 * Contemporary London Gazette report on the trial and execution of Charles I

Spuddha (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added to High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I. DrKay (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016
Charles has the official fault of causing English Civil War in 1642,These was the declared by the european union in 1989. SaladinoIII (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources for any new content and establish consensus for the inclusion of potentially controversial content. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles I (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649[a]) was monarch of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 27 March 1625 until his execution in 1649,He was executed by creating the English Civil war in 1642,This house was approved by the Unesco in 1989.

SaladinoIII (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done. See above. DrKay (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016
Charles I of England should not be listed as Charles I of England. He should be listed by his title of primacy; Charles I of Scotland. The reason is both simple and clear. James VI of Scotland inherited the English crown in 1603, making the English crown a secondary title of King's or Queen's of Scots. The primary or correct title of Charles I is Charles I of Scots or Scotland. Changing the nomenclature accordingly will make the article more technically correct.

Kez321 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: According to our article on James VI and I, once James inherited the crown of England, he made that his primary title and went back to Scotland only once in his life. Charles I himself was raised in England, so it's unlikely that he would have styled himself "of Scotland". If you have reliable sources to the contrary, I'll be happy to reconsider. clpo13(talk) 22:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Was he Charles I during his lifetime? The seals and paraphernalia should show the "I". Should be on post boxes too! He would have been Charles of Scotland. Scotland ceased to exist as a separate royal title with the Act of Union in 1702.220.240.229.144 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error
End of paragraph 3 of lead subject mentions Charles's son. Correct spelling is Charles' son. Sagavanirktok 23:12, 19 October 2016‎
 * Charles's is correct. See Manual of Style. Celia Homeford (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Canonization
A new editor has twice added this sentence: "He is the only saint to be canonized by the Anglican Communion that was not already a saint prior to the split with the Catholic Church."

I've removed that because I don't think it is correct. There are other people recognized as saints in at least parts of the Anglican Communion who are not recognized as such in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the fact that some (but not all) Anglicans have considered him a saint should be discussed. Jonathunder (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * His recognition as a martyr is in the Legacy section already. I'd need to see a reliable source to convince me that he was recognized as a saint. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is a good place to start. Jonathunder (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced. He was added to the calendar; so were William Wilberforce and Edith Cavell. And you can find sources calling them saints. DrKay (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we agree, then. He has been considered a saint in at least part of the Anglican Communion, as have many others. Jonathunder (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Charles I has been considered a saint in the Anglican Communion; I actually added a very small and well referenced section about this, but it was rapidly removed. I would support reinstating it, if others here feel the same way. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Charles I is "not an Anglican saint, for there is no such thing ... To be canonized [in the Anglican church] means to be put on the calendar of worship, to have special services said in your honor every year." DrKay (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * King Charles the Martyr was and still is on several liturgical calendars and special services have long been said in his honor every year. Members of the Society of King Charles the Martyr still do. It's worth a brief mention in the legacy section, without which that's incomplete. Jonathunder (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to belong in the section above as it does not relate to my comments. DrKay (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how I could relate to your last comment any more directly. You said "there is no such thing" as an Anglican saint and I addressed both of your points. Did you look at the articles I linked? Please also see Category:Anglican saints. Jonathunder (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you arguing with me? It's in the article. He's in the category. It's never been otherwise as far as I remember. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I assume good faith that you may be amenable to reason and because I am trying to build support for restoring the mention in the text. If sainthood is in the categories, it must be in the article. Jonathunder (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not slyly accuse editors of bad faith and being unamenable to reason. I say again, it's in the article. It always has been. I don't understand why you are insulting me or arguing. Your comment "You said "there is no such thing" as an Anglican saint" is also wrong. Look again: they are not my words, they are in quotes. The article must reflect reliable, scholarly opinions not just the opinion of the Society. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles I of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129093907/http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/assets/files/LearningResources/HenryVIIIRestingPlace.pdf to http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/assets/files/LearningResources/HenryVIIIRestingPlace.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)