Talk:High Court of Justice (1649)

Reason for creation
I have noticed that a number of pages about the trial of Charles I link to a page about the current High Court of Justice which has no connection with the body that tried Charles I apart from the name. I have created this page to act as a destination for these links.

Rjm at sleepers 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"House of Lords refused to pass the bill and consequently, it did not receive the Royal Assent". This should be probably say "and consequently, it was not presented for Royal Assent" or something of that kind. Surely it must be questionable whether it would have received Royal Assent even if the Lords had passed it? 86.134.10.71 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold - edit the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hrs": From Charles I of England: Robertson, Crimes, 5 From John Cooke (prosecutor):  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert of page move
I have reverted the page move (22:00, 10 September 2017) under RMUM and precision. Titles of kings are usually not inclded in page names eg the biography of Charly is under "Charles I of England" not "King Charles I of England" (a redirect). -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

pien fort et dure
A recent edit has amended the text to read - "The court proceeded as if the king had pleaded guilty (pro confesso), rather than subjecting Charles to the pien fort et dure, that is, pressing with stones, as was standard practice in case of a refusal to plead". The supporting reference says that pien fort et dure did not apply in cases of treason - "in treason cases peine forte et dure was inapplicable, because standing mute in such cases meant a plea of guilty". I believe that the King was charged with high treason so did pien fort et dure apply? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath
The Aftermath section of this article is a bit sloppy and is about general events after Charles I's execution. Is this section really helpful? I suggest that removing it entirely is an improvement. Thoughts anyone? 2A02:C7C:D05D:4F00:99D8:5B02:2716:8949 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)