Talk:John Cook (regicide)

Title
Most people would expect the spelling John Cooke and would probably expect to disambiguate as either lawyer or regicide. There is an entry (but no content, bar the web-reference to Robertson's book) for John Cooke (prosecutor). However,...

The article that has developed most is this one, John Cook (regicide), so I have set a redirect here - I suggest we collect material here (the Robertson book has clearly provoked new interest), and finally tidy under John Cooke (lawyer) or (better?) John Cooke (regicide) (Now set as redirect). Linuxlad 09:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A fascinating man and a fascinating idea

I have read and continue to read Robertson's absorbing and eloquently-written book. The trial of Charles I has always interested me, and I concur with Robertson's amazement that English-speaking historians have not appreciated its significance. Not only has the English-speaking world failed to do this, but, as Robertson brilliantly observes, it has attempted the pass over the event as an embarassing dead-end of history. To this day, it is enshrined in English law that 'the King can do no wrong'. That is, a reigning sovereign cannot be tried for failing to observe the rule of law. If anyone is interested in a discussion on this topic, please join in! Roberstsonophile, 3-6-06

Well I rather agree with this in sentiment. But I think you may have made the same sort of error I did (see Talk:Oliver Cromwell) - the principle that 'the King can do no wrong' still remains in UK law I understand as providing immunity for the Crown and its agencies... Whereas the Divine Right of KIngs, well tha's slightly more absolute. Bob aka Linuxlad 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Bob. I love a discussion, especially about history. I concede that being an Australian, still infuriated that my compatriots voted to remain a monarchy in 1999, I might not appreciate historical and political developments in the United Kingdom. And yes, I see that the Crown should have the protection of some kind of immunity. But the idea that if Queen Liz (no offense intended) set the corgis on someone in the grounds of Windsor Palace, she could not be taken to court for it, seems to me absurd. I exaggerate to make a point, but consider that before and during the Civil Wars Charles I flouted and twisted the laws of England and of Scotland to the shedding of blood, and then claimed that, not only had he done no wrong, but that he was entirely immune from the law. Of course he was motivated by his belief in his Divine Right to rule. And this is something which, to my knowledge, has NEVER been negated or legally overturned. To this day British monarchs rule by divine right ('Dieu et mon droit' is on the Windsor Coat of Arms). True, Parliament actually rules, but legally, this is by concession. Monarchs may have been forced by Parliaments to concede their powers, but the actual RIGHT to rule has never been surrendered. The theoretical prerogative of the Queen to rule remains intact, although it is very rarely exercised, of course. The Civil Wars were fought, on Parliament's part, to establish that the monarch does not rule by divine right but for and by the consent of the people. They proved this by abolishing the monarchy. I hope I'm not offending. I'm sure the monarchy is very important in the British identity, and I'm certainly not suggesting Parliament cuts off Queen Elizabeth's head- but perhaps the monarchy could be retained and emptied of its medieval heritage. What do you think? I think a good start might be declaring that the Queen has the same civil rights and duties as any UK citizen. (By the way, if I did suggest the Queen's decapitation, I might be liable for prosecution under the Australian Commonwealth's anti-sedition laws!) Cheers! Roberstonsonophile 9-6-06

Its been many years, isn't it time to move this article to John Cooke (Lawyer)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.33.169 (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2017‎

@Roberstsonophile - You are mistaken about a few points of the monarch's status. Firstly, there is no legal basis for Divine Right for monarchs in either English or Scottish philosophy of government. It has never been overturned because it has never been valid. It is a political philosophy that has been held at various times in some European ruling houses but seldom been recognized. In Britain it was taught to Charles by his father James VI and I - who embraced it from his interpretation of parts of the Old Testament. Charles's attempts to enforce his view of Divine Right was resisted because it was incompatible with royal governance in England. The Petition of Right outlined the limits of Charles's royal power and it is surprising that he gave his assent to it. In any case the Bill of Rights 1689 established that Parliament is supreme, not the monarch. Secondly, there is (still) no legal basis for bringing charges against a serving Head of State, not just in the UK but in the vast majority of sovereign states because of the tricky legal questions over assigning blame to someone is guarantor of the application of law and the government. Setting up a trial of Charles I involved overriding established processes and implementing new procedures by coercion and illegal manipulation (e.g. Pride's Purge and unilateral abolition of the House of Lords.)--Muirofsara (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

More
According to Geoffrey Robertson, QC, Cooke was a central figure in the English Republic. He should also be linked with John Milton, Edmund Ludlow, Thomas Wentworth, Thomas Fairfax, John Lilburne, John Bradshawe, George Monck, Edward Hyde, Orlando Bridgeman,Samuel Pepys, and probably others. Robertson's book Tyrannicide Brief also details Cooke's marriages and children which should be included in his biography. He travelled on the Continent: Madrid, Padua, Rome, Paris, and Geneva.

Cooke published a number of pamphlets on legal and social topics; links to them (if available) would be very welcome.Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name
I have just fixed a cut and past move that was made to this article on 14 December 2006. The reason for the move was (oddly) described as a less POV name. It is true that Robertson uses the spelling Cooke and is cited in this article BUT the Oxford Dictionary of Biography uses John Cook and describe him as a "judge and regicide". On the other hand the Robinson is now the major source used in the article and he calls his book "Tyrannicide".

Because reliable sources are clearly split on the name. I think that if the page is to be moved from its original name then WP:RM for a controversial move should be filed so that the issue of how to spell his name and what (disambiguation) to use can be discussed. -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not John Cook (Solicitor General), accompanied by redirects with added "e"? Using "(judge)" as disambiguator would currently look odd, as the article doesn't mention it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A disambiguate is meant to be something that is widely known about the person. Is he better known as a regicide or as Solicitor General? Personally if I was looking for this man I would immediately recognise "regicide" but I would have to read the article to see if he were "Solicitor General". The ODNB in their one liner calls him "judge and regicide". As I said above I think if his article is moved then there should be a WP:RM to decide it. I'm not particularly fussed what title is used but I think discussion amongst a wider audience  would help editors come to the best decision. -- PBS (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked in Geoffrey Robertsons's book and on page 5 of the preface he writes why he chose Cooke over the DNB alternative "I trust without unfairness to the original speakers Seventeenth century surnames were erratically spelled. I have preferred 'Cooke' because that is how John signed himself, although his name often appears without the 'e'." PBS (talk) -- 05:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I only suggested "(Solicitor General)" as a neutral disambiguator because you mentioned POV. Has anyone recently requested a page move? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No but in fixing the cut an past move, I have brought all the history of more recent edits back to this page (which is the usual way cut and past moves are fixed). As the page had been at John Cooke (prosecutor) for years, someone might want to move it back to the page name they are familiar with. All I am suggesting is before it is moved that an RM is held as whatever name is used "Cook" or "Cooke" there are issues to be weighed and the dab ending has to be considered as well. I personally have a slight preference for the current name and as such I would not express an opinion in a RM as my action moved it back to this name was purely an administrative action (if I had preferred the other name then I would have put in a RM myself). If someone unilaterally moves the page back to John Cooke (prosecutor), I would take no action (such as putting in a WP:RM) to move it back again. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your troubles. Understood. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just read Robertson's book, excellent read. I would support "Cooke". As Robertson says, that is how the man spelt his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian@perth (talk • contribs) 09:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not important how he spelt his name what matters is how it is spelt in most reliable secondary sources (as per WP:COMMONNAME). -- PBS (talk) 11:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the page back the name John Cook (regicide) for the second time after an IP address (which has been editing for a long time and should no better) did a cut and past move on 7 July 2012. To stop this happening again I have semi protected the redirects John Cooke (prosecutor) and the alternative John Cook (prosecutor) against IP edits. The appropriate method to move the contents of this article is via the request move process. Per the conversation above I am going to reimplement my edit of 12 August 2011 with the same comment "Spelling as in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to match the current article title. See talk page". -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I vigorously object to the categorisation of Cook as a "regicide", rather than him being described as what he was, a lawyer. He did not kill Charles. He carried out the will of parliament and the people by prosecuting him, and the continuing characterisation as a "regicide is a blatant piece of pro-royalist bias, it is defamatory and it is wholly innacurate. Dunks (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2013
This section should be moved to John Cooke (or Cook) prosecutor as the current title of regicide, is POV and frankly misleading, it is akin to saying a DA who prosecutes a man who is found guilty and sentenced to death has essentially murdered the defendant.

82.41.41.184 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.  -Ryan  00:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before (see above). The article had been named from its inception in 2005 until 2011 when User:PBS cleaned up a cut-and-paste move and moved it the process to the current name, John Cook (regicide); PBS gave his reason for this name above.
 * As for the edit request: this page is indeed unprotected, but both possible target pages, and, are protected. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regicide is not a POV term it is a statement of fact (he took part in the killing of a king -- and there is a Parliamentary act with his name on it stating as much (see Indemnity and Oblivion Act section XXXIV) -- whether the regicide was judicial murder is a matter of opinion.
 * His involvement in the regicide is the major reason that he is notable and it is how he is described in many reliable sources (and the reason why Robertson wrote his book).
 * Because of the fixes to cut and past moves the history of this article is confusing. However the edit history of the redirect John Cooke (regicide) shows all the moves to this page and the fact that it initially resided where it is now: at John Cook (regicide). -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why was this changed and kept as regicide despite being originally prosecutor all based on the preference of one editor? This is a very monarchy biased pov. I think the point above about not considering an american prosecutor or judge a murderer or homicide for imposing the death penalty is very valid. Is history dictated by the a tyrant and a tyrant's son? Also technically what he is most famous for is not picking up the King's silver knob on the first day of the trial so if we follow that logic shouldn't it be John Cooke (Man who refused to pick up the king's cane knob)

Surprised wikipedia has kept such a clearly biased title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.33.169 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2017‎