Talk:List of regicides of Charles I/Archive 1

Possible inconsistencies in the list
At the moment the article lists the Clerks Andrew Broughton and John Phelpes as dead. What is the source for this because the house of common thought them alive on 14 May 1660

House of Commons Journal Volume 8 14 May 1660: Exceptions from Bill of Pardon
 * Resolved, That all those Persons who sat in Judgment upon the late King's Majesty, when the Sentence was pronounced for his Condemnation, be forthwith secured.
 * Resolved, That Mr. John Cooke, Andrew Broughton, John Phelpes, and Edward Dendy, be forthwith secured.

See also House of Commons Journal Volume 8, 28 May 1660 Proceedings against the Regicides "A LETTER from Robert Fowler, from Rochester, of the 26th of May 1660, certifying, that he hath made Stay of Two Trunks, Two Hampers, Thirteen Bundles of Bedding, and Hangings, with some Chairs, in all Twenty-seven Parcels, of the Goods of Mr. Andrew Broughton, one of the Clerks in the High Court of Justice, when his late Majesty was there arraigned, was read. Ordered, That it be referred to the Members of this House, of the Council of State, to take care that the said Goods, and also the Goods of Mr. Phelpes, and Mr. Dendy, be inventoried and secured."

This suggests that Andrew Broughton was alive at the time. Edward Dendy was the sergeant-at-arms at the time of the trial and took part as part of the pomp and circumstance of the affair. He was later, during the Inerregnum, given land in Ireland in lue of pay. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

House of Lords Journal Volume 11 4 June 1660, Proclamation for apprehending the late King's Judges: The above "being deeply guilty of that most detestable and bloody Treason, in sitting upon, and giving Judgement against the Life of, Our Royal Father" who was employed therein as Solicitor, who were employed under the said Persons as Clerks, and who attended them as Serjeant at Arms, "have, out of the Sense of their own Guilt, lately fled and obscured themselves" --Philip Baird Shearer 23:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * John Lisle, Alive
 * 48 William Say, Esquires, Alive
 * 11 Sir Hardresse Waller, Alive -- Spelt Hardress Waller in the current list
 * 39 Valentine Wanton, Alive --Spelt Valentine Walton in the current list
 * 4 Edward Whalley, Esquires,
 * 8 Sir John Bourcher Knight, Alive -- Spelt John Bourchier in current list
 * William Heveningham Esquire, Alive -- Spelt William Hevingham in current list
 * Isaac Pennington Alderman of London, Alive, Commisoner -- spelt Isaac Penington in the current list
 * 31 Henry Martin, Alive -- Spelt Henry Marten in the current list
 * 36 John Barkstead, Alive
 * 44 Gilbert Millington, Alive
 * 30 Edmond Ludlow, Alive
 * 13 John Hutchinson, Esquires, Alive
 * 5 Sir Michaell Livesay Baronet, Alive -- spelt Michael Livsey in the current list
 * 22 Robert Titchbourn, Alive -- spelt Robert Tichborne in the current list
 * 25 Owen Roe, Alive -- spelt Owen Rowe in the current list
 * 45 Rob't Lilborne, Alive spelt Robert Lilburne in the current list
 * 27 Adrian Scroope, Alive
 * 6 John Okey, Alive
 * 18 John Hughson, Alive -- spelt John Hewson in the current list
 * 14 Will. Goffe, Alive -- spelt William Goffe
 * Cornelius Holland, -- MISSING not in the current list
 * John Carew, -- DEAD according to the current list
 * Miles Corbett, Alive --spelt Miles Corbet in the current list
 * Henry Smith, Alive
 * Thomas Wogan, Alive
 * Edmond Harvey, -- MISSING not in the current list
 * 57 Thomas Scott, Alive -- spelt Thomas Scot in the current list
 * 35 Will. Cawley, Alive -- spelt '''William Cawley
 * 55 John Downes, Alive
 * Nicholas Love, Alive
 * 32 Vincent Potter, Alive
 * 29 Augustine Garland, Alive
 * 38 John Dixwell, Alive
 * 45 George Fleetwood, Alive
 * 40 Symon Meyne, Alive -- spelt Simon Mayne in the current list
 * 28 James Temple, Alive
 * 16 Peter Temple, Alive
 * 24 Daniell Blagrave, Alive -- spelt Daniel Blagrave in the current list
 * 56 Thomas Wayte, Esquires, Alive -- spelt Thomas Waite in the current list
 * John Cooke, Alive.
 * Andrew Broughton -- DEAD in the current list
 * John Phelpes -- DEAD in the current list
 * Edward Dendy -- MISSING not in the current list

The list above was prepared early in the process so some of them my have been found innocent. But one which crossed checked was John Carew because he was HDQ in October 1660.

House of Commons Journal Volume 8 9 June 1660 Has a list of some of the commissioners who sat in court but were not present at the meeting where the others signed the death warrant: The questionmarks indicate that they are currently not included in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ? James Challener, 20th, 22nd,22nd Afternoon,
 * [51] Thomas Challener, 20th,22nd Afternoon, 23rd, 23rd Afternoon, 26th, 27th, 27th afternoon signed sentence.
 * ? John Dove, 26th
 * ? John Fry. 20th, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon, 23rd, 23rd Afternoon, 25tth Sentence drawn.
 * ? Fra. Lassells,20th, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon,
 * ? Thomas Lister, 20th,
 * ? Sir James Harrington: 23rd, 23rd Afternoon
 * Judge but did not sign: Sir Henry Mildmay: 23rd, 23rd Afternoon, 25th, 26th Sentence greed
 * Judge but did not sign: Wm. Lord Munson: 20th, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon, 23rd Afternoon, 26th
 * ? Sir Gilbert Pickering: 22nd Afternoon, 23rd, 23rd Afternoon
 * Judge but did not sign: Robert Wallop, 22nd, 22nd Afternoon, 23rd Afternoon

See also [House of Lords Journal Volume 11 7 February 1662 Attainted Persons brought to the Bar] --Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Augustine Garland, Henry Smith, Henry Martin ,Robert Titchborne, James Temple,  Thomas Wayte, Peter Temple,  Gilbert Myllington, William Heveningham, John Downes, George Fleetwood.
 * Attainted Persons to be carried back to The Tower. The Lieutenant of The Tower gave the House an Account, "That Four of the Persons attainted for the aforesaid High Treason, videlicet, Owen Row, Isaac Pennington, Symon Mayne, and Vincent Potter, are lately dead; and Edmond Harvey, Sir Hardress Waller and Robert Lylborne, are not now in his Custody in The Tower, but are removed to other Prisons. But as for Thomas Wogan, he never was in his Custody."

Regicides?
It might be an exception in this particular case, but doesn't "regicide" mean the killing of a king, not the killers? Not to mention the fact that the people on this list did not directly kill the king at all; they merely signed the death warrant. There are two main problems I have with calling these people "regicides". First, a king can only be killed once, so writing "the regicides of Charles I" is like writing "the murders" or "the killings". It should not be plural. Secondly, as I said, regicide is an act, not a person, so rather than this being a list of killings, it should be a list of killers. No? LordAmeth 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "The broad definition of Regicide is the deliberate killing of a king, or the person responsible for it." (From our article on regicide.) Proteus (Talk) 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The use of Regicide to mean a person, as well as the act of killing is widespread and well documented in several dicionaries. --Dmol 18:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OED, noun 1 the killing of a king. 2 a person who kills a king.
 * 1) Cambridge Dictionary. A person who kills a king, or the act of killing a king
 * 2) Merriam-Webster. 1 : one who kills a king, 2 : the killing of a king

Also see the links higher up this talk page to the use of the word "regicides" in Parliament. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sentences
Does anyone have any information as to why some of these men were sentenced to death, and some only to imprisonment? All were signatories of the document. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it has to do with the Indemnity and Oblivion Act and 1660's politics. You will find the details of those excepted from the general pardon in sections 34–44. See for example sections 35 and 36 for an explanation of most of those excepted from the pardon but "execution of the said ... persons so attainted shall be suspended" unless another act of parliament was passed. Some like Richard Ingoldsby were in favour, so it was politically expedient to find ways to show that they were not as guilty as others. Some were no longer a threat, and some like Thomas Harrison were still seen as such and that is probably why he was the first for HDQ.


 * I am half way into expanding the Indemnity and Oblivion Act (still in my sandbox). But here are a couple of sources I am using for that expansion that explains it the detail the political machinations of the act's passage through Parliament:
 * David Masson (1822-1907), The life of John Milton: narrated in connexion with the political, ecclesiastical, and literary history of his time (1875), pp. 25–56
 * Henry Hallam, The constitutional history of England, from the accession of Henry VII. to the death of George II., Harper, 1859, Chapter 9, pp. 406–411
 * --PBS (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear and thorough explanation. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

3 peers?
We say "The tribunal was composed of three hereditary peers, ..." but is that correct? I assume we are speaking of Thomas, Lord Grey of Groby, William Monson, 1st Viscount Monson, and Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll. But Lord Grey was never actually a peer - his father was Henry Grey, 1st Earl of Stamford, and Lord Grey predeceased his father by a number of years. His title "Lord" was therefore a courtesy title. Am I overlooking something?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fairfax was named as a commissioner and had inherited the Scottish peerage, Lord Fairfax of Cameron in 1648. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thomas Fairfax, 3rd Lord Fairfax of Cameron isn't on this page, though. Should he be?  From reading his Wikipedia entry, it seems that he did attend the first meeting but upon realizing that the Death of King was at stake, objected strongly to the proceedings and did not participate further.  I suppose he could be listed on this page, but I'm so far from an expert that I wouldn't venture to decide at this time.  In any event, if he's one of the three heriditary peers we mean in the introduction, then surely we need him in the list?  I'd be a lot happier if this didn't feel like original research though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph also mentions "twelve judges of the High Court (who all declined to serve)" who presumably are not included in the article either. The full list of commissioners is listed here. Hopefully, some other editors can shine some light on the issue. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Rothwod
I found this at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report. Middlesex Court Rolls 1665 13 February, 17 Charles II.—Recognizances, taken before Sir Philipp Howard J.P., of John Goodchilde carpenter, Richard Street plumer, William Hardy bricklayer, and John England. . . ., all four of St. Margaret's Westminster, John Francis of Allhollowes Stainings winecoper, and Francis Church of. . . . stacioner, in the sum of. . . . each, and of Andrew Rothwod of St. Margaret's Westminster victualler, in the sum of five hundred pounds; For the appearance of the said Andrew Rothwod at the next G. D. for Middlesex, to answer &c. for "being guilty of the murther of Charles the First the late King of blessed memory."—A fragmentary parchment. G. D. R., 19 Feb., 17 Charles II.

Who is he?--Streona (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

George Joyce
William Lilly the astrologer had dinner with Robert Spavin, Cromwell's secretary a week after the execution. Spavin told him the identity of the executioner was George Joyce was exe,pted from the Act of Indulgence & Oblivion and fled, only to return in disguise (as awoman)m and assassinated many years later. Lilly also suggested that the assistant was Hugh Peters. Perhaps this requires a mention. I can source it and I will post it unless anyone has any objection.--Streona (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that such an accusation should be included here. It seems at the restoration that many people who were perceived to be anti Royalist were accused of being involved with the execution of Charles the I without any evidence but hearsay. For example see William Govan who was one of the few Scottish men who were executed just after the restoration for crimes against Charles II during 1650/1651. -- PBS (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Image of Westminster Hall
In my opinion the image of the heads over Westminster Hall should be next to the paragraph where it is described. Lower down is pointless. -- PBS (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Image placement

 * Well, we differ in opinion, and as your version breaks into the lower space on a wider monitor, it seems a backwards step. At least the caption in the current version is free of errors in fact and format. – SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * After your inital comment, I move the image from the left to the right, so it will not break the format on wide screens. What is the error in fact? -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Left to tight makes little difference: the effect is down. There are enough images in the text section as it is. I take it you are not familiar with London? – SchroCat (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have split the topic into two as we are disagreeing about two issues the first is the placement and the second the caption. Which browser do you think can go wide enough to distort the table? If that is a concern why are the other images not. Also have you looked at the format on a phone? Putting the images just above the relevant text helps to illuminate the text. Placing them away from the text is less helpful more so on a phone. -- PBS (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What the fuck is the point is disgussing things with you if you edit war to your own personal preference. Your behaviour is beneath contempt. - SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The point of discussing things with me is to justify/explain why you reverted my edits, and for me to justify/explain my edits, because everything you have said in this last posting to this section could also have been said by another editor about your behaviour. It is also the sort of cyomment that makes collegial editing more difficult, so I would appreciate it if you would assume that I am editing this article without base motives (such as simply spending my time wishing to edit war), and that I am trying to improve the article, because I assume that you do not consider that you own this list and that you accept that the list can be improved.


 * I checked on a very wide screen (to be precise three screens acting as one) and if the image is placed next the the relevant text and on the right-hand side of the text the image simply shunts the first image next to the table down. It has no effect on the table. Given that information do you still have objections to moving the image up next to the text. If so why? -- PBS (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Caption

 * I am familiar with London and I am well aware that Westminster Hall can not be seen from Tyburn. What is wrong with the wording? -- PBS (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactlt that: it's 2.5 miles tween the two. The artist is obviously using artistic licence, but your wording is just misleading. – SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The caption and wording were copied from the Oliver Cromwell's head what was misleading about the wording? -- PBS (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good grief: as above. It's 2.5 miles between the two, so to state without explanation that the image was of Tyburn and Westminster Hall is deeply misleading. – SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is of Tyburn and Westminster Hall. You are free to add more if think that artistic licence has to be explained. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are free not to re-add something so baldly misleading. – SchroCat (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not misleading in my opinion. -- PBS (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you open an RfC for neutral comment, although I'm sure you're aware of WP:STATUSQUO on this point and the citations too. – SchroCat (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Funny you should being that up. See the next section on citation layout. Also this is a question of adding something, so if you do not like it you can always edit it. But back to this topic. Here is a link to an external site which does not think it necessary to add such details about perspective to the image, nor does the current caption, which states "The execution of the bodies of Cromwell, Bradshaw and Ireton, from a contemporary print". Yet it is also a post execution picture as it show the heads on spike an act that happened after the dismemberment had occurred. The amount of detail needed for such a analysis is much more than is needed for a caption but we could add it to a footnote. The most useful fact to be extracted from the image is the view of the heads on the spikes above Westminster Hall. -- PBS (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@SchroCat I look forward to your comments on the points I have raised. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The MoS guidance is what is under discussion. You, an experienced editor, are interpreting it one way, three experienced editors are interpreting it another. The consensus on this page is against you. If you wish to get a different view on how the MoS guidance should be interpreted, the have a central discussion. This is another point on which three editors are in agreement and you are in dispute. – SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You should not put this forward for any good or featured article status until the artilce is stable. At the the momentthe only reasons I have not reverted your reverts is because I think it necessary to reach a consensus on the talk page, which at the moment does not exist. -- PBS (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus, it's just that you don't like it. See the comments from and  and from me. There is the consensus, and stability exists. If you want to make a meal of this, do so centrally, not here, as your comments are nothing but WP:tendentious and WP:disruptive. It's time for you to drop the stick and be 'constructive' elsewhere. And an oppose at the FLC because you are trying to make it unstable? That's about par for the course here, unfortunately.  SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here with PBS. In order to move forward we need the article to be stable which it's not. Furthermore it's important to have a true consensus which we do not seem to have here.  Caden  cool  05:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously Caden? You are trying to stir things up now? This article is a long way from your comfort zone, and I wonder how you came to find this discussion. This is not a constructive move on your part. – SchroCat (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What, pray tell, is "true consensus"? For close to two months now there was a clear consensus: four editors (SchroCat, Dr Blofeld, Cassianto, and myself) supporting the use the disputed citation method in this article, one editor (Nikkimaria) stating that the citation style used here is consistent (and thus protected by WP:CITEVAR), and one editor (PBS) who considers the citation method used inappropriate and inconsistent. There is a consensus for this page. That PBS has not dropped the stick is worrisome. That PBS has disrupted the FLC process is even worse. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Crisco 1492 are you seriously suggesting that an list should be promoted when there are clearly issues that are not supported by the reliable sources that are used to support the text. Using just the first example in the section "non-regicides" (as it was when you wrote your comment on the 4th) we have the inline cited source (ODNB) stating in the fist sentence that the man was a regicide. Finally after days of obstruction SchroCat has on 5 July changed the section header to "Commissioners who did not sign" with a editorial comment of "Non-regicides: ending the tendentious idiocy". -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We can now move onto the next section header which is also inaccurate. -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Time for you to move on to somewhere else PBS. – SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Schrocat. PBS, your WP:OWN issues with this article are not befitting an admin. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @User talk:Crisco 1492 Which issues do you think I WP:OWN? -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you own issues. I think you have WP:OWN issues. Why I think that should be patently clear when consensus has been consistently against you (including the recent FLC), and yet you hammer away to "protect" (i.e. maintain in a relatively poor state) the project you've been working on inconsistently over ten years. If you think Schro's citation style is inconsistent, despite the numerous people who have expressed a different opinion, then go start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Otherwise, drop the stick. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Thomlinson
Matthew Thomlinson rightly appears in two different places, but a casual observer might not realise that this is the same individual - might it be worth doing something to denote that this is the same person, particularly as the notes sections do not exactly match? Dunarc (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well spotted User:Dunarc. As he never sat as a commissioner, I have removed his name from that list, but I have added to the notes that he was appointed as one in the other entry. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks PBS. Dunarc (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)