Talk: Charles I of England

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

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)

---

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.)
2. It appears to me that a good deal of historical documents list Cromwell and his son in the monarch succession. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 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)

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)