Talk:Caroline era

History?

The historical summaries in this article need attention. The frequency of the word "puritan" is a problem, and the idea of a royalist party prior to the calling of the Short Parliament is not accurate.I've also removed the reference to the "middle-class" in the art section because it is far too problematic. Berkenhead (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration Discussion Below

Version before collaboration of 2020-01-24, 1,100 words prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Scope

Copying from DrKay's talk per Giano to centralise discussion...

Hi DrKay, Giano is driving a collab towards getting this page up to snuff; obviously your knowledge and command of the sources would be invaluable. I think you are prob best placed to give a steer on how the TOC should look; it seems like atm its veering towards too much emphasis on van Dyck and the US Colonies. I also worry that it may veer too much into a version of the Charles I bio if not steered correctly. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, keeping on subject will be the problem and it’s where I was struggling on my own. What you see now is the skeleton of what I inherited, it’s a huge subject, but I think it has to stay focused with Charles I being the hub, but not a bio of that King, more his times and whatever touched his times lands and realms. Probably best now, if we all comment on the article’s talk page. My aim, is that we have Wikipedia’s best writers showcasing what they can do. Giano (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

For my part, in my narrow area, it would certainly be very interesting to research the direct and lasting impact on visual culture (including architecture) that having Charles as king brought about. Very rich and dramatic topic here, amazing that it was neglected for so long. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a poor stubby thing, covered in templates. I looked for the subject under several other names, but this was all there is. I can help with the architecture. Quite an important era for that as Inigo Jones was revolutionising architecture at the time, but Van Dyke was not the only painter, so there is huge scope there. Giano (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup. The theatre and maths sections esp will benifit from expansion. I understand the first, but not the 2nd. May trim down the van dyke bits to make way for others if thats ok, though obviously he towers in importance. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Do whatever you think is best. The page can be as long or short as we like. Giano (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• WP:VITAL provides a list of what broad topics could be covered, and mining links there might lead to useful suggestions. (In the math department, for example, we missed Isaac Newton by just a few years.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

International relations

As the article Charles I of England has almost nothing on international relations, I suggest that we could have a section here. The internal conflicts with Parliament and events surrounding the end of Charles' reign mask the fact that England participated extensively in the conflicts raging on the continent, certainly in the early part of the era. I've been trawling through the 'year' pages from 1625 to look for significant events, and there are quite a few sources cited that attest to England's involvements – I've collected the first few at User:RexxS/Caroline era. Do others feel that such a section would be in scope, or should I consider leaving it to create an addition to the monarch's biography? --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, carry on. I’ve never subscribed to the theory that Wikipedia pages should be brief. If the page becomes stupidly long, then we could consider trimming a little. Foreign policy is a very important subject. Giano (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Colonies

Connecticut, Pequots, and warfare

The lead mentions the Pequot War (but says Massachusetts, when actually the Mystic massacre and many events occurred in Connecticut). This is an area that certainly warrants a sentence or three, but a historian is needed to write it (see Pequot War#Historical accounts and controversies.)) With battles between 1630 and 1637, the Pequot tribe was "exterminated/enslaved" by Puritans, and the article claims that:

This was the first instance wherein Algonquian peoples of southern New England encountered European-style warfare. After the Pequot War, there were no significant battles between Indians and southern New England colonists for about 38 years. This long period of peace came to an end in 1675 with King Philip's War. According to historian Andrew Lipman, the Pequot War introduced the practice of Colonists and Indians taking body parts as trophies of battle. Honor and monetary reimbursement was given to those who brought back heads and scalps of Pequots.

Perhaps Rjensen would have the sources and background knowledge to write a sentence or two about the influence on Native Americans and the use of European-style warfare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources
References

I think the colonial & Indian issues should be minimized in this article-especially in New England where London was only minimally involved. (New Haven Connecticut was the refuge for the regicides--and the street I lived on was named for one of them who escaped there in 1661--General William Goffe. Colonial America is very well covered already in Wikipedia. Let's focus on British topics which are less well served. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Rjensen I sort of agree with that view, but the colonial articles must be clearly linked from this page. I was initially thinking of summarising them here (that's what I was trying to do), but there are a lot of them, some more important than others - thought? Giano (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

people will look to article like British Empire if they want to know more about colonies. No need to link. Rjensen (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m less sure about that. English overseas possessions has more information, but even then because not much happened the Caroline era is hardly mentioned. I think we do need some info about what was happening on Charles’ overseas dominions, otherwise the article will seem quite parochial and UKcentric. Giano (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

the Caroline topic is parochial and we should stick to it. 17c England needs better coverage-=-not the colonies with very small populations. Rjensen (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion— was just trying to fill out what was already in the article, and Pequot Wars are oddly in the lead only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want to argue too strongly, but Caroline era (reign of Charles I) was not confined to England because it impacted on any land, colony or province under British rule at that time. While of course we must cover the arts, sciences, politics and colonial expansion - the then state of the foreign dominions is important too, especially as so many Wikipedia are probably connected to those former colonies etc. I’m not suggesting thousands of words on each, perhaps just 200 or so, on anywhere under Caroline rule at the time. if people really don’t want this, then American states could be lumped together in one section with their main historical articles linked in the text. Giano (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

links to the good articles on the colonies will suffice. they are all well covered. What is not well covered is the runup to Cromwell. Rjensen (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I would have said that Charles I of England, Oliver Cromwell and especially English Civil War covered that comprehensively. There are lots of other things we could cover here that are not discussed cohesively elsewhere, particularly in the early part of the era. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Elsewhere

St Kitts and Nevis seem to be worth a paragraph or more. -- Hoary (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)