Talk:Charles I of England/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suggested Updates to Religious Conflict Section

There are a number of points which I think should be clarified and matter because they led not only the Civil Wars but the rest of the 17th century.

specifically his wish to move the Church of England away from Calvinism; the Church of England was not Calvinist, the Church of Scotland was. This difference (many Scots regarded it as little better than Catholicism) was why Charles' reforms were resisted so strongly.

I think this same confusion re-appears further down in Together, they began a series of anti-Calvinist reforms Charles certainly wanted to reduce the power of English Non-Conformists and to bring the Church of Scotland into closer union with the Church of England but that's not the same thing.

The Church of Scotland was Calvinist in doctrine, primarily Presbyterian in structure but with bishops; the vast majority of Scots were members. The Church of England was far closer to Catholicism in its doctrine and 'Episcopalian' in structure and covered a very wide range of beliefs ie Puritans to Arminians.

I wouldn't have cared myself a while back :) but this difference is really key because the Scottish version of Episcopalian (Presbyterian, Calvinist but with bishops) was very different from the 'Episcopalian' Church of England. That was why attempts to impose a unified church either by Charles or the Scots in 1643, 1648 and 1651 were so controversial.

It also makes the point that the use of bishops in the kirk (ie to control or replace the General Assembly) was about politics and the divine right of kings, not just religion. It wasn't resolved until 1690.

I'm happy to make these and then discuss them. Any thoughts?

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's clear what changes you want to make, or particularly even what the problem is in the two paragraphs about the English church. You say yourself that the Church of England included Puritans, and that Charles and Laud wanted to reduce their influence, moving the Church in the other direction. How is this different from saying they wanted to move the Church of England away from Puritanism and institute anti-Calvinism? Celia Homeford (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There does seem to be a widespread view in the academic literature that the doctrine of the Church of England in the early 17th Century was Calvinist. That's not to say that there wasn't a spectrum of views accommodated within the Church in this period, but I'd be nervous about changing the main assertion. See George Abbot, the Archbish before the anti-Calvinist William Laud took office in 1633. (Calvinism is quite separate from the issue of Bishops/no Bishops) Gilgamesh4 (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't clear - apologies.

Puritan is a general term used to describe anyone who wanted to eradicate Catholic ceremonies within the Church of England (image smashing). They were a minority within the Church of England and included not only Calvinists but Congregationalists, Anabaptists, Independents etc.

Calvinism is a sub-set of the Protestant religion. The Church of Scotland was uniformly Calvinist and by 1638 covered about 95% of Scots, the Church of England was not.

You can say that in the 1630s, many Puritans within the Church of England were Calvinists but that's not the same thing as all Puritans being Calvinist or the Church of England being Calvinist in doctrine.

Re George Abbott; James liked appointing Calvinists as bishops because Calvin believed in a structured world where everyone owed obedience to those above them - especially the monarch.

As you say, Presbyterian or Episcopalian' are structures, not doctrines but while Presbyterian originated with Calvin, it is a form of structure adapted and used by many other Reformed groups eg Congregationalists. This confusion appears elsewhere.

Honestly, this isn't mindless nit-picking :) - I only educated myself because I never really understood why the Scots got rid of Charles in the 1630s but then invested in two bloody and costly attempts to put him or his son back on the throne. It's an important distinction; confusion on these differences impacts other parts of this article and those on similar topics.

It's relatively easy here; You can say 'reverse Puritan-inspired reforms' but not 'anti-Calvinist' - like saying 'Restrict democracy' versus 'Ban the Tories.'

Those differences are why Charles' attempts to impose uniformity on the Scots in 1638 led to war; why similar Scottish attempts to impose a Calvinist and Presbyterian Union on England in 1643 were also strongly resisted; why so many members of the Church of England opposed Charles in the 1630s but supported him in the 1640s; why Independents like Cromwell came to oppose the very idea of a state church; why the Scots agreed to restore Charles to the throne in 1648; and why Cromwell decided the only solution was to execute him.

I hope that clarifies it - as I said confusion on these terms appears in loads of Wikipedia articles on this topic and era and I can do the edits but I'm happy to leave it if you prefer. I was just passing :)

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Contrasting Congregationalists, and many Independents, with Calvinists, shows confusion, and there is a lot more to Puritanism than iconoclasm! I think you are understating the level of Calvinist tendencies within the CofE at the time, much of it somewhat disguised, as it was difficult to reconcile most mainstream Calvinist sets of views with the Thirty-Nine Articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is generally very loose in its use of denominational and sectarian terms. Academic historians seem to use adherence to the doctrine of predestination as the primary indicator for Calvinism, and predestination appears to be widely held in the CoE from late C16th through to Charles' rule (including the resistance to Laud). I'm not sure why predestination takes this prominence - plenty of these labelled 'Calvinists' were very critical of Calvin, Beza and the 'Genevans'. What do we do if there are respectable sources asserting that CoE was, and was not, Calvinist, given that this article is not the place for a long explanatory paragraph? Maybe we are all trying to build a house on sand here? :-( Gilgamesh4 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It all depended on the very complex question of the version of predestination adhered to - even the Catholics accepted (and still accept) predestination as a doctrine (having been lumbered with it by Augustine), but in what one might call a "don't ask, don't tell" form, which they generally try to ignore as much as possible (with considerable success). But a heavy emphasis on predestination was certainly a strong mark of Early Modern Calvinism, though there were many shades of it, that Calvinists spent much of their time arguing about. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I know the Puritans were about more than image smashing nor am I denying the existence of a significant element of Calvinism within the CoE.

'A significant element' is not the same as describing Charles' policies as 'ant-Calvinism' which I think is a reasonable point. Ignoring predestination etc, Calvinism is not and was not uniform; James and CoE 'Calvinists' like Abbott used it to justify the appointment of bishops. The 'Calvinist' kirk eliminated them in the Bishops Wars of 1638/39. Which one is Calvin?

More importantly, the single biggest dividing line between England and Scotland in the 17th century were the Calvinist doctrines that (a) monarchy was divinely ordered (even the Kirk Party were monarchists) and (b) the idea of a universal church. I referenced the Congregationalist and Independent elements of the Puritan movement because they came to oppose the very idea of a unified state church or monarch and led to the Second and Third Civil Wars (and Charles' execution).

I suggested replacing Calvinist with Puritan which I think is both reasonable and more accurate. It impacts other parts of the article eg the section on Captivity contains this statement; In direct contrast to his previous conflict with the Scottish Kirk, on 26 December 1647 he signed a secret treaty with the Scots.

That's where I came in ie why did the Scots decide to support Charles having fought against him for a decade? I think this point is crucial to understanding that. However, we all share the same objective of improving Wikipedia so if the consensus is leave as is then I've had a chance to voice my view and I can live with it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

How about changing 'a series of anti-Calvinist reforms' to simply 'a series of reforms'? That would seem to escape this knotty problem by avoiding a label. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That seems fine - would you like me to do them?

What this shows is even four editors who know something about it can't agree what is or isn't Calvinist :). It's not the term so much but the implications - the Second and Third Civil Wars were fought by the Scots to impose a religious Union on England and I personally wasn't really clear why that was so.

I'd suggest the section on Captivity might to be fleshed out ie why did Charles agree a Treaty with the Scots because it is the single biggest reason behind Cromwell's decision that he had to die. I wrote this up in the Civil War section on Scottish religion 17th century if you're interested.

Thanks all.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Celia's suggestion seems reasonable to me too. Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(On your question of 'what was Charles thinking!', I suspect that he over-estimated his indestructibility, and his ability to play off factions against one another. I doubt it was particularly rooted in principles - he seems very flexible on points of dogma (other than on his own divine right to rule). Gilgamesh4 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC))

There's a good analysis in the current BBC series on the Stuarts along the lines of 'James combined inflexible statements of principle (ie the Basilikon Doran) with pragmatic application' but Charles didn't. What I found interesting is the extent to which Charles surrounded himself at Whitehall with allegorical paintings showing him as the centre of the universe (exhibition at the Royal Academy); bound to make you go crazy. Also, his relationships tended to be one on one ie dominated by Buckingham (who came up with the lunacy of going to Spain), didn't get on with Henrietta Maria until he died and then switched totally and her inflexibility simply reinforced his. I also wonder (amateur psychologist) if the death of his adored brother Henry, who was supposed to be king and the apple of his fathers eye etc made Charles feel insecure (there was a BBC programme on him called 'The Best King We Never Had' and that's 400 years later). Insecurity is often a characteristic of inflexibility .

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Marriage to Henrietta Maria

I have removed the references to a second marriage taking place in Canterbury on 13 June 1625, largely on the strength of this convincing article https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/Vol.069%20-%201955/069-05.pdf from Kent Archaeology's journal. The previous version of the text here said that Charles postponed the opening of Parliament until after the second ceremony (ie the supposed one in Canterbury) in order not to let the Commons object to it. This was supported by citations from Trevelyan's classic 1922 history, and Pauline Gregg's more recent (1981) biography. In fact neither source mentions a second wedding. Gregg says explicitly that "Charles was reluctant to face the Parliament of 1625 until his marriage was consummated", rather than until after a second ceremony.

In various places in the internet you can find statements about the second wedding, but they are interestingly varied: some place it in Canterbury Cathedral, others in St Augustine's Church in Canterbury. The latter did not exist at the time, but the remnant buildings of the dissolved St Augustine's Abbey were used as a royal palace in Canterbury, and this was where Charles and Henrietta Maria first slept together. A royal marriage in the Cathedral would have given rise to some record if it was to have any purpose, but none has been found.

Marriage by proxy seems to have been regarded as perfectly acceptable by both parties to the marriage (and, in particular, to Henrietta Maria's Catholic family. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted DrKay's edit, as the book he cites is a less scholarly source (in my view) than the journal article above, and Trevelyan and Gregg (neither of whom mention a second wedding). Perhaps there could be a discussion here before we start re-reverting?Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Having looked into this a little further, it appears that most accounts of the "second ceremony" derive from the voluminous but perhaps less-than-reliable Agnes Strickland, in her multi-volume Lives of the Queens of England. She says, citing Henrietta Maria's memoirs, that 'it is asserted that Charles and Henriette "were personally married", at Canterbury', adding, without any citation, that 'the ceremony took place in the great hall of that ancient city....'. If the source was in fact Henrietta Maria's memoirs, presumably originally written in French, I wonder whether the entry in fact simply refers to the consummation of the marriage. "Bodily" rather than "personally", for example. There seem to be several different revisions of Strickland's account of the wedding. I have been unable to track down the one cited by Toynbee (Volume 4 p 157), but there is a less full but detailed account here in Volume 8 of a different edition of Strickland's book. The project Gutenberg version, from a 3-volume abridgement, is even briefer, and omits the second ceremony entirely. Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Strickland's account can be a little confusing, as she uses the new style calendar (see Old Style and New Style dates), which had not at the time been adopted in England, though it was in use in France. As a result her dates are 10 days later than those shown here.Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Independents

Original:

• which was primarily officered by Independent non-conformists who sought a greater political role.

My revision (17:16, 27 June 2018) edit comment "changed the link from non-conformists (which included Presbyterians and so was confusing"

• which was primarily officered by religious Independents (Congregationalists) who sought a greater political role.

user:DrKay revision (17:16, 27 June 2018) edit comment "they were all religious":

• which was primarily officered by Independent Congregationalists who sought a greater political role.

I added religious before "Independents" because although you and I know what Independents in the context of the Civil War means religious independence, however it is not the usual modern meaning of the word--which has connotations of nationalism such as "Scottish independents", and could be misunderstood to mean either political independence (aka levellers/anarchy ) or independence for England from the Three Kingdoms--and so I think that qualifying independents with "religious" helps people who have an interest in the topic (they are reading this article) but are not experts (or they would not be reading this article for information).

I put "Congregationalists" in brackets because it is another label for "independents" (and a modern contemporary one). DrKay to turn your edit comment on its head: are there any Congregationalists who are not independents?

-- PBS (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Are there any presbyterians or episcopalians who are not religious? DrKay (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I included religious in religious before independent to make it clear that the subject was religiously independent not any other sort of independent (as per above), that others may be religious is not the reason for including the word, that others are religious (add to the list Catholics) is beside the point. You have not explained why you removed the brackets from around Congregationalists. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

They're not needed. DrKay (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

"religious Independent" is phrase that means "Congregationalist" to write Independent Congregationalist" is like writing "Independent Independent" the brackets are needed to show that it is an alternative. -- PBS (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "Independent Congregationalist". It uses "congregationalist" as an adjective. It is not necessary to place adjectives in parentheses. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You have made an edit (08:28, 30 June 2018) while this conversation has been ongoing. Prior to the edit the phrase used was "Independent Congregationalists" the edit changed it to "congregationalist Independents" I see no difference as Independents were Congregationalist. -- PBS (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

You earlier said "add to the list Catholics", not apparently realizing that Catholics were already in the list as episcopalians. Similarly, congregationalists are Quakers, Puritans, Independents and Baptists. I have clarified the link[1]. DrKay (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is intended as a general point rather than this specific issue but we should be clear, then simplify, not simplify because we're not clear. Reading this, I'm not sure that's the case so if I'm telling you what you already know, my apologies in advance.

'Puritan' is not a sect but a label for anyone who believed in a 'purified' Church of England (ie not Catholics). Puritans then diverged on both church governance ie Presbyterian, Episcopalian or Congregationalist and doctrine ie Calvinist, Anabaptists, Lutherans etc.

All Calvinists were Puritan (because they believed in a purified or reformed church) but you could be Calvinist and Episcopalian or Calvinist and Presbyterian. That divide tore the Church of Scotland apart throughout the 17th century because James created a weird amalgam whereby the Calvinist Church of Scotland was governed by bishops (ie Episcopalian) presiding over structures that were generally Presbyterian.

Unless you understand the Church of England was Episcopalian in structure but (mostly) Lutheran in doctrine while until 1639 (ie the Bishops Wars) the Church of Scotland was (somewhat) Episcopalian in structure but Calvinist in doctrine, you cannot understand why Charles' Prayer Book was so controversial in Scotland. It matters and is why Scottish attempts to impose a religious union in 1643, 1646 and 1651 were so bitterly resisted in England. (And a key element in why Charles ended up dead).

'Independent' was a label for Puritans were also Congregationalist ie denied the idea of a State church but it is not a doctrine; you can refer to Independent sects (eg Levellers, Diggers, Ranters, Quakers etc) or Puritan sects - but Calvinists were both Puritan (because they believed in a purified church) and Presbyterian.

We can make general distinctions eg some Puritan sects were Calvinist, or 'all Calvinists were also Puritan' some Puritan sects were Congregationalist or 'some Congregationalists were Baptists.' But we need to be careful about making sweeping statements while saying Congregationalists are Quakers, Puritans, Independents and Baptists mixes doctrine ie Quakers and Baptists with a philosophical approach (Puritan) and governance (Independents or Congregationalists).'

This appeared on my Watchlist so I'm not seeking to intervene but while these distinctions don't matter now, they did then and its hard to understand why the Civil Wars they spawned were so bitter without some comprehension of the difference. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Holles: as I said in an edit summary,[2] the argument is proceeding from a false premise. At no point did I remove or reinstate Holles from or to the article. I merely corrected a sentence that implied he was the leader of "both the Scots and the Presbyterian majority", because (as I also said twice in edit summaries) he was not the leader of the Scots. Nor do I see any reason to withdraw my comment "Charles didn't open negotiations from Parliament". Charles did not open negotiations from Parliament, which is why I amended a clause that implied that he did (...informed Parliament Charles was in his custody. From there ...") by changing "From there" to "From Carisbrooke". Why such a mild correction of grammar should invoke such hatred is beyond me. With regard to you pretended you hadn't said it...lets go to arbitration, at no point have I pretended any such thing, and an approach to arbcom would rightly be declined by the committee. DrKay (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Anthonis van Dyck - Equestrian Portrait of Charles I - National Gallery, London.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 19 November 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-11-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Charles I (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649) was monarch of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1625 until his execution in 1649. The second son of King James VI of Scotland, he spent most of his life in England after his father inherited the English throne in 1603. His reign was marked by quarrels with the Parliament of England, which sought to curb his royal prerogative. From 1642, Charles fought the armies of the English and Scottish parliaments in the English Civil War. His defeat led to his execution, followed by establishment of a republic called the Commonwealth of England.

This painting, titled Equestrian Portrait of Charles I, is an oil-on-canvas work by Charles's Principal Painter in Ordinary, Anthony van Dyck. The portrait, now in the National Gallery in London, is thought to have been painted in about 1637–38, and is one of many portraits of Charles by van Dyck, including several equestrian portraits.Painting: Anthony van Dyck

Page title: King of Scotland (and England)

Why does the title page restrict his title to King of England, omitting Scotland (and Ireland)? His father was King of Scots (there were no monarchs of Scotland, only the Scots people, for more details, please see the Declaration of Arbroath for more information ), before his acquistion of the kingdom of England. Further, Charles was born in Scotland. To that extent, he and his father were primarily Kings of Scots and only subsequently of England. To restrict his title to one of his kingdoms, England, thereby rewriting history, is not only historically inaccurate and, therefore, out of place in this encyclopaedia, but smacks of English cultural imperialism.

I disagree that this is a matter of cultural imperialism, but I do agree that the title is problematic. Yes, Charles' father James VI&I was king of Scots before he acceded the throne of England also, and yes, Charles was born in Scotland as a Scottish royal exclusively, but Charles' rule of all his kingdoms was conducted from England, and he is far more significant in English history than Scottish history. I could only propose that the article is moved to "Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland". I believe it would be correct to list his kingdoms in order of precedence and that this order is correct. Correct me if I am wrong. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The longer title would presumably be more accurate, if a little more cumbersome. I appreciate the point being made, but the simple " .. of England" is sufficient to identify and distinguish him from other monarchs named Charles I, while also focusing - for better or worse - on the most significant of his titles, and at the same time being the description that is probably found most often in reliable sources. I'm easy as to whether it's worth changing it to the longer form. N-HH talk/edits 13:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this not cultural imperialism? Charles was a Stuart and the Stuarts originated in Scotland. Yes you probably could argue that England was more powerful, or that Charles cared a lot more for the English crown over the Scottish crown, but the fact remains he was originally Scottish. To be truly neutral, the article title needs to include Scotland, and realistically Wikipedia pages for all the Stuart monarchs should have Scotland in the article title as well as England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowelilitokiemu (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

He was also the king of France! :D --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"The simple "...of England" is sufficient to identify and distinguish him... while focusing... on the most significant of his titles". In saying that, I would suggest that you don't in fact appreciate the point being made. Why is his title to England the "most significant" of his titles, and who decided that this was the case? In Scotland his title to Scotland was of considerably more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.179.223 (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there... This is (a) indeed cultural imperialism / Anglocentrism / Anglosphere-ism but by and large American-led, where the idea that England=Britain is strongest and the distinctions matter least (b) more importantly for wikipedia, Charles I is just one entry in a dynastic series (initially Scottish), relevant to two countries (hence the styling of the two final James monarchs) and in a sequence of dynasties and sequence(s) of monarchs, so the title on THIS page (and Charles II and a few others) needs to be coherent. In fact the page titles indicating a national focus for the relevant pages are a total mess, some lacking any geographical focus, some having the wrong focus (as here) and some with dubious/variable focus. I do not even want to add in the issue of the regnal number (e.g. Queen Elizabeth "II") because it was settled legally, and is largely accepted that it is based on the English sequence, though I appreciate this is not an easy problem either, where popular usage differs (see below on William and Mary). Either a stance is being taken here to provide a "useful" label, or an analytically clear one (as part of a coherent series). Given the expansion of Empire and its subsequent fractionalisation into independent countries with one of these monarchs as head of State, and given the gradual (and temporary) accretion of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales into a single nation, and given the continuing use of country labels like "Ireland" (or not, like "Wales") in the style throughout these phases, this is not easy. Compromises are indeed needed. And this is a TITLE for a wikipedia page we are talking about, so it needs to be short. it is not possible in a title to provide a complete regnal style, nor useful. Basically, some Wikipedian consistency of styling is required as a matter of urgency... this is not just a parochial issue about the 100% incorrect and extremely misleading choice of "of England" for a subset of the Stuarts - the most important point about this point in relation to the latter stuarts is that they were monarchs of two countries leading to the 1707 Union, *not* as stated above that they were based in England.

• This page's title is not a single issue - other pages need to be fixed within a system.
• Cross-references (pop-up text) are a mess in that they sometimes differ from the URL page and the page title.
• The crucial joint monarchs are a mess - namely William and Mary. The sequence of monarchs leads just to William (III & II) but it ought to lead to BOTH William and Mary, given that the pages in the sequence are about individual people rather than monarchs.
• The Stuart Dynasty was Scottish. The monarchs ruling both countries should not therefore be labelled "of England", that much is clear. But what to use? "of Scotland and England" or "of "England, Scotland and Ireland" make most sense, given the relevant time-depths and the monarchic history of Scotland and England, on the one hand, and the histories of Ireland and Wales on the other, and the place of these late Stuart monarchs in the sequence of national change resulting in the formation of Great Britain/UK.
• From 1707, wikipedia deals a bit better with "of Great Britain" and "of the United Kingdom" before getting back into difficulty with the 20th C. monarchs
• William and Mary are a mess - she is not flagged up in the text as the successor, with him being brought in as part of the Glorious Revolution. She is not "Mary" - she is "Queen Mary" or "Queen Mary of England, Scotland and Ireland" (or alternative multinational designation) in contrast to "Queen Mary of England".
• Other countries / languages need to find their own solutions, which might be different. But for English-speaking readers of wikipedia from all over the world, "Of England" in an encyclopedia for the 17th century monarchs that we are talking about is just about the worst possible choice for "disambiguation" from the other European monarchs named (in English) Charles.
• There needs to be consistency and overwith with the other pages listing sequences of UK monarchs or "kings called Charles" or whatever.
• Come on, wikipedia editors, grow a pair... things like this ARE a mess, so be helpful, not woefully misleading and lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.196.13 (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

We already have a page with Charles I's titles: Style of the British sovereign. In his case: "By the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and of the Church of England and of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head". We can not use that as a title, because it is way too long. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

As this image shows at Style of Charles I of Great Britain, Charles I actually styled himself King of Great Britain, as did James VI & I. That would also be a title for the page which is short and reflects the political reality. It is all very well to say the page title needs to be short, but there is a short solution available which isn't both offensive to Scots and Scotland and also historically inaccurate, and it should be used.Benmoreassynt (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves for the processes to request page moves. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Anglican" or "Protestant" in Religion Field of Infobox

Is there any reason for this to say "Protestant" instead of the more specific "Anglican"? A change to "Anglican" would conform with the level of specificity seen in the infoboxes for most other Stuart monarchs and late Tudor monarchs, and is supported by the content of the article. I cannot edit the page due to its semi-protected status. 193.115.76.17 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree, though the issue may be that he was "Presbyterian" in Scotland (not that he ever went there, I think). He was certainly more thoroughly "Anglican" than most monarchs have been. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

He was born in Scotland and was crowned in Edinburgh. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia policy was that religion should not be included in the infobox? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It's included if it's notable to the person, which it is here. Religion played a big part in his overthrow and execution, and as King Charles the Martyr he is commemorated as an Anglican saint. Jonathunder (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Under "Finances" in personal rule, on the second paragraph about ship money, change "poundage and tonnage" to "tonnage and poundage" as this is the more universally used term. HayHoHereWeGo (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019

I would like to add some extra info on his early life 92.233.239.243 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Please state explicitly the additions you want to make by leaving a draft here, or state your request in the form "please change X to Y". DrKay (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

This Title is Misleading

I am a Professor of early Modern British History. I am trying to encourage my students that Wiki is " Getting Better". So long as we have this ludicrous situation where the official title of Charles - A born Scot, and half Dane as "Charles I of England", this page cannot be taken seriously.

The Royal style for all Stuart Monarchs and family (including princes and princesses) was changed in 1604 to " xxx of Great Britain, France and Ireland". Embassies were turned away for not using it.

I offer a public debate with the author of this page to justify this narrow, parochial and Anglocentric use of the title of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentsmuir (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There isn't an author as such. This is a community-project and the page title is determined by editors on a broader scale. There were previous discussions at Talk:Charles I of England/Archive 1#Title of page, Talk:Charles I of England/Archive 1#Title "of England", Talk:Charles I of England/Archive 1#Charles I of Scotland? and Talk:Charles I of England#Page title: King of Scotland (and England). To request a new discussion, please follow the advice at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• No, do not follow that advice as it is unnecessary. As policy, we use common names and not title styling here. That is why there is an article called Elizabeth II and is devoid of any further titling. Same for James VI and I and Henry VII of England.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

Further Reading section - Add Siobhan Keenan, The Progresses, Processions, and Royal Entries of King Charles I, 1625-1642 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). ISBN: 9780198854005. 236pp. Skeenan00 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Further Reading section is already long, not shown that this book is influential or adds to what is there already. See also our guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William III of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"British King who got his head cut off" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British King who got his head cut off. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#British King who got his head cut off until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Charles I of England → Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland – This title is more comprehensive and descriptive as it encapsulates Charles I's three kingdoms, without being overly cumbersome. This style is used by some key sources, e.g. the BBC. I note the argument made previously that England was the most prominent of his kingdoms; having "King of England" first will recognise this. McPhail (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. It's also disingenuous to suggest the BBC uses the proposed title when the article you linked to actually says "Charles I was king of England, Scotland and Ireland," which is a far cry from what you are suggesting. -- Calidum 13:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCNOB, which states Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. For example, Charles II of England, not Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland. Rublov (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose there’s a bid difference between saying that Charles I was the king of England, Scotland, and Ireland and saying that he was known as Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Unless multiple sources can be provided that explicitly refer to him by that title it shouldn’t be moved.--70.24.249.16 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN, as described above by Rublov. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradictions here & there

Apparently, this article contradicts the article List of assassinated and executed heads of state and government, which excludes Charles I, suggesting that his reign ended long before January 30, 1649. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Title: Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland

This article's title is misleading because, as stated immediately in the article, he was Charles I of England, Scotland, and Ireland, not just Charles I of England! S2mhunter (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

See 2 sections up. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2022

Change James II & VII, King of England, Scotland and Ireland to James VII & II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland

- the larger number is listed first e.g. as demonstrated in the listing for James VI & I (see above on page) Thanks for your time, patience and work! 124.149.232.202 (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

I recently edited this article because at present, the lead paragraph describes the events in Charles' life prior to becoming king rather than summarising what he's notable for. My edit was reverted with the reason given being concerns over the manual of style. I am opening a discussion to reach a consensus for a new lead paragraph that more appropriately reflects Charles as a whole in line with Wikipedia's MOS policy. GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

Please change "With King James's support, Montagu produced another pamphlet, Appello Caesarem, in 1625, shortly after James's death and Charles's accession" to "With King James's support, Montagu produced another pamphlet, Appello Caesarem, which was published in 1625, shortly after James's death and Charles's accession". I'm assuming Monagu didn't receive James's support from beyond the grave. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:65D0:158B:5B7A:93D4 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

'Published' added. DrKay (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of England (1603-1649).svg
• Coat of Arms of Scotland (1603-1649).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"England's King Charles I" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect England's King Charles I has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 17 § England's King Charles I until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles I main image

I've changed the inbox image as the one previously there was a copy of the original I've added Regards Lew 283 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Date of Death

At the time of his execution, it was still 1648 in England. The year 1649 did not start until March 25th. Suggest that his year of death be recorded as something like 1649/1648 O.S. 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:5D69:A00B:9694:8B0D (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's already explained in the footnote by the date. DrKay (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this date situation so if he died I'm 1648 why would that not be there instead of 1649 Lew 283 (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The English New Year was celebrated on March 25th. So, each year started and ended in March. He was beheaded in January 1648 (which immediately followed December 1648) according to the calendar of the time, but nowadays we would say it was January 1649 because now the year changes in January not March. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks never really understood these old and new dates wonder why they chose 25th March is there a reason? Lew 283 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it was chosen because it was Lady Day. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)