Template:Mainpage date Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

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 successora poo ed. 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.)

Not all "listed" monarchs were crowned; Edward V, for instance, never exercised his powers during his reign and never had a coronation, since he was suppressed by his uncle Richard of Gloucester before any general recognition of his authority could be made.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

• The link for Chuck's son, Henry, Duke of Gloucester, goes to some 20th century dude. jengod 23:22, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Who is the Lady Carey who reportedly took care of him in 1604? Any relation to Lady Catherine Carey or her brother Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon? User: Dimadick

Remember people, its worth not getting sucked in towards a particular sway of opinion. I must say I was left aghast by the number of articles that glibly branded Cromwell's regime a "military dictatorship" making no reservations for the spectrum of historical thought. After all, for every Abbott, there is a Coward.

Just wondering if anyone has a problem with PoV in this section. Stuff like "tried for the murder" when it's a (more or less) legal execution or refering to the leaders of the revolution "regicides". Yes, they caused a monarch to be executed, but regicide makes me think cloak and daggers, poisoned wine, not public execution. Just seems not as neutral as it could be. Any thoughts?

That may not be what you and I would call it, but that is what they were tried for. -- Emsworth 16:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Regicide" just means "killer of a king" -- doesn't matter whether it involves poisons, daggers, the block or rifles; though killing a king in battle is usually not counted, perhaps because that is (or was) considered a more decorous way for a king to die. Philippe "Egalite", the Duke of Orleans, Louis-Philippe's father, was classified as a regicide because he voted for the death of Louis XVI. The Russian soldiers who shot Nicholas II and his family would also be called regicides.

Don't worry. I've changed them all. The whole article is terribly biased in favor of Stuart Absolutism, and I think this is just plainly ridiculous. The person who wrote the article should himself be first hauled to be Court of Star Chamber, and tortured on the rack, then have his body hanged, drawn and quartered. That would certainly teach him a lesson or two about absolute monarchy.

Ah, I should've known this a little better. The Court of Star Chamber cannot put any man to death. Fine. We'll put this author, whoever he is, on the rack, have him confess to whatever crime not known to the law, and then have him re-tried at the Court of King's Bench, then we'll have him hanged, drawn and quartered. This should definitely satisfy his taste for absolute monarchy.

The sentence "members held the Speaker down in his chair whilst three resolutions against Charles were read aloud." confuses me slightly. Why was he unwilling to listen, and why was he made to? --Spudtater 17:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no Speaker in the Chair, then the House cannot continue debate, lacking a presiding officer. -- Emsworth 19:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I is currently in Category:Saints. Surely this is wrong. (If it is actually true, it should be stated explicitly.) Rd232 13:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is. Actually the Anglican church only have two post-reformation saints. Many Anglican churches are named after Saint Charles. You have a point, this should be expanded in more detail in the article. --ClemMcGann 14:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article again. Under "Legacy". There isn't need for further expansion. there is a link to the Society of King Charles the Martyr --ClemMcGann 14:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use the word "saint" or "canonised", then it's clear. I saw "martyr" and didn't see that as specifically implying sainthood. Rd232 22:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be best to clarify that Charles was Charles I of England, but not of Scotland. He was in fact Charles VII of Scotland. -- QwertyMIDX

No he wasn't. He was Charles I of Scotland. There were no previous kings of Scotland names Charles. Perhaps you are thinking of James II, who was James VII of Scotland? john k 04:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The oil painting was made on canvas around 1636, and is an example of how Van Dyck tended to mask Charles I's small stature, portraying him in a more dignified manner."

Why is it assumed that tallness is the same as dignity, and that shorter people are therefore undignified? This is rather offensive.

I just made a couple of changes to this article eliminating some obvious trolling. I became aware of them while following the link from the front page, where this article is being featured.

Did no one lock the article from editing, or at least check it for trolling, before letting it hit the featured section?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.25.113 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some stupid reason, its policy NOT to lock featured articles. Supposedly it encourages new users to 'try out' editting Wikipedia, which is obviously a bad thing since their 'trying out' almost invariably means vandalism or accidentaly damage to the article. Todays featured article should be semi-protected as a matter of course Modest Genius 02:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one falls under Don't bite the newcomers. Reverting vandalism is pretty easy, and the FA of the day is high-profile enough that vandalism gets reverted pretty quickly, I think the system works okay as it is. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't protect featured articles for reasons explained here Raul654 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the link above, but I disagree with the last point of not applying "Semi-protection" to featured articles. I think that Semi-Protection would be a good measure because of the following reasons;

If a vandel comes to the site, the featured article would be seen as a "high profile" target. The arguement of "It brings new users to the project" could be countered by saying, new users normally don't know how to use wikipedia and it's code and could damage a page by trying to learn with it, also if a user is serious about wanting to help wikipedia then he or she wont be put off by not being able to edit a high profile article and will instead be content to edit other articles unregestered or to wait the 4 days before being allowed to edit a major article. -- Faded_Mantis 04:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what semi-protection is for. Semi-protection is meant for articles that attract a high-degree of vandalism for long term periods of time, like George W Bush, not for articles that have their moment in the sun and then go back to obscurity. Raul654 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]