This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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 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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
Original:
My revision (17:16, 27 June 2018) edit comment "changed the link from non-conformists (which included Presbyterians and so was confusing"
user:DrKay revision (17:16, 27 June 2018) edit comment "they were all religious":
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
"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)
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)
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)
This edit request to Charles I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This edit request to Charles I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add some extra info on his early life 92.233.239.243 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
This edit request to Charles I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit request to Charles I of England has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)