Talk:Charles II of England
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Charles II of England is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
According to royal theory Charles succeeded to the English and Scottish thrones in 1649, the moment his father was executed. In 1660 he was in a position to reign with the monarchy's restoration, but he was already in effect king-in-abstentia for 11 years by then. JtdIrL 09:40 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
- I've just looked at www.royal.gov.uk. It gives the beginning of Charles II's reign as 1660. (Mind you, it also lists the "Monarchs of the United Kingdom" as beginning in 1603 - maybe you should correct them!) Deb 17:53 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
I know. There has been a big row among historians and advisors in the Palace as to how to describe the kingdoms post 1603. One historian who has advised BP on some stuff described that entry as bullshit. Most historians apply 'United Kingdom' only from 1801. A minority apply it from 1707. Even if you go by the formal declaration of James VI/VII as to his title, where he mentions Great Brittaine, that occured on 20th October 1604. So even by that definition it should only apply from October 1604 not 1603. By any standards, the BP website is, as the historian put it, bullshit. King Charles II assumed the throne in 1660. He inherited the monarchy in 1649. BP cannot give an earlier without trying to write the Commonwealth and Cromwell out of history, which they know is unrealistic. That in many ways is the difference between the British and French royals, which is why the former still have a throne and the latter don't. The former are flexible enough to accept the reality of the 1649-1660 period, whereas most of the latter stick rigidly to constitutional theory, to the extent of claiming that Louis XVI's dauphin was Louis XVII, hence Louis XVI's younger brother assuming the ordinal XVIII when he reigned as Louis XVIII. JtdIrL 18:39 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm moving here from the British monarchs talk page for obvious reasons. Yes, I'm sure it's true that Charles II regarded himself as king from 1649 (and don't forget that the Civil War was fought largely for the purpose of demonstrating that kings didn't have a divine right to rule without the approval of their people). However, Charles was also pragmatic enough to realise that he couldn't rule without Parliament's agreement and therefore he didn't press the point. I think you are going too far with your argument -- the corollary would be that both George I and the Old Pretender were actually king at the same time. Or, to go back before the Act of Succession, that Stephen and Matilda were both technically monarchs, contemporaneously. Deb 21:57 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
The reason why the English/British monarchy survived while others didn't was because of its pragmatism, as I have said before. It would be a mistake to think that the outcome of the Civil War confined the concept of the divine right of kings to the rubbish bin and replaced it with a parliamentary monarchy. It is not that simple. The central point about accession to the throne is inheritance, not parliament. Parliament may structure that inheritance, it may intervene in extraordinary circumstances, but not otherwise.
This whole discussion started on the central argument, is parliamentary participation a requirement for the succession to the throne. The answer is no. All the constitutional textbooks say that unambiguously. Parliament may be involved if there is a constitutional crisis, but those are rare occasions. In the normal course of events, there is no parliamentary involvement whatsoever. All that happens is that people like the speaker attend the Accession Council. Parliament's role is limited to
- legislating on the Order of Succession
- legislation for an abdication
Within that limited framework, succession is automatic. JtdIrL 22:59 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
- I think we're straying from the point here. But I suppose it doesn't matter as long as everyone's happy to leave his accession date as 1660. Deb 19:13 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm happy with 1660 for England as long as the accession and coronation dates are also included in the article. You've got me scratching my head a bit over the most appropriate date to use for Scotland though. I'd also note that, while JTD's analysis sounds good for mediaeval and later monarchies, there were other governing principles in earlier times -- I'm thinking of tanistry here -- which made some form of coronation/affirmation ceremony much more important than it is nowadays. -- Derek Ross 19:23 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
I added both of his coronation dates to the article a few days ago as well as declarations of succession.Actualy the problem with Scotland is this:He was crowned but for only a brief time before the English armie (of the Parliament) defeated the Scottish armie (of Charles) and occupied Scotland while Charles fled to exile.Should this be considered part of his actual reign or part of his years of claim to the throne?I prefear the second but any other opinions?-User:Dimadick
It is possible but I don't remember any english monarch's coronation being an entry point into office. Coronations normally aren't. Today, the British monarch is the one European monarch who has a coronation. Monarchs in Spain, Denmark, Sweden and Norway have not been crowned for decades, sometimes centuries. Nor were the kings of Greece and Italy crowned. JtdIrL 19:49 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
- I couldn't go for the coronation date. After all, Richard I was crowned twice - that doesn't mean he was king twice. Deb 20:53 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
I see that Dietary Fiber is making no more attempts to try to pretend he isn't Susan Mason -- he's now attempting to restore edits made under the Susan name that have been reverted by real Wikipedians. -- Zoe
Regarding the above message, I have to say that giving up that pretext is one of the least pathetic things that he/she's done lately. 172
| Contents |
Unofficial Prince of Wales
The article and disambiguation says he used the title unofficially because he was not invested but as investing is not necessary does it mean that no the letters patent were issued? Afer all Charles was PoW from 1957, but not invested until 1969. garryq 14:14, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Cool
This is an extreamly imformitive article I did a great project through this info!!!!
Early Life
Please correct the first phrase.
Excellent article
Just this evening I was watching a period drama on TV all about Charles II and then followed it up with info from this article. Thank you.
Featured article?
I noticed the "Featured Article" banner at the top of the page. Does this mean that the article has been featured on the main page of Wikipedia?*Kat* 04:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Frances Stuart
Frances Stuart who was the Duchess of Richmond was not one of Charles II's mistresses. This fact is actually part of her claim to fame. Charles wanted her as his mistress very, very, badly but she didn't want him at all! When she married the Duke of Richmond Charles was so angry that he banished the newly-weds from Whitehall palace.*Kat* 22:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's quite so clear cut.
- http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9063600
- http://www.bartleby.com/65/rc/RchmndLnR.html
- http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/famousfirst1192.html
- http://81.1911encyclopedia.org/R/RI/RICHMOND_AND_LENNOX_FRANCES_TERESA_STEWART_DUCHESS_OF.htm
Those are excellent encyclopedias, however even the britannica has been known to be wrong.
- My sources are:
- Charles II and Madame by Cyril Hughes Hartmann (London 1934)<----correspondence between Charles II and his favorite sister, Henrietta Anne, Duchess d'Orléans. Charles vented his fury towards Frances Stuart in a rather eloquent letter to Henrietta
- Royal Survivor by Stephan Coote (London 1999)
- Life and Times of Charles II by Christopher Falkus (London 1974)
I don't know the page numbers off hand, but it shouldn't be too hard to look it up. Frances Stuart is just prominent (sp?) enough to merit her own entry in these books' indexes, but not so well known that she has more than three or four mentions.
I have spent my fall semester immersed in Charles II's life, and I spent about a week focusing on his sex life (just for the fun of it). I'm pretty sure that Frances Stuart didn't sleep with Charles II.*Kat* 22:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Legitimate/Bastard children
While the term legitimate has certain legal ramifications, for both children and monarchs (and this excellent page is rather POV promonarch) illegitimate and bastard have connotations in English which among social workers, legal scholars and most common people are now probably avoided! I've popped in marital and non-marital were it seems appropriate and left legitmate only in reference to the succesion, where it is legally appropriate. The fact that Charles l "legitimised" so many of his children with titles is a good illustration of why these terms are passsing from use. Perhaps a reference page exists to explore this? s-slater
- Charles legitimized none of his children. He acknowledged them. I agree with Emsworth that illegitimate is the appropriate word here. john k 17:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Elections
The statement that the "people" elected a Royalist Parliament is very misleading as almost nobody could vote! s-slater
- You're right, it should say the electors elected a royalist parliament. This is the term of art used for elections to the French Chamber between 1814 and 1848, I know. I'm not sure if it's normally used for Britain - if there's a more standard term, we should use it. john k 19:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Wales a kingdom?
He was King of Wales?--MWAK 21:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)