Jump to content

Talk:Trial of Charles I: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
wikilaw tag
m update WikiProject WikiProject Law (C/Low)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject Law}}
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}}



I have noticed that a number of pages about the trial of Charles I link to a page about the current High Court of Justice which has no connection with the body that tried Charles I apart from the name. I have created this page to act as a destination for these links.
I have noticed that a number of pages about the trial of Charles I link to a page about the current High Court of Justice which has no connection with the body that tried Charles I apart from the name. I have created this page to act as a destination for these links.

Revision as of 08:33, 24 June 2009

WikiProject iconLaw C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I have noticed that a number of pages about the trial of Charles I link to a page about the current High Court of Justice which has no connection with the body that tried Charles I apart from the name. I have created this page to act as a destination for these links.

Rjm at sleepers 09:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"House of Lords refused to pass the bill and consequently, it did not receive the Royal Assent". This should be probably say "and consequently, it was not presented for Royal Assent" or something of that kind. Surely it must be questionable whether it would have received Royal Assent even if the Lords had passed it? 86.134.10.71 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold - edit the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]