Talk:Charles I of England

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)

"Saint"

Currently we have an explicit reference in the first sentence to a claim that Charles is "a saint in the Church of England", with a section in the main body that claims he was "officially canonised" as a saint. I'm not an expert on royalty or the Anglican Communion, but this leaps out slightly. The only source cited in this article for the claim - this BBC profile - makes no such assertion. Researching it further, the issue seems a little more complex than that - he does possibly have some form of status as a "martyr" and is the object of special reverence by some Anglo-Catholic groups, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say that he is "officially" or formally a saint; or indeed that the CoE has saints at all in the sense they are commonly understood. Regardless, it is hardly the main thing he is known for, or something that is given quite such prominence in other profiles. It's a fairly arcane and technical issue that doesn't need to be among the first things said about him here. N-HH talk/edits 12:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography notes "In 1660 parliament declared Charles a martyr, added him to the calendar of Anglican saints, and ordered prayers to be said in his memory and honour on the anniversary of his death, a practice that quickly became a duty cheerfully taken up by some and ignored by others." It has a single sentence on the subject, and it's not as prominent as the first sentence, perhaps indicating that it's not as significant as Wikipedia's article may suggest. Nev1 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My "research" (aka Google search), which found the main results thrown up were either WP-derived pages or links to obscure groups such as this one, with none to serious biographies or profiles, suggest the same - both that the WP page is giving too much prominence to this and also that some groups have taken up the issue "cheerfully". Anyway, it should definitely be in the body with a bit of explanation and qualification, as currently, but I'm minded to remove the bold explicit statement about sainthood from the first sentence of the lead. I would also lose the BBC source along with it; it's also cited for some other content, about the execution, but doesn't seem to support that either so is redundant both ways. N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I was about to assure everyone that the independent Church of England has never "done" Saints (in the Roman sense of accrediting miracles and canonising deceased souls), but then I did some research (excluding this 'pedia) and founds claims that he is either the first or the only Anglican Saint. I even found a claim he was "canonised" (although that may just be used to mean "made a saint" rather than refer to the Roman church's processes). Certainly the Anglican Communion commemorates saints (small s), and King Charles the Martyr is among those, but whether he was canonised as a Saint (in a Romanish sort of way), I'm not completely sure... DBD 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Church of England and broader Anglican Communion does 'canonise' in dividuals, though not frequently. St6 Charles the Martyr was commemmorated every year in the Book of Common Prayer until 1859, when the service was removed. The Collect from January 30: 'BLESSED Lord, in whose sight the death of thy saints is precious; We magnifie thy name for that abundant grace bestowed upon our late Martyred Soveraign; by which he was enabled so chearfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Saviour, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto bloud; and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us, that we may follow the example of his patience, and charity. And grant, that this our Land may be freed from the vengeance of his bloud, and thy mercy glorified in the forgiveness of our sins: and all for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen'

Though C of E doesn't follow the same exacting process as the Roman, the Sovereign, as Governor of the Church, may declare some individuals worthy of commemmoration. Gazzster (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

April 2013 Charles as saint

I've removed references to Charles being a saint in this article, Canonization and Society of King Charles the Martyr. I don't claim special expertise and I'm open to considering sourcing, but at the moment it doesn't look to me like there is a basis for saying that he was canonised. He does have a day dedicated to him in the Anglican calendar, but this doesn't seem to be any indication of sainthood. There are many people also commemorated in the same way who are clearly not saints (e.g. Samuel Johnson, Florence Nightingale, William Wilberforce, Josephine Butler - also, surprisingly, non-Anglicans such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther and, though strictly not a non-Anglican, John Wesley). Formerip (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Anglicans have different ways of doing things and formal canonization is not something they do. However Charles I has been considered a saint (martyr to the faith) by certain parts of the Anglican church for centuries (other parts have less kind words to say about him). They also tend to be broad in who they consider Christians in good standing (Catholic Archbishop Romero is considered a saint by many Anglicans). Erp (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so, with appropriate sourcing, we might say that a handful of/some/many Anglicans consider Charles to be a saint. But that would be very different from saying that he has been canonised or describing him as a saint in Wikipedia's voice. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Executioners' masks

This article states that the executioners of Charles I wore masks. Is this correct? It would be unusual and against custom. Most drawings of Charles's execution do not show masks and there is no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.101.77 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment of Henrietta Maria

The article says that Charles moved to arrest the pym et al when he heard that Parliament was intending to impeach Henrietta Maria, and the authority cited is Loades, D.M. (1974), Politics and the Nation, London: Fontana. There is no mention of any such threat in Adamson, Noble Revolt, but only mention of the Parliament moving against her Capuchin monks. I wonder if anyone could shed further light on this? 1f2 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

date (and day of week) of Charles I's execution

For his execution, I am seeing (in this Wikipedia article) "Tuesday, 30 January 1649". When I run "cal 1 1649" (the Unix calendar command, to plot out January 1649) I do get 30 Jan. on a Tuesday, but the problem is that this is before 1752, and that command, for that time period, is using the calendar of England and its colonies, so I expect to see "Old Style" (Julian). What we now call "New Style" (the Gregorian calendar) wasn't in use yet, and at the time it was 10 days ahead of Julian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Both Gregg and Cust say it was a Tuesday. From Cal (Unix)#Features, it looks as though the dates went forward but the days of the week stayed the same. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Over in France, where the Gregorian was in full swing, the same day was called Tuesday 9 February 1649. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you may already understand this but I need to be explicit: Gregorian calendar wasn't in use yet IN ENGLAND, but it's pointed out it was already in use in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's clear. It was in force in France, Spain, Portugal and Poland from 1582, but was not adopted in England until 1752. See my post above. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we or do we not assume that event dates from England before 1752 are understood to be noted here in Wikipedia as New Style? I recall reading that Jan. 30, 1649 date for Charles I execution very long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Guideline for this is at WP:OSNS. Dates in this article are OS. DrKay (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try to look at that. A footnote would help; consider this from the Wikipedia article about Queen Anne:

"All dates in this article are in the Old Style Julian calendar used in Great Britain throughout Anne's lifetime; however, years are assumed to start on 1 January rather than 25 March, which was the English New Year."

Queen Anne's lifetime stretched across 1700, the year when the gap between Old & New styles widened from 10 to 11 days, but is still entirely during England's use of Old Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a footnote. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Did I overlook an existing footnote? Apparently, the footnote has been shifted to the death date, which is where Queen Anne's Wikipedia article has it. Looking at 1 or 2 "selected anniversaries" pages (links provided on the page you are reading), I discovered Charles I's execution listed on Jan. 30, but it seems we have an Old-Style date included with at least some events of Jan. 30 New Style. Maybe someone should review the anniversaries pages (and consider footnotes when Old Style is used), because of Charles I's execution being listed with an Old Style date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles I of England/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Have some patience with this review, it may take a little time just to check quick decline criteria and to verify reference formatting as it looks like the article is using two different forms or citation style and I am uncertain as to how that immediately effects the article if at all. I do believe that we are to use one form of citation and not switch between two. While it appear the formatting begins at a point and does not return to the other format I am unclear if this passes GA. I will look into this before I begin the review. Also I am requesting the major contributor and/or nominator to feel free to look into this themselves to check our policy on this before the review officially begins. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to review. I have amended the citation style. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick decline criteria

An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold. If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review. In all other cases a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.

YArticle appears to be stable and free of clean up tag/banners.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Review criteria

1.Well-written:

a.the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

Y British/English variants seem consistently used. Spelling and grammar appear appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Y Appears to comply with MOS. The reference section is split into three sections:

1.explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article, 2.citation footnotes (either short citations or full citations) that connect specific material in the article with specific sources, 3.full citations to sources, if short citations are used in the footnotes. I think there should be a separation by subeheader for the full source information to be clear what we are looking at. Suggest "Notes" (the explanatory notes section as it is titled now) "References" (the short citations for the individual segments of material) and "Sources" (the full source information the citations derive from}.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Added. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

_{*Note: The early life section seemed over weighted by sectioning that did not seem needed for such a small section. It was this reviewer's opinion that it gave undue weight and drew attention to subjects in a manner that was not needed. I will say that, as a comparison to this former feature article and to simply demonstrate how it would be acceptable I used Charles II of England. Although a smaller section in that article does separate even smaller sections, they are also much more important subjects for the period and section. Since this is not an outright reason to hold back a GA rating, reverting that sectioning back would not change compliance to MOS in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)}

2.Verifiable with no original research:

a. Yit contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b.Yit provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

c.Yit contains no original research.

3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

and

Y Article appears to be broad in coverage.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

b. Yit stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral:

Y it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

5.Stable:

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Y No ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Light vandalism expected of a subject studied in mass from a younger, less professional student group, but does not appear to effect stability in any way.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:

a.Yimages are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

_{These images have been deleted as non free, third party copyright claims and can easily be replaced with free images: :*We cannot accept File:Anne of Denmark; King Charles I when Prince of Wales; King James I of England and VI of Scotland by Simon De Passe (2).jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)}

• _{We cannot accept File:King Charles I by Gerrit van Honthorst.jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)}
• _{We cannot accept File:Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford by Sir Anthony Van Dyck.jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been replaced in order not to break the double image and caption.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)}
• _{We cannot accept File:King Charles I from NPG.jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)} Done by reviewer.

All of the images mentioned above are the copyright of the National Portrait Gallery in the UK only, due to the "Sweat of the Brow" doctrine which the United States does not recognize. A legal threat has been documented on all of the images from this set to the original uploader (at Commons) and communications to the Wikimedia Foundation have gone unanswered. It appears that these images do not fall afoul of our policies, regardless of the claims of the National Portrait Gallery and their representatives. I will attempt to add them back as time permits or others may do so at the leisure or in haste!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

These images have issues needing to be addressed, replaced or removed to meet GA:

1. There is an issue needing to be addressed on File:Charles I at his trial.jpg. PD ART notice for template parameters, country of origin copyright law and US copyright law may differ.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean. Images like text copyright are covered by US law. --PBS (talk)

GA articles require all images not violate MOS, policy or guidelines for copyright in anyway. these images have third party claims directly on their image pages. this is not acceptable for GA or FA.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Amended. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that the copyright claim only holds in the UK. It's fine to use the image in the US, where the wikimedia servers are based. The warning on the file page is saying that the image can be used on wikipedia but might not be usable in other jurisdictions. Some of these images are already in use in featured articles and are featured pictures: e.g. File:George Douglas Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll by George Frederic Watts.jpg, File:The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840 by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg, File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg, File:Darnley stage 3.jpg. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

b.Yimages are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Some of the images have captions making claims unsupported by inline citation to a reliable source. Some do. Please review all images to simplify captions, remove all claims that are likely to be challenged or please reference the following claims:

1. In the section "English Civil War": "A nineteenth-century painting depicting Charles before the battle of Edgehill, 1642" There is nothing particular to make this image clearly as captioned.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
2. In the section "Trial": "Charles (in the dock with his back to the viewer) facing the High Court of Justice, 1649" also is a claim that is likely to be challenged and requires a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
3. In the "Legacy" section:"Another of Delaroche's paintings, Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers, is an allegory for later events in France and the mocking of Christ". Such an interpretation or analysis requires a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The clue is in the title of the painting![1] So it is unlikely to be challenged so no need to put in a citation.
2. Likewise clicking on the image gives details of the picture and the source from whence it came.
3. I agree.

--PBS (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Captions on all three amended. Further details from the sources added to each of the file pages. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what is being argued or challenged here. be specific please. Which image are you referring to?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've amended all three, and edited my comment above to clarify. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am prepared to list this article as GA --Mark Miller (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

User:Mark Miller I have asked you on your talk page a specific question about copyright I am copying it here so that others can see the question an your answer:

"We cannot accept File:Anne of Denmark; King Charles I when Prince of Wales; King James I of England and VI of Scotland by Simon De Passe (2).jpg" Who says? because I do not see such a restriction in Wikipedia:Image use policy indeed it specifically says "For example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa is ineligible for copyright", or under Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Legal -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, third party copyright claims restrict their use as non free images. These may be hosted on Commons but are not used on an FA or GA article. If the images are returned I will simply call the GA declined.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I used File:Anne of Denmark; King Charles I when Prince of Wales; King James I of England and VI of Scotland by Simon De Passe (2).jpg as a test image, and I directed you to the policy on this issue. I do not find your answer very persuasive: "On Wikipedia, third party copyright claims restrict their use as non free images", yet you have not indicated under which policy you are drawing this conclusion. -- PBS (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In this case, you were perfectly correct.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have let this review go stale and will be returning to it shortly. I apologize for leaving it this long. I tend to get distracted easily...oh look...shiny thing!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Citations format

I think the appendix section for notes and citations would be better if the short citations were laid out as they are in the Charles II of England. Unless any objects I will implement the change. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Too many citations

There are many comprehensive biographies on Charles I, as there is a limit to the primary sources available give or take a few facts they all say much the same.

I think that this article has too may citations. Here are four examples, although there are hundreds (I exaggerate not) of others:

• Charles assented to the petition on 7 June (Carlton 1995, p. 101; Cust 2005, p. 74; Quintrell 1993, p. 39.) – Three citations for one date.
• the indictment held him "guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby." (Gardiner 1906, pp. 371–374; Gregg 1981, p. 437; Robertson 2005, pp. 15, 149.) — Three citations for one quote.
• Fifty-nine of the commissioners signed Charles's death warrant (Edwards 1999, p. 162; Hibbert 1968, p. 267.) — Two citations for one fact
• The following morning, he called for two shirts to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear: (Official website of the British monarchy; Carlton 1995, p. 352; Edwards 1999, p. 168.) – A very well known fact such as this does not need three citations.

-- PBS (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead picture

If you check out the picture on Wikimedia Commons, (which I have just corrected) you'll find that the painting that was first uploaded there was the original by van Dyck. But someone uploaded a larger clearer image of a studio copy over the top. That is the painting that you are currently looking at. The description says, correctly, that it is a studio copy, but the artist was still listed as Van Dyck (which is what I have corrected.

I was alerted because, on enlarging the image (the lead image) it was clear to me that it was a studio copy and definitely not by Van Dyck. The name of the file still attributes it to the Master, and that should be fixed, except that I don't know how one goes about changing the file names of images.

I would go for the triple portrait as the lead pic, or the Daniel Mijtens, rather than having an image of very dull colouration that turns out of the page instead of inwards. Amandajm (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting the move on Commons Amandajm -PBS (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

King of England?

Why is Charles listed here in the title only as King of England? He was a half-Scot, half-Dane by birth. Born in Scotland and Crowned King of Great Britain and Ireland he is likely to have taken a dimm view of his reduction to monarch of only one of three kingdoms. After all, even when in arms agains the Scots he referred to Scotland as "his native and ancient kingdom". Moreover, he writes his letters not as king of England, but as King of Great Britain. Should we update the rather parochial title here, or should we create duplicate entries for Charles I King of Scotland and Charles I king of Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentsmuir (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As the article title has been discussed before (above), if you wish it to be changed you will need to gain consensus for the move through the process detailed at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Duplicate articles are avoided per Wikipedia:Content forking. DrKay (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Canonization

A new editor has twice added this sentence: "He is the only saint to be canonized by the Anglican Communion that was not already a saint prior to the split with the Catholic Church."

I've removed that because I don't think it is correct. There are other people recognized as saints in at least parts of the Anglican Communion who are not recognized as such in the Roman Catholic Church.

However, the fact that some (but not all) Anglicans have considered him a saint should be discussed. Jonathunder (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

His recognition as a martyr is in the Legacy section already. I'd need to see a reliable source to convince me that he was recognized as a saint. DrKay (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This page is a good place to start. Jonathunder (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. He was added to the calendar; so were William Wilberforce and Edith Cavell. And you can find sources calling them saints[2]. DrKay (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we agree, then. He has been considered a saint in at least part of the Anglican Communion, as have many others. Jonathunder (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Charles I has been considered a saint in the Anglican Communion; I actually added a very small and well referenced section about this, but it was rapidly removed. I would support reinstating it, if others here feel the same way. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Charles I is "not an Anglican saint, for there is no such thing ... To be canonized [in the Anglican church] means to be put on the calendar of worship, to have special services said in your honor every year."[3] DrKay (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

King Charles the Martyr was and still is on several liturgical calendars and special services have long been said in his honor every year. Members of the Society of King Charles the Martyr still do. It's worth a brief mention in the legacy section, without which that's incomplete. Jonathunder (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This seems to belong in the #"Saint" section above as it does not relate to my comments. DrKay (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I could relate to your last comment any more directly. You said "there is no such thing" as an Anglican saint and I addressed both of your points. Did you look at the articles I linked? Please also see Category:Anglican saints. Jonathunder (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you arguing with me? It's in the article. He's in the category. It's never been otherwise as far as I remember. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Because I assume good faith that you may be amenable to reason and because I am trying to build support for restoring the mention in the text. If sainthood is in the categories, it must be in the article. Jonathunder (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not slyly accuse editors of bad faith and being unamenable to reason. I say again, it's in the article. It always has been. I don't understand why you are insulting me or arguing. Your comment "You said "there is no such thing" as an Anglican saint" is also wrong. Look again: they are not my words, they are in quotes. The article must reflect reliable, scholarly opinions not just the opinion of the Society. DrKay (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

short section on id of exectioners

If this is going to be extensively discussed as it is being it should have a subsection. There is no value in having nothing but main sections with a grab bag of subjects in them.Overagainst (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The section length looks appropriate to me, and the material in the section is relevant to it. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The length is no the problem it's padding and the different subjects under one heading. The ID of the executioners in my version is consistant with the recent book Killers of the King: The Men Who Dared to Execute Charles I. That and the interment are subjects deserving of a subsection. The encyclopedic account is Brandon assisted by Peter are thought to have did it. Cut the waffle, which makes the section all over the place. I don't know what you have against subsections.Overagainst (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:WIAFA, the table of contents should not be too long - short sections should be merged or use a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style. Wikipedia does not select one view (that it was Brandon and Peters) over other views (that it was others); all views should be represented with due weight, as they are in the article by mentioning Brandon and Peters as candidates but not the only ones. DrKay (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A couple of subsections for the ID and interment is not excessive. They are the ones witnesses and circumstantial evidence from Hugh Peter's trial make a powerful case against. If it is going to be gong into so deep as to cite everyone whose name was put up as a possibility then that is all the more reason for a subsection. Sections should not have unlabeled subsections. It makes finding information in the the article too difficult when people come to find out one thing. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Overagainst (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If someone wishes to find out about the executioners, they have only to go to the "Execution" section. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

At least make it clear who is the likely suspect: Brandon. Peter could not possibly have been selected as the headsman, he had no experience, beheading with an axe was easily botched, he was in late middle age and in bad health. I note that heraldry has little subsections. People are interested in that subject, and can find it easily. That is the way it ought to be.Overagainst (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Finances, especially forests

This line:

In addition, the boundaries of the royal forests in England were extended to their ancient limits as part of a scheme to maximise income by exploiting the land and fining land users within the re-asserted boundaries for encroachment.

seems to me to be rather misleading. From the texts I've read about the actual deforestation programme, fines were just a mechanism for sale, not really an object of policy. Nothing seems to suggest that boundary changes occurred, except in removing the legal forest. The process was one of (a) assessment of value and compensation needed to those entitled to use the common, especially manorial landlords; (b) sale, or agreement to "fines", to be paid by new landlords, in return for enclosure; (c) enclosure, removal of forest law and often riot; (d) legal challenges to enclosure and (d) occasional reversals on the removal of forest law.

I think the general sources may have got this detail a little wrong in their emphasis. But I am only going on the texts I've been reading. Jim Killock (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Gregg, Quintrell and Sharpe say the forest courts and law had fallen into disuse and that the policy was to re-assert them to their fullest extent as a means of raising revenue, with an emphasis on (b) above and development of the land. You can't have (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) without first re-asserting the ancient boundary of the forest. Otherwise, you'd just be continuing as before, allowing the current occupiers to enclose and use the land for free or commoners free access to open land, and operating under common law rather than forest law. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, but the sentence says: "extended to their ancient limits as part of a scheme to maximise income by exploiting the land and fining land users"– (a) re-asserted is not the same as extended; (b) fining land users—I am a bit worried that this mainly took place as part of a "sale". If so, the sentence is misleading. If other fines regularly took place with a large income resulting, then it is fair enough. According to those sources, was fining land users a major source of revenue? Jim Killock (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Gregg and Quintrell do not mention sales. Gregg says there were new licences to depark and enclose land, and that Charles enclosed his own land. She does say there were some sales of Crown land, which is not the same thing, but that it was less than in Elizabeth's and James's time. Quintrell says the smaller forests were disafforested and the larger ones exploited for their natural resources. Sharpe says inhabitants were offered the opportunity to either pay a fine for encroachment or pay to have their land disafforested, but only gives figures for fines and does not explicitly talk of sales. Gregg gives a figure of £37000 received in fines over 1636–40 and Sharpe gives a figure of £25000 received in fines over 1636–38. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes. I'll try to get some other sources on this for you. This page Western Rising and disafforestation riots and this summary gives a picture of how it seems to have worked in practice, mostly from a book by Buchanan Sharp, but also from some articles about the individual forests that were affected. I've been a bit loose with the term "sold" on these pages but each "sale", usually to a prominent courtier took the form of a "fine" for assart. There's a good description of the process on p56-57 of Sharp's book (and he cites some other general texts on the forests). License to depark may be the same as a sale, or a fine.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

Suggested external resource -

• Contemporary London Gazette report on the trial and execution of Charles I

Spuddha (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Added to High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I#Further reading. DrKay (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

Charles has the official fault of causing English Civil War in 1642,These was the declared by the european union in 1989. SaladinoIII (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for any new content and establish consensus for the inclusion of potentially controversial content. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Charles I (19 November 1600 – 30 January 1649[a]) was monarch of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 27 March 1625 until his execution in 1649,He was executed by creating the English Civil war in 1642,This house was approved by the Unesco in 1989. SaladinoIII (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done. See above. DrKay (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

Charles I of England should not be listed as Charles I of England. He should be listed by his title of primacy; Charles I of Scotland. The reason is both simple and clear. James VI of Scotland inherited the English crown in 1603, making the English crown a secondary title of King's or Queen's of Scots. The primary or correct title of Charles I is Charles I of Scots or Scotland. Changing the nomenclature accordingly will make the article more technically correct. Kez321 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to our article on James VI and I, once James inherited the crown of England, he made that his primary title and went back to Scotland only once in his life. Charles I himself was raised in England, so it's unlikely that he would have styled himself "of Scotland". If you have reliable sources to the contrary, I'll be happy to reconsider. clpo13_(talk) 22:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Was he Charles I during his lifetime? The seals and paraphernalia should show the "I". Should be on post boxes too! He would have been Charles of Scotland. Scotland ceased to exist as a separate royal title with the Act of Union in 1702.220.240.229.144 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Spelling error

End of paragraph 3 of lead subject mentions Charles's son. Correct spelling is Charles' son. Sagavanirktok 23:12, 19 October 2016‎

Charles's is correct. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives. Celia Homeford (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

References

I have reverted the change in heading (diff.

In this case references consist of short and long citation. Splitting the long and shot citations with a "sources" is not desirable or necessary.

If anyone finds it confusing then I suggest moving the short citations into the notes section as they are short citations in footnotes (notes).

-- PBS (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles I of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129093907/http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/assets/files/LearningResources/HenryVIIIRestingPlace.pdf to http://www.stgeorges-windsor.org/assets/files/LearningResources/HenryVIIIRestingPlace.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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)