Talk:Charles II of England

RfC about whether the relation of the army and Cromwellian regime is relevant

User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil Should the lead contain reference to the Cromwellian regime's reliance on the support of the newly embodied standing army? Urselius (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that the body of the article text already contains the following sentence, "Under the Instrument of Government passed by Parliament, Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1653, effectively placing the British Isles under military rule", I hardly think that it constitutes a contentious addition to the introduction. Urselius (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think I'd like to see some sources - much of the above is without any sources so it's hard to judge (I do note the one source brought forth) but we should decide these things on sources rather than our own opinions. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

  The sources @Urselius offers are perfectly fine. There's no reason to question his characterization of Cromwell's rule. If this were an article about Cromwell or the English Commonwealth, this detail might be important.

  But this article is about Charles II. Cromwell only comes up here because he's the guy who overthrew Charles's father. Urselius seems to think that we need to emphasize what a bad guy Cromwell was. Initially he insisted that Cromwell's regime was a "de facto republic". That's not what "de facto" means, so he fell back on "republic backed by a standing army."

  If this fact is important (and I'm not arguing that it isn't), then Urselius needs to go edit Commonwealth of England to place more emphasis on this fact. Inserting it here means contributing to the factoid creep that gradually makes Wikipedia articles unreadable.

  -- Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a shame that such a small issue instantly degenerated into a two-editor argument and then to an RFC. This really should be the sort of thing that can be straightforwardly resolved by calm discussion. For what it's worth, my view is that the existing wording But England entered the period known as the English Interregnum or the English Commonwealth, when England was governed as a republic led by Oliver Cromwell says all that's needed in the lead, bearing in mind that this article is about Charles II, not about Cromwell or his legitimacy. It uses the word "republic" and succinctly explains what that means. Additional glosses such as "whose authority rested on the power of a standing army" are unnecessary. It's not that such glosses are factually incorrect (it's easy to find support for them), but they're not directly relevant to the subject of the article and they read like an obvious interpolation giving the impression of editorial disapproval. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a factor in the involvement of the army in the politics of the time that is directly relevant to Charles II, it was the power of the newly created standing army that was the bedrock of the government of Oliver Cromwell, but it was the naked military power of the selfsame army, through the machinations of its most powerful and influential general, George Monck, that ensured his restoration. Without a prior, and direct, flagging of this political fact, the restoration of Charles II as king makes little sense. It is no coincidence that the majority of senior regiments in the British army trace their origins to this period, The Grenadier Guards originate in Charles' small army in exile, while the Royal Horse Guards (Blues), and many, many other regiments, trace their origins to units of the Commonwealth standing army. The standing army was a huge influence on the politics and history of the period, and had after effects that are still with us. Its importance is hard to exaggerate. Urselius (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I think we should find a brief way of explaining the situation after Charles I's deposition that does not require supplementary clauses or raises additional problems or questions. For example, "England entered a period of military rule known as the English Interregnum or the English Commonwealth, with a government led by Oliver Cromwell". Celia Homeford (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That sounds fine. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's a lot more detail than the context requires. But if it will end this argument, I can live with it. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That works for me. Urselius (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The fanatic Francophone Charles II was a ‘false Stuart’ (a Medici infiltrator) his true father being Henry Jermyn the Freemasonic grandmaster.

Is it okay to at least the byword the aforesaid?

• I am reckoning that Charles ii true father (the Francophone Henry Jermyn) has nowt true royal Stewart blood in him.

2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:88B1:DDFD:F9B6:7E51 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Forsooth, what nonsense are you two talking about? EEng 22:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Come on be better than that. Why exactly is it nonsense? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:88B1:DDFD:F9B6:7E51 (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

  Because it's not cited and not phrased encyclopedically. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? What is with these conspiracy theorists, and their blatant lies? 76.64.181.63 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

so what is the order of significance and of most importance than establishing certain protocols for everyone's well-being and security? Don't want to sound rude but that's something we can discuss and probably wouldn't have a problem with some sort of kinship in the royal sector . To me this talk is a bit selfish and self centered don't you think? 2601:447:CF7E:D0:412:F56C:1DEE:5328 (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Charles II's father was Charles I of England. Do you disagree? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Everyone at the time thought Charles II true father to be Freemasonic grandmaster Henry Jermyn, Baron Dover. By looks, by the biowarfare mindcontrol condition syphilis/French disease, Francophileism, psychopathy, special hatred of black folk and Irish folk, Francophone jealousy of more Germanic/northern countries, hatred of the British isles, burning down of London - started by a Huguenot agent, the sale of Dunkirk to France in the evil Secret Treaty of Dover (including the trafficking of the true souled royal blooded - the Man in the Iron Mask to Louis the syphilitic king of France). Even Charles II favourite sibling was nicknamed “Minette” after her true father’s lastname “JerMIN”. Jermyn and the nasty looking racist tranny Medici psychopath, Henrietta Maria were always, always, always together. H. P. Lovecraft (a writer anent horror/evildoers) highlights Charles II demon father in the book “Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family”. Bytheway, I have seen it that “Jermyn”/“Jermin” and the likes is an Huguenot lastname. 2A00:23C7:9C95:DD01:A911:8CF0:16C8:2933 (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, Charles II (the Jermyn imposter king) pushed on with piling in 10s of thousands of Jews and Huguenots into the British isles. Even into the midst of Catholic communities in Ireland. Huguenots would literally walk off the boat into positions of power. They also got deep into the slave trade/genocide. They may lookalike subloirean French but they are basically crypto-Jews. 2A00:23C7:9C95:DD01:A911:8CF0:16C8:2933 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No man or woman can ever be king or queen of Scotland!!!!

It should read King of Scots not Scotland 130.51.240.92 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Specifically the usage of Charles II was, "By the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith". Being a king of a people, rather than a country tended to die out during the later Middle Ages. Urselius (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: A blizzard of policy-based SNOW; consensus will not develop in favour of the proposed title. Template:Nac ——Serial 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Charles II of England → Charles II of England, Scotland, and IrelandCharles II of England, Scotland, and Ireland – Charles was not only the king of England. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. Per WP:NCROY, when there are multiple states we use the most commonly associated realm. Векочел (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SOVEREIGN: Template:Tq. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessarily long. Unnecessary disambiguation. Use the more concise unambiguous title. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

New naval section

The new naval section is of doubtful use in my opinion. It looks like a hobby horse of barely relevant miscellanea. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That may be because it is not yet complete. There are more important bits for which the precise references need to be tracked down.

More importantly, are you familiar with the source, Kings of the Sea (or even its author)? A part of the summary of this[1] review states: "For the academic, it is a concise delivery of the most up-to-date scholarship on the Royal Navy following the Restoration."

As the section develops, a more relevant criticism could be that the whole concept of Charles' detailed involvement in the Navy is just a theory, "because all the work was done by Samuel Pepys". Yes, it is a theory, and that will need to be clear. But it is widely acknowledged to be a well-reasoned theory. Charles' interest in the Navy is important. Firstly, there were two major naval wars in Charles' reign (the last two Anglo–Dutch warsTemplate:Sndstrange how this article fails to mention the Battle of Solebay, where the Duke of York was in the thick of the fighting). Secondly, the Restoration Navy was the starting point for developing the Navy of first Anson and ultimately Nelson; a key point in the source is the Stuart brothers' involvement in the introduction of the examination for Lieutenant in the Navy. This qualification was the basis of the pool of professional officers that was so important.

Having written all this, I am now out of time to add much more the article for now. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

As an afterthought, the article has three paragraphs on the Royal Society, which Charles never attended. Why would you question the relevance of his interest in a board of which he was the most prolific attender? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Faulty premise. I campaigned repeatedly against the Science section and removed huge chunks of it[2][3][4][5]. I don't want that to be repeated with another bloated section on a topic that does not deserve such weight. DrKay (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

My point is that a relatively new source suggests that the actions of Charles II in the management of the Navy does deserve some weight. Ignoring that would be a disservice to the reader. Stepping back to my original question, have you read Davies' book? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:OdOn consideration, it appears to me that the position put forward by Davies is accepted among maritime historians. Not many historians specialise in the Restoration navy. Davies and Endsor are the only two that I can find currently publishing on the subject. Endsor clearly agrees with Davies on the high level of involvement of Charles in the management of the navy, providing some of the source material for the Navy section of the article. Maritime history generalists like Rif Winfield and N. A. M. Rodger have both covered this period in the past, but substantially predating Davies's book. Both Endsor and Davies have won awards for their work from, respectively, the Society for Nautical Research and the Navy Records Society, both of which are highly respected organisations in the field of maritime history, producing, respectively, a top quality academic journal and a series of books that are frequently cited by academic authors. I cannot detect any opinions contrary to Davies's book (doesn't mean there aren't any, but I can't find one). Looking at historians who are not maritime specialists, I cannot find one who has published on Charles II since Davies's book. Therefore, I think there is no need to present the ideas about Charles II being heavily involved in the high level management of the navy as a theory, since no-one is obviously disagreeing with the idea. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 18:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)