Talk:Battle of Worcester

message: This line is just... incomprehensible. I don't even know what the person who wrote this was getting at, so I don't want to edit it and ruin the meaning.
:"The military quality of the Welsh border Royalists was well proved, that of the Gloucestershire Presbyterians not less so, and, based on Gloucester and Worcester as his father had been based on Oxford, Charles II. hoped, not unnaturally, to deal with an Independent minority more effectually than Charles I. had done with a Parliamentary majority of the people of England."
From what it looks like, it may supposed to all be one sentence, but not only does that not help understand it, but it makes it one heck of a run-on sentence. Could anyone decipher this for me? 74.47.41.250 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The military quality of the Welsh border Royalists and the Gloucestershire Presbyterians was well proved, and Charles II. hoped, not unnaturally, to deal with an Independent minority from his base in Gloucester and Worcester more effectually than Charles I. had done with a Parliamentary majority of the people of England from his base in Oxford." 81.151.28.43 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... What? 

message: Is Sir Thomas Urquhart important enough that his participation in the battle, and his misfortunes afterward, should be mentioned here, do y'all reckon? --Jim Henry (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sir Thomas Urquhart 

message: For B-class, the minimum citation / referencing density is one ref per paragraph. On that basis, this currently fails B-class.  Roger Davies talk 06:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs citations 

message: This is covered in some detail in the article on Fort Royal Hill. Does it need repeating here? 81.151.28.43 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Adams on the Battle of Worcester 

message: I have renamed Charles II as "Charles Stuart" in most contexts in the article, essentially to be neutral, but of course to be more accurate historically and consistent in Style. So for example the article refers to "Cromwell's forces, never "Oliver's Forces", so I've taken out references to "Charles" and generally inserted "Stuart" to be consistent. The rationale is that at the time England was Republic, and so he did not become Charles II until the Restoration o Counter Revolution if you prefer!  However of course the historical context is more complex- there is a point of view that he had become King by the time his father's head had touched the bottom of the basket- and indeed in Scotland he was declared Charles II, and of course was recognised as Charles II by English Royalists. So where the article refers to forces loyal to Charles II- I have kept Charles II (rather than use Charles Stuart) since those forces did recognise him as King.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.98.18.85 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the changes. Cromwell was not then Lord Protector, and even when he was many historians do not refer to him as Oliver (as is commonly done with Napoleon) . The usage of Charles is the common usage in reliable sources and in other media for example SO8554: Plaque on King Charles House, Worcester -- PBS (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles II or Charles Stuart

message: I do not agree with the addition of "Escape of Charles II" to the result= parameter in the battle box. As user:TRAJAN 117 has added it at least twice. I guess we need to see what the consensus her on the talk page is for this addition. -- PBS (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle box Result 

message: I reverted the change: Charles I "was deposed and executed". Back to "was executed". AfAICT the bill to abolish the monarchy was passed after his execution and only applied to England and Ireland (Act abolishing the Office of King, 17 March, 1649).
The second change was an inline comment which I am moving here for further discussion:
:"hunh? how was the delay 'fatal' if the 'same result' would have occurred with the other choice?" (user: Piledhigheranddeeper).
The wording is a direct copy from EB1911 "Great Rebellion" article. I think what the author meant was that Charles realised that the game was up as the North had not greed him with open arms and flocked to his banner -- rather most of the English saw him commanding a Scottish army not a Royalist one -- His only slim hope was that by going west he could gather support from the Marshes and Wales, because to carry on straight to London was certain defeat. The Worcester option also proved fatal because few Royalist from the Midlands or Wales came to join him (A Scottish army had been in Worcestershire in 1645 during the First Civil War and had inured themselves with the locals (Willis-Bund, 1905, p. 177)). By going Worcester Charles was following up a slim chance that more men, particularly those from Wales would come and join his army, they did not so he went down to inevitable defeat. However if he had continued straight to London which has his only other option, he would have had even less chance of victory as for certain none would have to his aid and he would have been engaged and defeated a few days earlier. -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the delay "fatal" 

message: You might want to use this new image - it's 17th century, but not as dynamic as the 19th century image on this page now. - PKM (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: New image

message: I have moved these two sentences here:
because a citation has been requested since August 2010, and although I can find lots of citations to says that Cromwell visited King's Head Inn, Aylesbury, I could not find one that states he was there after the battle or that he received the thanks of Parliament while lodged there. I would have thought that if this was true the owners the National Trust would mention it on their website https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/kings-head/. If verifiable it is a nice detail as it balances the Charles's escape, but it needs a reliable source to back it up. -- PBS (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cromwell after the battle 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Worcester. 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/20070402024137/http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk:80/home/wccindex/wcc-tourism-index/wcc-tourism-travel-journey-time.htm to http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wccindex/wcc-tourism-index/wcc-tourism-travel-journey-time.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427143023/https://www.bartleby.com/344/127.html to https://www.bartleby.com/344/127.html
*Added  tag to http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/home/cs-archeo-research/cs-archeo-surv/cs-archeo-surv-civil-battle.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030415103047/http://www.clangarra.com:80/battle%20-%20worcester.htm to http://www.clangarra.com/battle%20-%20worcester.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can't find a source for the public exhibit and going by "Westminster 1640–60: A royal city in a time of revolution" it appears the deaths were due to a mix of hunger, exposure and living in a 17th century prisoner of war camp with 1000+ other people. Doesn't appear to have been systematic with nominal aid from the parish authorities and perhaps rather less nominal aid from people living in the area.©Geni (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Another 1,200 "Scotch prisoners" were taken to Westminster as a public exhibit and systematically starved to death in Tothill Fields