Talk:Charles II of England

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RfC about whether the relation of the army and Cromwellian regime is relevant 

message: 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)
replies: text: Seriously? What is with these conspiracy theorists, and their blatant lies? 76.64.181.63 (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fanatic Francophone Charles II was a ‘false Stuart’ (a Medici infiltrator) his true father being Henry Jermyn the Freemasonic grandmaster. 

message: It should read King of Scots not Scotland 130.51.240.92 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  No man or woman can ever be kind or queen of Scotland!!!!  

message: :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.   ——Serial 13:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles II of England →  – Charles was not only the king of England. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 February 2024