Talk:Charles I

Naming policy

I do not know what the naming policy for royalty is, and therefore one of the changes I have made may need to be changed back again. I have redirected "Charles I (Britain)"* to Charles I, on the grounds that other king Charleses would in fact be known by different names in their own countries: Carlos, Carolus, Karl. If this change is undone, then the page name for Charles I would have to be changed also. --Martin Wyatt 20:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC) *Just to be pedantic (why not?) "Charles I (Britain)" is incorrect, because he was king of two separate kingdoms, England and Scotland. --Martin Wyatt 21:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this several years ago, when we had a lot more contributors, and the consensus, I believe was that it should be done just as you have done. Some people quibbled about it, and even disagreed strongly, but that's how it was decided. The basis, being, I think, that this is an English-speaking encyc. and that the customary English usage with names should be followed. In any case, thanks for your contributions! Hayford Peirce 21:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What about French, where it's spelt the same? Admittedly, Charles I of France would go under Charlemagne. Peter Jackson 09:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point. However, I do not know how to rename a page once started.And now I have gone on and started Charles II. --Martin Wyatt 19:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Usage is really inconsistent. The present king of Sweden is called Carl XVI Gustaf, but a famous predecessor is Charles XII. The more recent people are, the less likely their names are to get translated. Peter Jackson 10:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer

1894? A quick check of WP fails to turn up a relevant Act of Parliament then. Remember, any change in the BCP required Parliamentary approval till 1974. My memory says 1871, but I can't find one then either. In 1928 the Church proposed a new BCP, but Parliament vetoed it. The Church then illegally authorized it anyway. I'm pretty sure it restored King Charles to the calendar. When Parliament delegated power over the liturgy to the Church in 1974, what happened to the BCP? It remained, and remains, as an alternative, but which BCP? 1662, 18??, 1928? Or maybe all of them? Peter Jackson 11:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I simply go by the ODNB entry. I admit that some of the ODNB biographies are far from being authoritative. My copy of the Book of Common Prayer, undated, but probably from the 1950s, does not have it in the calendar. --Martin Wyatt 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've had a look in the shops. While I obviously haven't checked all editions in print, I have checked both Oxford and Cambridge editions, and they both omit him, so we can provisionally assume that's the official BCP, which might be said to be in some sense the "official" liturgy of the C of E. In practice, however, only 3% of services follow it, the rest being chosen from CW (it includes a lot of options, many taken or adapted from BCP).

Can we find a concise wording to reflect this? With only a short article this should be relegated to a footnote, and not too long. Peter Jackson 13:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also looked through the printed official statutes for the relevant dates, without any luck. Peter Jackson 14:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The Prayer Book Society says it's used in most cathedrals. Peter Jackson 14:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

See [1]. Peter Jackson 12:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that with the present very scanty article, the mention in a footnote is quite adequate; but you might wish to adjust the wording of the footnote? --Martin Wyatt 22:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the sources I've found so far, Parliament passed an act in 1859 abolishing the special services for 30 January and various other days, and the printers interpreted that as implying the deletion of all mention of the king for that day in the calendar, so the correct date seems to be that.

BCP remains the default when the vicar and parochial council disagree. Peter Jackson 11:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Churches dedicated

Curiously enough, Charles Church in Plymouth (which was bombed and is now just a shell) had his name attached to it, at his insistence, when he gave permission for it to be built because the parish church of St Andrew was not large enough. --Martin Wyatt 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That is curious, and suggests a lack of becoming modesty. Those that are actually called "the Church of King Charles the Martyr" are obviously later. Peter Jackson 13:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)