I dashed by Wikipedia to help prevent those sorts of embarrassing mistakes, but only hit Charles II and James II, the latter only long enough to read and get apparent confirmation from "executed" before noticing the "father" part. I spent more time on Pitt the Elder, but will not claim to have been free of error there either. And, yes, I was aware that Charles I, like his father before him, was a much greater fan of divine right absolute monarchies than Parliament was, but, IMHO, the record of the civil war and musical monarchs indicates there were plenty of excesses on both sides. Be honest: Would YOU want to call Parliament back in session just so they could execute you? Fixed now; again, sorry for the confusion on my part. A (very small) part of me feels like all the Stuarts should have been executed simply for the inability to think up a male name other than "James" or "Charles;" it did not exactly get better when Bonnie Prince Charlie came into the picture.