The author replies to preceding comments by the historians Clive Holmes, Julian Goodare, and Richard Cust on his article "Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity", published in "Past and Present" no. 189 (Nov.2005). Notes that his critics respectively challenge his account of Charles's mobility and accessibility, reassert the story of the king's absolutist practices in Scotland, and underscore his untrustworthiness, inflexibility and refusal to compromise. Accuses his critics of emotional animus against Charles, maintaining that the revaluation he undertook in 2005 was not motivated by a desire to rehabilitate the king's reputation, but to better reflect the evidence that can be found in the historical remains of his reign. (Quotes from original text)