So, I was reading Russell's paper 'On Denoting' and stumbled upon the (in)famous paraphrase\analysis of the definite description "x was the father of Charles II."

As it is known, Russell's paraphrase is as follows:
"It is not always false of x that x begat Charles II and that x was executed and that 'if y begat Charles II, y is identical with x' is always true of y"

Leaving behind the reasons of why Russell would attempt such paraphrasing endeavour, I attempted to offer a literal formalization. Which I would offer to you to see if it is good or wrong.

$\lnot\forall x\lnot((Cx\wedge Ex)\rightarrow(\forall y(Cy\rightarrow(x=y))$

which should be equivalent to

$\exists x((Cx\wedge Ex)\wedge\forall y(Cy\rightarrow(x=y))$

Where "C" is the predicate that stands for "paternity" and "E" means "to be executed."

I don't know where to point the finger, but I believe something is off in these translations.