Talk:English Civil War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction

The new introduction by Isis is interesting. I'm not sure how many people are likely to be confused into thinking that the term English Civil War could mean the Wars of the Roses or the war between Stephen and Matilda (which is usually called "the Anarchy" - is there already an article on that?) Anyone else got an opinion? Deb

That information in the first paragraph is unnecessary and clutters up the article. A person who comes looking for information on the English Civil War should not have to wade through a bunch of references to wars that took place centuries earlier.

Christopher Hill

I was thinking of writing an article at English Revolution, which would discuss the English Civil War of 1640 from a revolutionary perspective, drawing on Christopher Hill's work, for example. I don't know where that fits in with the above question, but I thought I'd mention it here anyway! -- Sam

That sounds interesting, too. I assume you would do something to differentiate it from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Deb

---

It seems conspicious that the only modern historian mentioned by name in this article is Christopher Hill. It seems like a stretch to draw Marxist allusions into the English Civil War, especially considering that it's given more than twice the real estate and more credence here than the Puritan theory or any other theories.

I don't like this artice, as it's got plenty of serious deficancies. I'm probably going to rewrite the article sometime this week. Just so you know. Alun Ephraim 13:31, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. While Christopher Hill was a brilliant historian, he was, well, mostly wrong about everything (In fact, the most brilliant historians usually tend to be mostly wrong about everything - odd how that works out). Bringing in other (less discredited) views is certainly to be welcomed. john 18:46, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)hi loser

Religious tensions

What needs to be added to it is more stuff on the Religious tensions of the period, and also putting it into the context of the Thirty Years War. I might do a seperate article on the English Revolution though Alun Ephraim 14:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

English Civil War?

I know that "English Civil War" is a common name for this conflict, but I think it's misleading because properly speaking there were two English Civil wars (1642-1645 and 1648-1650) during the conflict and simultaneous connected wars in Scotland and Ireland. Is there a better overall title for the whole conflict? [Yes, see below] If so, we should think about moving this article there. (Note: Google gives 52,900 for "civil+war cromwell" but only 15,300 for "english+civil+war cromwell" so I don't think I'm alone in this unease about the name.) Gdr 09:51, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I've never heard any other term used. People in England are likely to say just "Civil War" unqualified, just as Americans do for their ACW, and you can see that from looking at some of the pages Google finds. To actually have 1/3 of the hits be qualified with "English" is actually a ringing endorsement. Some people will pluralize, but I think that looks like a blanket term covering previous conflicts. Stan 12:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd say English Civil War is fine. Of course, there were various specific conflicts which can have their own articles - First English Civil War, Second English Civil War, and the various Scottish and Irish conflicts that were associated. But I think this is fine for a general article. john k 15:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Anything else would cause more confusion than it resolved. Deb 17:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Royalists call it the 'Interregnum' - Latin for 'between rules'

You may be slightly confused. The war itself was not "between rules" - the interregnum was the period between the execution of Charles I in 1649 and the Restoration in 1660, also known as the Commonwealth. Deb 18:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There have been very significant developments on this in recent years. The English civil war is now often seen as just one conflict in a series of conflicts accross the whole of the British Isles (see my comment on the 'History of Scotland' discussion page) These series of interelated conflicts are now often referred to as the 'British Civil Wars' or even 'The Wars of the three kingdoms'. These theories on the civil war argue that the civil war in England cannot be understood in isolation to events in other parts of Britain and Ireland. The role of King Charles I is still crucial, but not just as the king of England. The causes of the civil wars have been suggested as being a consequence of the problems of one king ruling over multiple kingdoms. For eg. trying to impose a uniform religion on all his kingdoms (which caused the Scottish covenanters to rebel), and then having to deal with rebellion in Ireland from the Confederates. Also events in one kingdom had a knock on effect in another, (eg. having to raise taxes in England to quell the rebellion in Scotland) leading to an escalation of the conflict which became increasingly difficult to control. This is not to say that there were not specific reasons for conflict in each country, just that the king had to juggle all these different conflicts at the same time. see http://www.historybookshop.com/articles/commentary/civil-wars-of-three-kingdoms-ht.asp --Cap 15:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) I've now added some of this information onto the "theories relating to the civil war" section which previously said that revisionist historians had not come up with any new theories. --Cap 23:56, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for how the articles about these conflicts should be structured: an overview article somewhere like Wars of the Three Kingdoms and then detailed articles on the individual wars. The detailed history of the conflict of 1642–1645 should stay here at English Civil War as it is the most well-known of the conflicts, with First English Civil War redirecting here. (I'm not keen on Wars of the Three Kingdoms because of the more famous Three Kingdoms of ancient China. But I don't like British Civil Wars either because some of them weren't British.) Gdr 12:08, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I've now created a page called Wars of the Three Kingdoms and have produced a time-line of the conflicts (1639-51) although this needs more work after 1642. I was basing it on the section in Norman Davies' Book The Isles: A History which has a good overview aswell as the timeline which is linked to on the webpage quoted above. This includes the Bishops' Wars and Covenanters in Scotland and the Irish Rebellion of 1641 and the subsequent conflicts in Confederate Ireland 1642-9 and Cromwells conquest of Ireland in 1649 as well as the 2 (or 3?) English civil wars. There does seem to be some confusion about the labelling of the non-English conflicts. they are not given simple overall titles like the English Civil War is, there does seem to be somthing called the Scottish Civil War (1644-5)[1] although on James Graham, 1st_Marquess_of_Montrose#The_English_Civil_War this is referred to as part of the English Civil War. Also there appear to be no wikipedia entries on any of the Irish conflicts. --Cap 12:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've always thought that the Scottish fighting that occurred between 1642 and 1645 was so closely tied to the fighting in England as to be considered essentially the same war. Obviously, in addition to this war (or wars), you have the 2nd English Civil War, the two bishops' wars, the various wars going on in Ireland, and some later Scottish action (Notably the 1650-1651 rebellion where Charles II got crowned). But yeah, a lot of it doesn't really have clear names. I do wonder about the faddish nature of the name Wars of the Three Kingdoms. This is something of a neologism, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to discuss the idea as though it is fact - I would imagine that there are still at least a few historians who would dispute such a designation on the merits, and certainly there are many who would dispute the use of such a designation as the generic term for the conflict. (That is to say, for aesthetic, or traditionalistic reasons, rather than out of a sense that there was not actually a series of conflict occurring in the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland). Anyway, I think we ought to be careful about this, and not dismantle the current English Civil War article. john k 22:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

British Civil Wars

User:Philip Baird Shearer cut the phrase "these conflicts are also known as the British Civil Wars" with the comment "Britain did not exist at the time of the English Civil war". I restored the comment as (1) Britain did exist: "Britain" is not identical with the Kingdom of Great Britain and (2) the conflicts are commonly known as the British Civil Wars: a Google search for "british civil wars" returns more than 3,000 hits, the top hits clearly referring to the 1638-1651 conflicts. Gdr 12:14, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Many Irish people would dispute that Ireland is part of the British Isles geographically. They would argue that the term implies political connections because it is used exclusively for those islands ruled by the British monarchy and Ireland (which used to be). Why include the Shetland islands and exclude the Faroe islands; or the Channel islands and ignore French controlled islands; if it is not a geographical representation of a political creation?

As Britain was not a political entity to use the term is misleading. There can not have been a "British Civil War" at that time any more that "World War I" was a "European Civil War". Once you go down that line you will have to include all the wars between England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland since at least 1066 as British Civil wars and that would be silly. If you were to start arguing that 1715 and 1745, and the Anglo-Irish War of 1919-1921 were British Civil wars you would be technically correct by they are never referred to as that. Philip Baird Shearer 12:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The term may be misleading but it is in common use so I think the article should reflect that. I adjusted the lead section to explain why the term is misleading. How is it now? Gdr 13:04, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

They were British civil wars in the sense that there were civil wars in Scotland (between Covenanters and royalists) in England (between parliamentarians and royalists) and in Ireland (between Catholics, Protestant royalists, and Protestant supporters of the (English) parliament). john k 21:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See British Isles#Subsequent political history and British Isles#Problems with modern usage. Many Irish people would argue that wars in Ireland were (are) not British civil wars (they were (are) Irish civil wars). With the wars in Scotland and the Wars in England by the logic you are using, one could also call them European Civil wars. Britain did not come into existence as a political entity until the Act of Union 1707, it is disengenious to use the term, and just like calling them European Civil wars it does not bring clarity to the subject. Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Irish problem with the term "British" is modern, the civil wars all took place in the geographical area of the British Isles - misleading is a fair description, "incorrect" projects modern politics backwards. dave souza 00:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The lead section looks fine now. Gdr 23:25, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

The introduction now defines the term "English Civil War" as a synonym for the term "Wars of the three kingdoms", the series of conflicts in Scotland and Ireland aswell as England. Is this article about the Civil War in England or throughout the British Isles? I know it is difficult to separate the two as they are so related and that the term English Civil War has been used to include conflicts in Scotland and Ireland; but this does need clarifying. This article should focus on the Civil War in England only, and only include events in Scotland and Ireland in terms of how they affect the English Civil War. There should be separarate articles on the Civil War in Scotland and Ireland, and Wars of the Three Kingdoms should look at the overall view, looking at the interrelation between all three of Charles' Kingdoms. What does everyone else think? --81.153.61.200 12:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me, although the Scottish war, in particular, is tied in very closely with the English conflict. john k 18:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The evidence from British Isles and IONA is that the term "British Isles" was used as a geographical term for the isles including Ireland in the 17th century, but in the 20th century became politically unacceptable to Irish nationalists. Thus "British Civil Wars" is geographically accurate, but in addition to treading on current sensibilities it has the misleading suggestion of a British state at the time and civil wars could be held to exclude the Bishops Wars, so the Wars of the Three Kingdoms is much preferred. The "English Civil War" title is well established in English histories, but is obviously a daft term for Montrose, for example, when all his fights were in Scotland. Keeping this article with an English focus makes sense provided there are suitable links to fuller descriptions of the intertwining conflicts elsewhere. dave souza 21:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about C17 Civil Wars in Britain and Ireland, C17 Civil Wars in Britain, C17 Civil Wars in Scotland, C17 Civil Wars in Ireland, C17 Civil Wars in Wales, C17 Civil Wars in England and Wales, C17 Civil Wars in Worcestershire, or C17 Civil Wars in England, depending on what is being discussed? RP

RP: Why not Create account? What is C17? BTW Worcestershire never had a civil war, but it often beats Warwickshire at cricket ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

C17 means seventeenth century. The wars were prosecuted in Worcestershire as elsewhere. e.g. the Battle of Worcester. If what you are writing relates to one country, one county or one village, then there is no need to drag others into the title. However, making clear, the period dealt with, is usually helpful.

you are obviously not from Warwickshire... The question is not where the war was fought but what makes it a civil war. For example if an English army fights a Scottish army is that a civil war? I suggest we do not go there again as it has already been discussed. As for putting in the century that makes no more sense than changing the "American Civil War" to "19th Century American Civil War" as there has by common name usage only been one "English Civil War". Philip Baird Shearer 22:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Important People.

hi i'm cool_girl_needs_info, i think that this site needs the most important people of the civil war on it, like Oliver Crommwell, and Prince Rupert. Becdause when people like me are trying to do homwork we cn't find the info i need

Dates

The term is often used In Anglo-centric history to cover the linked series of conflicts between 1639 and 1651 in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, which at that time shared a monarch but were distinct countries in political organisation. Recent historians have used the term the Wars of the Three Kingdoms to more accurately cover these linked conflicts which included the English Civil War.

I am not comfortable with the new dates which have been added to the article. The English civil wars cover the period from the raising of the Royal banner in 1642 and the Battle of Worcester (which despite the structure of the current article did include some English Royalists fighting for the King) in 1651. That the conflicts between 1639 and 1651 can be grouped under the term Wars of the Three Kingdoms does not mean that the Bishops wars or the Irish Rebellion of 1641 have ever been included as part of the English civil war. As precursors yes, but not part of the war. Philip Baird Shearer 13:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

up to the edit before mine, the intro read "The English Civil War is the period of conflict in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland between 1639 and 1651, and also refers specifically to the two wars". and I took the dates from that: your comment is interesting, and I'll give it consideration. dave souza 22:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Major Battles and Sieges

After the 1st civil war which manages to mention most of the major battles this article runs out of steam when describing the battles and sieges.

This article ought to include an overview of all the significant military actions which took place during the civil war. At the very least it needs a bullet point list of major battles and sieges in which took place during the war. The best place to put these would be at the end of the relevent section in chronological order. Along the lines of this link: http://www.theteacher99.btinternet.co.uk/ecivil/1648.htm The bullet points can then be copy-edited into text at some later date. Philip Baird Shearer 16:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since the new articles on First, Second, and Third wars, I think the need to do this is now redundent in this article, as those articles cover most of the major battle and sieges. But many of those now need writing :-( --Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

the battle of worcester page is inconsistant with the main page... the main page says it ended the 3rd war, the battle page says it ended the 2nd... just a heads-up =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.88.192.101 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. BTW you could have done it yourself. If you are interested in the pages why not create an account and help fix them? Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford

I'm going to edit a few things about Wentworth (Earl of Strafford) and Ireland, so I want to explain myself first before I do. Wentworth was in Ireland to raise money for Charles I, he did this by equally taxing both Protestant and Catholic landowners, and therefore upset both sides - who actually joined forces briefly to have him executed. However, he certainly did not make an alliance with the Catholics against the Protestants. On the contrary, he was wholeheartedly committed to colonisation and anglicisation of Ireland. In fact he was constantly confiscating small amounts of catholic owned land and was planning a major new plantation in Connacht. This was one of the main reasons why so many Irish Catholic gentry joined the rebellion of 1641. Raising an Irish Catholic army against the scots in 1639-40 was not actually an alliance with them. The Irish gentry agreed to raise and supply this force at their own expense in return for guarentees against land confiscation, so Wentworth essentially had a gun to their heads. The fact that he was also greatly disliked by the Protestant settlers in Ireland is because unlike previous Lord Deputies, he governed according to Charles' wishes and not those of the local protestant community. Jdorney 19:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems funny to see him called Wentworth rather than Strafford, so I hope you will pardon my small edit. Philip Baird Shearer 22:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the sons of men, for in them is no salvation

I was confused by this paragraph on Thomas Wentworth: The case could not be proven, so the House of Commons, led by John Pym and Henry Vane, resorted to a Bill of Attainder. Unlike treason, attainder required not only the burden of proof, but also the king's signature. Charles, still incensed over the Common's handling of Buckingham, refused. Wentworth himself, hoping to head off the war he saw looming, wrote to the king and asked him to reconsider. Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was executed on May 12, 1641. -- If attainder required the king's signature, and king Charles refused, why was Wentworth executed? Also, the whole point of attainder seems to be to declare someone guilty without having to prove it -- i.e. it shouldn't 'require the burden of proof'. I have the feeling 'required' is not what's meant here, rather the opposite, but I have no knowledge of this subject. Could someone please clarify this paragraph? --Jochietoch 09:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Bill of Attainder does not require a burden of proof, just Parliaments displeasure (which is why it is banned in the US Constitution ( Article I, Section 9; Clause 3)). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, why would Wentworth write to the king asking him to reconsider his refusal? I have a feeling that the king didn't really refuse. Quote: "Charles, still incensed over the Commons's handling of Buckingham, refused. Wentworth himself, hoping to head off the war he saw looming, wrote to the king and asked him to reconsider." -- timc | Talk 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Put not your trust in princes" (Psalm 146:3). See this reference DOWNFALL OF STRAFFORD AND LAUD from Charles I by Jacob Abbott. It gives a detailed account of what happened and a possible explanation of why Strafford quoted Psalm 146 after writing his letter to the King. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The current version of the article is much clearer, thanks. Now it is also clear that Strafford in effect requested his own execution. Jochietoch 12:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

North America

Does the American Revolution deserve mention as an English Civil War? (Or do civil wars where the secessionists win not count?)

Interesting point. But America was a colony, no? Not part of England itself, really. Otherwise we would call all the rebellions in colonies "civil wars" -- no I don't think it does count. Not because of who won, but the fact that it didn't happen in England. -- Sam

Read The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, and the Triumph of Anglo–America, by Kevin Phillips. His thesis is that the English Civil War, the American Revoultion, and the American Civil War are all one long drawn-out war with the same combatants. -- Zoe

---

Does anyone know how much study has been given to the effect of the English Civil War on the history of the British colonies in North America? Massachusetts was a Puritan stronghold and, I believe, sent young men to serve in the New Model Army. Virginia was a royalist stronghold and received its current nickname, the "Old Dominion," during the Restoration in recognition of the fact that the colony of Virginia had remained loyal to the monarchy throughout the civil war period. When Pennsylvania was established under Charles II, one policy justification was that the establishment of a Quaker colony in that location would provide a buffer zone between Massachusetts and Virginia, whose residents were widely thought to be hostile to each other. Differences between Massachusetts (and New England) and Virginia (and the South) continued during the formation of the American Constitution and the early Federal period, ultimately leading to the American Civil War. Thus, there may be some basis for viewing the American Civil War as, in part, caused by unresolved issues left over from the English Civil War. If so, an argument could be made that the so-called "red state/blue state" dichotomy of American politics today shares the same root. This would especially be the case to the extent one views Southern Republicanism as having has its roots in (a) the defection of so-called "Dixiecrats" from the Democratic to the Republican Party and (b) the later defection of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party as a result of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party's Civil Rights policies under Lyndon Johnson. (It is, however, generally accepted that both U.S. political parties have their roots in Whiggism.)

-- Bob (Bob99 14:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Bob99)

---

Bob, I was just wondering the same thing about connections between the English and American civil wars, after hearing someone quote the line from "1066 and All That" about how the Cavaliers were "wrong but wromantic" and the Roundheads were "right but repulsive." That suddently resonated for me with the romance often attached to the Confederate cause, and the more I thought about it, the more the war seemed like a continuation of the same conversation, at least in some cultural ways.

--Mark

I wouldn't put it in the article, but I can see what Mark is getting at in some ways. The English Parliamentarians were consciously cruesading Protestants - believing themselves to be doing Gods work. The same can be said for American Abolitionists. The Parliamentarians (some of them anyway) believed in equality and merit over hierarchy - so did the Unionists in America. Both of them were also backed by the most highly developed industrial/commercial areas of their respective countries, which gave them huge advantages in financing war.Finally, they were both committed to the unity of their respective countries. Recent research on the English Parliamentarians has emphasised thier sense of "Englishness" as opposed to the Royalists, who were supported by Cornish and Welsh people and who were allied with the IRish and Scots. Under the Commonwealth, England, Ireland and Scotland were unified for the first time, with England at the centre. The Royalists and southern Confederates also had some things in common, they believed in hierarchy and tradition and the traditional order. They drew their support form the more rural, less developed areas and they lost.I could also add, facetiously, the the English Royalists were also allied to "Confederates" (Confederate Ireland). Jdorney

At a tangent to the above. There was a Major Mercer with the Worcestershire horse who fought at the Battle of Worcester. On doing a search for more on this man. I came across a American Civil War regiment 100th Pennsylvania, who were known as the Roundheads, because it is said many of the men who joined the regiment were from Mercer county which was settled by Roundheads after the English Civil War.[2] [3] --Philip Baird Shearer 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

As a footnote to a tangent, those Roundheads appear to have been associated with the Puritan Yankees of Connecticut and not with the Quakers of Pennsylvania. The part of Pennsylvania in which Mercer county is located was originally granted to Connecticut and was first settled by New Englanders rather than Pennsylvanians. (By contrast, early settlement of Virginia's Shenandoah Valley was by those who came from Pennsylvania, because the geography of the Appalachian mountains favors that route.) It turns out, however, that the land was subsequently regranted to William Penn as part of Pennsylvania. This ultimately led to Connecticut's 1794 cession of the land to Pennsylvania, in exchange for recognition of the ownership rights of those who purchased it under Connecticut law. (There had earlier been a brief period of violence in the Yankee-Pennamite Wars). The part of the original Connecticut grant which lay west of Pennsylvania was retained by Connecticut but later became part of Ohio's Western Reserve.

(This factoid confirms the connection of the Roundheads to the settlers of Massachusetts, since Connecticut was founded by Puritans who split off from Massachusetts.)

-- Bob Bob99

It also goes back to the Wars of the Roses (royalist Lancaster vs populist York); even the First Barons' War. I don't think one can connect them to the Revolt of 1173-1174 or The Anarchy and the Saxon vs Norman conflict, but it probably was infighting as a result of Crusade failures. I know and you know, that Americans trace their Constitution to the Magna Carta. IP Address 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Essay

An anonymous user added an essay to the article which I removed: [4]. A more familiar user may wish to take a look at this version (the essay is in the middle) and see if anything is salvagable. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Kapitalism

I recently revered some vandalism but to do it I had to remove an external link to www.kapitalism.net; aparently it has been black listed. -- HarrisX 20:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

hi

Some questions

Hello,

I was reading this article and I came across a couple of things that confused me or didn't seem to make sense. I thought I'd point them out here so that more knowledgable people could clarify:

Charles also wanted to join in on the conflicts being fought in Europe. This alone might not have caused a problem, except that Charles had placed George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, in command.

What was wrong with George Villiers?

Also:

Into this atmosphere General George Monck, governor of Scotland under the Cromwells, marched south with his army from Scotland. On April 4, 1660, in the Declaration of Breda, Charles II made known the conditions of his acceptance of the crown of England.

It's unclear to me how these two things relate. The sentence after this makes it seem as though Monck was marching south in order to help reinstate Charles, but if he was governor under the Cromwells, wouldn't he be a Parliamentarian, not a Royalist?

Hbackman 03:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Read the Wikipedia biography page on Villiers for an answer to what was wrong with him. A better question is what qualified him as an expaditionary leader?
• Monck started out as a Royalist and switched allegiance. The most common explanation for his support for Charles II was that he perceived that the Republic was descending into anarchy and that the restoration of Charles was the best option available. Personally I think that the analysis of the last year of the interregnum has not been completed and the story is more human and more complicated than this traditional analysis. On 12 October 1659 Parliament appointed Seven Army Commissioners the interplay of these men (of which Monck was one), along with Thomas Fairfax joining in, has a lot to do with why the republic fell and the restoration took place. For example why did Fairfax support Monck and why did Robert Overton not support Lambert and rally to the Good Old Cause, given that he seems to have supported the Good Old Cause at every other conceivable opportunity both before and after the restoration? There is also the relationship of the Regicides to the restoration why did men like Thomas Harrison not support John Lambert? But at least the Regicide Richard Ingoldsby's motives for capturing Lambert in 1660 are transparant --Philip Baird Shearer 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Cavaliers (royalists) to Cavalier

Please see the proposed page move from Cavaliers (royalists) to Cavalier on Talk:Cavaliers (royalists) --Philip Baird Shearer 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles, Scots and Bishops.

I've repeatedly had to correct a serious of elementary-and highly irratating-misconceptions about Scotland and the Scottish Church prior to the outbreak of the Civil Wars, echoed in a whole series of Wikipedia articles covering the period. Well, here they are, once again, and here are a list of my corrections and amendments;

1. The Church of Scotland had NOT been 'Presbyterian for a century', but had a full panel of bishops and archbishops, in just the same Episcopalian fashion as its English counterpart. it only became Presbyterian AFTER the Glasgow General Assembly of November, 1638.

2. The Prayer Book-the Scottish version thereof-was introduced in the summer of 1637, not 1638, which sparked off the Edinburgh riots. Although these were said to have been led by Jenny Geddes, it is uncertain if such an individual ever existed.

3. The National Covenant was drawn up in the winter of 1637/38 and subscribed in February 1638. It was ratified, not drawn up, by the Glasgow Assembly in November. The National Covenant says nothing at all about the office of bishop. The aim of the document was to persuade the king not to attempt innovations in religious practice-like the Prayer Book-that had not first been subject to the examination of Parliament and the Church. By the time the Glasgow Assembly met, the king's intransigence had so radicalised the debate that the bishops were excommunicated and outlawed.

4. The last part of this section ('The Eleven Years' Tyranny...) is a muddle. I've corrected some factual errors and tidied it up slightly to make it clear that there were two periods of conflict. Charles came to terms only after his northern forces were defeated in the Second Bishops' War in 1640.

Please, please, if you intend to touch on aspects of Scottish history, try to aquire a grasp of the basic facts.

Don't let the title of the article fool you, I would be very surprised if the "you" did not include some Scots! As you have now made some edits you are one of us! --Philip Baird Shearer 07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally, on a point of information, I would like to know which 'invasion from Scotland' was Essex's Parliamentary army intended to defeat in 1642? I've removed this section because it makes no historical sense, unless you can prove to me that their are some additional facts to which I am totally blind. Rcpaterson 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Going through the edits you have made[5] there are a couple I would like to discuss:

Original:Scotland had been Presbyterian for a century, and moreover they jealously guarded their independence from England. New " The Church of Scotland, although Episcopalian in structure, had long enjoyed its own independent traditions. "

The Church of Scotand was Episcopalian but was (Lowland) Scotland? What was the legacyJohn Knox and others?

Original:This army had a twofold purpose: to defeat an invasion from Scotland and also to prevent attempts by the King and his supporters to restore the monarchy's power." New "his army was intended to defend Parliament against the King and his supporters."

Although it is not worded very well, I think the wording is meant to explain that the army was raised with a dual purpose: Either to defend the English Parliament against the King but also it had a secondary purpose which started out as the primary one: if Parliament was able to come to an accommodation with the King, (and remember that many Parliamentarians were royalists), that the army could be used in one of the traditional roles of an English army, to make sure that the Scots returned to Scotland and did not come back over the border for yet more cash (Danegeld). The emphasis on the two functions for the of the army, before the Civil War became inevitable, depended where on the spectrum the English Member of Parliament's loyalties lay. In part this comes down to an understanding that most members of the English Parliament was English first and (presbyterian or whatever) second, and that a traditional use of an English army to try to give the Scots a good kicking and that that was preferable to an English civil war. It is possible that if there had been no perceived Scots threat that the initial formation of an army under the control of the English Parliament would not have happened. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As a mere dabbler in history, I note that my old concise history by Fitzroy MacLean is clear that the Calvinist Scottish reformation of 1550 replaced bishops by Kirk Sessions, and later district Presbyteries, under a General Assembly meeting once or twice a year. In 1584 James VI induced Parliament to pass statutes confirming the appointment of bishops and forbidding the meeting of Convocations of ministers without his permission: the latter was rescinded, but the bishops remained, resulting in Calvinist and Episcopalian factions opposing each other in the Kirk. After 1603 the General Assembly was not allowed to meet for some years, in 1606 he imprisoned his leading opponent and increased the numbers of bishops without interfering with the prevailing form of congregational worship. In 1618 he pushed through "Five Articles" which imposed forms of worship including confirmation by bishops and not ministers: there was widespread opposition and boycotting of these institutions. The dispute was still on the go when he died in 1625. Perhaps the book's wrong, or I've misinterpreted something, but that seems to differ a bit from the statement that the Kirk "had a full panel of bishops and archbishops, in just the same Episcopalian fashion as its English counterpart" ...dave souza, talk 10:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, gentlemen, and thank you both for responding to my observations and amendments. I've already touched on this subject in the talk page of the article on the Bishops Wars as well as elsewhere. I'm drawing on the research I carried out some years ago for a book I wrote on the Covenanter Wars. This is a complex issue, but I will try to be as concise as possible.

First, let me deal with the bishop question.

The Scottish Reformation left a number of unanswered questions, particularly over the structure of the church and its relationship to the state. John Knox himself had no definite views on the office of bishops. His preference was for 'superintendants', men, in other words, who would have authority over other ministers; bishops if you prefer by any other name.

It is also important to understand that there is no conflict between Calvinism-a theological doctrine-and Episcopacy-a form of church government. The Church of Scotland both before 1638 and after 1661 was both Calvinist and Episcopalian; quite, quite different from High Anglicanism. The real debate was political rather than doctrinal in nature. It was Andrew Melville, the author of the Second Book of Discipline, who first specifically defended a Presbyterian over and Episcopal polity. He had seen the office of bishop gain a gradual ascendency in the church, first under the Regent Morton and then under King James himself. His fear was that this was little more than an attempt to subordinate the church to the state, a view he made all to plain in his exchanges with the king. Melville's frankness was too much for James, and he was forced to spend the final years of his life in exile.

There was, in short, a kind of tug-of-war from the 1580s onwards between Presbyterianism and Episcopacy; but by the early years of the seventeenth century Episcopacy was in clear ascendancy. James, by skilful manipulation of church and state, had introduced bishops at a parliamentary and then a diocesan level. General Assemblies, when they were allowed to meet at all, only gathered in the more conservative parts of northern Scotland. James, ever the pragmatist, would push matters only so far. Opposition to the more doctrinal Five Articles of Perth-including confirmation by bishops (not Bishops as such)-showed the limits of his policy, and he allowed matters to go by default. It was to be different with his literal minded son and successor.

By the time James died in 1625 all of the ancient diocese of Scotland-not just those in the north-were being run by bishops, including the archdiocese of Glasgow and St. Andrews. Charles was to add to this panel by creating a bishopric of Edinburgh. Indeed, the famous Prayer Book, often wrongly thought of as that already in use in England, was compiled by a panel of Scottish bishops, including Archbishop Spottiswood of St. Andrews, and intended to take account of Scottish circumstances. On the insistance of the king, the whole exercise was conducted in secret, leading to exaggerated fears that it would be even more 'papist' than its English counterpart. In the crisis that followed its introduction in 1637 the bishops were steadily outmanovered by those who saw them as nothing more than the creatures of the King. At the Glasgow Assembly in November 1638 they were named one-by-one, and excommunicated, and the office of bishop was held to be unlawful. From this point, and only from this point, is it proper to speak of a Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which was to last, in its first phase, until 1661.

I hope this clarifies the point, but I would be happy to deal with any further questions you may have.

Mr. Shearer, your point about the parliamentary army of 1642 being raised also against a perceived Scottish threat left me completly baffled. I'm not saying its wrong, but I think you should cite an identifiable source for this statement. Charles himself had tried to raise the spectre of ancient Anglo-Scots rivalries in his appeal to the Short Parliament in 1640, with no success. What was the preceived threat from the Scots in 1642? Under the terms of the Treaty of Ripon, the Scots' army left northern England the previous year. As King and Parliament moved closer towards open conflict in the autumn of 1642 the Scots government made it plain that it had no intention of taking sides, prefering to see itself as an arbiter between the contending parties. They eventually had to be persuaded that it was in their best interests to intervene on behalf of Parliament. Besides, for Parliament to make enemies of both the King and the Scots in 1642 hardly makes much political or strategic sense. However, as I say, I'm open to persuasion. Best wishes to you both. Rcpaterson 21:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting response. I've been browsing Prebble's Lion in the North, and in general he seems to support the points you make about the kirk. However, he does indicate an early opposition to bishops: the Book of Discipline drafted by Knox and his fellow ministers, and sanctioned by the General Assembly of the Kirk in December 1560, stated that there were to be no bishops, only superintendents not like "yon idle Bishops heretofore". They were to be chosen by election "by consent of as many of the people as possible". However when Parliament accepted the Confession of Faith it declined the Book of Discipline. It's not clear which year, but around 1565 Mary restored Archbishop John Hamilton to his consistorial jurisdictions at St Andrews, so presumably if bishops had been removed, they had returned to some extent by then. The more this can be clarified the better, though in some ways the main point is that the Scottish religious situation was a lot more volatile and less under the King's control than it was in England. ..dave souza, talk 23:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Header

Err, it appears somebody deleted the synopsis. The "introduction" starts off in the middle of a idea. The terrible thing is that its been edited since then apparently with nobody noticing. --Brentt 10:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. But you are allowed to fix such vandalism if you notice it. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)