Talk:Committee of Both Kingdoms

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

I originally added the names with MP and constituency, but I am not convinced by the argument that "'A member' might imply more than one per constituency" any more than MP does. I think it needs debating further as we need to make it clear to those who do not know what "MP or "member" means without a careful study of the construction of the list. For those of us who know the British Parliamentary system either is obvious, but what is the best presentation for those who do not? --

The first instance of MP is linked and therefore explained. MP is a definite title and distinction. I believe that where a position, title or honorific exists it ought to be used, rather than potentially vague terms. HLGallon (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I follow the logic of that, HLGallon, but "MP" is essentially an abbreviation used as a

postnominal or when space is very short. You could even call it jargon

. To me it is journalese, though not everyone would agree. I do not think printed encyclopedias use "MP" for "member" or "member of parliament" in the body of their articles.

I am not really concerned about the question of numbers, except that "John Smith, member of parliament for Anytown" (or "John Smith, MP for Anytown", it means the same) seems to imply "the member". You said in your summary ""A member" might imply more than one per constituency", but it does imply that, and correctly so. We are so used to single-member constituencies now that we forget there were none in England before the 19th century. Moonraker (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I clean forgot that! I'm not sure whether initials such as "MP", "JP" or qualifications such as "DD" (Doctor of Divinity) were used in the seventeenth century, or if so, how widely. Most books I have read which deal with the Civil Wars usually write the title of an MP in full, in the first instance where they occur anyway ("John Smith, Member of Parliament for Anytown") and subsequently refer only to "Smith". About half refer to "MP". A few use "Member for Anytown". However, if you wish to revert to your preferred version, I shan't go edit-warring. (Though leave the link to the Earl of Manchester; that at least is constructive.) HLGallon (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my (PBS) talk page: Woolrych's "Britain in Revolution" says (p. 352) that the Derby House Committee referred to the Committee for Irish Affairs which was set up in 1646 as a de facto executive to replace the Committee of Both Kingdoms, but at the moment the page redirects to the latter. I saw that you had redirected the page, so what is correct here? --81.111.208.250 (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Series reference SP 21 Committee of Both Kingdoms ("Derby House Committee"): Books". The National Archives.:

Records of the Committee of Both Kingdoms, often known by its meeting place, Derby House, in Cannon Row, Westminster. ...

When the Scots' army entered England by invitation of the English Parliament in January 1644 the Parliamentary Committee of Safety was replaced by an ad hoc committee representative of both kingdoms which, by parliamentary ordinance of 16 February, was formally constituted the Committee of Both Kingdoms. The English contingent consisted of seven peers and 14 commoners. Its object was the management of peace overtures to or making war on the King. It was conveniently known as the Derby House Committee from 1647, when the Scots withdrew. Its influence long reduced by the growth of the army's, it was dissolved by Parliament soon after the King's execution on 7 February 1649, and replaced by the Council of State.

A sub-committee on Irish affairs met from 1646 to 1648. The sub-committee spent, in Ireland, money raised by the Committee of Both Houses.

I hope that explains it. --

talk) 00:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]