Talk:English Civil War/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I am setting up a Military history ass force at

{{

76.119.143.217 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! haz (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the abolition of the "star chamber" in 1941 deserves mention. This action by Parliament restored the authority of the courts to try lawbreakers before a jury in a court of law, and not before a panel of appointees beholding to the King or the King himself. From the wiki article on jury trial

One of the most ancient and most established instruments of power was the court of Star Chamber, which possessed an unlimited discretionary authority of fining, imprisoning, and inflicting corporal punishment, and whose jurisdiction extended to all sorts of offenses, contempts, and disorders, that lay not within reach of the common law. The members of this court consisted of the privy council and the judges; men who all of them enjoyed their offices during pleasure: And when the prince himself was present, he was the sole judge, and all the others could only interpose with their advice. There needed but this one court in any government, to put an end to all regular, legal, and exact plans of liberty. For who durst set himself in opposition to the crown and ministry, or aspire to the character of being a patron of freedom, while exposed to so arbitrary a jurisdiction? I much question, whether any of the absolute monarchies in Europe contain, at present, so illegal and despotic a tribunal. While so many terrors hung over the people, no jury durst have acquitted a man, when the court was resolved to have him condemned. The practice also, of not confronting witnesses to the prisoner, gave the crown lawyers all imaginable advantage against him. And, indeed, there scarcely occurs an instance, during all these reigns, that the sovereign, or the ministers, were ever disappointed in the issue of a prosecution. Timid juries, and judges who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to second all the views of the crown. And as the practice was anciently common of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the direction of these dependent judges; it is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject.

The first paragraph of the Act that abolished the Star Chamber repeats the clause on the right of a citizen to be judged by his peers:

Abolition of the Star Chamber July 5, 1641 An act for the regulating of the privy council, and for taking away the court commonly called the star-chamber.

WHEREAS by the great charter many times confirmed in parliament, it is enacted, That no freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or otherwise destroyed, and that the King will not pass upon him, or condemn him; but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to add something suitable to the article, backing it with a suitable reference or reference(s). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Petrsw, I'm really not seeing where the rest of the section talks about "successive crises of succession". There are two successions that I can see mentioned: Elizabeth > James and James > Charles. There's nothing in the text that I can see that suggests there was a crisis surrounding either transition. The closest we get is Charles' subsequent marriage to Henrietta being criticised, but it's not described as a crisis, and the "suspicions" over Charles' constitutional views - again, not exactly the language of a "crisis". That's why I think you need to add a suitable reference in to support your addition. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Aodhdubh, I've undone the last set of changes because they lacked any referencing. When you're adding material, you'll need to explain where you've got the information from - e.g. a book, a web-page, a journal etc. If you need any help with the formatting, or just general advice on this, feel free to leave me a message here or on my talk page and I'll happily try and help. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 08:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

PBS, as per Op CITE, "Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it...when adding citations, to try to follow the system and style already in use in the article (if any)" I was fixing the recent introduction of 4-5 sfn templates into an article that otherwise uses Harvbn templates throughout. As you may have noticed, I failed to add the ref tags around the sfn; I've fixed that too. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Methods does not differentiate on whether {{

talk

) 09:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

PBS, I have no strong feelings about the virtues of sfn or harvnb; I've edited using both in various articles, depending on the existing style of the article. In this case though, the article uses the harvnb template, which determines the format of new references. As noted in previous discussions, if you feel the article would be improved by a different style, simply propose it on the relevant talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How does the format of {{

talk

) 09:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As per my previous, simply propose it as a change on this page and gain consensus. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What consensus is needed? There is no change in method or style. Your suggestion implies that it either has to be {{

talk

) 09:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

PBS, the discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources rolls on... but, in the meantime, can I make a proposal? I'm guessing from previous discussions that you'd probably prefer to see sfn used throughout here, rather than harvnb with a full stop; in the case of this article, I think that would be a good move and would happily support it. If you thought similarly, how about we start a new section and jointly propose it as a change? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this. Personally I use {{

talk

) 05:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What was the reaction of foreign nations to a Civil War which resulted in the execution of the king and the establishment of a republic? After the French Revolution there was a strong conservative reaction in Britain, and probably in other countries too.

How did the absolute monarchies (France, Spain etc.) react in the 1640s? Did the early modern republics (Holland, some Italian cities) have an opinion? Apparently England took France's side in a war against Spain, but this was a war over commercial interests and wasn't related to the changes in England. Ilikeredirects (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to revert this edit that removed the following citations:

• Matthew White Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th century: British Isles, 1641–52 [This link has changed to http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#EnglCW ]
• Robert Plant, The Committee of Safety, British Civil Wars website, Retrieved 25 November 2009

I am going to add to them {{

Hadn't come across that better source template - a sensible solution, thanks PBS. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the Rebellion of Scotland section, it's mentioned that the Berwick truce was broken in 1640, and ended with England's defeat. In the next section, it talks of Charles needing to suppress the rebellion in Scotland. So is that before the Berwick truce? The text is not particularly clear about the timelines. - Akamad (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Although the monarchy was restored, it was still only with the consent of Parliament; therefore, the civil wars effectively set England and Scotland on course to adopt a parliamentary monarchy form of government.[146] This system would result in the outcome that the future Kingdom of Great Britain, formed in 1707 under the Acts of Union, would manage to forestall the kind of often-bloody revolution, typical of European republican movements that followed the Jacobin revolution in 18th century France and the later success of Napoleon, which generally resulted in the total abolition of monarchy. It was no coincidence that the United Kingdom was spared the wave of revolutions that occurred in Europe in the 1840s. Specifically, future monarchs became wary of pushing Parliament too hard, and Parliament effectively chose the line of royal succession in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution and in the 1701 Act of Settlement. After the Restoration, Parliament's factions became political parties (later becoming the Tories and Whigs) with competing views and varying abilities to influence the decisions of their monarchs.[citation needed]

This paragraph is rambling, and poorly written. Perhaps, worse, however, it's nonsense. To say the English civil war 'effectively set England and Scotland on course to adopt a parliamentary monarchy form of government [whatever that is]' is not just stating an opinion as fact, but an opinion that many modern historians would not agree with! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.175.43 (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely, this paragraph is shocking (especially the 'the civil wars effectively set England and Scotland on course to adopt a parliamentary monarchy form of government,' and the sweeping determinism which leaps from the 1640s to 1840s)! If anyone had the time a re-write might be useful. 131.111.185.11 (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed some vandalism from the infobox field for commanders, but did not restore the single name of Cromwell, with probably perpetuates the Victorian myth of a personal conflict, but Cromwell only commanded in Ireland and the Third Civil War. I would suggest the Earl of Essex, Fairfax and Cromwell for parliamentary commanders and, for the sake of consistency Charles I and Charles II for the royalists, which covers all three wars.--SabreBD (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,

What part of the text does this painting illustrate? Sca (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is the title of the painting see the article "And When Did You Last See Your Father?" by the staff of the Walker Art Gallery. -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the title, I know. My question is, what in the article does it illustrate or typify? Sca (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a representation of the questioning of known or suspected "

malignant" households during the Second and Third civil wars. It is also a type of confrontation that is common in most civil wars. -- PBS (talk

) 06:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Was Wales involved in anyway? Were no Welsh involved at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.95.122.125 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wales was an integral part of the Kingdom of England at the time. For the most part Wales was a stronghold of Royalist forces. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205210507/http://www.historybookshop.com:80/articles/commentary/civil-wars-of-three-kingdoms-ht.asp to http://www.historybookshop.com/articles/commentary/civil-wars-of-three-kingdoms-ht.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There are paragraphs and sentences in this article that have had template:citation needed requests for years:

• Military support for Protestants on the Continent was, in itself, popular both in Parliament and with the Protestant majority in general, "Citation needed|date=August 2011"
• Charles eventually agreed not to interfere with Scotland's religion and paid the Scots' war-expenses. "Citation needed|date=May 2008"
• Historians estimate that between them, both sides had only about 15,000 men."Citation needed|date=February 2007"
• On one side, the King and his supporters fought for traditional government in Church and state. ... power at the national level."Citation needed|date=May 2008|reason=For the whole paragraph"
• Although the monarchy was restored... to influence the decisions of their monarchs."Citation needed|date=May 2008|reason=For the whole paragraph"
• The most important Whig historian, S.R. Gardiner,"full citation needed|date=April 2017"
• nor did Puritans necessarily ally themselves with Parliamentarians."Citation needed|date=September 2008"

Can someone with access to reliable sources please add citations? -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There is text on this page that is being supported by unreliable sources. In most cases (such as David Plant's pages) it is not that the website is not trustworthy but because it does not meet the requirements of

Some of these citations carry templates on them that have been there for five years or more. Can some of the regular contributors to this page who have access to better sources please spend some time providing Wikipedia reliable sources?

-- PBS (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on English Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.historybookshop.com/articles/commentary/civil-wars-of-three-kingdoms-ht.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625044604/http://english-civil-war-society.org.uk/www/cms/ to http://english-civil-war-society.org.uk/www/cms/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921002357/http://gainesjunction.tamu.edu/issues/vol2num1/bduke.pdf to http://gainesjunction.tamu.edu/issues/vol2num1/bduke.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The article fails to discuss the significance of congregationalism as a church-government position leading to tensions among the Calvinist factions late in the civil war and as a key position in relation to episcopacy. The Puritans of the New Model Army, especially those loyal to Cromwell, favored a congregational version of church government, as opposed to the presbyterian model favored by the Scottish Covenanters and the episcopacy favored by Royalist Anglicans, as well as Catholics. This partially factored in rejection of Charles I's offer to make the churches of Scotland and England presbyterian, though of course the English also resented the king's apparently subterfuge in this offer, as well as its result in renewing the conflict. The moderate faction of Parliament certainly included those who favored constitutional monarchy on legal and philosophical grounds, but it also contained those who favored the presbyterian (or in some cases the episcopal) form of church government. Thus, when Pride's Purge removed these moderates, leaving behind a Rump Parliament, the congregational factions within the army enforced their will by removing members who were not sympathetic on whatever grounds, religious and/or political. The article's description of presbyterianism as the form of church government until the Restoration is also imperfect -- the situation was more complicated and this was a continued item of contention that contributed to the move from Rump to Barebones to Protectorate. A related issue is the failure to acknowledge the many more radical Protestant sects that appeared during this period, many of which veered toward congregationalism. Although never ascendant, the revolutionary era provided the atmosphere in which these groups proliferated. Ironically, understanding of these various positions, far more complicated than the article implies, may be less significant to English history in the long run than it is to American history, where religious refugees representing each of these positions created colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries. The New England colonists were nearly all congregationalist Puritans, many of whom fled England during the early years of Charles I's reign. Later, Presbyterians of various stripes from Scotland, Ulster and the English border regions would settle the British colonies' more inland "backcountry" regions. Radical sects like the Quakers and Baptists contributed to the formation of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island and were also present in large numbers in the Southern backcountry. None of these sects originated in America -- they arose or had a formative period during the English Civil War (or Revolution). Ftjrwrites (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

First I think we need to discuss terminology. Histories of the English Civil War tend to use the word

Clarendon Code, the Test Acts and the Great Ejection

. It took more than a century for discrimination to abate (on the other hand it was not all bad news we have the Caburys Roundtrees and Frys to thank for English chocolate).... I am strayng off the point.

I do not think that the histories empahsise Indedpendentcy (as opposed to puritatism in general as significant at the start of the English Civil War), but they do emphasise it with the rise of the New Model Army (Army) and the rift between the Army and Parliament. I think that the "Prelude" section in the article Second English Civil War is better at covering this than the start of the section "Second English Civil War (1648–1649) in this article and a short paragraph based of the former should probably be added to the latter. Infact a short section called "interbellium" or "interlude" or "1647" between First and Second wars would help explain the political machinations of the four main parites: King, English Parliament, Scottish Parliament/Kirk and the Army. This is because not only is there no mention of the Independents in the article the is no mention of the Levellers and the Putney Debates which in my opinion should be mentioned. Also the sections "Political control" and "Episcopy" should be cut up and merged into the main part of the article. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927061942/http://boar.org.uk/oriwxs5CivilWarLincs(chron.htm to http://boar.org.uk/oriwxs5CivilWarLincs(chron.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927061920/http://boar.org.uk/ariwxe1CivilWar(home.htm to http://boar.org.uk/ariwxe1CivilWar(home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I notice in the infobox of the wiki article on the First English Civil War that there are more precise details of deaths casualties covering the years 1642-1651, cited to a statistical work by Michael Clodfelter, as well as details of those captured as prisoners of war. For consistency between articles I give notice I intend to substitute the more generalised figures cited to the English Civil Wars website with Clodfelter's figures while leaving intact the non-combat deaths. (Just in case I unintentionally cause an issue with the box.)Cloptonson (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Done without hitch to infobox formatting.Cloptonson (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the name of the article

Please also review the section

Talk:Third English Civil War#Article title before commenting - the rationale for my move, which PBS has reverted, was set out there. Girth Summit _(blether)

18:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)