Talk:Bishops' Wars

Charles and the Bishops.

There is a simple matter of fact that needs to be clarified here: the Church of Scotland in 1637 had an episcopal and not a presbyterian structure. James VI, by skilful manipulation of both Parliament and the General Assembly of the church, had gradually introduced a full panel of bishops in the early part of the seventeenth century. Charles I, through arrogance and lack of judgement, effectively pulled the whole structure down. The National Covenant was not specifically directed against bishops, but against the attempt to introduce innovations, specifically the 1637 Prayer Book, that had not first been tested by free parliaments and general assemblies of the church. The role of the bishops only became an issue in the radicalization that followed on from Charles' refusal to take heed on the concerns of his northern kingdom. Bishops were formally outlawed-without royal approval-during the course of the Glasgow General assembly of November 1638. Rcpaterson 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

James and the Bishops.

I've made some small amendments in the section dealing with James and the Church. The king did not allow the General Assembly to continue to manage the church: it was he who managed the General Assembly. Assemblies were only allowed to meet by royal approval; and James made sure that when they did meet it was in the more conservative north of Scotland, thus ensuring that those in attendance were more likely to support procedural and liturgical changes. After 1618 no assembly was to gather for twenty years. Rcpaterson 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

An infobox and map would greatly improve this article. At present, there is a lot of information but it reads like a history book instead of an encyclopedia - some rearrangement of the text and more headings might fix that. Also, should there be separate battle pages for the battles? -- Medains 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronology?

Article is weak on providing specific years and dates for key events, and is written in that grand 1911 style that is annoyingly uninterested in providing the specific facts of the matter.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum

I am setting up a new Military history task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum all welcome to join. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

So who won?

This article could use an outcome section of some sort. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents: England vs. Scotland

This is surely wrong - Charles I was king of Scotland, after all, and Aboyne was Scottish, leading royalist Scots as well. These were wars between Covenanters and Royalists. I'll replace this. Harsimaja (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, re your change of Combatants to "England v Scottish Covenanters", I agree with @Harsimaja that simply "England" is not right as many of the Commanders and leaders (e.g Duke of Hamilton) listed under that were Scottish noblemen. So why not "Scottish and English Royalists"? Jp2207 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I am relaxed about how this ends up, but you are both approaching it wrong. No one cares what you or I believe or logically deduce. Policy requires that we state what the consensus of reliable sources go with. So what do the sources say? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Gog the Mild. As a new editor, I am much in need of experienced editors' advice (which surely you can provide). Not trying to "win" an argument here. I just want Wikipedia to be accurate and consistent with the sources. As it happens, I have one of the sources in my hands (Royle 2006). Chapters 6 and 7 deal with the first and second bishops' wars as explicitly stated in the ToC. Reference 18 in particular describes Royalist Scots versus Scots Covenanter confrontation. Furthermore, the second paragraph of the "Background" section of the existing article, supposedly based on two other sources, talks about the two Scottish factions of Royalists and Covenanters. Just need your help in getting this right. Jp2207 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we're confusing "Belligerent" with "Combatant". The Infobox here relates to the former, a closely defined term that generally refers to a legal, political entity, while the latter concerns individual participants. As the editor who wrote most of this, when Royle refers to "Scottish Royalists", he's talking about a faction, not a government. I don't see any inconsistency between the Infobox and body of the article - they show different things.

"England" is a "Belligerent", not "English Royalists". The war was authorised, funded and carried out by the English state, even if it was opposed by many, while the "Royalist" party (versus factional disputes) is generally dated to 1641. The presence of a few English radicals with the Covenanters doesn't create an "English Covenanters" belligerent.

Royal government in Scotland was carried out by the Privy Council, which was controlled by the Covenanters. I know the constitutional position is tangled but they claimed to be the legitimate government of Scotland (and most commentators seem to agree). Because of that confusion, I've used "Scottish Covenanters" rather than "Scotland" as the legal "Belligerent", but again, that doesn't make "Scottish Royalists" one.

If we're going to change anything, then it should be Scotland (rather than Scottish Covenanters) and England, the two legal entities which signed the treaties ending the war. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for the lengthy, detailed response. I am duly educated on the difference between Belligerent and Combatant. I have modified one of the belligerents to “Kingdom of England” rather than the modern entity.

Regardless, my contention is that the current infobox implies to me, and possibly to other readers, that the various Scottish nobles listed under the Commanders and leaders fought for the “Kingdom of England” which is misleading.

In the first Bishops’ War, Aboyne fought against Montrose at the Battle of the Brig of Dee. In that article, the “Belligerents” are given as the (Scottish) Royalist and Covenanter factions. For consistency then, my suggestion is that the Bishops’ Wars infobox (somehow) indicates the existence of a royalist Scottish faction as allied to the Kingdom of England, and that those Scottish nobles listed were part of that faction. Or alternatively, remove these nobles as having played insufficiently significant roles. However, I feel it is not helpful to a general reader’s understanding for the Bishops’ Wars article to indicate in its lead that it was an exclusively Scotland versus England confrontation. Jp2207 (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a difference between the Infobox for a war and individual battles within it. They're not always the same thing; the Brig of Dee is a Scottish civil war, which I used the two factions - that still doesn't make Scottish Royalists a separate Belligerent.

I don't see the issue with having Scottish nobles listed under English commanders; most armies were multinational. There were (for example) large numbers of German/Swedish officers serving on both sides; no one's arguing Sweden's a Belligerent on that basis.

However, I feel it is not helpful to a general reader’s understanding for the Bishops’ Wars article to indicate in its lead that it was an exclusively Scotland versus England confrontation. I don't follow your reasoning; the Infobox is supposed to be read in conjunction with the Lead, whose last paragraph specifically covers the wider context. The article also clearly explains why the war destabilised all three kingdoms, and contains multiple references to the different elements involved. Robinvp11 (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully accept your point about belligerents. But, I still feel the infobox is misleading as the Scottish nobles were not Scotsmen fighting for the Kingdom of England. They were Scottish royalists. As you say, there was a Scottish civil war element to the Bishops' Wars. Compare the infobox for the Second English Civil War. Is a solution that we put Royalist flags next to those commanders? Jp2207 (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is significant enough to warrant over-riding Wikipedia guidelines on Belligerents and not adding categories to the Infobox. The Infobox is designed to be a quick guide to the major parties involved, for the 60-70% of readers who never get past the Lead. That's why its unwise to introduce complexity where it's not needed. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a point where this page showed England and Scottish Royalists vs The Covenanters. I think it best illustrated how it was as much a civil war in Scotland as it was a Scottish vs English Affair. Ask historians like Samuel Hume and they would agree the same thing. Why was it changed in the first place? Fishchaircan (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fishchaircan, I am sympathetic to your view but I'll attempt to summerize the argument as I understand it. Others can chime in.

There is a strict definition of Belligerent as the legal entity who is party to the treaty ending a war thus Scottish Royalist party is not a Belligerent here. And though there was certainly Scottish Royalist versus Scottish Covenanter conflict in the First Bishops’ War, it was minor in scope. The infobox is avoiding giving undue weight to the Scottish Civil conflict or being overcomplicated for the benefit of the general reader. Meanwhile, the Second Bishops’ War was almost exclusively a Scotland (controlled by Covenanters) versus Kingdom of England affair.

So, as much as I remain unsatisfied that the infobox is seemingly showing Scottish nobles fighting for “England”, I accepted that the use of different flag icons is a reasonable indication that they were members of a distinct faction instead.  If it was up to me, I’d add “Scottish Royalists” as Belligerents (and change “Covenanters” to “Scottish Covenanters”) but with a footnote explaining that the Scottish Royalists are in fact “Co-Combatants” not strictly “Belligerents”. Jp2207 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

kirk versus "the Kirk"

@Robinvp11, re your recent change which states "kirk is not capitalised (I've learnt the the hard way))"

Sorry, you had difficulties as the argument it seems clear to me:

1. The Church of Scotland is an institution hence the upper case 'C' and 'S', just as "Church of England".
2. There is widespread use of the term "the Kirk" as a synonym for that institution:
   1. See this BBC article from 2023 for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65645891
   2. The CoS refers to itself as "the Kirk". See their own "about us" page: https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about-us/our-structure
3. Other Wikipedia articles are in line with this argument. See Scottish Reformation

To be clear, I am not arguing for capitalisation of the word "kirk" in general, for instance when used as a modifier (“kirk sessions” or “kirk funds”). Rather, only if the phrase "the Kirk" is used as an shorthand for the institution "the Church of Scotland", both present and historic.

Please outline the opposing arguments. Jp2207 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)