Talk:Declaration of Breda

So, what does it say?

This article is long on the Declaration's history, and very short on its contents. It should be expanded.Scott Adler (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying to Wikisource

While including the text would address the comment of the above section, it is also a violation of Wikipedia policy. I have neither the time nor the stomach to parse 17th-century legal language right now, so could somebody summarize the contents of the text prior to copying? Thank you. Lockesdonkey (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on terminology

made known the conditions of his acceptance of the crown of England

Where are the conditions in the declaration? The document begins from Charles the King so where is the acceptance?

the declaration cemented the terms of the English Restoration

The declaration is aimed at all his Kingdoms not just England, what were the terms and how were they cemented?

prospective King of England

How was he merely propsective, were there any other choices?

--Utinomen (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have made a bold edit I have reverted it please do not revert again until you have consensus here for the changes.

It had been made clear to Charles if he wanted the throne he would need to make it clear what his conditions were before his return would be politically acceptable. As to what the other kingdoms did as they were under English military occupation the grandees of those countries had little choice but to accept whatever the English dictated. Now the wording may not be perfect but it is a lot better than the wording that you replaced it with:

"The Declaration of Breda (issued on April 4, 1660) was a proclamation made by Charles II of England, in the eleventh year of his reign, ..."

It is not generally done to emphasise that he was in the 11 year of his reign this is misleading as most sources discussing the deceleration do not emphasise that legal aspect, to do so is rather like trying to insist that the a pretender was in such and such a year of his reign. Charles was no king of England until proclaimed so by parliament, to pretend any different is to pretend that the Civil War did not have a profound affect on the relationship between Parliament and the the Crown. Charles's political position was not so strong that he could afford to ignore English public opinion. -- PBS (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"It is not generally done", in your school, where? How can a statement of fact be misleading? (and it is a bit worrying that an editor is worried about the inclusion of facts) I accept that sources do not emphasise it and an not a stickler on the point. And he is not just King of England but Ireland and Scotland as well - this is rank anglocentrism! You have not addresed the points made above. It is entirely false to portray the Declaration as some of conditional contract for the return of Charless II. I can see there is no consensus for maintaining an edit that is misleading. I am re-editing - with sources. Please do not revert unless you can provide some sources.--Utinomen (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you accept "It is not generally done to emphasise that he was in the 11 year of his reign this is misleading as most sources discussing the deceleration do not emphasise that legal aspect" why revert from the original text an edit that does emphasise it?

You may not like it being Anglo-centric, but the Deceleration is exclusively addressed to the English (see s:Declaration of Breda). It starts with a formal statement of his titles "Charles, by the Grace of God, king of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c." but do you really think it is addressed to Frenchmen? If that first sentence is missed out the rest of the document is about the a political settlement for England eg:

• "the whole kingdom" not kingdoms,
• "which we are ready upon demand to pass under our Great Seal of England, to all our subjects, of what degree or quality soever, who within forty days after the publishing hereof shall lay hold upon this our grace and favour, and shall by any public act declare their doing so, and that they return to the loyalty and obedience of good subjects (excepting only such persons as shall hereafter be excepted by parliament)." English Seal and parliament not parliaments.
• "And we do further declare, that we will be ready to consent to any act or acts of parliament to the purposes aforesaid, and for the full satisfaction of all arrears due to the officers and soldiers of the army under the command of General Monk" again not parliaments but parliament (do you really think that the Scottish parliament would have been willing to pay for the English occupation of their country).

Let us discuss the changes you want to make first and agree to them instead of editwarring over them.---PBS (talk)

But the Declaration was read by the Irish and Scots as well. The document may have ostentsibly been written for England but any restoration in any one of his Kingdoms would have impacted on the other Kingdoms. Was there any similar Declaration for Ireland and Scotland, if not why not?

The change that has to be made is to remove any sense that the Declaration was some sort of conditional contract for Charles' return as that cannot be substantiated. My suggestion is at the very least remove the unreferenced "made known the conditions of his acceptance of the crown of England" and at some point restore the referenced "What the Declaration "did not do was provide a blueprint for a constitutional settlement" " --Utinomen (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"If not why not" this was about power politics. Scotland and Ireland were military occupied countries. Charles was already King of Scotland, so if he were in power in England, then the Scots would be crazy not to be willing to have the old constitutional arrangements back in place, so he could put their consent to one side. As for Ireland if you are holding the tiger by the tail (as were the English in Ireland) you would be more than insane to oppose any constitutional arrangement that London agreed to, and I suspect that if you look in detail the Irish Catholics probably reckoned they would get a better deal under Charles (after all they had fought for him in 1649++)than under any possible London alternatives. But I am sure that if you look around at Scottish and Irish history books there will be references to letters between the King in Exile and the important players in those countries at this time (Ormonde, one of the most important Irish players was with him in exile). But this particular document is about an English constitutional settlement and not a British wide settlement.

"The change that has to be made ..." I don't think that is correct as this is the standard explanation see for example The Routledge companion to the Stuart age, 1603-1714 By John Wroughton p. 160:

RESTORATION, 1660 Charles II was invited to regain the throne by the Convention Parliament, after he had issued the Deceleration of Breda. In the agreed settlement, parliament ratified the king's right to dissolve parliament, appoint his own ministers, conduct foreign policy, command the armed forces and veto legislation. He was however, denied the right to continue with some practices adopted earlier in the century — namely, to employ the courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, to impose taxes without parliament's consent and to amend the law by royal proclamation.

As a Google search on [Monck Hyde "Declaration of Breda" ] shows that the deceleration was part of the negotiations for the Return of the King. See for example Life and administration of Edward, first Earl of Clarendon: with original ...By Thomas Henry Lister 489–502 To undestand the politics that were going on it is necessary to read all the pages but for specific proof that the deceleration was part of those negotiations see the text on page 497

[Monck's] kinsman, Sir John Grenville, after having been often foiled, at length obtained a private interview, through the intervention of Morrice, a gentleman of Devonshire, who was the private friend of each ; and took this opportunity of delivering to Monk a letter from the King. Monk received it, and acknowledged that he was friendly to the King, which he refused to declare openly, because surrounded by those whose intentions were doubtful; and he consented to return a verbal answer, on the condition that Grenville should bear it himself. The answer was written, and shown to Grenville, who was desired to commit its contents to memory; and when he had so done the writing was burnt. It contained a request that the King would send a conciliatory letter, to be laid by Monk before the Parliament, promising a pardon which should be almost general, liberty of conscience, the confirmation of all sales of crown and church lands, and forfeited estates, and the payment of arrears to the army.(cites: Clar. Hist. Reb. vii. 441—447). Thus instructed, Grenville repaired the King at Brussels, bearing also a request from Monk that to Charles would quit the Spanish territory, for there was reason to believe that the Spaniards would attempt to detain him as a hostage for Dunkirk and Jamaica.

--PBS (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

How did you come to the conlusion [John Wroughton's] is the standard explanation? The quote is from the author's glossary! I counter with

"The English Convention which recalled Charles II did not impose any conditions on the restored monarch; it simply sought to return to the position on the eve of the Civil War" Tim Harris, Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms 1660-1685 p 47. I am not claiming that is the standard explanation but it is specific whereas the Wroughton one ambiguous. I therefore suggest I have a direct reference for my suggested edit in keepting with WP:Source--Utinomen (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or in other words, The Declaration of Breda is an irrelevancy to Charles's restoration.--Utinomen (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the earlier reference material but made no other changes. I have already indicated above what that changes should be, and given indication of a possible further referenced suggestion above.--Utinomen (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have moved a comment you made down to the end of the comment it was inserted into (not because I dissagree with news group style interjections but because it was not indented and it was not easy to reply there) and modified the word "it" to "[John Wroughton's]" so it is clear what it referred to.

John Wroughton's comments at the standard interpretation of the the role that the deceleration played in the negotiations that lead to the restoration of the monarchy in England. That was only meant to be a sample. I am puzzled by your response is this a subject that you know anything about, because surly I am not saying anything about the standard interpretation that is controversial?

You quoted "The English Convention which recalled Charles II did not impose any conditions on the restored monarch; it simply sought to return to the position on the eve of the Civil War" But that is the rub, Why did the civil war take place? At the start of the Civil War there were different opinions as to what "the position" was and "the position" returned to was the constitutional position of the moderate Parliamentary side, not that of Charles I or that of the Levellers. So saying "the position" is ambiguous and Wroughton's summation of the position is accurate. Added to the formal discussion was of course the zeitgeist of the times, the events of the preceding 20 years, the Civil War, the execution of Charles I and Charles II exile, and the Rule of the Major Generals, and the anarchy of the second Commonwealth, encouraged restraint on all parties.

I am not sure how you conclude that ".. in other words, The Declaration of Breda is an irrelevancy to Charles's restoration." It was not an irrelevancy it was part of the negotiations and formed the basis of many of the decisions taken by Parliament. For example:

• "general pardon" except those exempted by parliament.
• Religious freedom, under an act of parliament.
• Property rights over the last 20 years to remain intact but the details to be decided by parliament. --This was a major concession, because many Cavaliers had lost their fortunes to the cause, but equally many had gained, and as they now controlled the property, many would have opposed the restoration if they thought they would automatically lose their properties (basically Charles shafted the Cavaliers as they were already on side and he needed the support of the "many officers, soldiers and others, who are now possessed of the same").
• Army to be taken care of. Very important as it bought (not brought) the rank and file, and undermined the likes of General Lambert.

These were the four major points that needed to be sorted out, and as Hyde was a clever politician, because by drafting it in such a way as he did, he threw most of the detail back onto parliament, but the four major points are addressed by this deceleration. -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read again the Wroughton example you gave: does it state that the restoration was conditional upon an agreed set of conditions called the Declaration of Breda? No. My argument is as above that the Delcaration is not in anyway a set of contractual conditions. The Declaration is then irrelevant in the sense that it cannot be construed as anything more than political propaganda (intent), as you note it is just "part of the negotiations", the real activity is in the Conventions, and Monck's control of the army. If there is no reference for "conditions" or "terms" in the article then they should be removed. I suggested "aims", but anything such as "intent" or any other neutral wording be equally acceptable?--Utinomen (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, you have to read Lister (he also has a second half to the chapter where he agues from a monarchist POV that no terms could be placed on the king). But see from the above extract "[Moncks secret letter] contained a request that the King would send a conciliatory letter, to be laid by Monk before the Parliament, promising a pardon which should be almost general, liberty of conscience, the confirmation of all sales of crown and church lands, and forfeited estates, and the payment of arrears to the army." It is those points that were politically pressing and which the deceleration answered very cleverly, by passing the buck back to Parliament. The real clever part is that in buck passing it showed that Charles II would not make the mistake his father had made and ignore the will of Parliament, while simultaneously leaving open very large loophole that if the next parliament was favourable to the Cavalier cause then they could alter the conditions laid out in Breda. But without the deceleration it is doubtful if the majority of those who mattered would have been willing to have the king back, so it was a deceleration of terms/conditions for want of a better phrase, and I am open to one eg "deceleration of the kings position on the four most political pressing and pertinent issues"?). -- PBS (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that the Declaration was conciliatory and may have 'smoothed the way' I am arguing that it is incorrect to indicate/imply it was contractual or had conditions because that is not a fact.--Utinomen (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It did have contractual implications because of the concept of "my word is my bond", this was a statement delineating his course of actions. He could have ignored Monck's request to take such a step and left left his options completely open, or he could have laid out other prerequisites for example he could of made it a precondition that the living regicides had to be arrested and impeached for treason (no trail needed), that royal and church property must be restored and that the standing army in England must be disbanded before he would come back. -- PBS (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not present any sources to back up what I just wrote because I had assumed it was common knowledge but obviously if you are asking you do not know. A Google search on [conditions "Declaration of Breda"] here are a some from the first few pages:

• The Early Stuarts 1603-1660 by Godfrey Davies p.255
• A manual of the English constitution: with a review of its rise, growth, and ... by David Rowland pp. 388,389.
• History of the counter-revolution in England, for the re-establishment of ... by Armand Carrel p. 53, points our the allusions that many have of it.
• Two Hundred Years Ago, D. Mountfield p. 61 Breda described as a "compact" and see also in the footnotes the comment on what Clarendon (Charles's chief minister) thought.

I think that this source Britain in Revolution: 1625-1660 by Austin Woolrych p. 775 has wording that we can use that best sums up the document "voluntary pledges". --PBS (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it is not common knowledge - it is your belief.

• The Woolrych one clearly states "The Declaration of Breda pulled the rug from under the feet of those who still sought to set conditions for the Restoration". promised does not mean contractual, obligatory or conditional
• D Mountfield's work (written two hundred years ago by the looks of it - and can hardly be claimed to be work of an objective historian) as you note interprets it not as contractual, obligatory or conditional.
• Armand Carrel's work (another up-to-date text I see) definitely cannot be claimed to be the work of an objective historian! And it does not state that the Declaration was contractual, obligatory or conditional!
• Rowland (this book's been around for some time as well!) again no contractual, obligatory or conditional, indeed the note says "intention". p392 has The Commons told the King that the Declaration was only to do what parliament should advise; "nor could it be otherwise understood"
• Davies does not actually state that the Declaration was contractual, obligatory or conditional!

Did you actually read any of your sources? There is no point in engaging in this useless exchange any further. I will make the necessary edits.--Utinomen (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to reach a for of wording that we agree upon is not a useless exchange, it is how consensus is reached on Wikipedia. now I think we should pursue this further so I am going to put in a request for a third party opinion on this, and once we have agreed changes we can then implement them. -- PBS (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am now going to revert your changes subject to a third party opinion. As I see it we can either agree to a formula of words such as "voluntary pledges" to describe what it was or we can simply put in more detail. The trouble is that that needs to go into the main article rather than the lead, as the lead should be a summary rather than containing details better placed in the body of the article. -- PBS (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm here due to a plea posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. I spent the last 45 minutes studying the arguments above and the edit history. You guys are arguing all sorts of points, but I see the dispute as centered on the phrasing resulting from one word: "conditions". That is what I will provide an opinion on here. The details I will leave up to you.

Looking at what the body of the article says, as well as the sources quoted above, it seems clear to me that the declaration of Breda consisted not of conditions that Charles required to re-take his throne (as the current version of the lead implies), but rather of promises he had to make to appease those who might challenge his return to power.

Therefore, I recommend that the lead remove reference to "conditions" as Utinomen advocates.

However, I don't particularly care for Utinomen's revision, either. "Aims and intentions" is redundant. The next sentence "What it did not do was..." seems quite awkward for an encyclopedia article to begin by describing what the subject is not. Referring to "eleventh year of his reign" (further back in the edit history) also seems irrelevant to me, and thankfully that phrase doesn't appear in the most recent reversions. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The new revision looks reasonable except for minor spelling and grammar errors, which I just corrected. There are still a couple of problems, however:

• The lead is a bit too long. This can be fixed by removing the last sentence and tightening up the wording if possible.
• The lead section of an article should summarize the contents of the article. The last sentence about Matthew Hale isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. The sentence doesn't seem important enough for the lead, so I suggest moving that sentence to the body of the article and expanding it if needed.

I hope that this revision is acceptable to both parties in this dispute. It adds sufficient detail without couching the Declaration in terms of conditions. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I put the Matthew Hale sentence there to address the concerns of user:Utinomen that the declaration had no conditions attached to it. I am happy either to leave sentence in the lead or have it moved into the body of the text. I will leave it to user:Utinomen to decide where it goes. -- PBS (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the third opinion, thanks.--Utinomen (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Three lost, etc. plus one up for sale

The bit about three being lost, one for sale, etc. seems to be useful/interesting:
'Milestone' document that helped restore the British monarchy goes on sale § Lingzhi (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)