Talk:Wars of the Three Kingdoms/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cute title?

Now that's a cute title! Someone's been hanging at websites like Kingwars.cm "The romance of the three Kingdoms" or History Today? The reader of this entry should be aware that there is often a subtext to the retitling of events. This new title being given to the struggles that tore apart the social fabric everywhere in the British Isles emphasizes one fact and de-emphasizes another. The new expression reminds the reader that though Charles I of England was also King of Scotland and King of Ireland, those kingdoms were simply united in his person. It is just as if a historian refused to call Fredinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile King and Queen of Spain, for the crowns were united only in their heir. At the same time, the new title serves to de-emphasize the fact that this was a civil war, and keeps it on the level of a political event. Wetman 23:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It does de-emphasise the English dimension of the civil war but I think that the English dimension has been over-emphasised in the past so I think it is good to have a more balanced approach - after all the conflict did originate in Scotland and then trigger of the civil war in England when Charles had to raise taxes in the English Parliament to fund the war in Scotland. It is important to remember that Charles was having to juggle the differing interests of 3 kingdoms (Covenanters in Scotland, Confederates in Ireland and Parliamentarians in England). However, I'm not sure whether the title 'Wars of the Three Kingdoms' is meant to totally replace the term 'English Civil War' it gives a wider perspective, but does not mean that each of the three kingdoms was not undergoing its own civil war, The civil war in England was still a civil war in its own right. It was just that Charles had to cope with 3 sets of conflicts in each of his kingdoms at the same time, and these conflicts became interlinked as each set of insurgents tried to gain alliances with groups in one of the other countries, and exploited the weaknesses caused to Charles in having to deal with varying conflicting interests. --Cap 00:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

British Civil War

Please see British Isles#Subsequent political history and British Isles#Problems with modern usage and Talk:English Civil War#British Civil Wars.

As Britain was not a political entity to use the term is misleading. PBS 16:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talk of the British Civil Wars is not at all misleading. James I and VI proclaimed himself 'King of Great Britain' and Charles I called himself 'the Second King of Great Britain', etc. The fact that the Act of Union did not take place until Queen Anne's reign did not stop the seventeenth century Briton referring to the entire geographical/political entity under the Stuart monarchy as Great Britain - and so therefore it is plausible to talk about British Civil Wars as opposed to the anglo centric 'English Civil Wars' (which at all twists and turns involved the Scots and the Irish). The Act of Union was not the thing that created Great Britain (that was the accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne) - the Act of Union united the legislature of the three Stuart kingdoms into the Parliament at Westminster.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr V (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I have a serious problem with the opening of this article:

The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, also misleadingly called the British Civil Wars (since the kingdoms were not a single political entity until the Act of Union 1800)

My problem is with the word "misleadingly" -- which advocates one specific POV on the matter. Are there other ways this opening can be rephrased? Is it possible either to admit that a student of history can look at the facts in a different way, or to explain to the reader that this is a term used to cover more events than the English Civil War, & which events can be shown to be interrelated? -- llywrch 02:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English Civil War of 1650-1651??

What is this meant to mean? There was a conflict between the Scots and the English in this period, but I find it hard to see that this should primarily be described as an "English Civil War". The Campaign of 1650 took place entirely in Scotland, and that of 1651 was essentially a Scottish invasion of England - only a few English troops (largely those of the Earl of Derby, I think) took part on Charles's side. The intro, in general, seems to suggest a bit much that conflicts in the three kingdoms were separate. But Scottish involvement in the English conflict was incredibly important, and I think it's really troublesome to try to separate out the Scottish conflicts after 1642 from the concurrent English conflict. (Ireland is a different matter). john k 08:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Its a very tricky one. In some ways, the Scottish civil war of 1644-47 had a very tenous connection with the English civil war, because it partly consisted of a clan war between the MacDonalds and Campbells, partly an Irish confederate invasion of Scotland and partly a genuine civil war between Scots over whether the King or the Covenanters were sovereign. re the 1650-51 campaign, this is a fair point, it was basically an English-Scottish war, but the convention has been to call it the third English civil war. Having said that, if you think some editing would improve it, please go ahead. Jdorney 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

A Scottish Crown

On hearing of the death of Charles I the Scots government immediately proclaimed his son as Charles II in February 1649, using all of his father's royal titles. However, he was finally crowned in January 1651 only as King of Scotland, the Scots having no right also to crown him as king of England and Ireland. There was no plan, it has to be stressed, to invade England on his behalf. Even so, Charles' very presence in Scotland was a threat to the security of the Commonwealth, hence Cromwell's invasion.

One further minor edit. I removed a reference to Cromwell embarking on a 'further' conquest of Scotland in 1650, as there was no conquest prior to this campaign. Although he advanced to Edinburgh in the wake of his defeat of Hamilton at Preston in 1648, this was in support of the new government headed by Argyll. Rcpaterson 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not at all correct - there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Argyle, in the name of a Covenant engaged Charles II was planning an invasion of England in 1651. Once Charles II had taken the Covenant (the price he had to pay to be crown King of Scotland) preparations were underway throughout 1651 to link the forces of Argyle with English forces in North West England. At the same time the Scots were in contact with London Presbyterians to cause insurections in South East England (hence the execution of Christopher Love for his role in the plot). This is all old hat stuff, see Gardiner History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate Vol II p.12-17— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr V (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Need material for the American colonies during the war.

Also need to expand so that French interaction and/or opinion is included. Hasbro 18:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wars of the Three Kingdoms ?

Wars of the Three Kingdoms ?........ I don't think this title is correct. During this conflict there were not three Kingdoms. Scotland and England had been under the same Crown since 1603, as one Kingdom. This conflict has always been known as the Civil War or English Civil War or Scottish Civil War depending on the action in question. I have added the final part of this war on Royalist rising of 1651 to 1654. All info is proper and correct and sourced. Psycotics1454 21:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and England were not "one Kingdom" in the 17th century. They were two kingdoms, in personal union. They became one kingdom with the Act of Union in 1707. Similarly, Britain and Hannover were later to be in personal union under the house of Hannover, but remained separate kingdoms. (I don't like the original article, but its title does make a valid point.) Maproom 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're quite wrong, I'm afraid. England Scotland and Ireland were three distinct kingdoms, united by the same monarch. Jdorney 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And, as stated above, people at the time used the title 'Great Britain' to represent the nations under the Stuart crown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.75.28 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Intrigued to see this, and very glad. In Cornwall, this cycle of events is often referred to as 'The War of the Five Peoples'. Will dig up a few citations. Whathojeeves 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

One theory among many

From the article:

Some historians have seen this period as one of General Crisis in Europe, characterised by the rebellion of conservative societies against centralising absolutist monarchs.

"Some historians" are weasel words without a citation. It can equally be seen as a religious conflict as with the Thirty Years War, but it is far more complicated than that. The English civil war was a true civil war instead of a war that can be described as predominantly an ethnic, or regional, or religious or class conflict. This is personified by Winston Churchill (1620-1688) the father of John Churchill: Winston fought for the Royalists was bankrupted by the conflict and ended up living in Ash House, the home of Lady Eleanor Drake, Winston's mother in law, who had supported the Parliamentary cause.

As soon as one expands the conflict to include the other wars then there are a myriad of other factors as not only are the civil wars fought in all the counties involved all with their own reasons, there are also the overlapping invasions by forces from one faction or another into a foreign realm. For example the long standing an bloody clan fude between the Clan Campbell and Clan MacDonald was part of the wars in Scotland and also the primary reason for the Rathlin Island massacre. It also seems to me that the Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish has little to do with the "rebellion of conservative societies" and much more to do with religious intolerance after all no similar Ordinance was pass against the Scots -- although after the Battle of Worcester captured Scots were shipped out the Americas to work on the plantations as indentured labourers (slaves).

There is a whole section in the English Civil War article called Theories relating to the English Civil War and I don't think this article should dismiss a very complicated issue with one weasel worded sentence tacked onto the end of the first paragraph. --PBS (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Calendar

Do the WP articles on this topic use the Julian calender or the Gregorian to represent dates? Drutt (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

They will use Julian as Gegorian dates were not to be made for about a century in England. 78.145.239.168 (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Text removed from Religious confrontation in Scotland

In In some respects, this revolt also represented Scottish resentment at being sidelined within the Stuart monarchies since James I's accession to the throne of England. Beam 00:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Source? Seems like mind-reading. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Info box not responsive

The info box and image are not displaying full width on xs screen. Ryansb90 (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Confused

Excuse me, I am not a native speaker of English. Can someone pls tell me what does the word "Proper" mean in this part?

"The English Civil War proper has become the best-known of these conflicts;"

Thanks for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.209.43 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry no one's responded to this in two years. "Proper" in this context means "in a narrow sense" as opposed to "greater" meaning "in a broad sense". For example, "Boston Proper" refers to the historical center of Boston, a/k/a "downtown". Boston Proper is a much smaller area than is contained in its modern city limits. "Greater Boston" refers to the entire metropolitan area, including suburbs, and is much larger than city limits. In the quote above, what is meant is the First English Civil War, possibly in connection with Second English Civil War, but as distinct from the other wars that collectively make up the Wars of the Three Kingdoms a/k/a the British Civil War. 2001:558:6017:107:D5B4:958E:C45E:CAE4 (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Cute title? Part 2

See Archive 1: Cute title?, British Civil War and Wars of the Three Kingdoms ?

I also thought it was a good idea to bring together all the links to events which are scattered over different pages on this site, and this page brings them together on one page.

'Wars of the Three Kingdoms' strikes me as somewhere between precious and pedantic. We should remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is intended for use by the general public, not by specialists. Of course it is true that the "English Civil War" is not literally sufficient for the activities in Scotland and Ireland – but it does reflect the political reality that the action was overwhelmingly dominated by the English (and if you really want to be "accurate", how do you cope with Wales? 'Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Principality', perhaps? And then there are the Channel Isles and the Isle of Man, and the colonies over the ocean...). This unhelpful name to me is all of a piece with the enthusiasts who change the German navy to the "Kriegsmarine", or who change all ancient Greek names to a new spelling convention which is mysteriously supposed to be closer to the Greek alphabet (like "Konstantinoupolis" or "Ioustinianos"). Can we revert to something which most people will recognise? Deipnosophista (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I second these concerns. A resource such as wikipedia shouldn't be used to advance new theses using terms that impede a non-specialist user consulting the pages.JF42 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thirded. Another factor that hasn't been explicitly mentioned is that the title doesn't give any clues as to which Kingdoms are involved! So it's definitely unhelpful. I would propose 'British and Irish civil wars' Mabandalone (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Do we have a consensus? Will anyone do the actual name change? Creuzbourg (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, "The Wars of the Three Kingdoms" is a widely used term in the historiography of the English Civil Wars (J.G.A. Pocock, "The Atlantic Archipelago and the War of the Three Kingdoms", John Morrill, "Renaming England's Wars of Religion". It definitely comes from a certain strain of historical writing about the war (albeit a pretty dominant one nowadays). No issue with changing it to 'British and Irish Civil Wars' for ease of recognition though (although some historians would dispute that all the wars constituted civil wars!). FreshPrince97 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Against using British in the title. British is an inaccurate term for the wars. It also make it even more confusing than it is. For example Scottish armies fought in Ireland and in England. But they were foreign armies fighting in someone else's civil war. This is why the Bishop's War which was the first war in this conflict is not a civil war but a war between two sovereign states who happened to share a monarch. For those who do not realise that it would be another 150 years before there was a united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, calling this the British Civil wars is inaccurate and misleading, particularly for those who are unfamiliar which the term British and/or these wars. -- PBS (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

For. The omission of the word 'Civil' as an identifier in the article title is clearly unhelpful and using the differences between 'United Kingdom' and 'Britain' as above in this context does not disqualify the term 'British' as meaningful in the 17th century. I will therefore revise as per the consensus. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

As you'll have seen with the things that broke when you made this edit, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms title is used for many other things in addition to this page, including templates, other page names, and categories. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus anywhere for the specific new title you have chosen (and this has not been discussed at all for getting on for five years). Given the potentially large changes needed, which extend far beyond this single article, I would suggest you start a new section at the bottom of this page and seek explicit feedback for for your plans. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)