Jump to content

User:Smallus Editus/Treaty of Uxbridge: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m working draft
m working draft
Line 27: Line 27:
| <!-- political moderate / religious moderate -->
| <!-- political moderate / religious moderate -->
<div style="column-count: 2;">{{plainlist}}
<div style="column-count: 2;">{{plainlist}}
* Charles I <ref>Various sources blame the failure of talks on the king's stubbornness. However, the proceedings from the event reveal a pattern of Parliament proposing absurdly one-sided measures, the King responding with proposals that meet them halfway, and Parliament refusing to budge. Given that the proceedings likely reflect the work of secretaries allied with Parliament (Thurloe and Earle), it is reasonable to suppose they were not unduly biased to favor the king.<br/>{{cite book |last=Rushworth |first=John |chapter=Historical Collections: The treaty at Uxbridge, 1645 |pages=787-843 |editor-last=Browne |editor-first=D |title=Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: Volume 5, 1642-45 |year=1721 |orig-year=orig. before 1690 |location=London |via=[http://www.british-history.ac.uk British History Online] |url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rushworth-papers/vol5/pp787-843 |access-date=20 May 2020}}</ref>
* Charles I <ref>Various sources blame the failure of talks on the king's stubbornness (c.f. [[Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of Northumberland#Conversion to the peace faction|Algernon Percy § Conversion to the peace faction]]). However, the proceedings from the event reveal a pattern of Parliament proposing absurdly one-sided measures, the King responding with proposals that meet them halfway, and Parliament refusing to budge. Given that the proceedings likely reflect the work of secretaries allied with Parliament (Thurloe and Earle), it is reasonable to suppose their reporting was not unduly biased to favor the king.<br/>{{cite book |last=Rushworth |first=John |chapter=Historical Collections: The treaty at Uxbridge, 1645 |pages=787-843 |editor-last=Browne |editor-first=D |title=Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: Volume 5, 1642-45 |year=1721 |orig-year=orig. before 1690 |location=London |via=[http://www.british-history.ac.uk British History Online] |url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rushworth-papers/vol5/pp787-843 |access-date=20 May 2020}}</ref>
* John Ashburnham
* John Ashburnham
* Arthur Capel
* Arthur Capel

Revision as of 20:04, 21 May 2020

Attitudes

Religious hard-liner
Insists that church government throughout the Three Kingdoms be episcopalian (Royalist) or presbyterian (Roundhead).
Political hard-liner
Insists that full control over taxation and the military goes to the King (Royalist) or Parliament (Roundhead).
Moderate
Willing to compromise on these issues.

There were other issues (e.g., pardon for combatants), but these two issues dominated the debates.
Parliamentary commissioners are in italics. Scottish commissioners are in small font.

  Religious
Moderate Unknown Hard-liner
Political Moderate
  • Charles I [1]
  • John Ashburnham
  • Arthur Capel
  • John Colepeper
  • Francis Leigh
  • Francis Seymour
  • William Seymour
  • Thomas Wriothesley
  • John Crew
  • Basil Feilding
  • Nathaniel Hardy
  • Philip Herbert
  • Denzil Holles
  • William Pierpont
  • Edmund Prideaux
  • Bulstrode Whitelocke
  • John Campbell
  • Algernon Percy
  • Edward Hyde
  • Archibald Campbell
  • Alexander Henderson
  • John Maitland
Unknown
  • Orlando Bridgeman
  • Thomas Gardiner
  • Christopher Hatton
  • Henry, Kingston
  • Jeoffry Palmer
  • William, Salisbury
  • Thomas Wenman
  • Robert Barclay
  • John Bolmerino
  • George Dundas
  • Charles Erskins
  • Hugh Kennedy
  • John Smith
  • Henry Hammond
  • Gilbert Sheldon
  • Richard Steward
  • Stephen Marshall
  • Richard Vines
Hard-liner
  • James Stewart
  • Edward Nicholas
  • Oliver St John
  • Henry Vane[2]
  • Archibald Johnston

References

  1. ^ Various sources blame the failure of talks on the king's stubbornness (c.f. Algernon Percy § Conversion to the peace faction). However, the proceedings from the event reveal a pattern of Parliament proposing absurdly one-sided measures, the King responding with proposals that meet them halfway, and Parliament refusing to budge. Given that the proceedings likely reflect the work of secretaries allied with Parliament (Thurloe and Earle), it is reasonable to suppose their reporting was not unduly biased to favor the king.
    Rushworth, John (1721) [orig. before 1690]. "Historical Collections: The treaty at Uxbridge, 1645". In Browne, D (ed.). Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: Volume 5, 1642-45. London. pp. 787–843. Retrieved 20 May 2020 – via British History Online. {{cite book}}: External link in |via= (help)
  2. ^ https://archive.org/details/england05claruoft