A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 4, 2008, April 4, 2011, April 4, 2012, and April 4, 2015. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Where are the conditions in the declaration? The document begins from Charles the King so where is the acceptance?
The declaration is aimed at all his Kingdoms not just England, what were the terms and how were they cemented?
How was he merely propsective, were there any other choices?
-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- [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.
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 4, 2008, April 4, 2011, April 4, 2012, and April 4, 2015. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Where are the conditions in the declaration? The document begins from Charles the King so where is the acceptance?
The declaration is aimed at all his Kingdoms not just England, what were the terms and how were they cemented?
How was he merely propsective, were there any other choices?
-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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.
- [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.
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:
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)
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)
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 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)