Talk:Western Remonstrance

The committee of estates paid
Re "The committee of estates paid ignored to the first remonstrance" Is this referring to a "Committee of estates" or a "committee of estates paid"? If the former could this be better expressed as "The Committee of Estates paid no heed to the first remonstrance"?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * From the citation: "The committee of estates paid no regard to this remonstrance, a circumstance which gave such umbrage to Warriston and the leaders of the western army, that they drew up another, couched in still stronger language, on the thirtieth of October, at Dumfries,..."


 * I intended to write ignored for "paid no regard", but change it to something else if you think it is more appropriate -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That works for me.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Western Remonstrance was drawn up
I think we need something in here to define what it was, was it an Act a petition or something more like the covenant? The Western Remonstrance was an Act of the Scottish Parliament/Covenant signed by most Scottish Presbyterians/pamphlet  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Petition is probably the closest synonym, but remonstrance is a correct word in itself. the OED defines it as: "A formal statement of grievances or similar matters of public importance, presented to a governing body or monarch; a petition."


 * There was an act of the Scottish Parliament that said "malignants" (the word of Royalists used by anti-royalists north and south of the border) could not hold public office (including the army) in Scotland. The people who signed this remonstrance (petition) took the wider view that this included not only people who had supported Montrose but also those who had sighed the Engagement (1647). The Engagers had put the Kirk party which had its major support in the West of Lowland Scotland in their place at the Battle of Mauchline Muir and had gone off to fight the  Battle of Preston (1648) where they lost, so the Kirk party launched the Whiggamore Raid and ceased power. But with Charles Treaty of Breda (1650), the Royalists and Engagers swept back into positions of influence which the more anti-royalist members of the Kirk party tried to prevent. This remonstance was part of that process, but by now the anti-royalist members of the Kirk party were becoming a minority in Parliament and the Kirk.


 * If you are not already aware of just how extreme these people were, one only has to read the Kirk party article which says that in the month before the Battle of Dunbar the Kirk party chose to institute a searching three day examination of the political and religious sentiments of the Scottish army. The result was that the army was purged of "Malignants", 80 officers and 3,000 experienced soldiers, while it lay within musket shot of the enemy. Their ranks were to some extent made up with replacements with strong spiritual beliefs but little military experience.
 * -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was told to explain why I requested an image
A picture of the document itself, or artwork from the period depicting the signing of it or its aftermath, would be useful for the article. That is patently obvious-since to some it is apparently not, here's the rationale.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)