Talk:Bishops' Wars

message: There is a simple matter of fact that needs to be clarified here: the Church of Scotland in 1637 had an episcopal and not a presbyterian structure.  James VI, by skilful manipulation of both Parliament and the General Assembly of the church, had gradually introduced a full panel of bishops in the early part of the seventeenth century. Charles I, through arrogance and lack of judgement, effectively pulled the whole structure down.  The National Covenant was not specifically directed against bishops, but against the attempt to introduce innovations, specifically the 1637 Prayer Book, that had not first been tested by free parliaments and general assemblies of the church.  The role of the bishops only became an issue in the radicalization that followed on from Charles' refusal to take heed on the concerns of his northern kingdom.  Bishops were formally outlawed-without royal approval-during the course of the Glasgow General assembly of November 1638.
Rcpaterson 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles and the Bishops. 

message: I've made some small amendments in the section dealing with James and the Church.  The king did not allow the General Assembly to continue to manage the church: it was he who managed the General Assembly.  Assemblies were only allowed to meet by royal approval; and James made sure that when they did meet it was in the more conservative north of Scotland, thus ensuring that those in attendance were more likely to support procedural and liturgical changes.  After 1618 no assembly was to gather for twenty years.
Rcpaterson 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  James and the Bishops. 

message: An infobox and map would greatly improve this article.  At present, there is a lot of information but it reads like a history book instead of an encyclopedia - some rearrangement of the text and more headings might fix that.  Also, should there be separate battle pages for the battles?  -- Medains 08:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: 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) 10:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum]] 

message: This article could use an outcome section of some sort. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  So who won? 

message: @Robinvp11, re your recent change which states "kirk is not capitalised (I've learnt the the hard way))"
Sorry, you had difficulties as the argument it seems clear to me:
# The Church of Scotland is an institution hence the upper case 'C' and 'S', just as "Church of England".
# There is widespread use of the term "the Kirk" as a synonym for that institution: 
## See this BBC article from 2023 for example: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-65645891
## The CoS refers to itself as "the Kirk". See their own "about us" page: https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about-us/our-structure
# Other Wikipedia articles are in line with this argument. See Scottish Reformation
To be clear, I am not arguing for capitalisation of the word "kirk" in general, for instance when used as a modifier (“kirk sessions” or  “kirk funds”). Rather, only if the phrase "the Kirk" is used as an shorthand for the institution "the Church of Scotland", both present and historic. 
Please outline the opposing arguments. Jp2207 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  kirk versus "the Kirk"