Talk:Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford

A crowd of 200,000?

This must be a mistake. 2,000 would already be a huge crowd for that time and venueZeisseng 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

References

To illustrate my point on references I have provided a Link. The tag at the top of the article has been there for quite some time. [1] You will also notice the efforts which are going into referencing this article. If the information in the article is challenged, you could hardly keep referring to two sources and leave it at that. For example which source for which statement? Another example of a well referenced articles is this, [2]. Now we can hardly expect one standard of referencing for one article, if we are likewise not going to accept it on all articles. Regards--Domer48 09:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Long Parliament

The passage which says there was no choice but to dismiss Parliament in November 1640 and that the Long Parliamnet assembled on 3 November 1640 does not seem to make sense. Should this read "recall parliament" instead of "dismiss" ?--Streona (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Strafford's letter to the king

The impression that the final paragraph of the "The failure of impeachment and the Bill of Attainder" section is that Strafford was prepared to die for the king. Surely we should add a section referencing the view that in fact Strafford's letter was a ploy, and he intended the King to show it to the Lords, and in a similar way to the case of Father Goodman, gain their sympathy? This would explain some of his last words: "Put not your trust in princes". I think Laud also said something on the matter, I can't remember it exactly, something like "He [Charles] knew not how to be great nor how to be made great". I.e, he didn't cotton on to Strafford's plan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.20.173 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Criminal History of the English Government

• Regnault, Eugene (1843), The Criminal History of the English Government, from the First Massacre of the Irish, to the Poisoning of the Chinese, J.S. Redfield, Clinton Hall, pp. 20-21, translated from the French, with notes by an American, publishers J.S. Redfield, Clinton Hall

Given the origin of this book, its date of publication and its title (as well as the contents as displayed in the Wikipedia article) this is a polemic with a strong POV. While the POV may be useful for a sentence or two, I think that the two paragraphs which have been incorporated from the book word for word are unnecessary as the article already summarises the paragraphs with "Wentworth ignored Charles's promise that no colonists should be forced into Connaught,..."

So I am removing the source and the paragraphs that rely on it. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Get rich quick

I think a paragraph on Wentworth running of a regime that allowed men like Sir Philip Perceval to amass 101,000 acres of Irish land, would be a useful addition to this article. -- PBS (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference

There's something wrong if a Google book - Castle, Egerton (1574), English book-plates: ancient and modern, G. Bell & sons, is being cited as a reference for the biography of a man born 19 years after it was printed! Bloody hell, a bit of common sense please! Just because Google screwed on the book's publication date, doesn't mean we need to mindlessly follow them.Catsmeat (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok fixed.Catsmeat (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Jigginstown Castle

Some reference, and a link, to Jigginstown Castle would seem appraoriate, but I'm not sure how or where to work that into the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Bookplate

I think the "Baron Raby" bookplate belongs to the other one - Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford (1672–1739). He inherited the title Baron Raby, by special remainder, and got the Earldom later. This one always had better titles. - FitzwilliamDarcy (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The bookplate states this man to be a Colonel of dragoons but the Lord Strafford who is subject of this article did not see military service. I am removing it and placing it here.Cloptonson (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

1698 bookplate of Thomas Wentworth.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131019142119/http://www.ancestryhost.org/jeanajin/pages/ashfieldheythorpe.htm to http://www.ancestryhost.org/jeanajin/pages/ashfieldheythorpe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

1543 at Becher's Brook '...had to deal with a people who had not arrived at national cohesion'

Great Page, thank you.

'...had to deal with a people who had not arrived at national cohesion.'

I quite admire Strafford and am sympathetic to his overall efforts but will the sun ever set on this particular sentence!

I forget who wrote it but there was a version of Beowulf from the point of view of Grendel, the monster's mother.

Upon reflection, maybe the highlighted sentence should stand, as an exemplar. What appears innocuous to some appears unbalanced and/or plain wrong to others, a far more interesting activity than the mere reporting of facts, surely. It's like a moth preserved in a piece of amber.

It's going to take a while -several hundred years I imagine- but ptolemaic, earth-centered narrative discourse is going to have to make way for a sun-centered Copernican galaxy where imperial endeavours and sentences like this are concerned. Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 09:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As a testament to a bigotted and absurd view of history we should probably allow the following sentence to stand as well "Toward the native Irish, Wentworth had no notion of developing their qualities by a process of natural growth; his only hope for them lay in converting them into Englishmen as soon as possible.". It can go along with the confused interchangeability of Catholic and Irish and the careless acceptance of Wentworth's word that he had "established" a Spanish trade in a nation that had been trading with the Spanish since God was a child.Ematris (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the sort of rubbish that appears in articles that are copied verbatim from obsolete public domain sources written over a hundred years ago. All this is from York 1911. DrKay (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this article biased towards defending the Earl of Strafford? Neutral point of view?

Is this article biased towards defending the Earl of Strafford?

I don't have time to look it up now, but what I remember from the various books I've read on this part of history is that Strafford is most notable for first being one of the biggest enemies of King Charles in Parliament to being his chief minister and being ennobled as Lord Strafford, and that this is one reason Parliament hated him and had him executed.

The article current sounds like it was written by a descendant who wants to ward off criticism of his switching sides.
editeur24 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article is highly misleading. Someone needs to fix it. A scholarly journal article provides a lot f details that could be used. I have omitted its footnotes. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5157&context=uclrev

"As a member of Parliament, Wentworth's greatest success came in 1628, when he orchestrated the King's acquiescence in the enactment of the Petition of Right. But against the intransigence of Charles on the one side and certain members of Parliament on the other, Wentworth's mediating efforts foundered. It was then that Wentworth stunned his contemporaries: He switched sides. Abandoning Parliament, Wentworth threw in his lot with the King and was immediately rewarded with a baronetcy and the leading royal position in his native Yorkshire, Lord President of the North.27 His erstwhile colleagues in Parliament, and Whig historians ever afterwards, have directed at Wentworth the full measure of venom that is appropriate to turncoats. Macaulay pronounced Wentworth to be "the lost Archangel, the Satan of the apostasy; ' a contemporary of Wentworth almost outdid Macaulay, writing that Wentworth was as "libidinous as Tiberius, cruell as Nero, covetous as rich Cressus, as terrible as Phalaris, as mischievous as Sejanus."29

Wentworth, now a baron, took his seat in the House of Lords in 1629. When the Commons in that year refused supplies to the King, Charles had had enough. He dismissed Parliament and threw its leaders, Denzil Holles and John Eliot, in prison, where Eliot would die three years later. That could have been Wentworth's fate, he may have mused to himself; however, a switch in time had saved not only his life, but vastly improved his political fortunes. Within a year Wentworth was elevated to viscount and appointed to a place on the Privy Council."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeur24 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wentwortb was never popular with the King and he was hated by Queen Henrietta Maria. Reading Lady Burghclere's biography and the Earl of Birkenhead's biography along with C.V. Wedgewood's original and reappraisal of Wentworth, you will see that he had to fight to get the King to do right. His transfer to the King's party was similar to Montrose's distancing himself from the Covenanters and even Oliver Cromwell's distancing himself from the Republicans. In Ireland, running an honest administration, and balancing the revenue between Protestants and Catholics (on his appointment to the Ireland job, Wentworth found that 90% of the Irish Revenue was taken from the Irish Catholics' in recusancy fines). I sincerely believe, that in both his position in Yorkshire and his rule of Ireland, he was trying to show the King how to rule, by example. Whatever people may have accused Wentworth of, we should remember that he defended himself against every charge and Parliament had to resort to the Act of Attainder in order to kill him. I see the act of Attainder and execution of Strafford as the 'sand that the Long Parliament was built on'. So, no. Strafford has been misrepresented and unjustly treated by popular history for hundreds of years. It's about time people got to know the bloke. Clarendon said that Wentworth was so used to being surrounded by fools that he ignored advice from anyone. Cromwelled (talk) 11:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with the Vanes.

When Sir Thomas Wentworth was made an Earl by King Charles the first, he also took into himself the title of Baron of Raby, which was quite acceptable because of his Mother's lineage. However; Sir Henry Vane the Elder, who owned Raby Castle, had been angling after that title for years. It was typical of the Young Sir Henry Vane, a manipulator, (Cromwell called him a juggler) that he should discover and then lose a piece of his father's secret notes (privy council) that, twisted in a certain way, made it seem that Wentworth had suggested using the army that he had raised in Ireland to subdue Charles' English subjects, rather than the Scots that Wentworth referred to. Pim and the Vanes manipulated the situation. The Presbyterians in Parliament regarded Wentworth as 'apostate'.... His treatment of the Irish Catholics' was too lenient... An accusation aimed later at both Oliver and his son Henry Cromwell. Cromwelled (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Parliament thought Oliver Cromwell had been "too lenient" in Ireland? Wot?

HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)