No description available.

No description available.

Scottish military offensives against England from 1369 were largely the product of governmental policy, and involved the participation of much of the political community of the realm. They were launched with careful timing, taking account of international developments and domestic problems in England. In the reign of Robert II they involved close co-operation with France and succeeded militarily, enabling the Scots to regain English-occupied lands in southern Scotland and achieve diplomatic gains. Military success encouraged the Scots to the point where they were willing to engage in attacks on England beyond the ambition of their French allies. Diplomatic gains, however, fell well short of forcing English recognition of Scottish independence. Hopes of achieving this aim by military means were ended in the reign of Robert III when the Scots were heavily defeated in 1402. English hopes of reconquest were similarly dashed in 1403 when victory in the north brought only severe political unrest. Relations between the realms were never to be so consistently conflictual again. War was not fought, however, with only political objectives in mind or other 'rational' factors such as the quest for financial gain. The Scots went to war, and their leaders organised it, for emotive reasons also, such as hatred of the English and enjoyment of martial endeavour for its own sake. There is no sign that the impact of war in the years under consideration led to the development of a distinctive set of attitudes and mode of social behaviour among the Scottish borderers.

Key to an understanding of the broad political developments in Ireland and Scotland in the 1650s is an appreciation of the relationship between the English governments of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate and the Irish and Scottish landed elites. Political power and landholding went hand in hand, and in the absence of large standing armies and a centralised administration, governments relied upon the support of regional power-brokers to maintain law and order in the localities. This thesis is a non-anglocentric study of the developing relationship between the republican regime and the Irish and Scottish landed elites during the Interregnum. As such it complements current research on the elite in the early modern period, and because of its integrationist approach to the three kingdoms, represents a useful addition to recent works on the New British and Irish histories in the seventeenth century. Scottish and Irish proprietors represented the standard bearers for the Stuart cause following the execution of Charles I. The thesis examines the process by which the policies the English parliament adopted to destroy the influence of the Scottish and Irish landed elites in the wake of its conquest of the two kingdoms came to be buried during the 1650s by other measures introduced simultaneously to promote peace and stability and efforts to increase the revenue and reduce the cost of government. Patronage and kinship networks also served to save many Irish and Scots from ruin and encouraged compromise. Grounded on the close study of surviving Irish and Scots estate archives as well as official sources the thesis adopts an approach in which the power and influence landowners retained during the English occupation is fully recognised and reveals a continuous process of accommodation between proprietors and the government, beginning as soon as the English army entered the countries.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

"27 October 1998" / Thesis (PhD)--Macquarie University, School of Law, 1999. / Bibliography: p. 509-550. / Thesis -- Appendices. / 'The Crown' has been described as a 'term of art' in constitutional law. This is more than misleading, obscuring the pivotal legal position of the king, which in modern times has been conveniently ignored by lawyers and politicians alike. -- This work examines the legal processes by which a king is made, tracing those processes from the earliest times to the present day. It concludes that the king is made by the selection and recognition by the people, his taking of the Oath of Governance, and his subsequent anointing. (The religious aspects of the making of the king, though of considerable legal significance, are not examined herein, because of space constraints.) -- The Oath of Governance is conventionally called the 'Coronation Oath'-which terminology, while correctly categorising the Oath by reference to the occasion on which it is usually taken, has led by subliminal implication to an erroneous conclusion by many modern commentators that the Oath is merely ceremonial. -- This work highlights the legal implications of the king's Oath of Governance throughout history, particularly in times of political unrest, and concludes that the Oath legally :- conveys power from the people to the person about to become king (the willingness of the people so to confer the power having been evidenced in their collective recognition of that person); - bestows all the prerogatives of the office of king upon that person; - enshrines the manner in which those prerogatives are to be exercised by the king in his people(s)' governance; and that therefore the Oath of Governance is the foundation of the British Constitution. -- All power and prerogative lie with the king, who as a result of his Oath of Governance is sworn to maintain the peace and protection of his people(s), and the king can not, in conscience or law, either do, or allow, anything that is in opposition to the terms of that Oath. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / xxvii, 818 p

Thesis (M.A.)--Youngstown State University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 94-99).