Talk:English Restoration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
An event mentioned in this article is a May 29 selected anniversary.
This page is biased.
How so? Schizobullet 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Regicides and Rebels
There was some confusion here over the nature and operation of the Indemnity Act. This act confirmed the promise made earlier in the Declaration of Breda that no proceedings would be taken against the former opponents of the crown, with the exemption of those involved in the regicide. It is quite wrong to say that they were to be pardoned if they 'came over to the monarchy.' Some were executed, and others were imprisoned. The dead regicides were only hanged.
I've also changed the heading of this section to the more accurate 'Regicides and Rebels.' Rcpaterson 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title of Article
Charles was restored as King of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The title English restoration is not appropriate.mjgm84 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Furthermore, there is no information to how the restoration of the Crowns of Scotland and Ireland took effect. This is a significant omission in Wikipedia that should be rectified. Preferably, this page should be entitled "Restoration of the Stuart Monarchy" simply "The Restoration" or words to that effect, and it should cover all realms (England, Scotland, Ireland, and the American & other colonies). Simhedges (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
The Restoration → English Restoration — Per this policy —Reginmund 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Support - As nom. Reginmund 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - I agree with the nominator about the need to comply with policy where possible/practical, but am concerned that the chosen title, English Restoration, is not the most commonly used name for this event, nor does it accurately reflect the nature of the Restoration from a national point of view (i.e. not just English, but Scottish, Welsh and Irish as well; as per mjgm84's comment above). As we can make occasional exceptions to policy, I would suggest that retaining The Restoration is acceptable because of its rather singular nature, although I'm aware that I say that as a British citizen who's bound to think of it as an important event! Cheers, --Plumbago 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I support a move but not to this title. What about the "British Restoration?" --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Conditional support; that is, move, but not to "English Restoration"; we shouldn't be making up names. Fortunately, Restoration will do nicely; it is far more often mentioned in English than any of the other contents of that page, which can move to Restoration (disambiguation) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think "Restoration" is the most proper move to make, considering the number of other links there. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I actually didn't know that Wikipedia made up "English Restoration". I just assumed that it was in common parlance because it was in the article Reginmund 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's citeable somewhere; but it's certainly not standard usage, except in such unusual situations as an author discussing the Bourbon Restoration and contrasting with Charles II. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support mainly to get rid of the definite article in the title. — AjaxSmack 10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. In terms of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) it's borderline, but English Restoration is just plain wrong... an inaccurate neologism. Far better to keep the borderline name we have. Andrewa 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Any additional comments:
Move has been done some days ago, by User:Maxim, but without closing the discussion. It appears to me there was no consensus for this move. Andrewa 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah - what's that all about? While discussion was split between moving and not moving, it certainly wasn't split on moving to the current article title. This title was viewed negatively by most parties above. I'll drop a note on Maxim's talkpage. --Plumbago 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There was no consensus in favour of renaming "The Restoration" to the "The English Restoration". It should be moved back, and expanded to cover the nature of the restoration in other realms. A relevant title, if "The Restoration" is seen as too Brito-centric, would be "The Stuart Restoration". The definite article is required - it is THE Restoration, just as the period during World War II in the UK was The Duration, and has a very specific meaning and is not a synonym for "Duration" Simhedges (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Unclarity on Causes
I'm still unclear on what the causes were for the restoration... The article does a nice job of summarizing some essential facts, but doesn't really devote much attention to the question of how so radical a shift---from regicide to restoring the monarchy---took place so quickly. (I realize this is an enormous question, but I would find adding at least a few links to other articles helpful in this regard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurpflargblech (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
