Talk:Commonwealth of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Significance on English society?

Does anyone know the significance the commonwealth had on English society?

Given that Cromwell was the first to unify the whole of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland - quite significant really! Also, the English tradition of religeous tolerance (i.e. the right of individuals to worship as they wished as opposed to a proscribed religion) was established - indeed was one of the issues at stake. However, not a historian, and have not got the source material, just watched a very good documentary a couple of weeks ago! Spenny 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The bullet points are pretty annoying, and not how typical Wikipedia (or encyclopedia) articles should be written...

but the point is that something of use has been written and someone can clean it up ;) Spenny 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Talking of documentaries, the documentary suggested that Cromwell was made Lord Protector and did not make himself this position. The argument went that it was a means of comtaining his power - by making him a king-like figure, there was a constitutional framework which defined his king-like powers, whereas if he were not a king-like figure his powers were undefined and, by implication, unlimited. Spenny 14:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Map

Since, as the flag indicates, the Commonwealth (at least claimed it) covered England and Scotland, and also had control over Ireland, the map that was added to this page was totally anachronistic and missing the point totally. Morwen - Talk 11:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The map should also include Jamaica, Barbados and the other American colonies. However, I'm no good with maps! Mon Vier (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Quakers:

Would the Quaker's be a 'major' religious sect at this time?

House of Commons and Commonwealth of England?

Is there any implied connection? IP Address 09:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's called the house of commons because it's where common people who become members of parliament work, as opposed to the House of Lords which is reserved for members of the nobility. (In practical terms anyone can get into the House of Commons, if they can get elected, to get into the house of Lords you have to inherit a title.)

At that time the Lords were hereditory or could be created by the monarch (most are now appointed for life, though some hereditory members remain). The Commons were generally wealthy merchants or landowners who were not lords. They were not likely to be common men in the sense of being poor.--Charles (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, Commonwealth is the early modern English translation of the Latin res publica and therefore was linked to classical and neo-classical ideas of government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.72.119 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

Is there any good reason why the Commonwealth and Protectorate should have separate articles? --sony-youth^pléigh 14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the Commonwealth describes the period of republican rule which includes executive power being vested in the Rump Parliament (1649-53), in Barebone's Parliament (1653), and in the person of two Lord Protectors (Oliver and Richard Cromwell), as well as a recalled Long Parliament in the short period before Charles II assumed the throne. The Protectorate just describes the period in which there were Protectors. Greycap 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference, my concerns are these:

1. Were these two different states, or the same state in different periods? (As the introduction to the 'Protectorate' article says: "In British history, the Protectorate was the period 1653–59 during which the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland was governed by a Lord Protector" i.e. the same state, just in differnet periods.)
2. Would our readers not better be served with a single article for the Commonwealth rather than jumping forward and back between two? (i.e. WP:MM#Overlap and WP:MM#Context)

As you say yourself, one article "... describes the period of ..." while the other article "... just describes the period in which ..." The subject matter is the same. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1) One was the form of the state during a particular period - the other is a common term describing the slightly longer period during which Britain didn't have a king (over which there were a variety of forms of government).

2) I see what you mean on this - the article does give a summarised version of the various other articles on the Rump et al. I suppose there are two options if you follow the Overlap policy strictly: either ditch the Commonwealth article altogether, or pull in all the detail from various other articles and then delete them. Neither to me quite works: apart from anything else, the idea of the Commonwealth in its various forms does exist as a separate concept. I think the answer may be to do a re-write of the Commonwealth in which it skips much more briefly over governmental forms and instead looks at some of the wider social, economic and political issues. It's been on my list for a rewrite for a while and I will try to get started at some point soon. Then you would have a series of articles, the Commonwealth one dealing with the British Isles as a whole during this period, and specific ones on the various forms of executive government.

What do you reckon? Greycap 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That solution works particularly well for me, and I think it would be the most useful - the various sections in the "Commonwealth" article could link to the main articles on the Protectorate, Rump, etc. for more details. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of England...but what about Scotland? ... and Ireland?

The article says the states official name was the Commonwealth of England and this is also reflected in the Kingdom of England article (with a break indicated in the existence of the Kingdom to exclude the Commonwealth period, i.e. the Kingdom is shown to exist from 927-1649 and again from 1660-1707)...but what about Scotland? What was Scotland's official name? Surely not the Kingdom of Scotland (in which case the Kingdom of Scotland article needs to have a break in its existence to account for the Commonwealth Period as well). As Crowell as called the Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland, was he Lord Protector of 3 separate Commonwealths (Commonwealth of England, Commonwealth of Scotland and Commonwealth of Ireland) or just one Commonwealth (the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland)?72.27.167.84 18:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I cannot understand why this article is placed at "Commonwealth of England." "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland" would surely be more useful. Neither, as I expressed above, can I understand why it is broken-up into "Commonwealth" and "Protectorate."

As for your question, it reminds me of a quote from Peace Comes Dropping Slow: "A Dublin friend once said jokingly to a London tour guide, 'You don't have to tell me who Cromwell was, I'm Irish.' The woman responded with a blank look, as if the connection was lost on her, then answered, 'Oh, yes, he did go to Ireland, didn't he?'" It would appear in this case as if the connection with Scotland is as much lost in the collective Wikipedian mind. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Having checked both the Commonwealth and Protectorate articles, I think I see what has happened here. The Protectorate article describes the state of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (which was formed after the Commonwealth of England by Cromwellian victories in Scotland and Ireland). After Cromwell, the union lapsed (according to [1]) and so Scotland was in limbo, while England became the Commonwealth of England again (and solely) just before the Restoration. As to why the Protectorate article isn't named the "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland", I don't know. It would certainly be less confusing than having an article referring to "a period during the Commonwealth" (but the question is which Commonwealth? Just England or all 3?). In addition, I highly doubt the Commonwealth of England used the Flag depicted (if it was England alone, it probably used St. George's Cross by itself). The quartered St. George's and St. Andrew's Crosses is probably the first flag of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (or "the Protectorate" for short I guess). If any of the contributors to these articles has any more information then please do share.72.27.167.84 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ditto. --sony-youth^pléigh 06:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And I thought it was the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland or Commonwealth of Great Britain and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They would have avoided using the term "Great Britain" as this was associated with the Stuart monarchy who tried to popularise it. TharkunColl (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What a curious idea. No, the term "Great Britain" would have been avoided as it was not yet a concept. "Great Britain" existed as of the 1st of May 1707 in the Treaty of Union. It is more associated with the House of Hanover (see article 2 of the Treaty of Union). It was an anti Stuart concept in that it allowed for the disinheritance of the direct Stuart line through requirement of a protestant monarch. see also Jacobitism. No Stuart monarch was ever king of "Great Britain". No Stuart king, pretender or otherwise, would try to popularise a term associated with their removal. Czar Brodie (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Great Britain" as a concept dates from the accession of James VI & I. He wished to use the title "King of GB" and did so by proclamation in 1604 even after the Commons rejected the title and James was told he couldn't use the style for any legal purpose. But as his proposal for a union failed, the term was basically just a collective name for his realms (in the same way wasn't "Spain" around this time strictly multiple kingdoms in personal union?) and tried to promote union but the proposal was unpopular.

And Anne was a Stuart monarch and definitely "Queen of Great Britain" 1707-1714. The term wasn't about Jacobitism, though the Union removed the possibility of a Jacobite restoration in Scotland. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

and Charles I had himself styled 'The Second King of Great Britain' as Charles II 'the Third King of Great Britain'. The concept of King of Great Britain was a perennial Stuart idea and nothing to do with the House of Hanover or the deligitimisation of the never-legitimate-in-the-first-place Roman Catholic Jacobite pretenders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.9.195 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tidy up info box excess

Can anyone get rid of those two characters: {| at the start of the article? I can't work out how to fix it. Cheers --maxrspct ping me 21:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

'Properly called' Protectorate

If as the article says the Commonwealth is 'properly called' the Protectorate, shouldn't something be said about why this article isn't calling it what it is 'properly called'? It's as though the article is arguing with itself. This would of course be avoided if, as suggested above, this article were merged with the Protectorate one. Blurpflargblech (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of Events.

The article states "after the English Civil War". However, according to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:English_Civil_War, the war ended in 1651; however, the regicide occurred in 1649. Did the war continue after Charles' execution? I posed a similar question on that article. --DMP47 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bring it back??

([2]) Should we bring back the Republic and Commonwealth of England?... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy-g-98 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)