Jump to content

Talk:Commonwealth of England/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed, Regards Rob (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Commonwealth of England → Commonwealths of the British Isles – See Above. The Protectorate article and the Interregnum (England) article could also be merged into this article. If there is too much content, new articles could be created for each of the three periods. The current structure of these articles is currently pretty poor however the content is very good. Regards, Rob (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am going to think about the solution a bit more. I can see that some sorting out needs to be done, but I am not quite sure if the suggested name is it. Obviously Commonwealth of England is problematic after 1653, when it is not just England. I should point out that I constructed a Scotland under the Commonwealth article. That solution works well for Scotland, where there is a distinct narrative, but I am not sure it would work for England and Ireland (and/or Wales).--SabreBD (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I think once there is a article showing the three periods clearly, articles can be renamed, moved or deleted accordingly. A new article could be created under the current title with appropriate content also. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Cautious oppose It might be worth considering breaking the article up instead of treating the whole period as a single article, or even re-naming it to "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland". although even then I cautiously feel like keeping it at the current title. However the proposed new title is unsatisfactory as neither officially used at the time or widely used by historians since then, and even the plural "Commonwealths" begs some questions. PatGallacher (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move at Interregnum (England)

Interregnum (England) → Interregnum (British Isles) – Talk:Interregnum (England)#Requested Move. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong flag and wrong coat of arms

The flag and coat of arms on this page are both incorrect. The coat of arms of the Commonwealth was based on the royal coat of arms and contained the crown (ironically, given that Cromwell had had the crown melted down!) AFAIK the coat of arms here is Cromwell's personal one, not his one as Lord Protector and not the Commonwealth one. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the flag. Osgoodelawyer 18:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've corrected the Coat of Arms and Flag 7 years after requested. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Article changes

I've changed a lot on this and The Protectorate article. As far as I can tell, its much more accurate now however there may still be many mistakes. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

States that existed

From my weak understanding, there are effectively 3 separate periods from 1649 to 1660 concerning the region previously known as the Kingdom of England.


I think that the current structure does not show the changes in the regime clearly. An alternative structure would be:

Apologies if I am incorrect in my understanding. Thanks, Rob (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Interregnum (England) lists the different periods, and might also be merged. It's daft having a separate article covering the same subject but under an essentially POV title.Straw Cat (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to create a new article called the Commonwealths of the British Isles, other articles can then be deleted or edited to reflect there titles. Regards, Rob (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Looking at this coin, the English shield alone, and the English and Irish shields together are used. I think, due to the fact that the English shield has 'The Commonwealth of England' written around, this is most likely the Commonwealths coat of arms. Also, I believe the Irish Coat of Arms was only present on Naval Flags, as the Commonwealth claimed Ireland as a territory but not as part of the Commonwealth of England, thus would not be present on its Coat of Arms. Regards, Rob (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't get the image to purge, I'm not sure why. Regards Rob (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Done now. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply: Wow!, a "most likely" is not historical, it has no source and is your 'educated' guess. The coin image is actually a case for the image not against it. Some other evidence:

This is an plate from 1688 showing the trial of Charles I, please note the coat of arms above the head of John Bradshaw and the other commissioners. Image by John Nalson.

Historical images showing the shield of the cross of St. George, with the harp of Ireland:

  • A petition addressed to Edmund Prideaux (Attorney General for the Commonwealth), from 1653.
  • Frontispiece of a postal notice, 'By the Protector. Orders For the furtherance of Our Service, as well as Our Pacquets and Letters as For Riding in Post', from 1655.
  • A church coat of arms, a rare survival from the period, usually the royal arms adorns the churches, date unknown.
  • Book binding stamp, the arms shown with occasional motto: God with us, with Commonwealth of England surrounding it.
  • A beautifully illustrated manuscript from 1653, a letter from the Commonwealth to the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed IV. Note the addition of the Scottish saltire between the English and Irish shields.

The shield of England and Ireland was used side-by-side because the two nations were the only two things left after Scotland 'seceded' at the beginning of the First Bishops' Wars in 1639. Once Scotland was pacified by Oliver Cromwell beginning from 1651 onwards the Scottish saltire of St. Andrew was added to the armorial bearing. The Protectorate saw the creation of a Great Seal for Oliver Crowmell (image), the coat of arms was to be used as a symbol of sovereignty (created around 1653). Please reply here and do not revert proper edits. Sodacan (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, when I started editing this article, it was in quite a mess, with this Union Jack as the flag. Nothing on the Flags of the Commonwealth of England was referenced either. The Flag and Coat of Arms shown should be the last used ones by the state. I could not find any evidence for what the flag was in 1660, or even just after the Protectorate. During the period the St George cross was used, the parliamentary navy was ordered by the Council of State on 22 February 1649 as follows: "that the ships at sea in service of the State shall onely beare the red Crosse in a white flag". Regards, Rob (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
None of your evidence suggests that the flag you provided is the flag of the Commonwealth of England, I'm going to revert it to the St George Cross as per this statement; 'The parliamentary navy was ordered by the Council of State on 22 February 1649 as follows: "that the ships at sea in service of the State shall onely beare the red Crosse in a white flag"'. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Structure and organisation of Interregnum articles

user:WheelerRob has been addressing the issue of improving the articles on the Commonwealth and the Interregnum. This is an issue long overdue, but I think that we need to agree a plan for this development. The pages which WheelerRob has been looking at were listed above in the section #States that existed. This is the result

I think that WheelerRob is correct and that changes need to be made. However I think that the changes implemented and proposed are not the way to go. Here are some reasons why:

  • For anyone who has edited British and Irish articles for any length of time will know that using British Isles is highly controversial and best avoided if other names are available. As this we are talking about dab extensions, there is no need for the extension to be fully descriptive, the main subject of the article is all that is requited.
  • Articles should be under WP:COMMONNAME where appropriate.
  • Using official names that were neither popular at the time or common in history books is probably to be avoided. For example is we have split the First and Second Commonwealth into two articles then using the official names used at the time is not desirable. (May as well use "First Commonwealth (England)" and "Second Commonwealth (England)" or some similar name.
  • The official names hide the fact that these were by no means similar to the United Kingdom. For example many of the men returned as Irish MPs were in fact officers of the occupying English army.

I think that we can use Restoration (1660) as a template for a layout of these articles. So here is my initial proposal.

Thoughts? -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of your suggestions however I don't think the Commonwealth of England article should be moved, and I think the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1659–1660) should definitely be created. The Commonwealth of England was a state that succeeded the Kingdom of England, and incorporated its territories (Ireland, and others) thus does not just cover England. During the existence of the Commonwealth of England, the Kingdom of Scotland was mostly under control by the Commonwealths army, but not incorporated into the state. In 1653, the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland was created as a new state, incorporating Scotland with a new Protectorate Parliament. In 1659, the Protectorate Parliament was dissolved by the Committee of Safety as Richard Cromwell was unable to keep control of the Parliament and the Army, however the state continued and the Rump Parliament was re-established under control of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. Although the same sovereign state, the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland should definitely be split into two articles as the change in its political structure from the Protectorate to the Rump Parliament was great. Regards, Rob (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you are too hung up on official titles (which are not commonly used) and splitting the articles up that way is less than helpful (because AFAICT most secondary sources do not). For example what is much more important in English politics -- particularly in the second period of the commonwealth was which if any parliament was sitting. For example once the Rump was recalled all Scottish and Irish MPs were excluded from power and besides the Irish MPs that did sit in the Protectorate parliaments were were frequently NMA soldiers. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I don't think having both Interregnum (England) and Commonwealth (England) is a good idea, both the term 'Commonwealth' and 'Interregnum' were used to describe the period so I don't seem how the titles describe the articles. I also don't see why you want an article covering the period between 1653 to 1659, but not from 1649 to 1653 and 1658[9] to 1660. It just seems confusing and inconsistent. Since the article Interregnum (1649–1660) will be split into the 3 periods, why not have an article for each period going into more detail about the political structure, and not bother with your idea for a Commonwealth (England) article? Regards, Rob (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I could go into more detail but I think it would be useful to wait and see if any of the others I have invited to this section want to contribute to the conversation before I do. -- PBS (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks PBS. Avoiding the "British Isles" label would be good and the suggestions seem sensible. Like Rob, I'm less certain about having both Interregnum (England) and Commonwealth (England); I'd be inclined to support a single article covering both at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead with creating the Interregnum (1649–1660) and migrate the appropriate information to that page. Other articles regarding the affect on each Kingdom could also be created/moved however I don't want to see Commonwealth of England moved. I first of all think we need to establish which states existed and what the names of these states were, I highly doubt after the Protectorate the state went back to being called the 'Commonwealth of England'. I don't think your suggestion on having an article covering the politics of the interregnum is at all appropriate. See below:
States that existed
From my weak understanding, there are effectively 3 separate periods from 1649 to 1660 concerning the region previously known as the Kingdom of England.
To show the changes in the regime clearly, a appropriate structure would be:
These articles could go over the political structure of each period, describing the regime and showing the flag, and geographic location of the state in each period. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
A Google books search shows that "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland" is about ten times less common than "Commonwealth of England" and a search on ["Commonwealth of England" 1659] shows that contemporary addresses to Parliament were addressed to the "Commonwealth of England" (here are two examples two two
it seems that official name was changed back to the Commonwealth of England -- See The Parliamentary Or Constitutional History of England: 409–410, vol. 21, T. Osborne and W. Sandby, 1760 {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help) -- (the Rump/Long Parliament had no Scottish or Irish representation so it could not speak for those countries). So I do not think that "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1659–1660)" is a good name. At the moment we only need one article on the English commonwealth as the text is nowhere near the maximum size of an article.
The reason why I think that it is useful to keep commonwealth and interregnum as separate is because I think it helps to keep the politics and government separate from other things that happened in the interregnum (as has developed by chance between the Commonwealth (England) and Interregnum (England) articles -- as we do for other states where we have an article on the country and another on the government eg United Kingdom and Politics of the United Kingdom/Government of the United Kingdom/ -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why the title 'Commonwealth (England)' is appropriate for an article coving the Politics of the Interregnum, why not call it 'Politics of the Interregnum'. Also by 'At the moment we only need one article on the English commonwealth' are you suggesting we delete the Protectorate article? Regards, Rob (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we should go ahead and create Interregnum (1649–1660) and migrate the appropriate information to that page as soon as possible. I will also revert the move of Interregnum (British Isles) back to Interregnum (England) as I think this will be uncontroversial once Interregnum (1649–1660) is created. I will also redirect Interregnum (British Isles) to Interregnum (1649–1660). After this, we will get a clear idea as to what this article will look like, and whether it should be left as it is, moved to an article about the Politics of the Commonwealth, or spilt into Commonwealth of England (1649 to 1653) and Commonwealth of England (1659 to 1660). Regards, Rob (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we move Interregnum (British Isles) to Interregnum (1649–1660), then Interregnum (England) could be created and the content could be moved at a later date? I don't have time to create all the articles you have proposed, and the content at Interregnum (British Isles) can stay there until someone has time to create Interregnum (England). Please respond PBS. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
To preserve the history of the article, I think it better to move Interregnum (British Isles) back to Interregnum (England) and create a new summary style article called Interregnum (1649–1660) which will have a section with a paragraph introducing an article for each country (see Restoration (1660) for an example). -- PBS (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence here and elsewhere

Further to the above, I can't help but be utterly confused by the current opening sentence in the lead (a similar problem afflicts the related pages):

  • The Commonwealth of England was the republic which ruled England and Ireland first in 1649–1653 and second, including Scotland, in 1659–1660. In 1653, after the annexation of Scotland, the state formed the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland under control of the Protectorate Parliament, which was then disestablished in 1659, and the Commonwealth of England and Rump Parliament were re-established under control of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Even before recent changes, it was all a bit confusing, but I'm not sure they've helped much. For example, the very start of the first sentence is oddly phrased. Surely the Commonwealth was not "the republic which ruled England" but was the term used to refer to England (and possibly some other places subsumed within it). It's then downhill from there, with apparent flipping back and forth between different types of Commonwealth and different territorial extent in different periods, but without any clarity as to what was what when exactly. The fact that we have information split across several pages adds to the confusion. Surely we have one continuous and discrete thing or topic here, which saw changes to its precise political structure and territorial extent. N-HH talk/edits 21:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No, if you read the introduction to The Protectorate it should make more sense. From what I can tell the names of the states correspond to who the government represented, not who it controlled. Two states essentially existed during the interregnum, the Commonwealth of England and the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland however the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland existed between the existance of the Commonwealth of England. Also before the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland was establised, the Commonwealth of England did not control (although was under a military siege) Scotland, however after the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, the Commonwealth of England took over the territory previously controlled by the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, thus including Scotland. Basically, the Commonwealth of England was governed by the English whereas the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland was an attempt to create a republic fairly representing all of the British Isles, but failed. Regards, Rob (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
See my recent edit to the introduction. After attempting to get a good understanding of this topic, it's hard for me to judge how clear my edits are. Thanks, Rob (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The Protectorate page is slightly clearer and better written, at least in its opening sentences. The problem is that the concepts and history are complicated enough without everything here making it appear even more so, even with the latest changes (and your response above, I'm afraid, reads like a Humphrey Appleby explanation). For example:
  • As noted, the Commonwealth was not "a republic which ruled England and Ireland", it's what that entity was described as
  • The phrase "under control of" is used in this page on and on the Protectorate when surely what is meant is "which controlled" or, per the above point, even better "which comprised"
  • Overall, all this text tries to make things discrete which are not really as separate as it suggests, and seems at times to confuse territory with status
I would just try to copyedit it, but my detailed knowledge is not such that I could do that without possibly introducing further errors of fact. I'll have a think when I have more time but if someone else could weigh in, that might help. N-HH talk/edits 21:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I concur with N-HH that the opening is now wholly impenetrable, as is Rob's explanation. As a basic point, it would be much clearer if the different stages were to be set out in short sentences, that follow a logical sequence. We can then worry about the style in which they are put together in a coherent narrative. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Although I have some knowledge on this, it is only from analysing various articles and sources. When I came across these articles, they were in a complete mess so I pretty much started from scratch on the lead for this article and The Protectorate article then went ahead and moved a lot of content around as per my research. Honestly, my writing ability is limited, and explaining the changes in regime would be difficult for anyone, especially myself. If someone would like to go ahead and propose alternative introductions, I will happily point out any errors I see. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the First Civil War the traditional government of England was destroyed. The King a prisoner Parliament was but a shell of its former self. The second Civil War as Churchill points out cemented the power of the New Model Army. For the next 13 years power lay in the Army Council and Oliver Cromwell always put the opinions of the Grandees before those of other interested parties. This was shown up very clearly with the removal of Richard Cromwell and dismissal and recalling of the parliaments of 1659-60 (non of which happened without direct military authorisation). Even at the end of the period, the Restoration only took place because the strongest faction in the Army on the Island of Great Britain wished it (those in Ireland were not necessarily in agreement but they were over the sea and not in a position to interfere militarily).

To try to understand the period from pieces of legislation (that would in any case become null and void under the Restoration) is to fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent what was going on. This is clearly demonstrated by two Wikipedia articles:

  • Tender of Union from deceleration by the Rump to the passing of the enabling act that passed it into law spanned nearly 7 years (October 1651 to June 1657). But before it became an act of parliament two Protectorate parliaments had already been summoned with 30 Scottish MP. So it was a Parliament summoned not under parliamentary legislation but by decree that legalised itself. So exactly when did the new expanded commonwealth come into existence you can take you pick of a range of dates between October 1651 to June 1657.
  • The second article is the Rule of the Major-Generals which is about the direct rule of the Army over England (which was divided into 12 regions) and which was so awful that English speaking nations have legislation or constitutional blocks in place to protect themselves from another occurrence. BUT it was not implemented in Ireland or Scotland because they were already under military occupation--and so England was just getting a taste of what was going on in two of the three countries in this so called Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Because of these types of problems, the changes made to this article make it read like Alice in the Looking Glass. The Protectorate existed and it claimed to be a "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland" but whether it was or not is a question of de facto not de jure, hence historians call it the Protectorate because it sidesteps the tricky dates issue and its de jure status. So sentences like "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland was created under control of all of England, Scotland and Ireland" is totally misleading and makes it sound like it was a free association and not an annexation by "some twenty thousand resolute, ruthless, disciplined military fanatics".

I do not think it helps to try to make the text fit the {{Infobox former country}} parameters when the situation was far more complicated and ambiguous than those simple parameters allow. For example while the Long Parliament was engaged in the First Civil War it continued to issue all ordinances under the pretence that the king could not no wrong so they were at war with his wicked advisers not him (he would have agreed that he could do no wrong, but would have disagreed that he was not making his own decisions) -- but to take that Parliamentary legal fiction at face value would be to fundamentally misunderstand and misrepresent the Civil War. If we follow this type of legal fiction to its logical conclusion lies in the early acts of the Restoration in particular the Oblivion Act which means that the Interregnum did not take place and Charles II was on the throne for the whole period and any Acts of Parliament he did not receive royal assent were null and void.

So I think this article has to describe what was and not delve too deeply into what the legislation of the time said it was. Ie there was a commonwealth, it can be divided into three periods before the protectorate, the protectorate and after the protectorate. I am not suggesting those names are used, but the names of the section headers before and after the protectorate do not really matter and trying to place a formal title on them is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes, starting with some light copyediting and then some slightly more substantive ones. Hopefully that's left it a bit clearer and more accurate. I'm still unhappy with the suggestion that these variations of the one Commonwealth are described as if they are wholly different entities, rather than gradual shifts from one variation of a basic form to another, in particular with the idea that the "Commonwealth of England" suddenly didn't exist and then suddenly did again, albeit for one year. Also, as I understand the one sourced cited in the lead, the point of any reversion to the styling "Commonwealth of England" – if indeed that occurred – was very much because the authorities renounced the union with Scotland declared under the Protectorate; so is it not misleading to suggest that that entity included Scotland? N-HH talk/edits 09:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The use of "Interregnum" and "Commonwealth" names were originally a political POV based on whether one still supported the "Good Old Cause" and considered yourself a Commonwealthman post 1660). Historians who do not have to worry about disambiguation of a name usually call this period of republican government the Commonwealth and then divide it into three periods, and as you say "these variations of the one Commonwealth are [not usually] described as if they are wholly different entities". It is not misleading to say it included Scotland any more than it is to say it included Ireland. Both were under the boots of an English army of occupation (as was England but to a lesser extent). Perhaps the answer lies in moving this article to Commonwealth with a dab extension eg "Commonwealth (1649–1660)" but the problem is it is usually known as the "English Commonwealth. However as always there are more specialised books that only cover part of the period and reserve the name for up to 1653 eg:
  • Sean Kelsey (1997), Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth, 1649-1653, Stanford University Press "This book provides a fresh reassessment of English politics and political culture during the Commonwealth—the brief period of parliamentary republican rule (with no monarch, royal court, or House of Lords) between the execution of Charles I in 1649, and Cromwell’s seizure of power in 1653."
-- PBS (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That would all kind of tally with my broad understanding, and in fact the lead as now laid out more or less reflects that ambiguity and fluidity. The only big issue still there, to my mind, is the talk about the Commonwealth of England being formally reinstated or reconstituted in 1659. I'm tempted to clear that all out – that would leave a truncated lead but of course that could be expanded as needed. As for the overall division of pages, I think I'm happy as we are: ie with this one primarily focused on 1649 to 1653, while noting that by one, broader, definition the Commonwealth continued until the Restoration; albeit with its expanded territory reflected in a longer name and with it ruled as the Protectorate until 1659 (with a further year of confusion after that). N-HH talk/edits 11:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the inclusion of Scotland in the lead, I don't think it's necessary. It currently suggests that the hole of Scotland was part of the Commonwealth of England, which was not the case. During the Commonwealth of England, Charles II was the King of the Scots, up until 1652. Under the Tender of Union Scotland was declared part of a Commonwealth with England in 1652, but despite repeated attempts, an act was not passed in Westminster to ratify the union until 1657, after the state had been disestablished. The problem I have with the current wording is that many territories were under control of the Commonwealth of England, such as some of the formed Crown Colonies which effectively became unincorporated territories of the Commonwealth of England, thus saying the Commonwealth of England compromised of Scotland is inconsistent if it was only controlled by the state and was never legally incorporated (as Ireland was) thus better described as a territory. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
As I've been suggesting since first commenting here, I think there's a problem with seeing all this as a rigidly demarcated and formalised series of events and entities, analogous say to the formation over centuries of the UK, rather than as a relatively swift but gradual process, different parts of which – such as the changes to the name and to what it consisted of in reality – often moved at different speeds. Also, if somewhere was under the control of the Commonwealth, it's fair to say it was part of it, as Scotland more or less was by 1652. At that stage, nonetheless, the entity was apparently still referred to as the Commonwealth of England. The phrasing "comprising England, and later ... Scotland" seems to reflect that process to me, without being too specific about when, how and to what extent Scotland became part of it. N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
On 12 April 1654, the Council of State issued and Ordinance for uniting Scotland into one Commonwealth with England, which would be the "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland", under the authority of the Instrument of Government that made Cromwell Lord Protector. I don't think we can say the Commonwealth of England compromised of Scotland at any point. Although under "English occupation", many Scottish institutions continued to operate unhindered, and the royalist forces in Scotland, lead by Charles II continued the resistance up until 1654, occupying all of the Highlands and many parts of the Lowlands, thus the Kingdom of Scotland didn't cease to exist until 1564. Even after 1564, although only scattered with royalist forces, the Scottish Highlands were still unoccupied by the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, although legally claimed. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What on earth made you think you had "consensus" for this edit? A discussion was ongoing, in which you were the only person demanding the removal of the reference to Scotland. In fact, you need to slow down a little on all these pages, especially when specific issues are being pointed out to you. By your own admission you don't always express things clearly and are learning many of the underlying facts as you go along. This is not a way to improve coverage here of these often complex topics. N-HH talk/edits 16:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, I assumed you would agree after my explanation. Rob (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2013 (UnTC)
I disagree that this was a "relatively swift but gradual process". I think there were clear changes in regime, which the articles currently make clear. I don't think this has anything to do with Scotland however. If Scotland was legally incorporated in 1654, then claiming the state compromised of Scotland sometime between 1649 to 1653 is simply wrong. Even regardless of the legal situation, Scotland was not conquer until 1654, so I don't see how the current lead could be correct. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
But we're not talking necessarily about simply legal incorporation – which, anyway, could even be said not to have occurred until 1657, to throw in another year. And that's precisely the point: there were a series of steps, some legal and some practical, that occurred as part of a gradual process at and around a time of war. We're not talking about something like the Acts of Union or a situation where we can say X happened at point Y and the name of entity A changed to entity B at point Z (and also let's not forget that we need to factor in differences between what things were called then and how they are referred to now). N-HH talk/edits 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of legal incorporation, how exactly did the Commonwealth of England compromise of Scotland when it was still fighting against resistance across the lowlands? I'd disagree that a region can compromise as part of another state, just because part of it is under military occupation, except if there is a legal act ratifying the claim by the state, such as with Ireland. Many regions were under control of the Commonwealth of England, although I'm not certain, I think parts of the continent were, along with many former Crown Colonies, all of which are ignored in the lead. I don't understand why you are so persistent with the idea that the Commonwealth of England compromised of Scotland when I have provided an explanation as to why this was not the case. Also my statement is still correct if Scotland was only legally incorporated in 1657 and it hadn't even began to be legally incorporated until 1654 as the act failed to pass though the various parliaments until then. Regards, Rob (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

There may be a better way to phrase the point exactly, but we can't just strike Scotland out (and especially do so while leaving Ireland in). Also, I know 1657 comes after 1653, but 1652 – one of the alternative dates on offer – falls before it. My point in mentioning 1657 was to show, again, that we are talking here about the conflict between de jure and de facto and about a process of incorporation, not one single, discrete, legalistic step involving a sudden leap from one type of Commonwealth to a wholly new and different one, let alone a step taken in the kind of legal environment that pertains in the UK and the world in 2013. And the fact that there may still have been occasional fighting in Scotland doesn't negate the point. N-HH talk/edits 17:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The formal control of Scotland by the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland was removed in this edit. Although that wording is not ideal, nor do I think the current wording is either. I think the introduction should be changed to something along the lines of:
'The Commonwealth of England was a republic comprising England, and later Ireland, that existed between 1649 and 1653 following the defeat of King Charles I in the English Civil War. In 1653, after the forcible dissolution of the Rump Parliament, Oliver Cromwell was declared Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, inaugurating the period now known as The Protectorate. Later, in 1654, the royalist forces in Scotland were scattered into the Highlands and Scotland was formally annexed into the state. After Cromwell's death, and following a brief period of rule under his son, Richard Cromwell, the Protectorate Parliament was dissolved by the Committee of Safety in 1659 and the Rump Parliament recalled, beginning the Restoration.'
This shows that Scotland was under some kind of control by the Commonwealth of England, however not part of it.
Rob (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So your proposal is still to simply remove mention of Scotland from the first sentence, and simply instead add something later about formal annexation and other events in Scotland in 1654, a year outside the period which is the main focus of this page? My suggestion was more for a form of words that could highlight the extent of the Commonwealth's undoubted control of and influence in Scotland and Ireland prior to 1653, while perhaps doing so with a bit more nuance. Your proposal doesn't refer at all to Scotland being under "some kind of control" at that point. N-HH talk/edits 18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

"Regarding the inclusion of Scotland in the lead, I don't think it's necessary. It currently suggests that the hole of Scotland was part of the Commonwealth of England, which was not the case. During the Commonwealth of England, Charles II was the King of the Scots, up until 1652." (1) no he was not King of the Scots after the Battle of Worcester he was a pretender. To say he was King was a treasonable offence This was in part the Royalists own doing because the had proclaimed him used the title King of Great Britain France and Ireland, not of a separate kingdom of Scotland. (2) Of course Scotland was part of the Commonwealth, during the Protectorate even if one does not consider the other periods of the Commonwealth. I think this is a misunderstanding over the of the scope of this article.

"Rump Parliament recalled, beginning the Restoration". The Rump was not recalled to begin the Restoration, quite the opposite it was recalled on allegedly behalf of the Good Old Cause or for the personal ambition of reveal high ranking republican officers (you pays you money and takes you choice) . The process of Restoration did no begin until George Monck entered London and recalled the Long Parliament (in February 1660) (a detailed (if biased) account in in the Long Parliament article). --PBS (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

So was the Commonwealth of England re-establish in 1659 or was the Rump Parliament established in control of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (in which case, I would advise moving The Protectorate to Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland so the title can cover all the content regarding that state)? Regards, Rob (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How about "The Commonwealth of England was a republic comprising England, and later Ireland, that existed between 1649 and 1653 following the defeat of King Charles I in the Second English Civil War. In 1651, after the Third English Civil War, the New Model Army began to occupy the Scottish Lowlands, however in 1652 this was met with heavy resistance from royalist forces led by Charles II and therefore it wasn't until 1654 that the resistance was defeated and Scotland was formally annexed. In 1653, after the forcible dissolution of the Rump Parliament, Oliver Cromwell was declared Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, inaugurating the period...". Rob (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we need so much detail about military activities in Scotland during that period, especially while having none about Ireland or even England post-1649? That's not the gap that needs filling. As to your prior 18:52 comment, I'm still worried there's too much effort going into treating these titles as fixed references to fixed entities, or altogether different states, as well as that the terminology of the time is being mixed up with the terms generally used now, without being clear that is what is happening. In fact, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't be a bit more radical and talk in the first sentence about the "English Commonwealth" or simply "Commonwealth", setting a start date of 1649 but without claiming a precise end of 1653, albeit noting more explicitly that modern history tends to confine references to "Commonwealth" to the years prior to that while referring to those afterwards as "the Protectorate". Coming full circle, that would also help with the Scotland point. N-HH talk/edits 20:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the period from 1649 to 1653 and the Second English Civil War is mentioned, if anything, more detail is needed on this as the Commonwealth of England was the result of this. I'm against anything that blurs the change in regime in 1653 when a new constitution was put into place. I'm happy to migrate non-political information from this article to a overview article however the annexation of Scotland influenced the change in regime and the creation of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland was essentially the result of the Third English Civil War. Can I go ahead with my edit? More information can be added about the Second English Civil War later if necessary. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the governance of the Commonwealth from 1649 until the the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. Rob what is you source for "however in 1652 this was met with heavy resistance from royalist forces led by Charles II"? If it was from the article History of Scotland then I can understand because that article had the battle of Worcester dated incorrectly as 1652, not as 1651. If it was from somewhere else on Wilipedia I would like to know, because as far as I am aware after Worcester (September 1651) the war was over and the New Model Army only had mopping operations to carry out in Scotland and had time to indulge in that traditional lowland Scottish and English pastime of playing one highland clan off against another. As to the second English Civil War, it that took place before the Commonwealth came into existence and everything was still beings done in the Kings name. It was only after the Second Civil War that the Grandees made moves to set up the Commonwealth. So why do we want to mention that war other than in passing? "Scotland and Ireland was essentially the result of the Third English Civil War", I don't think so, I think Scotland and Ireland were essentially the cause of the third war. To sum up I agree with N-HH post "As I've been suggesting since first commenting here, I think there's a problem with seeing all this as a rigidly demarcated...." and far from adding anything that "blurs the change in regime in 1653 when a new constitution was put into place" I'm all in favour blurring as I think to do otherwise is a simplification (as I pointed out above using the Tender of Union article as an example).-- PBS (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yeah 1651, not 1652 (see edit to that comment). My understanding was that this article contains information from 1563 to 1660 as there is currently no article that we have agreed on covering the entire period from 1649 to 1660. If you want to keep that information and make this article an article covering the entire period and move it to another title (which would be necessary as the current title isn't suitable) then I see no reason why an article can't then be created under Commonwealth of England describing the structure (and possibly politics) of the sovereign state that existed under that name between 1549 to 1653. I didn't realise this article was suppose to being covering the entire period, however if this is the case, the title and lead should be modified so that it isn't talking about the Commonwealth of England but instead either the Interregnum, Commonwealth or English Commonwealth as these are periods, not a sovereign state, and obviously the inclusion of Scotland in the opening sentence would be necessary. Regards, Rob (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That's kind of where I was heading with my last suggestion in terms of scope and name. As I see it this article should broadly reflect events all throughout the period when the term Commonwealth was applied (in various forms and to varying territory), ie until the Restoration, albeit with most focus on the 1649 to 1653 period, which is what many historians commonly mean when they refer to the "Commonwealth" period, contrasting it with the later "Protectorate" period. This is also the only page that covers that initial period, whereas we have the Protectorate page which can deal in more detail with post-1653, and to which readers can be directed to from the relevant sub-section here (as currently). Arguably that leaves us with a POV-ish fork in Interregnum, but let's worry about that separately. N-HH talk/edits 13:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay well I suggest we move this article to Interregnum (1649–1660) (the name PBS suggested for a new overview article) and move Interregnum (British Isles) back to Interregnum (England). I also think The Protectorate could be moved and redirected to Interregnum (1649–1660)#The Protectorate (or the article could have its info-box removed) and two new articles, the Commonwealth of England and the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland or one article Politics of the Interregnum (with two info-boxes) could be created covering the structure, and politics of both states. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems all a bit complicated and convoluted. What I thought both you and I were converging on was a simpler step, focused solely on this page for now, in terms of possibly tweaking the name – not changing it to something completely different – and some of the content. Let's look at any wider steps separately. Also, again, I fear you are still being too rigid about supposedly distinct Commonwealth states. The expansion of the Commonwealth to include more territories was a gradual process that occurred during a time of flux. We are not talking about the same thing as the later union of England and Scotland, which at one stroke created a wholly new sovereign state, with a new name, distinct from its predecessors. As noted, the one development that is more usually thought by modern historical sources to mark a key shift into a discrete phase – if not a wholly new state – is the assumption by Cromwell of the role of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. We should follow that distinction too, as we more or less do now, while albeit retaining some sense of the conceptual and temporal overlap. N-HH talk/edits 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
So what title would you like the article to be moved to? PBS originally suggested moving this article to Commonwealth (England), covering the politics of the Commonwealth period in England and creating a new article at Interregnum (1649–1660). Regardless however, I think we need to agree on a title for whatever article will cover the period from 1649 to 1660. Suggestions I can think of are Interregnum (1649–1660), English Interregnum, Interregnum of Great Britain and Ireland, Interregnum of England, Scotland and Ireland, British and Irish Interregnum, Commonwealth (1649–1660) and English Commonwealth. I'm not in favour of the latter two as they infer there was only one 'Commonwealth' which I disagree with. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
We already have an interregnum page, although there may be a need for some refactoring there. This page's title should be some variation on Commonwealth, since that's the topic – the fact that a republic was declared/imposed in England and eventually elsewhere in Britain and Ireland during this period. As for whether there was only one Commonwealth – although I wouldn't say it is as simple as that – we can keep going round in circles with each of us repeating ourselves, but the bottom line is that we need to follow the way that the historical sources treat the topic. The split is not between a sovereign state known as the "Commonwealth of England" and then a new sovereign state known as the "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland" (which suddenly included, at a stroke, Scotland and Ireland when they had not been part of it in any way before) but between the Commonwealth period and the Commonwealth/Protectorate period. N-HH talk/edits 16:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're proposing. Do you want content about the Protectorate removed from this article so we essentially have a 1649 to 1653 article and a 1653 to 1660 article? I agree that the current names of this article is inadequate as the phrase Commonwealth of England was used to describe both periods/states individually. Possibly Commonwealth (1649–1653). Rob (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I am proposing the following, as spelled out earlier: "As I see it this article should broadly reflect events all throughout the period when the term Commonwealth was applied (in various forms and to varying territory), ie until the Restoration, albeit with most focus on the 1649 to 1653 period, which is what many historians commonly mean when they refer to the "Commonwealth" period, contrasting it with the later "Protectorate" period. This is also the only page that covers that initial period, whereas we have the Protectorate page which can deal in more detail with post-1653, and to which readers can be directed to from the relevant sub-section here (as currently)." That is, there will be, as there is currently, some overlap. I'm actually not suggesting huge changes, just being a bit clearer about the lack of clarity, as it were, and probably less definitive about dates. That will involve a change of name and some tweaking of content, but not a lot. N-HH talk/edits 16:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
'involve a change of name' too? This is where I'm not getting you, what can the name be changed to that will fit the article you are describing? Rob (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure, which is why I haven't suggested anything specific, beyond "some variation on Commonwealth", although my suggested phrasing for the opening text was for it to say "English Commonwealth" or simply "Commonwealth" and set "a start date of 1649 but without claiming a precise end of 1653". The problem with "Commonwealth of England" is that it doesn't seem to be a common term in modern sources, which seem to prefer "the Commonwealth" – which also opens up it up beyond England – but that obviously runs into disambiguation issues when it comes to the article title itself. Anyway, we're getting bogged down here and I'm probably done for the weekend. N-HH talk/edits 17:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Rob you wrote above "My understanding was that this article contains information from 1563 to 1660 as there is currently no article that we have agreed on covering the entire period from 1649 to 1660" This is not correct. This article currently covers the period from 1649 to 1660. It did so before you started editing it, and it still does. -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have started the process of creating some of the articles mentioned above. But this should not be taken as an indication that I think this one should be renamed, I have yet to consider this necessary as this article does cover the period 1649 to 1660, with the middle years a summary section for the Protectorate article. This is what I have done so far.

  1. linked Interregnum (Scotland) to Scotland under the Commonwealth (a pre-existing article)
  2. created Interregnum (Ireland) by moving the Irish section out of Interregnum (British Isles)
  3. Moved Interregnum (British Isles) back to Interregnum (England) rewritten the lead and the first section. I expect this article to grow with sections on religion, rebellions, fashion, the impact of banning Christmas, the impact on local politics including taxation of "Delinquents" etc.

I will create an overview summary article called Interregnum (1649–1660) to ties all these articles together. -- PBS (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed first para

Can I suggest the following as a slight reorder and rewrite of what we have now on this page? It mostly uses what is already there but has less emphasis on "Commonwealth of England" as a name and moves some things around to improve, hopefully, the narrative and conceptual flow. It probably needs a small amount of detail added, especially in the one area I've highlighted, but also re the gradual incorporation of Scotland and Ireland and re the steps that led to the Restoration:

  • The Commonwealth, or English Commonwealth, was the period when England, and later Ireland and Scotland, was ruled as a republic, following the defeat of King Charles I in the Second English Civil War and his execution. The republic's existence was initially declared through "An Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth", which was adopted by the Rump Parliament on 19 May 1649. Power in the early Commonwealth was vested primarily in .. (the Army? Parliament? Council of State?). During this period, fighting continued, particularly in Ireland and Scotland, between the English parliamentary forces and those opposed to them, as part of what is now referred to as the Third English Civil War.
  • In 1653, after the forcible dissolution of the Rump Parliament, Oliver Cromwell was declared Lord Protector of a united Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, inaugurating the period now usually known as the Protectorate. After Cromwell's death, and following a brief period of rule under his son, Richard Cromwell, the Protectorate Parliament was dissolved in 1659 and the Rump Parliament recalled, the start of a process that led ultimately to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. The term Commonwealth is sometimes used for the whole of 1649 to 1660 – a period referred to by monarchists as the Interregnum – although for other historians, the use of the term is limited to the years prior to 1654 and Cromwell’s formal assumption of power.

As for the title, as I say, I'm not arguing for a radical change but merely a tweak to something still based on "Commonwealth" but possibly less dependent on "of England". N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how this article will be any different to Interregnum (1649–1660). Rob (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The proposal above isn't for an overhaul of this page, just for some mid-level changes to the lead, mainly to reflect the fact that, in some usage, and as the page already acknowledges in the main body, the Commonwealth didn't drop dead in 1653; hence the point about a possible clash with Interregnum applies just as much now. I noted that possibility myself earlier, and that we are arguably talking about the same thing but under different POV names, but the concepts are genuinely slightly different in that the Commonwealth refers to the government and polity that actually existed in the period in question, while Interregnum should focus more on the monarchy (or lack of) question. Also there is the point that, in some usage, "Commonwealth" only refers to the period up to 1653. N-HH talk/edits 15:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the period between 1649 to 1653 should have its own article, as it was a distinct period in which England and Ireland were ruled by the Rump Parliament or we could create an article at Politics of the Interregnum covering the entire period and then deleting both this and the Protectorate article. Why should there be an article going more in-depth into the period from 1553 to 1560, but not one for 1649 to 1653? Rob (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is appropriate, one day in the future if this article becomes much larger then there may be a case for turning this article into a summary article, but is is nowhere near large enough and for all of the period from 1649 until 1660 England was a commonwealth. If it were to be done now, all that would be created would be a content fork of some of this article. -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is the article for the 1649 to 1653 period. At the same time, at another level, it also covers the entire period to 1660 (maybe that's not ideal, but I'm not sure there is an ideal solution, given the way this period in history is covered in serious sources). That is the way this page is currently structured. I'm not suggesting changing that or asking for suggestions as to how to change it. The whole point of the above proposal and the sub-thread I opened here is simply to look at a possibly clearer way of explaining and reflecting that current reality in the lead section. That's it. We seem to be going round in circles about much wider issues and possible wider changes, which are being addressed in other threads here, rather than your actually responding in any specific way to the actual suggestion for the lead. But since we're doing that, I'll say this: you seem to have a need to fit everything into rigid boxes and demarcated time periods which they simply do not fit into. We need to have – amid any other articles and sub-articles – an article called "the Commonwealth" (ie this one) and one called "the Protectorate" because these are the terms used in scholarship, rather than constantly trying to invent our own WP terminology.
(Added after) As PBS says there's no need for further splits just yet. There may be in the future, if this article gets too big, but can we just go one step at a time and focus on the actual points in question – given where we are now with this page, does my suggestion help improve the lead? Is there anything that could be added, especially in the areas I singled out? N-HH talk/edits 21:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Based on your points, I would prefer an article at Politics of the Interregnum covering both 'the Commonwealth' and 'the Protectorate' with The Commonwealth and The Protectorate redirecting to the appropriate sections on that page however I have no knowledge of the use of the term 'the Protectorate' and 'the Commonwealth' so I don't think I can really make a call on this. I'm fine for you to go ahead and make any changes you have agreed on. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the sources provided by Sodacan at #Coat of Arms, I don't think 'Commonwealth of England' and 'Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland' refer to specific periods, but instead are both terms used to describe the period, with 'Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland' being introduced after the annexation of Scotland along side 'Commonwealth of England'. Rob (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, others have spent quite a while explaining – despite your scepticism until now – that there is probably not a rigid demarcation there. That said, "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland" is the phrase in the instrument of government to specify the entity over which a Lord Protector was appointed. Hence, your removal of the term at that point in the lead was unwarranted. As was your moving around the various alternative terms, so that they appear randomly at different points, some of them with the random addition of "commonly known as" in front of them. On a procedural point, I spent a while posting proposals here, asking for comment, discussing them and waiting until actually putting them in. Its a little galling to find you then suddenly deciding there were things you wanted to change after all and, without even commenting further here, just diving in and making those changes directly on the actual page within hours of my posting my revised version. N-HH talk/edits 21:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I have never intended to suggest that there was a rigid demarcation on the terms, but instead the regimes. I was also not aware of the use of the term in the instrument of government. I would suggest removing the bold formatting from 'commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland' here and on the Protectorate article and including both the terms in brackets after '...as a republic', because the republic was known as the 'Commonwealth of England' and 'Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland', not the period. Rob (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to de-bolding the COESI phrase here (it's not currently bolded on the Protectorate page btw) but I'm less clear about whether or why we would want to start putting the phrase in brackets. Two things I'm going to change: per the lead text, I think the infobox should not explicitly give an end date of "1660" and in the Protectorate sub-section, it is not correct to say that a fixed entity called the COESI, known as the Protectorate, was created in 1654 or that it was the Tender of Union or subsequent declarations that allowed for Scottish and Irish MPs in Parliament (again, this is all covered in the Instrument of Government from 1653). N-HH talk/edits 14:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article suggests the period was called the 'Commonwealth of England', but this is not supported by any sources. The name of the republic was the 'Commonwealth of England' used across the entire period, so I think the appropriate place for it would be directly after the republics existence is stated. We could omit the phrase from the lead completely however I would advise changing the lead to '...as a republic, known as the Commonwealth of England, following the...'. I don't think it really matters if it's bolded or not. I will de-bold the COESI. Rob (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources that use the term "Commonwealth of England", for both the period and the republic itself. It is also at the moment, of course, the actual name of the page. I don't see currently how we can stop using it, bolded, in the opening sentence, or that we need to. Indeed, your proposed change simply creates more problems, since it suggests that it is the only name used for the republic. N-HH talk/edits 15:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Should this page be moved to English Commonwealth or The Commonwealth based on that the 'Commonwealth of England' is ambiguous as it refers to two both the period and republic, which although this article covers both of, it is actually referring to the period? Rob (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinctions you are trying to draw, either between the names or between the "period" and the "republic". All three refer to pretty much the same thing(s). They're just variations on a theme. Arguably simply "the Commonwealth" is the most commonly found, but that has disambiguation problems. N-HH talk/edits 15:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think 'Commonwealth of England' does refer to the period, but instead is a formal term used by the various Parliaments during the Interregnum to describe the republic they controlled.. I think 'Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland' was also used by the Parliament to describe the republic it controlled from 1653 to 1659, when Scotland was formally annexed and along with Ireland revived representation in Parliament. Rob (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The immediate contrast, following the current opening sentence, was between Commonwealth of England, English Commonwealth and simply Commonwealth. As I say, these are variations on a theme and I do not understand the distinctions you are attempting to draw between them or by making one supposedly refer to a period and another to a polity. Any polity exists in a period. The term Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland may be somewhat substantively different, but we were not discussing that term as from your comment at 15:35 on the 13 September. And even then you have to remember, as people keeping pointing out, that we are not talking about a rigid demarcation where one state suddenly became another one with a different name and different territory. Nor did people rely on quite such rigid and consistent naming practices anyway at this time. This was the 17th century, during a period of conflict, and before the advent of the ISO and suchlike. All in all it might be better if you could find some reputable source that explicitly highlights and explains the distinctions you are asserting exist, rather than basing everything on what you "think". Again, as noted, the one key distinction obviously asserted by historians is the shift from the "pure" Commonwealth to Protectorate. N-HH talk/edits
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Commonwealth_of_England/Archive_2&oldid=1136306411"