Talk:Exclusion Crisis

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Crises passage, as of April 7, 2023

· Suggest streamlining how France/the French are referred to (e.g., "pro-France" to "pro-French;" "threaten the French into paying" and "the French's victory" = France
·The whole section needs citations. Also remove the large quote and paraphrase or work idea into text. AFineClaret (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-french relationships

If I may suggest a section further explaining why being pro-french was a problem and why parliament wanted to stop Anglo-French relations.

Sentence Restructuring Suggestion

The following sentence could use reworking. I don't know the history well enough to do so however:

"The occasion that brought these sentiments to a head was the impeachment of Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby as a scapegoat for the scandal by which Louis XIV bought the neutrality of Charles' government with an outright bribe."

What I found confusing is that the impeachment is described as a means to 'buy the neutrality' of the current King's government

Is the impeachment the cost of the government's neutrality or some (unspecified) bribe?
Neutrality towards what issue? I'd presume the Exclusion Bill but even if this is the case, does neutrality mean ignoring the bill or allowing it to remain in effect? Why would Catholic France be bribing Charles's government when they would be allies on this issue, unless 'Charles' government' actually refers to Parliment? Louis XIV wasn't mentioned earlier in the definition so the reader has no background for his motivations here.

Change of Name

Wouldn't this article be better off under the name "Exclusion Crisis"? It's more commonly referred to, and has more breadth. Gabrielthursday 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the controversy is more better known as "Exclusion Crisis".--Johnbull 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and since Exclusion Bill will be redirected, what could be the harm? --Wetman 05:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The role of Charles II in ending the crisis?

In his 'History of Britain' series and book Simon Schama seems to suggest a much more active role on the part of Charles II in ending the crisis. Essentially he argues that the King drew a proverbial line in the sand, leaving parliament with the choice of either submitting to his will or going to war against the monarchy (with the obvious spectre of the Cromwellian parliamentry regime hanging over that course of action). This notion of a stare-down between crown and parliament, with the parliament blinking first, isn't reflected in any of the relevant articles (this one, Charles II, or James II). They all seem to suggest a much more mundane resolution, with the various bills being defeated in the parliament and interest in them slowly waning.

Am I just a slave to popular history documentaries, or should this view actually be represented in the articles? --TheCappy (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion Bill → Exclusion Crisis – Google Books indicates that over the last 20 years it has been the most common usage: Bill about 4,000 to Crisis about 10,000; but also the scope of this article is more about the crisis than the wording in the Bill (or which there is no mention). -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I agree that crisis is currently the usual term. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recommendation

Awesome article edit! I wonder if it's just me, but the first couple of sentences in the Crisis section are difficult to understand, maybe a rephrasing it may make it easier to understand? Notarealperson2 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. I made an edit, hopefully it is more clear now. Jtk2023 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Passage

With the understanding that Danby got caught accepting the French proposal, how was the acceptance captured specifically? How exactly did such a big "oops" situation occur? I personally do not think it is completely necessary to add that...but I do not think that would hurt. Only because individuals like me who are intrigued by such a scandal, are curious as to how this information came to light. Especially not knowing if the acceptance was already notified to France or not. Historianmummy (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that the history of Danby's situation is much too long complex, and the details of his temporary downfall I think are better suited for Danby's own Wikipedia page and not the Exclusion Crisis. Jtk2023 (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]