Talk:Commonwealth of England

Lead again
There was quite a bit of discussion about the lead before the version prior to this change was put in, only recently. It seems a bit premature to suddenly rewrite the lead again, especially without any substantive discussion. The "copy edit" edit summary is also somewhat misleading. There are major changes here, not all of which are necessarily improvements: we have lost the alternative term "English Commonwealth"; introduced a fixed end date of 1660; lost the brief explanation of the slightly different ways the term is applied; lost reference to the fact that during the early Commonwealth, England was nominally ruled by Parliament and the Council of State ; and, on a more trivial point, introduced a grammatical error by adding an unnecessary "and" ("and later with ..").  N-HH   talk / edits  10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There were no substantive deletion of text so Copy Edit was the correct term (particularly as I contributed to these conversations on the talk page and as far as I can tell never said that I agreed with the minor additions that I removed). To address your points in order
 * There is no substantive difference between Commonwealth of England or English Commonwealth. Both do not need to be in bold in the first sentence.
 * There is no direct causation between the second civil war and the republic. The commonwealth came about because of the execution -- the second civil war like the first civil war are two links in a chain that go back nearly half a century, and the finer points of that debate should not be placed in this lead.
 * See the footnote for alternative meanings
 * The lead still contained "Power in the early Commonwealth was vested primarily in the Parliament and a Council of State". (actually as as was shown in the coup d'état of 1653 power really lay with the Army Council).
 * Minor grammar errors can be fixed without a revert.
 * -- PBS (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyediting is usually only used to refer to grammar and formatting corrections and minor stylistic changes. No, the edit didn't lose a lot, but there were still substantive changes there, even if fewer than I first thought. I also think it's not unreasonable to suggest that some of the points might have been raised when an opportunity arose during the discussion above, which you did participate in, rather than just waiting for a few days after it was done and then making them without any discussion. It might even have offered some relief from the voluminous off-topic debate involved there. Anyway, on the points ..
 * I agree we could maybe lose "English Commonwealth" as an alternative bolded title, but that specific term is found, including as a book title, and equally I can't see any particular benefit in losing it
 * I'm not sure what this is referring to. I don't see where the lead claims causation per se or where exactly it goes into too much detail on the chronology
 * Yes, the edit created a footnote re the alternative periods the term can refer to, but that still removed visible text from the lead. Also, regardless of any footnote, the edit added the explicit claim that the Commonwealth lasted until 1660. This is not the universal terminology, and it is something I thought we had been discussing more generally above and had come to an agreement on (also I think the words "now usually known as" before the Protectorate are important, since they help both with the ambiguity of modern terminology and with the distinction between what things would have been called then and what they are called now)
 * I misread the changes at first glance, but did strike my incorrect claim that we had lost the Council of State stuff
 * Sure
 *  N-HH   talk / edits  14:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The benefit in loosing English Commonwealth is a matter of style, including both makes this lead look like the camel it is. If the article was called "English Commonwealth" then I would have removed "Commonwealth of England".


 * "following the defeat of King Charles I in the Second English Civil War and his execution". Why include the second civil war in which Charles was not defeated as he was at that time a prisoner? Better to drop it completely (the complicated situation is summed up in the Prelude and Execution of Charles I in the SECW article). so I think "following the trial and execution of Charles I in late January 1649 until ..." is more succinct and accurate.
 * I added "...the Restoration of Charles II in 1660." The reason for the 1660 date is that the commonwealth lasted until the Restoration. There is no debate over this in the sources because Cromwell was "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of ...", and as Blair Worden (2012, God's Instruments: Political Conduct in the England of Oliver Cromwell page 275) makes clear for supporters of the republic the Interregnum was a Commonwealth it was just that that they were rather vague on for whom it was a commonwealth (see the whole page but particularly footnote 145). On page 273 Worden explains why the Rumpers chose Commonwealth "" because "". He goes on to say "". So there is no debate that the Commonwealth government lasted until 1660, the only debate is if the "English Commonwealth" ended with the coup d'état in 1653. As can be seen by Worden's detailed explanation as the terms were used loosely by contemporariness, so most historians who describe the "English Commonwealth" as a specific sub-period do so with dates which restrict the focus of their books but do not necessarily imply that the rest of interregnum was not also a commonwealth, indeed even if one does not think that the term "English Commonwealth" is appropriate for the Protectorate one is left with the problem of what to call 1659-60 if the English Commonwealth ended with the coup d'état in 1653.
 * The reason for the footnoting it is that its content is about the meaning of the term commonwealth and not about what the commonwealth was (WP:REFERS). Footnoting differences in usage of a term in reliable sources is a common way to present such information as the information placed in a footnote explains the nuances of usage -- After this post revert discussion I would add into it "English" before the first use of commonwealth, (but that does not really help as one also has to include 1659-1660) -- But that is something to work on rather than reverting it.
 * -- PBS (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Following the bullet points ..
 * As I say, I can see the advantage in being tidier and not having all three alternatives listed (they're all variations on a theme after all). It doesn't seem a big deal either way
 * Fair enough as to the specifics re Charles. But I think it would help to keep a bit more in the way of chronology and links here. Perhaps "following the defeat of the royalists in the Second Civil War" or "after the end of the Second Civil War"?
 * Yes the Commonwealth lasted until 1660 in one sense, and that's probably the term generally used at the time, but the terminology today tends to prefer the "Protectorate" for the post-1653 period, which is marked as a contrast to the pre-53 period, especially when looking at the government; and about which we have a separate article ourselves of course. I think we need to reflect that by fudging it slightly in the opening sentence here while explaining later in the lead the (different) uses of the term. And if we don't fudge it, why pick 1660 rather than 1653? As I said before, that may not be ideal but we have to deal with the sources and the terminology as we find them: in my view it's the least worst option and makes sure we cover all the ground and all the ambiguity. See for example this encyclopedia entry, at p126.
 * See above. Plus, while the essay you cite correctly suggests avoiding "refers to .." where it's unnecessary, that doesn't mean we can't or never do. This seems a rather obvious situation where it can't really be avoided in open text. The concern is less about what exactly any footnote might say than with the principle of relying on such a footnote rather than the main text in the first place, which leaves the explanation stuck at the very end of the entire page. A brief discussion of terminology has been in the main text for a while, long before my recent changes, so I think it's legitimate to accept doing it that way round as the status quo pending consensus to change it.
 * Overall I just think the outright removal or shifting of information from a lead, much of which has been there in some form or other for a while, should be avoided unless there's a clear benefit to doing it. I'm sure that, given the structure, the content it can always be improved, but that's a different point.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Reorganisation (again)
Sorry if I’m ploughing up ground that others thought settled, but I think there are some issues with titles and scopes of articles related to this one. Not, I should say, with the title of this article—I won’t dare to touch that issue—but as the preceding archive link suggests, this Talk page has been something of a rallying point for edits on the whole inter-article matter in the past, so I’ve chosen to make my observations here. Far be it from me to tell the hard-working editors who’ve carefully hammered out consensus that they’re wrong and they have to do this or that, but… well, the danger everyone faces, writing in their own areas of expertise, is losing perspective on how non-experts will come to the topic, isn’t it? -- Perey (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Interregnum (England) seems, by its own lead, to intend to be about life and events in England during the Interregnum, not about the Interregnum itself. Great—can the title reflect that? Something like “England during the Interregnum”?
 * I’m sure the title Interregnum (1649–1660) has been carefully chosen (over such predecessors as Interregnum (British Isles)) for good and inclusive reasons, but for someone only passingly familiar with the topic, it’s very confusing. It suggests that (a) I (should) know the Interregnum by its dates, and/or that (b) that there was another Interregnum in England or Britain, rendering “(British Isles)” insufficient as a distinguisher.
 * The scopes of articles on the topic need to be clarified (and the articles themselves interlinked more consistently), so that someone like me can come in fresh and know which articles are going to cover what facets—and I can go away feeling that I’ve got a decent idea of how matters relate to each other.


 * Point of fact there was an article called English Interregnum which was moved to Interregnum (England) this was briefly moved to Interregnum (British Isles) and then moved back to Interregnum (England). Interregnum (1649–1660) was a summary style article created immediately after the move back from Interregnum (British Isles) which was then redirected to that new summary style article.


 * British Isles is a very bad disambiguator because it is a politically loaded term and not (just) a geographic one. For example what defines the British Isles to include the Shetland Islands but exclude the Faroe Islands if it is not political possession? Similarly with the Channel Islands (it needed a ICJ ruling in 1953 to decide whether Écréhous was French or British territory and hence part of the British Isles). Using the term British Isles while not thought much of a issue in Britain, as politically controversial in Ireland so best avoided if there is a suitable alternative . Also there are lots of other interregnums for the constituent parts of the British Isles at other times which makes it less than ideal:


 * Who was king of England after Harold was killed at Hastings? The idea of "The King is dead. Long live the King" is Norman medieval concept which did not exist in Saxon Englandm, and often notable in its absence during things like the War of the Roses -- before the Battle of Bosworth Richard III was King, but Parliament passed legislation after the fact that made Henry VII King the day before the battle (making those who fought against him traitors after the fact). In 1660 after the events of 1649 it became a political figleaf, particularly after James II fled into exile and the later choice of George I as king by act of Parliament. King Henry VIII was the first modern King of Ireland (before that his and previous English Kings were Lords of Ireland). Wales did not have a king (or at least it was debatable) before Edward I imposed himself on the principality, also at times Scotland was without a monarch (eg Braveheart and all that). So "interregnum (British Isles)" is not only politically inexpedient it also brings complexity the current disambiguation avoids.


 * As to your questions over "Interregnum (England)" I am against changing the title and in the long term it may be better to merge its contents in here and redirect it to this article, but until its content is fully cited I would be against doing that. Besides there are many other things that need work before we need worry about that (like turning Interregnum (1649–1660) into a much better article along with the articles to which it links). -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sequence of events
I am going to partially revert this edit by Aanderson@amherst.edu, because two of the thee facts are correct. If there is repetition then edits elsewhere may be needed.

Source for the sequence of events:

From List of Ordinances and Acts of the Parliament of England, 1642–60
 * 9 October 1646 Ordinance for the abolishing of Archbishops and Bishops in England and Wales and for settling their lands and possessions upon Trustees for the use of the Commonwealth.


 * 6 January 1648/9 Act erecting a High Court of Justice for the trial of the King.
 * 30 January 1648/9 Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland or the Dominions thereof.
 * 30 January 1648/49 execution of Charles I

-- PBS (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 17 March 1648/9 Act for abolishing the kingly office in England, Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging
 * 19 March 1648/9 Act abolishing the House of Peers.
 * 19 May 1649 Act Declaring and Constituting the People of England to be a Commonwealth and Free-State
 * 27 September 1650 Act for the relief of the religious and peaceable from the Rigour of former Acts of Parliament, in matters of Religion.

PBS, the text reads:

Just before and after the execution of King Charles I on 30 January 1649, the Rump passed a number of acts of Parliament creating the legal basis for the republic. With the abolition of the monarchy, Privy Council and the House of Lords, it had unchecked executive, as well as legislative, power. […two sentences…] After the Execution of Charles I, the House of Commons abolished the monarchy and the House of Lords.

The last sentence is redundant and within the same paragraph, so no other edits are necessary.

— AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 February 2015‎


 * Actually while it may be a duplication it is more accurate than the part you have highlighted "Just before and after the execution of King Charles ..." All of the acts mentioned were passed after the execution and not just after (which would imply days, possibly weeks) but more than a month and a half later. As I said If there is repetition then edits elsewhere may be needed. -- PBS (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * PBS, while I agree that is better, it is a small matter and I would prefer that you edit this first sentence to your liking instead of restoring this last sentence, which I find to be a distraction since it makes me stop and think to myself “didn’t I just read this?”. — AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aanderson@amherst.edu (talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As you highlight, with this instance, Wikipedia is a camel (a horse designed by a committee). My point is that the whole paragraph needs rewriting, and deleting the more accurate sentence does not help fix he problem. I am willing to do it by I am not sure when as I have several other pressing issues I am dealing with, in the mean time I do not think that your initial solution fixes the problem. So yes if you do not make the changes I will do so, but I am not sure when. -- PBS (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible revisions and additions to come...?
I may be doing some addition, I do not see any comments from the past five years, but please correct anything I add that may be erroneous. Notarealperson2 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)