Talk:Godolphin–Marlborough ministry

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was: Moved to Godolphin–Marlborough ministry - RGloucester (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Coalition Ministry → Godolphin-Marlborough Ministry – Several reasons really. Declaration of interest: I added the Godolphin-Marlborough Ministry article under that title, which I feel to have been the correct one. Opera hat (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The current title is ambiguous. Only the capitalisation stops this article being a redirect to a general article on coalition government. Even just in Britain there have been numerous "Coalition Ministries", including in 1783, 1806, 1827, 1852, 1915, 1916, the National Government of 1931-40 and of course the current government.
 * 2) The proposed title is that given in the cited source. At present the sole source given in for the article is Cook and Stevenson's British Historical Facts 1688-1760. In the list of "ministries and administrations" in Chapter 3, this administration is given as "Godolphin-Marlborough", named after its leaders in common with the rest (page 33).
 * 3) The current title is the result of original research. See Talk:List of British governments, where User:RGloucester says "I think it is known to history as the 'Coalition Ministry', but I’d have to do some research" then (presumably as a result of such research, which is not shared) announces that the article has been "[m]erged to 'Coalition Ministry' as that is how it is known to history".
 * 4) I'm not convinced this original research is even correct. Although the 1702-10 government has been referred to as a coalition ministry, I'm struggling to find justification that it is "known to history" as the Coalition Ministry any more than all the others (see 1. above). The History of Parliament in its article on the 1702 parliament states that Godolphin and Marlborough were known as the "duumvirs", which shows that the ministry was considered more an alliance of two leaders than a coalition of two parties. The term "duumvirs" is again used in the article on the parliament of 1705, which also refers to "Godolphin's ministry" (Marlborough being away on campaign, though still in office) and after 1708, when the Junto Whigs joined the government, the term "Goldolphin-Junto ministry" is used. If "Coalition Ministry" was a popular term surely it would have got a mention.

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support current title should be a disambiguation page -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename -- The present title should either be a dabpage or a redirect to one. However, I would suggest something like Godolphin Ministry would be more appropriate.  Marlborough's prominence was as a general, far more than as a politician.  Godolphin was Lord Treasurer.  At a later period we refer to ministries by (or mainly by) the name of the Prime Minister.  The next one is the "Harley Ministry", named from the Lord Treasurer; so why not here.  Godolphin Ministry will in fact not do, since he was First Lord or Lord Treasurer several times.  Goldolphin-Junto ministry would be an alternative possibility, but I like it less.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Godolphin-Junto ministry" would only be appropriate for the period after November 1708. Opera hat (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support It was I who did this, when I was merging the two articles as part of my ministry articles clean-up, placed it at this title. It was wrong, and I hadn’t been paying attention, it seems. I agree with Opera hat entirely. Goldophin-Marlborough would be most appropriate. RGloucester (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Godolphin-Junto Ministry?
Would it make sense to have a separate article on the last period of the ministry, from 1708 to 1710? Although Godolphin and Marlborough were still involved, it was otherwise basically a completely different ministry from the one Queen Anne appointed at her accession. Obviously there's a transitional period as the ministry grows more and more Whiggish - spanning more or less the whole period of Harley's Secretaryship of State, but Harley's resignation, followed a few months later by the appointment of Somers and Wharton to high office, seems like a reasonable breaking off point. Obviously, the idea of a "ministry" was still a bit unclear during Queen Anne's reigns, and you generally don't have people entering or leaving office simultaneously, but I think a division between the Godolphin/Marlborough ministry of 1702-1708 and the one of 1708-1710 seems appropriate. john k (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are referring to the Second Whig Junto, right? My knowledge of this section of British history is kind of thin. While I understand your point, I think it would be best to describe what you are talking about in the article rather than splitting it off. These are low traffic articles to begin with, and I don't think it warrants a second article. Also, ministries are defined by who is in nominally charge, regardless of how reliant on the Junto Godolphin/Marlborough became. RGloucester  (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Second Whig Junto, indeed. Ministries are defined by who is in charge, but we have separate articles for the Second MacDonald Ministry and the First National Ministry, both headed by MacDonald; separate articles for the Liberal Government 1905-1915 (headed for most of its time by Asquith) and the Asquith Coalition Ministry, likewise headed by Asquith; separate articles for Churchill's coalition government and his immediately succeeding caretaker government, and so forth.  john k (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is because, in those cases, they were separate government formations. Churchill resigned from the war ministry, and was then asked to form a new one by the King until elections. And so on…in this case, I don’t think the "heads" of the ministry quit. In other words, they were not asked to form a new ministry, I think. Also, Cook and Stevenson’s British Historical Facts doesn’t split them up, at least in my edition… RGloucester  (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think Asquith resigned in 1915, though, or that MacDonald did in 1931. But even beyond that, ministry formation was so much less formal in the early 18th century that I'm not sure you can draw any real conclusions from that.  If you look at the end of this ministry, for example, you see that Sunderland left office in June 1710, Godolphin in August, Somers, Boyle, Cowper, and Orford in September, and Marlborough not until December 1711/January 1712.  Basically, the whole idea of a cabinet with collective responsibility was alien, and didn't get firmly established until maybe, at earliest, the first Rockingham ministry in the 1760s - and probably not for some time after that for non-Rockingham Whigs. Certainly the "Second Junto" is discussed and viewed as a distinct ministry in many sources. john k (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)