Talk:History of the constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Original source
Copied here from VfD/copyvio (diff):
 * I AM THE ONE WHO WROTE THIS MATERIAL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE RETURNED TO THIS SITE IN OVER A YEAR. THE MATERIAL IS MY OWN, BUT BASED ON LECTURES. IF IT IS THE STYLE THAT IS UNWANTED, THEN DELETE THEM, BUT IF IT IS ONLY FEAR OVER INFRINGEMENTE, THEN DO NOT WORRY, KEEP THEM. 12.223.87.232 20:49, 6 September 2003 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 13:24, 12 September 2003 (UTC)

Possible Organization
Here's a possible organizational structure which I think will better serve the page's topic.

1) Magna Carta  a) origins of abuses which led to the Magna Carta b) discussion of the Magna Carta itself  c) effects on the evolution of the British Constitution

2) Petition of Rights (1628)  a) origns b) discussion of the petition  c) effects

I'3) English Bill of Rights (1689)  a) origins b) discussion of text  c) effects

4) Act of Settlement (1701)  a) origins b) discussion  c) effects

This skeleton can be used for all of the important conventions and documents which serve as building blocks for the British Constitution. The net effect will be to center the article around the documents themselves, rather than the people. -Kbrooks


 * Sounds good, except it focuses a bit much on the standard, but highly simplified, story of Britain steadily evolving along a straight line from autocracy to democracy. Some attention should also be given to the increasing centralization of the state and power of the monarchy under the Tudors and early Stuarts.  The role of religion in the constitution and government was also crucial in earlier years and the evolution of this facet should not be ignored, even if it is downplayed by today's governments. - SimonP 20:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see your point. There's a large gap between the Magna Carta and Petition of Rights. Discussion of the role of religion is vitally important, as is the role of taxes and Parliament. I just feel the current document focuses very heavily on the Tudors and Stuarts, virtually ignoring the few documents that make up the constitution. -Kbrooks


 * Agreed, this was originally someone's lecture notes. It has been worked over since but is still not an ideal encyclopedia article. - SimonP 15:13, 22 September 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've added a cleanup tag, which hopefully will draw this article to the attention of someone with the specialist knowledge to improve it. At present it seems to be a pretty random collection of facts some of which are not particularly constitutional, and the balance between the different periods is odd. rossb 00:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is a terrible article and has nothing to do with the growth of Constitutional thought and its process. It needs a major overhaul.  I don't have time for that.WHEELER 19:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed that most of the last two centuries before the 1997 government are summed up as Between 1832 and 1989, numerous Acts of Parliament increased the number of people allowed to vote. I don't know much about the process, but I'm sure there's much more to be said! What I do know a bit about is the pre-Conquest stuff, and what's presented on this page is far from accepted. If I find time I'll change it. Harthacanute 08:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)