Talk:Invitation to William

Suggested Page Move
The current article title "Invitation to William" seems to be to generic for the subject matter. There have undoubtably been other invitations written to other people named William over the course of history. I would suggest something more specific, such as "Invitation to William of Orange by the Immortal Seven"63.192.83.15 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the title wasn't invented by us as some sort of general description of what happened. It is the historical name for the historical event.--MWAK (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Text of the Invitation" external link at the bottom of this article leads to a page called "Letter of invitation to William of Orange, 1688". A quick Google search also seems to show that "Invitation to William of Orange" seems to be a common historical name for the event.  Is there a reason that one of those alternatives wouldn't be acceptable?  The only reason I bring it up at all is because of the PLA; as I followed a link to 'Immortal Seven' from the main page here, and for a few moments before I actually read the opening of the article I thought I had been taken to the wrong page.  I thought perhaps a slightly more specific title would be helpful to people unfamiliar with the historical event... like me. 63.192.83.15 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that "invitation to William of Orange" is indeed often used, but more as a description, whereas when "Invitation to William" functions more as a name — perhaps precisely because it isn't at first glance obvious which William is meant. As an encyclopaedia we have to be wary of creating fake names. "Invitation to William of Orange by the Immortal Seven" perfectly suggests what happened but also creates the false impression this is somehow the "official" designation of the event.--MWAK (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Immortal Seven
I propose that we merge this with the Immortal Seven. I was going to add their names here till I saw that link. The text on the two pages will necessarily be nearly identical, and I think someone who looks for either term should see the information that is on both together without having to click on any links. William Quill 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. I only created the article because I was tired of seeing the red link.  I was going to copy the Invitation's text here, but I think that properly belongs in Wikisource. --Coemgenus 22:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which then do we use, Immortal Seven or Invitation to William. I'd be inclined towards the latter, as they are only a group of Seven in the context of the Invitation. (I would have got back to this sooner but I just finished an exam on this a few hours ago. William Quill 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question. I agree that the Seven wouldn't be so Immortal without the Invitation. Let's move it there. --Coemgenus 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Run-on opening sentence.
The Invitation to William was a letter sent by seven notable Englishmen, later named the Immortal Seven, to William III, Prince of Orange, received by him on 1688-06-30 (Julian calendar, 10 July Gregorian calendar), asking him, because in England a Catholic male heir, James Francis Edward Stuart, had been born, to force the ruling king, his father-in-law James II of England, by military intervention to make William's Protestant wife Mary, James's eldest daughter, heir to the throne, preferably by establishing that the newborn Prince of Wales was a fraud.

This opening sentence is badly structured; it's quite long and hard to read, and it also makes confusing overuse of commas. Should be revised? Speed and Sleep 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably. ;o)--MWAK 18:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Date
Was the document signed on 30 June or received by William on that date? It presumably cannot have been both. Drutt (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a very good point. The site linked to indeed gives a signature date of 30 June. I'll check the sources. Of course for reasons of security, Herbert might conceivably only have added a date just prior to presenting it to William...--MWAK (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)