Talk:Peace of Utrecht

Balance of Power
It says in the article that the concept of Balance of Power first appeared in the Treaty of Utrecht, but this is not the case. The concept is first mentioned in Daniel Defoe's April 19, 1709 Review. I don't feel as though I should be the one to change the article as I'm not even a registered user, but I thought that I should point this out and that someone with more experience in these matters should go about it.

The Balance of Power was actually first mentioned in 1701 by Charles Davenant in his "Essays on the Balance of Power"


 * In studies of International Relations, the Treaty of Utrecht is usually mentioned as significant because it was seen afterwards as an important precedent establishing the importance of the balance of power, a paradigm that would continue to be explicitly important for several centuries and arguably remains so today. I have not seen it claimed that it is in any way the 'first mention' of the balance of power, and the article should be changed to reflect that, as it appears prior mentions have been found. 141.161.58.24 05:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added these assertions to the article with my recent edits and have removed the tag. Ordinarily a tag is added in an article after discussion has failed, not at the outset. --Wetman 07:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All these claims are just plain incorrect, neither Davenant nor Defoe invented the idea of the balance of power or introduced it to England for the first time. The notion has its origins in Italy and was most likely first introduced to England via the translation of a history book of the Florentine historian Guicciardini in the late 16th century. For the details, see here Vagt, Alfred, "The Balance of Power: Growth of an Idea," World Politics. Vol. I, No. 1, October. 1948 149.5.64.141 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fisheries
I read that the treaty left Spain out of the whale and cod fisheries off Newfoundland. When Spanish mariners returned in the 1920s, they had to learn from the Bretons. --Error 01:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

De vous, chez vous, sans vous / Dutch influence
The last paragraph says that the importance and influence of the treaty for the Dutch was small. This seems incorrect to me. For the Dutch, the influence was huge: it marked the end of the era in which the Dutch were the rulers of the oceans. The proverbial saying De vous, chez vous, sans vous is rather explained by the fact that the Dutch, as many other powers, could do nothing else than agree to what the British and the French had agreed. I, not being a registered user, neither being a historian, neither being a native English speaker, suppose that someone changes the last paragraph to something like the following:

The Dutch, not willing to be ruled out by an arrangement between England and France, accepted the French proposal to negotiate in Utrecht, but the negotiations proved to be a fait accompli anyway, which led to the proverbial saying De vous, chez vous, sans vous, meaning: about you, in your surroundings, but without you.131.211.198.148 15:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this section is relevant to the article.


 * A completely recast paragraph concerning Dutch desires (the fortifications in the south are the ones I'm aware of) and the results for the Dutch in the final Treaty would be a much-to-be- desired contribution from you. --Wetman 07:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

treaty vs. treaties

 * It's illogical to say that a treaty "was a series". A writer must decide what relation the treaty bears to the series: it embodied a series, it epitomized a series, it included a series— if it was itself something other than the sum of the series. I opted for "comprised a series" as the most colorless choice. In the aggregate, such small matters keep the picture sharp. --Wetman 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Strafford
Thomas Wentworth, Lord Strafford has been stricken by someone from the list of commissioners for the British. I believe this was an error and am returning his name: see article Wentworth Castle; Strafford was even hauled before a committee of Parliament for his part in the treaty, which the Whigs considered not advantageous enough. --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Enregistred?
Can someone replace this word with the proper English word. I'm not sure what the proper replacement for this word would be, as I cannot find a definition for it. 66.31.76.221 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Emperor who?
In the Negotiations paragraph it says: '...but the Emperor refused to do so until he was assured that these preliminaries were not binding.' In writing in this manner, it seemed to me, an Emperor or some Empire was already mentioned previously. Yet there is no mention of either. I looked at the wiki pages of the 'Participants', but again found no emperor. It wasn't until I read the page about the War itself, that I was able to discern that it must have been a Holy Roman Emperor. But still, I wasn't sure who, so after searching through the Holy Roman Empire and Holy Roman Emperors page, I was able to determine that it must have been Charles VI, as it happened during his reign. Upon returning to this page, and in the following section Charles VI is finally mentioned. In short: perhaps it would be clearer to clarify which emperor it is. Vince (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Treaty Text
It would be interesting if the Treaty text was included in the article. See: http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/utrecht.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.71.21 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No need, there's already a link to the text in Wikisource which is the appropriate place for it. --Gibmetal 77 talk 2 me 11:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Utrecht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628080733/http://www.history.ac.uk/eseminars/sem17.html to http://www.history.ac.uk/eseminars/sem17.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed by nominator &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Treaty of Utrecht → Peace of Utrecht – Like the Peace of Westphalia, this was not a single treaty but a series of treaties. The secondary literature commonly calls it the Peace of Utrecht. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412  T 15:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)  --Relisting.  bd2412  T 02:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute the facts of the nomination but nb this Ngram. —  AjaxSmack  03:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unlike the Peace of Westphalia—for which there is no corresponding "Treaty of Westphalia"—there are several treaties, each of which can justly be called the Treaty of Utrecht, that make up the Peace of Utrecht. "Treaties of Utrecht", which is what the French Wikipedia does, would also work. Srnec (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to stick to the Germanic ( * † ‡ ) "Peace" per use commoner names. —  AjaxSmack  16:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be my preference. Srnec (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support moving to Treaties of Utrecht as it seems the article is about the (multiple) treaties. jamacfarlane (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That formulation is far less common than the proposal, though. —  AjaxSmack 23:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But the most common formulation is still "Treaty of Utrecht", and the article is about the treaties (negotiations, provisions, response, etc) instead of the underlying peace. That is why I think the title should include "Treaty" or "Treaties". Or is "peace" another term for the treaties? jamacfarlane (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See the OUP source I just added. I think in this case peace = treaties. They were not independent, but were negotiated at a peace congress and signed (most of them) on the same day. But they are distinct bilateral agreements. Srnec (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Treaties" as far less common that "Peace". I do not oppose "Peace" as "peace" is another term for the treaties.  NB other articles titled "Peace of...".  —  AjaxSmack  18:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. In addition to the "Peace" really encompassing several treaties, it appears this formation is more COMMON on Google Books ( vs. ).--Cúchullain t/ c 14:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.