Talk:Stuart Restoration/Archive 1

Untitled
This page is biased.

How so? Schizobullet 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Regicides and Rebels
There was some confusion here over the nature and operation of the Indemnity Act. This act confirmed the promise made earlier in the Declaration of Breda that no proceedings would be taken against the former opponents of the crown, with the exemption of those involved in the regicide. It is quite wrong to say that they were to be pardoned if they 'came over to the monarchy.' Some were executed, and others were imprisoned. The dead regicides were only hanged.

I've also changed the heading of this section to the more accurate 'Regicides and Rebels.' Rcpaterson 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Title of Article
Charles was restored as King of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The title English restoration is not appropriate.mjgm84 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, there is no information to how the restoration of the Crowns of Scotland and Ireland took effect. This is a significant omission in Wikipedia that should be rectified. Preferably, this page should be entitled "Restoration of the Stuart Monarchy" simply "The Restoration" or words to that effect, and it should cover all realms (England, Scotland, Ireland, and the American & other colonies). Simhedges (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The page is called the Enlgish Restoration becasuse it is about the period in time of which the English restored the monarchy. It happened at a completely different time in Scotland hense it is not in an article about England The Quill (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Though it may be an article about the English restoration, the statement "The Restoration began in 1660 when the English, Scottish and Irish monarchies were all restored under Charles II" is obviously factually inaccurate as Charles was restored in 1651 in Scotland, thereby beginning the process in the three kingdoms earlier than 1660. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.13.59 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The title "English Restoration" can only be justified if there were also articles called "The Scottish Restoration" and the "Irish Restoration" etc --Utinomen (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
The Restoration → English Restoration — Per this policy —Reginmund 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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 naming conventions.


 * Support - As nom. Reginmund 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I agree with the nominator about the need to comply with policy where possible/practical, but am concerned that the chosen title, English Restoration, is not the most commonly used name for this event, nor does it accurately reflect the nature of the Restoration from a national point of view (i.e. not just English, but Scottish, Welsh and Irish as well; as per mjgm84's comment above). As we can make occasional exceptions to policy, I would suggest that retaining The Restoration is acceptable because of its rather singular nature, although I'm aware that I say that as a British citizen who's bound to think of it as an important event!  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I support a move but not to this title. What about the "British Restoration?" -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support; that is, move, but not to "English Restoration"; we shouldn't be making up names. Fortunately, Restoration will do nicely; it is far more often mentioned in English than any of the other contents of that page, which can move to Restoration (disambiguation) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think "Restoration" is the most proper move to make, considering the number of other links there. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 23:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I actually didn't know that Wikipedia made up "English Restoration". I just assumed that it was in common parlance because it was in the article''' Reginmund 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's citeable somewhere; but it's certainly not standard usage, except in such unusual situations as an author discussing the Bourbon Restoration and contrasting with Charles II. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support mainly to get rid of the definite article in the title. —  AjaxSmack   10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In terms of Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) it's borderline, but English Restoration is just plain wrong... an inaccurate neologism. Far better to keep the borderline name we have. Andrewa 10:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Move has been done some days ago, by User:Maxim, but without closing the discussion. It appears to me there was no consensus for this move. Andrewa 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah - what's that all about? While discussion was split between moving and not moving, it certainly wasn't split on moving to the current article title.  This title was viewed negatively by most parties above.  I'll drop a note on Maxim's talkpage.  --Plumbago 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus in favour of renaming "The Restoration" to the "The English Restoration". It should be moved back, and expanded to cover the nature of the restoration in other realms. A relevant title, if "The Restoration" is seen as too Brito-centric, would be "The Stuart Restoration". The definite article is required - it is THE Restoration, just as the period during World War II in the UK was The Duration, and has a very specific meaning and is not a synonym for "Duration" Simhedges (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclarity on Causes
I'm still unclear on what the causes were for the restoration... The article does a nice job of summarizing some essential facts, but doesn't really devote much attention to the question of how so radical a shift---from regicide to restoring the monarchy---took place so quickly. (I realize this is an enormous question, but I would find adding at least a few links to other articles helpful in this regard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurpflargblech (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Restoration and Ireland
What, no mention of Ireland?. 124.170.43.72 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, and I have to add that if this disregard of Ireland is deliberate I would find that offensive.--Utinomen (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates added
I have added two templates: --Utinomen (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of this article is wrong and misleading if it is about the 'Restoration Settlement' (which is what I searched for).
 * There needs to be information about the Restoration in Scotland, Ireland, Wales to make this article more inclusive. I found the article too Anglocentric.
 * I have removed the templates, which caused about 18 inches of white space. The Restoration in Scotland was technically a different matter; in Wales & Ireland they no doubt foolowed a similar pattern to the Restoration in Yorkshire or Cornwall, about which this brief article is equally uninformative. Johnbod (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Johnbod and I am removing the templates again. The reason it is at English Restoration is because Restoration is a dab page. It could be moved to Restoration (England) which already exists as a redirect, but just as we have Charles II at Charles II of England the Restoration nearly always referrers to and is associated wish the restoration of the English monarchy an the court in London.


 * If we want to be pedantic about it: The situation with the Scottish Crown is technically slightly different anyway and a case can be made for saying that there was no interregnum in Scotland as their lawfully crowned and anointed king was only in exile. -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Having read the move request above. I am going to move the page to Restoration (England), which should address most of the concerns which people have raised on this page. -- PBS (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

End of protectorate or end of republic
That this should be titled end of protectorate in anachronistic. The end of the protectorate preceeded the end of the republic, this section should be historically correct.

As this is an article on the Restoration rather than on the final year of the republic there seems no reason to have anything more than a brief summary of events prior to the Restoration.

As the Declaration of Breda proceeded the formal restoration it seems logical to have it in this section. --Utinomen (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on how one view the process. If it is not the end of the Protectorate then it was the end of the commonwealth. However it is just as valid to see the second period of Commonwealth rule as a transition between the Protectorate and the restoration of the monarchy.


 * If the Restoration is a process then the events before Charles physically turns up it White Hall is part of the Restoration. --PBS (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely there is only one way to view a chronology? The protectorate fell before the republic. You could argue then to have a section on the fall of the protectorate, then one on the fall of what happened afterwards but would be the point? However, I do now agree that this section needs more than just a one liner. I will therefore add further referenced material. --Utinomen (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Return of Charles II
The most important aspect constitutionally of Charles II's return was that it was deemed that the republic had never existed. This part should be expanded, perhaps a new sub-section 'Political Settlement'? --Utinomen (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The legal aspect of this should not be overemphasised, it is one specific point of view, but it is only one point of view. More important by far are the political machination surrounding the Restoration, as they dictated what the legal aspects would be. To understand that one only has to look at the debate around who should or should not be exempted from the Indemnity and Oblivion Act, particularly the reaction to the idea put forward by some Royalists that anyone who had opposed the king should be included in the exemption. -- PBS (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The legal aspect should not be overemphasised - so it was all just bunting and three cheers for the King was it? no one denies there were political machinations, and they should indeed form part of the article but to claim that is a reason to exlude other material is either bizarre or seeking to deliberately misinform or mislead.--Utinomen (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that the legal aspects should be excluded from the text. I am suggesting that is should not be overemphasised. Please stop reverting my reverts to a version that has been there a long time and let us agree on the changes that you wish to make to the article. -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)