Talk:William Allen (cardinal)

Title
Certainly before Vatican II and in theory since, a cardinal's title is not as Cardinal {name} {surname} but {name} Cardinal {surname}. For example, the late Irish cardinals Cullen and Conway were Paul Cardinal Cullen and William Cardinal Conway. More modern usage since Vatican II sees people write Cardinal Basil Hume, even though the RC Church frowned on such usage and insisted as Basil Cardinal Hume. But pre-Vatican II, Cardinal {name} {surname} was never used and always monumentally incorrect. Since then either usage de facto is acceptable, even if Cardinal {name} {surname} is technically incorrect. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:41 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * This should be at William Allen anyway, since we don't normally put people's titles in the article title. - Montr&eacute;alais

I suspect we will need a disambiguation page because William Allen is a rather common name. There are bound to be other famous William Allens. A lot of cardinal names are quite common and probably for ease of recognition it might make more sense to leave the word in. For example, there are five Irish Paul Cullens. I don't think any are on wiki yet but in the circumstances, few people would recognise Paul Cullen as the famous Irish cardinal as he is in every history only as Cardinal Cullen. If I wasn't a historian, I wouldn't know, even though I write about religion among many other issues as a newspaper columnist. As I know from working on the Naming convention page on titles, it is one almighty nightmare. Where people are known by title, eg, royals, we do use titles, eg, Prince Laurent of Belgium, Princess Margaret of the United Kingdom, etc. Religious titles are a potential minefield. STÓD/ÉÍRE 22:06 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy
The entry states: "The large majority of English Roman Catholics sided with their own nation against the Spanish, and the defeat of the Armada, in 1588, was a subject of rejoicing to them no less than to their Anglican countrymen." Is this true for sure? We all know about Elizabeth I of England persecutions and how many Catholics were executed as traitors during her reign..Mistico (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't know whether that's true -- but what is true is that by that time many Catholics were getting mighty tired of the combination of Cardinal Allen's endless labyrinthine scheming cynical conniving political manipulations to bring about the invasion of England, together with his amazing bloodthirsty ranting tirades which revealed him to be completely out of touch with the situation within England, and on the whole they would have rather been without his supposed "assistance" (whose main effect was to taint English Catholics with a suspicion of political treason, without providing substantial compensatory benefits). AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

chisolm
Are you going to add the source for all the 's you added. Righ now they are Harv errors. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. AWB Preview doesn't run the HarvErrors script, but that's a feeble excuse! David Brooks (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)