Talk:William and Mary

Should the search William and Mary direct to an article about King William and Queen Mary or the 2nd oldest university in America - College of William and Mary?

I think that the wikipedia article setup of William and Mary is illogical. Any search in a major search engine (such as Google) has the College of William and Mary as the top 6 search results - leading me to strongly believe that most people searching William and Mary in Wikipedia are actually intending to go to the the article "College of William and Mary"

Could we have the search William and Mary yield the College of William and Mary page? Thoughts about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrx2007 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What about turning this into a disambig page? I don't see any problem with that.Dpodoll68 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i think that most people will want to know about the monarchs william and mary other tan the college. if you want to go to the college then type in william and mary college!!!!!!! submitted by jj jones This article might be criticised according to the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but I believe that a minimum of link-rich information here represents a worthwhile improvement to ease of navigation and linking. Please think carefully before adding any more information to this articule rather than to the articles to which it links. -- Alan Peakall 17:48 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. A case might possibly be made for a reference to the concept of "William and Mary" as a historical or cultural period, in much the same way as "Queen Anne" or "Regency". --Deb

What about the Martin Clunes TV series? Shouldn't that come under a different entry? Robotmannick 12:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "United Kingdom" should be changed to Great Britain, as the Act of Union only combined England and Scotland, and the United Kingdom refers of course to Northern Ireland as well.

Russell

'democracy'

'...began a new co-operation between the Parliament and the monarchs, leading to a greater measure of personal liberty and democracy in Britain.' I suggest that this is at least ambiguous, and it could be interpreted to mean that Britain became a democracy at this point, which of course it didn't (not to mention, as another did, that the Act of Union with Scotland was in the future (not to mention Ireland's history in this.) Maybe the author meant something like 'consolidated the principle of parliamentary constitutional monarchy, paving the way for democracy in the future.'

Neil203.220.182.94 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

reference problem

Could someone with more experience on a wiki correct this page? After "uncle," the wiki code contains this: <ref><ref> image links </ref></ref> and the article has a reference error at the top, but I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. Sorry to dump this problem on someone else, but it seems egregious enough (at least for layout) that I wanted to mention it. άλφα7248^Talk 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did they become coregents?

The article doesn't explain why they became coregents, only that it happened from an action by parliament. Given the specific nature of succession how did this come about. Seems like important information that is missing. 12.4.17.250 (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)