Talk:Restoration (England)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Templates added[edit]

I have added two templates:

  • 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.

--Utinomen (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Declaration of Breda[edit]

An editor has included the unsupported statement that the Declaration of Breda included "conditions" when it manifestly did not; Charles was restored unconditionally (though I suppose with a hope of good intent). This has been discussed on that articles discussion page here. --Utinomen (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As you say this is being discussed on the talk page of the see talk:Declaration of Breda -- PBS (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


The statement "[C]onstitutionally, it was as if the last nineteen years had never happened" (Harris, Tim Restoration:Charles II and His Kingdoms 1660-1685 Allen Lane (2005) p47) depends on who's understanding or the unwritten constitution is used. Tying that sentence in with "Charles was restored 'free of limitations'" (Coward, Barry The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714 2nd edition Longman (1997) p286). is I think a synthesis and presents a very limited view of what was a complicated situation. -- PBS (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Disagree, it is clearly referenced material. If editors have referenced material on other aspects they can add them. Leaving them out is clearly a synthesis and creates a false impression. Editors must follow WP:NPOV and WP:Source --Utinomen (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because it is referenced material does not fee the sentences from synthesis and it presents a very limited view of what was a complicated situation. What do you think is the false impression that given not including these sentences? -- PBS (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
As noted above the most important aspect constitutionally of Charles II's return was that it was deemed that the republic had never existed. You appear to be denying that fact?--Utinomen (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Utinomen, you have made an edit it has been reverted. We are discussing it, why are you reverting reverts instead of seeking consensus on the talk page? -- PBS (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Much-loathed sfn[edit]

From the history of the aricle:

  • 18:11, 26 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (reverted most of the last edit, standardised citations removed {{Periods in English History}})
  • 18:49, 26 April 2012‎ Johnbod (revert undiscussed change of citation style to the much-loathed sfn)
  • 10:24, 27 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (There is no need to discuss it; naked urls and inconsistency in citation style is contrary to the advise in the guideline. But to make you feel better about it use replaced {{sfn}} with <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>) (undo)

What does "much-loathed sfn" mean? -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)