Talk:The Protectorate

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Protectorate article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland High‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

European history Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

I've re-written the entry to make it more consistent with associated Wiki articles. I'm happy to have it reviewed. [BTW: anyone know who "Abbott" is?] StockholmSyndrome 19:48, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect Abbott is Wilbur Cortez Abbott, who compiled the standard (but flawed) collection of sources on Cromwell. Greycap 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I reverted the change to the title of the infobox to restore "Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland". Simply heading it "The Protectorate" gives the impression that there was an entity that styled itself so---there wasn't; it's just a convenient term that is applied to distinguish 1653--59 from the rest of the Commonwealth period. As an analogue, compare East Germany, whose infobox is headed by the state's official title, Deutsche Demokratische Republik. StockholmSyndrome 09:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Error creating thumbnails

Erm, just a randomer here.

The page seems to have problems generating the thumbnails for the pictures at the top.

Someone should probably sort that out, i have no idea how.

Merge?

I've asked on the Commonwealth of England page if there is any real good reason why there should be two articles on the Commonwealth/Protectorate. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the same page - suffice it to say there are good reasons. Greycap 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the same place. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currency

As far as I'm aware, Scottish currency was in use throughout this period, not just pound sterling, and they had different exchange rates. --195.147.223.253 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

I've divided the article into basic sections. If anyone can do better, please do! I wasn't completely sure about some of them, but I feel it's better than having none. Simulato 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popular history

Wow! This article is sure "Barebones", especially when it comes to popular history!

We Wikipedians are ostensibly big on knowing and understanding how the common people live, at every time and in every place. This article gives few clues to the time.

And it was a very important time, politically and socially, for the world and for English-speaking cultures. But it is easy to overlook quiet social changes in the spotlight of easy=to-follow political developments.

One development that particularly intrigues me is the Puritan ban on Christmas. There was a certain amount of backlash against such policies in the Restoration, and an ongoing social standoff for many years, until Dickens cured the ills of his countrymen on that score with A Christmas Carol, which defamed the character of those opposed to Christmas-keeping, and exalted the keepers of that ancient pagan rite by painting them with a pseudo-Christian glow of holiness. That is to say, he made some very effective propaganda that we are living with the consequences of to this day.

I'm not knocking Christmas so much as pointing out that there was a social conflict that came to the fore in this era. I'm not knocking Dickens either, just saying he was quite disingenuous in his portrayal of human character on both sides. That is to say, he was strongly POV.

That's just one example of the reasons we need some more popular history in this article.

Alfarero 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

Surely these are the arms of Oliver Cromwell as Lord Protector, not of the Commonwealth, hence the small shield of Cromwell's in the centre. An image without Cromwell's arms are a better representation of the entire Commonwealth-- Barliner talk 12:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Coat of Arms has always represented the Monarchy, not the Kingdom so I think it representing the Lord Protector makes sense. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Achan???

Achan is neither here nor there, who Cromwell was refering to was Hiel the Bethelite (1st Kings 16:34).

In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.

If nobody objects I will change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.117.101.209 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Protectorate

As this article is about the protectorate itself the end section should reflect that, calling it post-Cromwell does not. It also implies that the Protectorate was nothing but Oliver Cromwell. This section needs expansion. --Utinomen (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a bold edit. I have reverted it. Please agree a consensus for your changes before reverting again.

I would agree that it needs expanding but it needs two sections to replace it. The first is a section on Richard and a second on the Second Commonwealth and the moves leading to the Restoration. Until such time as those are written the current wording is better than that which you have replaced it with as it mentions several of the key players and events which your edits remove and those players and events are linked to other articles. -- PBS (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added clearly referenced material this time. Please do not revert to unreferenced material! I cannot see it needs a section on Richard and more than it needs one one Oliver, both have their own entries and this article is about the Protectorate itself.--Utinomen (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your further additions have now made it possible to restructure the sections. I have altered the headings to reflect the added information on the Second Protectorate and have re-added the paragraph on the Second Commonwealth as an Aftermath. -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of the Protectorate

The map and infobox show the Protectorate as comprising the UK and Ireland - why are the Thirteen Colonies and Jamaica omitted? Le Crapaud (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkirk should also be added (taken by the Protectorate in 1658) --131.111.184.8 (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of the Commonwealth but instead possessions of either the Commonwealth, Lord Protector or Crown. Regards, Rob (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Proposal withdrawn by OP as move no longer necessary. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Protectorate → Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1653 to 1659) – To make article consistent with Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1659 to 1660) and thus reduce confusion. Regards, Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Rob (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and disambiguate -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If moved it should be to Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1653–1659). We don't use "to" in date ranges. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now as "the Protectorate" is the common name. "To make article consistent with Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1659–1660)" However that article was created by WheelerRob (the prosper of this move) at 15:39, 7 August 2013‎ by copying text from another article -- so the argument "To make article consistent with" is a premature. Particularly as I reverted it pending further discussions.-- PBS (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Please don't respond to this. Many of my edits regarding other parts of the Interregnum have been reverted, making this move not necessary. I hoping to get my edits back. I will also change the 'to' to a '–'. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Protectorate refers to the lands ruled by the two Lord Protectors, Oliver and Richard. The Commonwealth covers the whole time from the execution of Charles I to the request of Parliament to Charles II to govern.Gazzster (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unsure exactly how the scopes of the various articles covering the governance of England 1649-1660 should be arranged, or exactly what the titles of the others should be, but we certainly want a separate one on The Protectorate and at that title. I note that Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1659 to 1660) is currently a redirect, and that both it and the proposed new title Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1653 to 1659) are unusual in the punctuation of the date range, so it's probably not the right new title for this reason too. Perhaps the scope of the article Commonwealth of England should include the period 1653-1659? The sense in which the Commonwealth of England did not exist in this period is esoteric. That's what is confusing to our readers. Our article titles exist to help readers to find information, not to split hairs on terminology. Andrewa (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See discussion at Talk:Commonwealth of England regarding this page and others surrounding the Interregnum. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Although this edit arguably removes repetition, having the "Commonwealth of .." wording here does stress that the Commonwealth continued in one sense, and it is also the formal term used in the Instrument of Government, so saying it is making a slightly different point from the opening assertion that the Lord Protector was in charge of England, Scotland and Ireland. Not least because whatever they seemed to have called their state at any one point doesn't always correlate exactly to what territory was held. A couple of other points:

The second sentence now doesn't make sense grammatically (I would just repair that but, as noted, I'm not convinced by the substance of the change that caused it). In addition footnote a, which offers alternative translations of the term, now makes no sense
I'm not convinced by the 1654 date for annexing Scotland or the use of the word "later" in the opening sentence. As discussed previously elsewhere, there is no fixed date for the definitive "annexation", but we can probably say with some certainty that Scotland was more or less under Cromwell's/parliament's authority by 1653

N-HH talk/edits 17:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead needs to be restructured to exclude repetition, but also include the formal term used in the Instrument of Government. I agree with the other things that you stated. Also from my understanding, the Protectorate followed the voluntary dissolution of Barebone's Parliament, not the forcible dissolution of the Rump.

Rob (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about further changes and suggest something here (or anyone else should just go ahead). On the latter point, off the top of my head and without looking into it right now, my recollection is that the creation of the post of Lord Protector preceded Cromwell's formal appointment into it. Hence, again, there may some inexactitude when it comes to dates and events, although we should be able to refer to how reliable sources lay out the precise timetable. N-HH talk/edits 12:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War with Spain

The Robles case about whether Jews could be in England (see for example [1]) suggested that England and Spain were at war in 1656 (so it was better in England to be Jewish than Spanish). If so, it should be covered in the Foreign policy section. --Rumping (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National flag

Trial of Charles I in January 1649 -- the Cross of St George is clearly visible above the seated commissioners/judges

With reference to national flags. @User:108.162.103.13, User:Sodacan and User:BilCat please see Talk:Flag of England/Archive 1#English Commonwealth and English flag. -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Talk:English Army#English Empire -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the Protectorate, it might be appropriate to remove the English flag and make it that it clear that the arms are those of of Oliver Cromwell. I think it is a point worth discussing. -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]