Talk:History of Yorkshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yorkshire
Portal
History of Yorkshire is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's assessment scale.
See comments for details.
High This article has been rated as High-Priority on the Project's priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Section headings

I suggest that the section headings are changed, as the references to the various names of York and other headings are confusing to the casual reader. I would suggest something along the lines of:

  • Pre-historic Yorkshire
  • Pre-Roman Yorkshire
  • The Romans in Yorkshire
  • The Anglian Invasion
  • The Viking Invasion
  • Yorkshire following the Norman Conquest
  • The middle ages
  • Civil war
  • The Industrial Revolution
  • Modern Yorkshire


Even if there is nothing there at the moment, we can at least see which areas need work. Any objections/suggestions etc? --OlderBrother 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with these suggested headings... they are actually quite close to the headings I used when I started the article, but they have been morphed over time to the current ones. Some of the headings that you suggest could probably be merged for the time being at least—Pre-historic and pre-roman could be one section, as could the Norman conquest and middle ages. JeremyA 20:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this model: History_of_France? 68.110.9.62 14:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The subdivision of the History of France article is good. However, English history is usually subdivided around major events that don't necessarily fit neatly into that model (Norman Conquest; War of the Roses; Civil War; Industrial Revolution) The History of England might therefore provide a better model (although it seems a bit London-centric). The current subdivision into 'old' and 'new' Yorkshire appears arbitrary, it seems to me that the major periods that shaped Yorkshire history are: Celtic/Romano-Celtic; Angles/Danelaw; Norman Conquest through to the Wars of the Roses; Tudor/Civil War; Industrial Revolution; Modern. I also think that the section on the historical subdivisions could be better integrated into the rest of the article, rather than just being tagged on to the end. JeremyA 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes in light of what has been suggested - I still think it could benefit from some tweaks but I think it is hopefully more understandable and less (I never thought I would use this phrase) York-centric! I do think the historical subdivisions are OK where they are at the moment. Hopefully we'll get some more detail in the later to modern day history before long. --OlderBrother 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to divide as it is on the GenUKI Yorkshire history website: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/Misc/Descriptions/YKS/YKSHistoryIndex.html

   * THE BRIGANTES AND EARLIER INHABITANTS.
   * ROMAN RULE.
   * ROMAN ROADS.
   * INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
   * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE SAXONS.
   * INVASIONS OF THE DANES.
   * DANISH RULE.
   * SAXON POLITY AND SOCIAL ORGANISATION.
   * GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
   * MODES OF PUNISHMENT.
   * NORMAN RULE.
   * FEUDAL SYSTEM.
   * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE EDWARDS.
   * SCOTTISH INVASION.
   * DEPOSITION AND DEATH OF RICHARD II.
   * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE HOUSES OF LANCASTER AND YORK.
   * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE TUDORS.
   * YORKSHIRE UNDER THE STUARTS.

This would also include Yorkshire under the Hanovers, etc. 68.110.9.62 13:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - the list you mention is taken from Bulmer's Gazetteer (1892) and I don't think you can just take an old book's chapter headings and construct something that fits what we need to achieve in a modern encyclopaedic entry. As the material increases, maybe more headings need to be brought in but I don't think the list above would help. I also think that the Stuarts, Hanoverians etc headings, while of some use for ease of reference, are fairly irrelevant to Yorkshire. Wars and economic events have helped shape it's later history more than changes of royal houses in London. --OlderBrother 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read this and not be fixated on a Marxist view of this heavily non-Marxist shire: http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/index.html http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/historyAbout.htm

"Compiling the Lists

The king lists, built up from notes over the course of two decades from sources too numerous to list, have been compiled for a couple of reasons. It seems that history in modern schools is not taught in terms of dynasties and rulers any longer (and this seems to be as true of the USA as it does of the UK). The thought behind this appears to be that learning about rulers is elitist and irrelevant compared to understanding the lot of the average citizen at any period in time.

This seems nonsensical. Rulers and their impact on national and international events is what makes history. In the form of kings and emperors, etc, they led the creation and evolution of most states throughout written history, so how can one begin to understand the lot of the common man without knowing about the essential construction of his society? History without the skeletal framework of events that centre around rulers is meaningless. So works of this nature, which lay out the framework of states and nations through their rulers, are essential before more intimate studies of individuals who lived in those societies can be made."

68.110.9.62 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Kessler stuff is a fair point, and I don't disagree with you if we were discussing the history of England/United Kingdom. But I think most people will have that background already when they come to this page. I think JeremyA expressed it well when he said that this needs to be in the context of events that shaped Yorkshire history. Since the civil war, the major impact on Yorkshire has come from economic forces and parliament, rather than who sits on the throne. Likewise, the Oxford History of Britain uses dynastic chapter headings for the Tudors and Stuarts, then drops them as they are less useful after this point. An alternative might be to have headings for 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
Anyway, the Bulmers stuff should provide some useful info for the article, so I'm going to concentrate on filling out some of the blanks in the article for now. I'm off to party like it's 1892 ;-) --OlderBrother 10:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a drop-off point in dynastic affairs; by the end of Jacobitism it is sure to have been a diluted influence. Prime Ministers became nearly the only force left of the government, although why leave out such national affairs as the Colonies and Napoleonic Wars when they have a LOT of ties to Yorkshire? I'd say the Georgian era(especially George IV) was the last strong point of the monarchy in Yorkshire, but that including later monarchs within paragraphs shouldn't be a problem for later eras. One should say: "During the reign of King William IV, Prime Minister Robert Peel's government reforms cleaned up rotten boroughs..." I do not think that the Victorian era had much monarchical connection to Yorkshire, or that any succeeding monarch contributed anything to local character. From Victoria on out, British monarchs have always been internationalist in relation to their domains. It seems that Victoria was first of the Modern Era and the Royal Standard has been the same since, while all the monarchs born before the American War of Independence have had an internal influence upon Yorkshire. So many catalysts such as the War of 1812, end of Jacobitism, defeat of Napoleon I, collapse of the 1st Mexican Empire and the loss of Hanover all paved the way for what we have now. I really count the turning point for the old and new as beginning with Victoria and Albert, Napoleon III, 2nd Mexican Empire, Canadian Confederation, German Empire and the Confederate States of America. So please, let's keep the dynasties going up until the House of Hanover. We fizzle out with Victoria, because the most solid piece of change upon the face of British monarchy, was influence from Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Nobody touched Yorkshire since the British Empire.

Don't you think that historians will bump the dynasty to Hanover after Stuart, when Windsors are through? Hanovers did rule(not just reign). I revised the titling and sections, to reflect the ethnic and dynastic makeup of Yorkshire as well as included more historical events. 68.110.9.62 15:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can we improve this page? Comments please

I think this article needs a lot of work. 68.110.9.62 has added a lot of material, but has also changed the headings without anyone else's agreement. I'm not interested in an edit war so I am leaving the article as it is fro now, and I don't wish to remove any material consensus decides to be pertinent. But on reading, the article has weaknesses, such as:

  • The (Anglian) Northumbrian kingdom in a different section to the Anglo-Saxons
  • No reference in the headings to Danish rule
  • A period (The Tudors, Stuarts and Hanoverians) covering 1485-1837, which is unwieldy.
  • No dates for any events between 1066 and 1910 - surely this is going to confuse any reader as to the chronology of events.
  • Some peripheral information,
  • POV statements with no references e.g. Although Yorkshire was traditionally almost ultraconservative by English standards, most of the people became liberal in dissent from the heirs to Sophia of Hanover because of their stance on the Americans and Irish. It may well be true, but I think statements which are not just purely factual need to be supported by reference for the integrity of the article.

I know I can add dates, remove info etc, but I would prefer there to be consensus.

I would like anyones comments - but please try not to make this a political point scoring opportunity. I'm not coming at this from a political angle, I would just like to see a readable, informative article about my home county's history, written from a neutral point of view and in line with Wikipedia style and format. There is no reason why a History of Yorkshire entry can not be a featured article one day! --OlderBrother 23:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate and welcome your criticism:

  • Northumbria was a separate entity from the succeeding united England and this is conveniently categorised in threes.
  • Danish contributions are subsumed within the general Anglo-Saxon designation...RE: Alfred & 1066--I don't like it either but that's the fact of our national history as portrayed by officials.
  • The Tudor-Stuart-Hanover period is a single one of imperial colonialism, especially in terms of the "White Commonwealth" and its Yankee predecessor...There are placenames for all three dynasties in North America.[Virginia and New England, Carolina and Nova Scotia, Georgia and New Brunswick...plus lots more!]
  • Chronology IS lacking; please be generous!
  • Peripheral gives outsiders a clue as to the atmosphere and ambience of this obscure culture, since the world knows much more about Southern England due to its colonial-secretarial administration.
  • Surely we can do without the "touchy parts", being described with words like "ultra".

Let's do more meeting of minds! 68.110.9.62 08:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire ruled by the House of Munsö?

I had removed mention of the House of Munsö from History of Yorkshire#The Anglo-Saxons, Normans and Angevins. User:Drieakko reverted me. No doubt he has a number of good sources handy, but could he please provide one, so that we can be educated about this? /Pieter Kuiper 17:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section titles

The section titles by royal house need to be changed. The paragraph including the London bombers currently appears under the title "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, The House of Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor". MRSC • Talk 11:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I altered the section titles to the ones first suggested by -OlderBrother @ 19:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC), please?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You've beaten me to it as I was planning to change these today, although I wasn't going to be as courteous as you and post on here. They definitely need changing although my personal preference is to divide by periods rather then mix periods and events. What do you think of the following?
  • Prehistoric settlement
  • Roman
  • Sub-Roman and early Middle Ages
  • Middle Ages
  • Early Modern
  • Modern
It's a similar structure to History of York if anyone wants to have a look at how it works. --Kaly99 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow!I've just written those very headings except I wrote Post-Roman then Early Middle Ages. Please, go ahead with the change.The text is very mixed up and badly needs sorting. It's quite inaccurate as well in places.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sub-Roman tends to be used by historians now but its still a really hard period to define and write about due to the absence of sources and confusing archaeological evidence which is why I put the sections together. I've started editing the text, removing inaccuracies and expanding the parts which are relevant. There seems to be big sections missing which I'll add once I've gone through the information that's already in the article. --Kaly99 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've just looked up Sub-Roman Britain. Interesting article.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistory

See Vale of Pickering#History and settlement. I'll get better refs tomorrow.Y Done

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Great Wold Valley#Human influences--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)