Talk:The Protectorate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To-do: fix the bottom sequence of English rulers thingy because it causes a troubling loop of protectorate-commonwealth-protectorate-commonwealth and so on. this seems to be a small problem but i have no idea how to fix it. hope ive done the right thing!
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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-youthpléigh 14:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
See my reply on the same page - suffice it to say there are good reasons. Greycap 19:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Replied at the same place. --sony-youthpléigh 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)