| 
Posted Feb 24, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
Entry: Bill of Rights Act, 1669 – The glorious revolution - A700372
Author: HappyDude®[Scout&Guru]Keeper of Happiness & Fluffy Cuddly Soft Toys, Jester@Balwyniti, dressed as a girl-short skirt-long jacket - U150533
A note to Scouts, Sub-Editors and the Editorial Staff; only the first part of this Article is up for review I am well aware that the Text of the Act will NOT be included in the edited entry if this article is selected for the Edited Guide. If it is picked could a link be put in to an off-site copy of the text (e.g. http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/rights.html)
Its another article dealing with aspects of the British constitution.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Feb 24, 2002 by ex-Rambling. Thingite. Dog. Pythonist. Deceased.
 Very nice. You need to restructure a few of the sentences and clean up the punctuation in the first part. I'm bookmarking this for my son to read as part of his government classes.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 24, 2002 by Daddy Doodles - Now married with 2.4 Doodlets
Hi HD, 
I fear there is a problem with the dates here. Surely you are confusing 1669 with 1689, on several occasions?
As far as the rest is concerned, and I would ask you to take this with a pinch of salt - it's just my view, - I feel it has the tone of a comprehensive explanation, without the content. I think this could do with some more work, yet. 
Anyway, good luck with this insight into British parliamentary history. 
Seeya
spiff
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 24, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
ex- Rambling - Thsnks
Spaceman Spiff - As with most things I post to Peer Review, its only a first draught, I use peer review to polish the Article, so keep doing your job 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 25, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
I have updated the section highlighting issues raised by the act, but I till want to expand the historical background bit as it is rather flimsy as it stands so …
Watch this space
|
| | |
| |
| |
Posted Feb 26, 2002 by Azara
Hi, Happydude!
(I can hardly resist an invitation like that )
I think you should sort out the genealogy a little more when you are talking about William and Mary, since there is some understandable confusion here.
Unfortunately, there were two Williams of Orange who married a Mary Stuart:
William, Prince of Orange married Mary Stuart, daughter of Charles I.
Their son was William of Orange, who married his first cousin, Mary Stuart, daughter of James II.(This meant that William III was both James II's son-in-law and nephew.) You have mixed up the two Marys.
Another point:
Where you say that 'James II went on to suspended laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament where they applied to Catholics' do you mean that James put Catholics above the law in general, or that he rescinded the laws which discriminated against Catholics? I think there is quite an important difference between these two interpretations and you should make it clear which one you mean.
Azara
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 27, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
ta - busy fow a few daysbut i'll try to sort it out soon (the mary thang wuz already fixed)
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 2, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
It's now complete, I have added the "The Kingdom of Ireland" section please read & review this section carefully as it is an area of history that is still politically sensitive in the modern world (an editorial once over wouldn't do any harm on this).
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 2, 2002 by Azara
Hi, HappyDude!
I'm afraid I'm a little concerned about the direction you're taking with this entry. As long as the main focus is the Bill of Rights, then a certain amount of background information is essential. If you expand the background too much, you will lose the focus on the Bill of Rights, and run into serious problems in terms of balance.
To give an Irish point of view:
There were three separate kingdoms at that point, England, Scotland and Ireland. (You haven't mentioned Scotland at all. There was strong opposition to the Williamites in the Highlands, enough to fuel a fulll-scale rebellion nearly 50 years later). Even the term 'Glorious Revolution' is regarded in Ireland as partisan - in Ireland, this period is called the 'Williamite Wars'. The crucial point for us is that there was a war in which the Irish side lost, copperfastening the previous land confiscations, and resulting in more than 100 years of religious discrimination against the majority of the population. To deal with this as just a sideshow to the English Bill of Rights seems very dismissive.
I have no problems at all with your dealing with the Bill of Rights/'Glorious Revolution' from a purely English point of view, but I think you'd be better just to say at the start that the English Parliament was doing what was best for the English people, and in those terms the Revolution was a great success; but what was best for the English was not necessarily what was best for the Irish and Scots.
(As an example of how hard it is to be impartial on this topic, the 'Lying Dick' name for Richard Talbot was used by his Williamite opponents, on the same lines that the Scot James Graham of Claverhouse was 'Bonny Dundee' or 'Bluidy Claver's' depending on whether it was the Jacobites or Williamites who were speaking. If you're trying to be impartial it would be better not to use it.)
Azara
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 2, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
Thanks, Azara; I was not going to mention Ireland BUT I felt I could not do the story justice with out covering it. I don't want to cover he whole of what happened in Jams & Williams reign - just that which as key to William retaining the crown & thus the keeping of the Act NOR do I wish to offend anyone which is why I asked for reviewers to “review this section carefully”. I have to go to work shortly but I will make some alterations to try & add more balance tomorrow.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 2, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
I made some small changes and added a brief section of The Kingdom of Scotland.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 2, 2002 by Azara
That's fine, HappyDude....
It may seem odd that I'm actually advising you to cut the Irish section a bit! I honestly think that all you need to say in this entry is something on the lines of 'James still had strong support in the Scottish Highlands and Ireland. A series of campaigns was fought, the details of which are beyond the scope of this entry. The turning point was the Battle of the Boyne in 1690, where William defeated James' forces. When James fled to France after this, William's position was secure.'
That keeps you out of the whole mess of 'if you mention the Siege of Derry you should mention the Battle of Aughrim...if you mention the Act of Attainder you should mention how many Catholics had already had their land confiscated...what about the Treaty of Limerick?...what about the Highlanders and Killiecrankie?...etc.etc.'
Once its clear that you're not dealing with the full Williamite wars then I think my earlier objections are covered.
Azara
|
| | |
| |
| |
Posted Mar 3, 2002 by HappyÐude® ... "short skirt long jacket" (have you seen my coxcomb?)...a ℘eripatetical entity
I've made changes to the bit dealing with the succession in Scotland and Ireland, I'm happy wiv it BUt wot dose everybody else think 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 3, 2002 by Azara
Sorry about yesterday, Happydude - you must have posted some changes while I was still looking at an older version.
I think this is fine now that you've made it clear that you're not covering everything that happened in Ireland and Scotland.
One little error that has crept in: the Act of Union of 1707 was only between England (Wales) and Scotland, giving the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It was the Act of Union of 1801 that gave the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, adding the cross of St. Patrick to the Union Jack.
If you didn't notice the bicentennial celebrations last year, it's because there weren't any!
Azara
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
