Talk:History of the constitution of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion of this page's purpose[edit]

If the purpose of this page is to discuss the evolution of the British consititution, wouldn't it be better served by organizing it around the various documents which have been cited as fundamental, rather than around the various rulers? As it stands now, the page looks more like a light version of British medieval and Renaissance history, than a history of the constitution. -Kbrooks 19:58, 20 September 2004‎ (UTC)

The Glorious Revolution[edit]

Isn't this page missing something about the Revolution of 1688 (usually referred to as the Glorious Revolution), when William of Orange invaded at the invitation of parliament to reinstate the constitional monarchy after James II had tried to return to Absolutism. I've always heard that this was one of the most important parts of constituional history as it guaranteed religious toleration and (I think) some form of freedom of speech.

Also, the Act of Settlement is definitely an important (and rather horrible) part of the constitutional history. It enshrined discrimination against Catholics into the constitution and is related to a lot of the later problems Britain had in Ireland (denying catholics the right to sit in parliament until 1829), and the animosity that still exists between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

Rather less "horrible" than the persecution of Protestants which was going on in France at the time after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.Paulturtle (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


Large sections of this article read like a high school essay and those sections have next to no in-line citations. Currently the Civil War section is the best example of this eg:

  • "Charles acquired much of his money with forced loans from the rich. He also received a lot of money through taxes."
  • "since he wasn't using it really to fund the navy"
  • "On top of the wars England had with France and with Spain"
  • "The South and East of England were on Parliament's side and were known as Roundheads, for their haircuts."

This is an example of text that is just wrong:

The North and West of England were on Charles I's side (along with most of the Nobles and country gentry). They were known as the Cavaliers. Charles I created an army illegally (since he needed the Parliament's consent).

The section needs a large copy edit and most of the irrelevant stuff removed. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of the Term "Person" in the 1689 English Bill of Rights[edit]

As a legal historian of the US Constitution, I agree with many other commenters here that this is a sophomoric article, with many misstatements of the legal history and emphasis on particular political agendas (often failed ones) at the expense of focusing on the actual constitutional documentations.

One key thing: the English constitutions are distinct from France, Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. in conferring rights/responsibilities only in "Person". This is also true in the US & Canada ("Person") v. Latin American countries ("Man" with sometimes a "Responsibilities of Woman" clause). The 1689 English Bill of Rights uses only the term "Person" (by contrast to the term "Man" in the 1789 French constitution, for example).

The US Constitution also uses only the term "Person" (and "Citizen"), likely deriving from this use in the English constitutions. (The 14th Amendment does contain the word "Man" but only in nonoperative enforcement language.)

The constitutional use of the term "Person" has its roots in five principal English constitutional documentations:

Constitutions of Clarendon (1164)

Treatise of Glanville (1185-1187)

Great Charter (aka Magna Carta) (1215)

Petition of Right (1628)

1689 English Bill of Rights