Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report

Talk:History of the United Kingdom/Timelines

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search

citation needed

A citation is needed for the statement "most legal authorities had in fact held slavery illegal in England since the early 17th century." especially in view of the continuation of the practice throughout the 18th century Nick Gardner 08:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There's often a discrepancy between law and reality. I think this was in the source I cited, but I'll check, probably this afternoon. Peter Jackson 08:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
PS. As late as 1827, the Privy Council ruled (in what's known as Grace's Case) that a slave who'd "voluntarily" returned from England to the West Indies was still a slave over there. Peter Jackson 08:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not there. Can't remember where I read it. I've tried a few places and will see if I can find more. I suppose it's not essential to include this background here anyway. Peter Jackson 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I suggest deletion of just that passage. Its removal would not cause readers any significant loss of understanding, and it would avoid causing them possible confusion. Nick Gardner 14:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


I've now finished going through correcting or clarifying the worst problems. It's still far from satisfactory. For example, the selection of entries seems quite arbitrary at times. Why do we have a list of early Scottish kings but only a few later ones? Etc.Peter Jackson 16:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The incompleteness of the timelines is not - as you appear to assume - the result of oversight. The updating of articles on contemporary issues is higher on my priority list, and I return to articles such as this when time permits. I should be glad t see textual contributions from anyone, provided they are not just personal assertions, but are backed by links to authoritative sources. But I do not propose to spend time explaining omissions and minor errors. There is too much that has been left undone elsewhere. Nick Gardner 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


"Aethelferth of Northumbria and Aethelbert of Kent share total control of England (605?) completing the Saxon takeover of England and giving early expression to the principles of English law[1]."

Not true. Cornwall wasn't conquered till the 9th century. Not sure what the correct statement would be. Peter Jackson 10:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Citation? Nick Gardner 10:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The Times Atlas of World History, 3rd ed, 1989, pages 98f. The key on page 99 indicates the boundary of "Anglo-Saxon settlement in England to AD 626". The relevant portion of the map is on page 98, and clearly shows most of SW and NW England as still outside that boundary at that date. Peter Jackson 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Magna Carta & human rights

Anachronism. The only bit that looks like one to me is chapter 40: Nulli vendemus, nulli denegabimus aut differemus rectam aut justiciam. Peter Jackson 10:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


Inconsistent from one entry to the next. Peter Jackson (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)