Talk:Monmouth Rebellion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMonmouth Rebellion has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 8, 2004WikiProject peer reviewCollaborated
February 26, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
March 18, 2013Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 15, 2005, and July 15, 2006.
Current status: Good article

Pitched Battle[edit]

From the page:

The battle of Sedgemoor is often referred to as the last battle fought on English soil, but this is incorrect: the Battle of Preston in Lancashire was fought on 14 November 1715, during the First Jacobite Rebellion, and the Second Jacobite Rebellion saw a minor engagement at Clifton Moor near Penrith in Cumbria on 18 December 1745.

It was not the last engagement fought on English soil but did either of the other two count as pitched battles? If not then if Sedgemoor was a pitched battle, it was the last pitched battle fought on English soil.

See:

-- 217.169.14.140 11:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page for the Battle of Sedgemoor states that it was the last pitched battle, whereas this page disagrees. duklai 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolving Parliament[edit]

Perhaps this is some British term that I am unfamiliar with, but dissolving parliament sounds rather intense.

Charles outmanoeuvred his opponents and dissolved Parliament for the final time.

The above quote, from the article, makes it sound as though Parliament was gotten rid of. However, this obviously cannot be true. Would someone please explain this? Atinoda 22:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See dissolution of Parliament. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very common term used in English History, and indeed today. The Monarch in the UK has the power to dissolve Parliament. These days that means the term of the Parliament has ended and a new Election is required. Recent 'Constitutional' (The UK in fact has no Constitution, as such, but a 'statute book' of royal decrees) protocol dictates that the Prime Minister requests that the Monarch dissolve Parliament. In the days of Charles the second this was different, although his Father of course lost his head by going against Parliament. Trotboy 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(il)legitimacy[edit]

Did the Duke of Monmouth ever claim that his parents had been secretly married, or did he attempt to gain the thrown despite his illigetimacy? (There would of course have been precedent for a bastard king.) --Jfruh (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the biography section of James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth explain the claims and uncertainty relating to his parenthood?— Rod talk 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, my curiosity was piqued by the line in the Lucy Walter article, "There is little evidence to support the story that she was the first wife of Charles II..." There is no mention of where this "story" comes from, but obviously the Duke of Monmouth would be a logical person to spread it. I was just curious if he even made a pro forma claim of being legitimate in his bid for the throne -- if he felt a need to assert a secret marriage between his parents even if neither he nor anyone else really believed it -- or if he and/or his supporters thought it possible he could claim the throne while acknowledging his illegitimacy. --Jfruh (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork Rebellion[edit]

Er...just to say that the Monmouth Rebellion is not known as "The Pitchfork Rebellion" by any known named author and that, inter alia, the rebels were not armed with pitchforks but guns, most of them having militiary experience in these matters. Colin4C (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - I'm not expert enough to argue but you are arguing that all of the web sites & other resources below are wrong:
& I'm sure there are others.— Rod talk 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Web sites often repeat misleading things that they have seen in the wikipedia. All the stuff up there is promotional guff from local authority tourist boards. Who are the named authors who call it "The Pitchfork Rebellion"? What books did they write? Colin4C (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. A well referenced paper from the Battlefields trust cites Anon, The Pitchfork Rebellion: The Road to Sedgemoor, 1985. The Illustrated London News does appear to have used the phrase here, along with an edition of Punch. It also appears in Rebelling: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases but the nearest I can find to a serious historian using the title is in Bath: a new history (1996) By Graham Davis, Penny Bonsall.— Rod talk 14:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Pitchfork thing seems to partake of the nature of an inaccurate tabloid sound-bite for the media age. A few of the rebels may have been yokels bearing pitchforks, but, from what I have read, a lot of them were old soldiers who fought in the English Civil Wars, and most had whatever old guns they had got stored and that, even though they lost, gave a fairly creditable militiary performance at the Battle of Sedgemoor. Colin4C (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Things.[edit]

It says at the beginning that The Monmouth Rebellion of 1685, was an attempt to overthrow James II, who had become King of England, King of Scots and King of Ireland at the death of his elder brother Charles II on 6 February 1685. It says That Charles II was his brother and became king at his death. Then later on down it says that Charles II was his Father. Also it says that Charles was a Roman Catholic , then it says further down that he was a protestent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.41.147 (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation of your comment. I would suggest issues about whether James II became king should be discussed at James II of England where it is clearly stated & supported by several references. The way I read it is that Charles II of England was the brother of James II & the father of James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. I also read it as saying James II was Catholic and that Monmouth was protestant. If you don't read it that way it may mean that the text needs to be clarified - could you say exactly where you think the inaccuracies are?— Rod talk 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset WikiProject assessments[edit]

I've rated this article as only being of 'Low' importance to the Dorset WikiProject, as the Rebellion was more associated with Somerset (and that WikiProject rates it as 'Mid'); however I can see a rationale for also rating it as 'Mid', as Monmouth's plight seems to intertwine in the history of much of west Dorset in particular. Comments welcome... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

Is there really not a better picture than that for the infobox? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may help if you give more of an explanation as to why you find it unsatisfactory. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take this the wrong way. There's certainly nothing wrong with the picture or its relevence. I simply question whether a more interesting one could not be found, especially considering that it is the first bit of the article the casual observer sees. I would compare it with the pictures in the boxes of Napoleonic War or War of the Austrian Succession. Could the painting of Monmouth below or one of the others substitute like this File:James Scott, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch by Jan van Wyck.jpg ? ---Brigade Piron (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the pictures around - is that better?— Rod talk 17:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod, much more engaging! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is rather more lively, and gives an impression of battle, nobility and an element of darkness, which is apt. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may be a better picture, having looked at James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth the caption for this picture says "James Scott commanding the English against the Dutch in 1672, Jan Wyck" which suggests it is inappropriate to use to represent the Battle of Sedgemoor in this campaign.— Rod talk 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced it as I think it is inappropriate to use an image of the Anglo-Dutch war to represent Sedgemoor.— Rod talk 17:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monmouth Rebellion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 14:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work at Peer Review. I'll do this review later today. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two external links are showing redirects; in general, when possible, link to the destination page.
  • These were Gutenberg library links - I have changed them to cite book.— Rod talk 09:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, the toolbox (upper right of this page) checks out. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First up: I'd like to check this edit of yours; can you quote a couple of sentences from Miller for me that support the text? - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not have a copy of Miller - this was copied from James II of England (a FA) hence the copied template on the talk page:
  • Perhaps the challenge should be there as this acts for attribution.— Rod talk 09:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to withdraw as reviewer. I've got an idea how this sourcing issue would be handled at FAC and A-class; I'm less sure about GAN, and I'd rather leave the tough calls to another reviewer. I've added the "second opinion" tag. Best of luck, and I'll keep an eye on this. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK Thanks anyway - I didn't know it was an issue.— Rod talk 14:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view is that Wikipedia is an uneasy alliance (and sometimes a war) between people who take the approach that a nominator is ultimately responsible for everything, and people who see articles in more Darwinian terms. "Normal editing" tends to be Darwinian, FAC and A-class (which I'm more familiar with) are very by-the-book, and GAN reviewers and nominators tend to get pulled in both directions, depending on the time of day and who shows up :) I don't want to make a call on this because I'd rather give complete discretion to whoever does the review. Whether this passes or not, if you'd like to take the article to Milhist's A-class review, we can talk about how A-class deals with this there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found that Amazon has a "look inside" version of Millers book so can provide some quote to back up claims about Popish Plots, exclusion crisis, dissolution of parliament etc etc

  • Popish Plot - "The prospect of a Catholic successor had hitherto seemed somehwat hypothetical. Charles was only three years older than James and seemed very healthy. The plot made the prospect of a Popish king seem far more immediate. - 1st page chap 7 Brussels and Edinburgh.
  • Exclusion crisis- Some of Scott's arguments are questionable. His determination to show continuity leads him to deny that exclusion was a mjor factor in the "Exclusion Crisis", but Mark Knights has argued persuasively that the succession was one major aspect of a multifaceted political crisis. Contemporaries saw James's exclusion as the issue from which all others sprang. and MPs record on exclusion as a touchstone of their political allegiance.
  • Dissolution - Moreover, he still believed that a new, less Anglican, House of Commons would be better disposed towards both the Catholics and himself. He was thus torn between the attractions of a dissoloution and his hopes of deriving some benefit from the present parliament.

Do these help?— Rod talk 16:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • That will help, yes, I'll leave it for the next guy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

I'll take over this one. Pyrotec (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pyrotec. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for the delay. I'm going to review this nomination for end to end, but starting with the Duke of Monmouth section and finishing with the Lead. At this stage of the review I'll just be commenting on "problems" if I find them (minor ones I may fix as the go through the article). Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Duke of Monmouth -
  • A very short paragraph, but at this stage of the review, I've not found any "problems" with it.
  • Context -
  • I pipelined "commonwealth" to Commonwealth of England as the section was deficient with such and explanation or link.
  • Otherwise, this section looks compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • Plan -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This section looks compliant.
  • From Lyme Regis to Sedgemoor -
  • I added a few wikilinks, to technical terms such as Dragoons, Militia (English) and muskets; but I also removed some WP:Overlinking - Frome for instance was linked twice in the same paragraph and Bridgwater twice in adjacent paragraphs in the same section. There may be more, that I've not yet found.
  • Otherwise, this section looks compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • Battle of Sedgemoor & After Sedgemoor -
  • These sections look to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • Literary references -
  • Looks OK.
  • At just two paragraphs, this is rather "thin" and it does not provide an adequate summary of the article as per WP:Lead. In particular:
    • It does not summarise the relationship between Charles II, James II and Monmouth. The body of the article makes it clear that Monmouth was well regarded (or similar words to that effect) in the West Country and after the failed Rye house plot waited in Holland with the hope of placing Charles II, but on the accession of James II decided to act. This involved various denouncements of James as well as military actions.
    • Many of his problems were due to lack of "organisation of his troops", arguably if he'd capture Bristol the results might have been different.
    • No mention of the coordination with another rebellion in Scotland, which failed and lead to loss of morale.
    • The lead finishes with the death of Monmouth, making no mention of the actions of the Bloody Assizes, Judge Jeffreys and James short-lived consolidation of power.
  • Its probably taken longer to summarise the problems, than the corrective actions themselves. Probably all that's needed is a third paragraph, say expanding the current lead by 50%.

As the Lead can fixed, or should be fixable, by relatively minor efforts I'm going to put this review "On Hold". I would expect to be awarding GA-status once I regard the Lead as being compliant. I'm happy to clarify any points that need clarification. Pyrotec (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've expanded the lead to hopefully cover these areas.— Rod talk 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting and informative article on this topic of interest to the West Country.
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Generally, Yes, but I have raised a question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions in respect of File:'The Morning of Sedgemoor' by Edgar Bundy, Tate Britain.JPG
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article. Congratulations on producing a "fine" article on this topic. Pyrotec (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The West Country Challenge[edit]

Would you like to win up to £250 in Amazon vouchers for participating in The West Country Challenge?

The The West Country Challenge will take place from 8 to 28 August 2016. The idea is to create and improve articles about Bristol, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Dorset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire, like this one.

The format will be based on Wales's successful Awaken the Dragon which saw over 1000 article improvements and creations and 65 GAs/FAs. As with the Dragon contest, the focus is more on improving core articles and breathing new life into those older stale articles and stubs which might otherwise not get edited in years. All contributions, including new articles, are welcome though.

Work on any of the items at:

or other articles relating to the area.

There will be sub contests focusing on particular areas:

To sign up or get more information visit the contest pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge.— Rod talk 16:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Monmouth Rebellion. 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) 09:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monmouth Rebellion. 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) 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box - commanders and leaders.[edit]

Should John Churchill and Henry Fitzroy not be listed under their titles at the time of the rebellion? Fitzroy was Duke of Grafton and Churchill was Lord Churchill of Sandridge and Eyemouth. Dunarc (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literary references[edit]

I have just read a short story by Thomas Hardy (would such a text be called thus?), "The Duke's Reappearance - A Family Tradition", which is published in his Collected Works, Subsection "A Changed Man and other Tales". It clearly deals with the events shortly before the end of the battle and Monmouth's beheading in the Tower, but I am too unfamiliar with the historical facts and the details of the story to write about it all here. However, I find the story noteworthy and worth referring to here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heming1Way (talk • contribs) 23:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A story called Swordsmen Three! was published in The Union Jack in 1904, as well. It follows the son of a lord loyal to Monmoth and his experiences in the rebellion, including the battle of sedgemoor. I haven't finished reading it yet but going on one of the illustrations it appears in this version of the tale Monmoth escapes Britain.. 82.153.230.138 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monmouth_Rebellion&oldid=1206256354"