Talk:William and Mary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject British Royalty (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Disambig This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Disambiguation  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.

Should the search William and Mary direct to an article about King William and Queen Mary or the 2nd oldest university in America - College of William and Mary?[edit]

I think that the wikipedia article setup of William and Mary is illogical. Any search in a major search engine (such as Google) has the College of William and Mary as the top 6 search results - leading me to strongly believe that most people searching William and Mary in Wikipedia are actually intending to go to the the article "College of William and Mary"

Could we have the search William and Mary yield the College of William and Mary page? Thoughts about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrx2007 (talkcontribs) 07:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about turning this into a disambig page? I don't see any problem with that.Dpodoll68 (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i think that most people will want to know about the monarchs william and mary other tan the college. if you want to go to the college then type in william and mary college!!!!!!! submitted by jj jones This article might be criticised according to the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but I believe that a minimum of link-rich information here represents a worthwhile improvement to ease of navigation and linking. Please think carefully before adding any more information to this articule rather than to the articles to which it links. -- Alan Peakall 17:48 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. A case might possibly be made for a reference to the concept of "William and Mary" as a historical or cultural period, in much the same way as "Queen Anne" or "Regency". --Deb

There is (AFAIK) no common reference to 'William and Mary' in this way as there is with the other examples given. Normally the reference would be to the Glorious Revolution. Angrhoiel (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about the Martin Clunes TV series? Shouldn't that come under a different entry? Robotmannick 12:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "United Kingdom" should be changed to Great Britain, as the Act of Union only combined England and Scotland, and the United Kingdom refers of course to Northern Ireland as well.



'...began a new co-operation between the Parliament and the monarchs, leading to a greater measure of personal liberty and democracy in Britain.' I suggest that this is at least ambiguous, and it could be interpreted to mean that Britain became a democracy at this point, which of course it didn't (not to mention, as another did, that the Act of Union with Scotland was in the future (not to mention Ireland's history in this.) Maybe the author meant something like 'consolidated the principle of parliamentary constitutional monarchy, paving the way for democracy in the future.'

Neil203.220.182.94 (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This comment needs clarification. Britain remains a constitutional monarchy, so at what point are you defining democracy beginning? Angrhoiel (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reference problem[edit]

Could someone with more experience on a wiki correct this page? After "uncle," the wiki code contains this: <ref><ref> image links </ref></ref> and the article has a reference error at the top, but I'm not entirely sure how to fix this. Sorry to dump this problem on someone else, but it seems egregious enough (at least for layout) that I wanted to mention it. άλφα7248Talk 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did they become coregents?[edit]

The article doesn't explain why they became coregents, only that it happened from an action by parliament. Given the specific nature of succession how did this come about. Seems like important information that is missing. (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point! The simple answer is that, whilst Mary had the better claim to the throne, given the useful fiction that her father had "abdicated", William was not prepared to be mere Prince Consort, and Mary would not accept the crown for herself alone. However, they were not "coregents" - a regent rules during the absence /incapacity of the Sovereign: they were coregnants, with the executive power vested in William. HonRose (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a "stub"[edit]

This article offers little or no information - neither the background to William and Mary's accession, their joint sovereignty, nor its impact on the future of England, Scotland and Ireland. It is also too Americo-centric, with over emphasis on their accession on the American colonies - not unimportant, but not the "revolution" England experienced. It needs to be expanded/rewritten to reach Wikipedia standards. HonRose (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is indeed a stub. I have classified the page accordingly.--Nevéselbert 20:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]