Talk:History of the constitution of the United Kingdom

Discussion of this page's purpose

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

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)

Essay

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

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

[Unsigned comment added by 98.43.176.194 at 13:59, July 5, 2021]