Talk:Prayer Book Rebellion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

old unorganized undated unsigned discussions[edit]

This article had become ridiculously POV - hopefully I've removed the main problems. Feel free to contradict me, but extend the courtesy of doing so in talk first. Nylarathotep

Research has also suggested that prior to the rebellion the Cornish language had strengthened and more concessions had been made to Cornwall as a "nation", and that anti-English sentiment had been growing stronger, providing additional impetus for the rebellion.

I would like to see such research with evidence - if not I'll remove. Nylarathotep

This article is truly dreadful. There are plenty of books on the Prayer Book Rebellion, and all of them place the belligerents as mainly Cornish nobility and note that its forces mostly came from Cornish speaking areas. I don't know what your point is in attempting to rewrite history or the purpose the Flag of St George on your main page is all about when describing the Cornish belligerents. Why use this? Have you any evidence that it was flown during the conflict on the Cornish side? Admittedly the evidence is circumstantial that St Piran's Flag was flown by the Cornish side, but then why not say that and refer to the scholarly works that have discussed this?

If you don't have evidence of the Cross of St George being flown you should remove it from the page. Seems like the usual Wikipedia double standards: Wikipedians claim POV sentiments by others but never admit to their own national proclivities. This article seems to be claiming authenticity for some 'Southwestern' regional history that never existed - very POV.

If you are interested read: Western Rising (Westcountry Books), Cornwall (Peyton), Cornwall For Ever (School Text Book), and the Cornish Curriculum for Schools (available on line). There are also plenty of articles published by Exeter Uni through the journal Cornish Studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.88.43 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have taken the liberty of copying some reference works from the Devon Perspectives web site, some of which I have read, others not. If a complete rewrite is done (which may be necessary), these are a good starting point: Primary sources. 1. The ancient history and description of the city of Exeter by John Hooker, Andrews and Trewman, Exeter, 1765. This book is a compilation of earlier writings of Hooker and others. 2.Troubles Connected with the Prayer Book of 1549 - Original documents and letters edited by Nicholas Pocock, Camden Society, London, 1884. Secondary sources. 3.The Western Rebellion of 1549: an account of the insurrections in Devonshire and Cornwall against religious innovations in the reign of Edward VI by Frances Rose-Troup, Smith Elder, 1913. 4.The Western Rising 1549: The Prayer Book Rebellion by Philip Caraman, Westcountry Books, 1994. 5.Revolt of the Peasantry, 1549 by Julian Cornwall, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977. 6.Tudor Cornwall by A L Rowse, 2nd Edition, Macmillan, 1969. 7.The Voices of Morebath - Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village by Eamon Duffy, Yale University Press, 2001.

I can also find little wrong with Craig Weatherhill's online piece, but extracts from it would need citations: http://www.cornwallinformation.co.uk/news/tag/craig-weatherhill/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.112.183 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I put that in, I think it was NJ Williams? I think he was argueing against Ken George's 'map' of the westward retreat of cornish. The stannary parliment had been given more powers in that period which seemed to extend it beyond the original concept... I'll try and find the reference.86.140.177.67


I must agree with the 'long term causes' bit below that this article did seem a little weirdly lopsided. There was no references at all to the cornish language and the reference to 'a dialect' i think shows whoever wrote this article didn't actually know what they were doing. There seemed to be a lot about Devon so suspect maybe they were a local historian or something?

The only books I have with me now are source documents/academic books on the cornish language so I've put as much of that as I'm sure, I have a book about the rebellion at home that I'll check if I remember, I'd like to check some of the stuff here as it seemed very devon centralised, I've seen one person on wiki trying to claim it was mostly a devon affair which sorry is just complete rubbish so if it is that person I should check every fact... The 'christmas game' qoute is also in the articles of the rebels (though it is very possible it was used repeatedly.)

131.111.8.103

In refererence to the above see http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/prayer_book_rebellion.htm which not being a southwest site should not be biased, here certainly there appears to be a lot which is missing from this article.

131.111.8.103

I've removed the link to John Russell, 1st Earl Russell in the article, since he was born in 1792 and so couldn't have been involved in this. Cnyborg 23:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would seem a problem! However I think we had the wrong John Russell. The John Russell of the Western Rebellion fame became the first Earl of Bedford. It seems he attained this because of his actions during the Western Rebellion Dewnans 3 March 2005

All right, what the divvil is this alleged neutrality dispute about? I'm sick of seeing NPOV notices on every article relating to Cornwall. QuartierLatin1968 20:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You too? As there's nothing here that seems terribly NPOV, and the talk page lacks anything relating to it I've removed it for the time being. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is simplistic to paint the Western Rebellion as a reactionary backlash against the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer. Instead it seems that the introduction of the Prayer Book was the last straw, it was actually the more significant socio-economic changes that were made in conjunction with this that alienated so many rural people - such as divorcing the Church from the local community, by making it effectively a Tax collector for the state and seperating the clergy out from the communities which they had been a part of the fabric of. These moves along with the ongoing acts of enclosure were destroying ways of life that went back hundreds of years.

The claims that the rebellion was simply backward peasants harking back to Catholicism seem to have been made retrospectively - and also probably at the time - by the Government to justify their actions in ruthlessly suppressing the rebels. In fact, many of the areas that would appear to be most 'Catholic' were within only a few generations to be the most staunchly non-conformist, which simply doesn't fit with a purely 'religious' or theological argument. Trotboy 22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long Term Causes[edit]

There are many more long term causes not addressed in this article - economic discontent, elements of anti-clericalism, Cornwall's traditional geographical isolation, etc that I don't have time to add... Anyone? Nylarathotep

The sentence "To decades of oppression were recently added two years of rampant inflation"...[edit]

...is very confusing and probably contains a grammatical error. Should it mean "To decades of oppression were added two years of rampant inflation"? Surely the inflation wasn't added to the oppression recently? Jtownson 14:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THE BISHOP'S APOLOGY How can one apologise for something one did not do? One can say it is a pity something happened, but wihout personal responsibliity there can be no apology. Must this section be included, or should there be in Wiki an apology by someone for every infortunate event in the past. Presumably the bishop is not going to give up his present services and restore the Sarum Mass so it is a case of contrition without restitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.254.156 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the section THE BISHOP'S APOLOGY and the introductory note at the top need to be reworded to make it clear that Bishop Ind was expressing a personal opinion. He was not authorised to apologize on behalf of the Church of England. As bishop, he could have apologized for the Diocese of Truro, but the Diocese of Truro didn't exist in 1549. Nennius 3/4/09 —Preceding unsigned The word 'renounced' in the introduction was a poor choice of words and also needed to be changed. comment added by Nennius (talkcontribs) 05:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

external links[edit]

Jowwww has undone my edit which removed a large list of external links. If he really wants a debate on this matter lets go through each one of those links and see if he can justify there inclusion. They are meant to contribute something and it clearly states that "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. " I do not consider the current amount is a minimum, there are far too many. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there are too many. I think the list provides some useful further information on the article's subject. --Joowwww (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What information on this article subject does this link provide? http://www.devon.gov.uk/localstudies/114670/1.html BritishWatcher (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None obviously, it's a dead link. --Joowwww (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Causes vs background?[edit]

Hi, I've added a couple of the causes mentioned, and I'll get the rest done later, but would it be better to change the causes subheading to background? The subheading is starting to sound a bit essay-ish, and I've noticed similar rebellions, eg, Kett's, 1497 rebellion, have background as their first subheading, rather than causes. (Also, go easy, I'm new :) ) Eyesfaerie (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be bold! Background also strikes me as better. Moonraker (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the article, now, but I've come across a few problems. Firstly, the last paragraph seems to be on how the Sampford Courtenay ended, but it doesn't mention Sampford Courtenay explicitly. Should it be moved to Battle of Sampford Courtenay? Also, there could probably also be a link to Humphrey Arundell, but again, I'm not sure where to put that. Lastly, I haven't found any sources linking economic issues (apart from the tax) discretely to the Prayer Book rebellion, so I'm mostly leaving them out for the time being to avoid confusion with the background to the 1549 rebellions as a whole. Thanks so much for your help! Eyesfaerie (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Prayer Book Rebellion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citations and then could be GA -- SECisek 12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last edited at 12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 03:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prayer Book 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) 16:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]