Talk:William III: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Richard Jensen (terms) |
imported>Mal McKee No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Should the word Britain be in this title? Perhaps there is a more appropriate and accurate disambiguation word we could use. Britain narrows things down to that island, though William was king of Ireland also. Then of course, he was Dutch too. Maybe that would help. Or something along the lines of William III (of Orange)? --[[User:Mal McKee|Mal McKee]] 11:26, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | Should the word Britain be in this title? Perhaps there is a more appropriate and accurate disambiguation word we could use. Britain narrows things down to that island, though William was king of Ireland also. Then of course, he was Dutch too. Maybe that would help. Or something along the lines of William III (of Orange)? --[[User:Mal McKee|Mal McKee]] 11:26, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
:: Britain is both a geography term and a history term, and here it's history. That is "Britain" is the usual historians' term for the country he ruled. --although the "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" terminology came 5 years after his death.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:59, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | :: Britain is both a geography term and a history term, and here it's history. That is "Britain" is the usual historians' term for the country he ruled. --although the "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" terminology came 5 years after his death.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 11:59, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
::: Right, but William III wasn't known as "William III of Britain" necessarily, was he? He was the third other than Scotland, so far as I know. I suppose, technically speaking, he should be regarded as William I of Ireland. Scotland though, as I'm sure you know, is part of Britain - both historically and geographically. | |||
::: I still think the mention of Britain in the title is potentially misleading and inaccurate, especially given the wealth of confusion surrounding the term - even by inhabitants, and perhaps a better title could be found. --[[User:Mal McKee|Mal McKee]] 13:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:22, 13 May 2008
Should the word Britain be in this title? Perhaps there is a more appropriate and accurate disambiguation word we could use. Britain narrows things down to that island, though William was king of Ireland also. Then of course, he was Dutch too. Maybe that would help. Or something along the lines of William III (of Orange)? --Mal McKee 11:26, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- Britain is both a geography term and a history term, and here it's history. That is "Britain" is the usual historians' term for the country he ruled. --although the "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" terminology came 5 years after his death.Richard Jensen 11:59, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- Right, but William III wasn't known as "William III of Britain" necessarily, was he? He was the third other than Scotland, so far as I know. I suppose, technically speaking, he should be regarded as William I of Ireland. Scotland though, as I'm sure you know, is part of Britain - both historically and geographically.
- Britain is both a geography term and a history term, and here it's history. That is "Britain" is the usual historians' term for the country he ruled. --although the "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" terminology came 5 years after his death.Richard Jensen 11:59, 13 May 2008 (CDT)
- I still think the mention of Britain in the title is potentially misleading and inaccurate, especially given the wealth of confusion surrounding the term - even by inhabitants, and perhaps a better title could be found. --Mal McKee 13:22, 13 May 2008 (CDT)