Jump to content

Talk:France–United Kingdom relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Henri de Navarre did not oppress protestants. He led the protestants and converted to catholicism for political reasons, to avoid destroying Paris. He set up and implemented the Edits de Nantes, which guaranteed freedom of religion. The Edits de Nantes were repealed by his son, Louis XIII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbriens (talk • contribs) 04:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

The colours of the map are not consistent with the description below. Perhaps it was done by a colour blind artist?

Needs attention

[edit]

Anglo-French relations have a way too long and complex of a history to have what is practicaly a stub.

The map should be fixed to include France's DOM, which are as much a part of France as Hawai'i is part of the US.

The Sport Section

[edit]

One) I'd assumed this was about political relations, not sports results and Two) It's a bit biased don't we think. I have no idea about sport, but I know that England and the UK has had many victories over France. If someone could either update or delete it, I'd be happy Big Moira 02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this page is about relations between the two peoples and their cultures, even more importantly than the political relations? Sports results may not be appropriate, but if the two countries follow each others' sports to such an extent that both do quite well, surely that exhibits a cultural tie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew schaug (talk • contribs) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section seems to have been written by a Scot. Since football is the most popular sport in England and France, and there is no real international rivalry between the two teams the section needs a rewrite. England's football rivals are Germany, Scotland and Argentina. France's seems to be Italy. A rivalry exists in rugby thats about it. - True as Blue (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor references

[edit]

I added a reference to the Angevin Empire and the Hundred Years' War in the end. I'll expand the article later maybe. I'll depends of my mood. Matthieu 00:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France nearly became part of the UK?

[edit]

An interesting article at the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6261885.stm This may well be worthy of inclusion. violet/riga (t) 05:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Very interesting. --89.240.51.104 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or "UK nearly became part of France?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fol2choco (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it was definitely the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.111.251 (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

I would suggest renaming this article to "Franco-British relations", with "Anglo-French relations" as a redirect, simply because "British" is more accurate than "Anglo" when referring to the UK. (Also, this article would need a history section. I'll add it to my list of "things to do when I have time".) Aridd (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current title of the page does not fit the material it contains. Substantial materila pre-dates the creation of the United Kingdom, so the title is factually inaccurate. However, a mess of dismabiguation pages have been created temporarioy prevent moving the page to a title that actually works. This URGENTLY needs to be addressed, as the article has a non-sensical title.
I think the current title (France-United Kingdom relations) is all right. The fact that the UK has not always been the UK is not important, since the title is referring to the current countries and naturally includes a history of the relations between their predecessors. This is reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.137.109 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations which lays out the naming conventions for international relations articles. Indisciplined (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Error

[edit]

In the "Formation of Great Britain" section, this article states that "Britain fought France" in the War of the Quadruple Alliance. However, the article for the War of the Quadruple Alliance seems to indicate that Britain and France were on the same side against Spain. Which is it? Jim (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I've removed it.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:De-gaulle-radio.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for 250 years ?

[edit]

The Seven Years War is regarded as a critical moment in the history of Anglo-French relations, which laid the foundations for the dominance of the Anglosphere during the next two and a half centuries, and arguably the spread of democracy and English common law.[7] Is that not completely POV ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.27.72 (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De Gaulle and Pompidou

[edit]

There are two problematic statements here, listed below.

1) The article currently has this sentence: "De Gaulle declared a new policy of 'in every direction', meaning that French military forces were prepared to fight a war against Britain and America, as much as they were against the Soviet Union."

This statement is unsourced and would be incredible if true. DeGaulle was prepared to fight a war against Britain and America? I cannot find any source that says this. Also, DeGaulle had a policy called or being 'in every direction'? DeGaulle had a lot a political ideas, favoring a sort of third pole separate (at least in part) from the US and the Soviets, a strong nuclear deterrence (force de frappe), and the independence of French power (nuclear weapons again, but also aviation and the military in general, and an independent foreign policy). However, a policy of being "in every direction" is almost certainly not one of DeGaulle's ideas, and does not even sound like a coherent policy of any sort. Does anyone have any sources that show otherwise? If not, I will remove this sentence after a period of time.

2) The article also reads "When de Gaulle resigned in 1969, a new French government under Georges Pompidou were prepared to open a more friendly dialogue with Britain and, although they did not reverse much of De Gaulle's foreign policy, they removed their objections to British membership of the EEC opening the way for the United Kingdom to join the common market in 1973."

The problem here is that it claims that Pompidou did not reverse much of DeGaulle's foreign policy. However, Pompidou's reversing of DeGaulle's opposition to British membership in the EEC and having a "more friendly dialogue" are certainly a significant policy changes. Keep in mind this article specifically concerns the France-UK relationship. In this light, Pompidou's change would be the about most significant change possible (complete opposition to support of membership) from the British perspective. Therefore, saying that Pompidou did not reverse much of DeGaulle's foreign policy (at least towards Britain) does not make sense. I will change the sentence to reflect that, after a period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.122.133 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-French relations

[edit]

I have reverted the move Anglo-French relations to France–United Kingdom relations by Turkish Flame on 29 August 2008‎ because the more usual name for this relationship is "Anglo-French" not "France–United Kingdom". -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Anglo-French" may be the most usual form in print (not speech), but more to the point: is this the best form for an encyclopedia? There are the hundreds of other articles in Category:Bilateral relations of the United Kingdom and Category:Bilateral relations of France which all follow an "alphabetized by nation" method. SteveStrummer (talk) 08:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PBS. it's more diplomatic, more historic, more idiomatic, and more in line with what historians, scholars, reference works & journal editors choose. Rjensen (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus so revert to status quo ante. This article was at the previous location for nearly six years and the RM was seeking to overturn an undiscussed move. It must therefore default to the most recent long term stable version. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Anglo-French relations → France–United Kingdom relations – There are a great many ways to recreate this title (and all other international relations articles), and many prosaic phrases are acceptable as redirects, but the most logical form for the entire series of articles is to use the actual countries' names. Prosaic names are ambiguous: adjectives like "Anglo" and "French" are not definitive in the way that countries' names are, and they are prone to capricious substitution ("British"; "Franco", etc.) which can ultimately become baffling to online research. "Anglo-French" is no more WP:RECOGNIZABLE or understandable than the old name, and it pointlessly disrupts the clear established formula used by all other counterpart pages (see Category:Bilateral relations of the United Kingdom, Category:Bilateral relations of France), and the global Category:Bilateral relations). SteveStrummer (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are a great many ways to recreate this title. WP:COMMONNAME and simple WP:GOOGLEHITS do not serve any purpose when there is no true primary "name" for the topic. Your search above shows about 700,000 hits for "Anglo-French relations"; try "French and British relations" (about 350,000 hits); France–United Kingdom relations" (about 175,000); "relations between France and Britain" (over 2 million hits); and "relations between France and the United Kingdom" (over 3 million). Without a true "name", the title should be based on utility and concision, and the method for doing this was agreed upon because it offers both. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google Book results are not the same as WP:GOOGLEHITS. Zarcadia (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google books picks up the reliable secondary sources that Wikipedia insiksts upon, while plain google gets mostly private web pages that are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia rules. Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point was that "hits" are not definitive here. If you make exceptions for prosaic terms, you ask for more modifiers like "Chinese" and "Sino", "Russo", "Thai", "Austro", "American", etc. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Stick with Anglo-French because it's more historic, more idiomatic, and more in line with what historians, scholars, reference works & journal editors choose. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not convinced that is the most common title. If the name is moved back, we'd need to consider splitting the article because the current content covers the entire history of Anglo (in this case, broadly English) relations with France rather than the post 1801 subject that the proposed (British) title implies. Anglo-French relations stretch back a thousand years while British-French relations date back only as far as 1707 or 1603 (if we take the Union of the Crowns as the starting point of "British" identity, which historians increasingly do.) In the 16th century, for instance, France enjoyed good relations with Scotland but not with the English, Irish and Welsh.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I would support a split into two related but separate articles. The scope of the average Bilateral relations page is much narrower than this article aspires to. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a very good point. The United Kingdom is the successor state to the Kingdom of England. If Scotland goes independent the rump of the UK will remain the successor state. As a political point, it has been pointed out in the last week by a prominent yes campaigner that he will still be British if Scotland becomes independent, because he lives on the Island of Great Britain and the English and Welsh have no more right to the term than do Scots in or outside the Union. -- PBS (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So then: should all the US relations pages include sections on Native Americans? SteveStrummer (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point you are making. Does the United States government claim to be the successor state to any native American tribe? -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't see nothing wrong with the old title, despite that the immense amount of the article is about the post 1700th relations, which the term United Kingdom is more appropriate. Ruddah (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any policy-based reasoning for your decision? Zarcadia (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is a research tool first, literature second. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What literature? I'll settle for just comprehensible English prose. Yes, "an encyclopedia is a research tool first" and this is English Wikipedia for real living English speakers, not Botopedia where titles are shoehorned into artificial consistency with non-idiomatic strings of words. —  AjaxSmack 
  • Oppose The name Anglo-French is far more common than "France–United Kingdom" also second AjaxSmack opinion. SteveStrummer see WP:CRITERIA "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." are you suggesting that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in Anglo-French relations would not recognise the term and would be more comfortable with "France–United Kingdom" as an alternative? -- PBS (talk)
Obviously not: I said that neither name is more recognizable than the other, so there is no benefit to making an exception for this case. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anglo can mean English but the Oxford English Dictionary makes it clear under Anglo-" that it also means the successor states:

Anglo-

1. Forming compounds relating to England (or more broadly to Britain: cf. etymological note at England n.), or to the English (or British).

...

b. Combined with adjectives (and occas. nouns) relating to the names of countries, nations, etc., in the sense ‘between England (Britain) or the English (British) and ——’, ‘jointly English (British) and ——’ (esp. with reference to political or diplomatic relations between countries), as Anglo-American adj. 1a, Anglo-Boer adj., Anglo-Turkish adj., etc.
  • The most recent quote given is: "1998 Gloucester Citizen (Nexis) 23 June 2 The withdrawal of the British embassy staff from the capital of Minsk this week has put Anglo-Belarus relations at an all -time low." -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above the OED does not consider Anglo-French to be incorrect, why do you; and what is the source that you rely on to make such a statement? Also why is there a need for separate articles (how very Anglo-centric of you)? Do you really think that we need a separate article for before the first act of union, second act of union, and after Irish independence if so then would not different articles for each of the change of regimes in France be required? For example France is currently on the 5th Republic, if this line of reasoning was followed through there would be at least six article to cover the old and new regimes and that is just for the change of regime in France. As some of those French regimes span the years 1707, 1801 and 1921, there would probably have to be at least another three articles. But this move request is not about how many articles there should be but what the name of this article should be. -- PBS (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PBS, rjensen and AjaxSmack. Consistency is only a preference, i.e titles should follow a similar format only if ceteris paribus. Here it's not at all ceteris paribus, as a renaming could potentially result in a change of scope and split into several different articles (which I would oppose, as I believe it is more helpful to readers to have the topic presented in a single article). walk victor falk talk 23:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Western Empire

[edit]

In the chapter Roman and post-Roman era there could be made mention of the brief existence of the Gallic Empire which combined both 'Britain' and 'France' in a common nation.

Montalban (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rights of man

[edit]

I am removing this excerpt :

« and the "rights of man" basis of the 1789 Constitution continues to be read by French constitutional courts to give rights to men that women do not hold, including tax cuts to men who are sole breadwinners in marriage.[1] »

Because it is wrong. This is not at all the read of the Conseil Constitutionnel, which just said that two households earning the same amount of money should be taxed the same amount of money, hence the tax should not be based on individuals earning. At no point there is a mention of man/woman distinguishing. Official source.

By the way, 1946 Constitution preamble has constitutional validity in France and explicitly states : « La loi garantit à la femme, dans tous les domaines, des droits égaux à ceux de l'homme. »

I am also removing the specification « artificially » gendered, since the reference do not use this term and it just has no sense.

2A01:CB00:9D5:5C00:D69A:20FF:FE65:6582 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Urquhart, Conal and Agencies (December 29, 2012). "France's constitutional council rejects 75% tax rate". Guardian. Retrieved 18 January 2016.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on France–United Kingdom relations. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb burning

[edit]

I wonder if anyone will mention the burning alive of over 200 lambs by very kind, civilized French farmers in a protest against English lamb imports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.249.74 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Hundred Years War

[edit]

The Second Hundred Years War is a periodization used by some historians to describe the series of military conflicts between Great Britain and France from about 1689 or 1714 to 1815. The Seven Years' War and Napoleonic Wars already listed are part of said periodization. It would be the equivalent of listing the Caroline, Lancastrian and Hundred Years' Wars as french victories at the same time (Jules Agathias (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

That periodization is, I would argue, far less well known than referring to those separate conflicts. The first Hundred Years' War is better known as a collection than the separate conflicts within. Please provide some evidence that the second HYW is better known through that grouping, or revert your changes. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:France–United_Kingdom_relations&oldid=1240062150"