Talk:Treaty of Westminster (1654)

message: I have reasons to believe that the date of the treat must be 5th May 1654 (OS)/15th May 1654 (NS)
Articles of peace, union and confederation, concluded and agreed between his Highness Oliver Lord Protector of the common-wealth of England, Scotland & Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging. And the Lords the States General of the United Provinces of the Netherlands. In a treaty at Westminster bearing date the fift of April old style, in the year of our Lord God 1654. Printed and published by his Highness special command.
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2820939
Articles of peace, union and confederation, concluded and agreed between His Higness Oliver Lord Protector of the common-wealth of England, Scotland & Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, and the lords the states general of the United Provinces of the Netherlands [microform] : in a treaty at Westminster bearing date the fift of April old style, in the year of our Lord God 1654
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/884042
Wdew (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You write that you "have reasons to believe" that the correct date is 5 May 1654 (O.S.) But the sources you quote both give 5 April 1654. Also, though the Dutch wikipedia article gives 5/15 May (without giving a source) and the German article 8 May (without source), the same date I found in the English article on the First Anglo-Dutch War (also without source), I found 5/15 April in every other reputable source and online site where facsimiles are given, such as my source Davenport. I therefore think that the date should be 5/15 April 1654 and have so edited the article. The Dutch ratification date is 22 April 1654, by the way.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: date

message: I have rewritten the entire article as it seemed rather unsatisfactory for such an important subject. I was provoked to do this as a consequence of a challenge by Top.Squark on the " Contradiction with First Anglo-Dutch War, Treaty of Westminster (1654) and Navigation Acts" on the Talk:First Stadtholderless Period page, this contradiction being that in the first-mentioned article the usual, but spurious, claim that "the Dutch acknowledged the Navigation Act" (of 1651) was not repeated. There is no basis to this claim, as I hope I establish, supported by citations, in this new version of the article. It would be better to say that the Dutch did not succeed in having the Act repealed. But that is entirely different from the claim that the Dutch somehow acquiesced in the Act, or worse, agreed to help enforce it. But there is so much more interesting material about the Treaty, which I hope to have established with this new version of the article.--Ereunetes (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Westminster (1654). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111230459/http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2011-0812-200610/werkstuk%20Diplomatieke%20Praktijken%20pdf.pdf to http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2011-0812-200610/werkstuk%20Diplomatieke%20Praktijken%20pdf.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified