Talk:Third Anglo-Dutch War

message: See Triple Alliance. Unless two treaties with the same name have been made shortly after another (which a hardly likely) the reference to Triple Alliance here is a mistake. Reference removed.
Erik Zachte
:I've made Triple Alliance into a disambiguation, since there seem to be several treaties going by that name.
What were the results of the War? Nik42 00:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None.
--MWAK 13:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "....leaving the Allies in possession of only three of the in fact ten (despite the number traditionally given of seven[28]) Dutch provincial areas"
Footnote 28: The Seven United Netherlands consisted of Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Guelders, Overijsel, Friesland and Groningen, but in fact the territories of Drenthe, North Brabant and Limburg were also part of the Republic
The United Seven Provinces, as The Netherlands were formally called at this time, consisted of the seven provinces listed in the footnote.  Drenthe was indeed an independent administrative area but was deemed an insignificant backwater so did not get even standing with the other provinces upon Dutch independence.  Some of what is now North Brabant and Limburg was part of the Staten Landen, lands ruled directly by parliament as they had been conquered subsequent to Dutch independence from Spain.  The Provinces of Drenthe and North Brabant only became provinces in 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon and Limburg did not become a province until 1866. The use of Limburg would certainly not have been applied to any Dutch held lands at the time of the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pytter (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. North Brabant can be better called Staats-Brabant. Staats-Overmaas can replace "Limburg".--MWAK (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "The United Seven Provinces, as The Netherlands were formally called at this time,". This is incorrect, there was never a formal name of this kind - in fact, it appears to have been applied in retrospect when the Kingdom of the Netherlands had already been established. The formal name was "De Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden" or, in English, "The Republic of the United Netherlands", as an abundance of contemporary sources and later historiography establishes. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  seven provinces or ten? 

message: * This is a misleading heading; it contains many value statements with no back up but more importantly aren't relevant.
* Comment on Temple has a citation needed flag dating from 2015; so it needs to be provided or removed.
* Describing Downing as an 'intriguer' is non-neutral 
* Though De Witt tended to believe the repeated diplomatic assurances by the French and English that they had no invasion in mind.. debatable (particularly if you review the Triple Alliance) and needs a citation.
* In the English navy, however, Admiral Edward Spragge had grown jealous of supreme commander Prince Rupert of the Rhine. Also, Spragge broke formation in two battles to seek out his personal enemy Tromp, having vowed to kill him for having insulted his wife. Possibly relevant for the Second Anglo-Dutch War, and while its certainly true Spragge swore to defeat Tromp, not the same; the suggestion he 'broke formation' is debatable at the very least, and finally, so what? Needs a citation.
* Charles had intended to make William his creature by raising him from a position of unimportance to that of nominal ruler, ensuring his subservience to the English king; non-neutral 
etc etc. 
Robinvp11 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the heading wasn't mine :o). The Temple quotation is historical but I haven't been able to find the source I got it from; it's not so important. Spragge swore in front of Charles to kill Tromp or die trying but again this is more anecdotal than essential. Value judgements per se are not excluded by policy. In the case of Downing, it's better to present the facts than the qualification. The intentions of Charles were either correctly described or not; but if correct, the wording is correct too.--MWAK (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of 'Merlin' episode - key points 

message: Several sources are referred to but are missing. Geyl 1936, Childs 2014, Kitson 1994, Clodfelter 1992, Rowen 1978, Holmes 2008.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've got them all in now, thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources missing 

message: The Dutch head of state in this war later became the head of state of the other side, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This is peculiar enough to deserve a mention? 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:2015:E8DF:BB56:1E27 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Head of State

message: Captured by the Dutch in January 1673, needs correcting. Also, the English re-captured it in May 1673, which is worth a mention. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:B4D5:421F:52D6:27C8 (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Helena