Talk:France–United Kingdom relations

message: 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  The Edits de Nantes were repealed by his son, Louis XIII.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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Sport Section 

message: 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)
thread_title: Minor references

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Well spotted. I've removed it.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Error 

message: 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:
*:      File:Rometreaty.jpg
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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:De-gaulle-radio.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  for 250 years ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  De Gaulle and Pompidou 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anglo-French relations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Western Empire 

message: 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. »
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)
thread_title:  Rights of man 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.ambafrance-uk.org/spip.php?page=mobile_art&art=13690
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212192247/http://library.thinkquest.org/5983/pages/chunnel.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/5983/pages/chunnel.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026093022/http://www.asce.org/People-and-Projects/Projects/Seven-Wonders/Seven-Wonders/ to http://www.asce.org/People-and-Projects/Projects/Seven-Wonders/Seven-Wonders/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330150004/http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2008Annual/Table_12_1_Intl_Air_Pax_Route_Analysis_2008.pdf to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport_data/2008Annual/Table_12_1_Intl_Air_Pax_Route_Analysis_2008.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) 11:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lamb burning 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Second Hundred Years War