Talk:Treaty of Amiens

message: Does "French Guinea" here refer to French Guiana, or to some section of Africa? - Montréalais
:The text is correct: the treaty concern French Guiana, not French Guinea. --Ann O'nyme 13:54, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled comments 

message: Why was the French invasion of Saint-Domingue a factor in the breakdown of the peace (as stated in the article)?  Saint-Domingue was still a French colony at the time.  It doesn't seem to make sense that France's sending of troops to its own colony would be in violation of the treaty. Funnyhat 07:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, it wasn't: the invasion at Cap Français actually preceded the signing at Amiens: cf my new edits. Background on the revolution that was well under way at Saint-Domingue can be found here. --Wetman 01:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks.  Makes more sense. Funnyhat 02:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint-Domingue 

message: Didn´t the  Treaty of Amiens also arrange for the return of Minorca to Spain? Or was it agreed in a separate, parallel treaty?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minorca 

message: It is not clear in the article whether Trinidad remained a British possession, or  was passed back to the British (as other articles say - France–Trinidad and Tobago relations Governors of Trinidad).   If, as I presume, the latter is the case, we should make it clear that the transfer occurred after the end of the treaty period  (1 June 1803) and why this was (presumably the delay in communication rather than the use of armed force).  Also it would be useful to know how Trinidad passed to France on this occasion - though that might belong in History of Trinidad and Tobago. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Any improvement should be reflected in Portal:Trinidad and Tobago/On this day/June 30.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Trinidad

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Amiens. 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://archive.is/20031125025927/http://charon.sfsu.edu/publications/ParisExpositions/NapoleonicExpos.html to http://charon.sfsu.edu/publications/ParisExpositions/NapoleonicExpos.html
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) 13:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article states Britain cedes Trinidad and Ceylon. That would mean Britain gave up Britain and Ceylon. Is it not the opposite? Britain ceded other takeovers but got to keep Trinidad from the French and Ceylon from the Dutch Batavian Republic? https://www.napoleon-empire.com/official-texts/treaty-of-amiens.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.178.201.134 (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceylon and Trinidad 

message: > Britain retained Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Trinidad but abandoned its claim to the French throne. 
This is unsourced in the article, and there are no other references. It's not explicitly mentioned in the treaty itself (text link)
In the page on the English claim to the French throne, it seems like this was something that the King decided with the Act of Union, prior to the treaty, and the treaty only made that clearer in its decision to recognize the Republic as a viable entity. Tccam (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Britain abandoned its claim to the French throne 

message: In the breakdown section it has the following sentence at/near the end of first paragraph: "it [war] proved to be the right choice for Britain, because in the long run Napoleon's intentions were hostile to British national interests." This is editorializing and needs removal or alteration or if it is the view of the particular historians it should stated as such. Firestar47 (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  breakdown of the treaty