Talk:Clergy Act 1640

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name[edit]

If the Clergy Act (a.k.a. Bishops Exclusion Act) was passed in 1642, why is it here referred to as the "Clergy Act 1640"? -- Picapica (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's where it appears in the list of legislation; I haven't yet found out why.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Considering things tended to move at a slower pace back then,) my guess is that it probably has to do with when it was first tabled rather than passed. If I have time later, I'll do some research and see if I can prove/disprove that. Mathsgirl (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is 'he' in this passage? The reigning monarch?[edit]

In the opening paragraph of the Background, it reads:

'Parliamentarians, many of whom were Puritans, believed ___he___ was answerable to the leaders or Elders of the church, appointed by their congregations.' (underscoring mine.)

It isn't clear if 'he' is the king.

Slightly unrelated comment that might not be relevant and I'd have to research reigning dates to check, would it be appropriate to change references to the 'king' to 'monarch' to include queens? Mathsgirl (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]