Talk:King's shilling

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.

Military history: Culture / Technology / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Numismatics: British currency Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies 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.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British currency task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Apostrophe

Just a note to confirm that I'm about to move this page to "King's shilling" (with an apostrophe), with redirects from Kings Shilling, King's Shilling, and Kings shilling. Also emboldening the full title in the first line, as per guidelines. Sjb90 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press gangs. King's Shilling and Glass bottomed tankards

The "King's shilling" stories are mostly exagerated or mythical.

"1. Any man pressed into the Royal Navy had eight days to appeal against his impressment. (Thus the idea of a man being coshed outside a tavern and waking up the next day miles out at sea is a myth.)

2. Physical force was only allowed if the prospective pressed man tried to run away. (Not that this rule was never broken, of course.)

3. No man who did not have a naval background could be pressed. That was why press gangs used to go round dockland taverns because most men there would have a naval background.

4. No man could be pressed if he had a wife or dependent children. Both 3 and 4 could be used at any appeal at an appeal.

5. There were strict age limits to impressment (from 17 to 45 from memory, but don't quote me).

6. Sailors could be pressed from a merchant ship, but any pressed sailor could still use 4 and 5 as an appeal against impressment. The merchant ship must still be left with enough sailors to safely sail it back to port. In effect many sailors volunteered for impressment when a press gang visited their ship because conditions were often better on Royal Navy ships. Food and pay were certainly better. (The magazine also exploded the myth about maggots in biscuits.)

As a result there were very few pressed sailors at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Fewer than 10% of Royal Navy sailors were pressed. Far more sailors were pressed in the French Navy and this is given as one reason why the Royal Navy won the battle. (Volunteers had greater commitment, usually had more experience and were better trained.)"

1Z (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to suppose that illiterate men know of these "rights"? Is there any reason to suppose that had the pressed requested them, that the gang masters would have said, "oops, of course you may appeal. Sorry about the coshing"? Do the records support many successful appeals as a ration of appeals denied or as a ration of all men pressed? In short, were these "right" not more honoured in the breach than the observance? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

I've had to remove most of this article, as it was a clear copy and paste from the two sources - [1] and [2]. (I've checked against archive.org that it's not a reverse copyvio.) As a consequence, the article could do with some expansion, although without placing too much emphasis on the "shilling in a tankard" story, which is very likely a myth. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CE

May I suggest putting the citations at the end of sentences? These days I find that mid-sentence citations break the flow. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy

As I read the BBC references, a pressed man was sometimes given the opportunity to volunteer, in which case he received the bonus payment. If he was pressed, he was given the shilling. The text seems to imply both these payments were made to volunteers.
It also seems the BBC reference has more material that would benefit the article and make it more complete without just doing a cut and paste job. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Adams and resignation from the House of Commons

I have twice removed from this article a claim that the term was used to refer the resignation of Gerry Adams from the Commons: [3], [4]. Given Adams's politics, this is a negative assertion about a living person, so per WP:BLP it should be removed unless supported by the sources.

The source used was an lifestyle column in the Irish Independent. An opinion column like that is dubious as a reliable source, but regardless of that, the source says: "who may be happy enough to take the queen's shilling and the Northern Bank millions but firmly draw the line at taking anything like the Chiltern Hundreds as well".

That specifically contrasts Adams' alleged taking of the shilling in other contexts with his refusal to take the Chiltern Hundreds. Please stop reinstating this material.

That leaves no reference to support the claim that the phrase "queens shilling" is used to refer to resignation from the Commons. Unless a reliable source is found, reference to that process should be removed entirely. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same piece refers to Elizabeth II as "Liz II", but is equally unlikely to make it into that particular article as an 'alternative form of address'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the section titled 'Present day' is nothing more than an eclectic collection of primary sources, which is deprecated on Wikipedia. We are not a random collection of satirical phrases to further a POV, nor are we a dictionary. WP:BRD demands some TP justification on this disputed usage rather than blind reverting. RashersTierney (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reliable source for the "people refer to resigning from the House of Commons as the King's shilling" statement; it's probably worth excising this sentence entirely. Microchip08 (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll notice, the source and content of the text was changed. It was no longer about Adams. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source was a blog, which is not an appropriate source on Wikipedia. I reverted the edit as it did not appear neutrally worded. —Microchip08 (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I direct you to WP:Blogs where that would be a valid concern if it was self published, which it wasn't. It was published in a national newspaper in the Republic of Ireland, which means if it were false it wouldn't have been printed and written by a recognised journalist. The source is suitable as it meets WP:V. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a 'point of view' appears in print media does not necessarily make it 'neutral' or otherwise suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You have been reverted numerous times and by several editors on this theme with minor variations. Time to call a halt. RashersTierney (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was on the old source, not the irish examiner source. Besides where is the discussion to determine consensus, when nothing is said for a week, it is safe to assume that there are no further objections. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that two people have reverted you on the Irish Examiner source doesn't convey anything? That page says "Viewpoint" right at the top, indicating that this is not a neutral piece, and what you're being told here is that you shouldn't be using it because of that, regardless of what publication it comes from. At the moment, you're the only person in favor of including this, and keep getting reverted. That ought to tell you something. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was a shilling worth at that time?

It would be very helpful if this article said what the value of a shilling at that time (18th and 19th centuries)was. Was it a pittance or a small fortune? How many loaves of bread would it buy? What would be the equivalent amount in modern British and American currencies? Thanks. --KS on Wikipedia (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]