Long minorities

Long minorities
 

I find contradictory "long minorities". :thinking: The sentence is:

The long minorities of James V, Mary and James VI resulted in an overall lack of direction in government...

I don't understand that "long minorities". What do you think?

Thanks. :)

Possibly a minority in parliament which lasted a long time. :thinking:

Who is the author of this book, and what is the date? Is he/she English?

Ignore that. Rubbish. Scotland didn't have much of a parliament at the time. What it means is that these monarchs all ruled as children (=in their minority), with somebody else in control. Hence lack of direction. :)

That is not "good English" if you ask me.

Ah well, it does rather depend on whom the book is aimed at. It sounds like a rather academic book in history, in which case this would count as specialist vocabulary which the reaader is expected to understand. But I agree - if the book is aimed at the general public, it reads poorly.

Minority and regency, how can these concepts be explained in "good English"?
In Spanish we use "minoría o minoridad, regencia y valimiento o privanza", and we explain the meanings as necessary.

:duh: Of course! That kind of minorities, now I understand. Thank you.

Is the US, we call them "minors" typically.

Assuming Perikles is correct about the real meaning, I would probably write it as:
The long rule of minors James V, Mary, and James VI resulted in an overall lack of direction in government...

That is staying with the context of "minor." Really that is "under the legal age of responsibility" so it isn't really the best correction.

The long rule of youths/children/adolescents James V, Mary, and James VI resulted in an overall lack of direction in government...

Anyway, hope it is all worked out now.

All my classmates say that this is a wonderful book because it has photos and maps :confused: (I was the only one who complain about it). But I'm not sure if they read it or simply look the pictures. :thinking: This is a book from Penguin editions and I think it should be more clear that it actually is. :(

I don't pretty understand, because I find a difference between a minor (someone who is not plenty responsible as s/he is not regarded as completely able to rule her/himself) and the minority of a sovereign (that in spite of being a sovereign is not regarded as able to rule the nation or decide in dynastic matters). It all comes from royalty being quite a different kind of people than their subjects, and no matter how revulsive can be such a concept to our contemporary values, it allows us to understand how is it that, for instance, an overall lack of direction in government can possibly come from a minority.

Throughout history, there have been several children-monarchs. For instance, king Edward VI of England became king at the age of 10 and queen Isabel II of Spain was 13 years old, after a regency period. Many of them were married when they were still children (Isabel de Valois, France, was married when she was only 7 years old).

It may still be a good book overall. I just don't believe that sentence was clear.

I agree. History can be either a very interesting or a completely boring subject. ;)