# Talk:Edward Coke

IABot analysis was conducted on 20 December 2018 and found no changes required

I have been attempting to do some research on Coke and in reading this entry I am a bit incredulous of the supposed 'even-handedness' of this article. Most of the entry talks about his work in institutionalizing slavery, yet his legacy consists of a great deal more than his dubious opinion of slavery. The article's focus on the negative points while hardly touching on his positive contributions goes against the wiki's "neutral point of view". I am a bit disappointed by the quality of the article, as it neglects to mention most facts covered in all other encyclopedic entries for Coke and seems to purvey a negative message of Coke the villain.
Less negative articles in other places paint him as one of the original fighters for the supremacy of Common Law over Royal rule. His career is more summarized by heated political battles with King James and his arch-rival Francis Bacon among other prominent people of the era over issues of law.
I am not adding anything to the entry myself at this point since I have not done much reading on Coke and would hope to differ this work to someone with legal knowledge and better familiarity with the subject.

Dostal 02:53, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agreed with this post, and I have removed this text: 
"As director [of the London Company], he proposed a means by which  slavery could be legalised in the new Virginia Colony. Fearing opposition if the issue was publicly debated, Coke was responsible for Calvin's Case in 1608(In this way Coke played a significant part in the development of New World slavery.  On January 2, 2003, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom refused to make a public apology for the long history of slavery under the British Empire on the basis that it was legal at the time. Writing via assistant private secretary Kay Brock, she said 'Under the statute of the International Criminal Court, acts of enslavement committed today . . . constitute a crime against humanity. But the historic slave trade was not a crime against humanity or contrary to international law at the time when the UK government condoned it.'"
These controversial assertions do not accord with the record.  Calvin's Case was the result of a national debate over the legal significance of James VI's accession to the throne of England.  Slavery was of no issue to it and not mentioned by in the opinion.  Slavery was indeed legal at that time in England as in other European states, but it was utterly uncontroversial, and Coke had no reason to defend it, or even to mention it.]
Steve Sheppard
On the contrary if you take the trouble to look through the recordss of the meetings of the London Virginia Company, you will see that this whole issue very germaine. See also The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourse of Conquest by Robert A. Williams, Jr. (Oxford University Press, 1990). Slavery was very much an issue then, particularly in relation to anti-catholic/anti-spanish propoganda and the attempt to gain credibility for a notion of protestant moral superiority.Harrypotter 17:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim about the London Company (are the records you speak of online?).  As for Calvin's Case, in what way does it "play a significant part in the development of New World slavery".  I would have thought that the principle of Jus soli articulated in this case would have had the opposite effect.--JW1805 18:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I have consulted a range of material including contemporary pamphlets of the early 17th century located in the British Museum. In 1957, during the 350 anniversary of the founding of Virginia a lot of the records were republished as well. I haven't got all the references to hand, but I think it was in the 1970's or 1980's that a text by Nicholas Ferrer produced the interesting information that the first people used as slaves were Poles (Prior to the development of the Atlantic slave trade, one of the main slave trade routes was in Eastern Europe, and indeed the word slave is derived from Slav.) The LVC minutes make things quiote clear what the thinking was, and Coke differentiated between tenporary and eternal enemies. Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurisprude, also came up with similar ideas. .Harrypotter

The first few cases listed under the title "Famous judgments" were not Coke's judgments, but the judgments of others reported by Coke (they were made before he became a judge).  Might it be better, then, to rename this section something like "Famous Judgments and Reported Cases"? Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this change (after the fact, but still). bd2412 T 02:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coke was married twice.  This article goes on at great length without giving his two spouses any due whatsoever. Wjhonson (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the article completely in a month or so, fear not :). Ironholds (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that this article could be improved by including some background on Edward Coke's family. His wives are given only cursory attention, and certain excerpts mention children (his daughter Frances) but no real information on his immediate family is given.  —whitebengal 01:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Although it's included in the categories, the article doesn't mention that Coke was pricked as High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire in 1625. There was a reason for this; sheriffs couldn't serve in Parliament, and Charles I was hoping to keep Coke from making trouble for a year. Some of these biographies ought to mention the incident. Choess (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look; ta. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Now added - thanks for bringing it to my attention :). Ironholds (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I remember reading about this when we were looking into Pricking the Lites about three years ago. The details are slightly more complicated, although I think I'd rather incorporate them into 2nd Parliament of King Charles I (which mentions the incident) than burden Coke's article further. There were precedents already on hand that (in part because of the sheriff's role as a returning officer) a sheriff was not eligible to be returned for his own county nor for any constituency where his writ ran. However, Coke was sent up to Parliament not by Buckinghamshire, but by Norfolk. The King sent to the Commons to ask for a new writ, on the grounds that the shrievalty disqualified him from Parliament altogether; the Commons referred it to a committee for privileges to hunt for precedents, and Coke refrained from sitting (although he enjoyed privilege of Parliament), and the Parliament was dissolved before the committee could report on the case. (And while trying to avoid the shrievalty, the wily old fellow got a clause for suppressing Lollardy removed from the shrieval oath on the grounds that it was tantamount to suppressing established religion.) Choess (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Heh, nice! It's got to the point where I'm surprised that he even had enough time to bloody sleep with all the stuff he was up to. Ironholds (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edward Coke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I will begin reading through this in a day or two. Sorry you had to wait a month for this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
A very clear pass, a rare article in which nothing major needs to be addressed. This is in my opinion in exceptionally sound condition and possibly would pass as a featured article with some minor edits.  It certainly appears to be of the comprehension of a featured article. This is top work Ironholds, great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article contains the phrase "...discuss them at the dinner table..."  Is this manner of learning the law the source of the phrase "eat one's dinners" in terms of serving one's apprenticeship in the law in novels from the 1700s through the 1800s written in England?
71.163.114.49 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep! So, the student barristers were (and still are, actually!) not allowed to become full barristers until, amongst other things, they have eaten a certain number of dinners at their Inn of Court of choice. This is because dinners and the discussions you'd have around them were and remain very good opprtunities for conversing with judges, practising barristers and fellow students, and both exchanging theoretical knowledge and tempering it with the knowledge of what things look like in practise. These days there are a lot of different ways to fulfil your 'dinner' requirements; Gray's puts on a regular series of moots, for example. Ironholds (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

When he was stripped of his Privy Councillorship at the behest of Bacon, and dismissed from the King's Bench, was he also stripped of his title by which he served in the House of Lords?  Else I wonder at the novelty of a man able to be both in the Lords simultaneous with his status as Commoner, by which he would be able to serve as MP.  Can anyone please clarify? And is this worthy of a sentence in the main article? 66.225.160.9 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Er; what do you mean, served in the Lords? To my knowledge he never did. He did disable himself in the House of Lords, but that's a term referring to the practise of an incoming Speaker of the Commons grovelling in front of the Lords. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
hmmm, I'm showing my ignorance here.  Chief Justice of CP served on the bench of 12 (was it 14) for trials of State.  I had assumed that this was the same as the Law Lords who serve in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. and from there it was a short leap for me to sitting in the HofL ex officio as a Law Lord.  So I take it that the Judicial Cttee and/or LAO are not ex officio members of the HofL.  I need to study what is written in LAO some more. Thanks for this.  66.225.160.9 (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
the LAO wiki is IMHO insufficient on pre 1876 history and might do with a little expert help, for which I am not qualified 66.225.160.9 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, a lot of our judicial articles are...not great :(. Having said that, I am responsible for the articles on the CJCCP and CCP, and I don't recall seeing a note about sitting as law lords. As I understand it, trials of state were not necessarily Lords trials, mind. Ironholds (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
sorry, don't know what are CJCCP and CCP.  on the contrary, I'm rather impressed by the quality 66.225.160.9 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
and can you take a look at my suggested William Sharp McKechnie article?  It seems fine to me. 66.225.160.9 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, Court of Common Pleas - and thanks! Where/what is the suggested article? Just that there should be an article there, or have you written a draft? Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thanks for clearing up those acronyms.  check this Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/William Sharp McKechnie Articles for creation 66.225.160.9 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 looks pretty good! I'm going to make some stylistic tweaks (I'll explain why in the edit summary) and post it to the article space, if that's okay with you? Ironholds (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
brilliant, thanks for the support Ironholds :) 66.225.160.9 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled at the recent deletion of Coke ("considered to be the greatest jurist of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras"; "best known in modern times for his Institutes, described by John Rutledge as "almost the foundations of our law"") from the English legal scholars Category.  But maybe it's owt I don't understand about the category system?  - SquisherDa (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've re-added the category.  I can imagine it might be felt tht English legal scholars should be a subcategory of ditto writers - but vice versa is what would help here; and in fact I don't think it's true either way round?  There's been no comment here in a couple of weeks.  -- SquisherDa (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Case of Sutton's Hospital is an case of legal and academic importance in that it establishes the legal personhood of corporation. It judged by the subject and had not been mention in the subject's article. Propose to be added to it. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 21:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Notifying Ironholds as the main author, Denisarona, Ekvcpa for latest editors. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 21:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/shepherd-selected-writings-of-sir-edward-coke-vol-i xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the picture of Bridget Paston?  I took a look at the book it is cited from (link below) but either I am missing something or that picture is not in the book that is listed as its source, and the book itself is about a different guy.
https://archive.org/details/cokeofnorfolkhis01stiruoft/page/n7/mode/2up Uranodioning (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a full-length sculpture of her, kneeling, in Tittleshall church, Norfolk 2A00:23C8:F507:1901:44C5:C231:DDFC:E816 (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Guildhall portrait at the top of the article is NOT COKE. As a result of Wikipedia it has often been reproduced as Coke, but it clearly isn't. It is a recorder of London c. 1630 - Coke ceased to be recorder in the 1590s. Comparison with all the well attested portraits of Coke shows that it is a different person. 2A00:23C8:F507:1901:44C5:C231:DDFC:E816 (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)