# Talk:Simon de Montfort's Parliament

I removed that section mostly because it was added with no citations at all and made extremely large assertions that "this parliament is over emphasized" and it was basically called so someone could sortof overthrow the King. This all may be true (and if it is I'm sorry that I removed it), but it looked enough like borderline personal commentary that I felt removal was best. The addition can be seen here and the removal here. 68.39.174.238 00:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The article needs some clarification as to the fact that this did not begin a trend of inclusion.  It was only with the Model Parliament of Edward I that the groups included in this parliament began to be used.  The article as it stands now plays more into the mythos of De Montfort rather than the reality FubarDac 16:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the point made by FubarDac, although I do not see the Model Parliament as being quite such a unique development as is sometimes suggested. The process of adding the Commons to Parliament was a more gradual evolution than just De Montfort 1265 and King Edward 1295. --Gary J 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure it is correct to say women could not own land, so that is why they could not vote. Until the Married Women's Property Act 1882 a woman's proprty, including land, passed on marriage to her husband. However there was no law, at least in Victorian times, that stopped an unmarried woman or a widow from owning land. Is anyone aware of a different practice in the thirteenth century?
I suspect that in 1265 no one actually ruled that women could not vote for Simon De Montfort's new fangled elected members of Parliament. If county elections were held at the County Court (run by the High Sheriff in that era), as I understand was the case in the early centuries of Parliamentary elections, it may be that women were not eligible to take part as they were not part of the court. Does anyone know enough about how these courts and elections functioned to either confirm or deny my suggestion? --Gary J 00:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The article "De Monfort's Parliament" claims franchise was limited to forty-shilling freeholders only in 1430. On the other hand, the article "Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester" mentions the 40 shillings already for de Monfort's parliament. Who is right?
Top.Squark 11:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

20th January 2015 is the 750th anniversary of De Montfort's Parliament. However this article is not eligible for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 20 because it's tagged with refimprove. Does anyone have the references at hand and knowledge to clean this up?
The BBC [1] are planning a "Democracy Day" of live events, discussions and debate, produced in partnership with the Speaker’s Office of the House of Commons, including broadcasts from inside Westminster. Whizz40 (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a quick stab at improving it, reusing some text from the Henry III of England article, as of 21 December 2014. There's probably a bit more to say on the historiography, but this reflects the current academic literature fairly well now, and should be good enough for the selected anniversaries purposes I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Hchc, I'll ask for this to be considered for selection.  I wonder if this article has potential to be a GA (or even FA) in 2015. Parliament website says there is a programme of events throughout the year. [2]
I think it could be a GA in 2015, with a little bit more work around the edges. We've also been doing some work on the Magna Carta article, again with the 2015 events in mind. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have specifically included 20 January with a citation which is also a requirement for selected anniversaries. I have also been bold and added it fully to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 20 along with a picture of de Montford. Thincat (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This article has been moved by User:Moonraker without discussion and a number of linked pages have been edited in rapid sucession including quickly reflecting this new article title. I would like to get discussion going with other editors regarding the article title. Whizz40 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Whizz40. I thought moving this page would be uncontroversial, but of course happy to have a discussion here on the talk page. Moonraker (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
In short, a number of names are used for this parliament: "Simon de Montfort's parliament" is often used and is certainly correct, I do not think anyone could object to that. The traditional short form of this name is "Montfort's parliament", given that the word "de" is not strictly part of a surname, and I can set out some reliable sources for that if desired. Americans sources seem to like "De Montfort's Parliament", which has grown up fairly recently based on the misconception that Simon de Montfort's short name is "De Montfort". This is akin to the idea that Beethoven should be called "Van Beethoven", Bismarck should be called "Von Bismarck", Talleyrand should be called "De Talleyrand", and so on. Of course, all of these are quite common in popular use, but the question is really whether they are the forms used in reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Henry Hallam, View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages, p. 22: "A system of representation is definitely formulated in Montfort's Parliament of 1265."
Timothy Cunningham, An Historical Account of the Rights of Election of the Several Counties (1783), p. xvi: "and even then it is also to be observed, that it was called by Montfort, who was, in fact, Governour of the Realm ; nay, the Parliament, itself, had the Denomination of Montfort's Parliament."
@Moonraker:. The best thing to do might be to move it back and then go through this process. Amortias (T)(C) 21:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Moonraker: I agree that is the right question and would like other editors to have a chance to discuss if they wish. I do not have a strong view either way, but would like a consensus to build before changes are made throughout the article space. As you say, there is more than one option. Whizz40 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have strong views on the issue, but in terms of process I'd echo Amortias suggestion that the move be reverted, and then taken through Requested Moves in the normal way. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
With the additional context given above and having had time to look through the other edits, I am happy to support the article move and acknowledge Moonraker's improvements to the other articles. Whizz40 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
A quick Google books search[3] produces quite a few "De Montfort's parliament" and a lot of "Simon De Montfort's parliament", but Montfort's parliament doesn't not seem to be very common.--SabreBD (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sabrebd, Whizz40's now content; would you be happy for the renaming to stand? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I would be happier with "Simon De Montfort's Parliament", which seems to be the most common and accurate, which is I guess a way of saying that we should probably go to a  a move request for move process, not because I have strong feelings, but because the decision would be more secure in the future.--SabreBD (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough - I'd be happy to support that. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to support that, makes sense on both aspects. Whizz40 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC) Welcome more views from other editors. Whizz40 (talk) 06:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this some trendy historian thing? As a non-historian I have never heard de Montfort or his parliament quoted without the de.Charles (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a traditional vs more recent view on usage. No one seems to be saying de Montfort's Parliament or Montfort's Parliament cannot be used, but by moving the article to Simon de Montfort's Parliament we avoid taking a view in the article title. As Moonraker said, this name is "often used and is certainly correct" which is echoed by Sabrebd and Hchc2009.
If there are no objections toward the end of the week, then I'll add the move template - as suggested by Amortias and others - to request the move to "Simon de Montfort's Parliament". This will list the move and get the attention of more editors providing further opportunity for review. Hopefully, if accepted, this move will be stable and acceptable to all, without precluding the use of either de Montfort's Parliament or Montfort's Parliament within articles (although each article should probably be consistent in its usage of one or the other plus the full name, since consistency within articles is a common policy). Whizz40 (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, thanks for moving the article. There is a typographic apostrophe in the new article title, is that usual? Whizz40 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Whizz40:, no it is not usual - I'm pretty sure apostrophes should always just be the standard ASCII one, unless there's a very good reason why not. I moved to this title because that's what the request said, and I just copied it without noticing the typographic apostrophe. I have now moved it to the version that has a normal apostrophe. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, must have been an autocorrect when I typed out the move request. Whizz40 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Following on from the discusion above about the 750th anniversary, are other editors happy for this article to be nominated for good article review? Hchc2009, with the improvements you made it should be a good candidate - would you like to nominate it or be able to assist with any review questions if I nominate at this point? Whizz40 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Very happy to help/assist Whizz if you're okay putting it forward. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Simon de Montfort's Parliament/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Amakuru (talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Starting review now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


### General points
#### Background section
Poitevin - what is this? Wikilink?
A region in France from where the King's notorious half brothers hailed. Linked this to House of Lusignan. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sicilian policy. What is this?
Plans to invade Sicily. Linked this to Henry III of England#The Sicilian business for more detail. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hugh Bigod. Who is he? Wikilink?
The King's chief minister. Linked this to Hugh Bigod (Justiciar). Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"in the middle of the King's parliament" - what is this? Who was involved in this parliament? The term parliament is introduced in the second paragraph
Parliaments including Lords and higher clergy had met since at least 1236 (see for example List of Parliaments of England link in the See also section). The subject of this article was the first to invite representatives of towns and cities of England. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Montfort or de Montfort?
As discussed on the Talk page, suggest Simon de Montfort and either Montfort or de Montfort on each article. Found and made one change on this article from de Montfort to Montfort. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Initially Montfort's legal arguments held sway" - what were his legal arguments?
Refers to the Provisions of Oxford and Westminster regarding limiting the power of the king, explained and linked two paragraphs before. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The two armies met. Who were in these armies? How were they assembled?
Henry's army and the Baronial army, led by Montfort (could reword to say "their armies met" but not sure the Baronial army is commonly referred to as Montfort's army. The sentence includes a link to Battle of Lewes which explains the detail. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


#### The parliament
"Although Simon de Montfort claimed to be ruling in the King's name through a council of officials, he had effective political control over the government, although he was not himself the monarch, the first time this had happened in English history" - awkward wording. Two levels of "although".
Reworded. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Eleanor made plans for an invasion of England" - could do with more context on this. Why was Eleanor in France? She's not really introduced or even wikilinked in the article at present. Also, no more is mentioned of her after this sentence.
Raising support for Henry from the King Louis of France, her brother in law. Linked to Eleanor of Provence. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"The event was overseen by King Henry, and held in the Palace of Westminster, London, which was the largest city in England whose continuing loyalty was essential to Montfort's cause".
This doesn't seem to scan right. Should it be "The event was overseen by King Henry, and held in the Palace of Westminster, London, which was the largest city in England, and whose continuing loyalty was essential to Montfort's cause"?
Made this change. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Prince Edward escaped his captors". This is the first time Edward is mentioned in the body of the article, and he is not even wikilinked here. Was he the King's son? And why was he in captivity?
He was Henry's son so Prince Edward who became Edward I hence necessary for Montfort's to capture/control. Mentioned this in the lead where it is linked. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


#### Legacy
"The 19th century historian William Stubbs, however, popularised the 1295 "Model Parliament" of Edward I as the first genuine parliament, although modern scholarship questions this analysis"
As above, the "however" and the "although" seem to offer two levels of negation; might scan better if split into two sentences.
Reworded this. Whizz40 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


### Ideas for improvement towards FA status
I think the parliament section could be longer. More detail on its nature, more precision on who was involved, what actions it took during its short lifetime etc.
Thanks for the work on this, and it was a very interesting read. Let me know what you think of the points above, and I'll come back shortly to assess the references and other criteria for GA. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


### GA Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
Yes, it is clear and concise. Some aspects could still be tidied up and the prose tightened to be classed as brilliant, but good enough for GA.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Lead: From WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences."
For FA status I would expand the lead (along with the rest of the article probably). But good enough here, there's something from all the sections, and the notability and significance established early on.
Layout: Background, Parliament, and Legacy seem like good structure for such an article.
words to watch: I didn't spot any.
fiction: Doesn't apply.
lists: There aren't any.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
Yes, uses a mixture of short refs with bibliography and some full references. No missing links.
B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary: 
Yes. All important points in the body of the article are cited, and those in the lead match up with those in the body. I spot checked a ref from Jobson and it matched.
C. No original research: 
Not that I can see.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
Yes. As already noted, a lot more could be said about the parliament, but it's fine for GA.
B. Focused: 
At 1713 words this is a short article. I think it could be longer for FA, as noted above, but it certainly doesn't go off topic.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Yes. I don't detect any bias in the article.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Major editors appear to have worked in collaboration, and no edit wars spotted. There was a move request recently, but this has caused no animosity.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images are out of copyright due to age.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Yes they are. There are images in each paragraph, relevant to the prose there.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass. Good luck with improving this article!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Whizz, I think the National Archive bit is poorly worded. The other, peer reviewed sources are pretty clear about us not knowing how they were selected; I think the Archives are trying to say in shorthand that that burgesses etc. attended in 1265, and that the common people became involved via elections s parliament developed, not that they were elected in 1265 (which would be an exceptional claim, given the conclusions from other historians) - i.e. the sentence is poorly formed. That would fit with the rest of the Archive paragraph, which again mostly doesn't apply to 1265 but is describing the later situation.  09:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks Hchc2009. Whizz40 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page.  The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors.  All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)