Talk:Simon de Montfort's Parliament

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: 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)
thread_title: Why women could not vote in 1265?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forty-shilling Freeholders: 1265 or 1430? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Moved. Taking into account the discussion above, and the lack of opposition here, there is a clear consensus to move.   — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Montfort's Parliament →  – Discussion among several editors on the Talk page reached consensus on this new article title because this name is "often used and is certainly correct”. Whizz40 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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)

text: Hi , 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)
replies: text: Thanks, must have been an autocorrect when I typed out the move request. Whizz40 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 February 2015 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Makes sense, thanks Hchc2009. Whizz40 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Congratulations