This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Inexplicably Ireland was not included in the original edit! I have tried an edit to make it more general to reflect all three Kingdoms of the British Isles. Needs more on Scotland and Ireland though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utinomen ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the WP:Bold edit turning this from a general page to a specific page was unnecessary and ill-thought out. The result seems to be unneccessary exclusion rather than an attempt to achieve clarity.-- Utinomen ( talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"The definition of the term convention parliament is generally taken to be:" Where is this definition from and who generally takes it to be true? -- Utinomen ( talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
These description seem to be some ones analysis. However they leave out one crucial constitutional and legal fact - the King. Which calls into question the analysis for not being neutral nor factual, and is therefore misleading. The essential feature of the convention parliament is that they are not legal (not summoned by the King) but they restore the King (the source of legality). England was not a democracy in the 17th century! -- Utinomen ( talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been doing some research into the questions raised here and I think I can now answer them via sources:
CONVENTION PARLIAMENT. It is a branch of the royal prerogative, that no parliament shall be convened by its own authority, or by any other authority than that of the sovereign. Where the crown is in abeyance, this prerogative cannot of course be exercised, and the expedient of Convention Parliaments has been resorted to, the enactments of which shall afterwards be ratified by a parliament summoned in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. The C P. which restored Charles II to the throne met above a month before his return, and was afterwards declared to be a good parliament, notwithstanding the defect of the king's writs (13 Car. II. c 7 and c. 14). In like manner, at the revolution of 1688, the Lords and Commons, on the summons of the Prince of Orange, met in Convention, and disposed of the crown and kingdom, and this convention was subsequently declared (1 Will, and Mary, st 1, c. 1) to be really the two Houses of Parliament, notwithstanding the want of writs and other defects of form. Under the name of Convention, there also took place a meeting of the Estates of Scotland, called by the Prince of Orange on the same occasion. This meeting commenced on the 14th of March 1689, and was turned into a parliament on the 5th of June thereafter. The principal act of the Convention was to settle the Scottish crown upon William and Mary. After these precedents, we are perhaps almost entitled to regard the meeting of a C. P. as the constitutional mode in which the general will of England expresses itself on such questions as cannot be constitutionally discussed in parliament—e. g., a change of the reigning dynasty.
— Chambers's encyclopædia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 3 p. 210
CONVENTION (Lat. conventio, an assembly or agreement, from convenire, to come together), a meeting or assembly; an agreement between parties; a general agreement on which is based some custom, institution, rule of behaviour or taste, or canon of art; hence extended to the abuse of such an agreement, whereby the rules based upon it become lifeless and artificial. The word is of some interest historically and politically. It is used of an assembly of the representatives of a. nation, state or party, and is particularly contrasted with the formal meetings of a legislature. It is thus applied to those parliaments in English history which, owing to the abeyance of the crown, have assembled without the formal summons of the sovereign; in 1660 a convention parliament restored Charles II. to the throne, and in 1689 the Houses of Commons and Lords were summoned informally to a convention by William, prince of Orange, as were the Estates of Scotland, and declared the throne abdicated by James II. and settled the disposition of the realm. Similarly, the assembly which ruled France from September 1792 to October 1795 was known as the National Convention (see below); the statutory assembly of delegates which framed the constitution of the United States of America in 1787 was called the Constitutional Convention; and the various American state constitutions
have been drafted and sometimes revised by constitutional conventions...
— The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 volume 7 p. 45 CONVENTION:
William Blackstone is about as good authority on this as we can get:
Here is another commentary that takes the a similar POV as Blackstone:
His is a commentary that takes a contrary POV
These two sources have useful commentaries on the derivation of the word convention and how its meaning has changed over time:
The sources do not contradict what is written here, so there is no fire to fix, but clearly the wording will have to be altered to better reflect sources such as these. I do not have time now to edit any of this into the article but I will do so when I do. In the mean time if anyone has some time maybe they can make a start on it. -- PBS ( talk) 02:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now re-edited based on references suggested above.-- Utinomen ( talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Having reviewed the matter this section seems superfluous. The two antiquated sources do indeed provide a brief summation of the two parliaments yet as the Caplan quote indicates there is a difference between 1660 and 1689. I think this section should be removed as the differences outweigh their overall similarities. The features of the parliaments can be noted under each relevent entry. No mention of the the spurious 1399 nonsense - I wonder why?. -- Utinomen ( talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
"Although this parliament is not often referred to as a 'convention parliament,' it meets the definition of the term" Is it referred to as a convention parliament anywhere? It meets whose definition of the term?-- Utinomen ( talk) 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 By Gordon S. Wood, Institute of Early American History and Culture (Williamsburg, Va.) p. 310 This article suggests it started with an English convention of the "estates of the realm" Edward II in 1327. -- PBS ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times, By Edward Augustus Freeman p.132 say that the 1399 assembly initially called itself "Estates of the Realm", but was later retrospectively summoned as a Parliament by the King they had installed. -- PBS ( talk) 02:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the un-sourced and dubious templates added to the "Convention Parliament of 1399" . Both sentences are directly supported by the sources given:
The first source is an encylopedia entry on another subject (Glorious Revolution) and is making a comparison. Please provide a source about the subject itself. The templates also highlights that because it is an assembly of the estates of the realm to call it Parliament would seek to give the false impression to the reader that it was in someway comparable to those Parliaments listed later in article. Please do not remove the template until the matter is resolved.-- Utinomen ( talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(made spelling corrections -- Utinomen ( talk) 17:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC))
None of the conventions parliaments were "proper parliaments" that is why they are called convention parliaments! The thing is that it does not matter how many sources highlight that it was an irregular parliament, that is something that can be discussed in the section. There are sources that describe the assembly as a parliament. Sources have been presented that do call it a convention parliament. Books that tend to be accessible to Google search tend to be ones that are out of copyright, but that does not invalidate their content. There are books that describe the assembly as a parliament and there are books that describe it as a convention parliament. There are books that explain that the convention parliaments of 1660 and 1689 are not "proper parliaments" also exist by you are not claiming that they should not be listed here because of that. Historians use labels to describe parliaments, such as the Short Parliament, Long Parliament, Rump Parliament, Barebones Parliament, but if they were ever used by contemporaries they were nicknames.
The details of the assembly that met in 1399 are laid out in several of the books accessible through a google book search (I have already referenced Freeman (2008) [1872] The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times p. 132. Already but here are three more: C.H. Parry The Parliament and Councils of England, chronologically arrange pp. 155,156 and here is a more detailed one Maurice Hugh Keen (2003) England in the later Middle Ages: a political history pp. 242,245 and Henry Richardson The English Parliament in the Middle Ages pp. 55,56. So it was the same assembly of men (under what ever name one wishes to give it that met in 1399 as the last parliament of Richard II as assembly (under whatever name it is called and as Henry II's first parliament. The point is that one can give different names to the assembly and this is done in different books.
Noel Cox (LLM (Auckland); Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand; Lecturer in Law, Auckland Institute of Technology) (1999) The law of succession to the crown in New ZealandWaikato Law Review, explains why we have this anomaly:
The first formulation of the doctrine of the demise of the Crown dates from some time between 25 and 29 September 1399. This doctrine was held to invalidate the parliamentary writs that had been issued by the authority of the former king. The last Parliament of Edward II had become the first of Edward III, and a new Parliament was afterwards called on the demise of the Crown without the issue of writs until 1867. Thereafter there was to be no interregnum on the death of one king, and the succession of the next.
Usually the Parliamentary interregnum between monarchs is not a legal problem because there is nothing that needs to be done. But in the case of the three periods discussed in this article there was a need for an assembly whatever it is called to act. That these assemblies were no regular parliaments, does not seem to be in dispute. We are only arguing over the 1399 name and it is clear that some sources describe the assembly of september 1399 as as parliament, some describe it as a convention parliament and others describe it as an meeting of the "estates of the realm". However all the detailed accounts state that whatever the assembly was called it had been summoned as a parliament by a writ issued by Richard but it had not been opened by his commission as he had been deposed and it was held that this had the same affect on the parliament as the death of a monarch. So why the "[dubious – discuss]" flag?
Secondly the first sentence has a source that I quoted above your argument for keeping it there is "The templates also highlights that because it is an assembly of the estates of the realm to call it Parliament would seek to give the false impression to the reader that it was in someway comparable to those Parliaments listed later in article. " As the members of the assembly were summoned as a parliament, and exactly the same members were re-summoned (a week after meeting, without new elections) how is it misleading? It is more misleading to overemphasis (a legal detail) that the assembly was anything else but a parliament.
I am in favour of expanding the section to explain these details. Indeed the sentences I put into the section were an expansion and there is nothing in them that warrants the flags you have put on them. Perhaps either you can expand the section put in in more details that you think are relevant.
A search of Google scholar on [parliament "September 1399"] Throws up lots of references, but of course access to most of them is restricted, however the snippets are shown and there may be a way out of our dilemma:
-- PBS ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I am putting the matter to Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard.-- Utinomen ( talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
copy of post by Utinomen and reply by PBS from
Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard
|
---|
This refers to a section of this article: Convention_Parliament_(England). Editor dispute on talk page here: Talk:Convention_Parliament_(England)#Convention_Parliament_of_1399. Dispute is between myself and editor PBS (I will notify him that dispute is being put here). After unresolved discussion on talk page I contend that "Convention Parliament of 1399" is OR. WP I refer to: Wikipedia:No_original_research
My argument that it is OR. There are two related issues: A Whether that entity which met on 1399 to depose Richard II (hereafter just "1399") is a parliament; B whether it is a Convention Parliament (and by Convention Parliament this is understood to mean as with Ireland 1660 / England 1660 / England 1689) A. It is my understanding of the sources that the entity which meant on 1399 was summoned as a parliament under writ of Richard II but never actually undertook the role, rather it was an "assembly of the estates of the realm". Undoubtedly in times past some people may have considered that assembly to be a parliament (as with the C.H. Parry reference given by PBS - from 1839, and note my comment below about muddle in perception) as they did not necessarily have access to the sources that modern historians have. To use a quote provided by PBS "few historians now consider that the assembly was a parliament". There seems no argument for claiming that 1399 was a Parliament - unless of course you are an editor claiming that it was a Convention Parliament B The contention that 1399 was a Convention Parliament is based on two tertiary sources (which are also used by the editor to support A):
These contentions do not appear in secondary sources (or other tertiary sources?), and the basis of their contention is not clear. (My own OR is that somewhere down the line they are based on a conflation of an interpretation of Lord Somers's allusion to 1399 with that of convention; this reference, ironically given by PBS, [4] 'The Deficiency of Conventions'p310- quite adequately explains difference between conventions and parliaments and how they became muddled in perception over time.) In summary, there are no modern secondary sources given for 1399 being a parliament, instead they indicate an assembly, or a convention in the sense of a meeting of some sort but not that of a Convention Parliament. There are no modern secondary sources given for 1399 being a Covention Parliament. Therefore it is OR, to create or maintain an article called Convention Parliament of 1399, which creates the idea that 1399 is the same to what are commonly under stood to be Convention Parliaments (Ireland 1660 / England 1660 / England 1689), a claim which ultimately rests on two tertiary sources. -- Utinomen ( talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
|
This has now been removed as no longer applicable to this article. If editors are able to provide reliable sources to substantiate the matter then it can easily be recreated as a new article from the Disambiguation page-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Another source:
Otherwise we shall find ourselves in the predicament of Gaillard Lapsley when, having committed himself to the view that the assembly summoned for September 30, 1399, was not parliament but a "convention of estates," he was confronted with the most positive evidence that it was termed a parliament by contemporaries. We must frankly recognise and accept the anomalies of medieval procedure, not least the anomalies of of the revolutionary parliaments of 1327 and 1399
— Richardson & Sayles 1981 p.23
This sources is informative:
-- PBS ( talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In light of the unilateral action by editor PBS whereby the page was split apart, and renamed without even an attempt to seek consenus, I am proposing that the page be formally split apart and that the 3 sections be made into separate pages like Irish_Convention_(1660) which was orginally part of this article. All the articles would be under the Convention_Parliament disambiguation page. -- Utinomen ( talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted you bold split as there is no consensus for such a split. -- PBS ( talk) 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Convention 1689 has now been split into its own expanded article with link from dab.-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC) This now Convention 1660-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the split tag. Given the size of this article, splitting it into 3 would result in three stub articles. AnthonyUK ( talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish to add the further reading section two primary sources:
Any objections -- PBS ( talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Inexplicably Ireland was not included in the original edit! I have tried an edit to make it more general to reflect all three Kingdoms of the British Isles. Needs more on Scotland and Ireland though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utinomen ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the WP:Bold edit turning this from a general page to a specific page was unnecessary and ill-thought out. The result seems to be unneccessary exclusion rather than an attempt to achieve clarity.-- Utinomen ( talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
"The definition of the term convention parliament is generally taken to be:" Where is this definition from and who generally takes it to be true? -- Utinomen ( talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
These description seem to be some ones analysis. However they leave out one crucial constitutional and legal fact - the King. Which calls into question the analysis for not being neutral nor factual, and is therefore misleading. The essential feature of the convention parliament is that they are not legal (not summoned by the King) but they restore the King (the source of legality). England was not a democracy in the 17th century! -- Utinomen ( talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been doing some research into the questions raised here and I think I can now answer them via sources:
CONVENTION PARLIAMENT. It is a branch of the royal prerogative, that no parliament shall be convened by its own authority, or by any other authority than that of the sovereign. Where the crown is in abeyance, this prerogative cannot of course be exercised, and the expedient of Convention Parliaments has been resorted to, the enactments of which shall afterwards be ratified by a parliament summoned in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. The C P. which restored Charles II to the throne met above a month before his return, and was afterwards declared to be a good parliament, notwithstanding the defect of the king's writs (13 Car. II. c 7 and c. 14). In like manner, at the revolution of 1688, the Lords and Commons, on the summons of the Prince of Orange, met in Convention, and disposed of the crown and kingdom, and this convention was subsequently declared (1 Will, and Mary, st 1, c. 1) to be really the two Houses of Parliament, notwithstanding the want of writs and other defects of form. Under the name of Convention, there also took place a meeting of the Estates of Scotland, called by the Prince of Orange on the same occasion. This meeting commenced on the 14th of March 1689, and was turned into a parliament on the 5th of June thereafter. The principal act of the Convention was to settle the Scottish crown upon William and Mary. After these precedents, we are perhaps almost entitled to regard the meeting of a C. P. as the constitutional mode in which the general will of England expresses itself on such questions as cannot be constitutionally discussed in parliament—e. g., a change of the reigning dynasty.
— Chambers's encyclopædia: a dictionary of universal knowledge, Volume 3 p. 210
CONVENTION (Lat. conventio, an assembly or agreement, from convenire, to come together), a meeting or assembly; an agreement between parties; a general agreement on which is based some custom, institution, rule of behaviour or taste, or canon of art; hence extended to the abuse of such an agreement, whereby the rules based upon it become lifeless and artificial. The word is of some interest historically and politically. It is used of an assembly of the representatives of a. nation, state or party, and is particularly contrasted with the formal meetings of a legislature. It is thus applied to those parliaments in English history which, owing to the abeyance of the crown, have assembled without the formal summons of the sovereign; in 1660 a convention parliament restored Charles II. to the throne, and in 1689 the Houses of Commons and Lords were summoned informally to a convention by William, prince of Orange, as were the Estates of Scotland, and declared the throne abdicated by James II. and settled the disposition of the realm. Similarly, the assembly which ruled France from September 1792 to October 1795 was known as the National Convention (see below); the statutory assembly of delegates which framed the constitution of the United States of America in 1787 was called the Constitutional Convention; and the various American state constitutions
have been drafted and sometimes revised by constitutional conventions...
— The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 volume 7 p. 45 CONVENTION:
William Blackstone is about as good authority on this as we can get:
Here is another commentary that takes the a similar POV as Blackstone:
His is a commentary that takes a contrary POV
These two sources have useful commentaries on the derivation of the word convention and how its meaning has changed over time:
The sources do not contradict what is written here, so there is no fire to fix, but clearly the wording will have to be altered to better reflect sources such as these. I do not have time now to edit any of this into the article but I will do so when I do. In the mean time if anyone has some time maybe they can make a start on it. -- PBS ( talk) 02:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have now re-edited based on references suggested above.-- Utinomen ( talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Having reviewed the matter this section seems superfluous. The two antiquated sources do indeed provide a brief summation of the two parliaments yet as the Caplan quote indicates there is a difference between 1660 and 1689. I think this section should be removed as the differences outweigh their overall similarities. The features of the parliaments can be noted under each relevent entry. No mention of the the spurious 1399 nonsense - I wonder why?. -- Utinomen ( talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
"Although this parliament is not often referred to as a 'convention parliament,' it meets the definition of the term" Is it referred to as a convention parliament anywhere? It meets whose definition of the term?-- Utinomen ( talk) 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 By Gordon S. Wood, Institute of Early American History and Culture (Williamsburg, Va.) p. 310 This article suggests it started with an English convention of the "estates of the realm" Edward II in 1327. -- PBS ( talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times, By Edward Augustus Freeman p.132 say that the 1399 assembly initially called itself "Estates of the Realm", but was later retrospectively summoned as a Parliament by the King they had installed. -- PBS ( talk) 02:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the un-sourced and dubious templates added to the "Convention Parliament of 1399" . Both sentences are directly supported by the sources given:
The first source is an encylopedia entry on another subject (Glorious Revolution) and is making a comparison. Please provide a source about the subject itself. The templates also highlights that because it is an assembly of the estates of the realm to call it Parliament would seek to give the false impression to the reader that it was in someway comparable to those Parliaments listed later in article. Please do not remove the template until the matter is resolved.-- Utinomen ( talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
(made spelling corrections -- Utinomen ( talk) 17:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC))
None of the conventions parliaments were "proper parliaments" that is why they are called convention parliaments! The thing is that it does not matter how many sources highlight that it was an irregular parliament, that is something that can be discussed in the section. There are sources that describe the assembly as a parliament. Sources have been presented that do call it a convention parliament. Books that tend to be accessible to Google search tend to be ones that are out of copyright, but that does not invalidate their content. There are books that describe the assembly as a parliament and there are books that describe it as a convention parliament. There are books that explain that the convention parliaments of 1660 and 1689 are not "proper parliaments" also exist by you are not claiming that they should not be listed here because of that. Historians use labels to describe parliaments, such as the Short Parliament, Long Parliament, Rump Parliament, Barebones Parliament, but if they were ever used by contemporaries they were nicknames.
The details of the assembly that met in 1399 are laid out in several of the books accessible through a google book search (I have already referenced Freeman (2008) [1872] The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times p. 132. Already but here are three more: C.H. Parry The Parliament and Councils of England, chronologically arrange pp. 155,156 and here is a more detailed one Maurice Hugh Keen (2003) England in the later Middle Ages: a political history pp. 242,245 and Henry Richardson The English Parliament in the Middle Ages pp. 55,56. So it was the same assembly of men (under what ever name one wishes to give it that met in 1399 as the last parliament of Richard II as assembly (under whatever name it is called and as Henry II's first parliament. The point is that one can give different names to the assembly and this is done in different books.
Noel Cox (LLM (Auckland); Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand; Lecturer in Law, Auckland Institute of Technology) (1999) The law of succession to the crown in New ZealandWaikato Law Review, explains why we have this anomaly:
The first formulation of the doctrine of the demise of the Crown dates from some time between 25 and 29 September 1399. This doctrine was held to invalidate the parliamentary writs that had been issued by the authority of the former king. The last Parliament of Edward II had become the first of Edward III, and a new Parliament was afterwards called on the demise of the Crown without the issue of writs until 1867. Thereafter there was to be no interregnum on the death of one king, and the succession of the next.
Usually the Parliamentary interregnum between monarchs is not a legal problem because there is nothing that needs to be done. But in the case of the three periods discussed in this article there was a need for an assembly whatever it is called to act. That these assemblies were no regular parliaments, does not seem to be in dispute. We are only arguing over the 1399 name and it is clear that some sources describe the assembly of september 1399 as as parliament, some describe it as a convention parliament and others describe it as an meeting of the "estates of the realm". However all the detailed accounts state that whatever the assembly was called it had been summoned as a parliament by a writ issued by Richard but it had not been opened by his commission as he had been deposed and it was held that this had the same affect on the parliament as the death of a monarch. So why the "[dubious – discuss]" flag?
Secondly the first sentence has a source that I quoted above your argument for keeping it there is "The templates also highlights that because it is an assembly of the estates of the realm to call it Parliament would seek to give the false impression to the reader that it was in someway comparable to those Parliaments listed later in article. " As the members of the assembly were summoned as a parliament, and exactly the same members were re-summoned (a week after meeting, without new elections) how is it misleading? It is more misleading to overemphasis (a legal detail) that the assembly was anything else but a parliament.
I am in favour of expanding the section to explain these details. Indeed the sentences I put into the section were an expansion and there is nothing in them that warrants the flags you have put on them. Perhaps either you can expand the section put in in more details that you think are relevant.
A search of Google scholar on [parliament "September 1399"] Throws up lots of references, but of course access to most of them is restricted, however the snippets are shown and there may be a way out of our dilemma:
-- PBS ( talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I am putting the matter to Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard.-- Utinomen ( talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
copy of post by Utinomen and reply by PBS from
Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard
|
---|
This refers to a section of this article: Convention_Parliament_(England). Editor dispute on talk page here: Talk:Convention_Parliament_(England)#Convention_Parliament_of_1399. Dispute is between myself and editor PBS (I will notify him that dispute is being put here). After unresolved discussion on talk page I contend that "Convention Parliament of 1399" is OR. WP I refer to: Wikipedia:No_original_research
My argument that it is OR. There are two related issues: A Whether that entity which met on 1399 to depose Richard II (hereafter just "1399") is a parliament; B whether it is a Convention Parliament (and by Convention Parliament this is understood to mean as with Ireland 1660 / England 1660 / England 1689) A. It is my understanding of the sources that the entity which meant on 1399 was summoned as a parliament under writ of Richard II but never actually undertook the role, rather it was an "assembly of the estates of the realm". Undoubtedly in times past some people may have considered that assembly to be a parliament (as with the C.H. Parry reference given by PBS - from 1839, and note my comment below about muddle in perception) as they did not necessarily have access to the sources that modern historians have. To use a quote provided by PBS "few historians now consider that the assembly was a parliament". There seems no argument for claiming that 1399 was a Parliament - unless of course you are an editor claiming that it was a Convention Parliament B The contention that 1399 was a Convention Parliament is based on two tertiary sources (which are also used by the editor to support A):
These contentions do not appear in secondary sources (or other tertiary sources?), and the basis of their contention is not clear. (My own OR is that somewhere down the line they are based on a conflation of an interpretation of Lord Somers's allusion to 1399 with that of convention; this reference, ironically given by PBS, [4] 'The Deficiency of Conventions'p310- quite adequately explains difference between conventions and parliaments and how they became muddled in perception over time.) In summary, there are no modern secondary sources given for 1399 being a parliament, instead they indicate an assembly, or a convention in the sense of a meeting of some sort but not that of a Convention Parliament. There are no modern secondary sources given for 1399 being a Covention Parliament. Therefore it is OR, to create or maintain an article called Convention Parliament of 1399, which creates the idea that 1399 is the same to what are commonly under stood to be Convention Parliaments (Ireland 1660 / England 1660 / England 1689), a claim which ultimately rests on two tertiary sources. -- Utinomen ( talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
|
This has now been removed as no longer applicable to this article. If editors are able to provide reliable sources to substantiate the matter then it can easily be recreated as a new article from the Disambiguation page-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Another source:
Otherwise we shall find ourselves in the predicament of Gaillard Lapsley when, having committed himself to the view that the assembly summoned for September 30, 1399, was not parliament but a "convention of estates," he was confronted with the most positive evidence that it was termed a parliament by contemporaries. We must frankly recognise and accept the anomalies of medieval procedure, not least the anomalies of of the revolutionary parliaments of 1327 and 1399
— Richardson & Sayles 1981 p.23
This sources is informative:
-- PBS ( talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
In light of the unilateral action by editor PBS whereby the page was split apart, and renamed without even an attempt to seek consenus, I am proposing that the page be formally split apart and that the 3 sections be made into separate pages like Irish_Convention_(1660) which was orginally part of this article. All the articles would be under the Convention_Parliament disambiguation page. -- Utinomen ( talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted you bold split as there is no consensus for such a split. -- PBS ( talk) 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Convention 1689 has now been split into its own expanded article with link from dab.-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC) This now Convention 1660-- Utinomen ( talk) 23:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the split tag. Given the size of this article, splitting it into 3 would result in three stub articles. AnthonyUK ( talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I wish to add the further reading section two primary sources:
Any objections -- PBS ( talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)