Talk:King's Bench

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Law

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles

Comment by 144.82.106.42

What does the Queen's Bench actually do - what sort of law does is deal with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.106.42 (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extreme changes

I have reverted back to my last edit of this item. Very extreme changes were made by an anonymous user without any prior discussion, these included:

insertion of literary material, some of it with no relevance to the court of the King's Bench (which is all the article is about)
a very confusing history of the Temple, which is a place the King's Bench never sat historically -- in fact it was normally to be found in Westminster Hall until it moved to the Royal Courts of Justice
some tendentious material
an 'overview' which was not written in proper sentences and was wildly confusing.

Can I ask that whoever carried out the changes, discuss them here first. In particular it might be worth spawning off an article on the King's Bench Walk, which I would be happy to write. Incidently this cannot be described as an 'avenue' as the writer puts it. I am also doubtful about the presence of Exchequer offices on the Walk, but stand to be corrected.

I admit what was there before was a little terse. What was put in its place was so inaccurate as to make it pointless to try and edit.

Francis Davey 11:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Shouldn't this be at "Queen's Bench", seeing as that's what it's currently called.

I thought about that. This page is really about the ancient court of the King's Bench (which now no longer exists, having been subsumed in the High Court). For most of its history the King's Bench was under a male not a female monarch, so, since the article is mainly historical, I followed the title that was there already. I'm not sure it would be a good idea for the article to switch back and forth on change of monarch. Francis Davey 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, the more relevant meaning is the current court, and perhaps that should have more detail on it. General practice seems to be to name things what they are currently called, so I propose to move the page accordingly. --Harris 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will only have to move it back in the foreseeable future... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie's got a few years on her yet. And, you never know, Camilla might go mad and kill Charles, William, Harry and Andrew... Queen Beatrice, anyone? --Harris 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better to leave it where it is. -- Beardo 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Harris 12:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps dividing off Queen's Bench Division is the way to go; this article is mostly historic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about splitting the article into two - having a disamiguation page at King's/Queen's bench, a separate pages for Court of King's Bench and Queen's Bench division? --Harris 12:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they be mostly redundant to each other? Can there be an appropriate title that describes both versions, such as King's or Queen's Bench? –Pomte 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch's Bench, Britannic Majesty's Bench? 132.205.44.134 01:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC suggests that the name should be the most common current name for whatever it is. This makes me think that as the article is referring to two separate things, there should be a Queen's Bench Division article that goes to the current Queen's Bench and a Court of King's Bench article that refers to the historic court. Or at least, the article should be titled Queen's Bench as that is the current name. --Harris 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Queen's Bench Justices

Can we add a section or subsection about how to address a Queen's bench justice? I don't think it is "your honour". I this it is "my lord", "my lady", "Sir", "madam". I will look into this and report back. --Sometimesthinking (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they are sitting in the High Court or Crown Court it is "my lord"/"your lordship" and "my lady"/"your ladyship". If they are sitting in a tribunal (eg the EAT) then it is "sir" or "madam" since tribunals don't as a rule use the court titles. I've never been before a high court judge in the county court so I don't know how that would work out. The "my lord" etc title would include section 9 judges sitting in the High Court as well of course. "Your honour" is only for circuit judges sitting in the Crown Court or a county court. Francis Davey (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification sought: The name of two courts in England and Wales

Under England and Wales, in the Court of Queen's Bench section, the article currently says, "In England and Wales, the Court of King's Bench (or Court of Queen's Bench) was the name of two courts." It doesn't go on to say what they were, and perhaps it should. I don't know, but I can imagine two scenarios: (a) It should read "England and Wales, and Ireland" (or similar) in the header and in the sentence quoted (and possibly elsewhere as well); (b) The two courts were the common pleas court and the court for cases involving the Crown – which aren't mentioned till much later. Some extra information might be useful, or possibly some reorganisation of the information already present. Can anyone help? I don't feel qualified. Thanks --Frans Fowler (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something has gone wrong there. In England and Wales it is the name of precisely one court. But in Ireland there is another court of the same name. So perhaps an Ireland section needs splitting off? Ireland was never considered part of England and Wales. Francis Davey (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]