Talk:Wonderful Parliament/Archive 1

Archive 1

'Criticism' of the Wonderful Parliament

'Although the parliament of 1386 was described by Favent as having "wrought wonders,"[19][84] recent scholarship has been more critical.' 'For example, George B. Stowe, writing in 1985, noted that "in the proceedings of the 'Wonderful Parliament' of October 1386 historians have detected the beginning of the end for Richard II",[86] while more recently Clementine Oliver wrote that "historians have long regarded the Wonderful Parliament as the first significant political defeat suffered by Richard II, sparking the bitter feud... that would come to shape the ruinous course of the king's reign".'

The interpretations of at least the first claim as 'critical' presupposes that 'the end' of Richard II and his 'defeat' are self-evidently a bad thing. From a Whig perspective, the placing of limits on the king's power and the defeat of kings who resist such limits is a good thing. Or is it perhaps that British historians of the Middle Ages are Tories and absolutist royalists by default?--178.249.169.67 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Confusing second paragraph in the lede

There are a couple of things in the second paragraph that read ambiguously or with potential to confuse.

• Richard requested the Commons send a delegation to negotiate with him at Eltham Palace; they, fearing an ambush, sent two lords instead. One of them, the Duke of Gloucester... – it's unclear whether the 'them' in this second sentence is referring to the Commons in general or the two lords in particular.
• Switching between "The King" and "Richard", given that they're the same person.

I found myself having to refer to previous sentences to understand exactly who was who. Does anyone else feel similarly? BeReasonabl (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

​I agree with both of your concerns. Regarding the first, is this too tedious?

• Richard requested the Commons send a delegation to negotiate with him at Eltham Palace; the Commons, fearing an ambush, sent two lords instead. One of the lords, the Duke of Gloucester...

I also wonder of the source of the epithet "wonderful" should be in the intro since it is an adjective not typically used to describe parliaments and nothing in the intro describes a modern understanding of wonder (cf. Merciless Parliament for a clearer explication of the epithet). —  AjaxSmack  14:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)