Talk:4th Parliament of King James I

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explaining the name change

Given that this article hasnt been edited in 2 years I'm not sure if anyone will respond to this but may as well ask. I've been reading up on Parliaments under James I recently, but none of the books I've read have ever referred to this Parliament by the name of the Happy Parliament. Searching on JSTOR only brings 19 results for the phrase Happy Parliament, only a couple seem to be referring to the 1624 Parliament. Most of the references are to the book Speeches and Passages of this Great and Happy Parliament which I think is a collection of Long Parliament speeches. The Bibliography of British and Irish History has zero results] for books with Happy Parliament in the title. The only source used to cite this term is it's originator coke. For this reason I am moving this page to 4th Parliament of King James I Bosstopher (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is not a name that I have seen used. Also I have quite some trouble finding out where these dates come from. They seem a bit off. Cobbett's authoritative Parliamentary History (1806, v.1, predecessor of Hansard), sets them pretty clear: it was convened for February 12, but prorogued until actually assembled on February 19, 1624, and it ran through a single session, not two. The Statutes at Large confirms those dates and also indicates only one session (21 James I), not two. Cobbett (v.1, p.1506) reproduces the king's closing speech to the session on May 29, 1624. And that is all. It did not sit for another session that fall. It just kept being prorogued in recess - to Nov 2, then again to Feb 16, then to Mar 15, then to Apr 20. But before that last date, King James I died (March 27, 1625) and parliament was automatically dissolved that same day. So, as far I can tell, there was no actual parliamentary session between May 29, 1624 and March 27, 1625. Where does this idea that there was a second session come from? Walrasiad (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but since The history of parliament website says there was no session after May 29 I've removed it. Brustopher (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 April 2016

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: move (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Parliament → 4th Parliament of King James I – My reasoning is explained in the section above. I made the move around a year back, but the move was reverted a few months ago by User:PBS with absolutely no explanation while I was on a wikibreak. I'm therefore putting forward a proper move request to gain consensus.Brustopher (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Brustopher (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in my opinion Sir Edward Coke is authority enough. -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear god... And you're an admin too... Please read WP:COMMONNAME. Brustopher (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - one source isn't exactly enough to say that something has a common name over the official name, so move in favour of nom. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On Gbooks, the top hits for "happy parliament" relate to the book Speeches and Passages of this Great and Happy Parliament, a transcript that covers 1640-1641, i.e. not even the same period as this article. I did notice several passages describing the 1624 parliament as a happy one. But that does not support a claim that "Happy Parliament" is a name specific to this parliament. H. Humbert (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

" The Happy Parliament " - hey ! - surely the final full political union of Wales and England ought to merit a mention on this page ?

I have just been writing the following as part of - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bertrand_Russell#Welsh_or_English.3F

I thought that I would just check my facts about " The Happy Parliament " - hey ! - this web page does not mention the major political event that happened in it : in the protracted wrangling over raising more money, James I gave up The Principality of Wales as his private possession in which he could raise money without recourse to Parliament by merging it with England through the repeal of parts of " The Laws in Wales Acts "of Henry VIII - surely the final full political union of Wales and England ought to merit a mention on this page ?

You can read about the details of the political wrangling between the Welsh and English MPs in -

The Politics of The Principality : Wales 1603 - 1642 by Lloyd Bowen University of Wales Press http://www.uwp.co.uk/editions/9780708319062

- and here I have just been explaining my understanding of that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bertrand_Russell#Welsh_or_English.3F

... Incidentally Monmouthshire was always in the Principality of Wales : the idea that somehow it was at some time part of England arose after the Principality finally ceased to be a separate realm in 1624. The confusion arose out of the mess created by The Annexation of Wales in the aftermath of The Reformation during which Henry VIII created thirteen shires and new boroughs in Wales in order to pack Parliament with MPs who dared not disobey him because he still kept Wales as a separate realm which he could plunder with arbitrary taxes. In wealthier and bigger England he had to submit his taxes to the MPs in Parliament which is why he packed it with Welsh MPs to either ensure that his demands were met in England or otherwise they would have to face being plundered. James I plundered Wales so thoroughly that the Welsh MPs finally rebelled and made a deal with the English MPs to vote against his demands in exchange for also relieving them of The Penal Laws in Wales - these disadvantaged the Welsh before The English Law which had been imposed by The Annexation of Wales in order to encompass The Reformation in Wales which was a Catholic country with deep harbours sympathetic to and ready to receive a French or Spanish or even Irish invasion force. In order to be able to repeal The Penal Laws in Wales they coerced the bankrupt James I to surrender his control over The Principality of Wales to Parliament by repealing the " Henry VIII clause " and thus Wales entered into full political union with England on condition that the English MPs voted to repeal The Penal Laws in Wales and then once James I consented to this the Welsh MPs voted for his new taxation. These arguments over Parliament refusing to grant further taxation to James I were the precursors to the arguments which led into The English Civil War which then spilled over into Wales because they had become one realm - and that is why Monmouthshire came to seem not to be in Wales any more : Henry VIII created thirteen counties and the Quarter Session judges visited one county each month - which left one Welsh county as the odd one left over ... Monmouthshire was the thirteenth county and more English'd than the rest and so it became one of the counties in a Quarter Session where the other three counties were in England - because Wales and England had become a single legal jurisdiction ( even though Parliament occasionally still made laws which applied only in Wales - hence despite The Principality of Wales having ceased to be a separate realm " Wales " continued to exist in English Law which is very odd ... I really ought to now copy this over to here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Parliament_of_King_James_I DaiSaw (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]