Talk:Curia regis

[Untitled]
The Magna Carta article says about the Great Council: The council originally only met three times a year, when the king wore his crown, and so was subservient to the king’s council, Curiae Regis, who followed the king wherever he went unlike the Great Council. Still, in some senses the council was an early form of parliament. It had the power to meet outside the authority of the king, and was not appointed by him. Whilst modern government descends from the Curiae Regis, parliament descends from the Great Council which was later called the parliamentum. This article says: The royal council slowly developed into a Parliament. So did modern parliament descend from Curia Regis (which was presumably around long before Magna Carta), or the Magna Carta's Great Council? User:Kadri
 * It seems that two rather different institutions are mixed in the article. Curia Regis is a closer inner circle of king's counselors and companions which was later transformed into the Privy Council and the government. It is the Great Council, which included major barons, bishops and abbots, that is descended from witenagemot and ancestor of the modern parliament. Though sometimes the name Curia Regis was applied to the Great Council, constitutionally these bodies are different. It is a pity that the confusion in this article spread to other language versions of Wikipedia. 85.70.34.248 14:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Curia regis should be merged here to avoid duplication. Any comments? Man vyi 18:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone writing these Norman Conquest related articles has a love of the word 'thus' that exceeds the limitations imposed by standard usage and style.

Disputed accuracy
As 85.70.34.248 stated on 11 December 2006, this article appears to be a trifle confused. Other sources such as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica refer to Curia regis as the ancestor of the Privy Council, which is separate and distinct to Parliament.

The current claims that Curia regis evolved into the English Parliament are completely unsourced. Is there any evidence available to contest the view put forward by Britannica? If not, then this article will need a significant rewrite. Road Wizard (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)