Talk:Albert Pollard

Disputed Article: Factual inaccuracy & overall lack of citations

This article makes the statement "Pollard is identified with the Whiggish school of history". (Note that this statement has no citation.) This is inaccurate, as Pollard's The Evolution of Parliament was the first work to challenge the Whiggish school of Stubbs and his followers. Please refer to the 1921 review of Pollard's book written by C. H. McIlwain of Harvard University as a starting point. (here) There should be something said about Pollard's contribution to modern historiography. There is good information (& citations) in the Introduction of Bradford's 2007 thesis on Parliament in 14th century here

In sections Life and career & Controversy, it is disheartening that almost all of the statements made regarding Pollard's works are marked as "citation needed". There are no references to any scholarly works, either pro or con, to support any of the statements made. Please refer to JSTOR and other reputable sources. I regret that I don't have any suggestions as yet. I am still researching the 14th- & 15th-century history of the English Parliament. I'll update this post as I find some.

Regards, --AnalyticalHistoricalHobbyist (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I am not interested in editing the article on Pollard. I just wish to thank you for defending him, because he was a progressive, accurate, and insightful historian to whom I am often grateful in the course of my research. The lives of his children also bear witness to his intelligence.

As for his comment that "sterility was the conclusive note of Queen Mary's reign", heh-heh, well, that was witty and true. "Dictatorial and bloodthirsty" are also words that spring to mind.

Anyhow, good luck with your work, cheers, Veronique. Veronique Helmridge-Marsillian (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)