Talk:Edward the Elder

Article

Needs a section about his birth, and legacy --Hadseys Chat_Contribs 23:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Edward elder.jpg

Image:Edward elder.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, glad to see everyone has ignored this typical wikipedant...God I hate them. Bloody bores. Oh, so serious. Oh so full of their own self importance. Oh so full of Rools! Rools! Rools! Rools that just must be obeyed, coz if they're not...the world will surely implode!!! I just feel sorry for their families, especially their children, poor souls. Hang me! Hang me for daring to speak out!!! (lol) Ahem, on a more serious note, this is not in any event an accurate representation of the king. Perhaps this ought to be pointed out by someone? (Me? I wouldn't dare touch a main page. Been burned before... ) Delete! Delete!

Oh, and one other thing. it is surely absurd to even suggest that this CHRISTIAN king practised catholicism 650 years before the Reformation ... There were no Catholics before the Reformation. Christians were all just Christians. The word "catholic" only has meaning after the Reformation, where it is applied to those who did not protest ... (cue, bore...) John2o2o2o (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Where to start... first of all BetacommandBot is a bot, not an actual person. Second of all, the image in question has been deleted - hence why it's a redlink. Which means that someone paid attention to the "wikipedant" and responded to it. This isn't a simple case of rules for the sake of rules here, but rather understanding the purpose of Wikipedia. It's meant to be free to use and free to edit, but if we're using images that people have copyrights to then we're violating copyright law.

Thirdly, and not at all related to the issue BetacommandBot posted about, but there's a difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic. The term Roman Catholic has no meaning prior to the Reformation and, more specifically, the development of the Anglican Church (originally it was used to denote between the "Catholic" Church of England and the "Roman Catholic" church under the Pope). The term Catholic, however, has been around almost as long as Christianity itself and pre-Reformation was often used to denote between the "true" church and more heretical churches, the best example of which would the various Orthodox Churches of Eastern Europe (which go back about 1,000 years). Psunshine87 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources

I see some points in this article, particularly his relationship with his first wife Ecgwynn, are based on an 1845 source. I doubt if this is very reliable, have we nothing more recent? PatGallacher (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Long time no see. Funny you should ask. I have Higham & Hill (eds) Edward the Elder (2001). I don't know that it's the only book specifically about Edward, but it is the only one listed in the RHS bibliography. My doodles haven't progressed very far yet. But rather than the usual "one swell foop" approach, I'm thinking it will be better to update this a little bit at a time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I'm not entirely happy with some recent changes, relating to the vexed question of where or who he was king of. I am aware that most contemporary documents describe him as king of the Anglo-Saxons. However it appears to me to be artificial to create a "kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons" or "kingdom of the English" consisting of only 2 monarchs (him and Alfred) in between the kingdom of Wessex and the kingdom of England. PatGallacher (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that "the Kingdom of Anglo-Saxons" was real entity and a newly established kingdom, as opposed to a glorified version of Wessex, is from Higham & Hill, whose book seems to be the most detailed study of Edward (much of it available on Google Books). To call Edward either king of England or king of Wessex is problematic. He used the same titles as Alfred, also governed both Wessex and Mercia, so I don't see a basis to claim that he was king of something different than Alfred was -- and Alfred isn't usually called "king of England". Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Alfred often is called king of England. If anything, some reference works push the kingdom of England too far back, to Egbert. Who was the first king of England? I may as well declare myself as an "Alfredist" here, you appear to be an "Athelstaneist", but here the "Alfredists" and "Egbertists" combined could outnumber the "Athelstaneists". The view that there was a "kingdom of the English" or "kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons" clearly separate from Wessex and England does exist, but is not the clear consensus. It may be anachronistic to attach this much weight to the exact titles people used at that time.

There is also the problem that this biography makes serious use of a work from 1845, there have surely been numerous competent histories of Anglo-Saxon England written since then. This is a problem with a few Wikipedia articles, they rely on very dated sources. PatGallacher (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We should use the official title that was used by contemporaries unless there is a scholarly consensus to use something else. What inspired me to make the changes here is that the Alfred the Great article says nothing about him being king of England, but this one made a big point about Edward being king of England. Yet the idea that Edward was the first king of England is hardly mainstream or justified. For this article, we can just describe his titles and status and leave it up to the reader to decide whether he was a king of England or not.

Athelstan's "kingdom of the English" fell apart when he died. Edred (946-955) reunited England, but the Wessex/Mercia division arose again when he died. The next strong king was Canute (1018-1035), but under Edward the Confessor the old disintegration process started up again. In short, the Anglo-Saxons never quite put a proper English kingdom together. Kauffner (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that we should use contemporaries' official title. Titles and territory held varied between different kings from Cerdic onwards and often during kings' reigns. I think that we need to use a title which is clear to users, and an obscure one used by only two kings is confusing. The article starts by saying that Edwards was an English king, a vague description. It would be better to start with his usual title of king of Wessex and then go on to explain - which the article does. Whatever solution is adopted will cause problems, but calling kings up to Edward the Elder kings of Wessex and kings thereafter kings of England is the least unsatisfactory.Dudley Miles (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Up until Aethelstan, there was no united England, just a collection of smaller kingdoms. Trying to dumb down the article with generalities does not serve Wikipedia or its readers. Fielding99 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Was Eadgifu married to Louis the Blind?

Under Family it is stated that Edward and Eadgifu's "daughter, Eadgifu, married Louis l'Aveugle" The link to Louis to "Louis the Blind" - redirected from "Louis III, Holy Roman Emperor" appears feasible as "l'Aveugle" means "the blind". However, the page on Louis makes no reference to Eadgifu and Louis would have been at least 40 when Eadgifu was born and he lived to be 58.--Eric of Writtle (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is little agreement concerning the marriages of Edward's daughters. Different primary sources given different names to the same daughter, and are vague or contradictory regarding the fate of others. As to Eadgifu, William of Malmesbury said she married Louis, Prince of Aquitaine. The problem is that there was no Louis, Prince of Aquitaine at this time. Various modern writers have tried to identify her husband as some Louis who was not Prince of Aquitaine (e.g. Louis the Blind, Louis of Burgundy), or princes of Aquitaine who were not named Louis (e.g. Ebalus, Duke of Aquitaine). There is no documentary support for any of these guesses, and there is no consensus. The same thing goes for the daughter who married "a prince near the Alps". Agricolae (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Æthelstan's sister

Hi Agricolae. A couple of comments on my edit deleting the name of Sihtric's wife, and your edit saying that it is uncertain she was Æthelstan's full sister. 1. I think I was wrong to delete all mention of her name as I see on further checking that some historians name her as Edith or Eadgyth. 2. All the sources I can find, which specify between full and half sister, describe her as his full sister. This is obviously debatable, but as it stands your edit is unsourced original research. You earlier added a footnote to Æthelstan:

One sister, whose is not known, married Sihtric of York. Modern authors make her his full sister, but the earliest primary sources to report the marriage make no such distinction. Chronicler Roger of Wendover calls her Edith (Eathgitam) and describes her in a manner suggesting identification with Saint Edith of Polesworth. His claim that she remained a virgin throughout her one-year marriage may indicate she was still underage, and hence only a half-sister of Æthelstan. However, her identification with Edith of Polesworth is not found elsewhere and may be apocryphal. Likewise, contradictory accounts in surviving chronicles give different fates to the named half-sisters of Æthelstan. Several report instead that his sister Edith was sent to the continent, where she married either Holy Roman Emperor Otto or "a king near the Jupiter Mountains".

I would suggest deleting this note, deleting the suggestion that she was not a full sister in the Edward article, but adding a revised version of your note to the reference to her in the Edward article:

The earliest primary sources do not distinguish whether Sihtric's wife was Æthelstan's full or half sister, but modern historians describe her as a full sister.(refs Biog Dic of Dark Age Britain, family tree; Foot, Æthelstan, family tree; Miller, Edward the Elder, ODNB) She is described as the daughter of Edward and Ecgwynn in William of Malmesbury's twelfth century Deeds of the English Kings, and Michael Wood's argument that this is partly based on a lost early life of Æthelstan has been generally accepted.(refs Thacker, Higham & Hill eds, Edward the Elder, p. 257, Foot; Æthelstan, pp. 241-258). William of Malmesbury did not know her name, but some late sources name her as Edith or Eadgyth, an identification accepted by some historians (refs Miller, Edward the Elder, ODNB; Ann Williams, family tree and article on Sigtrygg Caech, Dic of Dark Age Britain; Foot, tentatively in Æthelstan, family tree and p. 48). She is also identified in late sources with saint Edith of Polesworth, a view accepted by Alan Thacker, but dismissed as "dubious" by Sarah Foot, who does however think that it is likely that she entered the cloister in widowhood.(refs Thacker, pp. 257-258; Foot Æthelstan, p. 48; Foot, Rollason ed, England & the Continent in the Tenth Century, p. 243).

Comments please. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

See her treatment here: Henry Project:Edward the Elder. Given the compiler is an expert in medieval genealogy (a Fellow of the highly selective ASG) I think this would qualify as a WP:RS. I have talked to Baldwin about this. The argument is not made explicit, but the reasoning for questioning her being full sister is that 1) William of Malmesbury is relatively late and clearly a little confused over the sisters (as is everyone) and may have based his assignment on nothing more than that she is called "sister" by ASC; and 2) while the chronology is fragmentary, any full sister of Athelstan would be in her mid-to-late 20s or early 30s in 925x6, veritable dotage for a medieval princess and unlikely to still be unmarried or unchurched, and further if Wendover is right and she was Edith of Pollesbury and died a virgin, then it could certainly only have been because she was too young to consummate her marriage. The question is how best to deal with this. Agricolae (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The point about her age is a fair one, although it is possible that she was a widow of an unrecorded earlier marriage. The virgin point seems to me weak. Even if Wendover is right that she was Edith of Polesworth, claiming that she died a virgin is just the sort of thing a thirteenth century chronicler would say about a female saint. He cannot be regarded as a credible source on such a point. However, my main point is that even if Baldwin is WP:RS, he has not spelled out the argument, and spelling it out is original research. In the absence of a WP:RS who spells out any doubts clearly, I think we have to base what we say on the views of academic historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Spelling it out the argument would be OR, yes, but it is sufficient to temper the suggestion that everyone is in agreement. Agricolae (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So how about amending the start of my draft above to: "The earliest primary sources do not distinguish whether Sihtric's wife was Æthelstan's full or half sister, and a tradition recorded at Bury in the early twelfth century makes her a daughter of Edward's second wife, Ælfflæd (Thacker, p. 257), but modern historians generally accept William of Malmesbury's statement that she was Ecgwynn's daughter, and thus Æthelstan's full sister." Any other suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyning

Anglo-Saxon dictionaries translate "cyning" as "king" not "of god". See for example [1]. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of Edward's name

An editor has reverted explanation of the meaning of Edward's name. I am inclined to think that it is relevant because it is mentioned by the historian Barbara Yorke in a discussion of who he was named after, and because his parents would have known the meaning then whereas parents choosing that name today would not. However, I plan to work on getting this article to FAC, probably after Christmas, so I will think further about the issue then. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Embroideries

Hello! I'm currently translating this article into French, and I was wondering whether the "shrine of St Cuthbert" mentioned in #Learning and culture was actually St Cuthbert's coffin. I assume it is, judging by the description of the contents in that article, but I'd rather not add a link in this article, since I cannot check in the reference given (Coatsworth 2001) to make sure. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting point which I was not aware of. The source does not confirm but I think that you can safely link. The St Cuthbert's coffin article cites Wilson's Anglo-Saxon Art for saying they were in the coffin. Johnbod do you have access to this book? If you can confirm with edition and page numbers I can add them to the English Edward the Elder article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The shrine was much larger than just the coffin, but yes, the embroideries were all in the coffin. I have Wilson, but my books are packed up at the moment - but the edition & page are there (added by me I expect) so I'm not sure what more you want? You should be able to find something online quite easily - or try Saint Cuthbert Gospel, also in the coffin. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not like to rely on a reference without checking it. I read an article a couple of years ago about a misinterpretation of a study in the 1930s, which had been repeated many times in academic works since then by authors who cited the original source but cannot have gone back and checked it as they did not realize that they were repeating an error. In this case, there is no problem with the fact as you are sure of it, but I would still like to check that the citation is correct. I have ordered Wilson and will check it when I receive the book. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This would have done you, but Wilson is a good book, though the new Webster is better (can't remember what it says about these). Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have ordered Webster as well. Books on Anglo-Saxon art seem to be remarkably cheap! Dudley Miles (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy! - maybe you were a bit lucky there. The massive Battiscombe, C. F. (ed.) The Relics of Saint Cuthbert: studies by various authors collected and edited with an historical introduction, 1956, Oxford University Press would not be cheap, but is rather overkill. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to you two for your answers. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

...And I forgot to add the Wilson ref when I received books. Now added. Webster just says the shrine. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Coin depicting Edward, c. 920

It is preferred in a biography article to use a contemporary picture of the subject. I propose we use this coin depicting Edward. It's the best I could find. Векочел (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

More contemporary is certainly better, but this is so stylized that it scarcely counts as a portrait. I think the current portrait, which at least is medieval, is better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Did he really have cornrows? Wow, who knew! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It is decribed by the BM at [2] as a "Silver pseudo-coin brooch. An imitative coin of Edward the Elder (899-924; probably a contemporary copy)". It is probably worth using it somewhere in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. No objections. Maybe Æthelstan had dreadlocks? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have no objections to the coin image being used somewhere else in the article, but I don't think it's suitable for the lead image. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree - such images should not be regarded as portraits. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Map of Britain in 886 - Wrong name in East Anglia

The ‘Map of Britain in 886’ source in the article has an error in the name of the town of ‘Thetford’. On the map, it is stated as ‘Tretford’. The town of Thetford is so named due to the forded crossing of the River Thet, which runs through it. I notice all other town names are in the modern form, so this is an error. 82.34.17.67 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That appears to be not the only error. Pevensev should presumably be Pevensey and Danish Norhumbria should be Danish Northumbria. I assume "R. Botev" is the mapmaker, in which case we should really blank that name and date out too as we don't credit authors/creators in that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)