Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:38, 17 December 2011 editUcuchaBot (talk | contribs)Bots5,146 editsm Bot edit: This page will appear as today's featured article in the near future← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:18, 30 October 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors59,286 edits Undid revision 1254283046 by Peter Agassian (talk): destinedTag: Undo 
(122 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(180d)
| archive=Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=20T
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=6
| minthreadstoarchive=3
}}
{{Article history
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=14:14, 17 September 2007 |action1date=14:14, 17 September 2007
Line 8: Line 19:
|maindate=December 19, 2011 |maindate=December 19, 2011
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|living=no|listas=Egbert Of Wessex|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Biography {{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes|royalty-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=FA|British-task-force=yes|Medieval-task-force=yes}}
|living=no
{{WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms|importance =Top }}
|class=FA
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=mid}}
|royalty-work-group=yes
{{WikiProject English Royalty|importance=top}}
|listas=Egbert Of Wessex
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
|royalty-priority=low
{{WikiProject Hampshire|importance=high}}
}} }}
{{old move|date=4 January 2022|destination=Ecgberht of Wessex|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1065543637#Requested move 4 January 2022}}
{{WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms|importance =High | class =FA }}
{{Daily pageviews}}
{{WPMILHIST
|class=FA
|British-task-force=yes
|Medieval-task-force=yes
}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=FA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject English Royalty|class=FA|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=FA|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Hampshire|class=FA|importance=high}}
}}
==Image==
"The image of Egbert is an imaginary portrait drawn by an unknown artist" - that's pretty poor, and whoever wrote the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was clearly out of his depth. Is there any case for retaining the image, given that (a) we don't know whose likeness it presents and (b) we don't know who carved it? Granted, the chances of an alternative image arising are very small. -] 10:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Keep it; it's virtually worthless in practical terms, but people like illustrations. I don't know if we could find anything better to use. ] 11:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I'd drop the pic myself - we have lots of pics already, people can cope without having one here. The imaginary pic is also misleading in that he certainly didn't wear a spiky crown, or a tunic of a type that wouldn't be developed until hundreds of years later, etc. Don't we have any of Egbert's coins to use instead? Even one with just a name would be better. What about charters? ] 13:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think it should stay cause it looks pretty nice,and it reminds me of my english hertitage,.-]29th December 2007 AD,12:07 AM. <small>—Preceding ] was added at 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Alfred was NOT King of England ==

Alfred was not the first person to receive title of King of England. That was Athelstan. Alfred was the self-styled 'King of the Anglo-Saxons.'] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this - who exactly 'considered' him the first King of England? That's a weasel statement. The title King of England began with Athelstan. ] 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think the intended reference is to the ], which did add Egbert to ]'s list of ]s. The "bretwalda" article states clearly that this was not a contemporary title. However, the ASC's addition of Egbert is worth mentioning in this article, though I agree the phrasing you removed was poor. It's certainly a reference one runs into in history books, so I think it should be covered here. ] ] 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Egbert was styled as King of the English (rex Anglorum) (although this source - http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=charter&id=271 - translates it as 'King of England') in a charter from the year 823, although admittedly it's not the only occasion where King of the English/of England is claimed by powerful Anglo-Saxon kings (cf. most charters by Offa of Mercia).

] 11:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Statements needing sources ==

These are notes to myself, unless someone else can find refs for this. I should be able to deal with these later in May, when I have some additional refs to hand. ] ] 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Egbert ravaged the whole of the territories of the West Welsh, which probably at this time did not include much more than Cornwall; it is probably from his reign that Cornwall can be considered subject to Wessex." This is not in the ASC and I can't find it referenced anywhere else. ] ] 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirby says that Aethelwulf was established as a king of the southeastern provinces. The two charters he cites, S 280 and S 286, don't seem to mention anything but Kent, so I'd like to get some other reference for Surrey and Sussex. ] ] 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I took out "The ]ns acknowledged Egbert as overlord," referring to the aftermath of Ellendun. This may only have referred to the East Angles request for protection, which is already covered; if it's more than that it needs a source. ] ] 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

== Bones ==

I took out the paragraph on Egbert's burial and bones. I'd contacted another editor, ], to see if they had a source for this; I'd been told by the editor who added it, ], that they got it from Hilliam's ''Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards''. Here's qp10qp's response:

<blockquote>First the good news: I found the book, and the ref is: David Hilliam, ''Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards: Who's Who in the English Monarchy from Egbert to Elizabeth II'', Sutton, pp. 114 (photos with caption), 180–183. ISBN 0750935537. The bad news is that, in my opinion, it's not the sort of book a good Misplaced Pages article should be referencing—utterly unacademic and credulous. The strand of Misplaced Pages policy I'd use to reject it would be the advice to use the "best sources" (verifiability by a published source being only a threshold). I found a small few other references to this, mostly in similarly "not best" sources". The closest I could come to a ref from a relatively usable source was in the ''Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy'', by John Cannon and Ralph A. Griffiths, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 656, ISBN 0192893289: "The bones of all these monarchs were placed in mortuary chests in 1525 and are still in the choir. Four of the six chests were destroyed in the Civil War and the bones scattered around the Cathedral. These were replaced in new chests in 1661" (they say nothing more specific: Ecgbert is not named, but I assume he is one of the monarchs). Some nineteenth-century books on Google Books () give details about the contents of the chests, but the absence of this information from modern books is cause for grave suspicion. One is anyway addressing a series of unlikelihoods, the first being that the bones are those of the Anglo-Saxon kings at all, given the great passage of time. The fact that the bones are incomplete, muddled, and unidentifiable may owe as much to damage and loss before being disinterred as to any Civil War soldiers. They had also been re-chested and labelled in 1525: how likely are those 1525 labels to be correct? Another layer of difficulty arises from the bias of Restoration accounts of the Civil War. One also wonders what happened to the bones between being scattered (if indeed they had been) and being reburied in 1661 after the Restoration. Nevertheless, there is certainly material to be found that can go in the article: an Ecgbert chest with an inscription undoubtedly exists, and that's worth a mention in itself, of course, without any need to presume its genuineness. My suggestion would be to stick as closely as you can to how the best Anglo-Saxon historians comment on Ecgbert's death and burial. They know the game far better than the authors of illustrated histories for the general public; what they leave out, we should leave out, I believe.] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)</blockquote>

I agree and have cut it till a reference can be found. It sounds like a reference can and should be found for the existence of a chest labelled with Egbert's name in the cathedral; I haven't found one yet but will add something on that when I do. ] ] 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:There are of it at unusable sites online, but nothing on Commons, unfortunately. I'll try and take a shot of it next time I'm up that way, though it appears to be positioned rather high up. It looks about as Anglo-Saxon as my nan's tea caddy.] 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

==Cornish place names==

On this, I really don't think Yorke knows what she is talking about ("western Cornwall is the only area in which British place-names are now predominant"). I castigated Stenton for not getting out more, and now I must urge Barbara to visit Cornwall, or at least look at an Ordnance Survey map. Glancing at the Tintagel area on mine (not that I had to), it is clear that the vast majority of names are still Cornish: Tintagel, Halgabron, Trethevy, Treven, Tregatta, Trebarwith, Treknow, Trewarmett, Trenale, etc. Boscastle is Saxon; not sure about Bossiney. I would add that there are many more Cornish names, not on any maps, known to the locals. The density of Cornish names today is quite striking. I can't really suggest my OS map as a reference; so how about:

"As an even cursory glance at an Ordnance Survey map will show, to the south of the Ottery the names are overwhelmingly Celtic and typical of Cornwall—Trevillion, Tremaine, Hendra, and so on—while to the north they are English or hybrid Celtic-English and reminiscent of those found in adjoining North Devon." Philip Payton, ''Cornwall: A History'', Cornwall Editions, 2004, 68. ISBN 1904880002.

The place names are fascinating, and they tell a story which we cannot interpret. The sharp dividing line means something, but we don't know what. The almost totally Saxon nature of the northern tip of Cornwall (even today people come south from that area for a "proper Cornish evening") implies to me that it was settled by the Saxons whereas the rest of Cornwall was merely administered by them. There is an equivalent oddity over the water in southwest Wales, where ] is entirely Saxon and impervious to Welsh-language culture even to this day. That phenomenon tends to be dated post-conquest, but I wouldn't be surprised if Anglo-Saxons had settled there. ] 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

:On the placenames, I'll fix up the article with the quote you provided; or please feel free to do it if you like -- I am about to leave my computer for at least a few hours. ] ] 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

::I've just removed the inaccurate phrase. This is a stopgap edit, and hopefully something can be found to sharpen the point in the future.

::It's actually very difficult to make generalisations about Egbert and Cornwall or to connect his invasion with place names. I suspect that the truth is very complex: my instinct is that the Anglo-Saxons may have penetrated lowland Devon and the lowland tip of present-day north Cornwall long before Egbert's and even Ine's time. There are few natural defences, after all. The Celts would have held out among the estuaries and highlands, such as Otmoor and Dartmoor. The fact that there's a belt of mixed Cornish and Saxon names in the area of Cornwall between the Tamar and Bodmin Moor (Liskeard, Milton Abbot) suggests to me that that area was settled much later by Saxons than the northern tip of Cornwall; and the fact that the part of Cornwall behind its natural defences (which is most of it) still has mainly Cornish placenames suggests to me that Celtic culture survived there for many centuries longer than in Devon and the northern tip: my guess about that would be that for a long time the Anglo-Saxons administered rather than settled it, being content to receive tribute, etc. Anglo-Saxon names seem to be either a Saxonisation of Cornish names or signs of religious control. On the latter point, one very probable result of Egbert's victory was that the Roman church took over the Celtic church, leading to the dissemination of Saxon culture through religious centres.

::Of course, all this is conjecture, and of no practical use to the article (apart from the religious point, for which there are occasional records), but clear-cut theories of what happened to Cornwall at this time should be treated with caution, I think.] 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

== Raedburgh ==

I have cut the paragraph about Redburga. Here's a comment from qp10qp on my talk page about it.

<blockquote>As far as I can make out, the origins of this information are very obscure, stemming back to a medieval manuscript at Trinity College, quoted by W. G. Searle in ''Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings, and Nobles'', London, 1899, p 343, as "MS Trin Coll 0xf x". There is no Anglo-Saxon source for Egbert's wife, as far as I can see, and I don't know the date of Searle's manuscript (post-conquest, I guess). Apparently, she is described in the document as ''regis Francorum sororia''—no mention of Charlemagne (could just as well be his successor, Louis). ''Sororia'' seems to mean "sister-in-law", in which case, she would not be the sister of the king (''regis'') but of the king's wife. Once again, I suggest sticking to the material you can find in the best Anglo-Saxon history books, because this stuff is obscure and iffy, to say the least; I would copy the respected historians' way of mentioning this queen, if they mention her.] 14:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)</blockquote>

I agree and have cut it. I can't find any current historian who mentions this. ] ] 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability
verifiable

:Neither can I, and you'd suppose that someone would. The ] doesn't mention any wife of Ecgberht's, nor name the mother of his sons, and has no entry for any Rædburh. In particular, there's no sign of her in Story's ''Carolingian Connections'' (at least as viewable on Google books) where she would surely be mentioned if there was any credence at all given to the story. Which leaves the question: what to do with ]? ] ] 08:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::I would think that somewhere some modern historian has assessed the Trinity ms qp mentions, and the possible identification with St. Ida, and has an assessment; fixing up ] will probably have to wait till we can find something like that. On Egbert, Angus, you mention "sons", plural; I couldn't see anything in PASE about a second son -- is there any evidence for another son? That would be worth including. ] ] 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:::(moved from other thread) I suspect that the reason the Trinity manuscript has been re-forgotten is that it isn't actually about Egbert of Wessex at all but some guy in France with a similar name.] 12:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

::::(moved from other thread: Mike said) That sounds plausible.

:::Just the one son, unless the compilers of Ms D, E, and F were better informed than anyone else. They call Æthelstan (son of Æthelwulf according to most) Ecgbert's "other son". I can provide a dictionary citation to the effect that ecg-beorht means "bright blade" or "shining sword" or something similar, but is Ecgberht's name of any significance? ] ] 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

::::Swanton is a bit confusing on this. He translates the E text as " son Aethelwulf succeeded . . . and his second son, Athelstan, succeeded to . . ." but then says in a footnote that this clarifies that Athelstan is Aethelwulf's son. I don't think I'll add anything based on this, but I can't say I understand what Swanton means.

::::On the name -- I like the gloss you added to the etymology, but I'm not convinced it's necessary either. I was going to do the lead last, and had planned to cut that. Since you've glossed it I'll leave it in, unless someone thinks it's a bad idea. ] ] 15:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

== Alburga ==

I am doing a pass for citations and am no longer very comfortable with the note on Alburga. She's not mentioned in PASE, and Kirby, Stenton and Yorke, at least, make no mention of her. However, p.91 of "Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women's Power in Eleventh-Century England" by Pauline Stafford () mentions it in passing as a fact. Stafford's an academic at the University of Huddersfield; not the strongest recommendation possible, of course, but she is an academic. However, the passing mention isn't enough to confirm the relationship is given credence generally.

quotes Weir, which appears to be "Weir, A. (2002) Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy (Pimlico)" based on the bibiography there. This turns out to be Alison Weir, an excellent popular historian best known for her books on the Wars of the Roses. She's not an academic.

] gets its information from Delaney's "Dictionary of Saints", 2005.

I'm sure I've seen somewhere that the information comes from a manuscript called "Chronicon Vilodunense", but I can't recover that link. Searching for that finds , which refers in turn to "MS. Cotton, Faustina B III". has no description for III, and I can't find more about it at the . So I'm stuck. Any ideas? ] ] 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think you need to dig any further, because that Stafford page does cover it in the note. I wouldn't say she states it as a fact, as such: she says that it is surprisingly circumstantial for a fifteenth-century forger; but she also refers to Yorke dismissing it as late. Together, I suspect, this amounts to academic-speak for "take it or leave it". I can't find the Yorke reference she gives, but I have found Yorke mentioning it elsewhere. She says: "According to the traditions of Wilton recorded in a fifteenth-century poem (admittedly a far from ideal source) 'Wolstan', the victor of 802, married Ecgbert's sister 'Alburga', and it was for her that Wilton was founded" (Barbara Yorke, "Edward as Ætheling", in ''Edward the Elder'', N. J. Higham and D.H. Hill (eds), Routledge, 2001, p. 36, ISBN 0415214963). Yorke's formulation is an even clearer "take-it-or-leave-it". Whether to take it or leave it as far as this article is concerned is up to you, Mike. My opinion is that as long as the information is couched in terms rather like Yorke's, there’s no harm in placing it in a note, since traditions sometimes have to be inspected as part of the investigation; and even though this source is alarmingly late, religious establishments are extremely conservative and often preserve records or traditions of records to an extraordinary extent. The outside possibility that there may be a grain of truth in this is probably the reason Stafford and Yorke have seen fit to offer it up to the light, albeit gingerly. ] 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

::That sounds right to me; I'll do something like that this weekend. I totally forgot, in my search, to follow through on the source that's footnoted, which I added myself. It's , and the first footnote gives the source and a bit more description. Anyway, thanks for the note; I'll catch up with this tomorrow, and I'll use that ref you give. ] ] 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


== Bone verification? ==

I am confused as to why the section on the Bones has never been verified and replaced, in fact why it was ever thought questionable? The matter of the mortuary chests is accepted by historians, thought the Bones are in disarray and the chests of course don't "look Saxon" because they are eighteenth century. Although the matter on the book which was originally used as a source has been seen as questionable, while I am not inclined to agree, I don't think I have come accross a mention on Ecgbriht that does not mention his final resting place. ] (]) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

:Well, I think it quite possible that his bones are in the mortuary chests, but I think we should look for a reliable source on this, and unfortunately I haven't been able to find one. As you can see in the section above, ] spent quite a bit of time looking and wasn't able to find anything that referred to it directly.

:It would be possible to add a reference to the existence of the chest in the cathedral, since that's not controversial, but it seems odd to do so without saying whether or not the scholarly opinion supports the identification of the bones. Without that we'd just have to put in some phrase such as "claimed to be the bones of Egbert" and I'd like to be more definite if we can find a good source. ] ] 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to add a reference to the bones, whether we know who is n in them ior not, it is a story attached to the arly saxon kings. I am sure you wouldn't say that "The Priinces in tower" should have no mention of their bones being found just because you couldnt be sure it wasn't them? As the story goes, parliamentary forces plundered the saxon tombs during the civil war. The bones that remained were placed in mortuary tombs that you see today, they have little plaques on the front with the names of who's inside. I cannot honestly believe it is that difficult to find a source considering that the Norman King William II "Rufus" is also inside one of them and it is well recorded, really :) ] (]) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

== Genealogy notes ==

I removed the notes on Egbert's genealogy that were added; I think they're not really very relevant to an article Egbert. If there's an article about the genealogy of the British monarchy, then it might be reasonable to add that sort of information there. Part of the problem is that Egbert is an ancestor of a great many more people than just the British monarchy; and it's the sort of comment one can make about lots of people in royal family trees. If anyone thinks it should be re-added, let's discuss it here. ] ] 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

First, about the "great many more people than the British monarchy." It is true that some of his descendants later ruled other countries, particularly Scotland. But they are a tangential feature at best; he doesn't control anyplace as completely as England.


== Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017 ==
Next, the idea that you could say this about "lots of people." I disagree that a)this statement is true, and b)this statement is relevant. It's not relevant because you could also say about "lots of people" that they were king of England...yet all their articles do in fact say so. This is an interesting fact about Egbert, and belongs in the article whether or not the fact is also true of others. Now, as to the truth of it being shared by many others...it is not. It is shared by exactly one other monarch, Egbert's son Ethelwulf. Anyway, how can a 68-person long ruling succession that's only broken by one 100-year period of eight people (it said nine before, but turns out that Harold Godwinson was Egbert's descendant; see ]) not be notable!? William the Conqueror's page notes that all English/British monarchs since are his descendants. Should that be taken out as well, since he also begat the Scottish line and since the same could be said of Henry I, Matilda, Henry II, John, Henry III, Edwards I, II, and III, and a whole bunch more, later people? Obviously someone thought that William I, as the *first* of these, was notable. For what it's worth, I think the break and restoration of Egbert's line makes it a much more interesting case than any of these people.


{{edit semi-protected|Egbert of Wessex|answered=yes}}
Basically, I'm a little miffed that you took this out. It definitely doesn't take anything away from the article, and removing it on such thin ground makes it look a bit like you consider this article your personal fief.
However, Redburga or Raedburh (788c-839) may have been the wife of king Egbert of Wessex and may have been the sister-in-law of Charlemagne as the sister of his fourth wife, Luitgard; other sources describe her as his sister (although Charlemagne's only sister was named Gisela) or his great-granddaughter (which would be difficult to accomplish in the forty-six years after Charlemagne's birth) or the daughter of his sister-in-law or his niece. Some genealogies identify her as the granddaughter of Pepin the Short and great-granddaughter of Charles Martel; other scholars doubt that she existed at all, other than as a name in a much later manuscript. Her existence might have been forged to link the early Kings of England to the great West Emperor.
:Well, I was worried about that too, so before I removed it I went to another editor who is knowledgeable about this period, and asked him whether he agreed. is the question I asked, and is his response. So I hope you'll believe that I didn't remove it out of a sense of ownership.
:There are others who have this article on their watchlist. Let's leave this a week or so and see if anyone else comments; I'm happy to go with the consensus, though as I said I don't think it's the sort of information that is worth including. ] ] 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


She appears in a medieval manuscript from Oxford and is described as "regis Francorum sororia" which translates as "sister to the King of the Franks". More specifically, sororia means "pertaining to someone's sister", hence sister-in-law. ] (]) 12:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
== Family paragraph ==
:You've just had this answered already. ] (]) 13:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


== Name of article ==
Per a recent edit summary questioning it: the paragraph was added in edit. I felt sure I had seen something on a talk page -- mine or the article's -- about the edits, but can't find that now. Anyway, it was sourced, though not to someone I'd regard as a specialist. I felt that if I revered I'd be acting too much as though the article was mine, so I just left it, hoping to find a better secondary source that discusses his family at some future point. ] ] 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Academic works are increasingly spelling his name Ecgberht, and I think the time may have come for us to follow suit. Stenton ''Anglo-Saxon England'' 1971, Abels, ''Alfred the Great'' 1998, and ''New Cambridge Medieval History'' II 1995 have Egbert, but Foot, ''Æthelstan'' 2011, Charles-Edwards, ''Wales and the Britons'' 2013, Blair, ''The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society'' 2005, Hart, ''The Danelaw'' 1992, Smyth, ''King Alfred the Great'' 1995, Pratt, ''The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great'' 2007, ''Handbook of British Chronology'' 3rd ed 1986, ''Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia'' 1999 and 2014 eds, Higham and Ryan, ''The Anglo-Saxon World'', have Ecgberht. I suggest changing to "Ecgberht of Wessex", or better still "Ecgberht, King of Wessex". ] (]) 10:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:Well, so far as Æthelstan son of Ecgberht goes, that's wrong but explicable: see Swanton, ''ASC'', p. 63, note 13. Saint Eadgyth of Polesworth is said to be Æthelwulf's sister by Geoffrey of Burton in his life of Saint Modwenna and similar post-Conquest stuff. Barbara Yorke (''Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses'') reckons she was a Mercian. The Thacker paper on saints in ''Midland History'' is referred to by Yorke. Cheers! ] ] 13:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm not opposed, but I'd like to see what happens if we add a few more sources to the list. Sorting the ones you list, and splitting by line so we can sort by date or reliability if we want to, and also so we can see if an individual author has changed practice over time:
So, how about this? <tt><nowiki>The number of Egbert's children is uncertain. Æthelwulf, who succeeded Egbert, having governed as Subregulus of ], ], ] and ], was his son. Some versions of the ''Anglo-Saxon Chronicle'' call ] Egbert's son, but he was rather Egbert's grandson.<ref>Swanton, ''Anglo-Saxon Chronicle'', p. 63, note 11. This mistake is accepted at face value in some popular works.</ref> A number of writers after the ] make Saint Edith (Eadgyth) of ] a daughter of Egbert, but this is doubtful.<ref>Yorke, ''Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses'', p. 39, note 58, suggests Edith was Mercian princess; see also Thacker, "Kings, Saints and Monasteries", p. 19. Again, the claim that Edith was Egbert's daughter is repeated in some popular works.</ref></nowiki></tt> ] ] 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
* Egbert
**''The Age of Bede'' 1965 (1988 revision) (only Egbert of Kent)
**Stenton ''Anglo-Saxon England'' 1971
** ''Anglo-Saxon England 5'' 1976 (uses Egbert for the king of Wessex and Ecgberht for others of that name)
**Wood ''In Search of the Dark Ages'' 1981
** Campbell ''The Anglo-Saxons'' 1982 (1991 edition)
**Wormald et al ed. ''Ideal & Reality in Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Society'' 1983
**Loyn ''The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England'' 1984
**Yorke, ''Kings and Kingdoms'' 1990
**''New Cambridge Medieval History'' II 1995
**Williams ''Wessex in the Early Middle Ages'' 1995
**Abels, ''Alfred the Great'' 1998
**Campbell ''The Anglo-Saxon State'' 2000
** Walker ''Mercia'' 2000 (uses Egbert for the king of Wessex and Ecgberht for others of that name)
**Keynes/Lapidge (Asser) ''Alfred the Great'' 1983, 2004 printing
* Ecgberht
**''Handbook of British Chronology'' 3rd ed 1986
**''Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain'' 1991
**Hart, ''The Danelaw'' 1992
**Kirby, ''Earliest English Kings'' 1992
**Smyth, ''King Alfred the Great'' 1995
** John, ''Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England'' 1996
**Wormald ''The Making of English Law'' 1999
**Williams ''Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England'' 1999
**''Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia'' 1999 and 2014 eds,
**Edwards, ''Dictionary of National Biography'', 2004
**Blair, ''The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society'' 2005
**Pratt, ''The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great'' 2007
**A Companion to the Early Middle Ages'' 2009
**Foot, ''Æthelstan'' 2011
**Roach, ''Kingship and Consent in Anglo-Saxon England'' 2013
**Charles-Edwards, ''Wales and the Britons'' 2013
**Higham and Ryan ''The Anglo-Saxon World'' 2013
**Molyneux, ''The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century'' 2015
*Ecgbert
** Yorke, ''The Conversion of Britain'', 2006
**Woolf ''From Pictland to Alba'' 2007
I'll go through my refs and add some more, probably in a couple of days. ] (] - ] - ]) 11:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:Williams used Ecgberht in the ''Biographical Dictionary'' 1991, Egbert in ''Wessex in the Early Middle Ages'' 1995, and Ecgberht in ''Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England'' 1999. ] (]) 12:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
::Added some more above. Zaluckyj ''Mercia'' 2001 doesn't mention our guy, but uses both spellings for others of that name; Higham, ''An English Empire'', 1995 uses Egbert but only for others of that name. I don't think these can be counted as evidence in either direction. Overall it does like the tide is turning. Is this enough for a move of the title or should we wait a few more years? We're not an academic publication, and the redirects are there, after all. ] (] - ] - ]) 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
:::As Egbert isn't actually ''wrong'' I'd just leave it as it is. ] (]) 23:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I favour a change, but as there is no consensus, I will start a formal reqested move. ] (]) 09:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


== Requested move 6 August 2017 ==
:This would replace the part of the existing paragraph starting "Egbert had three children", right? I like it. One suggestion would be to add a mention of the Alison Weir book to the footnote referring to popular works. ] ] 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
== Portrait vs. manuscript image ==
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' to ] per nom. ] (]) 09:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer to reinstate the image of Egbert's name from the ASC MS unless there are objections. The portrait has no historic value and no pretensions to be accurate, whereas the MS image is historically important. ] ] 07:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
----


:Yes, I agree. The same editor removed a portrait coin of Offa from ] and replaced that with an ms. image. Equally misguided I feel. ] ] 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|Ecgberht, King of Wessex}} – Misplaced Pages policy is that titles should reflect reliable sources, and the list of works above shows that, apart from one reprint, the spelling 'Egbert' has not been used in academic works since 2000. This is long enough to establish an academic consensus against the spelling, and Ecgberht is now much the most common spelling. This case is similar to the change from Canute to Cnut at . Adding "KIng of Wessex" is more informative than "of Wessex" for readers, as with ], ] and many others. ] (]) 09:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
::I reverted.
:I'd like to propose a move to ], as King of Wessex is obviously better, but Egbert isn't the wrong spelling (see discussion in above section). ] (]) 10:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:'''Support''' as nominator. For an example of the suggested spelling, see ]. ] (]) 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' for the change to "Ecgberht"; I think it's clearly going that way and is likely to have to move eventually, if not now. For the "King of Wessex" part I'd like to see more evidence -- I think I've seen both. And would it better to make that part of the move a more global change to the whole set of AS kings? ] (] - ] - ]) 16:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


:*Pre-Conquest kings are usually shown without their title. Two exceptions are ] and ], both changed after moves I proposed, the latter with Mike Christie's support. Post-Conquest monarchs are generally shown without their title if they have a number, such as ], but with their title if they are unnumbered, as ]. This seems reasonable as the number signals to the reader that the article is about a monarch, but x of y does not, and I would support a global proposal to bring pre-Conquest monarchs' titles in line with post-Conquest ones.
::You know, I think at some point it would be good to have a single unified discussion of all the "list" articles and templates for monarchs of the UK/Britain/British Isles/whatever, and the constituent kingdoms. I don't know if we could get enough knowledgeable editors together to get a sustainable consensus, but it would be nice to have consistency. There are multiple issues -- who gets to be called a monarch of England? What about the marginal boundary cases, such as Ceolwald -- do they go into the templates? What's the status of names such as "British Isles"? Which articles are dabs and which are lists? Which get eliminated as duplicates? Should they all have the same or similar formats? Should they be organized chronologically or geographically, where there's a choice? It's a set of decisions that would be made in a print encyclopedia by an editor with responsibility for the overall area, in order to impose consistency, avoid duplication of effort, and provide guidelines for the contributor.


:*The ''Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia'' and the ''Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain'' both have 'Ecgberht, king of Wessex', whereas DNB has 'Ecgberht, king of the West Saxons'. These sources use lower case 'king', but I do not think we should go against the Misplaced Pages practice of capitalising titles. ] (]) 19:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
::To your point on Offa: I tend to avoid the list articles just because there's no clear definition of how they should be structured. I think that MS picture substituted for the coin isn't the best idea, but it's not as bad as the EB 1911 pics used elsewhere in that article. ] ] 12:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
:*:I would support a global proposal to change the pre-Conquest names to include the title. I'm neutral on moving this one; there doesn't seem to be much point unless we do a global proposal. ] (] - ] - ]) 20:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
:::*Reversing what I said above, on reflection I doubt whether a global move is practical. There would be too many to change and too many issues with them. I have very little knowledge of the earlier kings, but taking the later ones, there would be many disagreements. There are some with well known names which should not be changed, such as ], ], ] and ]. I would change ] to ], but this might be opposed by other editors. I successfully proposed changing ] to ]. ] would arguably be better, but I would be reluctant to re-open the discussion. I think each case has to be looked at individually. ] (]) 22:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''.--] (]) 00:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


== gold coin ==
== Recent changes by ] ==


https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsaCvwH1F8/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The changes earlier today by ] seem reasonable, but I'm just leaving this note here that the sources need to be rechecked. The changes add some specific assertions that look right (e.g. which versions of the ASC say what), but it's not clear that the sources already cited support those statements. No new sources were added, which is why I think a check needs to be made.


== Requested move 4 January 2022 ==
I'll also leave a note with Agricolae asking if he has sources that support the additions, in case he's able to add them himself. ] ] 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:Agricolae has added refs so we're OK now. At least one ref is quite old, though; it would be worth checking through those paras for modern sources if they exist. ] ] 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: '''no consensus.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 16:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
== Redirection ==
----


* ] → {{no redirect|Ecgberht of Wessex}}
"Eoppa" redirects here; in fact, Eoppa was Egbert's grandfather.
* ] → {{no redirect|Æthelwulf of Wessex}}
* ] → {{no redirect|Æthelbald of Wessex}}
* ] → {{no redirect|Æthelberht of Wessex}}
– Almost all of the earlier rulers of Wessex are titled as {{green|X of Wessex}}. Putting these articles in that format will help to maintain consistency. ] (]) 07:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC) <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;-- ] (]) 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)</small>


'''Oppose'''. This would reverse a move four years ago and article names should not keep chopping and changing. Having 'King of' is clearer for readers and is consistent with ] where there is no ordinal, for example ] and ]. ] (]) 09:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
] (]) 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
*But as one user noted on a ], {{green|] should not apply to Wessex}}, because {{green|West Saxons kings do not draw names from the common European name fund, as neither do, e.g., the Merovingians.}} To apply the rules of WP:NCROY to the rulers of Wessex {{green|is like trying to put Chinese emperors into a form designed for European kings.}} ] (]) 01:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
:*The guidance says "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share '''much the same stock''' of names." The Merovingians are excluded because they "use a '''completely different''' namestock". Anglo-Saxon names are part of the common stock. Some like Alfred and Edward are still used, others like Egbert and Ethelbert are still used but retain their Old English spelling for Anglo-Saxon people, some have passed out of common use. The guidance does not exclude specific names which have passed out of general use or are now spelled differently. ] (]) 08:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
::*The Merovingian names Chlothar, Clovis and Theudebald are just Lothair, Louis and Theobald. Theuderic never became a common royal name, but it isn't rare in modern forms (Dirk, Dietrich, Derek). I think conventional spelling differences matter here. ] (]) 01:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
:::*That is to argue that Merovingian names have been wrongly classed as a "'''completely different''' namestock", not that Anglo-Saxon are rightly so classified. ] (]) 10:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I disagree with the logic of the recent Move Request that WP:NCROY should not apply. ] (]) 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
*A comment on the titles of these four rulers: Most if not all other Anglo-Saxon rulers are titled as {{green|(Name) of (Kingdom)}} instead of {{green|(Name), King of (Kingdom)}}. Hence, if we insist on keeping Ecgberht, King of Wessex, then we should standardise it so that an article like ] becomes Offa, King of Mercia. ] (]) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for consistency. Векочел is correct. These are the only Anglo-Saxon monarchs that use this form of title. ] (]) 03:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Broken Link? ==


Ecgbert's Charters.
:This was the result of a deletion discussion. It was deemed by the consensus that Eoppa was not sufficiently notable to merit his own page. ] (]) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=find&type=charter&page=&archive=&kingdom=&king=Ecgberht+%28of+Wessex%29&sawyer=&text=&display=JUST_BLURB appears to go to a blank page. ] (]) 08:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
==Battle of Dore==
Please see ]. ] (]) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:18, 30 October 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ecgberht, King of Wessex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months 

Featured articleEcgberht, King of Wessex is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 19, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 17, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
This article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconMilitary history: British / European / Medieval
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary historyWikiProject icon
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
WikiProject iconAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMiddle Ages Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnglish Royalty Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHampshire High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
On 4 January 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Ecgberht of Wessex. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

This edit request to Egbert of Wessex has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

However, Redburga or Raedburh (788c-839) may have been the wife of king Egbert of Wessex and may have been the sister-in-law of Charlemagne as the sister of his fourth wife, Luitgard; other sources describe her as his sister (although Charlemagne's only sister was named Gisela) or his great-granddaughter (which would be difficult to accomplish in the forty-six years after Charlemagne's birth) or the daughter of his sister-in-law or his niece. Some genealogies identify her as the granddaughter of Pepin the Short and great-granddaughter of Charles Martel; other scholars doubt that she existed at all, other than as a name in a much later manuscript. Her existence might have been forged to link the early Kings of England to the great West Emperor.

She appears in a medieval manuscript from Oxford and is described as "regis Francorum sororia" which translates as "sister to the King of the Franks". More specifically, sororia means "pertaining to someone's sister", hence sister-in-law. Pwhiteco (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You've just had this answered already. Richard75 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Name of article

Academic works are increasingly spelling his name Ecgberht, and I think the time may have come for us to follow suit. Stenton Anglo-Saxon England 1971, Abels, Alfred the Great 1998, and New Cambridge Medieval History II 1995 have Egbert, but Foot, Æthelstan 2011, Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons 2013, Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society 2005, Hart, The Danelaw 1992, Smyth, King Alfred the Great 1995, Pratt, The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great 2007, Handbook of British Chronology 3rd ed 1986, Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia 1999 and 2014 eds, Higham and Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World, have Ecgberht. I suggest changing to "Ecgberht of Wessex", or better still "Ecgberht, King of Wessex". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but I'd like to see what happens if we add a few more sources to the list. Sorting the ones you list, and splitting by line so we can sort by date or reliability if we want to, and also so we can see if an individual author has changed practice over time:

  • Egbert
    • The Age of Bede 1965 (1988 revision) (only Egbert of Kent)
    • Stenton Anglo-Saxon England 1971
    • Anglo-Saxon England 5 1976 (uses Egbert for the king of Wessex and Ecgberht for others of that name)
    • Wood In Search of the Dark Ages 1981
    • Campbell The Anglo-Saxons 1982 (1991 edition)
    • Wormald et al ed. Ideal & Reality in Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Society 1983
    • Loyn The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England 1984
    • Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms 1990
    • New Cambridge Medieval History II 1995
    • Williams Wessex in the Early Middle Ages 1995
    • Abels, Alfred the Great 1998
    • Campbell The Anglo-Saxon State 2000
    • Walker Mercia 2000 (uses Egbert for the king of Wessex and Ecgberht for others of that name)
    • Keynes/Lapidge (Asser) Alfred the Great 1983, 2004 printing
  • Ecgberht
    • Handbook of British Chronology 3rd ed 1986
    • Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain 1991
    • Hart, The Danelaw 1992
    • Kirby, Earliest English Kings 1992
    • Smyth, King Alfred the Great 1995
    • John, Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England 1996
    • Wormald The Making of English Law 1999
    • Williams Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England 1999
    • Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia 1999 and 2014 eds,
    • Edwards, Dictionary of National Biography, 2004
    • Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society 2005
    • Pratt, The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great 2007
    • A Companion to the Early Middle Ages 2009
    • Foot, Æthelstan 2011
    • Roach, Kingship and Consent in Anglo-Saxon England 2013
    • Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons 2013
    • Higham and Ryan The Anglo-Saxon World 2013
    • Molyneux, The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century 2015
  • Ecgbert
    • Yorke, The Conversion of Britain, 2006
    • Woolf From Pictland to Alba 2007

I'll go through my refs and add some more, probably in a couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Williams used Ecgberht in the Biographical Dictionary 1991, Egbert in Wessex in the Early Middle Ages 1995, and Ecgberht in Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England 1999. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Added some more above. Zaluckyj Mercia 2001 doesn't mention our guy, but uses both spellings for others of that name; Higham, An English Empire, 1995 uses Egbert but only for others of that name. I don't think these can be counted as evidence in either direction. Overall it does like the tide is turning. Is this enough for a move of the title or should we wait a few more years? We're not an academic publication, and the redirects are there, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
As Egbert isn't actually wrong I'd just leave it as it is. Richard75 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I favour a change, but as there is no consensus, I will start a formal reqested move. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2017

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: Moved to Ecgberht, King of Wessex per nom. No such user (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Egbert of Wessex → Ecgberht, King of Wessex – Misplaced Pages policy is that titles should reflect reliable sources, and the list of works above shows that, apart from one reprint, the spelling 'Egbert' has not been used in academic works since 2000. This is long enough to establish an academic consensus against the spelling, and Ecgberht is now much the most common spelling. This case is similar to the change from Canute to Cnut at . Adding "KIng of Wessex" is more informative than "of Wessex" for readers, as with Stephen, King of England, John, King of England and many others. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a move to Egbert, King of Wessex, as King of Wessex is obviously better, but Egbert isn't the wrong spelling (see discussion in above section). Richard75 (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Support as nominator. For an example of the suggested spelling, see Ecgberht of Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support for the change to "Ecgberht"; I think it's clearly going that way and is likely to have to move eventually, if not now. For the "King of Wessex" part I'd like to see more evidence -- I think I've seen both. And would it better to make that part of the move a more global change to the whole set of AS kings? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pre-Conquest kings are usually shown without their title. Two exceptions are Æthelberht, King of Wessex and Æthelbald, King of Wessex, both changed after moves I proposed, the latter with Mike Christie's support. Post-Conquest monarchs are generally shown without their title if they have a number, such as Elizabeth I of England, but with their title if they are unnumbered, as Anne, Queen of Great Britain. This seems reasonable as the number signals to the reader that the article is about a monarch, but x of y does not, and I would support a global proposal to bring pre-Conquest monarchs' titles in line with post-Conquest ones.
  • The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia and the Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain both have 'Ecgberht, king of Wessex', whereas DNB has 'Ecgberht, king of the West Saxons'. These sources use lower case 'king', but I do not think we should go against the Misplaced Pages practice of capitalising titles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    I would support a global proposal to change the pre-Conquest names to include the title. I'm neutral on moving this one; there doesn't seem to be much point unless we do a global proposal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
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.

gold coin

https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsaCvwH1F8/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.214.144 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

– Almost all of the earlier rulers of Wessex are titled as X of Wessex. Putting these articles in that format will help to maintain consistency. Векочел (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This would reverse a move four years ago and article names should not keep chopping and changing. Having 'King of' is clearer for readers and is consistent with Misplaced Pages:NCNOB where there is no ordinal, for example Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • But as one user noted on a a recent move request, WP:NCROY should not apply to Wessex, because West Saxons kings do not draw names from the common European name fund, as neither do, e.g., the Merovingians. To apply the rules of WP:NCROY to the rulers of Wessex is like trying to put Chinese emperors into a form designed for European kings. Векочел (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The guidance says "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names." The Merovingians are excluded because they "use a completely different namestock". Anglo-Saxon names are part of the common stock. Some like Alfred and Edward are still used, others like Egbert and Ethelbert are still used but retain their Old English spelling for Anglo-Saxon people, some have passed out of common use. The guidance does not exclude specific names which have passed out of general use or are now spelled differently. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The Merovingian names Chlothar, Clovis and Theudebald are just Lothair, Louis and Theobald. Theuderic never became a common royal name, but it isn't rare in modern forms (Dirk, Dietrich, Derek). I think conventional spelling differences matter here. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken Link?

Ecgbert's Charters.

http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=find&type=charter&page=&archive=&kingdom=&king=Ecgberht+%28of+Wessex%29&sawyer=&text=&display=JUST_BLURB appears to go to a blank page. Artowalos (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: