This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qp10qp (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 30 August 2007 (.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:41, 30 August 2007 by Qp10qp (talk | contribs) (.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography: Royalty and Nobility B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
"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. -Ashley Pomeroy 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. Everyking 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? Stan 13:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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.'White43 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. White43 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the intended reference is to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which did add Egbert to Bede's list of bretwaldas. 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. Mike Christie (talk) 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).
Deaþe gecweald 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. Mike Christie (talk) 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. Mike Christie (talk) 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. Mike Christie (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I took out "The East Anglians 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. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Bones
I took out the paragraph on Egbert's burial and bones. I'd contacted another editor, qp10qp, to see if they had a source for this; I'd been told by the editor who added it, Avram Fawcett, that they got it from Hilliam's Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards. Here's qp10qp's response:
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 (for example, this one) 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.qp10qp 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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. Mike Christie (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- There are photos of it 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.qp10qp 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)