Talk:Æthelwulf, King of Wessex

Untitled

So how did he manage to get born in Aachen? -----Michael K. Smith 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

His father spent time in exile at Charlemagne's court prior to his accession to the West Saxon throne, though I thought there was doubt that he was still there in 800. I'd like to see a reference for Ethelwulf's birth in Aachen. Binabik80 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Osburh

Is the statement that Ethelulf's wife died nine years before he went to Rome in 855 a mistake? This would mean she died in 846 and Alfred's date of birth is given as 847-9. Her own entry (as Osburga) gives her death as 855, and in Alfred's entry there is a story about him winning a book of poetry from his mother. Dudley Miles 24 September 2006

Death

This page says he died in 858, but my source ([1]) says he died in 871, saying:

"In the year of our Lord's incarnation 871," ... "Ethelred, king of the West-Saxons, and his brother Alfred, united their forces and marched to Reading, where, on their arrival, they cut to pieces the pagans whom they found outside the gate fortifications. But the pagans, nevertheless, sallied out from the gates, and a long and fierce engangement ensued. At last, grief to say, the Christians fled, the pagans obtained victory, and the aforesaid earl Ethelwulf was among the slain."

And I'm quite sure that this isn't a typo that could have been his son Aethelred, because Aethelred is mentioned quite a few more times later on in the article. Slycypher (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, anglo-saxons.net says 858 too. I'll take another look later! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Acleah

A couple of things on this. Firstly, Oakley is not in Surrey. There are several Oakley's but the one most often associated with the battle of Acleah is in Berkshire, see link: http://www.berkshirehistory.com/villages/oakleygreen.html Secondly, in Stenton's Oxford History of Great Britain, the Anglo saxons (or similar name), he makes an argument that the site could NOT be Ockley, due to etmylogical reasons. As a resident of the area I find this disappointing but thought I should mention it.Robruss24 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC) As no-one has objected, I have slightly edited the page to reflect this.Robruss24 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I have edited the first paragraph of this article which was littered with mistakes. Some of the rest of the article is also wrong in material respects and I will tackle these as and when.

Dantes Warden (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Date of Æthelbald's accession

Æthelbald's accession is given as 856, but in her ODNB article on Æthelwulf at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8921 Janet Nelson gives it as 858 when Æthelwulf died, pointing out that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gave him a reign of eighteen and a half years. She also says that it is unclear whether Wessex itself was divided between Æthelwulf and Æthelbald, or Wessex from lands to the east, and the Wikipedia articles on the two kings give different views on this.

Additional points are that after Æthelwulf's return from Rome in 856, Judith was recognised as Queen, and coins were still issued solely in his name. Although he shared power from 856, I think he should still be regarded as king until his death. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Draft background section

I've drafted a background section here, and before I go through it experimenting with sfn, I wanted to check to see if we agree this is a good way to start the article. I think some political context is necessary to orient a reader unfamiliar with the era. Any comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Off to bed now. I will look at it tomorrow. I forgot to say that I am working on his early life before he became king. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ODNB organization

I spent some time with the ODNB article on Aethelwulf today to get a sense of how Nelson structured it; I think it would help to figure out how we want to break up the material here. It's more or less like this (I hope my abbreviated notes are comprehensible):

• Summary
  • Kingship in Kent, acknowledgement as heir, succeeds in 839, gives Aethelstan the southeast, wife is Osburh, daughter marries Burgred, four sons are kings of Wessex, Judith & no offspring, dies 858
• Aethelwulf and Kent and Mercia
  • Descent from Kent (?), loyalty of Kent, comparisons with Egbert, Vikings in Kent, Alhhere
• Aethelwulf in Wessex
  • Winchester as a centre – cf. Alfred; Aethelberht is king in Kent; decimation – act of piety and gets him secular support too
• The papacy and the Franks
  • 838 consecration, Egbert & Rome & Louis the Pious, trip to Rome in 855, Judith and consecration as queen, possible role of Felix
• Judith
  • Consecration & queenship, remarriage to Aethelbald, examples of stepmother remarriage and reasons for it, later marriage to Baldwin, Aethelthryth's marriage to later Count Baldwin
• Dealing with the Scandinavians
  • Raids 840s, 850-1, battles, leadership style
• Family politics
  • Alfred's trip(s) to Rome, ages of sons, intended inheritance, will, papal authority, disposition of kingdoms
  • Indivisibility, Asser, rebellion and peace, ASC
  • Will made 856, Nelson’s interpretation of the details, the ring and probable origin

Some thoughts:

• I think a summarizing section should be at the end in our case. In the ODNB there's some value in having summary information at the front, but since we will have a short summarizing lead, I think we can have the final section of the article provide the overall assessment of his reign, rather than starting that way.
• I find more-or-less chronological accounts to be a good structure in biographical articles, in contrast to Nelson's thematic organization, but I don't think that works well when there's so little information. I think a political background and early life sections are worth having, but perhaps they should be the same section, since there's so little to be said about his early life. We could do something similar to the ODNB breakdown for the sections after that, but how about:
  • Background and early life
  • Consecration, succession, and sons -- probably include the Kent material here
  • Reign -- Wessex, Nelson's comments about Felix, Vikings, relations with Burgred
  • Planned disposition of kingdoms; deaths of sons, the will, Judith
  • Death and succession

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have some commitments to complete reviews I have started, but I should be able to get back to this at the weekend, Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No hurry. I took several months to follow up on the suggestion of collaborating on this, so I think I probably shouldn't expect deadlines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

My first thought is that this looks good except that when starting on the early life section it seemed to make sense to put a family one first - after background. I also think Kent should go where it fits in chronologically - mainly early life but no doubt it will come up in later sections, for example making Æthelstan sub-king in 839. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2015

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: Move. It appears we have a clear consensus that this article should be moved away from this title, and that it's the primary topic of the term Æthelwulf. There was less consensus about whether it should go straight to Æthelwulf, or to another location (with Æthelwulf as a redirect). The article will be moved to Æthelwulf, for two reasons: first, though most articles on Anglo-Saxon monarchs append "... of xxx" after the name, it was shown that a number of them don't, which weakens the consistency argument. Second, the other option with the most support, "Æthelwulf, King of Wessex" involves a construction with even less precedent than just the bare name. Considering that "Æthelwulf" would be a redirect whatever the title, the simplest option seems the best in this case. It was suggested that this might be worth taking up more broadly; that seems like a wise option. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• Æthelwulf of Wessex → Æthelwulf
• Æthelwulf → Æthelwulf (disambiguation)

– King Æthelwulf of Wessex is by far the most prominent person called Æthelwulf, so I suggest that this should be the name of his article, with other Æthelwulfs listed in Æthelwulf (disambiguation). --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support. All the other Æthelwulfs are minor figures. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support half, oppose half (but not strongly). I agree with this Æthelwulf being the primary topic, so I agree with the disambiguation page moving to Æthelwulf (disambiguation). However, every pre-Alfred monarch of Wessex is at the title "(Name) of Wessex" rather than just "(Name)" (except Penda, who is Penda of Mercia instead of Penda, which is a redirect to him). Most of the monarchs of the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the period have that titling convention as well, so it would be a shame to lose that consistency. We could have Æthelwulf redirect to here, as, for example, Henry VIII and Louis XII redirect Henry VIII of England and Louis XII of France. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A fair point, but I do not like the convention and it seems to be unique to Wikipedia. He is usually listed as Æthelwulf, King of Wessex. The convention also seems to be unique in Wikipedia to early AS kings. Æthelstan and Eadwig are shown without qualification, and post-conquest kings are only shown as eg Henry VIII of England if they have a number. John is John, King of England. I marginally prefer Æthelwulf but I would be happy with Æthelwulf, King of Wessex. Any views Mike? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dudley -- Æthelwulf would be best, but if there's a consensus for "of Wessex" it's not that bad a choice. When I see "Æthelwulf, king of Wessex", it's usually just to disambiguate the name in an index. He's never referred to that way in running text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I partly disagree Mike. I prefer Æthelwulf, but Æthelwulf, King of Wessex - which is the heading for his entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain - would be my second choice. I do not ever remember seeing him as Æthelwulf of Wessex outside Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. ONR (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  @Old Naval Rooftops: can you clarify? Nobody above is straightforwardly opposing, so it's not clear what your reasoning is. Are you opposing only the part that Egsan Bacon is opposing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  Yes. ONR (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the move of Æthelwulf of Wessex to just Æthelwulf per WP:SOVEREIGN. I have seen plenty of folks propose exceptions to that with similar logic as we see above, but I would rather WP have a consistent policy for naming monarchs. If you disagree with the policy, perhaps we should have the discussion around that policy, rather than changing it one article move at a time. As for the move of the disambiguation page, I'm indifferent. 1bandsaw (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SOVEREIGN deals with the case where there are sovereigns of different countries with the same name and ordinals, for example Henry IV. I cannot see that there is a policy which would support the current name. Looking at similar cases, there are later Anglo-Saxon kings such as Eadwig and Eadred, and post-conquest ones such as John, King of England. I would be happy with either format as I have said, although I marginally prefer just Æthelwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support he's just "Aethelwulf" in the ODNB and the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Prefer Æthelwulf, King of Wessex, both "King" and "Wessex" being important points for recognizability, and "Æthelwulf, King of Wessex" being the standard form of introduction. The current Æthelwulf of Wessex is incorrect, as "of Wessex" either is an informal address in the context of Kings, or it implies a child of the King of Wessex. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2015 (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.

Commas

Pyrusca, the article achieved FA status after careful consideration by a number of highly proficient writers and experienced editors of WP, from which I shall exclude myself. As it appears there are several instances where you believe commas are needed, I'm reasonably sure that such a pattern would have been noticed at some point in the FA process, had the other editors agreed. I appreciate that constant improvement is an aim for WP, but close consideration of the writing is rather the point of the FA process. Be that as it may, I have brought this issue to the attention of Dudley Miles, who nominated the article as a FA candidate. He shall be away for a while from Tuesday, but I hope he shall add his view on this issue sooner or later. Until such time I intend to leave it alone. I should be grateful if you would do likewise, until a fuller discussion can be had. Nortonius (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dan can you advise please? Pyrusca has inserted extra commas in several edits, the latest at [2] in para 1 after "In 825", and in para 2 after "In 843". These have been reverted by Nortonius. I do not think the commas are needed (although I am not sure), and you did not query the point when you copy edited at FAC, but can you look at it again. I am going on a week's holiday tomorrow, so I may not be able to comment further until I get back. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

All I can tell you here is what FAC style is ... I can't tell you if it's right. A few say the commas are required, a few say the commas are prohibited (principally Brits), a few are looking for some kind of consistency, and most think it's fine either way and get annoyed by people who fiddle with them too much. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've seen it done both ways in good-quality edited prose, and I think is either is acceptable. Personally I prefer the version without commas, but I think it's a matter of preference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who often fiddles with commas, in the two instances highlighted (no comma here) the text is equally acceptable with and without the commas :) ---Ehrenkater (talk)

Thanks to all. I take it that the consensus is that both are acceptable, with some having a mild preference for the version without commas. I see that Ehrenkater has altered text numbers to numeric (e.g. twentieth to 20th). I assume both are correct and I prefer text, but I do not feel strongly enough to revert the edits. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

My concern was that the dependent clause of the required a comma before the independent clause. Other than that, I have no issue. Pyrusca (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• As things stand I think Dudley has it right: a slight preference for no comma. And I would place myself in Dank's category of people who "think it's fine either way and get annoyed by people who fiddle with [commas] too much" – very mildly annoyed, I should say, I'm not actually cross! :o) I think my annoyance probably stems dimly from WP:MOS, where the lead says pretty clearly that, in case of doubt, one should "defer to the style used by the first major contributor". Unless we want to go back to 2005 or 2006, since when the article has changed enormously, Dudley is that contributor.[3] (Incidentally, I see that Dudley was editing it then too.[4]) On that basis I would also have been less than delighted with many of Ehrenkater's recent changes, although I agree that "thirty-five" in that context ought to be "35".[5] But that brings me back to Dudley's assessment: as might be expected there's a variety of opinion, but in this instance there is a slight preference. Obviously I share that preference; but, whereas I would write "21st century", Dudley wrote "twenty-first century", and I would not have been inclined to change it, unless some or all of the article were poorly written. But this is a Featured Article, so I think it ought to be left alone where style is concerned. Nortonius (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

FA status is not an excuse to protect the page. Pyrusca (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree; I think all that FA status means is that the article is the way it is through conscious choice, not through lack of attention, though oversights occur. I think it's fine to make edits to an FA. If there's disagreement it can be discussed on the talk page; and if there's some prior reason to think it might be controversial, starting on the talk page is a good idea. But it's a rare FA that can't be improved. I'm cautious about editing FAs myself, but I think stylistic choices are up for discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely, and that's why we're here, no? WP's never finished etc. I do not understand where the idea of protecting the page comes from. Anyway Dudley's away for a bit, and there's plenty of time for now to see if a clearer consensus emerges one way or the other. Nortonius (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless anyone thinks otherwise, I do not (at present) see anything in the article which needs changing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Aethelwulf's Ring

The picture used is a very sloppy copy of the original. The British Museum allows usage of their image quite easily as I understand it. There are other images which have been redrawn - but to any reasonable view, they are all quite poorly drawn when compared to the original.

What is the recommended procedure in such cases; what is the best procedure? Somebody with more experience must decide!! NoJoking --Nojoking (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think this is possible. The BM at [6] only allows reuse for non-commercial purposes, whereas Wikipedia only allows uploading of materials can be used for any purposes, including commercial ones. Nikkimaria can you confirm whether this is correct please? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming whatever image you're asking about is under that blanket NC license, no we would not be able to use it. (However, note that some museums have a habit of claiming copyright over things whose copyright has expired - if you have a specific image in mind I could take a look?) Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. I assume that Nojoking is referring to the image at [7]. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, no. The object itself is out of copyright but a photo of a 3D object has its own copyright, which here is NC and therefore not compatible with us. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

St Mary's Beverley

A king on the ceiling of St Mary's Beverley

Is the image opposite one of Æthelwulf? Greenshed (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems likely but as it is modern it appears to me of limited interest. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe it dates from 1445 (restored in 1863 and again in 1939). I tend to think that anything before 1453 is not really modern but perhaps you have more exacting standards? Greenshed (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, not sure if the 15th century view was that Æthelwulf died in York. Greenshed (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The church's own website says that it was built between 1120 and 1530 and completely restored by Pugin and Scott between 1844 and 1876. The image - to me - looks like 19C imitation medieval, and clearly dates to the restoration. Æthelwulf's place of death is not known, but must have been in Wessex or Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture

The main source of present day notability for aethelwulf is his depiction in the Vikings TV show. This should be acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 02:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, not that of other editors. Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, not unreferenced claims. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's the most notable depiction of him in popular culture. Good of you to speak as the voice of "other editors" though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dudley Miles on this; the TV show is a temporary source of interest and is not notable in the context of this article. There's no reason to mention it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

But that's the case for any number of notable historical figures of great and little importance. Anne of Cleves, Cicero, Ragnar Lothbrok etc. I know WP:OSE but cultural depictions are significant. indeed it's probably significant that this is the only major cultural depiction of Aethelstan.Heliotom (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a case for including popular depictions when we have a good-quality source that describes the depiction as relevant. I could imagine a situation in which a particularly famous fictionalization of a historical character has enough impact on the popular imagination of that character that a historian addresses it. In this case I think the depiction is only of temporary notability and is of no interest to people who are looking for information about the historical figure, since it doesn't contain any information about Æthelwulf that is both accurate and not in this article. It adds nothing, in other words. The interest is much more likely to flow the other way -- if you're watching the show, you may well want to know about the historical figures it depicts, so a link from there to here makes sense.

By the way, if you're not familiar with WP:3RR, please take a look; you've reverted more than three times in the last twenty-four hours. That rule is intended to stop edit wars. A better way to stop edit wars is to follow WP:BRD -- you made the edit, and got reverted, and now we're discussing it. Until there's a consensus on the talk page for the change you're proposing, we should leave the text as it was. Let's just wait; others may come along to comment and we can see what they think. I'm going to revert your addition again -- please don't put it back without consensus. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. But there are extensive examples of articles about historical figures where significantly more minor cultural depictions are listed. When figures from history are given significant representation in modern culture I think that should be reflected - it only serves to emphasise their notability.Heliotom (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Those sections usually don't survive quality review processes, though. I'd be surprised if you can find a historical biography that's a featured article that has a section on popular culture representations that is sourced to the TV show or film itself, rather to a secondary discussion (though some old featured articles may have had sections like that added since they were promoted). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Featured articles are a bit of a curse on themselves, as they tend to mummify content, and get just a dessicated as a result. There's a tendency for stewardship at best to ownership at worst (I'm talking in broad terms here, it's not a specific criticism of this article, you or Dudley) . The result is the effective crystallisation of the articles at a point of existence, something that stifles the addition of further content and context for the subject as not being in the featured articles already. A lot of wikipedia grows from slightly imperfect seeds, but if they're vigorously weeded out it never gets the chance.

That's a trumph of mixed metaphors isn't it.Heliotom (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Not moved. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)