This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of royalty and nobility on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Royalty and NobilityWikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityTemplate:WikiProject Royalty and NobilityRoyalty and Nobility articles
Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.
I have made several changes that need more than an edit summary to describe. First, t is not clear to me that any of the proposers of the genealogical descent actually think that Harold had a hereditary claim. I don't see Anscombe nor Barlow suggesting it (although I could be overlooking it). I realize this is setting up the refutation of hereditary right in the next section, but we need someone to have been explicit to say that they claim Harold had a hereditary right to the throne, as opposed to simply having a descent. If anyone knows of a clear statement, then please return this phrasing with a cite. Next, it was set up to make Anscombe equate Ælfmær with Æthelmær and then have Williams (vie Grill) indicate the two names were distinct. However, neither the will (Ælmære)[1] nor Ascombe (Ælmær) use the name Ælfmær at all. I tried rephrasing it to better reflect this, but I do not have access to Grill to know if I have broken something. Third, by only reporting the suggested land inheritance, it made it appear as if the theory rested on this alone, and not the other two reasons Anscombe and his successors have given for connecting Wulfnoth with Æthelmær (Cild and John of Worcester). I have tried to fit these in. Fourth, I removed Frank Barlow's reference to Lundie Barlow giving a line through Wulfnoth's mother - if this correctly characterizes what Frank said, then he was incorrectly characterizing what Lundie proposed, "Thus is established the succession: Egbert-Aethelwulf-Aethelred-Aethelhelm-Aethelfrith-Eadric-Aethelweard-Aethelmear-Wulfnoth-Godwine" (L. Barlow, p. 37), an entirely male-line descent. Better to leave it out. Agricolae (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. I agree with removing the suggestion that the proposers claimed that Harold had a hereditary claim. I think it probably was in their mind, but never spelled out. 2. I am doubtful about your treatment of Ælmær/Ælfmær. Both EHD, as quoted by Grills, and PASE in the cited entry, have Æthelstan leaving Hambleden to Ælfmær immediately before the bequest to Godwin. PASE describes him as Æthelstan's discthegn, but that is not in Grills or EHD so far as I know. Grills seems to have taken the spelling in EHD and wrongly attributed it to Anscombe (or assumed that the difference was insignificant). 3. I do not have access to Lundie Barlow, but Frank implies that descent through Wulfnoth's mother was a subsidiary suggestion to explain the mutation of the family name from Æthel- to Wulf and Godwin. He may have said it somewhere, but it is not significant. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re Ælmær/Ælfmær, PASE has the will giving Ælfmær, but this likely comes from Whitelock's treatment. I don't have access to EHD right now, but her Anglo-Saxon Wills (pp. 58-59 - from 1930, so post-Anscombe) shows the will using Ælmære that she then represents as Ælfmær int he translation. Anscombe does not specify his source, but appears to be going from Thorpe (Diplomatarium Anglicum Aevi Saxonici, 1:560), which likewise gives the will as having Ælmære, but he translates it as Ælmær as used by Anscombe, who briefly describes his interpretation of this as resulting from Æthelmær having lost its second syllable (via the intermediate Agelmær). Grills seems to be (perhaps unintentionally if he is going from Whitelock's translation) setting up a strawman in saying that Anscombe's argument is flawed because Ælfmær is distinct from Æthelmær. We definitely should not beg the question by saying that Anscombe identified Æthelmær with "Ælfmær" of the will. As to Ælfmær being the discthegn, I took this from PASE, just so as to have something to say about this Ælfmær who is distinct from Æthelmær, other than just his name.
As to Barlow/Barlow, I now find it - it is a sort of throwaway in a footnote, but it is used to dismiss Anscombe's cild argument and not the Æthel- vs. Wulf- naming: "Anscombe's conjecture that the designation of Wulfnoth as cild meant that he was the youngest son, and thereby heir to his mother's lands by the custom of Borough English, is untenable. It has raised a question, however, as to whether Wulfnoth's royal descent was not through his mother, instead of his father, if he inherited Compton from her. The term is little understood . . . ." To me, this suggestion seems to be used in a somewhat rhetorical nature - if cild is interpreted this way, then this would be the consequence - rather than putting it forward as a serious alternative. It is Frank who redeploys this to the naming question, it would seem. I think if we are to include Frank's mention of this, it needs to be explicit that this is not the main thrust of Lundie, just an offhand alternative, which was not the impression given. Agricolae (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"He supports this relationship with the apparent use of the epithet Cild by both Æthelmær and Wulfnoth, suggesting that it refers to a specific form of landholding inherited by one from the other," I am not clear what you are saying here. What does "apparent use" refer to? Presumably the epithet would have been for rather than by Æthelmær and Wulfnoth? Is there any evidence that Æthelmær the Stout was known as Æthelmær Cild? How could cild refer to a specific form of landholding inherited by one from the other?
"Though the Worcester chronicler gives his Agelmær a different father than the known father of Ealdorman Æthelmær and the descent also involves problematic chronology, Anscombe is willing to accept that this flawed pedigree retains the memory of a factual father-son relationship between Æthelmær the Stout and Wulfnoth Cild." As the only reference given is to Anscombe, "problematic chronology" and "flawed pedigree" are OR and POV. How about "Although the Worcester chronicler gives Agelmær a different father than the known father of Ealdorman Æthelmær, Anscombe identifies Agelmær with Æthelmær the Stout and argues that the pedigree retains the memory of a father-son relationship between Æthelmær the Stout and Wulfnoth Cild." Dudley Miles (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grills: not having access, I don't know if he has anything of special value outside of this Ælmær/Æthelmær/Ælfmær confusion to be worth retaining. It may be worth pointing out that scholarly consensus does not identify the person in the will with Æthelmær the Stout, but I don't know of any other source that specifically addresses the question.
I do not think it is necessary to point out the scholarly consensus. It is pointed out below that the theory is dismissed by historians, and the article makes clear that Anscombe strains to establish the identification. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'For' is probably better than 'by'. 'Apparent' because he was not entirely certain the person called 'Æthelmær cild' is actually identical to Æthelmær the Stout. How could they inherit the type of landholding? - that was my best attempt at summarizing a vague argument, that we have a Wulfnoth cild, we have a Æthelmær cild, 'cild' (he argues) represents a specific type of land inheritance, from other evidence we have reason to view a Wulfnoth as son of an Æthelmær, so the fact that the prospective father and the prospective son may both have been called by this epithet indicative of the alternative inheritance is further support for a father-son link between the two, that it is some sort of marker of their inheritance that passed from one to the other. I struggled over the wording of this summary, in part because I didn't find Anscombe all that clear on what exactly he was suggesting. Lundie Barlow seemed not quite sure what to make of it either, as we discussed elsewhere, and Kelley at least mentioned it, though my memory of his paper is vague. Maybe just say that Anscombe highlighted that they both may have been referred to with the epithet 'cild' and not try to explain it further.
I would not even mention cild. A text search in PASE on cild gives 108 hits, so there were clearly plenty of other ones. Either we point out that the cild connection is weak evidence, which would be OR, or leave the impression that the connection is stronger evidence than it is. I would delete "with the apparent use of the epithet Cild by both Æthelmær and Wulfnoth, suggesting that it refers to a specific form of landholding inherited by one from the other,[16] and" Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced it should be left out completely, as it was a significant part of Anscombe's argument that I think Kelley also mentioned. And we do have Lundie Barlow dismissing it out of hand as a source for it not being convincing. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mention cild and Lundie Barlow's dismissal. I would not mention land inheritance as it would only confuse readers to refer to a vague idea which no one understands. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anscombe himself points out the problematic chronology, using a table to show that it would have Edward the C marrying the great-grandniece of his brother-in-law and concluding that it can't be correct, as recorded. He also specifically notes that the pedigree gives the wrong father to the man who would be Æthelmær the Stout, but suggests that John of Worcester knew that Wulfnoth was son of Æthelmær the Stout, and mistakenly identified the latter with Streona's brother, 'Agelmær'. He dismisses both problems with the whole 'it is wrong as it stands but it preserves a true bit of information, that Wulfnoth was son of an Æthelmær'. (His scholarly disciples have also specifically addressed the chronological and 'wrong-father' aspects of the Worcester pedigree, giving different explanations than Anscombe for why they needn't be viewed as fatal.) So neither OR nor POV to point out these problems with John of Worcester's pedigree. That being said, I may not have chosen the best way to express that Anscombe noted both these problems with the Worcester pedigree, but in spite of the identified flaws thought the pedigree provided useful evidence of Wulfnoth being son of an Æthelmær. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Though the Worcester chronicler gives his Agelmær a different father from the known father of Ealdorman Æthelmær, and Anscombe points out the chronological problems described above, he argues that the flawed pedigree retains the memory of a father-son relationship between Æthelmær the Stout and Wulfnoth Cild."
