Talk:Edith the Fair

Untitled

I do not know which link caused the above article to be dinged by the spam filter...

I don't know if it was because these are primarily genealogical sites but as I was looking for specific information that I have read or seen in British history documentaries and Googled these points, these sites above were the easiest/quickest/most succinct way of stating these facts.

I was just trying to "expand the stub" as was suggested... Floracalifornia 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: I just removed the links. Let me know if I have to find "different" links that state the same information. Thanks. Floracalifornia 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this is really very speculative, and it seems cobbled together from different accounts, some of them rather late. The story of Ealdgyth's identification of Harold is taken from the Waltham Chronicle, written a good century after the events it describes. Note that both the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy of Amiens (c. 1068) and the Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers (c. 1075) claim that Harold was buried not at Waltham, but under a cairn by the coast (and this from Norman apologists!). The Waltham story is dubious - if Harold was moved to the Abbey, it was probably after William's lifetime. 131.111.220.6 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1025 – 1086: but we don't know what happened to Edith after the Battle of Hastings, do we? In particular, I wonder why the date of her death is given as 1086? Is this a reference to her supposed landholdings in the Domesday Book (1086)? In which case, it might be worth bearing in mind that Domesday recorded land ownership as it was in the reign of King Edward (pre-1066). I don't think we really have any evidence for her birth or death dates except in as far as they coincide with Harold's (but correct me if I'm wrong). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.245.38 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps her death date is less controversially 1066 x 1086? However, is there any evidence that she died before 1086? She may have still been living when her estates passed to Count Alan Rufus - he's thought by Keats-Rohan and others to have acquired them fairly soon after Hastings. For all we know, he may have obtained them by marrying her! In that case, Gunnhilda would have been his step-daughter, an excellent reason for her staying with his family. Anselm cited Gunnhilda's correspondence as evidence that she and Alan loved each other - a strange love unless there were some good reason for it - and he seems to have misconstrued the nature of their affection, for he later removed his own copies of his letters on the subject from his archive. Zoetropo (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ealdgyth of Mercia

Ealdgyth of Mercia redirects here, but this is wrong. They were two different people. TharkunColl (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Page name

Before changing the name again, there are some issues that need addressed/resolved. First, do we use Anglo-Saxon or modern English forms for the first name. The trend has been toward that former, but an argument can be made, particularly given the different historical forms that are used, that Edith is most appropriate. Then there is the nickname. While Swannesha may be used occasionally, it does not show up in Google Books at all, while a Google search turns up 50, vs several hundred fro Edith Swanneck and over a thousand for Swan Neck/Swan-neck. While the latter forms may be historically incorrect, they are the forms overwhelmingly preferred when referring to this woman. Finally, it is incongruous to use an English name with an Anglo-Saxon nickname: the two should to be consistent. Agricolae (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I vote we use her Anglo-Saxon form.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

On another matter, although Harold's wife Ealdgyth "Swanessha" and Eadgifu the Fair have been equated by several persons of note, it's not certain that they are the same person. Isn't it wiser to have separate pages on them, and connect them by hyperlinks? Both names are distinct and frequently occurring among the nobility of the time. Recall the long-persistent confusion between Count Alan Rufus and his first cousin Duke Alan Fergant.

We can say of Eadgifu the Fair that she was also known as Eadgifu the Rich, and that she is called Countess Eadgifu in the Domesday entry for her propertyat Burgh in Suffolk (which she held during the reign of King Edward the Confessor), so she was almost certainly either the wife of an Anglo-Saxon Earl who held his title in January 1066 - this yields several possibilities - or the daughter and heiress of a former Earl and held the title in her own name - which would require us to find an otherwise unattested Earldom for her, unless she were a continental countess who had (or had adopted) an English name, as Emma of Normandy (Queen Aelfgifu II of England) had. So far as I reckon it, these are the only conceivable possibilities. That she held so much land in Cambridgeshire ad East Anglia suggests she was a wife either of Harold Godwinson (Earl of Wessex 1053-1066 and former Earl of East Anglia 1044/45-1051 and 1052-53) or of Earl Gyrth (Earl of East Anglia, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire 1055/1057-1066). (I don't have a source that identifies Gyrth's wife's name, has someone? For that matter, what was Earl Aelfgar's wife's name?) Zoetropo (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Connection to HM Queen Elizabeth II

The following passage was originally in the article but was removed as " genealogical trivia." I think it should be in the main article. Any thoughts anybody?

"[one of Harold Godwinesson and Edith Swan-Neck's daughters, Gyda Haraldsdatter, (also known as Gytha of Wessex), was addressed as "princess" and was married to the Grand Duke Of Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh.] Phillippa of Hainault, the consort of Edward III, was a direct descendant of Vladimir and Gyda, and thus ironically Harold’s blood line re-entered the English royal line. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the 29th great-granddaughter of Harold and Edith Swan-Neck."

Rickedmo (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Where to start? 1) Isabelle of France, Philippa's mother-in-law also descended from Gytha. 2) It is no more noteworthy that Elizabeth II descends from this line than it is that Elizabeth I did, or George I or George III or George V. 3) Elizabeth II is also Edith's 28th great-granddaughter and 30th great-granddaughter, etc. 4) Irony is in the eye of the beholder. One Wikipedia editor's irony is another's trivia. That is why what some editor finds curious is not the standard for inclusion in an article. 5) Where is the irony in the reigning monarch descending from the mistress of an earlier king? On Harold's page, that's a discussion more worth having, but not on Edith's. Agricolae (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is not an aide-memoire for historical scholars, but a reference source for those seeking information. You may consider it genealoical trivia but I had no idea that Isabelle of France or the others were also descended from Harold via Gytha. That is the purpose of including such information to help poor ignorant folk like me. I agree that text should not be included for the sake of irony but because it is useful information, although if it is included for being useful, then reference to irony doesn't strike me as being out of place. Having said that, the information may be better placed on Harold's article as you suggest. There is a section in that article "Legacy and legend" that partly covers this and other descendants. Thanks for your thoughts. Rickedmo (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edith the Fair -v- Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar

Edith the Fair is variously termed "unwed consort", "common-law wife" and party to a more danico or Danish type civil handfast marriage. Is life 900 years ago being viewed through 21st century eyes? Harold and Edith were together for 20 years and they had six children, none of which were considered illegitimate by the attitudes of the time. Did society consider them properly married and that was that? It may well be that the church did not recognise the marriage but was that significant at the time?

Harold married Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar, in January 1066, in an apparent strategic alliance. Edith the Fair was still on the scene (she recognised Harold's body at Hastings). Is that just how it was in those days? It would be interesting to understand. Rickedmo (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edith the Fair's ancestry?

It would be interesting to know who Edith the Fair's parents were. Evidently of high rank in the Kingdom of England for Edith "the Rich" to own so many properties during the reign of King Edward the Confessor. Perhaps Harold married her for the same reason that he wed his second wife - a political alliance that was strategic at the time? In that case, it's interesting that he discarded her so soon after Edward's death. Was she a relative of that King (who reigned 1042-1066)? Edith's landholding is similar in extent to that of a (to me) obscure male relative of King Edward whose name eludes me presently. Edward's mother Emma of Normandy assumed the English name Ælfgifu, so it's possible that Edith's English name conceals a part-Norman ancestry. It seems mighty peculiar that Count Alan Rufus of Brittany received most of Edith's properties, and evidently from an early date: usually the lands of Anglo-Saxons were distributed widely among King William's retinue. That would appear less strange were Edith related somehow to Alan, as would be the case if she were kin to Edward the Confessor who was a first cousin to Alan's father Odo of Penthievre (and also to Wiliam's father Duke Robert of Normandy). This would also provide an innocent explanation for why Alan took Edith's daughter Gunnhild under his wing, and would clarify why, after further consideration of the facts, Anselm decided to remove from his personal archive his own copies of the two, harshly worded, letters he wrote to Gunnhild accusing her of being Alan's lover and threatening dire, worldly as well as spiritual, consequences for all concerned if she remained with his younger brother Alan Niger. Was Anselm complicit in their premature deaths, and struck by guilt or the fear of discovery when he realised his egregious error? Zoetropo (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

King Cnut and Emma of Normandy had a daughter named Gunhilda of Denmark, also a first cousin of Alan's and William's fathers, as of course were was her brother Harthacnut and Edward's brother Alfred Ætheling. One wonders therefore whether Edith's daughter was named after Harold Godwinson's sister or Edward the Confessor's half-sister, or both? Zoetropo (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The name Gunhilda (or Gunhildr) occurred frequently in other families too, such as that of Gospatric the Earl of Northumbria. After this Gospatric's exile in 1072, Count Alan retained in favour a tenant named Gospatric. Intriguingly, the former Earl's family in subsequent generations used the name "Alan" for their eldest son. Zoetropo (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Edith the Fair's marriage to Harold Godwinson

I've taken the liberty of adding a note about the different types of marriages of that time. I admit I'm not entirely sure whether it should be here, or whether is should actually appear on Harold Godwinson's article, or appear at all. I would welcome any views and any help in improving it. Part of the issue is that the note is unreferenced, but that's part of the point (albeit a weak one) in that the note is commenting on the fact there is no references. Hmm. On the whole, I feel the note serves a useful purpose. Rickedmo (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Preferred Anglo-Saxon form

I note that both Searle and Freeman call our subject her Eadgyth, rather than Ealdgyth. Is there a more recent source that prefers the latter form, or is there some confusion here between Harold's wife and his 'wife'? What form(s) is/are used by the Norman chroniclers? Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Ealdgyth" is pronounced "Ealdgydh" ("th" as in "the"). The Normans called her "Edeva" in Latin; I don't know how they gallicised her name when speaking. Zoetropo (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Obscure illustrations

As pointed out by Ealdgyth and me, this is not a representative image of the subject. It is never encountered in modern academic works specializing in the subject. MOS:LEADIMAGE is very clear in saying that the lead image should be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Obscure 19th-century doodles are not something that's found in high-quality reference works. The inclusion of such illustrations diminishes the credibility of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna here. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So... what illustrations do high-quality reference works use of Edith? In fact, the guideline says type, not the actual illustrations. As it turns out, this illustration is from a history book, albeit an older one. It's hardly an "obscure 19th-century doodle". StAnselm (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

They do not use any. An image is not required, and no image is better than having an image for the image's sake. That is, after all, what MOS:LEADIMAGE explicitly states. Yes, the guideline says "type", and this is not the type; as I said, modern academic works do not reproduce heavily romanticised illustrations made almost two centuries ago. We have already gone through this with the papal biographies, where the consensus was that such images are, in the words of one user, "worthless from every conceivable angle". Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion on papal images, it appears that is a very different situation. There the issue was that the pictures were interchangeable, and therefore meaningless. Here it certainly isn't: the image is significant in that it depicts a unique attribute of Edith: namely, her association with the death of Harold. Even if the story isn't true, that is how she has been portrayed for a long time, and the illustration is evidence of that. StAnselm (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The main issue there, just like here, is that the disputed images are not used in high-quality reference works. The same is true for that silly portrait of Judith of Flanders. Such illustrations belong not in the lead but in a "Legacy" section, if any, because they are not found in the reliable sources on which the article as a whole relies. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You're still misreading MOS:LEADIMAGE - it's the type, not the actual illustrations. Nevertheless, I would be willing to accept restoration of the image to the body of the article as a compromise. StAnselm (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And I am still saying that heavily romanticised 19th-century illustrations are not the type of images used in high-quality reference works. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's the perfect spot for the image, StAnselm. It illustrates the section very well. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

They don't, as Surtsicna says. I double checked my biographies of Harold (as far as I know, there is no biography of Edith) and they do not depict her at all. Likely, there is no reasonably contemporary depiction. The ODNB entry for Eadgifu the Rich, which is likely this same woman, does not list any likeness. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2021

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: not moved (non-admin closure) Bada Kaji (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Edith the Fair → Edith Swanneck – Per WP:COMMONNAME. It is possible that this name was originally based on a misunderstanding, but that does not prevent us from using it, otherwise we could not have an article on e.g. Æthelred the Unready. PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Heinrich Heine's poem on the Battle of Hastings describes her as "Swan-necked Edith", the exact form varies, but most sources do describe her as something to do with a swan. I can only see one source which describes her as "Edith the Fair", something from 2015. PatGallacher (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no evidence presented that "Edith Swanneck" is more common. There are lots of alternate names, of course, and I see quite a number of results for Eddeva the Fair. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2021 (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.

Edith the Fair / Edith Swan-neck - Year of death?

Is there a general consensus as to Edith's presumed year of death? Some sources state 1066, others 1086. Which, if either, is more likely to be correct? Manchester Warrior (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Domesday Book records that she held land in 1066, so she was alive then, but not recorded afterwards. 1086 is just the date of Domesday Book. This is a very poor article. The Dictionary of National Biography article about her is as a leading magnate and gives the impression that the story that she was Harold's wife or mistress is based on weak evidence. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)