Talk:Edward the Martyr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Saint?

Why was he a Saint, what religious qulifications did he have or what good did he perform or bring about? These are unanswered questions.

Attributing saintly virtues to murdered kings (or just about any christian, for that matter) was practically a medieval pastime. Michael Wood in 'In Search of the Dark Ages' givs an alternate image of King Edward, suggesting he was 'violent, unstable and quick-tempered, sybaritic, petulent, and quick to make enemies'. Given the character of most medieval leaders and teenagers, I'm inclined to think this may be the more realistic view. 91.109.187.182 19:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two Edwards

St Edward redirects here. Was Edward the Confessor also canonised? fr: seems to believe he was-- fr:Édouard le Confesseur "et le fait d'être ensuite sanctifié". Marnanel 00:47, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Edward the Confessor was canonized in 1161. -Nunh-huh 00:55, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quote

Under the section: "Motive and details of his murder" there is a quote: "King Edward, 'was a young man...'" that lacks any sort of attribution. I assume that since it is contained in quotation marks and is an opinionated statement that it is meant to inform the reader of a notable individual's opinion. Without a source for the quotation, however, it becomes difficult to judge what it is supposed to represent. -Chris 02:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remains

Why in the world were his remains deposited with an Orthodox church? Or was the finder Orthodox? --Michael K. Smith 19:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that his remains are with the church? It is often said (even by serious historians) that his relics are kept in a vault in the Midland Bank in Croydon because of an unresolved dispute about which of two churches should have them. Richard75 19:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This was resolved but was true at one point. -- SECisek 05:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Parish of St Edward Athelhampton Dorset

Some additional information for consideration:

In 1997, the former Anglican parish church of St Andrew, Athelhampton, near Dorchester,Dorset (south-western England) with the generous cooperation of the proprietor of Athelhampton House and Estate (Mr. Patrick Cooke), was re-dedicated to St. Edward, King and Martyr,for use by a newly-founded Antiochian Orthodox community.The congregation, coming from a wide area of Dorset (and even beyond the borders of Devon, Somerset and Hampshire)has continued to worship at St Edward's Church since then, and in September 2006 celebrated its forthcoming 10th anniversary. During that 10-year period there have been three parish priests: the first, and founder of the parish, Father John Colin Nield served until his death in 2001; he was succeeded by Fr. Chrysostom MacDonnell who served from 2001 until the end of 2005 when he became parish priest of the newly-re-dedicated St Dunstan of Canterbury Church (formerly St Osmund's C. of E.) in Parkstone, a suburb of Poole, Dorset; immediately following Fr. Chrysostom's new appointment, Fr. Deacon David Harris, who until three years beforehand had been a Reader in St Edward's, was ordained priest by Bishop Kallistos Ware (standing in for Metropolitan Gabriel, Bishop of the Antiochian Diocese of Western and Central Europe, who resides in Paris, France, and is elderly and was unwell at the time) and continues to serve the community today. Each of these three priests has been a native English speaker, and indeed each was formerly an Anglican priest. St Edward, King and Martyr is the Patron Saint of this church and community and his gloriously-painted icon has a prominent place close to the iconostasis.The Divine Liturgy is served in English each Sunday at 10 a.m. throughout the year. Additional services are also held according to the church season. The present parish priest and his wife, Lesley, live in Fordingbridge, Hampshire. Contact details are available from the Antiochian Orthodox Deanery website at this address:www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk/diocese.

Geoffbh 14:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of the statue claimed to be of Edward the Martyr but I belive it may be the Confessor. Thoughts? -- SECisek 23:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Statue was clearly the Confessor. We need a good Public Domain image of Edward! -- SECisek 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Hey guys. It's been made apparent that I ought not GA review articles that I'm not expert in, but here are comments which the layman may pick up in terms of readability, sourcing, manual of style etc. Hope they help.

• "Edward the Martyr or Eadweard II (c. 962 – March 18, 978) was king of England from the death of his father King Edgar in 975." - not keen on the opening sentence, perhaps say he was king from x until his own death in y. Introduce his father subsequently.
• Flow the next two sentences together, they are related.
• I'm now tending to avoid citations in the lead. Since the lead shouldn't have anything in that isn't covered and expanded upon in the main body, it's a good idea to leave the lead free of such. Besides you have [1] in two places there, and nothing for the last sentence so it's a bit weird.
• British English if you please! "recognised" instead of the z version, behavior has a u, etc.
• "...it may be..." - a little ethereal, perhaps "...sources indicate..." and cite them?
• Citation for birth place etc?
  • Eh? They don't know where he was born...
• "...refoundation charter..." - which is? (Non expert warning!)
• "In this, the infant Edmund is described as "legitimus clito", that is legitimate ætheling (member of the royal family), while Edward is merely "clito", ætheling, and appears after Edmund in the witness-list. " - this is hard work for non-expert readers. What's a witness-list? Not sure of the grammar here either!
• "Edward's claim, however, was supported by Archbishop of Canterbury St Dunstan, and Archbishop of York Oswald of Worcester. Other supporters included ealdormen Ælfwine and Byrhtnoth." - uncited, and pray tell, what is an "ealdorman"? (Non expert warning!)
• Explain "Witan" or link it.
• "...great famine was raging through the land and violent attacks were stirred up against monasteries by prominent Mercian noblemen, led by Ælfhere, who coveted the lands which his father King Edgar had endowed to them." - plenty of point-of-view here (raging, stirred up, coveted the lands) - be careful.
• "...fragrance issued from it[10]" - place citation appropriately per WP:CITE.
• "...void desecration.[10]>" - spare >?
• Last para of "Since the Reformation" is citation-less.

I hope that some of the comments help, it's an enjoyable article. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man 17:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who told you not to do GA Reviews in subject that you're not an expert in... if that were true, GA Reviews would never get done. Reviewing an article is about how it conforms to Wikipedia policies, no prior knowledge is required. Having said that, thanks for pointing out all that stuff, should make my review easier! Cheers, CP 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A well written article, and the above reviewer caught most of things that I would have commented on myself. I have just a few small issues before I can promote this article to GA status:

1. The lead should contain just a smidgen more detail - perhaps on his lineage, perhaps on his miracles/relics, just something to slightly beef up the lead a bit. It's hard to put my finger on exactly what needs to be added, but given the amount of details and facts in the body of the article, one or two more important ones (perhaps why he is known as "the Martyr") should be included.
2. A few statements require citations, although if any of them were cited earlier, just point out where (to me, on this talk page) and that will be fine:
3. :"This took place on February 13, 980." (Legacy)
4. :"On the way from Wareham to Shaftesbury, a further miracle had also taken place; two crippled men were brought close to the bier and those carrying it lowered the body to their level, where upon the cripples were immediately restored to full health. This procession and these events were re-enacted 1000 years later in 1981. Many other miracles are said to have been obtained through his intercession. Elfrida, struck with repentance for her crimes, built the two monasteries of Wherwell and Ambresbury, in the first of which she ended her days in penance." (Legacy)
5. :"Edward is recognized as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. His feast day is celebrated on March 18, the day of his murder." (Since the Reformation)
6. This sentence needs to be split in two or reformatted somehow, because it's fairly confusing in its current state: "The violence of Edward's end, joined to the fact that the party opposed to him had been that of the irreligious, whilst he himself had ever acted as defender of the Church, obtained for him the title of martyr, which is given to him in all the old English calendars on 18 March, also in the Roman Martyrology."

Also, not mandatory for a GA pass, but you should clean up the citations so that they read on one line, instead of long vertical columns, to make editing easier. Anyhow, to allow for these minor changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Cheers, CP 18:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

I have a few thoughts on the article. Given that GA is not FA, I don't see that these should prevent it being passed as a Good Article, but they are things that should be resolved eventually. Take this as a stream-of-consciousness effort, as much for my benefit as anyone else's.

• Life: The current treatment of the Anti-Monastic reaction is rather too black and white. It did not oppose pro- and anti-reform factions, but rather saw the magnates (Edward's, Dunstan's and "God's friend" ealdorman Ælfwine among them) helping themselves to monastic properties. Edward did the same on at least one occasion (see S 937). Eric John's Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England is supposed to be good on this. I haven't seen it myself, but I might be able to pop over to Edinburgh next week and skim through the NLS's copy.
• Death: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entries recording E's death do not say who killed him and some do not say how he died. The earliest source to name the killers as servants - but of Æthelred and not Queen Ælfthryth - is, so far as I can tell, Byrhtferth's Life of Oswald, probably written in the late 10th century (see here for an excerpt from the Life). The Anglo-Saxons.net comments on the reports killing and on Edward are worth reading. Among the earliest sources naming Ælfthryth as being behind the killing are Adam of Bremen and William of Malmesbury. Frank Stenton apparently says: "There is nothing to support the allegation ... that Queen Ælfthryth had plotted her stepson's death."
• Death again: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle versions (DEF) which report Edward's death most fully use exceptional language. Paraphrasing (translations are beyond me) the main points of Ms. D, s.a. 979, it says: "Here Edward the king was killed at Corfe, in the evening, on XV kal. April, & they buried him at Wareham, without kingly honour. No worse deed than this was done by the English since they first came to Britain. Men cast him down, God raised him up. He was in life an earthly king, now in death he is a heavenly saint. ..." Ms. C, s.a. 978 is shorter and to the point: "In this year King Edward was martyred". We should try to give a sense of these things, because they are unusual.
• Hagiography: The Life of Oswald may contain information on miracles attributed to Edward near to the time of his death, witnessed by future Archbishop Ælfric of Abingdon (see here).
• Cult: his half-brother and Cnut both ordered that E's feast should be celebrated.
• Burning: the idea that Edward's body was burned is not a later invention. It appears in Wulfstan's Sermo Lupi ad Anglos: "And a very great betrayal of a lord it is also in the world, that a man betray his lord to death, or drive him living from the land, and both have come to pass in this land: Edward was betrayed, and then killed, and after that burned; and Æthelred was driven out of his land."
• Hagiography again: The Passio Sancti Eadwardi and the Miracula Sancti Eadwardi are in Christine Fell's Edward, King and Martyr. The National Library has that too.

That seems to be all I can think of for now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what is it they say about the prospect of being hanged? If only I didn't keep losing the plot half way through Fisher & Ridyard's comments. I'm not sure the anti-monastic reaction really makes sense, and this is all, but that in particular, rather lacking in context. The good old PASE was down quite a bit lately, so I haven't had a look at that. As far as the modern stuff goes, and the strange tale of the relics, that's been left alone. There are places where this wanders back and forth, so some proof-reading is probably needed to find the offending passages. I think the Ætheling and Disputed succession sections are the worst. I'll try to fix them, but fresh eyes would be good. And three cheers for Ealdgyth, expert on all things English and ecclesiastical! Still a long way from being what it could be though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

FA

If you want start on these changes and guide it to FA go for it. I don't do FA articles as I have found the process to be a waste of my time. I find it better to improve a stub or cite a B article to GA. I am handing off Edward and moving on. -- SECisek 05:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Edward the Martyr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Edward the Martyr has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Article fails on inaccuracy and bias

Edward was thirteen when he became king in 975 and sixteen when he was murdered, and his reign was marked by conflict between his supporters and those of his younger half brother and successor, Ethelred. A principal cause was Edward's (or his clerical advisers') policy of giving large land holdings to monasteries at the expense of the nobility, and as the article on Ethelred points out, since history was then written in monasteries, there is an inevitable bias in the sources in favour of Edward. The article on Edward almost wholly adopts the view of his supporters, and indeed seems to be partly based on Orthodox and Catholic web sites justifying Edward's designation as a saint, such as [1] The article even uncritically repeats accounts of miracles such as a blind woman miraculously recovering her sight so that she could discover Edward's body.

The article's descriptions of Edward's holy character seem to be based on these religious sources, such as an article in an American Orthodox publication quoting Theodoric Paulus. I have been unable to find anything about who Theodoric was and when and where he lived, and Googling him only finds this quote from him. It is contradicted by the description of Edward (quoted from the article on Ethelred but also cited in the article on Edward) of Edward's "intolerable violence of speech and behaviour".

A prime example of bias is the description of Edward's opponents as "irreligious", a prejudicial comment which has no place in a Wikipedia article, and hardly compatible with the fact, as stated in the article, that the opponents included Saint Ethelwold, Bishop of Winchester and a leader of the monastic reform movement.

There are major contradictions between this article and the one on Ethelred. For example, the article on Edward states that Ethelred's mother was present at his murder and probably murdered him herself, whereas the one on Ethelred states that there is no evidence to support the allegation, which first appeared in print a century later, although it was carried out by members of her household.

This is the poorest Wikipedia article on an English King I remember reading, and certainly does not deserve designation as a 'Good Article'.

Dudleymiles (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's any poorer than Eadwig's is, or Eadred's was before Cavila started working on it. But that's not really the issue. We have started work on expanding and improving the dull historical aspects of the article. Some of the hagiography will need redoing as well. However, I think we probably need rather more than a week. There have been some improvements so far, but obviously more is needed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I consulted with the original nominator, User:Dudleymiles, who is now content with the state of the article, so I'm closing the review. Lampman (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edwardstowe?

According to Knowles et al., Heads of Religious Houses, Edwardstowe was not Shaftesbury but Netley, and the Edward in question seems to have been the Confessor. Anyone have a source for Shaftesbury being Edwardstowe? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you check the Victoria County Histories? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

VCH for Hampshire concurs, as it's Netley. VCH history of Netley. I'd say those trump this which anyway only says that Shaftesbury became known as St. Edward's Borough, not Edwardstow. I'd dump it, as the actual source being used doesn't confirm it and two other scholarly sources give the name to another abbey altogether. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I keep forgetting about the VCH being online. Thanks for reminding me (again!). Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1