Talk:Æthelred the Unready

Marriages again

When (?and where) did Ethelered marry his respective wives? Why did his first marriage end (death; divorce)? How did he manage to snag a girl like Emma (i.e. what arrangements were made with Normandy)?Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Differentiated this "Marriages" section from the earlier one, so clicking on a link actually brings you here! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of marriages under Ethelred he is said to have had a daughter Aelfgifu who married Uchtred the Bold, yet under the Uchtred heading there is no mention of Aelfgifu only an Ecgfrida whom he put aside so he could marry Sige. Have no idea where else to put this question. So who did Uchtred the Bold marry? was it a daughter of Ethelred? Is this an incorrect entry?Strathbrook (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Strathbrook: This is very late, but I've lately been researching specifically that family for a project - my notes mention Uhtred's wife as being Aelfgifu, daughter of King Aethelred. I have found a source (secondary) as Kappell, William E. from his work The Norman Conquest of the North (1979). I am assuming he was working from a primary source or sources. Momspack4 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Momspack4

Unrǣd

"...because the present-day meaning of "unready" no longer resembles its ancient counterpart, this translation disguises the meaning of the Old English term."

It's a minor point, but unrǣd would be 'unrede'/'unredy' in Modern English, not 'unready'. The word rǣd(e), n. "counsel, advice", adj. "advised, decided", is etymologically distinct from rǣde, "ready, prepared", the former going back to Proto-Germanic *rēdaz/*rēdiz, "counsel"/"deciding", and the latter to *raidijaz, "arranged, prepared".

As mentioned earlier in the article, it's a mistranslation. Anglom (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the point. Most older writers either intentionally or unknowingly mistranslated the name, and it easily caught on. It helped ruin his reputation that his new title labeled him "unready" or "unfit" to rule. In the past this ambiguity may have been commonly understood and played with. But when nowadays someone sees "Unready" there is but one possible (though wrong) meaning. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This part of the article is extremely badly written. Looks to me like it is the result of some kind of high-school project or the like.

The epithet would seem to describe the poor quality of advice which Æthelred received throughout his reign, presumably from those around him, specifically from the royal council, known as the Witan. Though the nickname does not suggest anything particularly respectable about the king himself, its invective is not actually focused on the king but on those around him, who were expected to provide the young king with god ræd (i.e. good counsel). Unfortunately, historians - both medieval and modern - have taken less of an interest in what this epithet suggests about the king's advisers, and have instead focused on the image it creates of a blundering, misfit king.

This is unreferenced nonsense. All that needs to be pointed out is that "unrede" does not mean "unready" (as in "ill-prepared") but "bad counsel" or "folly". The "royal council" doesn't enter into it, the king is named, posthumously, for being "foolish". No evidence is shown that any historians have ("unfortunately" -- who writes like this?) misunderstood the epithet in the slightest. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't unrǣd in modern English be "unread" (as in uneducated, so not exactly the same meaning, and rather old-fashioned, but closer in meaning than "unready")? Iapetus (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No, "ill-advised" would be more like it – at a quick glance, the meaning is already explained (rather badly) in the article, and in the preceding comments in this section, above. Nortonius (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Where can I find the written (and translated) restoration laws?

That the nobles forced upon King Ethelred to support his return in 1014? I can't find them anywhere on the net. Seeing how constitutionally important they are, this surprises me. Solri89 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You could try the sources to the DNB article on Æthelred at [1]. You need a British public library card to access it. Whitelock's English Historical Documents is a possibility, but they are probably not on the web. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am almost certain that the following is the text of his agreement with his subjects.

In Christi nomine promitto haec tria populo Christiano mihi subdito. In primis, me praecepturum et operam pro viribus impensurum ut ecclesia Dei et omnis populus Christianus verum pacem nostro arbitrio in omni tempore servet; aliud ut rapacitates et omnes iniquitates omnibus gradibus interdicam; tertium ut in omnibus judiciis aequitatem et misericordiam praecipiam, ut mihi et vobis indulgeat Suam misericordiam clemens et misericors Deus. English Constitutional History from the Teutonic Conquest to the Present TimeThe Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development, Volume 1

This [2] source carries it in the following translation:

In the name of the Holy Trinity, three things do I promise to this Christian people my subjects: first, that God's Church and all the Christian people of my realm hold true peace; secondly, that I forbid all rapine and injustice to men of all conditions; thirdly, that I promise and enjoin justice and mercy in all judgments, that the just and merciful God of his everlasting mercy may forgive us all.

The terms of Ethelred's return certainly need to be expanded in the article. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the terms needs expanding but this oath is described in the source as Æthelred's coronation oath, not the one he swore in 1014. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added the passage in the Chronicle from Williams's biography. She implies that that is all there is. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This article links to the Corfe Castle article in the Early Life section.

That article starts its history after this and even the village article does not mention Ethelred. Aoeuus (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That the article links to the castle is surely wrong, I believe the most useful link would be to the village – which is also called Corfe Castle – confusing, but that's life! That the article for the village doesn't mention the subject of this article is no more than proof that there's no rush, i.e. Wikipedia isn't finished yet. You can help! Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Momspack4 thanks for your recent edits, but I am doubtful about some points. I do not think Elizabeth Norton is the best source. She appears to be mainly a Tudor specialist judging by the list of books she has written, whereas there are two first rate biographies of Æthelred by specialists on Anglo-Saxon England, Ann Williams and Levi Roach. The point that Ælfthryth acted as regent is a useful addition and is confirmed by Roach, but it is unclear whether she was sole regent - Roach also refers to "sometime regents (above all Æthelwold)" (p. 138). The statement that she rarely visited court afterwards is very dubious. She was banished after Æthelwold's death in 984 but she was restored to favour in 993 and brought up Æthelred's eldest son. Simon Keynes's analysis of Anglo-Saxon charters shows that she frequently attested them between 993 and her death c. 1001. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Thanks for your input. I think the nature of studying the Anglo-Saxon period is that there are varying primary sources, with spotty information, and each researcher has to put together his or her own picture of it in the end. I also have some issues withe Elizabeth Norton; however, even though she is a Tudor scholar, she has a special interest in Ælfthryth and has studied her life enough to write a full length biography. Like her, I am concerned that Ælfthryth's role is often underestimated by modern scholars who don't realize the power an Anglo-Saxon (pre-Norman) queen could have had. The idea that she stayed away for a decade is based upon both the fact that she drops off witness lists (from being listed directly behind the king) and from mentions of her being in residence at other places. You're right that she did appear again years later - although never in the political role she had formerly - and our text could be amended to reflect that. Also, I chose to list Elizabeth Norton as a source not only because she wrote a biography but because if one were to list individual primary sources, it would be quite cumbersome for an article, and her text is based upon those sources. I appreciate that you were working from biographies of Æthelred, but I would suggest that many bios of a male don't do thorough research into the women around him; it's a common problem. As a woman reading, I noted that the role of Ælfthryth, which was considerable, had been neglected. I believe, as you seem to, that she "ruled" in conjunction with the bishop while her son was still a child. If you study her behavior during the reign of her husband, you realize that she was intelligent, educated, politically savvy, and quite willing to insert herself. During Edgar's reign she witnessed many charters behind the king and acted as forespeca - as sort of legal advocate, between defendant and crown. There is no reason why she would have stood mildly by when given the chance to rule the country for her child. She also had a longtime friendly relationship with the bishop. So it's a logical conclusion for Norton and others to make that she was heavily involved as regent.

I have found two additional sources that speak about her as regent for Æthelred. Nick Higham speaks of it in The Death of Anglo Saxon England; also, Ryan Lavell speaks of it in his biography of Æthelred. If you would like I can add those in as sources as well. Let me know what you think. I see you have a real love of this subject, and like me, perhaps you feel a deep responsibility to these people who one thousand years away, can't speak for themselves. We need to get it right, and two heads are better than one. :) Momspack4 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Momspack

Momspack4 as I said I am happy with the addition that Ælfthryth acted as regent. My issues are 1. the citing of a non-specialist such as Norton as a source. If you have specialists such as Higham and Lavelle then you do not need Norton as well. 2. The statement that she rarely visited court after 984 is wrong. The attestations show that she did attend court, although as you say she attested lower down than before. It must be significant that she rather than Æthelred's wife was entrusted with bringing up his eldest son - and perhaps other sons - although we can only guess at the reason.

If Norton thinks that modern scholars don't understand the power of an Anglo-Saxon queen, then she has not read historians such as Pauline Stafford, who has written extensively about that very subject. She has shown that the status of kings' wives was much higher in Mercia than Wessex in the ninth and early tenth centuries, and Ælfthryth's high status is evidence that this was changing in Wessex in the later tenth century. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Dudley Miles I agree with all you've stated. I have amended the statement about her not returning, and I will recheck that, as well as amend the citations, within the next 48 hours. Thanks for all.

By the way, you pose such a fascinating question as to why Aelfgifu, Athelred's queen, wasn't raising her own child. However, as you know, fostering was common. But that would not have been with one's mother, one would think - that would be missing the point of it. I wonder if she was ill, or just didn't like mothering. Ha! The answer is lost in time... Momspack4 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Momspack4