Talk:Wiglaf of Mercia

Notes on recent edits

I merged the W section with an ancestry section; it seemed to me there was more than just the Wig- info to talk about. I have reffed what I put in that section; I think there's a bit more to add yet, too. I think Kirby has something about the Life of St. Wigstan claiming a connection between the B and W dynasties, for example. I also think some version of the family tree that Yorke has on p. 119 would be good; I'll try to do that, and also a map.

The section on the loss and regaining of the kingdom should be straightforward. I think it's also worth talking about Carolingian influence here, as with Eardwulf and Egbert; Kirby's theory about the withdrawal of Carolingian support from Egbert seems very supportable to me, and is obviously relevant to Wiglaf.Mike Christie (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Organization

I have to head out on some errands in a minute so this is just to capture some ideas on organization. I think the discussion of whether Wiglaf regained independence from Egbert will refer to almost everything else relevant -- charter evidence, chronicle entries, coinage, and so on. In order to avoid ending up with one big section, it might be better to change the sections to: "First reign and defeat by Wessex"; then "Second reign", making this not interpretive but listing what evidence is known (or perhaps taking the most common view, that Wiglaf did regain independence); then "Coinage" (this section could expand to include trade, laws, anything else that seems relevant); then "Foreign relations", which could include both a discussion of Carolingian influence and the theory that Wiglaf remained a client of Wessex's. Mike Christie (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems good. Keynes's view could be banished to a footnote, perhaps, or a parenthetical aside. A whole paragraph is probably rather much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What's left for FA

A to do list:

• Some more material from Campbell pp. 128 and 138-9; the charters aren't well described -- it's not clear in the text that the charter relating to Hanbury is the same as the one from Croft.
• How many charters survive? I can only find S 188 and S 190; are there more?
• See if I can expand on Blackburn and Grierson, maybe give more details about Mercian coinage.
• Expand the lead
• Go through and wikilink where needed
• Final copyedit

-- Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Welsh

Roger Davies left a hidden note against this: "Beorhtwulf, brought the Welsh back under Mercian control", commenting that it would be better to identify the Welsh kingdoms specifically. The Chronicle's entry for 853 says ([A] text): "Here Burhred, king of Mercia, and his councillors asked King Aethelwulf that he would help them to subject the Welsh. He then did so, and with the army went through Mercia into Wales, and they made them all subject to them." (Swanton, p. 64.) If there's a source that's more specific I agree it would be good to use it, but I don't know of one. Mike Christie (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a great deal in Charles-Edwards's article in Brown & Farr, a bit more Maund's The Welsh Kings. The short version is that Merfyn Frych's son Rhodri Mawr was probably set on taking over the kingdom of Powys at this time. Cyngen ap Cadell, king of Powys, the man who had the Pillar of Eliseg built, died in Rome (Hist. Brit., s.a. 854, probably 855 or 856). Why was he in Rome? "It is not certain that Rhodri took firm possession of Powys during the mid-ninth century, but..." there are no more kings of Powys named for a long time after Cyngen/Cynan. She assumes that Æthelwulf and Burgred were concerned by this and that Powys was the target in 853. She also says that Rhodri may have been a tough target for Vikings, who perhaps preferred Mercia, a softer target. Maund, Kari E., The Welsh Kings: Warriors, Warlords and Princes. Stroud: Tempus, 2000/2002/2006, pp. 46-54. Seems more relevant to other articles that to this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re. Powys, Charles-Edwards thinks it remained under Mercian control after 822, until when he does not say, Maund thinks differently. Given that C-E argues largely from the absence of annalistic evidence of a Mercian defeat, I think I prefer Maund's argument from the existence of the Pillar of Eliseg. Who can say? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Celtic Realms (Dillon & Chadwick) - the only thing I have readily to hand - talks of the Saxons "taking the region of Powys into their power" in 822. The destruction of Deganwy suggests a coastal raid in force rather than a full-scale invasion. But I think it's clear enough that it's talking of Powis rather than Wales as a whole. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 08:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf

There's a character named Wiglaf in Beowulf. What does this tell us either about Beowulf, or Wiglaf? See also Wægmunding, the clan to which Wiglaf and Beowulf belonged - a name rather like Wigmund. There's also a Weohstan (similar to Wystan/Wigstan), and an Ælfhere listed as members. Seems like the Mercian rulers quite liked Beowulf - so much that they named themselves after characters in it. TharkunColl 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There are oceans of books on the background to Beowulf. I have seen everything from written at the court of Aldfrith, through Mercian of different dates - is the character of Modthryth some sort of attack on Mrs Offa, Cynethryth, or perhaps the other Cynethryth - to after 1000. I have no idea of the degree of acceptance of any of these theories. I do not recall ever seeing a specific link drawn to this person, but I have only skimmed a few books. After I wrote that, I did find one thanks to a review by Michael Lapidge of a book claiming that Beowulf was written as an elegy to Beornwulf, presumably in Wiglaf's reign. Lapidge is not impressed. Here's the Google cache of the review. What this guy seems to be suggesting was the opposite of what you said: Mercians were not named after characters in Beowulf; characters in Beowulf were named after Mercians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting review, but the theory cannot in any case be correct, because Wigmund and Wigstan came after Wiglaf. Something quite odd is going on here. TharkunColl 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leftover from FAC

Awadewit's comments from FAC weren't completely addressed by the time the article was promoted. I'm posting them here so they don't get lost; both are rewriting requests.

These are cut and pasted exchanges without the links.

First, the lead:

• What do you think about this as an opening paragraph for the lead:

"Wiglaf (died 839) was King of Mercia from 827 to 829 and again from 830 until his death. Because the 820s were a period of dynastic conflict within Mercia and several families were contending for the throne, his ancestry is uncertain. [Is that what you meant? Some sort of connection was missing there.] Wigstan, his grandson was later recorded as a descendant of Penda of Mercia, so it is possible that Wiglaf was descended from Penda, one of the most powerful seventh-century kings of Mercia." Awadewit | talk 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I used a version of this: I didn't like "because", since the connection there is not really straightforward deduction. You're right I do need to indicate a connection, though. I tweaked it and I think it's better now. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are using the colon as a crutch - you rely on it to communicate too much meaning. Can you use words instead? The colon is connecting Wiglaf's uncertain genealogy and the time of dynastic conflict, but it is not entirely clear what that connection is from the sentence. Why would dynastic conflict cause uncertain genealogy? Awadewit | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Second, the section on ancestry:

• Wiglaf's ancestry: I guess the statement was rather compressed. I've attempted to expand and clarify it; let me know if that's an improvement.

• I suppose; so, "source of competing dynasties" means what exactly? (Sorry if I am being dense, I don't read about this period often.) Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, if it's not clear, that's my fault. Let me restate here what I'm trying to say, and you can tell me if I need to rephrase it in the article. There are two theories that I'm describing: the theories answer the question "where do the kings of Mercia come from?" The first theory is that the kings are all essentially related to the same royal line. A king whose ancestry is unknown, such as Wiglaf, might actually be the third or fourth-generation descendant of a younger son of a previous king. That's what I intended to convey by "collateral lines". The second theory makes reference to the multiple known tribal groupings within Mercia: there were lots of groups such as the Hwicce which were absorbed into Mercia over time. Not much is known about these, but it is known they existed. This second theory is the idea that these groups might have all been equally likely to provide a king -- there was no specific kin group that always provided a king, but instead just a set of competing kin groups, any one of which might come out on top in a particular dynastic squabble. Neither of these theories can be shown to apply to Wiglaf, but they seem worth mentioning just as scholarly background to the issue of otherwise unknown kings popping up in Mercia. Does that make it clearer? Please do feel free to try a rewrite in the article if you feel like it; or if you can locate the obscure section, point that out and I'll have a go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent explanation! It just needs to be in the article! See, you just told me "there are these two broad historical theories about the kings of Mercia" and "here is how they do (or do not) apply to Wiglaf". I think you should do the exact same thing in the article. Now that you have told me the theories, I can see them in the article, but it was hard to do so before - I kind of got lost in the details (as I said, these details are not familiar to me). For a reader like myself, I think you have to give the big picture first and then dive into the nitty gritty. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw the rewrite on the talk page - I still think you should go with the model of introduce theory first and then show how Wiglaf does or does not fit into it, but the talk page version is easier to understand than the one I read originally. Awadewit | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to come back to these, but if anyone wants to have a go at cleaning these up, please do. Mike Christie (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

'Egbert remained in control of Wessex until some time in 830.'

'Wessex' here should be 'Mercia'. Ecgbert ruled for a year in Mercia before being pegged back to Wessex, where he ruled from 802 till 839.

Dantes Warden (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Burial in the Succession section

Don't want to play around with this while it's on the front page, but I wonder St Wystan's Church, Repton is worth a mention/link in the para. on Wiglaf's burial. I may have missed it, but I can't see it linked elsewhere. The new (Hartwell/Pevsner/Williamson 2016) Derbyshire Pevsner has an interesting entry, (pp=561-565), on what it calls the "royal necropolis" of St Wystan's, which could be used as a source if needed. KJP1 (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Slightly confusingly, there's also an entry for Repton Abbey which describes the early history of the church and may be a more suitable link. KJP1 (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)