Talk:Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

Change of name of article
I propose that the name of this article should be changed to 'Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians'. He was often given the title 'ealdorman' in contemporary sources, but historians generally consider that he had a higher status, and that West Saxon sources called him ealdorman to emphasise Mercia's subordination to Wessex. Even the historian most inclined to accept Wessex's claims, Simon Keynes, heads his article on Æthelred in the Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon history 'Lord of the Mercians', as do PASE and Ann Williams in Dark Age Biography, while Marios Costambeys in online DNB heads his article 'ruler of the Mercians'. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you've been busy, well done! As it stands, the article says Æthelred was called "ealdorman", "Lord of the Mercians" and "subking", but I get the impression that the latter two occur only in modern sources, and my only memory of the sources is of him being called "ealdorman": if that's correct, my feeling would be that the purpose of this article is to describe what is known of "Æthelred, Ealdorman of Mercia", with the other, modern terms taken account of fully but confined to the section on his status. I take your point about Wessex bias, and note what the Welsh called him, but we can't change what contemporary Anglo-Saxon sources say, only explain them in light of scholarship. So, I think this article ought to keep its name – but that's just my thoughts for what they're worth, and I'm especially open to persuasion if any Anglo-Saxon source calls the man anything like "Lord" or "subking". On a side note, did Alfred "reconquer" the Danelaw? Maybe a bit of a can of worms, there: chronologically, and because a king of Wessex couldn't "reconquer" something which his kingdom hadn't lost... HTH anyway! :o) Nortonius (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words. I am almost sure reconquer was not my word - I have not got around to dealing with Æthelred's military campaigns yet. The article still needs a fair amount of work, and then I intend proposing it for a good article - by way of experiment as I have not tried this before. Advice and comments would be welcomed.


 * He was called 'Lord of the Mercians' in contemporary sources. Ann Williams in Biography of Dark Age Britain says: "His title, 'Lord of the Mercians' also indicates a greater distinction, though he is also styled 'ealdorman' on occasions. According to Simon Keynes in Edward the Elder p. 44 the Mercian Register "features the exploits of Æthelred as 'Lord of the Mercians' and of Æthelflæd as 'Lady of the Mercians'", while Æthelweard in his chronicle called him 'King of the Mercians'. See also PASE. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I wonder if the "Mercian Register" might not be biased in its own way; OTOH I'd bet it would have called him "king" if it could, so "lord" looks fairly safe to me there. But ah, Æthelweard! He was an ealdorman in Wessex, was he not? It's many moons since I looked at him, but I seem to remember "liking" what there is of him, if you see what I mean; and PASE, based on primary sources, has always struck me as a very sound resource – so I'm convinced, and have no objections to you renaming the article, unless someone else thinks of a good reason why not! I don't think that's likely though, and with the likes of Pauline Stafford in your corner you can't go far wrong!
 * Understood about "reconquered" not being your word – I only mentioned it because it's the kind of loose talk that irritates after a while, especially if you're aiming at GA. In which vein, actually I mentioned chronology with the Danelaw particularly in mind, I'm not sure it existed as such in Alfred's day: de facto maybe, but a recognised feature? It's been too long since I looked at the doings of Alfred, but didn't he "drive back the Danes and establish peace", rather than "conquer the Danelaw"? I thought that was the work of his successors... Sorry I didn't make that thought more explicit the first time around! And, talking of Stafford, I notice "Stafford's" for "Stafford has": I expect that was there already too, but obviously contractions like that need fixing. I've been involved in three successful GAs (and no unsuccessful ones!), that's not an awful lot of experience I suppose but I think I have an idea of how it goes by now. I'm a bit hands-off with WP these days, but I look in regularly, give me a shout if you think I might help, or not if you'd rather I kept away! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did change it to "conquest of the southern Danelaw", but even this is not quite right for the 890s. ODNB on Edward the Elder has a heading 'Reconquest of the southern Danelaw' for the period after 906. It will need more work to get this right, although it does seem that Danelaw is an accepted term, even if strictly anachronistic as not used until the later Anglo-Saxon period. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just had a look at that ODNB entry: I think Sean Miller can get away with "reconquest" as long as he's talking about Mercia and the activities of Æthelred and his West Saxon wife Æthelflaed, but it's misleading to use the term more widely as he does, for example in talking of East Anglia, Essex and Northumbria; but there it is, along with talk of the "Danelaw"! I'm sorry, I've forgotten more than I remember about all this so I'm probably not being very helpful with my nit-picky, academic approach: all you can do for WP is do your best to write about what you find, after all. Keep up the good work, anyway, and as I say feel free to ask for help, if there's anything I can do. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)