Talk:Burgred of Mercia

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Burgred of Mercia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421034038/http://www.whub.org.uk:80/cms/museums-worcestershire/hartlebury-museum/history-and-collections/severn-stoke.aspx to http://www.whub.org.uk/cms/museums-worcestershire/hartlebury-museum/history-and-collections/severn-stoke.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This sentence could be better
QUOTE:The armies of Wessex and Mercia did no serious fighting as Burgred paid them off.UNQUOTE So WHO got paid off? The Vikings? Who is the "them" who got paid off?204.155.230.3 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

B-dynasty
you have repeatedly changed Burgred's house in the infobox from "Mercia" to "B-dynasty". You now cite two sources. Williams says nothing about a B-dynasty, merely that Beorhtsige was probably a kinsman without specifying a reason. You quote Zaluckyj as saying that three kings have names starting with a B and this may represent a rival dynasty. She says "may" and does not use the term "B-dynasty". Stating as a fact in the infobox that Burgred was a member of a B-dynasty is against Wikipedia rules, which forbids a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. what is your view? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Keynes' "Mercia and Wessex in the Ninth Century" only calls it a "putative" dynasty, and explicitly says the kings whose names begin with B may have had nothing to do with each other.  There's enough discussion of a B-dynasty to add something to the body of the article, but it shouldn't go in the infobox as if it were an established fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Mercia" is not a royal house. The kings of Mercia were not all members of the same dynasty, which is why giving the house as "Mercia" is misleading. If the connection to these conjectural dynasties is deemed too misleading, then the house section should be left blank on all monarchs whose relationship to other monarchs is not confirmed. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think leaving it blank is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Should it also be deleted on the Beornwulf of Mercia and Beorhtwulf of Mercia pages? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 23:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so. The infobox was added in this edit, with the house listed as "House of Mercia" with a link to List of monarchs of Mercia.  I think the target of that link is reasonable for whatever goes in that house field, but as you say it's not clear what the house really is, so perhaps it's better to leave it blank. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)