Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex/Archive 1

Statements needing sources
These are notes to myself, unless someone else can find refs for this. I should be able to deal with these later in May, when I have some additional refs to hand. Mike Christie (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Egbert ravaged the whole of the territories of the West Welsh, which probably at this time did not include much more than Cornwall; it is probably from his reign that Cornwall can be considered subject to Wessex." This is not in the ASC and I can't find it referenced anywhere else. Mike Christie (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirby says that Aethelwulf was established as a king of the southeastern provinces. The two charters he cites, S 280 and S 286, don't seem to mention anything but Kent, so I'd like to get some other reference for Surrey and Sussex. Mike Christie (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I took out "The East Anglians acknowledged Egbert as overlord," referring to the aftermath of Ellendun. This may only have referred to the East Angles request for protection, which is already covered; if it's more than that it needs a source. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Alfred was NOT King of England
Alfred was not the first person to receive title of King of England. That was Athelstan. Alfred was the self-styled 'King of the Anglo-Saxons.'White43 13:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this - who exactly 'considered' him the first King of England? That's a weasel statement. The title King of England began with Athelstan. White43 13:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the intended reference is to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which did add Egbert to Bede's list of bretwaldas. The "bretwalda" article states clearly that this was not a contemporary title.  However, the ASC's addition of Egbert is worth mentioning in this article, though I agree the phrasing you removed was poor.  It's certainly a reference one runs into in history books, so I think it should be covered here. Mike Christie (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Egbert was styled as King of the English (rex Anglorum) (although this source - http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=get&type=charter&id=271 - translates it as 'King of England') in a charter from the year 823, although admittedly it's not the only occasion where King of the English/of England is claimed by powerful Anglo-Saxon kings (cf. most charters by Offa of Mercia).

Deaþe gecweald 11:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bones
I took out the paragraph on Egbert's burial and bones. I'd contacted another editor, qp10qp, to see if they had a source for this; I'd been told by the editor who added it, Avram Fawcett, that they got it from Hilliam's Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards. Here's qp10qp's response:

"First the good news: I found the book, and the ref is: David Hilliam, Kings, Queens, Bones and Bastards: Who's Who in the English Monarchy from Egbert to Elizabeth II, Sutton, pp. 114 (photos with caption), 180–183. ISBN 0750935537. The bad news is that, in my opinion, it's not the sort of book a good Wikipedia article should be referencing—utterly unacademic and credulous. The strand of Wikipedia policy I'd use to reject it would be the advice to use the 'best sources' (verifiability by a published source being only a threshold). I found a small few other references to this, mostly in similarly 'not best' sources'. The closest I could come to a ref from a relatively usable source was in the Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy, by John Cannon and Ralph A. Griffiths, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 656, ISBN 0192893289: 'The bones of all these monarchs were placed in mortuary chests in 1525 and are still in the choir. Four of the six chests were destroyed in the Civil War and the bones scattered around the Cathedral. These were replaced in new chests in 1661' (they say nothing more specific: Ecgbert is not named, but I assume he is one of the monarchs). Some nineteenth-century books on Google Books (for example, this one) give details about the contents of the chests, but the absence of this information from modern books is cause for grave suspicion. One is anyway addressing a series of unlikelihoods, the first being that the bones are those of the Anglo-Saxon kings at all, given the great passage of time. The fact that the bones are incomplete, muddled, and unidentifiable may owe as much to damage and loss before being disinterred as to any Civil War soldiers. They had also been re-chested and labelled in 1525: how likely are those 1525 labels to be correct? Another layer of difficulty arises from the bias of Restoration accounts of the Civil War. One also wonders what happened to the bones between being scattered (if indeed they had been) and being reburied in 1661 after the Restoration. Nevertheless, there is certainly material to be found that can go in the article: an Ecgbert chest with an inscription undoubtedly exists, and that's worth a mention in itself, of course, without any need to presume its genuineness. My suggestion would be to stick as closely as you can to how the best Anglo-Saxon historians comment on Ecgbert's death and burial. They know the game far better than the authors of illustrated histories for the general public; what they leave out, we should leave out, I believe.qp10qp 13:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"

I agree and have cut it till a reference can be found. It sounds like a reference can and should be found for the existence of a chest labelled with Egbert's name in the cathedral; I haven't found one yet but will add something on that when I do. Mike Christie (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are photos of it at unusable sites online, but nothing on Commons, unfortunately. I'll try and take a shot of it next time I'm up that way, though it appears to be positioned rather high up. It looks about as Anglo-Saxon as my nan's tea caddy.qp10qp 12:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Cornish place names
On this, I really don't think Yorke knows what she is talking about ("western Cornwall is the only area in which British place-names are now predominant"). I castigated Stenton for not getting out more, and now I must urge Barbara to visit Cornwall, or at least look at an Ordnance Survey map. Glancing at the Tintagel area on mine (not that I had to), it is clear that the vast majority of names are still Cornish: Tintagel, Halgabron, Trethevy, Treven, Tregatta, Trebarwith, Treknow, Trewarmett, Trenale, etc. Boscastle is Saxon; not sure about Bossiney. I would add that there are many more Cornish names, not on any maps, known to the locals. The density of Cornish names today is quite striking. I can't really suggest my OS map as a reference; so how about:

"As an even cursory glance at an Ordnance Survey map will show, to the south of the Ottery the names are overwhelmingly Celtic and typical of Cornwall—Trevillion, Tremaine, Hendra, and so on—while to the north they are English or hybrid Celtic-English and reminiscent of those found in adjoining North Devon." Philip Payton, Cornwall: A History, Cornwall Editions, 2004, 68. ISBN 1904880002.

The place names are fascinating, and they tell a story which we cannot interpret. The sharp dividing line means something, but we don't know what. The almost totally Saxon nature of the northern tip of Cornwall (even today people come south from that area for a "proper Cornish evening") implies to me that it was settled by the Saxons whereas the rest of Cornwall was merely administered by them. There is an equivalent oddity over the water in southwest Wales, where Little England Beyond Wales is entirely Saxon and impervious to Welsh-language culture even to this day. That phenomenon tends to be dated post-conquest, but I wouldn't be surprised if Anglo-Saxons had settled there. qp10qp 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On the placenames, I'll fix up the article with the quote you provided; or please feel free to do it if you like -- I am about to leave my computer for at least a few hours. Mike Christie (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just removed the inaccurate phrase. This is a stopgap edit, and hopefully something can be found to sharpen the point in the future.


 * It's actually very difficult to make generalisations about Egbert and Cornwall or to connect his invasion with place names. I suspect that the truth is very complex: my instinct is that the Anglo-Saxons may have penetrated lowland Devon and the lowland tip of present-day north Cornwall long before Egbert's and even Ine's time. There are few natural defences, after all. The Celts would have held out among the estuaries and highlands, such as Otmoor and Dartmoor. The fact that there's a belt of mixed Cornish and Saxon names in the area of Cornwall between the Tamar and Bodmin Moor (Liskeard, Milton Abbot) suggests to me that that area was settled much later by Saxons than the northern tip of Cornwall; and the fact that the part of Cornwall behind its natural defences (which is most of it) still has mainly Cornish placenames suggests to me that Celtic culture survived there for many centuries longer than in Devon and the northern tip: my guess about that would be that for a long time the Anglo-Saxons administered rather than settled it, being content to receive tribute, etc. Anglo-Saxon names seem to be either a Saxonisation of Cornish names or signs of religious control. On the latter point, one very probable result of Egbert's victory was that the Roman church took over the Celtic church, leading to the dissemination of Saxon culture through religious centres.


 * Of course, all this is conjecture, and of no practical use to the article (apart from the religious point, for which there are occasional records), but clear-cut theories of what happened to Cornwall at this time should be treated with caution, I think.qp10qp 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alburga
I am doing a pass for citations and am no longer very comfortable with the note on Alburga. She's not mentioned in PASE, and Kirby, Stenton and Yorke, at least, make no mention of her. However, p.91 of "Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women's Power in Eleventh-Century England" by Pauline Stafford (viewable on Google Books) mentions it in passing as a fact. Stafford's an academic at the University of Huddersfield; not the strongest recommendation possible, of course, but she is an academic. However, the passing mention isn't enough to confirm the relationship is given credence generally.

This page quotes Weir, which appears to be "Weir, A. (2002) Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy (Pimlico)" based on the bibiography there. This turns out to be Alison Weir, an excellent popular historian best known for her books on the Wars of the Roses. She's not an academic.

Alburga gets its information from Delaney's "Dictionary of Saints", 2005.

I'm sure I've seen somewhere that the information comes from a manuscript called "Chronicon Vilodunense", but I can't recover that link. Searching for that finds this page, which refers in turn to "MS. Cotton, Faustina B III". This page has no description for III, and I can't find more about it at the British Library. So I'm stuck. Any ideas? Mike Christie (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to dig any further, because that Stafford page does cover it in the note. I wouldn't say she states it as a fact, as such: she says that it is surprisingly circumstantial for a fifteenth-century forger; but she also refers to Yorke dismissing it as late. Together, I suspect, this amounts to academic-speak for "take it or leave it". I can't find the Yorke reference she gives, but I have found Yorke mentioning it elsewhere. She says: "According to the traditions of Wilton recorded in a fifteenth-century poem (admittedly a far from ideal source) 'Wolstan', the victor of 802, married Ecgbert's sister 'Alburga', and it was for her that Wilton was founded" (Barbara Yorke, "Edward as Ætheling", in Edward the Elder, N. J. Higham and D.H. Hill (eds), Routledge, 2001, p. 36, ISBN 0415214963). Yorke's formulation is an even clearer "take-it-or-leave-it". Whether to take it or leave it as far as this article is concerned is up to you, Mike. My opinion is that as long as the information is couched in terms rather like Yorke's, there’s no harm in placing it in a note, since traditions sometimes have to be inspected as part of the investigation; and even though this source is alarmingly late, religious establishments are extremely conservative and often preserve records or traditions of records to an extraordinary extent. The outside possibility that there may be a grain of truth in this is probably the reason Stafford and Yorke have seen fit to offer it up to the light, albeit gingerly. qp10qp 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds right to me; I'll do something like that this weekend. I totally forgot, in my search, to follow through on the source that's footnoted, which I added myself.  It's British History Online, and the first footnote gives the source and a bit more description.  Anyway, thanks for the note; I'll catch up with this tomorrow, and I'll use that ref you give. Mike Christie (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bone verification?
I am confused as to why the section on the Bones has never been verified and replaced, in fact why it was ever thought questionable? The matter of the mortuary chests is accepted by historians, thought the Bones are in disarray and the chests of course don't "look Saxon" because they are eighteenth century. Although the matter on the book which was originally used as a source has been seen as questionable, while I am not inclined to agree, I don't think I have come accross a mention on Ecgbriht that does not mention his final resting place. Ciriii (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it quite possible that his bones are in the mortuary chests, but I think we should look for a reliable source on this, and unfortunately I haven't been able to find one. As you can see in the section above, qp10qp spent quite a bit of time looking and wasn't able to find anything that referred to it directly.


 * It would be possible to add a reference to the existence of the chest in the cathedral, since that's not controversial, but it seems odd to do so without saying whether or not the scholarly opinion supports the identification of the bones. Without that we'd just have to put in some phrase such as "claimed to be the bones of Egbert" and I'd like to be more definite if we can find a good source. Mike Christie (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to add a reference to the bones, whether we know who is n in them ior not, it is a story attached to the arly saxon kings. I am sure you wouldn't say that "The Priinces in tower" should have no mention of their bones being found just because you couldnt be sure it wasn't them? As the story goes, parliamentary forces plundered the saxon tombs during the civil war. The bones that remained were placed in mortuary tombs that you see today, they have little plaques on the front with the names of who's inside. I cannot honestly believe it is that difficult to find a source considering that the Norman King William II "Rufus" is also inside one of them and it is well recorded, really :) Ciriii (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Genealogy notes
I removed the notes on Egbert's genealogy that were added; I think they're not really very relevant to an article Egbert. If there's an article about the genealogy of the British monarchy, then it might be reasonable to add that sort of information there. Part of the problem is that Egbert is an ancestor of a great many more people than just the British monarchy; and it's the sort of comment one can make about lots of people in royal family trees. If anyone thinks it should be re-added, let's discuss it here. Mike Christie (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

First, about the "great many more people than the British monarchy." It is true that some of his descendants later ruled other countries, particularly Scotland. But they are a tangential feature at best; he doesn't control anyplace as completely as England.

Next, the idea that you could say this about "lots of people." I disagree that a)this statement is true, and b)this statement is relevant. It's not relevant because you could also say about "lots of people" that they were king of England...yet all their articles do in fact say so. This is an interesting fact about Egbert, and belongs in the article whether or not the fact is also true of others. Now, as to the truth of it being shared by many others...it is not. It is shared by exactly one other monarch, Egbert's son Ethelwulf. Anyway, how can a 68-person long ruling succession that's only broken by one 100-year period of eight people (it said nine before, but turns out that Harold Godwinson was Egbert's descendant; see House of Wessex family tree) not be notable!? William the Conqueror's page notes that all English/British monarchs since are his descendants. Should that be taken out as well, since he also begat the Scottish line and since the same could be said of Henry I, Matilda, Henry II, John, Henry III, Edwards I, II, and III, and a whole bunch more, later people? Obviously someone thought that William I, as the *first* of these, was notable. For what it's worth, I think the break and restoration of Egbert's line makes it a much more interesting case than any of these people.

Basically, I'm a little miffed that you took this out. It definitely doesn't take anything away from the article, and removing it on such thin ground makes it look a bit like you consider this article your personal fief.
 * Well, I was worried about that too, so before I removed it I went to another editor who is knowledgeable about this period, and asked him whether he agreed. Here is the question I asked, and here is his response. So I hope you'll believe that I didn't remove it out of a sense of ownership.
 * There are others who have this article on their watchlist. Let's leave this a week or so and see if anyone else comments; I'm happy to go with the consensus, though as I said I don't think it's the sort of information that is worth including. Mike Christie (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image
"The image of Egbert is an imaginary portrait drawn by an unknown artist" - that's pretty poor, and whoever wrote the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica was clearly out of his depth. Is there any case for retaining the image, given that (a) we don't know whose likeness it presents and (b) we don't know who carved it? Granted, the chances of an alternative image arising are very small. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it; it's virtually worthless in practical terms, but people like illustrations. I don't know if we could find anything better to use. Everyking 11:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd drop the pic myself - we have lots of pics already, people can cope without having one here. The imaginary pic is also misleading in that he certainly didn't wear a spiky crown, or a tunic of a type that wouldn't be developed until hundreds of years later, etc. Don't we have any of Egbert's coins to use instead? Even one with just a name would be better. What about charters? Stan 13:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it should stay cause it looks pretty nice,and it reminds me of my english hertitage,.-Agent00829th December 2007 AD,12:07 AM. —Preceding comment was added at 00:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Family paragraph
Per a recent edit summary questioning it: the paragraph was added in this edit. I felt sure I had seen something on a talk page -- mine or the article's -- about the edits, but can't find that now. Anyway, it was sourced, though not to someone I'd regard as a specialist. I felt that if I revered I'd be acting too much as though the article was mine, so I just left it, hoping to find a better secondary source that discusses his family at some future point. Mike Christie (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, so far as Æthelstan son of Ecgberht goes, that's wrong but explicable: see Swanton, ASC, p. 63, note 13. Saint Eadgyth of Polesworth is said to be Æthelwulf's sister by Geoffrey of Burton in his life of Saint Modwenna and similar post-Conquest stuff. Barbara Yorke (Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses) reckons she was a Mercian. The Thacker paper on saints in Midland History is referred to by Yorke. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So, how about this? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This would replace the part of the existing paragraph starting "Egbert had three children", right? I like it.  One suggestion would be to add a mention of the Alison Weir book to the footnote referring to popular works. Mike Christie (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Portrait vs. manuscript image
I'd prefer to reinstate the image of Egbert's name from the ASC MS unless there are objections. The portrait has no historic value and no pretensions to be accurate, whereas the MS image is historically important. Mike Christie (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The same editor removed a portrait coin of Offa from List of English monarchs and replaced that with an ms. image. Equally misguided I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted.


 * You know, I think at some point it would be good to have a single unified discussion of all the "list" articles and templates for monarchs of the UK/Britain/British Isles/whatever, and the constituent kingdoms. I don't know if we could get enough knowledgeable editors together to get a sustainable consensus, but it would be nice to have consistency.  There are multiple issues -- who gets to be called a monarch of England?  What about the marginal boundary cases, such as Ceolwald -- do they go into the templates?  What's the status of names such as "British Isles"?  Which articles are dabs and which are lists?  Which get eliminated as duplicates?  Should they all have the same or similar formats?  Should they be organized chronologically or geographically, where there's a choice?  It's a set of decisions that would be made in a print encyclopedia by an editor with responsibility for the overall area, in order to impose consistency, avoid duplication of effort, and provide guidelines for the contributor.


 * To your point on Offa: I tend to avoid the list articles just because there's no clear definition of how they should be structured. I think that MS picture substituted for the coin isn't the best idea, but it's not as bad as the EB 1911 pics used elsewhere in that article. Mike Christie (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes by Agricolae
The changes diff here earlier today by Agricolae seem reasonable, but I'm just leaving this note here that the sources need to be rechecked. The changes add some specific assertions that look right (e.g. which versions of the ASC say what), but it's not clear that the sources already cited support those statements. No new sources were added, which is why I think a check needs to be made.

I'll also leave a note with Agricolae asking if he has sources that support the additions, in case he's able to add them himself. Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agricolae has added refs so we're OK now. At least one ref is quite old, though; it would be worth checking through those paras for modern sources if they exist.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirection
"Eoppa" redirects here; in fact, Eoppa was Egbert's grandfather.

J.Gowers (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This was the result of a deletion discussion. It was deemed by the consensus that Eoppa was not sufficiently notable to merit his own page. Agricolae (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dore
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dore. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his name
It should be noted that the standard spelling "Egbert" does not capture the pronunciation of the name, which is shown in a photograph of an manuscript as being written "Ecgbriht" and which the text of the article says may also be spelled "Ecgberht." In Old English orthography, "ecg" would not have been pronounced "eg" (especially among the West Saxons) but would have been pronounced almost exactly like "edge" (and it had the same meaning, so that the name meant "Bright edge" -- possibly a kenning for a sword). -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC))

Redburga
In 2007 there was a discussion about whether the article should cover Redburga as Egbert's wife (see Raedburgh above), and all reference to her was removed. This seems to me correct. No modern historian refers to her, so far as I can discover, and the ODNB article on Æthelwulf at states that his mother's identity is unknown. However, someone has since restored her to the article (not quite definitely) as Egbert's wife. The references given are the genealogy by the popular historian Alison Weir and the 1899 genealogy by W. G. Searle at, p. 343. This gives the source as 'MS Trin Coll Oxf x', with no indication of the manuscript's date. I think that we should follow the views of modern historians and delete all reference to her. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree -- please go ahead. If you don't have time, I will get to it one day but am pretty busy at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am just coming to this, but I disagree. This material, even though from a 15th century manuscript, had been followed by scholars well past the end of the 19th century, including by Searle (whom the late noted genealogist (and Mayanist) David Humiston Kelley once berated me for not using as the basis for all further analysis of the familial context - silly me, I was using the Electronic Sawyer as my starting point, but this shows you the weight placed on Searle as recently as 8 years ago).  A quick Google search shows serious genealogical scholars such as Eduard Hlawitschka and Christian Settipani referencing her as well, as recently as 2006 (although I can't see enough to tell whether they are taking a skeptical view or not), and while top-tier scholarly historians have dismissed it as has at least one scholarly genealogist (Stewart Baldwin, FASG ), it is still the standard solution to appear in the works of popular historians (Weir) and genealogists (Weis/Sheppard).  If we delete all reference to her rather making a brief reference and then dismissing her, it will just keep popping up.  Thus I think it is worth stating in footnote 4 that the (very) late manuscript calls her Redburga ("Redburga regis Francorum sororia") and that this was followed by such older historians as Searle (citing both his Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum and Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings, and Nobles), but has not been followed in more recent scholarly compilations (and for this you can cite sources like those Dudley Miles named on my Talk page).  By the way, as to the manuscript in question, Searle's full description in Onomasticon proceeds to specify it is found in the portion of MS Trin Coll Oxf x that constitutes what he calls the Chronicon rerum Anglic, f.74v. As is his preference, rather than describe the individual manuscripts he simply sends the reader to Hardy, in this case vol. iii, no. 326 .  Again, yes it is late and that is why modern scholars ignore it, but it is widespread in the less-scholarly literature (300+ references in Google Books, many old but some quite recent) and by simply dismissing it in a footnote, we take care of the problem (and we can then redirect Redburga here). Agricolae (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As always, your explanation is illuminating. Why is she called Redburga in the manuscript, and Rædburh in other sources such as Searle's Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume it is an attempted back-extrapolation. The name as it appears in the chronicle could be interpreted as an attempt to render the common Anglo-Saxon naming elements Ræd- and -burh into Latin, so why not convert it back to the original form? Because she was sororia of the Frankish king, not an Anglo-Saxon!  Were the whole episode authentic, one should be looking at something like Chrodo- -berga (both typical Frankish elements, the former surviving in Robert - Chrodo-bert). Agricolae (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Draft footnote: "A fifteenth century manuscript in Oxford University names Egbert's wife as Redburga. This is dismissed by academic historians in view of its late date, and Heather Edwards' article on Egbert in the Online Dictionary of National Biography does not mention his wife, while Janet Nelson's article on his son Æthelwulf, also in the ODNB, states that his mother's name in unknown. Some nineteenth century historians did identify Redburga as Egbert's wife, such W. G. Searle in his 1897 Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum and 1899 Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles (as Rædburh). Other nineteenth century historians were sceptical, such as William Hunt, who did not mention Redburga in his article about Egbert in the original Dictionary of National Biography in 1889." Comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably needs mention of the genealogists also ... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest for the first sentence "A fifteenth century chronicle now held by Oxford University names Egbert's wife as "Redburga regis Francorum sororia"." Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is to include this material, which I think is a good idea in view of Agricolae's comments, I think the name should be mentioned in the main text, not just a footnote, in order to clue the reader in without having to go to the footnote. Something like "A fifteenth century manuscript in Oxford University names Egbert's wife as Redburga, but this is dismissed by academic historians in view of its late date" would do as the body text, and the remaining material could go in the footnote. Agricolae's suggestion that we include the original Latin is a good one but that can be saved for the footnote and should be accompanied by a translation and a note on the ambiguity of the stated relationship. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Revised draft. Article: "A fifteenth century chronicle now held by Oxford University names Egbert's wife as Redburga, but this is dismissed by academic historians in view of its late date." Footnote: "The chronicle (Hardy, Vol III, No. 326) describes Egbert's wife as "Redburga regis Francorum sororia" (sister or sister-in-law of the Frankish Emperor). Some nineteenth century historians cited the manuscipt to identify Redburga as Egbert's wife, such W. G. Searle in his 1897 Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum and (as Rædburh) in his 1899 Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles. Other historians of that time were sceptical, such as William Hunt, who did not mention Redburga in his article about Egbert in the original Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in 1889. In the twentieth century, popular genealogists and historians have followed Searle in naming Redburga as Egbert's wife, but academic historians ignore her when discussing Egbert, and Janet Nelson's 2004 article on his son Æthelwulf in the Online Oxford Online Dictionary of National Biography states that his mother's name in unknown. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Raedburgh
I have cut the paragraph about Redburga. Here's a comment from qp10qp on my talk page about it.

"As far as I can make out, the origins of this information are very obscure, stemming back to a medieval manuscript at Trinity College, quoted by W. G. Searle in Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings, and Nobles, London, 1899, p 343, as 'MS Trin Coll 0xf x'. There is no Anglo-Saxon source for Egbert's wife, as far as I can see, and I don't know the date of Searle's manuscript (post-conquest, I guess). Apparently, she is described in the document as regis Francorum sororia—no mention of Charlemagne (could just as well be his successor, Louis). Sororia seems to mean 'sister-in-law', in which case, she would not be the sister of the king (regis) but of the king's wife. Once again, I suggest sticking to the material you can find in the best Anglo-Saxon history books, because this stuff is obscure and iffy, to say the least; I would copy the respected historians' way of mentioning this queen, if they mention her.qp10qp 14:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)"

I agree and have cut it. I can't find any current historian who mentions this. Mike Christie (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiable


 * Neither can I, and you'd suppose that someone would. The Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England doesn't mention any wife of Ecgberht's, nor name the mother of his sons, and has no entry for any Rædburh. In particular, there's no sign of her in Story's Carolingian Connections (at least as viewable on Google books) where she would surely be mentioned if there was any credence at all given to the story. Which leaves the question: what to do with Redburga? Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think that somewhere some modern historian has assessed the Trinity ms qp mentions, and the possible identification with St. Ida, and has an assessment; fixing up Redburga will probably have to wait till we can find something like that. On Egbert, Angus, you mention "sons", plural; I couldn't see anything in PASE about a second son -- is there any evidence for another son?  That would be worth including.  Mike Christie (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (moved from other thread) I suspect that the reason the Trinity manuscript has been re-forgotten is that it isn't actually about Egbert of Wessex at all but some guy in France with a similar name.qp10qp 12:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (moved from other thread: Mike said) That sounds plausible.


 * Just the one son, unless the compilers of Ms D, E, and F were better informed than anyone else. They call Æthelstan (son of Æthelwulf according to most) Ecgbert's "other son". I can provide a dictionary citation to the effect that ecg-beorht means "bright blade" or "shining sword" or something similar, but is Ecgberht's name of any significance? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Swanton is a bit confusing on this. He translates the E text as "[Egbert's] son Aethelwulf succeeded . . . and his second son, Athelstan, succeeded to . . ." but then says in a footnote that this clarifies that Athelstan is Aethelwulf's son.  I don't think I'll add anything based on this, but I can't say I understand what Swanton means.


 * On the name -- I like the gloss you added to the etymology, but I'm not convinced it's necessary either. I was going to do the lead last, and had planned to cut that.  Since you've glossed it I'll leave it in, unless someone thinks it's a bad idea. Mike Christie (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be made very clear in this section that the Royal family's own archives and genealogies hold "Redburga, regis Francorum sororia" as being Egbert's wife; and it should be borne in careful mind that historians are granted access to these sources only as the family/ies see fit. Incidentally, "sororia" means sister -- the correct translation therefore is "sister of the King of the Franks". According to these archives, King Egbert was the son of Ealhmund, Under-king of Kent, who in turn was the son of King Offa of Wessex. As for the Lady 'Redburga', it should be noted that this is unlikely to have been her given-name -- it is more likely her place of origin. Regarding the above, Athelstan is Egbert's grand-son, via his son Ethelwulf (r. 839-856). Athelstan was Ethelwulf's eldest son, but predeceased his father and did not accede to the throne. ~ I. D. de W. (my apologies for my anonymity).


 * This secretive collection, the "Royal family's own archives and genealogies", only made available to historians by the grace of the great monarchical benefactor, is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, any more than 'the Vatican's Secret Archives'. The literal translation of sororia does not affect the way in which it has been 'loosely interpreted' by historians trying to make sense out of a statement that as literally translated is clearly false.  Egbert was not paternal grandson of Offa, and no royal genealogy makes him so.  As to Athelstan, the closest we have to a contemporary account, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, states him to be son or grandson in different manuscripts, so certainty is elusive. Agricolae (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

S 108
Since I'm currently reviewing my translation of this article, I'll probably have a few comments to make in the next few days. To begin with, I think the passage "Cynewulf appears as "King of the West Saxons" on a charter of Offa's in 772" should at least mention that several authors doubt the authenticity of that charter (S 108), as summarized on Anglo-Saxons.net. Ælfgar (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I took out the reference to that charter but then put it back in after re-reading Stenton. His comment in ASE is that the charter itself is likely to be inauthentic, but the witness list, specifically including the reference to Cynewulf as dux, is probably original, and he treats it as authentic in the following pages.  I extended the page range in the citation to cover that discussion.  Given that this is background material to Egbert's reign, and that Stenton is fairly unequivocal about the conclusion, I don't think further commentary is needed in the main text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Better even than Stenton, from what it says here, citing Kelly, S. E., ed., The Charters of Selsey, Anglo-Saxon Charters (Oxford, 1998), 6, pp. xxx, lxxxi–iii, 109–10, Susan Kelly appears to support the witness list as authentic in origin, so one might assume it was taken from an earlier, authentic charter, which really is all that is needed here. Forgive me if I'm telling you stuff you already know, but incorporating genuine witness lists was a fairly common way of trying to make forged charters look authentic; and Susan Kelly is a prime go-to source for this sort of information, certainly in terms of summarising existing knowledge, frequently superseding earlier sources. Since this issue has been raised, maybe a footnote is in order? Just a thought though, I'm not asking for one. HTH. Nortonius (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know -- AS history is a hobby for me, not an area where I have any academic background. Could you add a footnote based on Kelly?  As you say, given that the question has been asked, we might as well clarify the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I can certainly try – but I'd need sight of that Kelly volume to be sure of what she says, and I have neither that nor access to any physical library these days. I'll go ahead and raise a request at WP:REX, but if you can get what's needed let me know. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I've been able to have a look at that book (having a huge university library nearby is very nice). Indeed, Kelly does not contest the list of witness, and she doesn't even comment on the presence of Cynewulf. I suppose my doubts were over-scrupulous. Delving into that matter would take us too far from Egbert, so I don't think it warrants a note here (but it probably would in Cynewulf of Wessex). Ælfgar (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is nice, isn't it! I don't think a note would hurt, especially as this is a FA – just a line something like "Cynewulf appears as King of the West Saxons in what is believed to be a genuine list of witnesses appended to an otherwise doubtful charter.ref to Kelly" – though I haven't seen what Kelly says yet, while you have! :) Nortonius (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Egbert may have contested the succession, but Offa successfully intervened in the ensuing power struggle on the side of Beorhtric." This sentence bugs me: if Egbert's contestation is uncertain (as the may suggests), how can we claim that there was a power struggle in which Offa had to intervene? Stenton states as a plain fact that Egbert and Beorhtric fought for the throne in 786 and that the latter won with Offa's help, but on the other hand Yorke, Kirby and the ODNB do not mention any part Egbert may have played in Cynewulf's succession. Also, according to Yorke, it is not certain that Beorhtric rose to power with Offa's help, she suggests he may have come under his influence later on. Ælfgar (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section could be improved. The source cited is definite about the power struggle, so I don't know why I put a "may" there (it was probably a sentence I wrote).  Perhaps I was comparing with Yorke, but if so I should have cited her too.  Can you rewrite per your comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I can try. My library has a copy of Fletcher's book (is this paradise or something?), so I'll have a look at it next week. But I'd really like to know the primary source for this information… Ælfgar (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I just can't find that primary source. This is annoying. I have reworked that passage a bit, removed the reference to Swanton (since the Chronicle does not say that Egbert contested the succession) and nuanced Offa's participation with a reference to Yorke. Ælfgar (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the 3/13 years in exile, there is an interesting theory in Rory Naismith's paper. According to him, the 13 years may correspond to the period 789-802, i.e. between Beorhtric's marriage with Offa's daughter and Egbert's coming to the throne. It has the advantage to answer the objection "Beorhtric's reign lasted sixteen years, and not thirteen" which appears in our article. Maybe it could be mentioned in the relevant footnote. Ælfgar (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added, feel free to rephrase it in a better way. Ælfgar (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The return of Wiglaf of Mercia
The article is quite dogmatic about Egbert's loss of power in Mercia in 830, attributing this to a revolt and concluding that: "Egbert's dominion over southern England came to an end with Wiglaf's recovery of power." This may indeed have happened, but some sources also say that Wiglaf may have been allowed back as Egbert's client king. (See Mike Ashley's British Kings and Queens,1998, p. 315.) Can we reword it to mention both theories? I also suggest the same change at Wiglaf of Mercia. Richard75 (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A popular work such as Ashley's book is not WP:RS for an Anglo-Saxon king, particularly as the article is FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Looking at the very policy you just linked to, that book is a reliable source. It cites five pages of sources. Anyway that's only the book I was looking at; there will be others which say the same thing -- perhaps you have some, since "popular" books are beneath you? You could address the merits of the point instead of just being snooty about one book. Richard75 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dudley that that's not the best source for this article, but as you say other, more scholarly books are likely to say something similar, since Ashley is unlikely to have made this up. I am moving house and am pretty busy but will see if I can find anything; if you see references to other sources which I have (there's a link to my sources in my signature) let me know and I can look there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked at some sources available to me. Barbara Yorke in Kings and Kingdoms, p. 122, says that Wiglaf was able to resume his reign. In the new edition of the Blackwell Encyclopedia on 'Ecgberht' she says that Mercia recovered its independence. Kirby in The Earliest English Kings, p. 157, says Ecgberht's ascendancy was "dramatically checked and reversed", and Wiglaf restored. Ann Williams in the Biographical Dictionary on 'Wiglaf' says that he regained his position. Martin Ryan in Higham and Ryan'sThe Anglo-Saxon World, p. 242, says "Whether Wiglaf regained his throne in the face of West Saxon resistance or took advantage of of an overstretched or overambitious Wessex is not clear, and a negotiated restoration is certainly also a possibility." Keynes in Mercia: An Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe, pp. 313-4, says that Wiglaf seems to have been restored to his position. He refers to his article in Early Medieval Europe, 1993, 2.2, pp. 122-24, for the circumstances of Wiglaf's restoration, but I do not have access to this. S. E. Kelly in ODNB on Wiglaf says "There is no real evidence that Wiglaf rebelled against Ecgberht's authority; nor can it be shown that he was a client king of Ecgberht". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If necessary I can email Mike Ashley and ask him for his source; I've corresponded with him on other topics. However, the book is 16 years old and he may not be able to dig out whatever he was referring to at the time.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I assume that historians have said that Wiglaf was a client king, or Kelly would not find it necessary to say that there is no evidence for it. My old cyclopedia, circa 1960, listed Egbert as the first king of England, and I guess Ashley's comment reflected the view of an older generation of historians. Historians' changing view of Egbert might make an interesting addition to the article, if anyone has the time and sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Names
Are looking a mess and are just variant (and now uncommon) spellings. Should probably just move the entire lot to the but, if we're keeping them, a better treatment would be to
 * get some sourcing and historical context for the variants,
 * get some sourced etymology of the eg- and -bert elements, and
 * start a #Name section under the lead.

— Llywelyn II   04:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a good rule for listing a spelling in the lead would be if any of the reliable sources index him under that name. If they give it as an alternative spelling but don't index it then it's arguable, but I agree we can't give every alternate spelling -- PASE has dozens of spellings for many names and that's a reliable source.  I'm less keen on the idea of a name section; I'm sure we can find OE texts that will source the components of the name, but unless we find a secondary source about Egbert that discusses the name, or at least a source on OE names that mentions Egbert, I think it's synthesis on our part to include it.


 * For persondata, what are the guidelines? Is there a page indicating what should be included and what should not? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

First King of England
Yes, I know, he really wasn't the first king of England, but in the High Middle Ages he was often considered the first (he or Alfred). By the modern era, I believe, Egbert was indisputably treated as the first king of England. It might be worth mentioning this and clarifying why it was so. 98.143.78.114 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give a source for this? I didn't see anything like that in the sources I list in the article; I don't think it's the sort of thing that modern historians pay a lot of attention to, to be honest.  But if you have a good secondary source for this we can discuss it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Olivier de Laborderie, "The First King of England? Egbert and the Foundations of Royal Legitimacy in Thirteenth-Century Historiography". I have not read this (beyond a few snippets), but it seems to exactly fit the bill. My childhood almanac treated Egbert as first king of England and I was surprised that this article nowhere mentions this once common view. 98.143.78.114 (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an academic paper, not really an ideal source for this sort of thing, but I don't have access to it either, so can't comment. I'm pinging Ealdgyth, a user who's much more knowledgeable than I am about this sort of discussion.  Personally I'd like to see a statement in a secondary source such as "Egbert is often considered the first king of England", or something along those lines.  Ealdgyth, what do you think?  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're both well before my main period of interest and well after it .. weirdly enough. 13th century historiography is a bit past me... and Egbert's a bit before. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is true that Egbert used to be regarded as the first king of England and the belief survived in popular sources until quite recently. There is probably an article somewhere discussing the subject but I cannot trace one. A few sources: 1. Marie Elizabeth Budden True Stories from Modern History, 1834, heads Chapter 1 "EGBERT, THE FIRST KING OF ENGLAND". 2. R. H. Hodgkin, A History of the Anglo-Saxons, OUP, 1935, vol 2 p. 398: "We are often told nowadays that too much has been made of Egbert's victories. It is true that some nonsense has been written about the reign of Egbert marking the unification of England,..." 3. Whitaker's Almanac 1984, p. 210, starts its list of English kings and queens with "Egbert, King of Wessex and all England" 827-839. 4. Pears Cyclopedia, 90th ed, 1981, p. N3, starts its list of English monarchs with Egbert 827-839. It is curious that both Whitaker and Pears date his accession to 827. Any ideas why? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No idea on the reason they use 827. If the belief that he was the first king of England was ridiculed in 1935, then I suspect that any modern source would be a popular history book.  For now I'd oppose including anything along the lines the original poster suggested, unless we can see a source to support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sir William Blackstone called Egbert the first some king of England:. Blackstone is a prestigious source, but his view is not universally held, and he wasn't a historian. Richard75 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)