Talk:Edmund Ætheling

Accuracy?
There are no references in the introduction or infobox. The introduction states "After the Siege of London (October 1016), Edmund Ironside signed an agreement with Cnut the Great, in which they agreed that Cnut would rule England south of the Thames, whereas the rest, including London would remain among Ironside's possessions." This is the opposite of what other articles say. Ironside kept the land south of the Thames (Wessex), and Cnut got the rest (Mercia and Northumbria), which is the where the Danes occupied on and off for years.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have corrected what I assume was a typo and added a source. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Some questions about rough expressions
Dear wikipedians.

Hello. My name is Ansokuko-San, a Japanese Wikipedian. I have some questions about rough expressions in this article. If you can specify them, please tell me.

( I am now nominating this article of Japanese version for the Good Article, but some veterans are asking me to make it more specific in some points. I need your help……)

Three points below are now being asked by veterans.

・ < Edmund and Edward were recorded as being "somewhat grown, and had passed twelve years" when they arrived in Yaroslav's capital, Gardorika [27] >

→ the veteran is asking me about the name of literatures that prove those sentences above.

・< A mid thirteenth-century letopis (chronicle) records nothing of Edmund and Edward's stay at the Kievan court, although later Russian chronicles do mention their refuge.[29]>

→the veteran is asking me about the specific name of letopis that prove those sentences.

→the veteran is asking me about later. When were those later Russian Chronicles made? He is saying there are too many Russian chronicles to find the right ones mentioned here.

These three points are all about I want to ask. I hope they are resolved.

Regards. 安息香酸 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This article is not reliable and should not have passed as a GA. It relies heavily on a book by Gabriel Ronay, who is an amateur who is not regarded as reliable by specialists on the period. I do not have access to Ronay's book, but I have found an article by him which summarises his views ("Edward Aetheling: Anglo-Saxon England's Last Hope", History Today, Volume 34 Issue 1 January 1984). Ronay bases his version on a chronicle of Gaimar, which he claims has been unfairly dismissed by historians. Frank Barlow wrote that "because of the twelfth-century Gaimar's inventions in his Histoire des Engleis, some very strange accounts of Æthelred's descendants are in circulation". Barlow cites Ronay's book as an example of these strange accounts (The Godwins, p. 91). It is very helpful that articles on English history are translated for Japanese Wikipedia, but unfortunately this is not a good article to translate. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I had no idea about that.
 * I will look at the end of the discussion in the English version and think about the future of this article.
 * Thank you for your letting me know this important argument.
 * -安息香酸 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)