Talk:Edward the Confessor

Too Much Religion
All of this material about who was the patron saint of that, etc., (in all such articles) gets very unencyclopedic and boring. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a "Sunday School" lesson. It is also very slanted towards the Roman Catholic religion. Make an encyclopedia for everybody! 74.249.92.92 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is, Edward was a tedious old scrote who sold out his kingdom to the Normans and a religious nutter to boot. He was probably quite hard though.--Streona (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally unhelpful and irrational. (Your wording indicates he sold out to a religious nutter.) Derekbd (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Saint?
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox church considers this man a saint. Could someone cite a source which claims this?


 * It doesn't, generally. The reference has been removed. InfernoXV 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the Orthodox Church in England does, along with Harold And Edward rthe Martyr--Streona (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rank?
What does "Rank: 21st" mean? It sounds like monarch Top Trumps. Marnanel 18:11, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * 21st king of England since Egbert of Wessex (who wasn't a king of England, but he was the first West Saxon king to dominate England). A pretty poor system, if you ask me. Everyking 18:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone who knows where 'the Confessor' came from should add it to the article. -- Kizor 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * done shsilver
 * That was fast. Thank you.

Tom a Beck
Where is our old friend? Surely THIS is a large missing block here...

That's because Thomas a Becket doesn't turn up in the history books till the reign of Henry II. His presence in this article would be an anachronism.

Not the first Edward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs

The Confessor was actually the third Saxon king by the name of Edward.


 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Remember you can fix errors yourself if you like, even if you're anonymous. Everyking 19:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why a saint?
That article doesn't fully explain why Edward is considered a saint. Would someone who knows please add that in?


 * Why is anyone a saint?


 * He is said to have performed miraculous healings and to have had visions. Whether those were contemporary claims or not is another matter. He was also moderately pious, which was virtually unique amongst European kings of the time.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia at Edward was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast day, according to the same source, is 13th October. For further info, see Zach Beauvais 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of individuals who attracted a cult following after their deaths from this period. If these were strong enough the Church would make them official, but often the cult would die away - as in the case of Edward's predecessors, Kings Aethelwulf and Ethelred I. However later on (I think perhaps 1161) the Church reviewed the rather vague list of saints and confirmed them or not as the case may have been. Mostly those saints with advocates were confirmed and those who did not failed. The Normans mostly did not re apply for Anglo-Saxon saints unless, like Edward, they suited their propoganda. Saints were usually either "martyrs", who had died for the faith, or "confessors" who had not but who had done a lot of praying, chastity etc. like Edward or Dunstan. Edward was thus a -or rather "the" - Confessor. the Orthodox Church had by this time split away (or the Romans had split away) and thus maintained their own list of saints, continuing to recognise many that Rome did not.--Streona (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Confessor response
It was my understanding that Edward would not sleep with his wife because she was the daughter of Godwin, and forced upon him, and that as his worldly power declined he turned to the heavanly as a retreat...and not minding what would follow after his death, apparently....


 * This is an interpretation proposed by some historians. It is not historical fact. Valiant Son 20:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have a reputable source for this you can put it in if you like, verifyability is not the same as truth. If you can verify this with a reference then it doesn't matter if it is an interpretation, as long as you point this out. This is an encyclopedia, not an historical text book. Alun 06:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the view about Edward and his unwillingness to sleep with Godwin's daughter is put forward in Simon Schama's History of Britain (Volume 1)Zach Beauvais 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

His Vow Of Chastity
according to rumor he had shot himself himself in the groin with a arrow (can't quite figure out how!?!?) which left himself permanantly impotent


 * I think the important word here is "rumour". There is no evidence to support this view. Indeed, it isn't even that widely accepted as a rumour to be honest. There are a number of theories that surround the issue of Edward's failure to produce an heir. Valiant Son 08:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * See above comment in Confessor response about verifyability. Historical accuracy isn't important as long as you have a reputable source and keep it neutral. By this I mean that if you want to put a rumour in then it must be properly referenced, and it must be noted that this is considered a rumour, this should be referenced as well, although a good reference will probably give both points of view anyway. Neutrality just means giving both (all) POVs and verifyability just means giving a reputable (published) source. See WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Alun 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read the above, particularly the line, "Historical accuracy isn't important." My God, if historical accuracy is not important then why bother with anything here? Interpretations can be included, but only if they are very clearly marked as such and a proper balance is provided. People are quite right, this is not a history text book and as such should not advance once single interpretation (a history text actually should because all history is written to advance a specific intepretation - that is the very nature of the subject. However, in an encyclopaedia a degree of dispassionate objectivity is what is called for.) If any body wants to look at the theories surrounding why Edward had no issue then that is fair enough, but doing so in the article requires that the balance is present and more than one interpretation be properly referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * added* I think it adds at least a good and interesting guess on what might have been going through his mind, or what kind of person he is. I think its a good conjecture to talk about, but since it isn't fact and could be misleading, its a throught better suited to being put here to be found.  It just keeps it part of the discussion, if not the official version.  Just a thought on it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.137.208 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming
This name: Edward the Confessor or Eadweard III was replaced by this King Edward III the Confessor I can see no reason for this. It seems strange to me. He is either King Edward, Edward the Confessor or simply Edward III. Much as the current queen is either Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth. It seems odd to me to include both, I don't think a British person would ever include both the title and the number. So as it's a British related article I've reverted to British convention. No reason was given for the change anyway. Alun 06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)i have no idea

That is not accurate. People call her Queen Elizabeth II all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.200.146 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

why don't we call him King Eddie Snr for our american readers? 62.3.70.68 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This isn't a particularly helpful comment section. He is known to history as King Edward or The Confessor (Edward the Confessor). He was the third Anglo-Saxon king to bear the name Edward, but Has never been refered to as Edward III (see Edward III). I think it's the wrong approach to change the title in order to show that two previous Edwards were also kings in England. It is better to discuss this in the entry than to change the title in reference. I also think international sniping is unhelpful even on a discussion page Zach Beauvais 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment you responded to was posted almost a year and a half ago. This was resolved and this is why these pages should be archived from time to time. -- SECisek 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) So why was he called the confessor?Callum1st2 (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Albino
Shouldn't it be stated somewhere that he was an Albino? He is mentioned in the list of famous Ablbinos and his picture highly suggests he was one.


 * What??? I'm assuming this is somebody trying to be funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Apparently not. The second source listed (Illustrated biography of Edward the Confessor) claims that he "was said by some chroniclers to be an albino". Certainly if we're going to keep this it should be mentioned in the article with a proper cite. Algebraist 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Some chroniclers"? FFS. This is not proper referencing. There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that Edward was an albino. As for his picture, has nobody noticed that this picture comes from the Bayeux Tapestry? All the people in the tapestry have a white skin because that is the colour of the cloth! His hair is white because he is an old man! As a historian, I despair. Valiant Son 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And to quote from Frank Barlow's biography of Edward (italics mine), "In fact, it does not seem that there is a single physical trait which can safely be taken from the iconography. Whether Edward in 1043 was short or tall, muscular or slight, dark or fair, imposing or insignificant, is unknown and unknowable." (Edward the Confessor, Frank Barlow, University of California Press, 1984, ISBN=0520053192, p.71) Shsilver (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice to see some common sense and inteligence on Wikipedia for a change! Valiant Son (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Danish Invasion
Every where I read it was the Vikings invasion not the Danish Invasion as you have it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.216.71.114 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC).


 * The Danish invasion is not an unreasonable term. Where do you think the Vikings came from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC).


 * In case of confusion: some Vikings came from Norway, what is now Sweden, and other places. These vikings were Danes. Algebraist 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

big mistake
on this page it says edward the confessor died on 4th January but in fact he died on the 5th January 1066. from maxine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.58.19 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * maxine is tright. he died on 5th january. > Stuart
 * Yes, Stuart and Maxine have a point, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says "the vigil of Epiphany" which is 5 January. Whether there are conflicting sources I don't know. Can anyone comment? And rew D alby  12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He died on 5th January. Countless reputbale biographies will confirm, as do several recensions of the ASC.Valiant Son 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Albinistic Edward?
In the ALbinism article it clearly states King Edward the confessor was albinistic but does not say that he was an albino in the article about him, help please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sydney2892 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

His remains being found
My understanding is that his remainds have NOT been found, but that a series of rooms were located under the Abby by means of ground penetrating radar. These rooms were never entered, owing to the fact that it would damage or destroy an ancient mosaic on the floor. It is believed that one of these rooms was used in preparing the king for burial, but whether it was the burial chamber itself will not be known until someone figures out how to get down there. Besides, if his remains were indeed moved several times (as stated, and I accept it), then there is no reason to believe he would be now inside a chamber that could not have been entered many centuries prior to these moves.

If someone could fill me in on the explanation, I'd appreciate it.

==  - Times, July 31, 1847 (#19616); page 7, column D. "A Discovery in Westminster Abbey - In making the alterations now in progress in Westminster Abbey Church, the supposed tomb of St. Edward has been discovered, at least such is the opinion of some of the abbey dignitaries. This tomb is situated exactly in the centre of the cross, it is rectangular, eight feet long, east and west, five feet wide, north and south, and two feet three inches deep. The bottom is formed of concrete, the sides and ends of rubbed stone, and it was originally covered with a slab six inches thick, but the covering disappeared ages ago, and the tomb has remained filled with rubbish. Let no-one, however, imagine that this is the original tomb of the Confessor. It is stated by the oldest authorities, quoted by Widmore, that St. Edward was buried beneath the high altar, that his remains were afterwards removed to a higher place, and then again to another still higher; while no doubt can possibly exist that his dust still reposes in the shrine prepared for it by King Henry III". (longer version of this letter also at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5fUIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=widmore+edward+confessor&source=web&ots=tfxnjj-AYG&sig=u_unaOVWRhENL9f5iIKiwTLvhxA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result in The Gentleman's Magazine for July 1847) Harami2000 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahnentafel
Regarding the ahnentafel, there is a discussion at Talk:Louis V of France. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Eadweard III?
Who calls him this? All the JSTOR hits appear to be about Eadweard Muybridge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Anglo-Saxon (Old English) spelling differed between a bit and a great deal from modern English. (Ever tried reading Beowulf in the original OId English?)  As for the eccentric photographer, he changed his name to reflect what he believed was its original Anglo-Saxon form.  I don't know why "Eadweard III" would link to him, except that he might have been the only "Eadweard" in the search database.

"Edward the Confessor" is the nickname of this particular King Edward and serves mainly to help people keep distinguish him amidst all the other King Edwards England has produced. Even academics generally use the modern spelling of his name. If you want to search JSTOR I'd try "Edward the Confessor" first, since even though today's academics, at least, are liable to shy away from calling him by a name he wasn't known by during his life, I should think the nickname would at least be mentioned in most any article on this bloke. Mia229 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward 0th?
Note 2 says:

The numbering of English monarchs starts with Edward the Confessor, but, because the Normans used the French numbering system, the truth was only discovered in computerised chromatographic analysis of previously water-damaged Latin texts. This explains why historians regnal numbers started counting from the later Edward Edward I (ruled 1272–1307) and do not include Edward the Confessor (who was the third King Edward).

I do not understand this and no reference is given. What is the French numbering system? Can the editor or anyone else explain? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's actually pretty straightforward (I'm not ready to buy into allegations that the French had some special "numbering system"): the Conquerer and his heirs don't count the old Anglo-Saxon kings (the native Britons don't even seem to have had kings who ruled over the whole island anyway). Even if there had been a Norman king named Alfred, he still would have been Alfred I. (William the Conquerer probably expected them all to have French names anyway...not Anglo-Saxon names like Edward.)  The French brought with them different ways of government, so it wasn't really just a change of dynasty, anyway. They introduced feudalism, which was a completely different economic system (with all its attendant difficulties), to the island kingdom (not to mention the French language, which was even worse :) ).

It certainly wasn't a matter of there being 1 kinds of people (those who count starting from 0 and those who don't), because the whole concept of 0 as a whole number that comes before 1 didn't exist in European culture. (Zero was used in India, but even there I think it was only a place-marker, similar (or analogous) to the way we do in numbers like 10, 6003, 2.200000000008, etc.) Mia229 (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
The article on Saint George says that the patron saint of England before George was Edward the Martyr, who is someone else entirely. Unless in the next 7 days someone can verify, with a proper source, that Edward the Confessor was ever patron saint of anything, I am going to remove this whole paragraph. Richard75 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a ref for this but don't know how to make them visisble - maybe someone else does.86.137.180.154 (talk)

Education.
The page fails to mention that Edward was educated at The King's School Ely; the word King's being a reference to him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.238.106 (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because it's very likely not true. I looked it up: a "claim in the twelfth-century...produced to validate a relic" says mediaeval specialist Frank Barlow. The "King" in this instance was Henry VIII, spending some of his ill-gotten gains to endow the cathedral school (irony or what?), according to the cathedral records. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Education (continued)
The initial correspondence under this heading was originally posted at User_talk:Dudley_Miles.

Hi Dudley, Thanks for your interest in the Edward the Confessor page. You may not be aware that the King's Ely page (the school was founded in 970) lists Edward as an alumnus, and quotes a source for this : http://www.upsdell.com/StEdwardTheConfessor/saint.htm

As an alumnus myself, I have always believed this to be correct. As far as I am aware, all alumni since the year 1013 have also believed this to be correct. Do you have reason to believe this is incorrect - or do you perhaps not trust this source? Piedmont (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * that source does not say he was an alumnus of King's Ely. It says he lived at Ely Abbey before he was exiled. The idea that King's Ely was founded in 970 (or whatever) is ... quite frankly, pretty silly to a medievalist. I'll just point out that Edward Miller's The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely has no mention whatsoever of King's Ely or of a school founded at the abbey in 970. Since that's pretty much the definitive work on the early history of Ely ... it'd need some pretty strong sourcing to see the school as founded before the charter was granted in Henry VIII's time. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Edward Miller published his book in 1951, and although he was aware of the Liber Eliensis, which is as close to a primary source (written in the 12th century) as is available, he may not have been aware of all of its contents. The full Latin text of the Liber Eliensis (that Miller chose to call the Historia Eliensis) was published only in 1962 (ref. Blake, E. O., ed. (1962). Liber Eliensis. Camden Third Series. London: Royal Historical Society.). The 2005 translation by Janet Fairweather tells us that:


 * "...(Edward) was taken there (i.e Ely) in his cradle by his father the king and his mother the queen, he had been presented on the holy altar, wrapped in a gown edged with small circles, largely green in colouring, which is still shown there and, just as the elders of the church who saw and were present had been accustomed to tell, he was confined there in the cloister with the boys for a long time, reciting the psalms and divine hymns with them."


 * Now, of course the school was not called King's Ely until the granting of a royal charter by Henry VIII on 10th September 1541. But the name is not the point. The point is that there has been a school on the same site (i.e where the cloisters were originally located) continuously since 970 (although the oldest extant structures are late 11th century), and Edward received some education at this site. Note that the school is careful not to claim that it was founded in 673 (the original date of the foundation of the abbey on the site by St. Etheldreda) precisely because the site lay in ruins between 870 and 970, i.e no education was conducted on the site during that interval. Piedmont (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Weirdly enough - I'm pretty well aware of the Liber Eliensis (hint - check out who did most of the editing to the article on it). Note that the section on Edward is from well after his lifetime. Just because it says "confined there in the cloister with the boys for a long time, reciting the psalms and divine hymns with them" ... it does not mean there was a school there. Or that if there was a school there that it is at all connected with the school that received a charter in 1541. Besides misreading the Liber, there is also the point that child oblates (which would have required a school or at least some instruction) no longer were a part of Benedictine monasticism after about 1100. There is also the problem that Frank Barlow (historian), in his biography of Edward notes that the story in the Liber is meant to imply that Edward was meant to be a monk. Barlow points out that the Liber story is not related by either the Vita Ædwardi Regis or in Osbert de Clare's writings on Edward from the early 12th century. Barlow states that the story of Edward being at Ely given in the Liber is a later invention to explain two objects owned by Ely related to Edward. One was a pall, which Ely claimed was used to wrap up Edward's infant boy when he was offered to the abbey as an oblate, and the other was a charter of privileges given by Edward after he became king. Unfortunately, the charter appears to be either an outright forgery or at best an original document so changed and revised as to be impossible to interpret. Ely's story was that Edward was to be a monk, not that he was put at Ely for an education. Barlow points out that the English monarchs did not put their offspring into the Church prior to the Conquest. He also points out that Emma was unlikely to put her firstborn son into the Church. Nor would the choice of Ely be normal - the usual monasteries that were patronized by the late Anglo-Saxon kings of England were in Wessex. Lastly - Edward is a witness to many of the royal charters in exactly the period he is supposed to be tucked away in Ely - 1007, 1008, 1011, and 1013. Edward, his younger brother Alfred, and their mother were in London in late 1013 when Swein invaded. Emma went to Normandy first, and only later were the two boys sent by their father, but they left from London, not Ely. In short - although the Liber is a great source for events close to its composition, it's not a good source for information about Edward. It's the first appearance of this story that Edward was at Ely - and it's contradicted by works composed much closer to Edward's life (and the Vita is a work that stresses Edward's piety - if it didn't mention that he was educated at Ely with the monks, it's quite likely it never happened.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a reply to this, but if you agree I would like to move the whole discussion to the talk:Edward the Confessor page. There are 2 reasons for this: firstly that this topic has been raised there before (unfortunately I didn't notice this before attempting to tag Edward with Category:People educated at The King's School, Ely), and secondly because I think this discussion will be of interest to more people than those who are likely to see it here - and hopefully save the same ground from being covered again in the future. Piedmont (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You say that there has been a school continuously on the site since 970. However, as Ealdgyth pointed out, this is unlikely, particularly as for most of the Middle Ages Benedictine monasteries did not take child oblates. Extraordinary claims require thoroughly reliable sources, and the King's Ely article gives no reliable sources for the supposed early history. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * From the Supplement to the Second Edition of the History & Antiquities of the Cathedral & Conventual Church of Ely by James Bentham, edited by William Stevenson (1817), we learn that in 1448 one John Downham was collated by Prior Wells (who styled him "Relatu fide dignorum et experiencia plenius informati") to "teach Grammar within the Grammar School of the Monastery, and nowhere else, to five charity boys", for 15 years. Bentham was a well-respected 18th century antiquarian (the first edition of this work was published in 1771) who had access to the the MS "Registers of the old Bishops of Ely" (a reliable source) held in London. Thus the development of a Grammar School at Ely was an accomplished fact at least by 1448, which is about a century before the dissolution of the monasteries and the re-foundation of the school under Henry VIII. More generally, this is a clear demonstration of a pre-reformation monastery providing education to non-oblates.


 * Note however that there is earlier evidence of education of the young at Ely's monastery. The 12th century Liber Eliensis tells us that "several considerable estates were given to the Church with such as were sent to the Abbey to receive their education" (Liber Eliensis ii, c.74). In addition, there are records of monks in 11th century Ely well qualified to teach. Bentham says that "in an old Register of the Monastery at Ely, cap. 10, it is mentioned, that, during the time Simeon was Abbott, there was among the Monks, one named Goscelin, a very learned man, who translated the History of the Lives and Miracles of the Saints into English, and also the History of St. Etheldred". Simeon (Abbot from 1082 to 1094) was the person responsible for initiating the construction of the modern cathedral. Goscelin is generally believed to have been in Ely around the year 1082.


 * The Vita Ædwardi Regis was written in around 1066 to 1070 (Frank Barlow suggested 1067 as the most likely date), i.e over a decade before Goscelin came to Ely. Goscelin has been suggested as a possible author of that work: however, it is significantly less hagiographic than Goscelin's usual style - which rather suggests alternative authorship. In any case, it is possible that the author was unaware of Edward the Confessor's alleged childhood association with Ely. In addition, the Vita Ædwardi Regis deals exclusively with Edward's adult life, and excludes his childhood altogether. Note also that Osbert of Clare's biography of Edward (written in 1138) is mainly a reworking of the Vita Ædwardi Regis, so it is not surprising that the Ely link is missing from that too.


 * Barlow finds the idea that Edward spent his early years at Ely "implausible". To support this he cites the fact that Osbert of Clare (in his own Vita of Edward) fails to mention it. He further states that Ely's story is that "Aethelred and Emma gave Edward as a child to the monastery so that he could be educated as a monk". But is that Ely's story? Perhaps Edward was not placed in Ely as a conventional oblate, but was simply placed there for his protection. If that was the case, then the choice of words in the Liber Eliensis ("in cunabulis a patre rege et matre regina super sanctum altare oblatus fuerat") could simply mean that he was handed over (allowing the possibility of a temporary basis), rather than the more technical meaning of "given as an oblate" (with the implication of permanence). Barlow himself points to a precedent for this type of arrangement. However, the choice of Ely is hardly "inexplicable", as Barlow suggests: in the 11th century Ely was widely believed to be an invulnerable fortress. This was subsequently confirmed when, after the Norman invasion, the Isle of Ely became a refuge for the remaining English forces under Morcar, Bishop Aethelwine of Durham and (later) Hereward the Wake, whose forces were finally crushed there by William the Conquerer in 1071. Given the Danish raids of the period (as Barlow points out, the Danes established a base on the Isle of Wight in 1006 from which they raided the mainland, and later raided most of the country from the Solent to the Wash between 1008 and 1012) Ely may have seemed a much safer place to hide the child than the more traditional Saxon centres such as Winchester and Glastonbury. Ealdgyth: you say that "Barlow states that the story of Edward being at Ely given in the Liber is a later invention", but he doesn't use the word invention in this context - I think you are overstating his case.


 * The words used in the Liber Eliensis seem to me to address the issue of their veracity directly ("et sicut seniores ecclesiae, qui videre et interfuere, narrare consueverant"). It appears to me unlikely that the author would make a claim that, if false, could be so easily challenged. The piety for which Edward was so widely famed (he was, remember, the first and only English king to be canonised) had clearly been inculcated somewhere: as the Jesuits say, "give me the child and I will give you the man". If his piety wasn't instilled in him at Ely, then where was it instilled? It is the idea that Edward received his early religious education at some other institution that then remained strangely silent afterwards that I find so implausible. Piedmont (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're failing to make the case from recent scholarly sources, however. If Barlow doesn't think that Edward was given to Ely (and he is quite clear that he doesn't think so) and if Miller doesn't say so, Wikipedia can't say so. You need to provide reasonably recent secondary sources that say Edward was an alumnus of King's Ely. Wikipedia uses secondary sources. All your reply above is basically interpreting primary sources, which is not Wikipedia's job. Whether there was a school in the 15th century has no bearing on Edward's life. Nor that Goscelin might have been learned enough to teach - that doesn't mean he did teach. As for the idea that Miller didn't know the Liber - well, he specifically mentions Trinity MS O.2.1 (the "E" MS of the Liber), BL MS Titus A.i (The "G" MS), BL MS Domitian A.xv (the "B" MS), and BL MS Vespasian A.xix (the "A" MS) as sources for his work. He discusses it on pages 4 and 5 (where he calls it the Historia Eliensis). It continues to be used as a source throughout the book, judging from the footnotes to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but I have to say that the King's Ely claim on Edward the Confessor as an alumnus strikes me as a classic instance of historically illiterate, institutional puffery. Of course people were educated at monasteries. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to function, let alone leave us archives to pore over. To claim that Edward may have received education on the same site would not make him an alumnus of a school, merely a student of whoever might have been available to teach him at the monastery. For example Hugh Candidus reports that Ealdwulf, who was Peterborough Abbey's first abbot after Æthelwold of Winchester's intervention there, was a layman when he entered the monastery, was Æthelwold's godson and was taught by him; and the fact that Ealdwulf went on to be a bishop at Worcester and archbishop at York does suggest that he received a great deal of education along the way. But that doesn't make him an alumnus of The King's (The Cathedral) School at Peterborough. Hugh Candidus' own education at the abbey, which he entered when he was a boy, is attributed to Abbot Ernulf, the other "elders" and his own brother: this was an entirely normal function of the monastery, and did not make it a school. As things stand, then, I really think the encyclopedic value of the King's Ely claim for the present article is nil: I think it might have a place at the King's Ely article, but it would need to be heavily qualified – its current presentation there is unsustainable, in my view. As Ealdgyth says, a recent, scholarly, secondary source saying otherwise is needed. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Last King of the House of Wessex?"
Surely this is wrong - Harold Godwinson was the lasts king of the house of Wessex? --rossb (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and the citation for that line is about Edgar Atheling (whose status as king is indeed dubious). Apparently the author of that remark forgot about Harold, who was crowned and reigned for the better part of a year, entirely. I've removed the statement. CarrieVS (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is indeed rather confusing. I'm wondering if maybe, despite being the son of the Earl of Wessex, Harold would have been considered to be of a different "house" than Edward because he wasn't Edward's direct descendant  (but came from a different branch of the House of Wessex, even though he did end up with the earldom)?


 * On a distantly-related note, ætheling (or æðeling) means "prince, nobleman, man of royal blood" — literally, someone descended from royalty (æthel/æðel = "royal, noble" +  -ing is a patronymic suffix).  In this type of context — when somebody is known as "so-and-so the Ætheling" — it tends to refer particularly to a king's son or grandson — an heir apparent or presumptive (or at least, someone who would be described as such under the Norman system; I don't really know to what extent the Anglo-Saxon kings actually practised any form of primogeniture).  To the best of my knowledge, "throneworthy" is not at all accurate — AFAIK that was never the meaning, even in a broader or more metaphorical sense.  (Not to mention the fact that it's a noun, not an adjective....) Mia229 (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Only Royal Saint?
"Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised," is not Charles I St. Charles the Martyr? http://skcm.org/


 * The Charles I of England article has no mention of any canonization. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Edmund the Martyr? Hmm... guess he's just East Anglia. Edward the Martyr though, is considered a saint, and was king of England. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But neither Edmund nor Edward the Martyr was canonised. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That'll be equipollent canonization I think. (Equipollent? New one on me.) So, Edward the Martyr too. Ealdgyth wins! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've always seen it as "pre-congregation" canonization - it's pretty common with pre-1000 saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have just caught up with this. I had never heard of equipollent canonization either. The article on it links to which says that it is nomination as a Doctor of the Church. I think Ealdgyth said this applies to Bede, but presumably not to Edward the Martyr. So did he have an equipollent or "pre-congregation" canonization, and should the articles on both Edwards be revised accordingly? I am very unclear how long ago someone had to live before (and whether) it is meaningful to say they were not canonised. According to the List of canonizations the first one was in 993 and canonised Ulrich of Augsburg, who died in 973, just before Edward the Martyr, and in 1441 Henry VI unsuccessfully attempted to get Alfred the Great canonised. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe there was an attempt to get Henry III (or was it VI?) canonized at one point. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * His widow, Eleanor, certainly hoped to get Henry III canonized, but his son (Edward) didn't believe in the reported miracles, which rather put the dampener on the whole affair... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

the epithet
The explanation that "the Confessor" is "the name for someone believed to have lived a saintly life but who was not a martyr" is not very satisfactory. I am interested as to where the epithet is first recorded. this miniature (as usual on commons, nobody thought it worthwhile to identify the manuscript, apparently saying "13th century" is considered a reference now) just calls him "Saint Edward". I can only assume that the above explanation is supposed to mean that he used to be called Saint Edward the Confessor as opposed to Saint Edward the Martyr, as it were the "Confessor" vs. "Martyr" disambiguating two people already known as "Saint Edward". This would appear to suggest that the necessity for disambiguation arose after 1161, when he was canonized.

The suggestion that he was ever known as "Ēadweard Andettere" seems to be a complete fabrication produced for Wikipedia. I have no idea why this was left unchallenged. This was apparently just coined as an article title for ang: (by looking up "confessor" in a dictionary) and not with the intention of claiming historicity. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Seal inscription caption
The caption from the image of Edward's seal reads: "Edward's seal: SIGILLVM EADWARDI ANGLORVM BASILEI (Seal of Edward crowned/King of the English)." Does the part in English in brackets purport to be a translation of the text on the seal? Because if it does then it is incorrect, the translation would be "The Seal of Edward - Emperor of the English". At this time the Greek word Basileus meant emperor; in Byzantine political theory the title was restricted to the sovereigns of Constantinople. Earlier English kings, such as Offa of Mercia and Aethelstan, also used the title Basileus as an imperial pretension. Urselius (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Anglosaxon or Normand?
How can Edward the Confessor be an Anglosaxon when he is the son of a Normand? AFOH 06:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The rulers of the various European states were interrelated with their neighboring competitors through marriage. To increase communication, understanding and commerce and especially to decrease the potential for violence and war, the exchange of land and brides was an essential process in maintaining the religious, political and military elite.

Unless a woman owned property in her own right, her status was based on her paternity and the quality of her husband. She gained the most power by adapting to the culture of her husband rather than fighting the status quo.

As a noble, Edward the Confessor was expected to understand the customs and mores of his Anglo-Saxon father's people, and to sit in judgement over them. The culture of his Norman mother's youth was simply irrelevant to his daily life.24.11.170.191 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon is not, nor has it ever been, a race or a biological grouping - this is a later historiographical nationalist creation. Instead it WAS (ie. no longer is, as one cannot be an 'Anglo-Saxon' unless a millennia old) a shared set of (material) cultural norms. Edward is very clearly an Anglo-Saxon.Faust.TSFL (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Uhm
What about the dream Edward the Confessor had on his deathbed in which two monks told him that "demons" would come and destroy his kingdom within a year and a day of his death?

It's on the 3 episodes of Dan Snow's new 1066 documentary on the BBC iPlayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2B05:EA00:8012:D22F:D88D:8E63 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The only source for that is Vita Ædwardi book II, which can't be considered a reliable source for anything other than what Stigand and Edith wanted people to believe. The apocalyptic elements could probably do with a mention at Vita Ædwardi Regis, but in the context of his biography are just trivia. Dan Snow is a modern military historian, not a mediaevalist, and his opinions shouldn't be given any special treatment in the absence of academic sources that concur with them. The actual "prophecy" was L'arbre vert ke du trunc nest, Quant diluée serra severée, E a trois arpenz éloigné, Par nuli engin u mein Au trunc revendra premereîn, E se joindra a la racine, Dunt primes avoit orine, Li ceps recevera verdur. Fruit portera après sa flur. (The green tree which springs from the trunk, when thence it shall be severed and removed to a distance of three acres, by no engine or hand, shall return to its original trunk and shall join itself to its root whence first it had origin. The head shall receive again its verdure, It shall bear fruit after its flower.); there's no "within a year and a day" in there. &#8209; Iridescent 22:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Struggling to see any demons, either.Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed—in the hagiographic view Edward was a saint and was hardly likely to be having cosy chats with demons, and in the strictly pragmatic view Edith and Stigand were trying to demonstrate that the ruptures caused by the Conquest would one day heal, and that message would hardly be more plausible were it delivered by agents of Satan. In the unlikely event that one believes that (a) Edward actually said this and (b) was relaying a genuine vision rather than just delirious, the only obvious interpretations are either that he was foreseeing a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western churches (which had split during his reign), or that he foresaw the marriage of Henry and Matilda and thus that the Saxon bloodline would return to the throne. &#8209; Iridescent 18:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it's probably a charming fable. And, after exactly 950 years, we are somewhat unlikely to stumble upon any other sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Trust me, you'd be shocked at how often assorted amateur historians "discover" new facts about the Conquest, all of which by happy circumstance support whatever pet thesis they're trying to prove. Add Battle of Hastings to your watchlist for a while to get an authentic taste of it. (It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that new material about Edward will come to light—there must be stacks of contemporary correspondence and notes in the Vatican archives relating to the relations between Normandy, England, Wales, Norway and the Papacy.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An intriguing thought. I'm not sure we can trust Snow to be wholly impartial here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * An intriguing thought. I'm not sure we can trust Snow to be wholly impartial here. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing line
I think the statement that "Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised" is somewhat confusing and possibly wrong. Is it meant to indicate that he was the first Anglo-Saxon to be canonised (though whether by date is unclear), or that he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised. To me at the moment it reads like the former, but there is a problem here as the date given in the article for his canonisation is 1161. However the article for John of Beverley, who was also an Anglo-Saxon dates his canonisation to 1037. Similarly there is also the issue of Anglo-Saxon's who lived earlier, but were not canonised until later. An obvious case here would be St Bede who lived more than 300 years earlier than Edward the Confessor, but was not formally canonised until the 19th century. If it is saying he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised this leaves the issue of who the others were as it is noted in the article that others were venerated as saints, but not formally canonised. I therefore wonder if some form of rewording is in order? Dunarc (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Another case is Ælfheah of Canterbury, who was canonized in 1078. I will revise. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think the new version is much clearer. Dunarc (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Coronation regalia
The article states that "The abbey held a set of coronation regalia bequeathed by Edward for the use of his successors." This is based on a royal publication and is wrong. Barlow in his biography p. 269 says that his crown and sceptre were probably "abstracted" from his tomb when it was opened in 1102, so whether or not they were the regalia held by the abbey until 1649, they were not bequeathed by Edward. A post on X at says that the regalia were erroneously believed to have belonged to Edward. In the absence of reliable sources, I think that the story should be deleted. Can anyone find a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I had originally added: "For some time the abbey had claimed that it possessed a set of coronation regalia that Edward had left for use in all future coronations." The source was this. No page was given, but it looks like it may have been page 6. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I cannot find any reference to it in the very extensive biographies and other books about Edward, and I think it belongs in articles about coronations and the abbey rather than this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the info. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Princess Agatha Von Brunswick
Who was Princess Agatha Von Brunswick? Presumably not Agatha (wife of Edward the Exile). Why is it claimed that she married Edward the Confessor? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)