Talk:Germanic kingship

I think this needs a major re-write
The lede implies that this is an obsolete (or at least dubious) historical theory, but the main body of the article doesn't make it clear what is or is not accepted by modern historians. Indeed, it seems that the only doubts about the theory are expressed as a footnote in the lede, and the use of the word "alleged" in the first section heading. Nor is it clear if the "Later Developments" are also suspect. I think this needs to be restructured to describe: I'd also suggest restoring the etymology (removed a couple of years ago by an anon). IMO, the origins of the words used to describe social institutions typically indicate something about what the people who named it thought about it, or what they claimed it was, so it is relevant to the article. Iapetus (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The known facts (or at least, the known historical descriptions of the institution).
 * 2) The 19th/early 20th century theories about the institution.
 * 3) The modern academic view (detailing both the flaws with the older research, and what people now think "Germanic Kingship" was actually like).