Talk:Guthrum II

Antiquarian misinformation
The last entry in Simon Keynes' list of East Anglian rulers in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England (509) is Eohric. Keynes says "Little is known of the political organisation within the Scandinavian kingdom of East Anglia after 902". Not that a great deal is known of it before 902. Lappenberg appears to have based his belief in Guthrum II on the "Peace of Edward and Guthrum", but Patrick Wormald's The Making of English Law says that this dates to the time of Wulfstan II and has nothing to do with "Guthrum II" or Edward the Elder. Dorothy Whitelock in EHD seems to agree: "a text of a century later". This skepticism is not new. The 1911 Britannica, s.v. "Anglo-Saxon Law", refers to "the so-called treaty between Edward and Guthrum". It's very hard to prove a negative, but if "Guthrum II" were a generally accepted ruler it would be necessary to rely on Lappenberg's 150-year-old work and a not-very-reliable websites. It seems that nobody in the C20th wrote about "Guthrum II". That should say something. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete this article
I am not in principle against deleting this article, but this could be a complex issue, we would need to get people's opinions at an AFD discussion. I must admit I had never heard of this person myself until a couple of days ago, although I am not an expert on this period. However we can still have articles on people of doubtful historicity if sufficiently notable e.g. Pope Joan. (Although I recognise it can be a problem on Wikipedia, people attaching serious weight to very dated sources.) PatGallacher (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should add him to the Category Nonexistent people, as with Pope Joan? PatGallacher (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not unless you can find someone saying he doesn't exist we can't. The best you'll get is lists of kings stopping with Guthrum (I) or Eohric or Æthelwold, or Fryde & all in the Handbook of British Chronology with their "The succession to Guthrum [I] is not clear." Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should create a category for Persons of Dubious Reality cf. The Fourth Bear, (or Persons of Doubtful Historicity) Honestly, I can't see what's seriously wrong with the article as of now, and would vote to keep it.  If there is a worry about the optical rather than essential OR, it could be rewritten to make its source dependence clear, and the conclusion drawn obvious, especially using the 'succession to Guthrum unclear' quote.John Z (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See the Edward the Elder talk page, apparently there is a recent (2001) book on him, it might shed some light on the issues here. Can someone consult it? PatGallacher (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been an interesting rewrite of this article. However it's ultimately a little bit vague about whether there was such a person.  If this is quite this vague then should we have a single article "Viking Kingdom of East Anglia" and leave just the first Guthrum with his own article? PatGallacher (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)