Talk:Harold Godwinson

Harold's coronation
My edit citing Robin Fleming in ODNB for Harold's coronation being the first in Westminster Abbey and deleting the citation of the Westminster Abbey as saying that this is uncertain has been reverted. An anomyous summary on an abbey website is not a reliable source for eleventh century history and also the wiki version which I revised is ambiguous. It appears to say that it is uncertain whether Harold's coronation was the first in the abbey, whereas the website says it is uncertain whether he was crowned there. Frank Barlow in his biography of Edward p. 254 also says that Harold was crowned there, so that is two reliable sources against one doubtful one. I have therefore reverted back to my version. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Article Title Change
The article is currently titles as "Harold Godwinson" which is not as widely used as Harold II of England Which is both a better descriptor as well as more uniform with other historical monarchs' article titles. It looks like the article originally was titled "Harold II of England" and was changed to "Harold Godwinson" at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc2830 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Doc2830 - it is possible to change article titles, but you would need sourcing to establish that it's the more common name (I'm personally more familiar with Harold Godwinson) and you'd need to gain a consensus here. Do you have any sources to support the notion that he is more widely known as Harold II of England? Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  20:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you claim that Harold II is more commonly used, because as far as I know and find in my history books, Harold Godwinson is a more common name for this monarch. So I don't think such an article change is really warranted... -- fdewaele, 24 July 2019, 23:16 CET.
 * As per fdeawaele, and unless you can show evidence that Harold II is more common AND gain consensus that the the article should be renamed, the status quo should remain. I have therefore reverted the name change pending such consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that a previous request for a page move (to Harold II of England) was clearly rejected here and re-iterated here. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 04:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

King Zedekiah
Watched a podcast with Marc Morris recently, in which he suggested that the arrow-in-the-eye tale may have been a deliberate reference to the Biblical King Zedekiah, who was an unfaithful vassal of the Babylonians (similar to what the Normans claimed Harold to be). He saw his sons killed in front of him (brothers in Harold's case) before being blinded.Paulturtle (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We would need a better source than a podcast but it seems unlikely that the Normans would have wanted to identify with the Babylonian destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I am sure you know, there has been a good bit of scholarship discussing on the arrow in Harold's eye. Even with a better quality source, it would probably still be an WP:UNDUE drop in this bucket of speculation.  Not every novel take from a scholar, even a respected one, trying to squeeze one more paper for their CV out of thoroughly-tread history is fit for a general biography. Agricolae (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I’m not sure any of that is true – stating that the Normans would not have wanted to be compared to Nebuchadnezzar (who is, after all, portrayed as a mighty ruler in the Bible) looks like overthinking things, and if it was a recognised trope of art or literature at the time that a perjurer or disloyal vassal received a blinding injury in the course of meeting his end then it’s probably worth a brief mention. Morris discusses the matter on p 185 of his book on the Norman Conquest, sourced to a 1983 article by somebody else. He also argues that the story of Harold being hunted down and killed by a squad of Norman knights is very plausible because Norman sources ignore rather than denying it, and that it’s perfectly possible with so many arrows flying around that King Harold actually did just get an arrow in the eye. Still, it’s “not my period” and I’ve no real interest in having an argument about it.Paulturtle (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Which Edith?
The present text of the "Marriages and children" section makes it hard to tell how many Ediths there were, and hard to know for certain which Edith is being referred to each time that name appears. It's probably clear enough to those who already know the facts, but someone learning the facts here for the first time might be lost. I certainly was. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have hopefully clarified this. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Harold's death
@User:Ealdgyth can you please explain the reason for repealing the edits clarifying the dispute surrounding Harold death. 51.7.67.215 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It had unsourced speculation/conclusion drawing - we don't do that. "however, this would not account for the Tapestry's prior depiction of a lance and the figure to the left (who would be the first instance of Harold in the case of being lanced then dismembered) does not have an arrow wound." and "In the case that Harold was lanced and then dismembered the Tapestry's prior depiction of a lance would suggest that he was speared in the back, potentially in an act of treachery." Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case the correct course of action would be to request a source/correction, or in the extreme remove that speculation, not to repeal the whole edit (which had other edits as well) forcing other users to redo those edits and potentially creating a dispute.
 * Some might consider such a repeal, or even wholesale removal of text, (rather than a request for citation) to be vandalism. 51.7.67.215 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For "correction" please read "citation" 51.7.67.215 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Ealdgyth again you are deleting edits rather than requesting references. As advised before, if you disagree with an edit the proper course of action is to request a reference to the academic work that supports it, not for you to delete text that you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.67.215 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are sources to support the edits - they should be used. The material has been challenged, it should not be restored without reliable sources. And inserting the information into already sourced information does not count as being sourced, nor does historytoday.com Ealdgyth (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @user:ealdgyth new sources for the information were included in the edit, deleting edits without requesting refernces prevents additional sources being added to the update. 51.7.67.215 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)