Talk:Natanleod

Location of Netley Marsh
The article currently states that Natanleod fought Cerdic in a marshy area near Netley, Hampshire called Netley Marsh. This is incorrect. The battle took place some distance from the village of Netley. Netley Marsh, the true location of the battle is a different and unrelated village with a similar name, also in Hampshire, on the other side of Southampton water, the River Itchen and The River Test. It 10 miles away from Netley (Using bridges that exist today) |11|4&bd=useful_information and would have taken an hour by boat and on foot, or much longer (About 30 miles) going in land to find somewhere to ford the Test and Itchen. Unless anyone disagrees, I will edit the article to omit Netley, and confirm the true location of Netley Marsh--139.166.245.178 (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Nathanleod invented?
It amazes me, when I read through wikipedia to see the assumptions made by old historians who lived prior to the modern discoveries of DNA/archeaology/lingusitics.

The only reason I can see that it has been stated that Natanleod was "not a real king" is that his name is clearly Germanic. And after all..havent we all been brainwashed into believing that only Celts existed on the South Coast before the arrival of the "Anglo-Saxons". All the evidence points to the existance of proto-English speakers, especially on the South Coast in pre-Roman times. Most modern scholars are coming around to this point of view as it solves so many problems with the old All-Celtic-England model which is devoid of evidence of any note. This article itself admits to Toponymy existing which refers to Natanleod. Funny that. Cerdic would have had some royal family connection to Hampshire which was what caused him to conquer it from Natanleod. Thats how its always worked in British history. Francis Pryor for example, is extremely dubious of Celtic occupation of pre-Roman South England, and points to the village of Mucking which is awash with Germanic artefacts dated to Roman times. No, they werent "Fedorate". Believe it or not, British people did exist in South England..they werent all Fedorate.--92.3.116.198 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All well and good, but Wikipedia does verifiability and reliable sources. Is there anyone who has put it in writing that Natanleod isn't a backformation from Netley? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1898, Henry Howorth wrote that Natanleod is neither "connected with Nectan, as Professor Earle suggests, nor does it mean king of the Nattas, as Dr. Guest naïvely argued." The etymological explanation for the British king was considered elementary back in 1898, even though it is indeed easy enough to find earlier sources (not reliable ones) that say otherwise. Srnec (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) I would be interested to be given references to the evidence for Germanic populations before the Roman invasion. And can anyone give me the names of some of the "modern scholars" referred to? (2) "This article itself admits to Toponymy existing which refers to Natanleod." - Not as far as I can see it doesn't. It refers to toponymy existing which people have referred to Natanleod: not the same thing at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume that Stephen Oppenheimer is someone who'd be counted as a "modern scholar". Add salt to taste. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you: I have now looked at some of Oppenheimer's stuff, and find it very interesting, and certainly relevant. There may well be a case for incorporating some references to it into the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can anyone provide a reference for 'The only reason ... that it has been stated that Natanleod was "not a real king" is that his name is clearly Germanic'? If so it would be useful to mention this in the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Natan is not too far from the Naiton used by Bede to refer to a king of the Picts. Anyways, the Sims-Williams article isn't referencing correctly. It says p. 125, but there is no p. 125. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)