Talk:Wessex

revert
Had to revert the last edit, as a glance at the map of Wessex in Thomas Hardy's works will show that he certainly included Devon (as Lower Wessex) within his literary Wessex.

I note that the flag of Wessex has been changed, but essentially the illustration on here is similar to the previous one. Was there a copyright issue? James Frankcom
 * The version currently shown was designed by William Crampton of the Flag Institute in 1974. I changed it from an "improved" version designed by Chris Fear, because all the Wessex flags currently in existence are based on the Crampton design, rather than Fear's more complex version, which would be more expensive to make Nick xylas 04:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC):

King Agbert of England?
What goes on here? King Egbert was the first King of England? This contradicts the England article and generally every other source which indicates Athelstan was the first King of England. Egbert did not refer to himself as King of England. He was the Bretwalda. This article confuses things. Even Alfred never called himself King of England. White43 13:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to add that Alfred must have very much wanted to call more than just the King of Wessex. After all, he certainly dreamed of a unified England. --&quot;To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.&quot; (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Golden Dragon
I notice there's no reference to the infamous Golden Dragon/Wyvern that decorates many things in the region. Appeared on the Bayeux tapestry and referenced by Henry of Huntingdon and Matthew of Westminster when talking of the Battle of Burford. 84.12.47.154 11:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC) The problem with the Golden Dragon is that there aren't any contemporary accounts of it. The ASC's account of Burford has the West Saxons defeating the Mercians and the Mercians fleeing and that's as descriptive as it gets. Huntingdon writing about four centuries later 'sexes' it up a bit by adding all sorts of things like golden dragons and Amazonian battle axes. Matthew of Westminster didn't actually exist; he was confused with Matthew Paris and Flores Historiarum itself was compiled by several different authors. It has Uther Pendragon designing the Golden Dragon, so I wouldn't take either writing as evidence. The Bayeux Tapestry shows various dragons, according to the White Dragon (England) entry:


 * A soldier is shown in one scene with an apparent white dragon on his shield, however this is certainly a Norman.
 * In the scene depicting Harold's death, a man immediately in front of him is shown flying a gold/red/white dragon standard.
 * Two men in front of Harold is a slain soldier, showing a golden dragon on the floor.

Note that the second two are likely to be the same dragon standard.

In the 'Here Harold Dies' section there are indeed two dragons, one being a mixture of colours - red, gold and white - and one on the ground that is gold. The above Wikipedia entry states they are probably the same standard and I have heard this elsewhere, but the clothes on the two soldiers are different as is the colour of the standard, so that might not be the case. There are three main sticking points with all this of course. Firstly it was the English army fighting at Hastings not the West Saxon one. Secondly as there is no pre-Norman account of Wessex flying dragon standards, any suggestion that the standards on the Tapestry are those of Wessex has no more basis than tradition and some dodgy early historianship. Thirdly, to assume that the standard is representative of the Royal House of Wessex is to combine points one and two.

Dragon standards were very popular in Europe at the time and a battle standard does not equate to a national symbol, if such a thing even existed in England in the 11th century. It's worth mentioning the Golden Dragon as a symbol of Wessex, but historically it has no more basis than the White Wyvern of Mercia. You must remember that many so-called flags were invented in the High Medieval period when heraldry first took off and people wanted to symbolize ancient defunct kingdoms. Ed4444 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed4444 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

But was it the English army fighting at Hastings, or just the West Saxons? Earls Edwin and Morcar and their armies took no part in the battle. David Robins (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone interested in working on Wessex related articles?
I left a note at the forum page for the medieval wiki project, but I don't know how many people read that, so I thought I'd post a note here and at Mercia too. Is anyone interested in working on getting all the Wessex (or Mercia) related articles up to high quality, e.g. featured standard? It would mainly be the kings and battles articles, plus a general history article (this one) and maybe a few others. If you're interested, let me know and I'll see about setting up a task force page under the main wiki project to help coordinate activities. Mike Christie (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merges
The result was merge both Ceol of Wessex and Ceolwulf of Wessex into Wessex. -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there are some minor kings of whom there is so little that can be said that they do not need their own articles. I've nominated Ceol and Ceolwulf for merging, and thought I'd stop there and see what others think before nominating more. Aescwine looks like another candidate to me.

I expanded the history section to discuss the early kings in more detail, since the merge does require that these kings are discussed here as fully as they can be. What I've done is just a draft/placeholder so that the merge can proceed, if there's no other reason not to. Mike Christie (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed! put the single sentence or whatever little's known into a footnote in the relevant article of larger context (Wessex), bold the name as it appears in that article, as the object of a redirect, and make the stub-without-a-future into a redirect. No information gets lost, and anyone with new material can add it to the footnote, or even create an article. Few would complain, except the disinfobox makers, who generally like to complete their collection of empty boxes, and the biographical directory entry listers. Neither group is building an encyclopedia. If every fool can "be bold!" why not a sensible editor too!--Wetman 04:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Map discussion
Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian. I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries. The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the page move?
This article contains info not just about the kingdom but other matters too. I don't know how to revert to a page that already exists as a redirect - can an admin do it please? ðarkun coll 12:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It does say Kingdom of Wessex in an infobox at the top of the page if that is a clue. The Quill (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to move it -- most secondary sources simply describe it as "Wessex", not as "the Kingdom of Wessex". Is there some country naming convention that I'm not aware of that would apply here? Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The term Wessex is still often used to relate to the area that the Kingdom of Wessex one ruled but not the Kingdom iteself. An articel named Wessex shoudl exist talking about the area known as wessex but it doesn't. (At the moment) The Quill (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it does - it's this one. It talks about the kingdom and more recent things too. ðarkun coll 19:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't have an article which mixes history and modern events so badly. Note why England and Kingdom of England are seperate. You can't fill almost two millenia of histroy all on the same page you can't get enoguh detail in and it looks messy and unorganised. The Quill (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In your opinion. History specific to Wessex as Wessex doesn't need its own article. ðarkun coll 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you rephrase that becuase I don't understand what you just said. Sorty. The Quill (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No I think it's quite clear. ðarkun coll 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously that doesn't help I am asking you to rephrase your question TharkunColl. If you don't have the intelligence or mental capacity to do that get of Wikipedia now! I'm going to ask you nicely now but please don;t get mouthy with me when I'm completely inncocently asking you to rephrase yourself. The Quill (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understood Tharkuncoll to mean that this article can include information about Wessex, in whatever sense that is now understood, and also the historical kingdom from which modern uses derive the name. He is saying that there is no need to divide the historical information from the rest.  I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, though if pressed I'd agree with Tharkuncoll, at least until the article gets longer.  Either way you need a consensus before a move which is likely to be controversial, per WP:RM.  Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a clear explanation Mike Christie
 * I'm not saying that history specific to Wessex needs its own article however the history of the Kingdom of Wessex does. As I have said before it is impossible to usefully fit two millenia of history into one article. That isn't a POV its a fact. To describe such a large period if history accurately would make an article too long for use of Wikipedia. The Quill (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dating and the expansion of early Wessex
I note that the date of Cerdic's landing has been revised and placed at 538AD. I accept this does aid with some inconsistencies with the genealogies of the early kings of Wessex but on the down side completely obliterates the formative events prior to the capture of Old Sarum in 552AD.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle places the arrival of Cerdic in the year 495 with other West Saxons arriving on the southern coast around the Solent between 495AD - 504AD. There is then a battle in 508 (probably at Netley) resulting in the capture of Winchester and another in 514 that culminated most probably in the conquest of Silchester and the occupation of the rest of what is today called the county of Hampshire. Another battle in 519 at Cerdicesford (Charford) on the River Avon (Hampshire) may be the last before the Battle of Mons Badonicus occurred and West Saxon advances are checked. There is no further expansion by the West Saxons noted by the chronicle until 552AD when they are recorded as capturing Old Sarum. If we accept the conclusions of one academic and move the date of all these events to 538-552AD we are saying definitively that the Anglo Saxon Chronicle is wrong. We are also deciding to expunge from the record a series of formative events in the early history of the kingdom of Wessex; events which crucially collaborate with the little we know about the Arthurian period of British history; particularly the view that Mons Badonicus occurred in c.517AD which supports the corresponding gap in the expansion of Wessex recorded in the Chronicle between c.519 and 552AD. The view that Mons Badonicus occurred in 517AD is further supported by statements made by Gildas concerning his date of birth and by the Welsh Annals. To conclude that the entire invasion and occupation of early Wessex occurred after 538AD has a very detrimental effect on other events and is too drastic to accept without discussion.James Frankcom (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the use of 517 as the date for Mons Badonicus in the article. It struck me as being very precise and a bit later than I've understood it to be. I figured this bit was the place to discuss it.

I have three books which all agree that the battle of Mons Badonicus was circa 500: Arguing the veracity of 517 is all very well, but in Wikipedia it counts as OR and is irrelevant. If you have a source (presumably the From Caesar to Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe referenced in the Mons Badonicus article), then that is all you can present in support. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy on conflicting sources is, but I doubt it's up to Wikipedians to weigh up the evidence and decide which is correct. However, in light of what appear to be conflicting sources, I reckon any date for Mons Badonicus should at least be stated as a range, say, 490 - 517, and accompanied with references, as it is in the Mons Badonicus article.
 * Anglo-Saxon England by Frank Stenton: "The phrase in which Gildas attempts to give the date of this battle is obscure, but places it a little before or after the year 500."
 * The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain edited by Kenneth O Morgan: "... culminating in a major British victory, perhaps in c.500, at an unidentified place called Mons Badonicus."
 * The Complete Guide to the Battlefields of Britain: "Mount Badon (Mons Badonicus) c.490-9"

James Richardson (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Dore
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dore. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think that Gewisse should be merged into Wessex, as it appears to be near synonymous and is used historiographically only for the early formation of the kingdom. The scope of Gewisse is thus very limited and only duplicates information that is (or should be) present in the Wessex article. Revcasy (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My view is that Tribes and Kingdoms should be kept separate as much as possible, particularly where a lineage is involved. In this case the lineage of Cerdic and his descendants needs to be added to the Gewisse article. I'd be in favour of moving some of the Wessex information into this article and strengthening the link, as it can be fleshed out quite a bit in its own right. For example, I've been trying to track down a reference covering the possible etymological connection between Gewisse and Hwicce after 577AD which would connect the Gewisse to two different kingdoms rather than just one.Metabaronic (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible for two groups to share an etymological connection in their names without sharing a common origin, particularly when the name may have been related to a common Old English word. I would be interested to see what other connection has been demonstrated between the Gewisse and the Hwicce, if any. Still, an intriguing  possiblity.Revcasy (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. [Unsigned comment by unknown user].


 * I also disagree. The two topics are clearly different, albeit related. More detailed discussion of the term "Gewisse" would be disproportionate in this article, but is still desirable, so it should have it's own article. Postlebury (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree, as above. — Llywelyn II   19:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Devon
I added a comment into the Revival of Wessex section to the effect that some Devonians do not identify themselves as being from Wessex, but rather with Dumnonia (or in more modern day parlance they associate themselves more with Cornwall and perhaps Somerset and Dorset, but not in a region with points as far east as Hampshire, Berkshire or Oxfordshire. I am one of those people. In reality this was a restatement of comments that appeared here, after some interaction with Nick Xylas (of the Wessex Society), and I believe that it should be reinstated for completeness.  There are numerous examples if evidence is needed. Dewnans (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See Fringe theories. That's exactly what this is - a whacky minority fringe theory. Let's see what others think. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole Revival section is unreferenced. The Hardy section needs to be there, and some reference to the regionalist micro-groups, but we are in danger of giving undue weight, that could cause confusion to readers elsewhere in the world who might not be aware of how "fringe" these groups are.  The text in relation to those groups needs to be referenced from WP:RS.  So far as Devon is concerned, Dewnans' personal contacts, views and beliefs should be given no weight whatsoever here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob reborn, you may not like it, but the idea tha tmany Devonians see themselves as having more in common with Cornwall is not fringe. In fact many politicians have taken this too far with their Devonwall proposals. The fact that this does not fit with your world view may be unfortunate. The fact that you refuse to allow this to be discuused (by undoing my postingson this discussion page) suggests a ratther autocratic and dogamatic view, for a county which you (as a person from Somerset) do not come from. If you do not agree with the RFOD link then fine (I am not associated with that), but if we must go to the mat on the broader issue then we will Dewnans (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I had not noticed that my earler contribution had been moved. However, given the coments above I will repeat that my only point is that many in Devon do not identify with a "wessex" region, although some may. Devon has very strong links with Cornwall, both geographical, historical and administative. Devon has officially adopted its own flag (refer Devon County Council website), and many Devonians would refer to Exeter as its capital (without any implications of independence I may add, which we tend to leave to our Cornish bretheren. It should also be noted that when the government was proposing a South West regional (devolved) authority, two on-line petitions collcted (in total) over 1,000 names opposing this. Happy to provide references. Don't get me wrong, I am not proposing any indepenence movement for Devon, and (to repeat) I have nothing to do with the RFOD website, which I simply used as an example Dewnans (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You claim that "many in Devon do not identify with a "wessex" region, although some may"? You imply through this that it is actually a majority which I find hard to believe. As Ghmyrtle said, this needs to be properly sourced. --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c) You say "happy to provide references", but you need to do so. They need to be independent references, and we need to give them proper (that is, possibly very little or no) weight. "Over 1000" signatures on a petition is, frankly, laughably puny and non-notable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I am happy to provide references if neded. I would point out that whilst GHmyrtle denegrates two on-line petitions with over 1,000 signatures ( and I agree it is hardly a majority) the Cornish equivalent also got just over 1,000 names itself (although, with the backing over the local WMN newspaper they collexted 50,000 in a paper based equivalent.). I know an online petition on the same subject suposedly representing Wessex (authored if I recall by the Wesex Society) died a death with only a couple of dozen names before it disapeared. I would also point out that a mere 1,000 names compares rather favourably with the polling of the Wessex Regionalist Party in recent decades. Having said all that I do not have an issue with the latest modification the the Wessex website that Bob Reborn posted recently Dewnans (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why am I reminded of this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good :-), but somehow I am reminded of this Dewnans (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed all the stuff about boundary disputes, simply due to being unable to find any citations that match Wikipedia's quality standards. I have also added a citation for the non-controversial material that simply states that Wessex Society and the Wessex Regionalists exist. Nick xylas (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Capital

 * None specified

Well, try looking further down your own article... or the city mentioned. JLogan addressed the issue correctly: we should be trying to be helpful, not rubbing it in people's faces that the past is a foreign country. Still, since the issue came up at kingdom of Gwent and this page has lacked a capital for months now, so let's talk about it.

Do people really think "none specified" (and that's it) is more helpful than "Winchester" with the caveat
 * Winchester was not the capital consistently. Previous capitals were Sherborne in Dorset and Wilton in Wiltshire.

I sure don't, but presumably regular A-S editor Ghmyrtle feels differently. The rest of y'all? — Llywelyn II   19:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gwent was Welsh, and Wessex was Saxon - quite different. But, why this obsession with capitals?  People did not necessarily organise themselves that way then.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The capital became 'unspecified' as a result of a couple of unrelated edits; the first one replaced all the infobox with a map, the second one reinstated an infobox, but without all the information it previously contained. It doesn't look like any kind of conspiracy or agenda to remove a specified capital. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Winchester is acknowledged by almost all historians of the subject as being the capital of Wessex, at least de facto, from the 9th Century onwards until 1066 when it was was still the capital of the Earldom of Wessex. I have amended the info box so it says that Winchester was the capital "after the 9th Century" so we can avoid the pedantic inclusion of Dorchester (which is only postulated as a possible capital) and Sherborne which is actually incorrect. Sherborne was the capital of a bishopric in western Wessex and consisted of the areas to the west of the Forest of Selwood which were long regarded as being beyond Wessex and part of 'Dummnonia'. Aetheling1125 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh.... hi. IDK what has happened since this last discussion, but... uh... the capital is missing altogether. It doesn't say "none specified". It doesn't say any list of previous capitals or any qualifying statement of where its capital could be considered. The word "capital" is never mentioned in the article. In fact, the word "city" is only mentioned in the fiction section. Sure, many civilizations didn't have exact capitals, such as the Ethiopian Empire, but even then there is somewhere in the article that explains what equivalent of a capital there was. Besides, this is clearly not the case for Anglo-Saxon civilizations, because all the rest of the heptarchy are shown to have exact capitals specified in their articles, and Wessex is the most famous of them all. What is going on?

Can this please get fixed ASAP. LutherVinci (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * While ecclesiastical centres (often doubling as royal burial places) existed, and often one had pre-eminence, in contemporary England, they were not capitals in the modern sense. They were not the seats of government, the seat of government was wherever the king and his court were at the time, and these were usually in fairly constant motion. Just because an infobox has a space for something it doesn't mean it always has to be filled in. Urselius (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2018: (UTC)
 * This is the edit which removed it, a few weeks ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

LutherVinci is right: "all the rest of the heptarchy are shown to have exact capitals specified in their articles, and Wessex is the most famous of them all".

I'm astonished that this is even a debate and I'm sure there will be WP:RS indicating that Winchester, and probably Dorchester before it, was the capital "unofficially", "de facto", or a similar word.

Grant &#124;  Talk  02:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon kings travelled round their country and did not have a capital. See the discussion at Talk:Winchester. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Anglo-Saxons had royal and ecclesiastical centres, such as Ad Gefrin in early Northumbria; Mercia had two, Lichfield and Tamworth, the first being an ecclesiastical centre, the second a royal centre. The problem is whether or not these centres fulfilled the functions of a modern capital. In being permanent kingdom-wide seats of royal power, they certainly were not, as that resided wherever the king and or his Witan were situated at any particular time. Urselius (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you think "de facto" and "unofficial" mean?

Also, I think it would be a novelty, to say that an Anglo-Saxon king did not have a main residence

Grant &#124;  Talk  01:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not editors' opinions, and the leading authorities on Anglo-Saxon England say that there was no concept of a capital city in this period. For example, the standard history, Frank Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, says on page 539 "In the eleventh century the conception of a capital city had not yet taken definite shape anywhere in the west. The centre of government in England was the king's mobile court." (Thus the "main residence" of an Anglo-Saxon king was his mobile court.) This was published in 1971 so it is now dated, but an editor who argues that there was a capital - official or unofficial - must provide reliable sources, not just contradict the leading experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes - and this was also true of most early medieval monarchies, and many later much on. Johnbod (talk) 09:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"In the eleventh century the conception of a capital city had not yet taken definite shape anywhere in the west" while true, is extremely misleading. The concept of sovereign states had not yet taken definite shape anywhere in the west until very recent centuries, yet we still provide useful information for the equivalents of this concept in pre-modern times. The concept of Pope had not yet taken definite shape until the 5th century AD, yet the articles on Wikipedia still provide the same information for these Papacies before and after the 5th century. The fact is that equivalent concepts of something may exist in the distant past, even if their modern counterpart hasn't been defined yet. The fact that monarchism was developed in the Enlightenment doesn't mean that kings didn't exist before that time period. Thus, the modern concept of a national capital didn't exist at this time period, but if you lived in Wessex in the 9th century you could be fairly confident that all political and religious decisions are being made in the city of Winchester or Dorchester. Legally speaking, the court is not restricted to one city and can be wherever the King's court decides to be, but is the reader of an infobox looking for a strict legal definition? If so, then why have any articles on nation-states prior to the Treaty of Westphalia? Why have capitals listed for all the rest of the Heptarchy? Does this chronological restriction only apply here and not to them? This is also ignorant of the fact that many nations had effectively equivalent capitals in the western world prior to the Middle Ages. The Roman Empire certainly existed thousands of years before the concept of a capital city had yet taken shape, but would anyone dispute that Rome was effectively the capital of the empire? This is also the case for nations early in the Middle Ages, despite the royal court being wherever the King is, the King effectively had a permanent residence in almost all cases: the Ostrogothic Kingdom was administrated from Ravenna, the Visigothic Kingdom was ruled first from Toulouse, then moved to Toledo. The Kingdom of Francia first ruled from Paris, then moved to Aachen, etc. You may feel restricted by a supposed lack of sources specifically saying that Wessex had a capital, but in this case I believe it is a matter of common sense. LutherVinci (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should summarise the views of experts. It is not based on editors' views of what is common sense, which will differ between editors and lead to endless arguments. The concept of the state was not the same in the Anglo-Saxon period, but historians do write about Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and so do we. Whether and when the kingdoms became states is a matter of discussion. They say that there was no fixed capital in the period, and we follow their views. Historians of the Roman Empire do describe Rome (and other cities at some periods) as the capital and therefore so does Wikipedia. The case of popes is different. It is anachronistic to describe early bishops of Rome as popes and academic experts do not, but religious sources such as Catholic encyclopedias do. There are almost certainly long arguments somewhere on Wikipedia about the use of the term for early bishops where the majority wrongly rejected following academic usage. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be pointy, Dudley! There is in fact an agreement somewhere, at least for categories, as to when Bishops of Rome become popes - somewhere in the 3rd cenhtury I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You lose me John. Dictionaries define pointy as coming to a sharp point or pithy and incisive. Neither sounds bad to me. As to your comment, I cannot see what you are referring to. Pope Linus, d. AD 76, is described as a pope in the article title and listed under 1st century popes in his categories. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Historians aren't a homogenous collective that you can definitely say who "they" are, historians can differ just as much as editors. Certainly some academic sources may say that Wessex had no fixed capital, and some will say that Winchester functions as a capital as well as can be considered equivalent, and both statements can be true at the same time. I would expect that the consensus of historians is that Wessex had as much of a capital as every other Medieval Kingdom (at least every other kingdom of the Heptarchy), all of which have the capital listed in their infobox currently. It seems that the editors of this article chose to listen only to the former historians (saying that there is no capital at all) while every other article on Wikipedia chose to listen to the latter (that one city was used most of the time so it was de facto a capital even though they didn't have a modern concept of a capital city). As for "endless arguments" I don't know of any argument on this subject, because no one would suggest any other city was used to hold a royal court besides Winchester, and this is the same approach used in the articles of every other Medieval Kingdom. You also defer to experts to say "the Roman Empire do describe Rome (and other cities at some periods) as the capital" and yet you also said "the conception of a capital city had not yet taken definite shape anywhere in the west". So while you want to strictly adhere to what academics say, you have a situation of two academics that are seemingly contradictory to each other, and the current situation is that editors of one article chose to follow one school of thought while editors of a different article arbitrarily decided to follow the other one. LutherVinci (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been many arguments on this and I and other editors have cited historians of the period who say that there was no capital. No one has cited specialists on the period saying that there were capitals. Thanks for pointing out that other heptarchy kingdoms show capitals. This is in their infoboxes, and I have deleted them, except for Sussex, which is the only article to cite a reliable source for a capital. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It just seems an odd application of logic, as the sources you cite makes a broad statement like "a capital city had not yet taken definite shape anywhere in the west". And yet you have reliable sources giving quite a few nations in the west, at this same time period, who actually do have capitals like Sussex (along with Francia, Visigoth Spain, etc.). While applying the source relevant to Wessex on the Wessex article makes sense on paper, it just seems like following that logic in light of sources used in other articles is contradictory. LutherVinci (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I am almost sure Sussex did not have a capital but I did not delete it because I doubt whether it would be possible to find a citation to say specifically that it did not. But whether or not Sussex was an exception, a reliable source is needed to say that Wessex did have a capital and experts on the period say that it did not. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Martin Biddle, who led the archaeological excavations in Winchester 1961–1971, said that "the evidence we have for the residences and itineraries of English kings before the Norman conquest is all too thin, but  there is just enough to show that Winchester was for Cnut a principal, possibly the principal seat, as it was certainly for his wife Emma, after his death"( see: M. Biddle, 'Capital at Winchester' in The Vikings in England, The Anglo-Viking Danish Viking Project, ed. Roesdahl et al. 1981, pp. 165) David Hill said that Cnut's "punishment of London would also explain the efforts to embellish  Winchester as "capital" .(see: A. Rumble editor. The Reign of Cnut: King of England, Denmark and Norway. Studies in the Early History of Britain.  Leicester University, 1994, xviii + 341 pp.) in the early eleventh century Winchester was 'the principal royal city of England', it had three royally endowed monasteries and 'the principal palace of the Anglo-Saxon kings'. it was also the central repository of the king's treasure, so there is some evidence and some  references that Winchester 'might' have been regarded as a capital by Cnut's time. However, in a recently published book, Lavelle et al, say that "Winchester's 'capital' authority was a mixture of the influence of ecclesiatical communities with economic  wealth..." "Contrary to popular belief though, Winchester has never been a 'capital' of England or even of Wessex".(see: Lavelle, Ryan, et al., editors. Early Medieval Winchester: Communities, Authority and Power in an Urban Space, c.800-c.1200. Oxbow Books, 2021, p. 4) The problem with Sussex is that myth and legend get mixed up with facts. Although the ASC  suggests that Sussex was founded in the Selsey area, according to Welch the archaeology does not stack up. The settlement of the South Saxons started in eastern Sussex not west. "After the Romans left there is no evidence for the reoccupation of Chichester till the 9th century", by then Sussex had been annexed by Wessex so it is unlikely to have been the capital of the South Saxons. (Welch. Early Anglo Saxon Sussex. Phillimore. p.27) Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that . As you have access to the source, perhaps you could correct the statements in the infobox and text in Kingdom of Sussex that Chichester was the capital. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll see what I can do. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Map
Can we please have a map which shows the traditional bounds of Wessex itself - not a map of half of England with a coastline which is quite wrong. The bounds of Wessex were, everyone agrees, the shire south of the River Thames but excluding the shires of Sussex, Kent and Cornwall. This was the kingdom of Wessex up until c.825 when Egbert of Wessex dominated the "south-eastern provinces" and annexed them to his kingdom. Nevertheless, the differentiation between Wessex proper and these new south-eastern dominions continued because his son (Aethelwulf) and grandson (Aethelbald) ruled the two areas separately after his death. The map at the moment shows the English Kingdom and does not show Wessex itself. As regards to the coast, yes I acknowledge it shows marshland areas around the Fenns and Somerset Levels but the SEA did not come cover those areas. They were inland waters so the coast is quite wrong. All in all the file named Map of Wessex in 945.png is an extremely poor and inadequate map. Aetheling1125 17:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken "direct action" and restored the map used previously. Aetheling1125 18:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Aetheling1125. I created the map you're referring to, but I agree it isn't adequate. Generally, historical states articles show the state right before they are disestablished, so I think having a map that shows Wessex and its client states as distinctly separate, with borders of the various states in the 10th century would be most ideal. Thoughts? Rob (talk | contribs) 21:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Part of Lothian and Borders???
In the infobox it lists "Lothian and Borders" as being a region which Wessex is "today part of". This doesn't make sense to me; am I missing something here? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The West Saxon kingdom at its greatest extent, and the English kingdom at its foundation are the same entity. The West Saxon king did rule Lothian for a short period. Nonetheless, 'United Kingdom' alone is fine. –&#8202;Rob&ensp;(talk&ensp;&#124;&ensp;contribs) 00:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Dumnonia & Cornwall?
The article completely omits mention of the relations with the British subkingdom whic formed a sizeable chunk of its territory. I have made a start to rectify this but assistance would be helpful - rather than instant reversion on grounds of 'possible vandalism' by the ill-informed. Many thanks Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 12:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talk • contribs)
 * When someone removes most of an article - as you did in this edit - it's reasonable to call it "possible vandalism", even if it was done inadvertently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

oh-ho knew it would be only a matter of seconds before the mighty Ghmyrtle would weigh in on a matter of no concern to him! erm - edict conflict? 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * How was that mass deletion in anyway defensible? I mean really...--Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting/sourcing
For any page watchers curious about my edits, I'm currently starting the process of rewriting this article (with hopes of bringing it to at least GA status). Thanks, -- Biblio worm   19:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Wessex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140409002442/http://www.somerset.gov.uk/oldtourism/residents/pages/coatofarms.htm to http://www.somerset.gov.uk/oldtourism/residents/pages/coatofarms.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080222173807/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/output/Page4491.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page4491.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Christian Wessex and the rise of Mercia
It states in this section that Cenwealh married and put aside Penda's daughter. In fact according to Bede and to she was Penda's sister.

Dantes Warden

Dantes Warden (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Translating Westseaxna Rice
Æfter þon þa þe Ceadwala wæs gemægenad ⁊ gestrongod on Westseaxna rice þa eode he eac ⁊ onfeng Wiht þæt ealond þæt eal wæs oð þa tid deofolgildum geseald. Ond he gelice þy troiscan wæle ealle þa londbigengan wolde ut amærian ⁊ his agenra leoda onnum gesettan.

[After this, when Cædwalla was confirmed and strengthened in the kingdom of the West Saxons, then he also went and took Wight the island, which was entirely given to devil-worship until that time. And he, as in the Trojan slaughter, wanted to exterminate all the inhabitants of that land, and place men of his own people (there).]

The Old English Version of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Book Author(s): Sharon M. Rowley Published by: Boydell & Brewer, D. S. Brewer. (2011), p. 93

Just to highlight the grammar involved in the issue - Anglo-Saxon was an inflected language, it was not reliant on word order to indicate subject-object relationships. In the particular case of Westseaxna rice, the ending '-na' is a contracted version of the weak plural genitive ending '-ena'. Thus Westseaxna rice means "[the] kingdom belonging to [the] West Saxons", or in usable Modern English, "The Kingdom of the West Saxons". Urselius (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

English maps??
This is the English language Wikipedia. While I understand that these maps may be hard to find, I also believe there must be good versions of the same mapes in English. I am mono-lingual in English, and find it difficult to understand what the French and German texts area saying. And why should I have to translate them?!? People all over the world access this article, and English is their second language, and now they are taxed with having to understand two more languages. Can some expert please replace the French and German maps with English maps? Nick Beeson (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead image
created, which is described as a design for a "Flag of Wessex", based on a 1973 or 1974 suggestion for a flag of Wessex of a gold wyvern on red. The file description also states that the proposal does not appear to have raised much interest locally, but the image is nevertheless in the 'Symbols' section of this article. Hogweard also created, based on the original image but with a white background. This is in the infobox. The image might be suitable for Wessex Regionalists, but I do not think it is notable for this article, and certainly not in two slightly different versions. I have twice deleted the infobox image and has twice restored it. Can other editors comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The flag, File:FlagOfWessex.svg, is a registered pattern, that appears on the UK Flag Registry. It's not a comment on the appropriateness of it in the article, but the flag is a genuine pattern.Hogweard (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there not a distinction between Wessex as a more general concept, and Wessex as a historic kingdom? I would support having the [[File:Wessex dragon.svg]] in the infobox as that's recognized as a symbol of the Kingdom of Wessex which the infobox relates to, and keep the flag in the symbols section as a more modern development? --BryceIII (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not historic and modern flags, but two copies of the same modern flag with different coloured backgrounds. As I said above, I do not see the point of having two copies of the image in the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two sources of evidence about the Kings of the West Saxons using a dragon: various texts (or at least in the Historia Brittonum; I believe there are actual historic ones I'm not looking up now) and the Bayeux Tapestry. The Tapestry contains an image (File:Dragon banner - Harold Rex interfectus est.jpg) of a dragon as a flag, but not as we would expect it. (There are various dragon-like creatures in the borders on occasion too as an artistic flourish.) The flag is a modern conceit.  I drew it from the registered pattern because there was a very poorly executed one being used before. It appears that the one which until recently appeared at the top of the article was just the flag version with the background removed. It represents a genuine symbol but we do not know how such a symbol was used or how it appeared when it was, so it is best leaving it out. Hogweard (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Bayeux Tapestry images appear not to be flags as such, but versions of the Late Roman draco. It was a sort of banner with a metal animal head mounted on a pole, with a fabric tail like a windsock. Air entering the open mouth of the metal beast made the windsock writhe in the air as if it were alive. The Romans adopted it from the Sarmatians. It is shown on some Carolingian illustrations and there is no doubt that the English adopted it, like the Franks, in order to ape the imperial Roman past. This tendency can be seen in the thufa banner carried before Edwin of Northumbria, mentioned by Bede, and in many aspects of the gear buried at Sutton Hoo (especially the helmet and the cuirass, of which only the shoulder clasps survive). Urselius (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mercia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Great Britain changed to England
GB was not constituted in this period, bur England was! Ériugena (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Great Britain is the name of the island, that it is also used at certain times for a nation is purely incidental. Great Britain was and is so named to differentiate it from 'Less Britain' which is an old term for Brittany in France. Brittany was colonised by Britons from Dumnonia (Cornwall and Devon), and certain kings simultaneously ruled in both Dumnonia and Brittany - parts of Brittany are called Cornuaille and Domnonie. In modern French Brittany is called Bretagne and Britain is called Grande Bretagne, which preserves this ancient connection in contemporary usage. In contrast, England definitely did not exist as either a geographical or political entity at the time Wessex was an independent kingdom. Urselius (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The term in Anglo-Saxon charters is the Latin Britanniæ. So far as I know, "Great" was not used by the Anglo-Saxons, and I would be interested in evidence to the contrary. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Contemporary Anglo-Saxon's usage is not really all that relevant here - Offa called himself 'Basileus of the whole World of Britain' - it is the usage in geographical nomenclature that matters. 'Great Britain' could be replaced by 'the island of Britain' with intact precision, as Brittany is a peninsula. What is not in question, is that the name of an island covers all time periods, but the political and geographical entity of England does not. Urselius (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Contemporary Anglo-Saxon usage is relevant for an article about Wessex. Britain would be better than Great Britain as the geographical name for the island. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, because that would be Britene in Old English, or variants of that word, and who would know what that was?. 'Britain' is historically ambiguous as I have explained, better to use 'the island of Britain' for the reasons I have given. In Welsh the usual usage is Ynys Prydein, which means 'Island of Britain'. Urselius (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Page title
Can we move it back to 'Kingdom of Wessex' again? It's name should be aligned with other six kingdoms of the heptarchy. Pktlaurence (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mercia and Northumbria do not have "Kingdom of", which is only needed for kingdoms such as Essex, which need to be distinguished from the modern county. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Flag
Should flag be added Coldgeep9 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. A flag is anachronistic. Wessex did not have a flag. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Coldgeep9, just to add to this, the flag in question (File:FlagOfWessex.svg), as is covered in the Symbols section, was created in the 1970s, by William Crampton, as a flag for a possible modern day Wessex region. While the kingdom's armies seem to have used some sort of Draco, those were widespread among european armies and don't necessarily mean that they represented "Wessex" as a concept at that time. The association between Wyvern's and specifically Wessex seems only to be popularised in 19th century. Therefore any flag for Wessex and more specifically 70s Crampton flag would be completely impropriate for a polity that stopped existing in the 10th c. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  12:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)