Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancestry of the Godwins/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2015.

Ancestry of the Godwins

 * Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the ancestry of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. He is not known to have had any hereditary claim to the throne, but some genealogists have claimed that he was descended from Alfred the Great's elder brother. The genealogy expert Agricolae (who is sadly no longer editing) contributed, and Ealdgyth and Tim riley made very helpful comments at peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Very pleased to support. I'm wholly a layman in history of this vintage, but the article seems to me comprehensive, and is widely and thoroughly cited. It is a pleasure to read, guiding the reader smoothly through a maze of Æth***s that in less skilful hands could have been frightfully confusing. The nominator's articles on early English topics have a wonderful way of transporting one back from the clamour of the 21st century to the quite different clamour of a millennium or so ago. This one meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment, and I much enjoyed rereading it for present purposes. –  Tim riley  talk    15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments form Curly Turkey

 * I know almost nothing about this sort of subject. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments.
 * Thanks for your edits Curly. The only one I have reverted is "he descended from". The Cambridge online dictionary says "he was descended from" is correct.


 * When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the legitimate heir was his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling, but he was passed over, and Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law, became king.: which so many commas, this is a bit of a bumpy ride, especially at the beginning of the article. Maybe something like: "When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the crown passed over his legitimate heir and great-nephew Edgar Ætheling and instead went to Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law."?
 * "the crown passed over" does not sound quite right to me. Are you happy with my alternative?
 * Yeah, I think that reads better. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * sometimes you set of names with commas ("his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling") and sometimes not ("their father Godwin"). Best to settle on one style.
 * Done.


 * was left land at Compton: I can see from later in the article that it's not clear if these are the same Comptons, but at this point the reader would assume it is.
 * Clarified.


 * Williams in her ODNB article on Godwin, and Robin Fleming in her ODNB article on Harold, do not mention the theory when discussing Godwin's ancestry.: this could be Original Research if the lack of mentioning the theory is not mentioned in a RS.
 * I do not see this. Saying a theory is mentioned would not be OR, so saying it is not mentioned should not be either.
 * Well, this is the thing—you're reporting a fact that's not reported by any of the sources, and you're citing sources for what they haven't said rather than what they have. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about I post a query on Talk and see what other editors think? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WT:FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll accept whatever the consensus turns out to be. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for much for your helpful comments Curly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I imagine whatever comes of the last point will conform to whatever the consensus is, and as it's the only outstanding point I see no reason not to give this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Curly. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a consensus but a balance in favour of keeping the ODNB comment so I will leave it in unless anyone objects. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Harold2.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Just a couple of comments.
 * The first footnote is rather lengthy, and seems quite relevant enough to be promoted into the main text; it makes more than one point, and I think would be useful to the reader inline.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "commissioned by his widow Edith": suggest "by Godwin's widow" since several other names have been mentioned since the last time Godwin was referred to by name.
 * It is "The Life of Edward the Confessor, commissioned by his widow Edith". She was Edward's widow (and Godwin's daughter). Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I misread that; it seems clear enough looking at it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You give a good account of the Æthelred I theory, but given that it doesn't have broad support I think it might be appropriate to cap that section with something more definite than just saying Stenton, Williams and Fleming don't mention the theory; for example, quoting Stenton: "Of his origin nothing can be said with any assurance". That's the majority view, after all.
 * Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you know if Frank and Lundie Barlow are related?
 * I don't think so. Frank Barlow wrote that he only knew about Lundie's article because Hubert Grills sent him a photocopy. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; all looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

 * The "significant generational displacement" bit is never going to be easy to explain, but the current sentence "If the relationship were true, the pedigree would result in a significant generational displacement, with two children of Ethelred the Unready marrying the son and great-great-granddaughter of Æthelric: Æthelred's daughter Eadgyth married Æthelric's son Eadric Streona, while Æthelred's son Edward the Confessor married Godwin's daughter, who on this theory was Æthelric's great-great-granddaughter." certainly blew some mental fuses for me. A slower approach might make it more digestible.
 * Done. Is it clearer?
 * Yes, sorted as well as it can be I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can the options for "land at Hambledon" be expanded on, if only in a note?
 * I have deleted it as irrelevant. OK?
 * I suppose so. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "... in Wessex after 900 only the son or paternal grandson of a king could be an ætheling, that is a throneworthy member of the royal dynasty". This seems a very bald statement, partly contradicted by what immediately follows, and I think more than we know. If we lacked documentation, & only followed what happened, one might say the same (allowing daughters too) for "the UK after 1850", because that is what will happen so so long as the supply of children or grandchildren lasts, as it has during that period. The interesting bit is what happens when they run out. One might also add that within the throneworthy group, succession did not automatically follow seniority, which was the case, I think. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not follow you here. How is it "partly contradicted by what immediately follows"? Historians believe that ætheling meant a throneworthy member of the royal dynasty, and between 800 and 1050 only the sons of monarchs were given the title. When the sons ran out, a grandson was given the title. It is true that succession did not automatically follow seniority, although in practice the exceptions were when a king died when his sons were still children and he was then succeeded by a brother, who as the son of a previous king was an ætheling.
 * Note that this disagrees with ætheling, which says sons and brothers only, and of the reigning king according to one historian quoted. How the title or rank was used in normal circumstances is rather different from what might happen when the supply of sons and grand-sons ran out. All sorts of people are in the British Line of Succession without any form of title. So the statement "Even if Harold was descended from Æthelred I, it would not have given him a hereditary claim to the throne." without putting in the mouth of anyone, seems a bit over-emphatic to me.  It might not have been a great claim, but it might have been a claim - as it certainly could have been a century or two later, when very remote connections could gain credibility. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried to tighten it by specifying "according to the rules of royal succession in later Anglo-Saxon England", and added a quote from the leading authority on the subject, David Dumville. Of course it is true that if the supply of æthelings had run out, the rules would no longer have applied (or they would have changed, as some historians believe did happen when Edward the Confessor had no heir who was the son of a king). Abels' wording 'the sons and brothers of the reigning king' is not quite accurate as it would have ruled out Eadwig, who succeeded his uncle Eadred. How does it look now? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's better. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments John. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Comments above now dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much John. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber
Right then....


 * Sources all look like reliable ones
 * Earwig's copyvio well and truly negative
 * Spot check of Anscombe shows article is faithful to source.
 * Williams 2006 checked -wording is close for p. 231 but words used in exact meanings and stumped if I can think of variant ways to say them....
 * Hunt 1890 checked - fine.

Offline sources accepted in good faith (I have no subscription to UK library). cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Cas. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.