Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coenred of Mercia


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:30, 10 January 2009.

Coenred of Mercia

 * Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)

I thought I'd try to get another Anglo-Saxon king in before the end of the year. I have another active nomination but there are no opposes and one support, so I hope it's OK to start another nomination. Coenred is not one of the better known kings, but there are a few things to say about him. A good comparison article might be Æthelred of Mercia, his uncle, and predecessor as king of Mercia. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments. Just a couple of small things, both from the final Abdication and succession section.


 * "According to Bede, Coenred abdicated in favor of his cousin, Æthelred's son Ceolred after four years, went with the East Saxon king Offa to Rome, and was made a monk by Pope Constantine." I'm not sure I really understand that sentence. Could it be written more clearly? It's the "after four years" bit I'm struggling with.
 * Aargh. It was editing debris from an earlier version; I can't believe I didn't see that (or the other problem) on final read-through.  Removed.  Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned twice, in consecutive paragraphs, that Bede gives no date for Coenred's death in Rome. Is that really necessary?
 * No; I cut the first mention, as the second para needs the bulk more; plus the direct cite to Bede is probably worth keeping. Thanks for the copyedit too, by the way. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems fine to me now, I'm supporting. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, hoping to be able to convert this to neutral or support. Support All of my concerns adumbrated below have now been addressed, and I would be happy to see this fine little article promoted without further delay. Provided: 1) That the adjustment I have made a moment ago be respected (in which the exact deployment of commas and the order of words are crucial to keeping the sense clear; and 2) Cœnred (with the ligature œ) be replaced by Coenred, even though it appears in a quote. This ligature is, I believe, merely typographical and conventional; unlike the Æ and æ ligatures, which have phonological significance for Anglo-Saxon. I think that's the principle laid out in Hart's Rules, though I have not got my copy to hand; and see WP:MOS for the need to make harmless, merely typographical changes in quoted matter, without "sic" or any such annotation. Since the typographical form Coenred is a stylistic choice for this article, it should be used consistently (for purposes of searching, if nothing else).– ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo  N  oetica! T– 02:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "œ" with "oe" in the one location it occurs. Thanks for the comments, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead:
 * Do we know Coenred's dates of birth and death? They should be given at least approximately – at the start, or at least somewhere.
 * Wulfhere's brother, Æthelred, became king instead, but abdicated in favour of Coenred in 704 in order to become a monk. [Remove the first two commas, which suggest that Wulfhere had only one brother; end with in 704 to become a monk, or and became a monk. Fix spelling: favor is used later in the article; check all spelling for consistency of style.]
 * The reigns of Coenred and his successor, Ceolred, marked... [The commas are unnecessary and best omitted.]
 * ...the fortunes of Mercia, which had been dominant... [The referent of which is momentarily uncertain, and dominant is not apt. Try a different adjective, perhaps powerful: ...the fortunes of Mercia, which had been powerful.... Only Mercia could be powerful, not its fortunes.]
 * ...in the late seventh century... [A MOS issue: Mos requires that centuries use figures, not words; fix this throughout].
 * Coenred's reign is poorly documented but it is known he faced attacks from the Welsh,... [Best to have that in such a construction: it is known that he.
 * ...by Æthelred's son, Ceolred. [Since it is not known that Ceolred was Æthelred's only son, the comma is improper.]
 * Mercia in the seventh century
 * By the seventh-century,... [Make it By the 7th century,... (note the absence of a hyphen).]
 * The earliest Mercian king about whom definite historical information has survived is Penda of Mercia, Coenred's grandfather. [Better: Penda of Mercia, Coenred's paternal grandfather, is the earliest Mercian king for whom there is definite historical information.]
 * For Wessex and Kent, Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in each province,... [Province is not apt here. They are kingdoms. Better: Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in Wessex and Kent,....]
 * ..., about which he is less well-informed. [Redundant. Omit it.]
 * ...compiled at the end of the ninth century in Wessex. [For a reason that would be tedious to give, this is preferable: ...compiled in Wessex at the end of the 9th century.]

Overall, an efficient little article. Is it big and noteworthy enough for a featured article? I don't know. I may have more to say later, once the points I have already made are addressed.

– ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo  N  oetica! T– 00:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is "noteworthy" one of the featured article criteria? Or "big"? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, these are not formal criteria. I had thought that noteworthiness once was a formal criterion, but I may be mistaken. This is why I made the point as a question. I don't know! Could Cleko or Bulldog clip be made into featured articles? If you look at Bulldog clip and are inclined to answer No, the reasons might be that such clips are not noteworthy enough, and not enough could be said to make a substantial article. If you answer Yes, then a fortiori the present article can make the grade.
 * One more point of wording: He was the son of Wulfhere, but did not.... Once more, this strongly suggests that he was the only son, but this is not known. Prefer He was a son of Wulfhere, but did not..., or Wulfhere was his father, but he did not.... Such needless and heedless imprecision – or perhaps in the present case spurious precision – is insidious, but easy enough to root out. If this sort of imprecision proliferates in articles (especially historical articles), the cumulative result is that inferences based on premises drawn from our articles will be generally suspect.
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝo  N  oetica! T– 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All points now addressed; some by Angusmclellan and the rest by me. The questions of noteworthiness and size have come up in FAC discussions before and there is not universal agreement about what the best answer is, but I think it is accurate to say that at the moment the FA criteria make no mention of either, and noteworthiness and size per se are not valid oppose reasons at FAC.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done; no dabs found. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Yorke, Barbara or Barbara Yorke? Current ref 1 is Yorke, Barbara and the second is Barbara Yorke, pick one. Or stick with "Yorke" to match the rest, and list it in the secondary sources.
 * Current ref 19 (Womald) is to an article "The Age of Bede and Aethelbald"... but there isn't such an article listed in the secondary sources... do you mean the "Age of Offa and Alcuin" that is listed in the sources? Or do you mean for that Offa/Alcuin to be Bede/Aethelbald?
 * I'd caution other reviewers to make sure that the primary source material (the charters stuff) isn't being interpreted when it's used as a source. It's not necessarily wrong, they just need to be used with caution.
 * What makes http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/ a reliable source?
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As regards the third and fourth points, Keynes, here, says that the charter database at anglo-saxons.net was designed by Dr Sean [M.] Miller, formerly of the Fitzwilliam, also responsible for the Fitzwilliam's EMC site, and a contributor to the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Keynes links to it, ASChart links to it, and the PASE links to it. The reason to prefer it over the PASE, Electronic Sawyer, Kemble, et al, is that anglo-saxons.net reproduces the text of the charters, and is the only resource which routinely does so, as well as the commonly available critical commentary. The primary sources, charters and all, seem to be being reported and not interpreted, so no problem there. If there's any concern over these aspects, I'd suggest rounding up a subject expert. I think that here would be the best place to find one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Angus that anglo-saxons.net is reliable and I think he gives sufficient information to establish that. I've fixed the Yorke refs to be consistent; likewise with Wormald (he wrote two chapters for Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, and I must have copied this ref in from a ref list in another article where I used the other one).  Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the anglosaxons.net ref out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (I lean reliable but it's a very short lean. I'd rather see a print source too, as one thing about transcriptions of charters, there are times when they can be transcribed incorrectly, or that there is enough damage that the interpretation is subject to discussion.) I'd love to find the time to review this... but... family is coming, the cookies must be baked! (sung to the tune of "Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to keep you from important things - mmm cookies! - but we should never be in the position where it matters whether the text of a charter - genuine, fake or somewhere in between - is transcribed correctly. If we're relying on Kirby's say-so, or Yorke's, or the compilers of the PASE, then that's what we're relying on. The link to one of the charter sites, whichever we choose and we could include multiple links easily enough, is solely there as a convenience for readers, just like those links to Google books we see on some articles. Drawing one's own conclusions from primary sources would be OR and simply not acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Given that FA status is being suggested, I'd prefer the article to be larger and more exhaustive. There's certainly scope for this. E.g. instead of just saying it is known that he faced attacks by the Welsh between 705 and 709, say why it is known [from what source] and input comments on this. If the Life of St Guthlac claims this, then maybe quote the text or show that it has been used. I haven't learned from the wiki article why Coenred was thought to be fighting Britons in this period. Coverage certainly not exhaustive. Only mention of Wilfrid is that that Coenred appears in Wilfrid's vita. You might wanna read the ODNB article, which gives overview comments on his reign regarding religion. Again, something like that is possible (as ODNB makes it so), instead of just listing information. These aren't biggies, but if such a badly documented ruler's article is to become FA I would expect more exhaustive coverage. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note that Wilfrid is on my radar to improve, and he's probably going to be heading to GA/FAC soon, as soon as I find the time to tackle him, so don't worry about that supporting article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ealdgyth. Deacon, I've incorporated what I think I need to from the ODNB article; would you take another look?  I have a slight problem with the use of the Vita Guthlaci; the main citation I have for this is Stenton, who says, on p. 214 of Anglo-Saxon England, "serious raids such as those which occurred between 705 and 709" and adds in a footnote that the source is "Felix ' s Life of Saint Guthlac, ed. B. Colgrave, p. 109.  See p. 212, n. 2 above, and F.M. Stenton, C.P., pp. 357–363."  The footnote on p. 212 is not relevant; "C.P." refers to Stenton's collected papers, which I don't have access to.  I don't have Colgrave's edition of Guthlac.  I just ordered it online but that'll take a week or two to get here.  I found another edition online and have cited it to what I assume is the right chapter; it's quoted in full in the article now.  It is followed by an account of British demons annoying St Guthlac, but I think it has to be this section that Stenton is referring to; there's no other relevant reference to Coenred that I can find.  When I get the Colgrave edition I'll check that the page number does refer to this chapter.  There's a version of Colgrave partly visible online at Google Books, but page 109 is not visible and from what I can tell has different pagination anyway. So all I can say is that I am pretty sure that I have that reference right but will confirm when I get Colgrave in my hands. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Scored the oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Update. Thanks to Cavila, the reference to Colgrave has been made to reflect the footnote from Stenton, so I think everything is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Aethelred family tree.gif - This image needs to list the source from which the information was taken (I'm afraid Aethelred's family tree is not common knowledge). Awadewit (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

''' Not thrilled with the prose.  Tony'''   (talk)  07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Here are examples of problems at the top.
 * Opening: but ... instead ... but ... Is there a way of making this sequence a slightly straighter line?
 * I see why you want this changed, but the sequence is straight chronologically. The difficulty is that two unexpected things happen; first Coenred does not succeed when he might have done so, and then he does succeed when Æthelred unexpectedly abdicates.  I think this warrants at least two of the three words.  I cut "instead" as somewhat redundant with the first "but"; is that better? Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can "relatively" be removed?
 * I don't think it should be -- Mercia was still a powerful kingdom in these years; this period marked only a temporary and minor decline between two periods of great influence. In the middle of the ninth century Mercia began a much more serious decline that ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "relatively" add? Tony  (talk)  13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was intended to indicate that there were other low points that were worse. However, it does say "a low point", not "the low point", so I think it's OK without it.  I've removed it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * known known.
 * Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do texts remember?
 * I've changed this, but see below for a similar comment of yours. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 709 Coenred abdicated, and went with Offa, the king of the East Saxons, on pilgrimage to Rome, where he died"—I was expecting sex between Coenred and Offa. Try: "In 709 Coenred abdicated and went on pilgrimage to Rome with Offa, the king of the East Saxons, where he died the same year."
 * My fault: now the last "he" is ambiguous. Tony  (talk)  13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Since this was in the lead, I cut mention of Offa, as he's not critical to the information being transmitted here.  That simplified the sentence and removed the ambiguity. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell from the map, but were all of those "neighbouring kingdoms" larger than Merica?
 * No, they were of varying sizes. Only Northumbria was clearly larger than Mercia.  The map shows no borders between the kingdoms because it's hard to be sure just where the borders were, and it's known they fluctuated over time. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a general-interest question: you've stated that they're all "larger neighbouring kingdoms". Tony  (talk)  13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops; misunderstood you. (I thought you were so fascinated by the article that you were asking for more information.) It was intended to mean "Among the neighbouring kingdoms, the largest were" but I agree it could be read incorrectly.  I've cut it to "Neighbouring kingdoms", which I think loses no information, given that I now list all the Anglo-Saxon neighbours.  (I don't list the British to the west.) Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "this work also provides"—expunge "also", and audit the whole text for this word, which is usually redundant and weakens the flow. (The last "also" in the first section is, however, good.)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Another charter of Æthelred's, dated between 693 and 704, shows him granting land to Waldhere, the bishop of London." Is he depicted in a drawing doing this? I'd have thought "provides evidence that he granted ...". Tony   (talk)  15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to leave this in; the document is a grant of land, so saying that it merely provides evidence seems too weak -- it is the evidence. I went through one of the standard references, Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, and he refers to charters mentioning and suggesting things.  If you really feel it needs to be changed, I can rephrase, but I think it's unobjectionable. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's odd as is. Why not as you suggest: "is evidence that he granted land to ...". Much more comfortable. Tony   (talk)  13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I'd like to try to explain the intent of the idiom, in case that isn't clear.  The interesting thing to a historian is the grant itself.  The grant was recorded in a charter and, to the extent that legal phraseology can be applied to the eighth century, the charter is the grant, to the point that such charters were frequently forged later to provide evidence for ownership of land.  Since the charter is the only possible surviving evidence of the charter, and is supposed to be a record of the grant, it is natural for historians to slip from "the charter is evidence of a grant of land to Waldhere" to "the charter is a grant of land to Waldhere" to "the charter shows a grant of land to Waldhere".  You have a comment about jargon below; I suspect this falls under the same heading, and so should be cleaned up as you suggest, but it would not hurt the reader if they could be gently introduced to a form of expression they will meet with many times if they start to read the secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not reading further yet. Tony  (talk)  15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not happy yet. Tony  (talk)  13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to get a good copy-editor onto the rest of it. Let's look at the next few cm:
 * "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Coenred acceding to the throne twice"—this is the noun+ing urchin. Why not "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Coenred acceded to the throne twice"?
 * Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be fussy, but: "As "Southumbrians" refers to those who lived south of the Humber, Mercia's northern boundary, it is difficult to interpret the two annals" is a problem in the probable misinterpretion by readers of the first comma, and their enforced disambiguation. This is what happened to me. Why not bring out what in your writing is the underused dash: "As "Southumbrians" refers to those who lived south of the Humber – Mercia's northern boundary – it is difficult to interpret the two annals"? PS Interesting conundrum – I wonder where the answer lies to the double enthronement.
 * Done. Yes, it's an interesting question.  My own idea, which of course I can't mention in the article, is that Coenred was made king of northern Mercia, which would have had the same northern boundary.  There is a precedent for this division -- about fifty years earlier, the Northumbrian conquerors of Mercia had divided Mercia into a northern and southern half and given the southern half to a subking.  This sort of thing is what's fun about Anglo-Saxon history -- there are so few clues you can ponder the few you have endlessly, rather than having vast amounts of source material to wade through. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "have some influence"—"some" makes me grind my teeth; can't it be removed? What does it really mean?
 * You're right; removed. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remove comma from dates in the notes. pp. 108-9 should be pp. 108–09, or the full three digits closing if you must.
 * Done. Interestingly, it appears that in the cite web template, the accessmonthday parameter does not supply a comma in the date, but the accessdaymonth parameter does.  Anyway, I fixed the issues. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's the lingo in this field, but "A grant of land in Herefordshire to a nun named Feleburg has survived, as have forged charters of Coenred's" is strange; the forged charters are fine, but is a grant a document? I first took it as the concept, then wondered whether the survival of the plot of land itself was at issue. Oh well.
 * It is indeed the lingo; see my notes above, and also see an extra sentence added in the first section to explain what grants are. Does that help? Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "influence on London ... influence in Kent"
 * The "Influence on London" part was scene-setting which I think served no purpose, so I have cut it, sidestepping the question of on vs. in. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "which was evidently of some importance though no other reference to it has survived"—again, this troublesome "some". Why not "evidently important, although no other ..."?
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments.
 * The type on both images is illegible, except at full resolution, which is two links away. Can you rework the family tree to make it legible on the article page?  For the kingdoms of Britain you may want to ask User:Kmusser, who does great work on maps.  Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The family tree text is already about as large as it can be relative to the size of the image. I had it at 300px; I've changed that to 450px -- does that help?  Technically I shouldn't have any px sizing, which means that both images would be at whatever thumbnail size each user has set -- the default is 100px, I believe.  I've always taken this to mean that there is no expectation that images are comprehensible without clicking on them, since few images are useful at 100px.  In practice a lot of FAC regulars put in pixel sizes to try to make the image useful.  In this case I don't think it's really possible to get the images large enough to read, and perhaps it would be better to just take away the px sizes completely.  I think the same is true of the map, though if you feel Kmusser can make a map that would be readable at a small size I'd be happy to ask him. Let me know what you think.  Mike Christie (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe bold type would help, or at least make the image page legible and obviate the need to go another step to full resolution. It would not hurt to ask Kmusser-- he did good work for me on the image at Duluth Complex, and the maps shown on his page shows the quality of his work.  Kablammo (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've left him a request. Thanks for the pointer -- I admit it would be nice to be able to read it without a click-through. Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. In response to your comment above (Technically I shouldn't have any px sizing), these two images are the types for which larger sizes may be specified, which include "Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts". Manual_of_Style  Kablammo (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * MC, can you clarify this:
 * "In 709 Coenred abdicated in favour of his cousin Ceolred, son of Æthelred, in order to become a monk in Rome; Bede's story is cited by the medieval chronicler William of Malmesbury as the reason for his decision . .."
 * both the pronoun, and whether it was Bede's story or the underlying event which motivated Coenrad. Thanks.  Kablammo (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The source asserts that William cites the underlying event as having motivated Coenred. I made it "Coenred's decision"; does that solve the problem? Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. The article may be brief, but I have checked it carefully and believe it to be comprehensive. All the issues connected with the reign are addressed, using good-quality references. A very intriguing read. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One oddity for me is the notion that the reigns of Coenred and Ceolred marked a low point for Mercia. Although you have a secondary source saying that, the article does not balance it with Bede's view that Coenred "ruled the kingdom of Mercia with great renown for some while". Bede seems to contrast Coenred's reign with that of his successor Ceolred, when things indeed did go wrong. I wonder if we are falling into the trap of believing that Mercia was only at a high point of "fortunes" so long as it was conquering and controlling the territories around it. From the sparse evidence, it seems to me that Coenred was doing a good job. Not only was he praised by his contemporary Bede but he seems to have exercised a peaceful overlordship over the East Saxons, London, and parts of Kent. That's pretty impressive. And he got on so well with one of his underkings that they went to Rome together. As far as I can tell, he didn't suffer any defeats, though clearly there were security problems on the Welsh frontiers (well, even mighty Offa had that trouble). Of course, we can guess that Bede liked Coenred because he was a good Christian. That's as good a criterion as any, though, I would say, particularly in an age when religion was so important. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wormald (the cited source) is fairly clear about the difference between Coenred/Ceolred and the kings that came before and after them, but my summary of that as a "low point" might be improved. Here's what he says, slightly snipped: "Cenred and Ceolred were effective overlords between the Humber and the Thames, but were challenged and even rivalled in the south by Wihtred of Kent, Caedwalla of Wessex and Ine.  Aethelbald's power thus seems to represent a return to the clearer political pattern of the seventh century, after a period of some confusion."  I agree that Bede's opinion is not to be sniffed at, but since it's a primary source, and Bede does have his biases, I don't feel comfortable citing him to balance Wormald.  Wormald is echoing the Stenton quote in the article when he says "confusion"; Stenton's comment could be held to support the "low point" comment too.  However, perhaps the problem is that "low point" is too simplistic -- I think it does represent what Wormald said, but is there a better way to paraphrase Wormald's point? Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Stenton is talking about confused issues of overlordship in parts of the south. What both he and, it seems, Wormald suggest is that the extent of Mercian overlordship was less under Coenred and Ceolred than under Penda/Wulfhere or Aethelbald/Offa. "Low point" to me suggests defeat, or succumbing to the overlordship of Northumbria or Wessex, and that was far from the case. In exercising authority over large parts of the south east, Coenred was still the most powerful king in Anglo-Saxon England. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm finding this difficult to rephrase concisely, and have just cut it instead. I did have "relatively low point" at one time, to indicate that this was only a minor decline in power, but I cut that in response to a comment of Tony's, and that was not precise enough anyway.  Expanding your statement into "The extent of Mercian overlordship was less under Coenred and Ceolred than it had been under Wulfher or would be again under Æthelbald" makes it slighty unwieldy.  I think the quote from Stenton does convey the "confusion" issue, and the extent of their overlordship is stated in the article as well as it is known, so I think cutting this from both the lead and the body is OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * has survived, as have forged charters of Coenred's. I presume someone else was forging the charters, but it might need clarifying. A date would be helpful, as forgeries become less interesting the later they are.
 * The source (Kelly's article in the ODNB) provides no date, unfortunately. I've rephrased to clarify. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the copyedit, and of course for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - a fascinating read about the king of my neck of the woods in the 7th century. The prose flows well. One quibble, I don't like the genealogy chart—it looks a bit untidy. Graham Colm Talk 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.