Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

However, Redburga or Raedburh (788c-839) may have been the wife of king Egbert of Wessex and may have been the sister-in-law of Charlemagne as the sister of his fourth wife, Luitgard; other sources describe her as his sister (although Charlemagne's only sister was named Gisela) or his great-granddaughter (which would be difficult to accomplish in the forty-six years after Charlemagne's birth) or the daughter of his sister-in-law or his niece. Some genealogies identify her as the granddaughter of Pepin the Short and great-granddaughter of Charles Martel; other scholars doubt that she existed at all, other than as a name in a much later manuscript. Her existence might have been forged to link the early Kings of England to the great West Emperor.

She appears in a medieval manuscript from Oxford and is described as "regis Francorum sororia" which translates as "sister to the King of the Franks". More specifically, sororia means "pertaining to someone's sister", hence sister-in-law. Pwhiteco (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You've just had this answered already. Richard75 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Name of article

Academic works are increasingly spelling his name Ecgberht, and I think the time may have come for us to follow suit. Stenton Anglo-Saxon England 1971, Abels, Alfred the Great 1998, and New Cambridge Medieval History II 1995 have Egbert, but Foot, Æthelstan 2011, Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons 2013, Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society 2005, Hart, The Danelaw 1992, Smyth, King Alfred the Great 1995, Pratt, The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great 2007, Handbook of British Chronology 3rd ed 1986, Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia 1999 and 2014 eds, Higham and Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World, have Ecgberht. I suggest changing to "Ecgberht of Wessex", or better still "Ecgberht, King of Wessex". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but I'd like to see what happens if we add a few more sources to the list. Sorting the ones you list, and splitting by line so we can sort by date or reliability if we want to, and also so we can see if an individual author has changed practice over time:

• Egbert
  • The Age of Bede 1965 (1988 revision) (only Egbert of Kent)
  • Stenton Anglo-Saxon England 1971
  • Anglo-Saxon England 5 1976 (uses Egbert for the king of Wessex and Ecgberht for others of that name)
  • Wood In Search of the Dark Ages 1981
  • Campbell The Anglo-Saxons 1982 (1991 edition)
  • Wormald et al ed. Ideal & Reality in Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Society 1983
  • Loyn The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England 1984
  • Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms 1990
  • New Cambridge Medieval History II 1995
  • Williams Wessex in the Early Middle Ages 1995
  • Abels, Alfred the Great 1998
  • Campbell The Anglo-Saxon State 2000
  • Walker Mercia 2000 (uses Egbert for the king of Wessex and Ecgberht for others of that name)
  • Keynes/Lapidge (Asser) Alfred the Great 1983, 2004 printing
• Ecgberht
  • Handbook of British Chronology 3rd ed 1986
  • Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain 1991
  • Hart, The Danelaw 1992
  • Kirby, Earliest English Kings 1992
  • Smyth, King Alfred the Great 1995
  • John, Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England 1996
  • Wormald The Making of English Law 1999
  • Williams Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England 1999
  • Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia 1999 and 2014 eds,
  • Edwards, Dictionary of National Biography, 2004
  • Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society 2005
  • Pratt, The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great 2007
  • A Companion to the Early Middle Ages 2009
  • Foot, Æthelstan 2011
  • Roach, Kingship and Consent in Anglo-Saxon England 2013
  • Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons 2013
  • Higham and Ryan The Anglo-Saxon World 2013
  • Molyneux, The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century 2015
• Ecgbert
  • Yorke, The Conversion of Britain, 2006
  • Woolf From Pictland to Alba 2007

I'll go through my refs and add some more, probably in a couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Williams used Ecgberht in the Biographical Dictionary 1991, Egbert in Wessex in the Early Middle Ages 1995, and Ecgberht in Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England 1999. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Added some more above. Zaluckyj Mercia 2001 doesn't mention our guy, but uses both spellings for others of that name; Higham, An English Empire, 1995 uses Egbert but only for others of that name. I don't think these can be counted as evidence in either direction. Overall it does like the tide is turning. Is this enough for a move of the title or should we wait a few more years? We're not an academic publication, and the redirects are there, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As Egbert isn't actually wrong I'd just leave it as it is. Richard75 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I favour a change, but as there is no consensus, I will start a formal reqested move. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ecgberht, King of Wessex per nom. No such user (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Egbert of Wessex → Ecgberht, King of Wessex – Wikipedia policy is that titles should reflect reliable sources, and the list of works above shows that, apart from one reprint, the spelling 'Egbert' has not been used in academic works since 2000. This is long enough to establish an academic consensus against the spelling, and Ecgberht is now much the most common spelling. This case is similar to the change from Canute to Cnut at [1]. Adding "KIng of Wessex" is more informative than "of Wessex" for readers, as with Stephen, King of England, John, King of England and many others. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a move to Egbert, King of Wessex, as King of Wessex is obviously better, but Egbert isn't the wrong spelling (see discussion in above section). Richard75 (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Support as nominator. For an example of the suggested spelling, see Ecgberht of Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Weak support for the change to "Ecgberht"; I think it's clearly going that way and is likely to have to move eventually, if not now. For the "King of Wessex" part I'd like to see more evidence -- I think I've seen both. And would it better to make that part of the move a more global change to the whole set of AS kings? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Pre-Conquest kings are usually shown without their title. Two exceptions are Æthelberht, King of Wessex and Æthelbald, King of Wessex, both changed after moves I proposed, the latter with Mike Christie's support. Post-Conquest monarchs are generally shown without their title if they have a number, such as Elizabeth I of England, but with their title if they are unnumbered, as Anne, Queen of Great Britain. This seems reasonable as the number signals to the reader that the article is about a monarch, but x of y does not, and I would support a global proposal to bring pre-Conquest monarchs' titles in line with post-Conquest ones.

• The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia and the Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain both have 'Ecgberht, king of Wessex', whereas DNB has 'Ecgberht, king of the West Saxons'. These sources use lower case 'king', but I do not think we should go against the Wikipedia practice of capitalising titles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  I would support a global proposal to change the pre-Conquest names to include the title. I'm neutral on moving this one; there doesn't seem to be much point unless we do a global proposal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Reversing what I said above, on reflection I doubt whether a global move is practical. There would be too many to change and too many issues with them. I have very little knowledge of the earlier kings, but taking the later ones, there would be many disagreements. There are some with well known names which should not be changed, such as Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Æthelred the Unready. I would change Edgar the Peaceful to Edgar, King of England, but this might be opposed by other editors. I successfully proposed changing Æthelwulf of Wessex to Æthelwulf. Æthelwulf, King of Wessex would arguably be better, but I would be reluctant to re-open the discussion. I think each case has to be looked at individually. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

gold coin

https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsaCvwH1F8/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.214.144 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• Ecgberht, King of Wessex → Ecgberht of Wessex
• Æthelwulf, King of Wessex → Æthelwulf of Wessex
• Æthelbald, King of Wessex → Æthelbald of Wessex
• Æthelberht, King of Wessex → Æthelberht of Wessex

– Almost all of the earlier rulers of Wessex are titled as X of Wessex. Putting these articles in that format will help to maintain consistency. Векочел (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This would reverse a move four years ago and article names should not keep chopping and changing. Having 'King of' is clearer for readers and is consistent with Wikipedia:NCNOB where there is no ordinal, for example Stephen, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• But as one user noted on a a recent move request, WP:NCROY should not apply to Wessex, because West Saxons kings do not draw names from the common European name fund, as neither do, e.g., the Merovingians. To apply the rules of WP:NCROY to the rulers of Wessex is like trying to put Chinese emperors into a form designed for European kings. Векочел (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• The guidance says "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names." The Merovingians are excluded because they "use a completely different namestock". Anglo-Saxon names are part of the common stock. Some like Alfred and Edward are still used, others like Egbert and Ethelbert are still used but retain their Old English spelling for Anglo-Saxon people, some have passed out of common use. The guidance does not exclude specific names which have passed out of general use or are now spelled differently. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Merovingian names Chlothar, Clovis and Theudebald are just Lothair, Louis and Theobald. Theuderic never became a common royal name, but it isn't rare in modern forms (Dirk, Dietrich, Derek). I think conventional spelling differences matter here. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• That is to argue that Merovingian names have been wrongly classed as a "completely different namestock", not that Anglo-Saxon are rightly so classified. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I disagree with the logic of the recent Move Request that WP:NCROY should not apply. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• A comment on the titles of these four rulers: Most if not all other Anglo-Saxon rulers are titled as (Name) of (Kingdom) instead of (Name), King of (Kingdom). Hence, if we insist on keeping Ecgberht, King of Wessex, then we should standardise it so that an article like Offa of Mercia becomes Offa, King of Mercia. Векочел (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support for consistency. Векочел is correct. These are the only Anglo-Saxon monarchs that use this form of title. Srnec (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Broken Link?

Ecgbert's Charters.

http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=find&type=charter&page=&archive=&kingdom=&king=Ecgberht+%28of+Wessex%29&sawyer=&text=&display=JUST_BLURB appears to go to a blank page. Artowalos (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)