Talk:Leir of Britain

Merging articles

I disagree with the merge. I have been studying ancestoral chains. Llyr Llediaith is different from Lear of Britain (who, confusingly, was also known as Llyr). Llyr Llediaith had male children and lived later than Lear of Britain who didn't have any male children. Llyr Llediaith was actually a descendant of Lear of Britain. Lear of Britain's daughter Ragan married a Duke of Cornwall. Llyr Lediaith was their descendent. --Merond e 11:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

spelling

king lear is how it is spelt

Actually, um..whatever your name is, there are many different ways to spell it. Llyr, Leir, and Lear are all correct as they were all spellings used for the same person's name. It was often this way in Lear's time. People recorded names based on their sound rather than a standard spelling. So if your name was John, when you were born you could be recorded as Jon, then when you got married it could be recorded as John, then when you died it could be recorded as Jahn even. It just depended on who wrote the recording. As for the name of the article...you may be right. Even though the name can be spelled several different ways, I think that the article name should be Lear of Britain because Shakespeare standardized this form. --Merond e 15:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

King Lear?

what kind of character was King Lear in this particular play written by Shakespeare? sum your answer into a sentence... Get back to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.213.209 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(a) First of all, it's absurd to expect people to do your homework for you, and (b) even if there were somewhere that people would do it, this Talk page wouldn't be the place — it's about the actual king rather than about the play, plus Wikipedia's Talk pages are for discussing the article and how to make it better. Therefore, even the Talk page for an article about a play wouldn't be so much for discussing personal opinions about the play as for discussing the progress of Wikipedia's article. I mention these facts to discourage future such attempts; clearly yours has withered away without response here over the last 1 1/2 months. Lawikitejana (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Vague

To be honest, I was pretty damn shocked not to see one date in the entire article. Someone reading this who hasn't that strong a grasp on historical eras and knew not who the Franks were, wouldn't have the slightest clue when King Leir lived or reigned. If the time period is unknown, at least state that somewhere in there.

P.S. I'll also try to construct and ambig page to here, because at the moment the internal links go straight to King Leir. ArdClose (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think the reason there are no dates is that he's fictional; created by Geoffrey of Monmouth. 70.92.142.130 (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Removed the unreferenced template because the one and only source for the legend (and the article) is the Historia Regum Britanniae as accounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth and this is mentioned as the source early. Xtrump (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. Surely there are other sources discussing this topic. This article just dead-ends, and an encyclopedia article should give one someplace to go.Elle (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Legendary British Kings

On this article, and the one for "Queen Cordelia," the template is called "Legendary British Kings." Is there a reason this differs from all other kings on the list, in which the template is labelled "Mythical British Kings?"--76.165.248.183 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever put out the succession boxes seems to have initially decided to use "Mythical British Kings", but these were changed at different times to use "legendary" on all of the major articles (Coel, Arthur, the Roman emperors and these two, etc.). Presumably this was because these figures can perhaps better be described as legendary than mythical; Monmouth was mostly adding flavour to previous records, which is almost the definition of a legend (though granted this does blur to myth with Brutus and his very early kings); this is also reflected in the title of the linked List of legendary kings of Britain, which is a further reason to use "legendary" rather than "mythical". As a result I standardised them under "Legendary British Kings", but the non-standard capitalisation, plural and semantic difference now makes me think that "Legendary king of Britain" (replacing "Britain" with "Cornwall"/"Loegria"/"Northern Britain" etc. as necessary) might be the best option instead. --xensyria^T 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hydronym?

What does it mean that "Leir is a hydronym derived from Brittonic *Ligera"? That it is the Welsh name of the River Soar? ---Toby Bartels (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hydronym means a name for a body of water - river, stream, lake, sea, etc. Ligera was the name of the local river from which Castra Ligera (whence old Welsh Caer Leir) was named.Cagwinn (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious question for an actual expert, point would merit inclusion in article

Could the 12th-century telling of the legend have been influenced by the momentous historic division of Charlemagne's great realm? His successor Louis The Pious ruled over this kingdom, and partitioned it toward the end of his reign so that his three sons Charles, Lothaire and Louis would all three inherit a kingdom to rule. (This is by the way why we have France and Germany today, which is why I just called it momentous.) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FC12:1B23:F15A:CC28 (talk) 09:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we split this?

Does Shakespeare's King Lear deserve his own page? I'd argue he's distinct enough a portrayal to do so. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Like, I'd say this is easily as independently notable as any of the Alternative versions of Spider-Man are from each other, or, to use another Shakespeare example; Amleth vs Prince Hamlet. StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)