Talk:Witan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spelling

Is it Witenagemot or Witangemot? -- Jim Regan 22:44 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's witenagemot...witangemot just seems to be a spelling error. Adam Bishop 22:47 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Are ealdormen and thegns spelled correctly? Should they be changed to modern English (aldermen and ??) -Aion 00:29 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ealdormen are never modernized, as they're so different from modern aldermen. There isn't a modern form of thegn, just Shakespeare's thane and Tolkien's thain. -- Gritchka 00:38 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

is this where j. k. rowling got the word Wizengamot? Donthaveaspaz 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Membership

Who appointed members of the Witan?--Camaeron (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bishops and Ealdormen would have sat in it. Bishops are appointed by the two archbishops and they by the pope. Ealdormen were generally appointed by the king or were hereditery (though not always)and others were co-opted. Edmund Ironside and Cnut both summoned rival Witenagemots to elect them both simultaneously. It was felt necessary -especially after Dunstan- to include an archbishop if you wanted to get crowned. THe power of the Witan to acclaim the king was eroded, particularly by the Danes, but also by Edmund I who made a pact with the Danish leader that each would inherit the whole kingdom upon the death of the other (Edmund narrowly won). It is not certain whether this arrangement was ratified by the Witan, or if the king could personally give away the kingdom on his own authority. The Danish rulers - Swein, Cnut, Harald and Hardicnut seemed to barter their kingdoms as if their own possessions without the Witan having much say in the matter. Upon the death of Hardicnut, it seems that Godwin strong armed the Witenagemot into acquiescing with his choice of Edward, whom no doubt he felt he could manipulate - as he did in the end, but with more difficulty than he anticipated. So it seems that at times the Witan chose the king but sometimes he chose them. Streona (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Witan = Curia Regis?

It what way did the Curia Regis "replace" the Witan? Surely it was just a new Latin name for the same instituation. It had the same types of people in it (top landowners and ecclesiastics), it did the same things, and was even called the "Witan" into the 12th century, as the article states. TharkunColl 12:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Powers of the Witenagemont

If the Witan was subject to the will of the king and could only meet when summoned by the king, how could it CHOOSE the king, and how could it DEPOSE kings? This seems to me a contradition in the article. Shulgi 09:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the major functions seems to have been choosing the King. Succession was a system otherwise known as tanistry- the candidate would have to be from the royal line- essentially that of Cerdic and the Witenagemot had to judge between claimants and would have sat therefore between reigns. Thus Alfred, the brother of King Ethelred, was chosen over the son of Ethelred, Ethelwald. The succession of Athelstan was extremely complex, due to his illegitimacy, Edred succeeded his brother, Edmund I as Eadwig was too young, the Witenagemot would have had to split the kingdom between Eadwig and Edgar. In the succession of Edmund Ironsides and Cnut, rival witengamots sat to proclaim both of them king. In the Danish period the witenagemot was defunct, due to the king's autocracy, but was re established after Hardicnut's death under the dominance of Earl Godwin, who offered the throne to Edward the Confessor, despite Edward pleading that he did not want it and bursting into tears. So they must have had a busy time at pivotal moments in history. Unfortunately they did not keep proper minutes. Streona 09:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wizengamot

The link to "wizengamot" of the Harry Potter books books directs straight back to "witenagemot". This is not good. There is no site for wizengamot but it can be found under "Ministry of Magic". -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Considering the wealth of information on the witan and its historical relevance, it is surprising that the article is devoid of references. Also, many claims are made in this article which seem dubious and should be qualified as scholarly opinion rather than fact.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Witan vs. Witenagemot again

There seems to be little consistency in the use of the two terms. Either the article should stick to only one of these terms to prevent confusion, or both should be kept but used according to strict criteria, which should be made explicit in the introduction.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Primogeniture

Primogeniture was modified by the decisions of the witan - firstly when Ethelred I was succeeded not by his infant son but by his brother Alfred and in similar circumstances when Edmund I was succeeded by his brother Edred, instead of his sons Edwy and Edgar. The question of Athelstan's illegitimacy complicated his succession which would presumably have had to be put tho the witan. (I suggest that following the Synod of Chelsea, kings "born in adultery" were disbarred, not simple illegitemacy). Also it is difficult to know to what extent the king could designate his own successor, without the agreement of the witan. Edmund agreed with Olaf that whichever lived longer would have the throne (luckily it was Edmund)which suggests that the king could alienate the throne on his own initiative--Streona (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Royal Power to Dismiss Ealdormen

Ethelred the Unready dismissed Athelric, the Ealdorman of Mercia and blinded his sons. He also managed to dismiss others by assassinating them (or inviting them round for drinks to Eadric Streona's place)--Streona (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, and the statement by Liebermann should be qualified in that regard. The Lieberman's quote is meant to go towards establishing the principles on which the Witan was formed. Comparison of these principles with actual events as they unfolded, especially in so troubled a time as Ethelred's reign, is important.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to add that it can by no means be shown that Ethelred was working without the witan's (or part of the witan's) support when he executed and deposed various ill-starred nobles. Given what we know of Ethelred, it would be very surprising to learn that Ethelred dared commit such crimes on his own authority.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. In the case of Athelric, betraying naval secrets to the enemy in time of war, he got off incredibly lightly and he must have been unanimously condemned. --Streona (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Witanegemots

The Witan underwent a transformation in the years after 1014 with rival witans supporting Cnut and Ironside which diminished the institution. Its function after Cnut's seizure was not necessarily entirely annulled, especially as Cnut was out of the country for long periods and it seems that someone was keeping an eye on Erik Hlathir and Thorkell the Tall simply by the fact that Thorkell got the sack. Godwin's dominance of the witan in securing the accession of Edward again interfered with its workings but nonetheless underlines its constitutional importance.--Streona (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The picture used here is from an 11th AD manuscript and is an Anglo-Saxon depiction of a biblical Pharoah dispensing execution edicts. As such is irrelevant and misleading if included here.128.86.172.164 (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In no way should [...] or in any wise [...]

I removed a sentence that was phrased way too strongly. I retained all the factual information in the article, but I felt the sentence in question made inappropriate subjective judgments. The sentence was:

In no way should the witan ever be regarded as a 'national institution' or in any wise 'democratic'.

Ventifact (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And it hardly needs saying that it wasn't "democratic". Nor where the early English Parliaments particularly. The anxiety to prevent the idea of continuity between the two may be misplaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.44.200 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Rating

Unreferenced section needs citations before giving higher rating.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

'Start' is a little harsh, in my opinion, as C and B classes do not require an article to be fully referenced. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal succession

This statement seems to me odd: "Nevertheless, at least until the 11th century, royal succession generally followed the "ordinary system of primogeniture." Chadwick interpreted these facts as proof that the so-called election of the king by the witan merely amounted to formal recognition of the deceased king's natural successor."

As Streona has pointed out, there are many cases where succession did not follow the "ordinary system of primogeniture." Another example is the dispute between Edward the Elder and Æthelwold. Royal succession between Egbert and Harold II was rarely if ever (apart from Æthelwulf following Egbert) the ordinary system of primogeniture. The Witenagemot's role was presumably far from formal in most cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"...the unification of England in the 9th century..."

The Constitution and Limitations section speaks of "the unification of England in the 9th century." Was England "unified" before the reign of Æthelstan in the 10th century? Frans Fowler (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Edited article 9th > 10 th century Frans Fowler (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Magnum Concilium?

Does witenagemot have any relationship with Magnum Concilium? It looks like both of them are similar. Komitsuki (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

More info on the Magna Cocilium [1]. Komitsuki (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Image

Is there any reason to use the 'Biblical scene in the Illustrated Old English Hexateuch (11th century), portraying Pharaoh in court session, after passing judgment on his chief baker and chief cupbearer' for the Witenagemot? Elchsntre (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that an editor made the same point above back in 2008. I agree, although it is unfortunate that there does not appear to be a more suitable image on Wikimedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wizengamot

It's fictional in the real world, but not in the Harry Potter series. Is the section worded correctly? --147.142.68.182 (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Role in evolution of English Parliament?

So the modern consensus seems to be that Witenagemot had no role in the coming about of Parliament? I'm sure it left at least a cultural tendency toward it. knoodelhed (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I ma not sure whether the article covers this point. The best source is John Maddicott's The Origins of the English Parliament. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)