Talk:Edward the Confessor
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 3, 2010 and April 3, 2012.|
- 1 Too Much Religion
- 2 Eastern Orthodox Saint?
- 3 Rank?
- 4 Tom a Beck
- 5 Not the first Edward
- 6 Why a saint?
- 7 Confessor response
- 8 His Vow Of Chastity
- 9 Naming
- 10 Albino
- 11 Danish Invasion
- 12 big mistake
- 13 Albinistic Edward?
- 14 His remains being found
- 15 Ahnentafel
- 16 Eadweard III?
- 17 Edward 0th?
- 18 Dubious
- 19 Education.
- 20 File:EdtheCon.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 21 "Last King of the House of Wessex?"
- 22 Only Royal Saint?
- 23 the epithet
Too Much Religion
All of this material about who was the patron saint of that, etc., (in all such articles) gets very unencyclopedic and boring. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a "Sunday School" lesson. It is also very slanted towards the Roman Catholic religion. Make an encyclopedia for everybody! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Totally unhelpful and irrational. (Your wording indicates he sold out to a religious nutter.) Derekbd (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Eastern Orthodox Saint?
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox church considers this man a saint. Could someone cite a source which claims this?
- It doesn't, generally. The reference has been removed. InfernoXV 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What does "Rank: 21st" mean? It sounds like monarch Top Trumps. Marnanel 18:11, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
- 21st king of England since Egbert of Wessex (who wasn't a king of England, but he was the first West Saxon king to dominate England). A pretty poor system, if you ask me. Everyking 18:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Someone who knows where 'the Confessor' came from should add it to the article. -- Kizor 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- done shsilver
- That was fast. Thank you.
Tom a Beck
Where is our old friend? Surely THIS is a large missing block here...
That's because Thomas a Becket doesn't turn up in the history books till the reign of Henry II. His presence in this article would be an anachronism.
Not the first Edward
The Confessor was actually the third Saxon king by the name of Edward.
- Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Remember you can fix errors yourself if you like, even if you're anonymous. Everyking 19:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why a saint?
That article doesn't fully explain why Edward is considered a saint. Would smoeone who knows please add that in?
- Why is anyone a saint?
- He is said to have performed miraculous healings and to have had visions. Whether those were contemporary claims or not is another matter. He was also moderately pious, which was virtually unique amongst European kings of the time.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia at Edward was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast day, according to the same source, is 13th October. For further info, see  Zach Beauvais 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There were a number of individuals who attracted a cult following after their deaths from this period. If these were strong enough the Church would make them official, but often the cult would die away - as in the case of Edward's predecessors, Kings Aethelwulf and Ethelred I. However later on (I think perhaps 1161) the Church reviewed the rather vague list of saints and confirmed them or not as the case may have been. Mostly those saints with advocates were confirmed and those who did not failed. The Normans mostly did not re apply for Anglo-Saxon saints unless, like Edward, they suited their propoganda. Saints were usually either "martyrs", who had died for the faith, or "confessors" who had not but who had done a lot of praying, chastity etc. like Edward or Dunstan. Edward was thus a -or rather "the" - Confessor. the Orthodox Church had by this time split away (or the Romans had split away) and thus maintained their own list of saints, continuing to recognise many that Rome did not.--Streona (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It was my understanding that Edward would not sleep with his wife because she was the daughter of Godwin, and forced upon him, and that as his worldly power declined he turned to the heavanly as a retreat...and not minding what would follow after his death, apparently....
- This is an interpretation proposed by some historians. It is not historical fact. Valiant Son 20:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you have a reputable source for this you can put it in if you like, verifyability is not the same as truth. If you can verify this with a reference then it doesn't matter if it is an interpretation, as long as you point this out. This is an encyclopedia, not an historical text book. Alun 06:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, the view about Edward and his unwillingness to sleep with Godwin's daughter is put forward in Simon Schama's History of Britain (Volume 1)Zach Beauvais 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
His Vow Of Chastity
according to rumor he had shot himself himself in the groin with a arrow (can't quite figure out how!?!?) which left himself permanantly impotent
- I think the important word here is "rumour". There is no evidence to support this view. Indeed, it isn't even that widely accepted as a rumour to be honest. There are a number of theories that surround the issue of Edward's failure to produce an heir. Valiant Son 08:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- See above comment in Confessor response about verifyability. Historical accuracy isn't important as long as you have a reputable source and keep it neutral. By this I mean that if you want to put a rumour in then it must be properly referenced, and it must be noted that this is considered a rumour, this should be referenced as well, although a good reference will probably give both points of view anyway. Neutrality just means giving both (all) POVs and verifyability just means giving a reputable (published) source. See WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Alun 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read the above, particularly the line, "Historical accuracy isn't important." My God, if historical accuracy is not important then why bother with anything here? Interpretations can be included, but only if they are very clearly marked as such and a proper balance is provided. People are quite right, this is not a history text book and as such should not advance once single interpretation (a history text actually should because all history is written to advance a specific intepretation - that is the very nature of the subject. However, in an encyclopaedia a degree of dispassionate objectivity is what is called for.) If any body wants to look at the theories surrounding why Edward had no issue then that is fair enough, but doing so in the article requires that the balance is present and more than one interpretation be properly referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
- added* I think it adds at least a good and interesting guess on what might have been going through his mind, or what kind of person he is. I think its a good conjecture to talk about, but since it isn't fact and could be misleading, its a throught better suited to being put here to be found. It just keeps it part of the discussion, if not the official version. Just a thought on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Edward the Confessor or Eadweard III
was replaced by this
King Edward III the Confessor
I can see no reason for this. It seems strange to me. He is either King Edward, Edward the Confessor or simply Edward III. Much as the current queen is either Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth. It seems odd to me to include both, I don't think a British person would ever include both the title and the number. So as it's a British related article I've reverted to British convention. No reason was given for the change anyway. Alun 06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)i have no idea
why don't we call him King Eddie Snr for our american readers? 184.108.40.206 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a particularly helpful comment section. He is known to history as King Edward or The Confessor (Edward the Confessor). He was the third Anglo-Saxon king to bear the name Edward, but Has never been refered to as Edward III (see Edward III). I think it's the wrong approach to change the title in order to show that two previous Edwards were also kings in England. It is better to discuss this in the entry than to change the title in reference. I also think international sniping is unhelpful even on a discussion page Zach Beauvais 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The comment you responded to was posted almost a year and a half ago. This was resolved and this is why these pages should be archived from time to time. -- SECisek 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) So why was he called the confessor?Callum1st2 (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be stated somewhere that he was an Albino? He is mentioned in the list of famous Ablbinos and his picture highly suggests he was one.
- What??? I'm assuming this is somebody trying to be funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
- "Some chroniclers"? FFS. This is not proper referencing. There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that Edward was an albino. As for his picture, has nobody noticed that this picture comes from the Bayeux Tapestry? All the people in the tapestry have a white skin because that is the colour of the cloth! His hair is white because he is an old man! As a historian, I despair. Valiant Son 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- And to quote from Frank Barlow's biography of Edward (italics mine), "In fact, it does not seem that there is a single physical trait which can safely be taken from the iconography. Whether Edward in 1043 was short or tall, muscular or slight, dark or fair, imposing or insignificant, is unknown and unknowable." (Edward the Confessor, Frank Barlow, University of California Press, 1984, ISBN=0520053192, p.71) Shsilver (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Danish invasion is not an unreasonable term. Where do you think the Vikings came from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
- In case of confusion: some Vikings came from Norway, what is now Sweden, and other places. These vikings were Danes. Algebraist 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
on this page it says edward the confessor died on 4th January but in fact he died on the 5th January 1066. from maxine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- maxine is tright. he died on 5th january. > Stuart
- He died on 5th January. Countless reputbale biographies will confirm, as do several recensions of the ASC.Valiant Son 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In the ALbinism article it clearly states King Edward the confessor was albinistic but does not say that he was an albino in the article about him, help please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sydney2892 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
His remains being found
My understanding is that his remainds have NOT been found, but that a series of rooms were located under the Abby by means of ground penetrating radar. These rooms were never entered, owing to the fact that it would damage or destroy an ancient mosaic on the floor. It is believed that one of these rooms was used in preparing the king for burial, but whether it was the burial chamber itself will not be known until someone figures out how to get down there. Besides, if his remains were indeed moved several times (as stated, and I accept it), then there is no reason to believe he would be now inside a chamber that could not have been entered many centuries prior to these moves.
If someone could fill me in on the explanation, I'd appreciate it.
<aside: historical note for reference> - Times, July 31, 1847 (#19616); page 7, column D. "A Discovery in Westminster Abbey - In making the alterations now in progress in Westminster Abbey Church, the supposed tomb of St. Edward has been discovered, at least such is the opinion of some of the abbey dignitaries. This tomb is situated exactly in the centre of the cross, it is rectangular, eight feet long, east and west, five feet wide, north and south, and two feet three inches deep. The bottom is formed of concrete, the sides and ends of rubbed stone, and it was originally covered with a slab six inches thick, but the covering disappeared ages ago, and the tomb has remained filled with rubbish. Let no-one, however, imagine that this is the original tomb of the Confessor. It is stated by the oldest authorities, quoted by Widmore, that St. Edward was buried beneath the high altar, that his remains were afterwards removed to a higher place, and then again to another still higher; while no doubt can possibly exist that his dust still reposes in the shrine prepared for it by King Henry III". (longer version of this letter also at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5fUIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=widmore+edward+confessor&source=web&ots=tfxnjj-AYG&sig=u_unaOVWRhENL9f5iIKiwTLvhxA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result in The Gentleman's Magazine for July 1847) Harami2000 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Anglo-Saxon (Old English) spelling differed between a bit and a great deal from modern English. (Ever tried reading Beowulf in the original OId English?) As for the eccentric photographer, he changed his name to reflect what he believed was its original Anglo-Saxon form. I don't know why "Eadweard III" would link to him, except that he might have been the only "Eadweard" in the search database.
"Edward the Confessor" is the nickname of this particular King Edward and serves mainly to help people keep distinguish him amidst all the other King Edwards England has produced. Even academics generally use the modern spelling of his name. If you want to search JSTOR I'd try "Edward the Confessor" first, since even though today's academics, at least, are liable to shy away from calling him by a name he wasn't known by during his life, I should think the nickname would at least be mentioned in most any article on this bloke. Mia229 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Note 2 says:
The numbering of English monarchs starts with Edward the Confessor, but, because the Normans used the French numbering system, the truth was only discovered in computerised chromatographic analysis of previously water-damaged Latin texts. This explains why historians regnal numbers started counting from the later Edward Edward I (ruled 1272–1307) and do not include Edward the Confessor (who was the third King Edward).
It's actually pretty straightforward (I'm not ready to buy into allegations that the French had some special "numbering system"): the Conquerer and his heirs don't count the old Anglo-Saxon kings (the native Britons don't even seem to have had kings who ruled over the whole island anyway). Even if there had been a Norman king named Alfred, he still would have been Alfred I. (William the Conquerer probably expected them all to have French names anyway...not Anglo-Saxon names like Edward.) The French brought with them different ways of government, so it wasn't really just a change of dynasty, anyway. They introduced feudalism, which was a completely different economic system (with all its attendant difficulties), to the island kingdom (not to mention the French language, which was even worse :) ).
It certainly wasn't a matter of there being 1 kinds of people (those who count starting from 0 and those who don't), because the whole concept of 0 as a whole number that comes before 1 didn't exist in European culture. (Zero was used in India, but even there I think it was only a place-marker, similar (or analogous) to the way we do in numbers like 10, 6003, 2.200000000008, etc.) Mia229 (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on Saint George says that the patron saint of England before George was Edward the Martyr, who is someone else entirely. Unless in the next 7 days someone can verify, with a proper source, that Edward the Confessor was ever patron saint of anything, I am going to remove this whole paragraph. Richard75 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The page fails to mention that Edward was educated at The King's School Ely; the word King's being a reference to him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Probably because it's very likely not true. I looked it up: a "claim in the twelfth-century...produced to validate a relic" says mediaeval specialist Frank Barlow. The "King" in this instance was Henry VIII, spending some of his ill-gotten gains to endow the cathedral school (irony or what?), according to the cathedral records. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
File:EdtheCon.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:EdtheCon.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
"Last King of the House of Wessex?"
- I agree, and the citation for that line is about Edgar Atheling (whose status as king is indeed dubious). Apparently the author of that remark forgot about Harold, who was crowned and reigned for the better part of a year, entirely. I've removed the statement. CarrieVS (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is indeed rather confusing. I'm wondering if maybe, despite being the son of the Earl of Wessex, Harold would have been considered to be of a different "house" than Edward because he wasn't Edward's direct descendant (but came from a different branch of the House of Wessex, even though he did end up with the earldom)?
- On a distantly-related note, ætheling (or æðeling) means "prince, nobleman, man of royal blood" — literally, someone descended from royalty (æthel/æðel = "royal, noble" + -ing is a patronymic suffix). In this type of context — when somebody is known as "so-and-so the Ætheling" — it tends to refer particularly to a king's son or grandson — an heir apparent or presumptive (or at least, someone who would be described as such under the Norman system; I don't really know to what extent the Anglo-Saxon kings actually practised any form of primogeniture). To the best of my knowledge, "throneworthy" is not at all accurate — AFAIK that was never the meaning, even in a broader or more metaphorical sense. (Not to mention the fact that it's a noun, not an adjective....) Mia229 (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Only Royal Saint?
"Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised," is not Charles I St. Charles the Martyr? http://skcm.org/
- The Charles I of England article has no mention of any canonization. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just caught up with this. I had never heard of equipollent canonization either. The article on it links to  which says that it is nomination as a Doctor of the Church. I think Ealdgyth said this applies to Bede, but presumably not to Edward the Martyr. So did he have an equipollent or "pre-congregation" canonization, and should the articles on both Edwards be revised accordingly? I am very unclear how long ago someone had to live before (and whether) it is meaningful to say they were not canonised. According to the List of canonizations the first one was in 993 and canonised Ulrich of Augsburg, who died in 973, just before Edward the Martyr, and in 1441 Henry VI unsuccessfully attempted to get Alfred the Great canonised. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I believe there was an attempt to get Henry III (or was it VI?) canonized at one point. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The explanation that "the Confessor" is "the name for someone believed to have lived a saintly life but who was not a martyr" is not very satisfactory. I am interested as to where the epithet is first recorded. this miniature (as usual on commons, nobody thought it worthwhile to identify the manuscript, apparently saying "13th century" is considered a reference now) just calls him "Saint Edward". I can only assume that the above explanation is supposed to mean that he used to be called Saint Edward the Confessor as opposed to Saint Edward the Martyr, as it were the "Confessor" vs. "Martyr" disambiguating two people already known as "Saint Edward". This would appear to suggest that the necessity for disambiguation arose after 1161, when he was canonized.
The suggestion that he was ever known as "Ēadweard Andettere" seems to be a complete fabrication produced for Wikipedia. I have no idea why this was left unchallenged. This was apparently just coined as an article title for ang: (by looking up "confessor" in a dictionary) and not with the intention of claiming historicity. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)