This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Sorry about the confusion with the Gwynedd regnal listings. I wasn't sure if including Edwin on the list was a good idea or not, honestly, but the existing listing over at the Kingdom of Gwynedd page included him, and I could see at least a case being made for including him in some way because of Anglesey. But, in retrospect, there were probably better ways to go about it, and it would have made more sense (and been easier, too boot...) just to remove him from the Gwynedd list page (which I have just done). Seancdaug 23:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the recently posted clean-up tag, could the specific problems of the article be identified? I see the article as being presently inadequate in many ways, but I see nothing to justify calling it "pure trash". Everyking 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It needs a full-scale rewrite. The statement "Edwin is said to have conquered the fort located at what is now Edinburgh in 626, and it is possible that the city was named after him (one interpretation of its etymology is "Edwin's fort")." is simply pure trash; nothing says Edwin took the fort of Edinburgh at all. There is an "obsessio Etin" (siege of Etin) listed in the Irish Annals for the period 637-40, but it says nothing of a capture, doesn't identify the besieger, isn't certainly Edinburgh (although it is likely) and, moreover, dates to the reign of Oswald. The name (Din) Eidyn can be found in 6th century Welsh sources anyway, so it isn't even possible that the city meant Edwin's burgh. Although recent research indicates Cadwallon "ap Cadfan" was probably a king in central England and not Gwynedd, I'm not expecting that sort of thing to get in there; there is just an overall lack of quality. Nothing is cited, despite claims being made of sources, and statements like Since Penda was a pagan, and Cadwallon "Christian only in name", Edwin was considered a martyr" just sum the thing up. I am currently busy, but other users such as User:Angusmclellan could probably do a good re-write. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of the Edinburgh issue; I added a little about that to Oswald's article not too long ago. Nevertheless, a quick Google search turns up a good many hits about Edwin taking Edinburgh in 626. This idea must have come from somewhere. Do you have any idea where? I don't mind removing it. I am also aware of the Cadwallon claim, although I had thought this was marginal and that the evidence for the traditional identification was stronger. As you suggest, I think clearer scholarly assessments of that issue would be needed, and more credibility attached to the alternate theory, before we could begin treating it the way you'd like. I will see if I can make a few edits in the future to make the article more rigorous. Everyking 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I made a few changes. I don't know if they are hopeless or not. Everyking 04:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The revisions in general look very good. But this: "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that on Aella's death Æthelric assumed power. The exact identity of Æthelric is uncertain, but the simplest reading would make this Æthelric Æthelfrith's father. Æthelfrith himself appears to have been king of "Northumbria" - both Deira and Bernicia - by about 593. During the reigns of Æthelric and Æthelfrith, Edwin was an exile." is to my knowledge wrong. The Aethelric who ruled Deira after Aelle was not the father of Aethelfrith of Bernicia, who also had a father named Aethelric who ruled Bernicia some years previously. These were different Aethelrics. My understanding is that the Deiran Aethelric is presumed to be a member of the Deiran royal line, very possibly the son of his predecessor Aelle and therefore Edwin's brother. Furthermore, Aethelfrith definitely didn't rule Deira by 593. He ruled some years in Bernicia alone, 593–604, and then beginning in 604 he began to rule Deira as well. At least that's the standard interpretation as I understand it. Everyking 16:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Please change the article to fit with whatever you think the orthodox view is. I have taken the easy option and listed the various possibilities.
The ASC Peterborough version says (paraphrasing) "588: Ælle died and Æthelric ruled after him, and "593: Æthelfrith became king, he was the son of Æthelric. Æthelric son of Ida." I don't recall Bede having much to say on Edwin's early life (which may mean he stayed with the Britons or in Mercia, given Bede's prejudices).
Higham says (p. 112) "Whether the young Edwin was king of Deira in 604, or an ætheling ('royal prince') is unclear. His father Ælle had been king but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle suggests that the otherwise unknown Æthelric was king of Deira in between. If this extremely late and unverifiable reign has any substance, Æthelric may have been a tributary king imposed on Deira by Æthelfrith, whose dramatic rise to power in the north might be expected to have had implications for Deira even before 604. Alternatively, this very late source may merely have confused the two dynasties, since Æthelfrith's father was named Æthelric." Clearly Higham agrees with Edwin being in Deira c. 604.
Holdsworth's piece on Edwin gives no date for the annexation. He says "After the death of his father, King Ælle (c. 560–590), and the subsequent annexation of Deira by King Æthelfrith of Bernicia (c.592–616), Edwin went into exile." What does he mean by subsequent ? The Blackwell Encyclopedia lacks an an article on Æthelfrith. Stenton (p. 75) notes "an ancient tradition" identifying the two Æthelrics as one. Checking the Nennius on the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, it says "... Eadfered Flesaurs reigned twelve years in Bernicia, and twelve others in Deira ..." which comes to 24 in all, and a start date of 604 in Deira. Angus McLellan(Talk) 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This leans heavily on Higham, I notice; I haven't read his Northumbria book, but I have read The Convert Kings and he strikes me as being very speculative, although still useful. Later on I'll see if I can diversify the secondary sourcing with some other authors, such as Kirby. Everyking 16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the copy of Kirby I ordered weeks ago had arrived, the article would doubtless be the better for it, and I feel that Alcock's Kings and Warriors would be handy, but again, hasn't arrived. It would also be useful if I had Rollason's book on Northumbria as well as Higham's, but I don't. Higham's book on Northumbria does indeed involve a lot of educated guesswork, but that's inevitable given that it covers the early period. As and when I have more sources, I'll update the article, but if you can do it sooner, please do. There's still a long way to go. Any ideas on illustrations ? Angus McLellan(Talk) 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Kirby mentions the Aethelric issue a little. He mentions the idea that they were the same person but rejects that, and suggests that the Deiran Aethelric may have been a brother of Aelle. In that context the assumption should be that Edwin remained in Deira until around 604, when Aethelfrith came to power, and wasn't exiled during the reign of Aethelric, who would have been a close relative of Edwin, of the same royal line. Everyking 16:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hilda's father Hereric must have been older than Edwin to have produced two daughters by 604, and his parent, a presumed sibling of Edwin much older still. If Edwin and Acha are born in the 580s, then they could easily have had half-brothers and -sisters born in the 560s. Then again, Osric's father is Ælle's brother Æthelred, close enough to Æthelric for a misreading, and equally possibly there could be a third brother called Æthelric. Who can say ? But I do like Occam's Razor: Æthelric's should not be multiplied without necessity, and we already have one ... Angus McLellan(Talk) 17:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Using of Northumbria of Edwin seems (to me) to be an anachronism. He's variously indexed as "E., k. of Northumbrians", "E., k. of North Angles", "E., of Deiri", and so on, so all things are possible, but having a king "of Northumbria" so early seems unhelpful. Angus McLellan(Talk) 17:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article is a good one, although the writing could use a solid copyedit and the lead might do a better job of summarising the article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The Staffordshire Hoard was found in, well, Staffordshire. The Battle of Hatfield Chase took place in what is now Yorkshire. There is no way that the two spots can be "less than 15 miles" apart. The actual distance is closer to 80 miles. --dab(𒁳) 11:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah. I've just removed: "At least an important part of the gold and silver pieces would constitute the gifts or helps sent to him from Rome by the Pope Boniface V. The Vatican has shown interest in buying the hoard in 2009." - as it is already clear the the hoard, in contrast to Sutton Hoo, does not represent the "treasure" of an individual but the valuable bits of the weaponry & other military kit of a large number of individuals, none of which show the slightest sign of Italian style. Nor do the sources say that the Vatican has expressed an interest, they merely say that some spokesman in the UK has expressed the view that he's sure (most implausibly in my my view) that the Vatican would like to buy the hoard, or some of it. In view of the comment above I think I'll cut the lot. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)