Talk:Edmund the Martyr

Dates

The wording of this latest change appears confused, but it could imply there is a need for a large-scale revision of the dates in several articles dealing with English history around the time of the invasion of East Anglia and Wessex by the Great Heathen Army. Maybe there is, but this needs discussion and clear sources. PatGallacher 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England article "Edmund, St, King of East Anglia" [authored by Marco Mostert], begins:"The Anglo Saxon Chronicle (MS. A) notes the death of King Edmund of East Anglia at the hands of a Viking army under 870 (=869)." Seems pretty clear cut. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Have we got the right dates for the Viking invasion of Wessex fairly soon afterwards then? PatGallacher 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The attack on Alfred at Chippenham was on 6 January 878, Alfred collected an armyat Easter 878, and the battle of Eddington was fought in the summer of 878. As of 878, the Great Army had taken large parts of Mercia and Northumbria, but it wouldn't be true to say that they had conquered either completely. Ceolwulf (II) was still king in Mercia, probably until 879x881. Most likely he was killed in battle in north Wales, and not fighting Danes. Claims that Ceolwulf was a puppet king bear more than a passing resemblance to the blackening of King John Balliol's reputation after Bruce became king. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As the person who inserted this edit, may I provide a reference? Follow the link to the Edmund pages of the Western Michigan University Medieval Institute (on the main page) and click on the article by Dorothy Whitelock Fact and Fiction in the Legend of St Edmund, where the dating of the martyrdom is discussed.Edmund869 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's here. Interesting stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually what I was thinking about was the first major Viking invasion of Wessex, when Ethelred was king but he died and Alfred took over, which included battles like Ashdown and Marten. Was this in 870 or 871? Did the Great Heathen Army move on to Wessex more or less immediately after killing Edmund, or was there a gap of about a year? PatGallacher 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the most recent scholarship, as exemplified by Michael Swanton's edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (revised edition 2000) the Great Army stayed in East Anglia for most of 870, arriving in Reading in the late Autumn. The first battle (Englefield ) is dated 870, the others you mention are given an 871 date.The Danes were reinforced by the Summer fleet that arrived in the Thames just before Easter, and Alfred's brother Aethelred was killed soon after Easter. Alfred therefore came to the throne of Wessex about 18 months after Edmund was killed in East Anglia. Towards the end of 871 the Danes left Reading for London.Edmund869 15:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That answers some questions, but still leaves some others. I thought the "Great Summer Army" was Bagsecg's army, who was killed at Ashdown in January some year. So what year did he and his army arrive? Or is the "Summer fleet" something different and later from Bagsecg? PatGallacher 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the battle of Ashdown (and therefore the death of Bagsecg) preceded the arrival of the summer army (or fleet - the Old English word is sumerlida). Both events occurred between January and September 871, so there is no conflict between the Anglo-Saxon year (September to August) and the modern year.I do not know how the tradition that Bagsecg came over with a summer army arose, but I am not aware of any contemporary sources that would support this idea - which is not to say that they do not exist. As far as the Chronicle is concerned, Bagsecg is only mentioned once, when his death is recorded.Edmund869 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica gives Edmund's death date as Nov. 20 870. PatGallacher 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Blackwell Enyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says 869. No contest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For editing on 23 April 2007. Battle site: Dernford in Cambridgeshire - see link on subject page. Bradfield St Clare as site of capture / martydom.; short note in the proceeding of the Suffolk Institute (paper by Stanley West) Edmund Patrick 12:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

869 seems to be the accepted date. Also listed as such in the trusted Oxford Dictionary of the Chritian Church -- SECisek 12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Link

removed link to homosexuals. as neither back up the assertion that he was / is the patron saint. --Edmund Patrick 18:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross of St. Edmund

Please can someone cite some sources to support the Cross of St. Edmund. (please remember to sign. thanks --Edmund Patrick 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

edits by 79.72.229.201

can anyone verify the preposition that However, since saints are canonised and assigned patronages by the Catholic church as I feel that this is incorrect. one has to say that other religions have figures that can be equated to patron saints. an other addition - However, this is not true since, as Perrin (1922) states, the prohibition of the veneration of saints Edmund and Edward (the Confessor) occured during the Reformation, specifically, under the reign of Edward II and the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer I cannot find in Perrin am I missing it? And Indeed, the banners of Sts. Edmund and Edmund were carried into battle at Agincourt verification? and finally and the feasts of the saints are still venerated in the Catholic liturgical calendar - They maybe but does that mean that they are still the patron saint. I also believe that if you asked anyone how many and who are the patron saint of england the answer would be one and St George. If no-one disagrees I will remove. I for the obvious reason cannot talk to the editor. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 08:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"other religions have figures that can be equated to patron saints", St. Edmund was not an 'other religion'; he was a Catholic and martyred for his Catholic faith and no other.

"prohibition of the veneration of saints Edmund and Edward": Perrin P40 (but should have written under Edward VI)

"Edmund and Edmund were carried into battle at Agincourt": Perrin P35

"They maybe but does that mean that they are still the patron saint": As I wrote the Catholic Church canonizes saints etc. and Edmund has never been decanonized... but how would you suggest one cites a negative? There is no record of his decanonization.

"if you asked anyone how many and who are the patron saint of england the answer would be one": because we now live in a secular country and its inhabitants are ignorant... but that's no excuse... or reason to remove it... surely an encylopedia is for education.

"I for the obvious reason cannot talk to the editor": Oh yes you can! Most of what I wrote is contained within Perrin's British Flag (which you claim to have) and Catholic websites, so you have all the information at you fingertips.

unsigned is meaningless as if someone cannot stand by their knowledge it says something about the knowledge, and the respect of the rules of the talk page. (See Above). And how do I contact an editor through Perrin. but I will check now that there is more information available and I look forward to seeing the references on the article page. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 08:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"unsigned is meaningless" well it has certainly got you in a tizz Ed. I've forced you to add citations, reach for the reference books and, most importantly, forced you to recant your wild claims (Norman suppession and all that)... so not doing too bad for "meaningless" am I?

Oh yeah, and some of your references are suspect too, so I've added some clarification to aid the reader... Happy citing!

if you looked at the page history I did not add the (Norman suppession and all that), but someone who signs their work did. Enough said. Also working through your cites it all helps make an encyclopedia knowledgeable. As always with Latin always open to different interpretations. (see horology)--Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 18:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a Roman Catholic saint book with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur. It lists ONLY one saint as patron of England and that is George. I also removed some nonsense about Edward IV from the article and added the saint's attributes. What ever ax there is to grind about patronage of England, it should be kept out of the article. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs: WP:NOT -- SECisek 22:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of the clearing that you undertook but after the anonymous editor stated that St Edmund and St Edward the Confessor were never removed from their role I could find no statement when this happened so it was new knowledge to me; could you please show your research. The fact that one publication states who IS the Patron Saint does not mean that the others are not still. In many ways it is academic as most in England would state St George but as an encyclopedia wiki should say if there are more, and more importantly that at one time St Edmund and St Edward the Confessor were the Patron Saint of England. Thanks --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 09:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Edward VI, but a simple bit of research would have revealed this to you. Infact I even mentioned above. It is relevent because it refutes the suggestion that the Normans tried to remove Edmund's veneration.

Removed as patron? The anon. IP address, which BTW belongs to a troll - that is how I discovered this controversy - posted above, "As I wrote the Catholic Church canonizes saints etc. and Edmund has never been decanonized... but how would you suggest one cites a negative? There is no record of his decanonization."

He is totaly wrong. Decanonized? Edmund was NEVER even canonized by Rome, but was made a saint by general acclaim, as often happened at that time. That is why he is not on the Roman Calendar or in the Roamn lists. Try and find a date for his canonization or the pope who did it. You wont because it didn't happen. That doesn't mean he is not a saint nor that he wasn't patron of England. He was and the article mentions that, but he is not patron of England anymore. He was superceded by Edward the Confessor. As for a record of Edward's "decanonization" none exists because he too is still a saint, although he was dropped from the universal Roman Catholic Calendar and list in 1969 by Pope Paul VI. Look up patron of France (Sts Martin, Denis, Joan of Arc) or Italy (Sts Joseph, Francis, Catherine) and you will find more then one saint listed. England has only ONE listed, only ONE: George. The drive to have Edmund reinstated as patron (if he already is a patron, why the drive?) is run by a fringe group that earns almost no mention outside of East Anglia. They are worth a mention in the article, but no more. As an American, I have no passion or interest in this other then seeing a correct, NPOV article for this king and saint.

I never said he was canonised by Rome. get you facts right. BTW "general acclaim" still required the approval of the local Bishop/Primate. I event quoted the source (St. Augustine) to highlight the process. Try doing some research into the subject

Since the XIX century, St Peter has been the Roman Catholic Patron of England, not George, Edward, or Edmund:

"On 2 June 1893, Pope Leo XIII demoted St George as patron saint for the English, relegating him to the secondary rank of 'national protector' and replaced him with St Peter as the Patron Saint of England. The change was solemnly announced by Herbert Cardinal Vaughan in the Brompton Oratory. This papal pronouncement served to exclude the Catholic Church in England from a day which is part of English tradition."

Wiki quote with no reference. And not true. He desired to make Peter "...St Peter as the principal patron..." note the work principal... meaning there were others, the fact that St. George was nolonger the "principal" did not mean that he was no longer a patron.

He also "devotion to these "two patrons of the faith" and 'guardians of all virtue" be revived" implying that St Peter was previously the "principal" patron (the other patron was Mary's Dowry).

Try reading "The Church of Old England" volume 3, Catholic Truth Society, 1894

100 years later the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales submitted this new calendar for approval in 1993, and it was approved in 2000 by JPII. The new calendar adds one solemnity, the highest-ranking feastday, that

of St. George, patron of England.

So once again, get your fact right and do some reseach.

Anon. troll is totaly wrong. Don't let the trolls get ta ya. I will work on citing this article in total. I'll adopt it with you. Let's make it GA. -- SECisek 10:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations

It seems that every sentence which I wrote required a citation even the snippit "However, this is not true since..." which did continue with a reference to Perrin (1922). Plus a request for a citation for a non-existant event!

It is only fair then in the interests of accuracy and precision that the same policy be adopted throughout this article and not just to the content added by myself. There appears to be numerous claims without citations. I have made a start at highlighting them.

another unsigned statement. But I am trying to answer some of the valid questions that you have raised.

Information is important and an encyclopedia is a place for knowledge so everything helps. Two things (1) the patron saint was added to match the criteria and requirements put down by a senior editor (look at the history for the notification) but please let me know what I was try to do (ah but are you the one that asked that ? who knows). And (2)citations are useful because for example suddenly the wolf was a big grey wolf - never heard that part before - which returned for the second burial of St Edmund - never heard that part before - was sent by God - never heard that part before - to protect the head until it could be found. So it is great that this knowledge is added but it has to be verified. You will see that some of the citations have ben added to information that I and others have added which rightly do require verification. A signed statement under the talk page guidelines . --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 09:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

to 85.189.181.99

well done for removing Eastern from the list of religions in which St Edmund was / is venerated, I found no proof of that from wikipedia or external sources. In my research I did find that wikipedia does not list him as venerated by the Roman Catholic Church [1] and [2] are but two sites within the Saints Portal, there maybe more. The information will have to be referenced and as you know your way around such sites - hopefully I hand it to you. You may also think about joining the Saints Portal group they I am sure could do with your knowledge and assistance. Thanks --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 10:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not well done. Edmund is a saint in the Orthodox tradition as he was recognized as such before the schism. Here is one Orthodox site on him: [3]. -- SECisek 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

to the unsigned bit above, Anon removed Eastern from the Saints Portal, well done for finding Western, will you add it? Discussions about "eastern" and "western" Orthodox you will have to take up with the Saints Portal group. I am only using the tools provided. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 12:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Western" refers to liturgical rite, they are still "Eastern Orthodox".

See here Western Rite Orthodoxy. Added. It may be getting close to GA. -- SECisek 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

excellent thanks for that, I have learnt something new. I have re added the link to the historical reference to St Edmunds' being King. This adds more of the historical character of his life alongside his religious importance. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 17:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the 1911 enyclopedia site? They will make us throw the cite during GA review because it is wiki cite that anyone can edit. Do you know of another site, a BBC bio or something? -- SECisek 19:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

development of the page

moved our discussion as it had moved on from my talk with one of the anons! The page is Looking Good - well on its way. I will source another link to historical St Edmund, in the first sentence it adds more depth. Good point about 1911 link. Thanks --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 09:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

picture edit excellent, very powerful image at the beginning. Good One. We might soon get told off for the amount of small edits that we are doing, will try to incorporate more into one change at this end. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I edit on the fly like this all the time and nobdy has ever told me off...yet. Interesting, some of the "Edmund for patron" people appear to be racist nationalists:

[4] click on "English History". Do you have more material? I may send it for GA soon. -- SECisek 13:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know some more about the tree and what was found in it, just a case of finding the information again. Certain groups are cattracted to St Edmund - he existed - he was 'English' more than St George; to dilute this was one of the reasons that others tried to widen the appeal. Sufflok County Council UK has adopted his banner as part of their flag. Number 10 Downing Street in reply to a letter said they had no intension at the moment to change the patron saint. --Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 15:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, can we get an image of the banner for that paragraph? I think I have done all I can for the page. Let me know when you have finished and I will nominate for GA. -- SECisek 17:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)