Talk:Edmund I

Military Threats Subheading

The end of this section contains an out of place sentence on the revival of monasteries. That said, the entire paragraph is just as much about his alliances and conquering as it is the threats posed to him or his kingdom. Request moving of last sentance or retitling the subheading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.18.119 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Edmund I of England → Edmund the Deed-Doer — Consistency. No other pre-Conquest kings of England are titled with their numeral. All use their epithet or patronymic. I know this move is unobstructed, but I want to make sure there is concensus first. Srnec 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Except Ethelred I -Streona

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Srnec 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is true that pre-Conquest kings of England are not usually known by regnal numbers, but the epithet Deed-doer is really very uncommon and rather archaic. The subject is usually only known as Edmund (as in Edmund, k. of England; Edmund, k. of Wessex) with the other Edmund being known as Edmund Ironside. Plausible numeral-free alternatives include Edmund of England, which redirects here, or Edmund of Wessex, which doesn't presently exist. Edmund actually ruled Athelstan's new-fangled regnum anglorum for only a short part of his reign. For much of the time he wasn't much more than king of (Greater) Wessex, so either is reasonable. I'd suggest Edmund of England and an Edmund of England (disambiguation) page (as there are more than just the two of them to disambiguate). Apologies for the overlong comment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments here.

AKA "Edmund the Magnificent"- Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand (I think from Stenton) that Olaf and Edmund made an agreement, after fighting one another, that whoever survived would succeed to the kingdom but Olaf died first.

Also I believe the same source has it that Edmund secured friendship with the KIng Malcolm in Strathclyde by poking his sons' eyes out with white hot pokers. Obviously diplomacy in those days was more direct than schmoozing over the Ferroro-Rochers...

Edmund also apparently had a tendency for "seducing" nuns. - Streona

Polychronicon

There doesn't seem much point in quoting Higden's paraphrase of William of Malmesbury when Giles' translation of the Gesta Regum Anglorum is available here [archive.org]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2

I suggest moving to Edmund the Elder, as this seems to be his most common cognomen. We seem to be moving away from using regnal numbers for pre-Conquest kings on Wikipedia, see the talk page for Harold Godwinson. PatGallacher (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it the most common cognomen over Edmund the Deed Doer or Edmund the Magnificent? Presumably he was not called the Elder during his life nor until 1012 or so--Streona (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"the Elder" has been used on occasion, but it's still rare and in view of his father's identical nickname, potentially confusing. I guess that "the Magnificent" was more in vogue with 19th-century historians, but the problem with all these nicknames is not necessarily that they are late (as so often) or biased, but that they are only sporadically used to identify him these days. Per Angus's comments above (2006, no less), I'd suggest "Edmund of England" (or perhaps "Edmund of Wessex"), though I'm not extremely bothered by the numeral. Cavila (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We need a way of disambiguating him from Edmund Ironside. Edmund of England doesn't do that, Edmund of Wessex is clearly incorrect. Edmund I of England is late as well. PatGallacher (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states for 938 "and his brother eke, Edmund atheling, elder of ancient race" so the term has some contemporary backing. PatGallacher (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right to ask whether there's a suitable alternative to the ordinal to distinguish the two Edmunds. Unlike Harold Godwinson, however, and in fact most other 9/10/11th-century kings with shared names, Edmund (I) is not widely known by any cognomen in secondary sources these days. Perhaps a modern biography will appear one day (hopefully so!) and breathe new life into one of these, but until such time, it would be unwise to use any of them to replace "I". In modern usage, it's either Edmund I or simply Edmund (perhaps Edmund Ironside's nickname and brief reign make disambiguation slightly less necessary?). The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for instance, has "Edmund I", with an obit attached to it, while in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, his entry is to be found under "Edmund" (the others under "Edmund Ironside" and "Edmund, St, King of East Anglia"). (BTW, the Brunanburh poem has ealdorlange tir, which refers to the half-brothers Æthelstan and Edmund achieving "long-lasting/eternal fame" in battle, not "elder of ancient race".) Cavila (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Edmund I is anachronistic. Numerals weren't used until after the Norman Conquest. Richard75 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Modern references refer to him as "Edmund I" overwhelmingly. 50.111.25.199 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Louis IV of France

I am confused about this section. It says that Hugh brushed aside Edmund's threats, yet the quotation below says that Hugh responded by restoring Louis to his kingdom. Can anyone clarify? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article on Louis IV says Hugh the Great agreed "ultimately" to restore Louis and credits Edmund, among other things, for this. Maybe we should drop the "brush aside" bit? It's only referenced to Richer's history rather than a secondary source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Done as you suggest. The whole section is OR, and the article needs drastic revision. Some day I hope to get around to it, if no one else does. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have Halloran's "A Murder at Pucklechurch" article. It can be downloaded here (free registration needed). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead pic

This needs a caption stating clearly that it is a 19th century illustration. (It is a coloured lithographic print)

Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Murder ? surely not.

The good available description of the death of Edmund I does not indicate a murder took place, rather, Edmund started a fight which resulted in his death. As the poor Leofe was in fear for his life, a reasonable court could only consider that he defended himself using reasonable force, which hardly would count as committing murder. there is no indication that he came to the feast to kill Edmund, and quite clearly the fight was started by Edmund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyyours137 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per (not-so-strong) consensus. WP:NCROY notwithstanding, the title "Edmund I" is consistent with other kings of pre-Conquest England, and is (mostly) unambiguous. No such user (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Edmund I → Edmund I of England – WP:NCROY states that 'kings, queens regnant and emperors and empresses regnant who are known as "first name + ordinal" (with the exceptions mentioned elsewhere) normally have article titles in the form "Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}".' The normal policy, therefore, would be to title King Edmund as Edmund I of England. Векочел (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. None of the pre-Norman invasion kings use the "of England" title format. And as this is the only article titled "Edmund I", no country disambiguator is needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There is Edmund of Scotland and that could get confusing. There is also another English king with the name Edmund Ironside, but I presume he is not called Edmund II because his nickname is more popular. Векочел (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well looking back through the older discussions, this subject has come up before. My understanding is that historically, ordinals were not used for English monarchs of this time period. Instead they were usually distinguished by honorifics. But in this particular case, his honorific is considered to be somewhat archaic. I'd like to hear what other editors think about this. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
      • It is not uncommon to use ordinals. See for example Britannica at [1] and the British Museum at [2]. I am not voting on this move as I am happy with either. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007 and per similar titles for English monarchs. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per NCROY, and clarity useful. "I" is not his last name. While it is true numericals are not typically used for pre-Norman kings, Edmund I is rare exception (although I'd prefer "Edmund the Elder", which is how he was traditionally referred to, but that appellation is not even mentioned in this article!) Walrasiad (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There are other English monarchs without the "of England" disambiguator, when no title disambiguation is really needed, such as Elizabeth I and Henry VIII. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure Edmund I is of nearly the same fame as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. If pageviews are worth anything, both appear to be more well known than King Edmund. Векочел (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support It also helps to disambiguate him from Edmund the Martyr, possibly a better-known figure. Generally we refer to pre-Norman kings of England by cognomens, he is an anomalous case, but if we are to use a numeral then I suggest we should not abandon pre-emptive disambiguation for such an obscure figure. PatGallacher (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Edmund the Martyr has never been referred to as "Edmund I", so no disambiguation is necessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unnecessary disambiguator, and consistent with Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. "Fame" is irrelevant in the face of WP:AT, which simply asks us to make the title as concise as possible while respecting common usage.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Amakuru and Rreagan007: You've raised the examples of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII as evidence that no further disambiguation is needed. These presumably fall under WP:SOVEREIGN's rule number 2: If there is an overwhelmingly common name, use it. Just to be clear, do you contend that that applies here as well? i.e. that "Edmund I" is the "overwhelmingly common name" for the subject? Colin M (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Colin M: Is there another name for this king that is commonly used? If not, then the only name that is commonly used must logically be an overwhelmingly common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per consistency with other pre-Conquest kings of England, none of which use "of England" on WP. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edmund the Elder

I tried adding this as his historic name in the lead, but I was reverted by User:Dudley Miles with an edit comment saying "Rarely if ever". But a look at the Google Ngrams going back to 1800 certainly looks to me that "Edmund the Elder" was a fairly common name for him historically, thus I think it should be included in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I am very surprised. I have spent much of the last two years researching Edmund in academic sources and I have never come across the term. In google scholar a search on "Edmund the Elder" gives 44 hits, mostly 19th century, whereas "Edmund I" gets 2160. I do not think that this is enough to justify adding the name to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Historical names should still be mentioned in the article, even if they are no longer commonly used. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It may not be enough for an article title, but certainly enough for a mention in the lede. Walrasiad (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Any change would need to the citation of a WP:RS, particularly as this is a featured article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth including in the lead, but it might have been common enough historically for it to be in the body somewhere -- perhaps in a footnote attached to the start of the assessment section. Searching Google Books finds usage in the Rolls series, for example, which would have been an RS of its day. The only uses in the last 75 years or so that I can find are in sources by non-specialists writing outside their field, and I think even some of those are Google returning hits for Edward the Elder that mention Edmund. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for non-specialists outside the field. Even if not fashionable for professional historians today, it was fashionable earlier and used with frequency. It is an appellation many will come across in casual reading, and wonder who it refers to. It should be in the lede, not hidden in a footnote. Walrasiad (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is already covered as Edmund the Elder redirects to Edmund I. A footnote is sufficient further explanation. BTW can you supply examples of sources which many will come across which names him only as Edmund the Elder, not just as one alternative name. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

If it is already a re-direct, all the more reason to mention it. You yourself have examples (e.g. Rolls series, Turner's History of Anglo Saxons) which use only "Edmund the Elder", and no other. I am still not sure I understand your objection. Walrasiad (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for Dudley, but my own objection to making it prominent is that an article should accurately reflect the sources, and the usual method of listing alternative names in the lead -- e.g. "sometimes known as Edmund the Elder " -- would mislead the reader as it has been a century or more since that's been current. A section on historiography would be a good place to mention this, but there isn't one, which is why I suggested a footnote. In the lead it would have to be something like "once also known by historians as Edmund the Elder, though the name fell out of use more than a century ago", but that's too much detail on a minor point for the lead, and hard to source anyway since we don't have a source saying exactly when it fell out of use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It could be in the lead simply as "...historically known as Edmund the Elder". And if you think it requires more explanation than that like something about historians in the 19th century, you can add a note onto that phrase. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We can cite sources that refer to him as that. Even if old, they're influential and still read. The man has been dead for over a thousand years, his biography hasn't changed much. That seems a bit of a narrow concern, perhaps more fit for specialized literature. The article should be recognizable and clear to a general audience. I am a casual reader, I've always known him as "Edmund the Elder", and was surprised. I am certain I am not the only one. I really don't see the harm of clarifying to readers that "Edmund the Elder" and "Edmund I" are one and the same person. I don't think that's a minor point, it's a helpful service to Wikipedia readers. Whether it is worded "sometimes also known as" or "in older sources also known as" or some variant thereof, I am agnostic. But I think it really should be in the lede, so any doubt as to whether the reader is on the right page is immediately cleared up. Walrasiad (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sharon Turner and Rolls series are both now very obscure and unlikely to be read by a non-specialist reader. My local library does not have them. Can you cite sources which are likely to be read by a casual reader today? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I am a non-specialist casual reader. I read Turner, and certainly enough others to form that impression. I can't remember which exactly - it's been a while. Walrasiad (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added a note which is all we can do without additional sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And just how many historical sources do you require before you will allow it to be in the body of the article rather than hiding his historical name in a footnote? Rreagan007 (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Putting it in notes is not hiding it. There are many significant discussions there which are too technical or detailed for the main text. Further examples would provide citations for expanding the note, but I do not think there is the evidence for putting the name in the lead. I took Edmund I to Featured Article and I have been working on him off-wiki since then. I have consulted well over a hundred modern academic sources and I had never seen the term Edmund the Elder until the recent edit. Unless an editor can cite good evidence of modern use which I have missed, I do not think it should go in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I certainly appreciate all of your hard work on this article, but that doesn't give you ownership over it. Most articles where a subject has a historical name will include it in the lead, not just as a footnote. The name that a subject was known by historically is important information that should be in the actual text of the article, not a footnote. Just because modern sources don't refer to him much by his historical name is irrelevant. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not claim ownership of the article and I agree that the name that a subject was widely known by historically should be covered in the article, but no evidence has been cited that this is true. One 200 year old use is not sufficient. If sources were produced to show that it was widely used in the 19th century that should be covered, but where it should in the article - lead, main text or note - would be a matter for discussion once the evidence is produced. At present we are arguing hypothetically because you are asserting wide use without producing evidence. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Well the Google Ngrams Viewer I link to in my first post goes back to 1800 and clearly shows that there were many sources using his historic name pre-1900. I obviously don't have access to these pre-1900 sources, nevertheless the Google Ngrams Viewer shows that they exist somewhere. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You have to cite sources, not say that they exist somewhere. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)