Jump to content

Talk:House of Godwin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 12:13, 14 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 6 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject European history}}, {{WikiProject Middle Ages}}, {{WikiProject England}}, {{WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms}}, {{WikiProject English royalty}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Changing introductory description from "Anglo-Saxon (in later generations Anglo-Danish or Anglo-Norse) family" to just "Anglo-Saxon family"

[edit]

I've starting this talk page to try and get consensus for this edit. As far as I can see the two reasons people don't want this edit is because the previous is a wider description and long-standing. My argument is that just having Anglo-Saxon is far more accurate as an explanatory term for the House of Godwin. Firstly, the house itself was only based in England and had no possessions elsewhere in Europe (including Scandinavia) so the House of Godwin should only be considered Anglo-Saxon under the feudal relationship that it had exclusively in England. Secondly, (and I'm guessing this is the main area of contention) just because the house had intermarried with Danish nobles doesn't undermine the fact it is essentially an Anglo-Saxon family. When discussing feudal nobility (or European aristocracies in general) the ethnicity of the people they intermarry with shouldn't be something that influences our description of the family. For example we wouldn't call the French House of Bourbon a Franco-Italian-Polish-German family due to their marriages to other European ethnicities. It's for these reasons that it would be far more accurate to call them an Anglo-Saxon family. If people have an issue with this edit then please tell me why. If in two or three day I don't get a response saying why this edit shouldn't be implemented then I'll assume people are fine with it and make the edit.

Many thanks, Marvic 256 (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting the discussion, Marvic 256.
I agree that the family was, at root, Anglo-Saxon; it's very clear, however, that the line from Tostig became Scandinavian/Danish, and as that is given space in the article i don't see the point of removing it from the lead. Though, if it stays, i don't think the piped wlink to Danelaw is especially accurate, as it wasn't in that area that they were active. Your comparison to the House of Bourbon isn't altogether helpful, as there is no way that we would call the current Spanish monarchs French, or even members of a French house; in fact, i've just had a look, and we say it's a European dynasty of French origin. Do you see what i mean? happy days, LindsayHello 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply Lindsay
I'm not sure how Tostig proves that the family became more accurately described as Anglo-Danish/Scandinavian rather than Anglo-Saxon, If you could expand on your reasoning further then I can respond to the reason directly. I certainly agree that the wlink to Danelaw is inaccurate, as it is referring to a class of people who are specific to the intermingling between Danish and Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of the Danelaw territory, which by this time is long gone and irrelevant to the House of Godwin and the reasons for calling them Anglo-Danish. As for my comparison to the House of Bourbon, it was simply to illustrate that we don't mix the numerous ethnicities that comprise noble families to produce a single descriptive term (which is what is trying to be done with this article). In fact the description for the House of Bourbon denotes its French origin/identity explicitly with the European part referring to the family's expansion beyond France (to places such as Spain for example); the description on this article however tries to imply a transformative process from Anglo-Saxon to Anglo-Danish, which is inaccurate.
Many thanks,
Marvic 256 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]