:This has come up several times in the past. This is the background to how it was raised. Bit bored by the topic now and desperately want to focus my wiki time on page creation (see List of Anglo-Saxon saints), but basically there is a tension between the forms you might expect from a superficial reading of UE guidelines, and those used by the reliable sources. Typically those who write articles in the era prefer the latter, while those brought in from process talk pages (like UE) prefer the former. No consensus on the matter has ever come about. Article titles are one thing. Different display titles are useful in different contexts. In monarch lists and more popular pages the anglicized names can be used without much difficulty; however using them in articles like this means departing from the forms used the in WP:RSs used to construct the article (as I can attest as the author) and creating serious issues of cognitive dissonance; compare this to using Gdansk in some eras but Danzig in others. We happened to have modern Anglicized names for Mael Coluim and a few famous kings, but most of the Scottish names used are ones like Garnait, Gille Chlerig and so where there is either no Anglicization or where it is so obscure as to be unhelpful. One of the routine experiences of reading about foreign societies in the distant past are unfamiliar name forms. One masters these and grows (and in any case, only a small minority of these names can ever be anglicized), and in any case I don't seriously believe the claim that 'general reader' will actually be confused. Even GoodDay was able to identify who Mael Coluim IV was.  ()