Talk:Edmund Ironside

message: Removed Edmund has also been connected with the Truelove Eyre legend, and some sources, impossible to confirm, insist that he was the famous knight's grandfather. There is no shred of evidence (beyond circumstantial) to support this claim, but it persists nonetheless. as being unencyclopedic. --Henrygb 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nope 2604:3D09:8671:3C00:100C:CF02:A7DD:DB6E (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Wasnt he stabbed in the toilet?I've heard this several times before and i added it but someone deleted it.Could someone clarify this for me? Dermo69
:Yes, he was stabbed in the posterior in the toilet by a traitor for the Danes. Unregistered Contributor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.43.214 (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Death by toilet

message: Edmund II of England → Edmund Ironside – No disambiguation required as about nine out of ten Google books hits would appear to refer to this Edmund Ironside which justifies moving Edmund Ironside to Edmund Ironside (disambiguation). The regnal number is not always found in references, but "Ironside" does appear to be. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: I'm removing my vote, I think both arguments have merit and as I have said I am no sort of authority and am ambivalent about this proposal, as such I think it would be best not to support or oppose the suggested change. Alun 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why cognomens weren't used at all, except with the likes of Charlamagne, on WP until relately recently. WP has now decided to allow occasional usage, but they should be very occasional, very rare, special occasions. It makes more sense to place the monarch's page at the one with the ordinal, and use the cognomen as the redirect. It is far easier for people to know that Henry IV comes after Henry III and before Henry V, than to work out whether the guy they called The Bald was before or after The Brave, and whether he was around about the time of the guy they called The Great, who was before The Old, except in the case of The Old Pretender who was afterwards!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that avoiding that sort of confusion is why we have those succession box thingies and the ugly old "Monarch of England" template at the bottom of the page. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's better not to confuse the two in the same order of succession.  As I pointed out above, if ordinals were used for all Saxon English kings we run into trouble because there were three English kings called Edward before Edward I of England was even a twinkle in his mother's eye. -- Roleplayer 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Edmund I of England. Srnec 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support as requester (should be obvious, but ...) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: I'm removing my vote, I think both arguments have merit and as I have said I am no sort of authority and am ambivalent about this proposal, as such I think it would be best not to support or oppose the suggested change. Alun 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why cognomens weren't used at all, except with the likes of Charlamagne, on WP until relately recently. WP has now decided to allow occasional usage, but they should be very occasional, very rare, special occasions. It makes more sense to place the monarch's page at the one with the ordinal, and use the cognomen as the redirect. It is far easier for people to know that Henry IV comes after Henry III and before Henry V, than to work out whether the guy they called The Bald was before or after The Brave, and whether he was around about the time of the guy they called The Great, who was before The Old, except in the case of The Old Pretender who was afterwards!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that avoiding that sort of confusion is why we have those succession box thingies and the ugly old "Monarch of England" template at the bottom of the page. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it's better not to confuse the two in the same order of succession.  As I pointed out above, if ordinals were used for all Saxon English kings we run into trouble because there were three English kings called Edward before Edward I of England was even a twinkle in his mother's eye. -- Roleplayer 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments
I'm very new to this so apologies if I'm writing this in the wrong place, but I wish to question the veracity of a statement on the Edmund Ironside page. It asserts that Edmund's father (Ethelred) remarried twice after the death of Edmund's mother. I am aware of him remarrying once to Emma of Normandy, but to whom was the second of the two remarriages? As I'm a novice I didn't thinking it was my place to go altering text without at least asking for clarification first. Thanks, --Whitenoiseuk (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Edmund I of England. Srnec 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm very new to this so apologies if I'm writing this in the wrong place, but I wish to question the veracity of a statement on the Edmund Ironside page( 1 Family 1st paragraph). It asserts that Edmund's father (Ethelred) remarried twice after the death of Edmund's mother. I am aware of him remarrying once to Emma of Normandy, but to whom was the second of the two remarriages? As I'm a novice I didn't thinking it was my place to go altering text without at least asking for clarification first, but I believe that although Ethelred was married twice he only remarried once. Thanks,--Whitenoiseuk (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Twice according to Barlow, Higham and everyone else I checked. First to Edmund's mother, who was probably Ælfgifu, Ealdorman Thored's daughter. Second to Edward the Confessor's mother, Emma of Normandy, also known as Ælfgifu. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was. No contemporary source names Edmund and Athelstan's mother. John of Worcester says she was Ælfgifu, daughter of Ealdorman Æthelberht. No ealdorman of that name is known, which probably means none existed as an ealdorman would be a surprising thing to miss. Ailred of Rielvaux says she was a daughter of Ealdorman Thored, but doesn't give her name. Thored, being a "Yorkshireman", fits quite well with Edmund's later interests. Williams' Æthelred the Unready, Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England, &c, go with Edmund's mother and Æthelred's first wife (of two) being probably-Ælfgifu, probably-daughter of Ealdorman Thored. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Isabella Strachan, a biographer of Emma, suggests that some of Ethelred's children were the product of a handfast marriage with Ælfgifu, not to be confused with Ælfgifu his first wife.  She also asserts that Edmund had five brothers, not three.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.132.32 (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Ethelred remarry twice? 

message: "paving the way for Æthelred and his family to return to the throne, which they did but without opposition. In the process they forced Sweyn's son, Cnut, back to Denmark"
Shouldn't "but WITHOUT opposition" be "but WITH opposition", since Cnut was forced to leave? I hesitate to change this without input, since I don't knows the facts. Perhaps someone else would like to do the honors? 24.90.104.148 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo?