Talk:Siward, Earl of Northumbria

message: Malcolm's article disagrees with Siwards. I'm not sure which is correct, but I thought I should leave a note here. Sectori 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Malcolm III article is more likely to be correct. This one needs updating. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Siward and [[Malcolm III of Scotland]]

message: Sigvarðr and Sigurðr were two forms of the same name in Old Norse, and so I think it is misleading to introduce the topic by presenting the forms as different names:
:His name is cognate to Old Norse Sigvarðr,[1] but may represent the name Sigurd, a name often rendered "Siward" in Anglo-Latin texts[2] and similar enough to Sigeweard to cause confusion.[3]
The Norsemen did not pay attention to small details when they named each other, if they knew the forms were versions of the same name (cf. James, Jim, Jimmy, Jimbo). For a modern lexicon of Old Norse names, see Nordisk runnamnslexikon (2002) by Lena Peterson at the Swedish Institute for Linguistics and Heritage (Institutet för språk och folkminnen). I'll be bold and remove the sentence.--Berig (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression the names had two different etymologies, but were interchangable. I note that this Lexicon AND the Linguistic commentary on the Durham Liber Vitae (vol. ii) supports what you are saying. Thanks Berig. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There were surprisingly many varieties of names circulating in Norse society, and sometimes interchangeable names could indeed have different etymologies. You've written a good article.--Berig (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why discuss ''Sigvarðr''/''Sigurðr'' as if they were different names?

message: :1) Give the dates of composition for the various sources? Not everyone is going to be familiar with them ...
:2) Ancestry: Who is "Christiansen" mentioned in the second paragraph?
:3) Emergence: Need to explain WHY the king couldn't have been E the C.
:4) A general trend at FAC is to ask for quick capsule explanations of folks mentioned. So for Robin Fleming, I put in "the historian", etc. This helps folks who aren't necessarily familiar with the sources to understand why this person's opinion is important.
:5) Harold: Explain what an aetheling was. That one is definitely going to go over most folks at FAC's head. (I've been educated them on ecclesiastical matters, not royalty!) 
:6) Did Siward have anything to do with the death of Edward's brother Alfred? 
:7) When Siward helped put Emma in her place, did he help out with Stigand?
:8) When you do mention Stigand, suggest giving context on who he was then (Bishop of Winchester), so folks understand why his support was important.
:9) In the lead, give the usual English name for Mac Bethad? You're really going to lose folks if you don't.
:10) Double check that you're not overlinking. I know I saw William of Malmesbury linked at least three times.
:: Sources look good, and nothing jumped at me otherwise. I did some copyediting. I strongly suggest getting someone NOT a medievalist to look it over, as I've probably missed about 15 spots that make no sense to a non-medievalist. I know *I* make them all the time, why should you be immune? Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 11) EdtheCon.jpg - needs a source Ealdgyth - Talk 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll respond to your suggestions/questions (here or in edits to the article) in a bit. Then I guess I'll ask that old workhorse Malleus if he's got anything to do. :) To add, I think the article may need a map, though that's not something I'm usually very good at. :'( Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  good luck with Malleus. He quit (or is quitting) this week. And I'm not sure that he's not a medievalist any more.. he's read enough of my bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 1), 2), 3), 5), 7), 8), 9) and 10) [hopefully] done. 6) I don't think can be answered, and as no historian I've come across speculates, I've not mentioned anything about this. 11) ... meh ... uploader didn't source it, so as I can't be bothered tracing it just now I just changed it to an image of one of his coins. I hope you don't mind me numbering your points for clarity. Btw, the dates in the boxes in the Stigand article are at odds with Barlow. Thanks for the suggestions, anything else? :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the dates on Stigand are from HBC. Don't get me started on Barlow... He is everywhere, but he's ... not always perfect either. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahright ... HBC is in my little visited office. You should note thought that the dates contradict the text of the article (dep. 1043; rest. 1044 in Barlow and text; dep. 1042; rest. 1043 in suc. boxes -- see also Grimketel). Honestly couldn't say which one is right without doing actual research. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  ARGH. I hate that.. sometimes dates just magically change themselves in infoboxes. I'll do a double check when I'm done with Gilbert Foliot... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suc box now agrees with HBC (which should agree with article) My brain is mush after Gilber Foliot and Robert Burnell PR corrections tonight. Blech. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you all for working through this. IMHO (as of this minute), this is the best article on Wikipedia. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: There may be Irish sources but the source being quoted re the expedition of Siward and the son of the king of the Cumbrians is an English one written in Latin. The name in that is "Malcolmum" - in other words the English form "Malcolm" with a Latin declension stuck on. It is not Máel Coluim as your version would have it be. ..et cum rege Scottorum Macbeotha proelium commisit, ac multis millibus Scottorum, et Nortmannis omnibus, quorum super fecimus mentionem, occisis, illum fugavit et Malcolmum, regis Cumbrorum filium, ut rex jusserat, regem constituit. Paul S (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a couple of misunderstandings here. 1) The article is based on secondary sources, not John of Worcester; 2) The modern Anglo-Scottish name Malcolm derives from Latin form Malcolmus, not the other way about. Malcolmus is one of many Latinizations of the Gaelic personal name Mael Coluim, 'devotee of Columba'. There was obviously no independent English form of the name, just variant attempts to write how the Scots pronounced it. As a casual browse of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (or a few charters) will show you Melcolm, Mælcolon, Malculm, so on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether you think Malcolm derives from Latin (which would be unusual) does the chronicle say "Máel Coluim"? No, it doesn't. You are therefore assuming that the original form of his name was the Irish Máel Coluim when we don't know that. If the chronicle doesn't use the Irish name, you shouldn't put inverted commas around it as if it does and assign him an Irish/Scots identity when we don't know he had one. Paul S (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've lost me now! Irish/Scots identity? He's the Scottish king ... :o  Basically to all appearance what you seem to be saying is that you don't like the name because his name occurs in a Latin source with a Latin form, and that the Scottish form of a Scottish name hides the king's true Roman identity! Now that's not gonna be what you are saying, but I can't work it out otherwise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note that Woolf uses the "Mael Coluim" construction for the first citation changed. i'm not at home so can't check the others, but it appears that the secondary source used does indeed use the non-Malcolm form. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Duncan (Kingship of the Scots) refers to this person as "Maelcoluim", the same form that he uses for Scots kings up to M. III inclusive. We follow the secondary sources unless we're directly quoting the primary ones (which the Strathclyde article wasn't). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So would anyone strongly object if I insert the original Latin with Malcolmus to stop people wondering, as I did, why an English chronicler was writing in Irish? Paul S (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be all right to mention it, if it's not already. When we refer to him, however, we should use whatever the reliable (secondary) sources use. It appears that's "Mael Coluim".--Cúchullain t/c 21:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malcolm v Máel Coluim 

message: "a member of Earl Ulf's kindred" is an odd phrase, at least to this native speaker of English.  Does "kindred" have a specialized meaning in this context? The fact that the word is just linking to kinship implies that it doesn't.  Is there any reason not to change this to the more idiomatic "a relative of Earl Ulf" or "a member of Earl Ulf's family"? --Jfruh (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody's replied to this, I'm going to make the change. --Jfruh (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a member of Earl Ulf's kindred" 

message: So first it says "dux" means earl.  Doesn't it mean Duke ?   And then it says "comes" means earl.   Doesn't that mean "Count" ?Eregli bob (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what the actual cited sources give for translations, but if you head over to Google Books and search "earl comes latin jarl", or something like that, you should get some hits that note these Latin terms. The second hit for me, the book West Over Sea, has an article that reads: "... the term jarl would require an article in itself. Roughly translating as 'earl', it is represented in Latin by both dux and comes, and is also apparently used in a Scottish context to represent both the Gaelic mormaer ('great steward') and the feudal earls of th twelfth century".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: dux is used in England to refer to an 'earl' or 'earldorman up until c. 1070, after which the Norman administration begin using the term comes, reserving the title dux for the king's status as ruler of Normandy.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy titles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Siward, Earl of Northumbria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060226124551/http://www.battleconference.com/5115526X.HTM to http://www.battleconference.com/5115526X.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lead mentions that Siward "earned a place in Macbeth," but the article body doesn't go into any further detail. Brutannica (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: <i>Macbeth</i>

message: According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Edward the Confessors sister, Godiva of Wessex, was to marry Eustace the first but while courting he murdered villagers and was likely found guilty as he died in 1049.  Siward then married Godiva prior to her death.  With this marriage Siward became a member of the house of Wessex so his was a royal burial. 107.77.173.3 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siwards marriage to Godiva 

message: I would propose that we change 'probably of Scandinavian origin' to 'Possibly of Scandinavian origin, however this is speculative' as the only sources citing a possible Scandinavian origin are clearly fantastical (claiming he descends from a Polar Bear and killed a Dragon, which while not uncommon a theme for the time, indicate at least a lack of historical authenticity) and while it's almost certain that he interacted with Scandinavian and Anglo-Scandinavian individuals, nothing can truly be said of his origin realistically. The fact that his name is Old English, albeit with a close Old Norse cognate, only emphasises the uncertainty of his origin. 
Academic consensus as far as I am aware, is that he is possibly of Scandinavian origin, not probably. When regarding historical figures such as this who are plagued with a dearth of historical record; the worst thing we can do is make assumptions. Instead, the relevant information should be provided and speculation should be kept at a bare minimum. The reason being of course that not only is the consensus on historical understanding constantly changing, but speculation and assumption can lead others down a path of misinformation and further misunderstanding of the past and historical circumstance.
For all the evidence that he may be Scandinavian, let's not forget that his name is generally rendered in the Old English and that while his son Osbjorn is generally rendered in the Old Norse, it is also rendered in the Old English as Osberht/Osbert. Waltheof is of course Old English albeit was named through his mother after her ancestor. But this argument may actually be relevant to Osbjorn aswell if his name is indeed Scandinavian, as his mother's identity is unknown and if she were Scandinavian or Anglo-Scandinavian, this could be the origin of a potential Scandinavian naming convention.
Finally, the main source of his origin and ancestry is THE LIFE OF WALDEF, which is of course known to be, at best, spurious. So to conclude, I would say it's best to refer to Siward as of uncertain origin, or simply as a Northumbrian. As his ancestry could very well be Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian or Anglo-Scandinavian. At the very least, I suggest changing probably to possibly and to revise the stance of the article that seems to suggest he was likely of Scandinavian origin, as it's entirely unknown at this point. Part of the reason there's debate around his origin is because the sources make it unclear, instead of offering a reliable or decent possibility. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin