Talk:Æthelberht, King of Wessex

message: Died in 865?  I've always seen 866. john k 13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "ÆTHELBERHT: ... d. 865 (buried at Sherborne)" [Keynes's king lists in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 513]; "When Æthelberht died in 865..." [Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms, pp. 159–150.]; :Sean Miller's Anglo-Saxons .net has him die in 865; so does the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England here, and note under Events/Death that the ASC's 866 is being treated as 865. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...yes, most recent sources appear to say 865.  Never mind, then. john k 15:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A previous editor gives details of Æthelbert's sons, correctly citing Burke's Peerage (http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/roking01.aspx), but the Online DNB does not mention any sons and Stenton says that he presumably did not have any. One of the sons is said to have challenged for the throne on Alfred's death, but it was a son of Æthelred who challenged. I have therefore deleted this section.Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Burke's Peerage is entirely unreliable. Those seem to be an error for Æthelred's sons as you say. Even the mysterious Oswald filius regis of charter S.340 (and perhaps S.1201 also) doesn't seem to be fathered on Æthelberht by historians. Suggestions as to the identity of his father which are mentioned in Smyth's Alfred the Great include Æthelstan, Æthelbald and even Æthelwulf, but not Æthelberht. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Æthelberht's sons 

message: Ethelbert was the third surviving son of Ethelwulf but there is no evidence at all that Osburga (Osburh) was his mother. 
Ethelbert's name is usually translated as 'Noble Bright'.
There is no evidence that he was crowned at Kingston Upon Thames, or anywhere else.
Ethelbert became King of Kent in 855 when his father Ethelwulf left for Rome: Kent amounted to half of the Kingdom of Wessex. He relinquished the kingship to his father in late 856 when he came back from Rome. He resumed the kingship in January 858 on Ethelwulf's death. His brother Ethelbald had been made King of Wessex-proper (ie the western shires of Wessex) in 855 at the same time as Ethelbert was made king of Kent. Unlike Ethelbert, Ethelbald had refused to give up his kingship. But when Ethelbald died in 860, Ethelbert reconnected the two halves of Wessex (ie Kent and Wessex-proper) and became king of the whole. 
There is no evidence of any wife of Ethelbert, nor of any issue. 
Ethelbald was married to his stepmother on Ethelwulf's death. There is no evidence of any issue.
Dantes Warden (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentage and other details 

message: "He was the third son of King Æthelwulf and his first wife, Osburh" got changed to "... by his first wife". I don't have a position. I know that some people think that "by" is vaguely sexist. "And" isn't likely to be misinterpreted, but OTOH, there's an argument that it can cause a few milliseconds of confusion, and that "by" is perhaps the more traditional word. I'm asking mainly because it was changed in the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think either is fine but I do not know what you mean by being changed in the blurb. It still says "and" on the main page.  Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the change, because the article text hadn't been changed at that time, and there hadn't been any discussion (I asked). I'll change it back to "by" in the blurb if that change to the article text hasn't been reverted in, say, an hour. - Dank (push to talk) 20:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

text: I caused this minor tempest in a tea cup by changing the blurb first. As for "by one's wife" as being sexist, that's really stretching it. <sarcasm>And the ninth century was oh so not sexist...</sarcasm> Urhixidur (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  By his first wife 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 07:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Please clarify what is meant by "south-eastern kingship". This sort of wording might be suitable for a newspaper article, where they try not to repeat an expression, but it is too imprecise for Wikipedia. Ehrenkater (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a preference in Wikipedia to avoid too many repetitions and editors often complain about it when reviewing articles. The expression "south-eastern kingship" was in the article when it was reviewed for FAC in 2019 and no one objected to the expression. Other editors seem to find it clear. However, I will not object if you change south-eastern to Kentish. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The south-eastern kingship"