Talk:Ecgberht, King of Wessex

message: However, Redburga or Raedburh (788c-839) may have been the wife of king Egbert of Wessex and may have been the sister-in-law of Charlemagne as the sister of his fourth wife, Luitgard; other sources describe her as his sister (although Charlemagne's only sister was named Gisela) or his great-granddaughter (which would be difficult to accomplish in the forty-six years after Charlemagne's birth) or the daughter of his sister-in-law or his niece. Some genealogies identify her as the granddaughter of Pepin the Short and great-granddaughter of Charles Martel; other scholars doubt that she existed at all, other than as a name in a much later manuscript. Her existence might have been forged to link the early Kings of England to the great West Emperor.
She appears in a medieval manuscript from Oxford and is described as "regis Francorum sororia" which translates as "sister to the King of the Franks". More specifically, sororia means "pertaining to someone's sister", hence sister-in-law. Pwhiteco (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You've just had this answered already. Richard75 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017 

message: Academic works are increasingly spelling his name Ecgberht, and I think the time may have come for us to follow suit. Stenton Anglo-Saxon England 1971, Abels, Alfred the Great 1998, and New Cambridge Medieval History II 1995 have Egbert, but Foot, Æthelstan 2011, Charles-Edwards, Wales and the Britons 2013, Blair, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society 2005, Hart, The Danelaw 1992, Smyth, King Alfred the Great 1995, Pratt, The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great 2007, Handbook of British Chronology 3rd ed 1986, Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia 1999 and 2014 eds, Higham and Ryan, The Anglo-Saxon World, have Ecgberht. I suggest changing to "Ecgberht of Wessex", or better still "Ecgberht, King of Wessex". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Williams used Ecgberht in the Biographical Dictionary 1991, Egbert in Wessex in the Early Middle Ages 1995, and Ecgberht in Kingship and Government in Pre-Conquest England 1999. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some more above.  Zaluckyj Mercia 2001 doesn't mention our guy, but uses both spellings for others of that name; Higham, An English Empire, 1995 uses Egbert but only for others of that name. I don't think these can be counted as evidence in either direction.  Overall it does like the tide is turning.  Is this enough for a move of the title or should we wait a few more years?  We're not an academic publication, and the redirects are there, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As Egbert isn't actually wrong I'd just leave it as it is. Richard75 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I favour a change, but as there is no consensus, I will start a formal reqested move. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: https://www.instagram.com/p/CAsaCvwH1F8/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.214.144 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  gold coin 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *The guidance says "These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names." The Merovingians are excluded because they "use a completely different namestock". Anglo-Saxon names are part of the common stock. Some like Alfred and Edward are still used, others like Egbert and Ethelbert are still used but retain their Old English spelling for Anglo-Saxon people, some have passed out of common use. The guidance does not exclude specific names which have passed out of general use or are now spelled differently.  Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Merovingian names Chlothar, Clovis and Theudebald are just Lothair, Louis and Theobald. Theuderic never became a common royal name, but it isn't rare in modern forms (Dirk, Dietrich, Derek). I think conventional spelling differences matter here. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is to argue that Merovingian names have been wrongly classed as a "completely different namestock", not that Anglo-Saxon are rightly so classified. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 4 January 2022 

message: Ecgbert's Charters.
http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/?do=find&type=charter&page=&archive=&kingdom=&king=Ecgberht+%28of+Wessex%29&sawyer=&text=&display=JUST_BLURB appears to go to a blank page. Artowalos (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link?