Talk:Edward the Confessor

message: All of this material about who was the patron saint of that, etc., (in all such articles) gets very unencyclopedic and boring. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a "Sunday School" lesson. It is also very slanted towards the Roman Catholic religion. Make an encyclopedia for everybody!
74.249.92.92 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally unhelpful and irrational. (Your wording indicates he sold out to a religious nutter.) Derekbd (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Much Religion

message: I don't think the Eastern Orthodox church considers this man a saint. Could someone cite a source which claims this?
:It doesn't, generally. The reference has been removed. InfernoXV 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Orthodox Saint?

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs
The Confessor was actually the third Saxon king by the name of Edward.
:Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Remember you can fix errors yourself if you like, even if you're anonymous. Everyking 19:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the first Edward 

message: That article doesn't fully explain why Edward is considered a saint. Would someone who knows please add that in?
: Why is anyone a saint?
:: He is said to have performed miraculous healings and to have had visions. Whether those were contemporary claims or not is another matter. He was also moderately pious, which was virtually unique amongst European kings of the time.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia at Edward was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast day, according to the same source, is 13th October. For further info, see  Zach Beauvais 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a saint? 

message: It was my understanding that Edward would not sleep with his wife because she was the daughter of Godwin, and forced upon him, and that as his worldly power declined he turned to the heavanly as a retreat...and not minding what would follow after his death, apparently....
: This is an interpretation proposed by some historians. It is not historical fact. Valiant Son 20:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reputable source for this you can put it in if you like, verifyability is not the same as truth. If you can verify this with a reference then it doesn't matter if it is an interpretation, as long as you point this out. This is an encyclopedia, not an historical text book. Alun 06:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confessor response 

message: according to rumor he had shot himself himself in the groin with a arrow (can't quite figure out how!?!?) which left himself permanantly impotent
:I think the important word here is "rumour". There is no evidence to support this view. Indeed, it isn't even that widely accepted as a rumour to be honest. There are a number of theories that surround the issue of Edward's failure to produce an heir. Valiant Son 08:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above comment in Confessor response about verifyability. Historical accuracy isn't important as long as you have a reputable source and keep it neutral. By this I mean that if you want to put a rumour in then it must be properly referenced, and it must be noted that this is considered a rumour, this should be referenced as well, although a good reference will probably give both points of view anyway. Neutrality just means giving both (all) POVs and verifyability just means giving a reputable (published) source. See WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Alun 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read the above, particularly the line, "Historical accuracy isn't important." My God, if historical accuracy is not important then why bother with anything here? Interpretations can be included, but only if they are very clearly marked as such and a proper balance is provided. People are quite right, this is not a history text book and as such should not advance once single interpretation (a history text actually should because all history is written to advance a specific intepretation - that is the very nature of the subject. However, in an encyclopaedia a degree of dispassionate objectivity is what is called for.) If any body wants to look at the theories surrounding why Edward had no issue then that is fair enough, but doing so in the article requires that the balance is present and more than one interpretation be properly referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Vow Of Chastity 

message: This name:
Edward the Confessor or Eadweard III
was replaced by this
King Edward III the Confessor
I can see no reason for this. It seems strange to me. He is either King Edward, Edward the Confessor or simply Edward III. Much as the current queen is either Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth. It seems odd to me to include both, I don't think a British person would ever include both the title and the number. So as it's a British related article I've reverted to British convention. No reason was given for the change anyway. Alun 06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a particularly helpful comment section. He is known to history as King Edward or The Confessor (Edward the Confessor). He was the third Anglo-Saxon king to bear the name Edward, but Has never been refered to as Edward III (see Edward III). I think it's the wrong approach to change the title in order to show that two previous Edwards were also kings in England. It is better to discuss this in the entry than to change the title in reference. I also think international sniping is unhelpful even on a discussion page Zach Beauvais 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Shouldn't it be stated somewhere that he was an Albino? He is mentioned in the list of famous Ablbinos and his picture highly suggests he was one.
:What??? I'm assuming this is somebody trying to be funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently not. The second source listed (Illustrated biography of Edward the Confessor) claims that he "was said by some chroniclers to be an albino". Certainly if we're going to keep this it should be mentioned in the article with a proper cite. Algebraist 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some chroniclers"? FFS. This is not proper referencing. There is no sufficient evidence to conclude that Edward was an albino. As for his picture, has nobody noticed that this picture comes from the Bayeux Tapestry? All the people in the tapestry have  a white skin because that is the colour of the cloth! His hair is white because he is an old man! As a historian, I despair. Valiant Son 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And to quote from Frank Barlow's biography of Edward (italics mine), "In fact, it does not seem that there is a single physical trait which can safely be taken from the iconography. Whether Edward in 1043 was short or tall, muscular or slight, dark or fair, imposing or insignificant, is unknown and unknowable." (Edward the Confessor, Frank Barlow, University of California Press, 1984, ISBN=0520053192, p.71) Shsilver (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see some common sense and inteligence on Wikipedia for a change! Valiant Son (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Albino

message: Every where I read it was the Vikings invasion not the Danish Invasion as you have it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.216.71.114 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Danish invasion is not an unreasonable term. Where do you think the Vikings came from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case of confusion: some Vikings came from Norway, what is now Sweden, and other places. These vikings were Danes. Algebraist 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Danish Invasion

message: In the ALbinism article it clearly states King Edward the confessor was albinistic but does not say that he was an albino in the article about him, help please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sydney2892 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albinistic Edward? 

message: My understanding is that his remainds have NOT been found, but that a series of rooms were located under the Abby by means of ground penetrating radar. These rooms were never entered, owing to the fact that it would damage or destroy an ancient mosaic on the floor. It is believed that one of these rooms was used in preparing the king for burial, but whether it was the burial chamber itself will not be known until someone figures out how to get down there. Besides, if his remains were indeed moved several times (as stated, and I accept it), then there is no reason to believe he would be now inside a chamber that could not have been entered many centuries prior to these moves.
If someone could fill me in on the explanation, I'd appreciate it.
==
<aside: historical note for reference> - Times, July 31, 1847 (#19616); page 7, column D. "A Discovery in Westminster Abbey - In making the alterations now in progress in Westminster Abbey Church, the supposed tomb of St. Edward has been discovered, at least such is the opinion of some of the abbey dignitaries. This tomb is situated exactly in the centre of the cross, it is rectangular, eight feet long, east and west, five feet wide, north and south, and two feet three inches deep. The bottom is formed of concrete, the sides and ends of rubbed stone, and it was originally covered with a slab six inches thick, but the covering disappeared ages ago, and the tomb has remained filled with rubbish. Let no-one, however, imagine that this is the original tomb of the Confessor. It is stated by the oldest authorities, quoted by Widmore, that St. Edward was buried beneath the high altar, that his remains were afterwards removed to a higher place, and then again to another still higher; while no doubt can possibly exist that his dust still reposes in the shrine prepared for it by King Henry III".
(longer version of this letter also at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5fUIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=widmore+edward+confessor&source=web&ots=tfxnjj-AYG&sig=u_unaOVWRhENL9f5iIKiwTLvhxA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result in The Gentleman's Magazine for July 1847) Harami2000 (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His remains being found 

message: Regarding the ahnentafel, there is a discussion at Talk:Louis V of France#Ahnentafel. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ahnentafel

message: Who calls him this? All the JSTOR hits appear to be about Eadweard Muybridge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Anglo-Saxon (Old English) spelling differed between a bit and a great deal from modern English.  (Ever tried reading Beowulf in the original OId English?)  As for the eccentric photographer, he changed his name to reflect what he believed was its original Anglo-Saxon form.  I don't know why "Eadweard III" would link to him, except that he might have been the only "Eadweard" in the search database.
"Edward the Confessor" is the nickname of this particular King Edward and serves mainly to help people keep distinguish him amidst all the other King Edwards England has produced.  Even academics generally use the modern spelling of his name.  If you want to search JSTOR I'd try "Edward the Confessor" first, since even though today's academics, at least, are liable to shy away from calling him by a name he wasn't known by during his life, I should think the nickname would at least be mentioned in most any article on this bloke. Mia229 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Eadweard III?

message: Note 2 says:
The numbering of English monarchs starts with Edward the Confessor, but, because the Normans used the French numbering system, the truth was only discovered in computerised chromatographic analysis of previously water-damaged Latin texts. This explains why historians regnal numbers started counting from the later Edward Edward I (ruled 1272–1307) and do not include Edward the Confessor (who was the third King Edward).
I do not understand this and no reference is given. What is the French numbering system? Can the editor or anyone else explain?
Dudley Miles (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward 0th? 

message: The article on Saint George says that the patron saint of England before George was Edward the Martyr, who is someone else entirely. Unless in the next 7 days someone can verify, with a proper source, that Edward the Confessor was ever patron saint of anything, I am going to remove this whole paragraph. Richard75 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The page fails to mention that Edward was educated at The King's School Ely; the word King's being a reference to him!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.238.106 (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because it's very likely  not true. I looked it up: a "claim in the twelfth-century...produced to validate a relic" says mediaeval specialist Frank Barlow. The "King" in this instance was Henry VIII, spending some of his ill-gotten gains to endow the cathedral school (irony or what?), according to the cathedral records. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:EdtheCon.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: "Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised," is not Charles I St. Charles the Martyr? http://skcm.org/
:The Charles I of England article has no mention of any canonization. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edmund the Martyr? Hmm... guess he's just East Anglia. Edward the Martyr though, is considered a saint, and was king of England. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But neither Edmund nor Edward the Martyr was canonised. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That'll be equipollent canonization I think. (Equipollent? New one on me.) So, Edward the Martyr too. Ealdgyth wins! Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've always seen it as "pre-congregation" canonization - it's pretty common with pre-1000 saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I believe there was an attempt to get Henry III (or was it VI?) canonized at one point. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: His widow, Eleanor, certainly hoped to get Henry III canonized, but his son (Edward) didn't believe in the reported miracles, which rather put the dampener on the whole affair... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Only Royal Saint?

message: The explanation that "the Confessor" is "the name for someone believed to have lived a saintly life but who was not a martyr" is not very satisfactory. 
I am interested as to where the epithet is first recorded. 
this miniature (as usual on commons, nobody thought it worthwhile to identify the manuscript, apparently saying "13th century" is considered a reference now) just calls him "Saint Edward". 
I can only assume that the above explanation is supposed to mean that he used to be called Saint Edward the Confessor as opposed to Saint Edward the Martyr, as it were the "Confessor" vs. "Martyr" disambiguating two people already known as "Saint Edward". This would appear to suggest that the necessity for disambiguation arose after 1161, when he was canonized. 
The suggestion that he was ever known as "Ēadweard Andettere" seems to be a complete fabrication produced for Wikipedia. I have no idea why this was left unchallenged. This was apparently just coined as an article title for :ang: (by looking up "confessor" in a dictionary) and not with the intention of claiming historicity.
--dab (𒁳) 10:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: the epithet

message: The caption from the image of Edward's seal reads: "Edward's seal: SIGILLVM EADWARDI ANGLORVM BASILEI (Seal of Edward crowned/King of the English)." Does the part in English in brackets purport to be a translation of the text on the seal? Because if it does then it is incorrect, the translation would be "The Seal of Edward - Emperor of the English". At this time the Greek word Basileus meant emperor; in Byzantine political theory the title was restricted to the sovereigns of Constantinople. Earlier English kings, such as Offa of Mercia and Aethelstan, also used the title Basileus as an imperial pretension. Urselius (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seal inscription caption 

message: How can Edward the Confessor be an Anglosaxon when he is the son of a Normand?
AFOH 06:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglosaxon or Normand? 

message: Since you seems to have added considerable content to this article, are you able to verify that all citations placed after a paragraph or body of text support its entirety? (Sorry if that's confusing, but it was the best wording I could think of.) I would like to see this article at FAC sometime, so I'm doing the work that I can at the moment. I've also added  tags to bring attention to the unreferenced passages I was able to find. Thanks, --Biblioworm 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid not. I inserted the paragraph on Edward's return to England in 1041 as a result of reading Maddicott's article, and I have no doubt sometimes added other text when I came across sources, but in some cases the citation may only be for a sentence I added, not the whole paragraph - and much of the text has been added by other editors. I am glad to see someone working on Edward - good luck with it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, I actually haven't committed to this article. I'm currently looking at different Anglo-Saxon monarch articles, trying to find which one really needs work. This one is already of reasonably good quality. I'm considering Harold Godwinson, since his article seems to be quite short on citations. Before I do that, however, I'll need to pick up a copy of Walker's Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King, which seems to be the standard work on the subject. --Biblioworm 19:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually have Harold on my radar - it's in much better shape than the citations allow - I culled cruft/crap from it a while back. Alfred's needs serious work, I suspect. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the information available on the topic, the article on Battle Abbey is in quite a poor condition. Godwin's article could also use some work, but despite his great importance, there curiously seems to be very little information about him, so I'm not sure if there's very much room for expansion. Still, I think Harold, being the last Saxon king, would be a good starting point. --Biblioworm 20:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In regard's to the article's mentioned all of them need work, I have been wondering if I should spend my time cleaning up Godwin's article as it is certainly not in good shape. However I would only doing little thing's on it, as it would take me a while to find the citations and sources required to make it a decent article and expand it. But certainly Harold Godwinson's article is of great importance and I'm sure so much more could be done to improve his page, there certainly isn't a lack of information about him. --JoshNEWK1998 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll likely be getting a book about Harold and another on the Godwin family in the near future (their curious obscurity interests me), so hopefully there will be some more information on Godwin in those books. I think he should be very high priority, since he was a very important figure. --Biblioworm 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I think the statement that "Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised" is somewhat confusing and possibly wrong. Is it meant to indicate that he was the first Anglo-Saxon to be canonised (though whether by date is unclear), or that he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised. To me at the moment it reads like the former, but there is a problem here as the date given in the article for his canonisation is 1161. However the article for John of Beverley, who was also an Anglo-Saxon dates his canonisation to 1037. Similarly there is also the issue of Anglo-Saxon's who lived earlier, but were not canonised until later. An obvious case here would be St Bede who lived more than 300 years earlier than Edward the Confessor, but was not formally canonised until the 19th century. If it is saying he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised this leaves the issue of who the others were as  it is noted in the article that others were venerated as saints, but not formally canonised. I therefore wonder if some form of rewording is in order? Dunarc (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Another case is Ælfheah of Canterbury, who was canonized in 1078. I will revise. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - I think the new version is much clearer. Dunarc (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing line 

message: The article states that "The abbey held a set of coronation regalia bequeathed by Edward for the use of his successors." This is based on a royal publication and is wrong. Barlow in his biography p. 269 says that his crown and sceptre were probably "abstracted" from his tomb when it was opened in 1102, so whether or not they were the regalia held by the abbey until 1649, they were not bequeathed by Edward. A post on X at  says that the regalia were erroneously believed to have belonged to Edward. In the absence of reliable sources, I think that the story should be deleted. Can anyone find a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I had originally added: "" The source was this. No page was given, but it looks like it may have been page 6. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I cannot find any reference to it in the very extensive biographies and other books about Edward, and I think it belongs in articles about coronations and the abbey rather than this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thanks for the info. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coronation regalia 

message: Who was Princess Agatha Von Brunswick? Presumably not Agatha (wife of Edward the Exile). Why is it claimed that she married Edward the Confessor? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princess Agatha Von Brunswick