Talk:Æthelstan

message: I keep seeing Alwara, the mother of Leofric (famous for being the husband of Lady Godiva) listed as Athelstan's daughter. Is this correct, or just a innacuracy that's spread around? - Indy Gold 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The king Æthelstan is not known to have had children. Of course, there are plenty of other Æthelstan's in C10th England with whom he might be confused, accidently-on-purpose, to improve a genealogy. Most obviously, there's Æthelred the Unready and Cnut's brother-in-law Æthelstan son of Thored, Ealdorman of York. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says of Leofric: "His family were perhaps related by marriage to that of Ælfgifu of Northampton, Cnut's first wife ...". Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that gives me some other things to look into as possibilities for her parents. I could definately see where accidental-on-purpose genealogy could have mixed up who was who online. Thanks again. :) - Indy Gold 21:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think that the confusion predates printing, never mind the interweb; medieval people loved improving genealogies. I've corrected my brainstorm about Ælfgifu earlier. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another children question

message: It strikes me as curious that the article states Athelstan was crowned in 924, yet the following picture of the crowning stone is date DCCCCXXV, that is 925. I'm certainly no British History scholar, but it would be nice to clarify this. Perhaps the date on the stone relates to a different event? --Daxav
:Athelstan became king (but apparently only in Mercia) in 924. The stone refers to his coronation as king of Wessex, after the death of his half-brother Ælfweard of Wessex. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of crowning 

message: This article has absolutely no sources: I'm putting a tag up.--Dark Green 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems rather pointed. It's not as if the life of Athelstan is especially controversial. Perhaps the supposed Life of Athelstan is, but that's another story. Anyway, the article has a bibliography section which is a list of references by another name. Accordingly, I've removed the tag. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: :Image:Athelstanobv.2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Athelstanobv.2.jpg

message: Can anyone help with this query?  I have been asked whether the Anglo-Saxon name of Beoferlic, for the current town of Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire, was still being used during the reign of King AEthelstan 895 - 939, when he visited the tomb of St John of Beverley on his way to the Battle of Brunanburh.  My view, is that it is reconciled with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles being written in Old English between the mid 5th to mid 12th Centuries, but I can find no definitive information to confirm this fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoferlic (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beoferlic and AEthelstan 

message: In the article's introduction, it says that his success in battles lead to him claiming to be the "first King of all Britain"...but surely, Britain didn't exist back then. 
Wouldn't the actual claim be something more along the lines of "first King of all the Britons", as in the ancient Briton peoples? KoopaCooper (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at Athelstan's entry in the [ PASE] (under Office and King) you can see some of the titles used. Charter  S 411 says "Æðelstanus rex totius Britannie" (king of all [the island of] Britain). Royal propaganda rather than fact, but not entirely misleading. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Briton or Britain? 

message: Those who aren't devoted followers of In Our Time just missed a programme on Athelstan - linky - with Melvin Bragg talking to Sarah Foot and John Hines. Interesting stuff. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our man here on the radio 

message: In case anyone here is interested, there is a debate at Talk:List of English monarchs#Article definition ? about whether that list should begin with Æthelstan, or start earlier (it currently begins with Offa and then Egbert). Only about 3 or 4 users have participated so far, and it might be helpful to get a broader selection of opinions. Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First king of England 

message: Given that we have a contemporary representation of Athelstan ("the earliest surviving Anglo-Saxon royal portrait"), shouldn't we lead with that rather than an idealised stained-glass window? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Angus. Great to hear from you after so long. I have made the change as you suggested. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox/lead picture 

message: Michael Wood has a new BBC TV series, last week Alfred, this week Edward and Æthelflæd, next week Æthelstan. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC TV series 

message: Agricolae can you look at note b and see whether you are happy with it. Also do you have a source for your edit saying "a prince near the Jupiter mountains"? I think I remember that it is a quote from Æthelweard but all the sources I can find just say the Alps. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Æthelweard wrote, "Alteram etiam subiunxit cuipiam regi iuxta Iupitereos montes".  William of Malmesbury, presumably based on Æthelweard, wrote "alteram cuidam duci juxta Alpes".  For an analysis of all of the different hypotheses about her, with full sources, see here. As to note b, it seems fine, but here is my question.  In a taut focused article on Æthelstan, is it really that important whether she was a full sister or a half sister?  If we just call her the ambiguous 'sister', do we need this note at all?  Agricolae (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is simplest just to say Alps - there is no need to refer to Jupiter. As to note b, it is a shortened version of a note you wrote, so you obviously thought then that it was required! I think some discussion of his possible only full sister is relevant, and describing her as just sister may be queried by readers who have read that she was his only full sister (as with your argument for not deleting Redburga). Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sisters again 

message: I have asked for peer review of this article. Advice gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Dank has pointed out at peer review that the article is inconsistent in the number format used, e.g. eighth or 8th. This is because I prefer to spell out, but another editor changed some instances to the numeric format. WP:CENTURY says that either is acceptable but articles should be consistent in which one they use. I will therefore change all to spell out (e.g. as eighth) unless other editors object. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number format 

message: The claim that "Æthelstan is regarded as the first King of England" seems to require qualification.  While some modern historians take this view, there is a more nuanced discussion at List of English monarchs, which effectively gives this title to Alfred the Great.  And I hope I need hardly say that, historically, nobody took this view.  John M Baker (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that adding the word "modern" to "historian" is a fair qualification. I would not agree that the List of English monarchs is more nuanced. The article was changed to make the first king Alfred instead of Æthelstan after a discussion at Talk:List of English monarchs. When one editor argued that citing the views of academic historians was ORish - which I take to mean original research - I decided it was not worth arguing any longer and crossed the article off my watch list. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First king of England" claim 

message: It appears certain that Æthelstan's kingdom included what was the Viking kingdom of York before and after him, and that the Viking ruler before him was Gofraid ua Ímair.  There is uncertainty over whether the Viking ruler after him was Olaf Guthfrithson or Amlaíb Cuarán - see Æthelstan#cite_ref-144 note k. I therefore suggest altering the succession box to read
Alekksandr (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to say this looks OK to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession to York

message: User:John M Baker you reverted my deletion of the Brooke citation. You have dated the source 1972 but Worldcat at  shows 3rd edition 2001. Do you have a 1972 copy and can you confirm that pages 119-24 are correct for the citation in your copy? (It seems a large page range for such a simple statement.) If so, can you add the edition number and isbn shown in your copy of the book to the bibliography. Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dudley Miles, no, I hadn't personally seen the Brooke citation and was relying on the original editor's information.  It's obviously a reference to this 1972 British edition.  Were you really in doubt?  But obviously it's better to use the current edition, so I've updated the cite, and revised the language in main text to follow the source.  John M Baker (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert 

message: Sure it should be sourced, but I see sources. I don't source from my iPad though. Doug Weller talk 20:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked extensively on this article and took it through FAC, and I do not remember coming across this epithet in a reliable source. Sarah Foot in her biography quotes John of Worcester as calling him "vigorous and glorious", but that is different. There are popular sources which call him that, but a google scholar search gives only 2 hits, which I do not think is sufficient to justify saying that it is common in RSs. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I only did a quick check and a few came up, which is why I posted here. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The glorious" 

message: I would like to expand the statement in the introduction that “Aethelstan never married and had no children” with some further information taken from Sarah Foot´s biography (pages 57-59), but this article is so well written that I am loath to spoil it. I thought something along the lines of:
::It is probable that Æthelstan never married and had no children. Although the Gandersheim Gospels contains an inscription to “+eadgifu regina:-  aethelstan rex angulsaxonum mercianorum:-”, Sarah Foot argues that the Queen Eadgifu in question may be Athelstan´s stepmother, the widow of Edward the Elder. A reference in the Latin poem Carta dirige gressus to “the queen and prince” at Æthelstan´s court in 927 may relate to the same Eadgifu and her son Edmund. The 12th century history Liber Eliensis mentions a daughter of Æthelstan (“Æðitha filia regis Æðelstani”), but this is thought to be an erroneous reference to Æthelstan´s sister Eadgyth.
If this is added (preferably rewritten in a more elegant style), where should it go – under “Reign”, or under a new header?
Arthurs Grandchild (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any serious sources that think he was married, or is this a case of Sarah Foot setting it up just so she can knock it down.  If the latter, then it seems disproportionate to include it.  The same with the Liber.  Do you know of a scholarly discussion that puts forward these as evidence that Æthelstan had a family (as opposed to them just being a curiosity that tells us something about the fidelity of mediaeval documents, but not so much about Æthelstan)? Agricolae (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is briefly covered in note d. I agree with Agricolae that anything more would be excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family again 

message: A fair chunk of content on Æthelstan in this BBC program not sure how much of that can be used as a source, but probably worth looking at EdwardLane (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an old programme which I have watched at least twice. So far as I remember, all the points made are also in print sources and have mostly been taken up from there. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Alfred and the Anglo Saxons 

message: The article references "Vikings"; however, was an occupation, a form of raiding or piracy. The people who invaded England were the Danes, and they established Danelaw and tried to form Daneland.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.20.51 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an unusual definition. The standard one, as in Vikings, is that they were the seafaring Scandinavian peoples who raided, traded and settled other parts of Europe in the eighth to eleventh centuries. They were mostly Danes, but included people from other nations, especially Norway. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a usual definition in Nordic languages, hence the endless complaints about "Viking women" etc elsewhere. But this is the English language WP. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Citing a source in the edit summary but not in the text counts as a bad edit in my view. Sources should be cited for edits.  Dudley Miles (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are not required for obvious spelling corrections or addition of wikilinks. So, I didn't cite any, in the edit summary or in the text. You seem to have mistaken 'article' to mean a source instead of a wikilink. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are not required in the lead, but they should correctly summarise the main text. The lead originally said "he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom, York" and this has been changed to "he conquered the last remaining Viking kingdom from the Norse-Gaels, York". The main text says that the rulers of York were Norse, so it would be legitimate to change the lead to say Norse, but not Norse-Gael as this is not in the main text and not sourced. Whether the term is wikilinked or not is beside the point. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why have you put it back in? You're not making any sense. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I obviously messed up reverting, now corrected. Apologies. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viking or Dane 

message: I added this date to the box as this was the day that Deheubarth, Alba and Strathclyde submitted to Æthelstan and England was unified and founded. Faren29 (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the date that other British kings accepted Æthelstan's lordship, but it was almost certainly an earlier unknown date when that he became king of England by conquering Northumbria. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Deheubarth, Alba and Strathclyde are not in England. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 July 927 

message: :File:Athelstan (cropped).jpg --> :File:Aethelstan.png
While I like the current image of the infobox. I don't feel the image suited well for the infobox. So, my purposed is that make the current image move to different section while the :File:Aethelstan.png be the new image.  SpartanMazda (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose that - the current image is a super-rare image of an AS king done during his reign, and in a context close to the court. The other is much later and extremely low quality. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, gotcha. Thank you. SpartanMazda (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox image 

message: Is it fair to state that It is the oldest surviving portrait of an English king whilst the source states  The picture is the earliest portrait of an English king wearing a crown? - Neptuunium (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox image