Talk:Edith the Fair

message: I do not know which link caused the above article to be dinged by the spam filter...
I don't know if it was because these are primarily genealogical sites but as I was looking for specific information that I have read or seen in British history documentaries and Googled these points, these sites above were the easiest/quickest/most succinct way of stating these facts.
I was just trying to "expand the stub" as was suggested... Floracalifornia 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Ealdgyth of Mercia redirects here, but this is wrong. They were two different people. TharkunColl (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ealdgyth of Mercia

message: Before changing the name again, there are some issues that need addressed/resolved.  First, do we use Anglo-Saxon or modern English forms for the first name.  The trend has been toward that former, but an argument can be made, particularly given the different historical forms that are used, that Edith is most appropriate.  Then there is the nickname.  While Swannesha may be used occasionally, it does not show up in Google Books at all, while a Google search turns up 50, vs several hundred fro Edith Swanneck and over a thousand for Swan Neck/Swan-neck.  While the latter forms may be historically incorrect, they are the forms overwhelmingly preferred when referring to this woman. Finally, it is incongruous to use an English name with an Anglo-Saxon nickname: the two should to be consistent. Agricolae (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote we use her Anglo-Saxon form.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name 

message: The following passage was originally in the article but was removed as " genealogical trivia." I think it should be in the main article. Any thoughts anybody?
"[one of Harold Godwinesson and Edith Swan-Neck's daughters, Gyda Haraldsdatter, (also known as Gytha of Wessex), was addressed as "princess" and was married to the Grand Duke Of Kiev, Vladimir Monomakh.] Phillippa of Hainault, the consort of Edward III, was a direct descendant of Vladimir and Gyda, and thus ironically Harold’s blood line re-entered the English royal line. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the 29th great-granddaughter of Harold and Edith Swan-Neck."
Rickedmo (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where to start?  1) Isabelle of France, Philippa's mother-in-law also descended from Gytha. 2) It is no more noteworthy that Elizabeth II descends from this line than it is that Elizabeth I did, or George I or George III or George V. 3) Elizabeth II is also Edith's 28th great-granddaughter and 30th great-granddaughter, etc. 4) Irony is in the eye of the beholder. One Wikipedia editor's irony is another's trivia. That is why what some editor finds curious is not the standard for inclusion in an article. 5) Where is the irony in the reigning monarch descending from the mistress of an earlier king?  On Harold's page, that's a discussion more worth having, but not on Edith's. Agricolae (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to HM Queen Elizabeth II 

message: Edith the Fair is variously termed "unwed consort", "common-law wife" and party to a more danico or Danish type civil handfast marriage. Is life 900 years ago being viewed through 21st century eyes? Harold and Edith were together for 20 years and they had six children, none of which were considered illegitimate by the attitudes of the time. Did society consider them properly married and that was that? It may well be that the church did not recognise the marriage but was that significant at the time?
Harold married Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar, in January 1066, in an apparent strategic alliance. Edith the Fair was still on the scene (she recognised Harold's body at Hastings). Is that just how it was in those days? It would be interesting to understand. Rickedmo (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edith the Fair -v- Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar

message: It would be interesting to know who Edith the Fair's parents were.  Evidently of high rank in the Kingdom of England for Edith "the Rich" to own so many properties during the reign of King Edward the Confessor.  Perhaps Harold married her for the same reason that he wed his second wife - a political alliance that was strategic at the time?  In that case, it's interesting that he discarded her so soon after Edward's death.  Was she a relative of that King (who reigned 1042-1066)?  Edith's landholding is similar in extent to that of a (to me) obscure male relative of King Edward whose name eludes me presently.  Edward's mother Emma of Normandy assumed the English name Ælfgifu, so it's possible that Edith's English name conceals a part-Norman ancestry.  It seems mighty peculiar that Count Alan Rufus of Brittany received most of Edith's properties, and evidently from an early date: usually the lands of Anglo-Saxons were distributed widely among King William's retinue.  That would appear less strange were Edith related somehow to Alan, as would be the case if she were kin to Edward the Confessor who was a first cousin to Alan's father Odo of Penthievre (and also to Wiliam's father Duke Robert of Normandy).  This would also provide an innocent explanation for why Alan took Edith's daughter Gunnhild under his wing, and would clarify why, after further consideration of the facts, Anselm decided to remove from his personal archive his own copies of the two, harshly worded, letters he wrote to Gunnhild accusing her of being Alan's lover and threatening dire, worldly as well as spiritual, consequences for all concerned if she remained with his younger brother Alan Niger.  Was Anselm complicit in their premature deaths, and struck by guilt or the fear of discovery when he realised his egregious error? Zoetropo (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Edith the Fair's ancestry?

message: I've taken the liberty of adding a note about the different types of marriages of that time. I admit I'm not entirely sure whether it should be here, or whether is should actually appear on Harold Godwinson's article, or appear at all. I would welcome any views and any help in improving it. Part of the issue is that the note is unreferenced, but that's part of the point (albeit a weak one) in that the note is commenting on the fact there is no references. Hmm. On the whole, I feel the note serves a useful purpose. Rickedmo (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Edith the Fair's marriage to Harold Godwinson

message: I note that both Searle and Freeman call our subject her Eadgyth, rather than Ealdgyth.  Is there a more recent source that prefers the latter form, or is there some confusion here between Harold's wife and his 'wife'? What form(s) is/are used by the Norman chroniclers? Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preferred Anglo-Saxon form 

message: As pointed out by Ealdgyth and me, this is not a representative image of the subject. It is never encountered in modern academic works specializing in the subject. MOS:LEADIMAGE is very clear in saying that the lead image should be "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works". Obscure 19th-century doodles are not something that's found in high-quality reference works. The inclusion of such illustrations diminishes the credibility of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Surtsicna here. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: So... what illustrations do high-quality reference works use of Edith? In fact, the guideline says type, not the actual illustrations. As it turns out, this illustration is from a history book, albeit an older one. It's hardly an "obscure 19th-century doodle". StAnselm (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not use any. An image is not required, and no image is better than having an image for the image's sake. That is, after all, what MOS:LEADIMAGE explicitly states. Yes, the guideline says "type", and this is not the type; as I said, modern academic works do not reproduce heavily romanticised illustrations made almost two centuries ago. We have already gone through this with the papal biographies, where the consensus was that such images are, in the words of one user, "worthless from every conceivable angle". Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reading through the discussion on papal images, it appears that is a very different situation. There the issue was that the pictures were interchangeable, and therefore meaningless. Here it certainly isn't: the image is significant in that it depicts a unique attribute of Edith: namely, her association with the death of Harold. Even if the story isn't true, that is how she has been portrayed for a long time, and the illustration is evidence of that. StAnselm (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue there, just like here, is that the disputed images are not used in high-quality reference works. The same is true for that silly portrait of Judith of Flanders. Such illustrations belong not in the lead but in a "Legacy" section, if any, because they are not found in the reliable sources on which the article as a whole relies. Surtsicna (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're still misreading MOS:LEADIMAGE - it's the type, not the actual illustrations. Nevertheless, I would be willing to accept restoration of the image to the body of the article as a compromise. StAnselm (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I am still saying that heavily romanticised 19th-century illustrations are not the type of images used in high-quality reference works. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text: That's the perfect spot for the image, StAnselm. It illustrates the section very well. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  They don't, as Surtsicna says. I double checked my biographies of Harold (as far as I know, there is no biography of Edith) and they do not depict her at all. Likely, there is no reasonably contemporary depiction. The ODNB entry for Eadgifu the Rich, which is likely this same woman, does not list any likeness. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure illustrations 

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: not moved (non-admin closure)  Bada Kaji (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Edith the Fair →  – Per WP:COMMONNAME.  It is possible that this name was originally based on a misunderstanding, but that does not prevent us from using it, otherwise we could not have an article on e.g. Æthelred the Unready. PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 April 2021 

message: Is there a general consensus as to Edith's presumed year of death? Some sources state 1066, others 1086. Which,  if either, is more likely to be correct? Manchester Warrior (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Domesday Book records that she held land in 1066, so she was alive then, but not recorded afterwards. 1086 is just the date of Domesday Book. This is a very poor article. The Dictionary of National Biography article about her is as a leading magnate and gives the impression that the story that she was Harold's wife or mistress is based on weak evidence. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edith the Fair / Edith Swan-neck - Year of death?