Talk:Æthelwulf, King of Wessex

message: So how did he manage to get born in Aachen? -----Michael K. Smith 05:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His father spent time in exile at Charlemagne's court prior to his accession to the West Saxon throne, though I thought there was doubt that he was still there in 800.  I'd like to see a reference for Ethelwulf's birth in Aachen. Binabik80 02:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page says he died in 858, but my source () says he died in 871, saying:
"In the year of our Lord's incarnation 871," ... "Ethelred, king of the West-Saxons, and his brother Alfred, united their forces and marched to Reading, where, on their arrival, they cut to pieces the pagans whom they found outside the gate fortifications. But the pagans, nevertheless, sallied out from the gates, and a long and fierce engangement ensued. At last, grief to say, the Christians fled, the pagans obtained victory, and the aforesaid earl Ethelwulf was among the slain."
And I'm quite sure that this isn't a typo that could have been his son Aethelred, because Aethelred is mentioned quite a few more times later on in the article. Slycypher (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, anglo-saxons.net says 858 too. I'll take another look later! = ) --Cameron (T|C) 16:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: A couple of things on this.  Firstly, Oakley is not in Surrey.  There are several Oakley's but the one most often associated with the battle of Acleah is in Berkshire, see link:
http://www.berkshirehistory.com/villages/oakleygreen.html
Secondly, in Stenton's Oxford History of Great Britain, the Anglo saxons (or similar name), he makes an argument that the site could NOT be Ockley, due to etmylogical reasons.  As a resident of the area I find this disappointing but thought I should mention it.Robruss24 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Acleah 

message: I have edited the first paragraph of this article which was littered with mistakes. Some of the rest of the article is also wrong in material respects and I will tackle these as and when.
Dantes Warden (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Æthelbald's accession is given as 856, but in her ODNB article on Æthelwulf at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/8921 Janet Nelson gives it as 858 when Æthelwulf died, pointing out that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gave him a reign of eighteen and a half years. She also says that it is unclear whether Wessex itself was divided between Æthelwulf and Æthelbald, or Wessex from lands to the east, and the Wikipedia articles on the two kings give different views on this. 
Additional points are that after Æthelwulf's return from Rome in 856, Judith was recognised as Queen, and coins were still issued solely in his name. Although he shared power from 856, I think he should still be regarded as king until his death. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Æthelbald's accession 

message: I've drafted a background section here, and before I go through it experimenting with sfn, I wanted to check to see if we agree this is a good way to start the article.  I think some political context is necessary to orient a reader unfamiliar with the era.  Any comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Off to bed now. I will look at it tomorrow. I forgot to say that I am working on his early life before he became king. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft background section 

message: I spent some time with the ODNB article on Aethelwulf today to get a sense of how Nelson structured it; I think it would help to figure out how we want to break up the material here.  It's more or less like this (I hope my abbreviated notes are comprehensible):
* Summary
** Kingship in Kent, acknowledgement as heir, succeeds in 839, gives Aethelstan the southeast, wife is Osburh, daughter marries Burgred, four sons are kings of Wessex, Judith & no offspring, dies 858
*Aethelwulf and Kent and Mercia
**Descent from Kent (?), loyalty of Kent, comparisons with Egbert, Vikings in Kent, Alhhere
*Aethelwulf in Wessex
**Winchester as a centre – cf. Alfred; Aethelberht is king in Kent; decimation – act of piety and gets him secular support too
*The papacy and the Franks
**838 consecration, Egbert & Rome & Louis the Pious, trip to Rome in 855, Judith and consecration as queen, possible role of Felix
* Judith
**Consecration & queenship, remarriage to Aethelbald, examples of stepmother remarriage and reasons for it, later marriage to Baldwin, Aethelthryth's marriage to later Count Baldwin
*Dealing with the Scandinavians
**Raids 840s, 850-1, battles, leadership style
*Family politics
**Alfred's trip(s) to Rome, ages of sons, intended inheritance, will, papal authority, disposition of kingdoms
**Indivisibility, Asser, rebellion and peace, ASC
**Will made 856, Nelson’s interpretation of the details, the ring and probable origin
Some thoughts:
* I think a summarizing section should be at the end in our case.  In the ODNB there's some value in having summary information at the front, but since we will have a short summarizing lead, I think we can have the final section of the article provide the overall assessment of his reign, rather than starting that way.
* I find more-or-less chronological accounts to be a good structure in biographical articles, in contrast to Nelson's thematic organization, but I don't think that works well when there's so little information.  I think a political background and early life sections are worth having, but perhaps they should be the same section, since there's so little to be said about his early life.  We could do something similar to the ODNB breakdown for the sections after that, but how about:
**Background and early life
**Consecration, succession, and sons -- probably include the Kent material here
**Reign -- Wessex, Nelson's comments about Felix, Vikings, relations with Burgred
**Planned disposition of kingdoms; deaths of sons, the will, Judith
** Death and succession
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No hurry.  I took several months to follow up on the suggestion of collaborating on this, so I think I probably shouldn't expect deadlines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My first thought is that this looks good except that when starting on the early life section it seemed to make sense to put a family one first - after background. I also think Kent should go where it fits in chronologically - mainly early life but no doubt it will come up in later sections, for example making Æthelstan sub-king in 839. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ODNB organization 

message: The picture used is a very sloppy copy of the original.  The British Museum allows usage of their image quite easily as I understand it. 
There are other images which have been redrawn - but to any reasonable view, they are all quite poorly drawn when compared to the original. 
What is the recommended procedure in such cases; what is the best procedure?  Somebody with more experience must decide!!
NoJoking --Nojoking (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I don't think this is possible. The BM at  only allows reuse for non-commercial purposes, whereas Wikipedia only allows uploading of materials can be used for any purposes, including commercial ones.  can you confirm whether this is correct please? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming whatever image you're asking about is under that blanket NC license, no we would not be able to use it. (However, note that some museums have a habit of claiming copyright over things whose copyright has expired - if you have a specific image in mind I could take a look?) Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nikki. I assume that Nojoking is referring to the image at . Dudley Miles (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no. The object itself is out of copyright but a photo of a 3D object has its own copyright, which here is NC and therefore not compatible with us. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aethelwulf's Ring 

message: Is the image opposite one of Æthelwulf? Greenshed (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems likely but as it is modern it appears to me of limited interest. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it dates from 1445 (restored in 1863 and again in 1939). I tend to think that anything before 1453 is not really modern but perhaps you have more exacting standards? Greenshed (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, not sure if the 15th century view was that Æthelwulf died in York. Greenshed (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The church's own website says that it was built between 1120 and 1530 and completely restored by Pugin and Scott between 1844 and 1876. The image - to me - looks like 19C imitation medieval, and clearly dates to the restoration. Æthelwulf's place of death is not known, but must have been in Wessex or Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Mary's Beverley 

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)
replies: text: Discussion closed. Not moved. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress