Talk:Guthred

message: This article needs to be at Guthfrith I Hardicnutson But how does it be moved? - Yorkshirian 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the move tab, see Help:Moving pages. But why should it be there? The Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain calls him "Guthfrith king of York", which is why this page is called what it is. The PASE name would be "Guthfrith I, king of York" probably. But we don't need the "I" because "II" is king of Dublin and would get an appropriate name, i.e. he would be called Guthfrith Sigtryggson, or Gofraid [ua] Ua Ímair as his obituary calls him (AU 934.1: Gothfrith h. h-Imair, ri crudelissimus Nordmannorum, dolore mortuus est). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Guthfrith's genealogy, as it appears in late sources such as Symeon of Durham, has been disputed. None of the early sources (eg Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or Aethelweard's Chronicon) mention any father called Hardicnut or Harthacnut. Eroica (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we should really let historians do the arguing for us. Hudson's Viking Pirates is happy enough to make Guthfrith a son of one Harthacnut, so too Woolf's Pictland to Alba. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Angus, but a distinction should be drawn between an opinion and an argument. In Medieval Dublin VI (), p.88, David N. Dumville says: "There is no reason to think that the ancestry alleged for [Guthfrith] in the colourful account in Historia de Sancto Cuthberto has any validity." (The term "colourful" is taken from an article by M. A. S. Blackburn.) Dumville points out that Æthelweard's  Guthfrid is close to the Proto-Norman Guþfriþ, indicating that Æethelweard's source was contemporary or nearly contemporary with Guthfrith, whereas the form Guthred in the Historia was clearly derived from a late Old Norse source, in which the name has become Guðrøðr. That's an argument. Does Hudson or Woolf offer anything in support of a Harthacnut other than the testimony of late sources? Eroica (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only thing that bothers me here is the term "King of York". The sources call the kingdom not York, but Northumbria/Northumberland ... distinction between the Kingdom of Northumbria and that of York being modern invention (I suppose this is just another one of those annoying modern contrivances that get in the way of understanding the period). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, looking at it, G.'s parentage is of no interest to Woolf. And not to Hudson either because his interest is G.s progeny, and his argument there rests on Adam of Bremen. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Guthred. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228002013/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/aethelweard.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/aethelweard.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified