Talk:Edward the Confessor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism. See also The Anglicanism Portal.(with unknown importance) | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints. See also the Saints Portal. (rated as High importance) | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism. See also the Catholicism Portal. (with unknown importance) | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Edward the Confessor is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Eastern Orthodox Saint?
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)
[edit] Rank?
What does "Rank: 21st" mean? It sounds like monarch Top Trumps. Marnanel 18:11, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
- 21st king of England since Egbert of Wessex (who wasn't a king of England, but he was the first West Saxon king to dominate England). A pretty poor system, if you ask me. Everyking 18:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Someone who knows where 'the Confessor' came from should add it to the article. -- Kizor 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- done shsilver
- That was fast. Thank you.
[edit] Tom a Beck
Where is our old friend? Surely THIS is a large missing block here...
That's because Thomas a Becket doesn't turn up in the history books till the reign of Henry II. His presence in this article would be an anachronism.
[edit] Not the first Edward
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)
[edit] Why a saint?
That article doesn't fully explain why Edward is considered a saint. Would smoeone 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 [1]Edward was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast day, according to the same source, is 13th October. For further info, see [2] Zach Beauvais 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Confessor response
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)
-
- 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)
To the best of my knowledge, the view about Edward and his unwillingness to sleep with Godwin's daughter is put forward in Simon Schama's History of Britain (Volume 1)Zach Beauvais 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] His Vow Of Chastity
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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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).
-
- added* I think it adds at least a good and interesting guess on what might have been going through his mind, or what kind of person he is. I think its a good conjecture to talk about, but since it isn't fact and could be misleading, its a throught better suited to being put here to be found. It just keeps it part of the discussion, if not the official version. Just a thought on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.137.208 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Naming
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)i have no idea
why don't we call him King Eddie Snr for our american readers? 62.3.70.68 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
The comment you responded to was posted almost a year and a half ago. This was resolved and this is why these pages should be archived from time to time. -- SECisek 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Albino
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).
- 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)
-
-
- "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)
-
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nice to see some common sense and inteligence on Wikipedia for a change! Valiant Son (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Danish Invasion
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).
- 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).
-
- 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)
[edit] big mistake
on this page it says edward the confessor died on 4th January but in fact he died on the 5th January 1066. from maxine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.58.19 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- maxine is tright. he died on 5th january. > Stuart
- Yes, Stuart and Maxine have a point, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says "the vigil of Epiphany" which is 5 January. Whether there are conflicting sources I don't know. Can anyone comment? Andrew Dalby 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- He died on 5th January. Countless reputbale biographies will confirm, as do several recensions of the ASC.Valiant Son 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Albinistic Edward?
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).
[edit] His remains being found
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.
[edit] Ahnentafel
Regarding the ahnentafel, there is a discussion at Talk:Louis V of France#Ahnentafel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eadweard III?
Who calls him this? All the JSTOR hits appear to be about Eadweard Muybridge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
