Talk:Alfred the Great/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Assessment

New evidence says Alfred wasn't born in 848 or 849, but some five years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.173.231 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Ethandun? I see no mention of the battle at Ethandun on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.148.225 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have assessed this as Top importance, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Assessment and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria: subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. Xn4 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Is this from the 1911 encyclopedia? Or where? I somehow doubt that it's original to Wikipedia. Representative quote: "We come now to what is in many ways the most interesting of Alfred's works, his translation of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, the most popular philosophical manual of the middle ages. Here again Alfred deals very freely with his original and though the late Dr G. Schepss showed that many of the additions to the text are to be traced not to Alfred himself, but to the glosses and commentaries which he used, still there is much in the work which is solely Alfred's and highly characteristic of his genius." (If 1911, or other public domain source, fine but should be noted until we add/edit enough for it to be a different article.) Vicki Rosenzweig

I agree with you that it is not an original entry, and it does read like an encyclopedia. A while ago I added the story of the cakes and a few other minor details - it seemed to me than any entry which only referred obliquely to the cakes was seriously flawed. It also referred to Asser without explaining who he was. So I've rectified that, and added a few more bits and pieces - which I hope is helpful. Deb

Yeah, this seems to be from 1911. See e.g.: http://36.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AL/ALFRED_THE_GREAT.htm

This may have been noted in the pre-conversion edit history, but

the old histories haven't been imported yet... Brion VIBBER

I suspect the "Battle of Englesfield" should probably be the Battle of ENGLEFIELDJezzabr 16:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a new section, Appearances in fiction, as I am sure that a king of such stature and achievment will have been a featured character in many books and films. I have included a book by G.G. Kay. Mindstar 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has unanswered questions on Alfred generally, I might be able to help. His educational reform is the topic of my dissertation and I've had to do a lot of reading, may as well put it to good use! Tom, history student at Sheffield in England

This article could certainly do with a bibliography! --Pfold 11:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Burial

I have changed the place of burial in the little info box on the right of the page. Alfred is not and never was buried in Winchester Cathedral. It would be more accurate to say he was buried in Hyde Abbey. He was originally buried in the Old Minster, then moved to the New Minster, and then transferred to Hyde Abbey in the year 1110. His grave was subsequently disturbed. --26 Jan 2006 by Ump

I believe that during the Reformation his remains were actually thrown through a stained glass window.--Streona (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Article title

In accordance with naming policy, shouldn't this be titled "Alfred I of England"? -Alex 12.220.157.93 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

List of monarchs in the British Isles comments that numbering doesn't officially begin until 1066, although Category:Anglo-Saxon monarchs shows a couple that should maybe be changed. In this case, Alfie is specifically called out as an exception in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), because this form is so much more widespread. Stan 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alfred The Great was and is the only English monarch to be given the title of 'The Great'. I think we should respect his title, for it is not easily given.

I quite agree, he should be referred to as King Alfred. Not Alfred the Great, for that is very subjective and around his 'greatness' surrounds much historiographical debate...

I also agree, as many people know, it is the victors who write the histories. Many stories about his "greatness" are probably apocryphal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altheman500 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Alfred has been "the Great" for a long time. Not as long as Alexander or Charlemagne, but the byname has been used since John Bale's reference to "Alphredus Magnus" over 500 years ago. And it is still being used as he is "the Great" so far as recent writers seem to be concerned: Richard Abels, Alfred the Great; Alfred P. Smyth, King Alfred the Great; Keynes and Lapidge, Alfred the Great. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is/was Wantage?

I recently altered "Berkshire" to "Oxfordshire" on the grounds that Wantage has been part of Oxon since 1974. TharkunColl reversed this, commenting rv - Alfred was born a number of years before 1974. However, unless I'm much mistaken, Alfred was the man who ordered the laying out of our historic county boundaries - in other words, although Wantage was in Berkshire by the end of his reign, no such entity as Berkshire existed at the date of his birth. Is this correct? I have altered the wording to modern Oxfordshire for now, as Berkshire seems to me to be incorrect for both the present time and the time cited - 9th Feb 2006 Dave Taylor

The counties of Wessex, i.e. those south of the Thames, are historical divisions of Wessex that long pre-date Alfred, therefore Berkshire existed when he was born in it. The counties of the Midlands were laid out by his son Edward the Elder, mimicking the West Saxon system, and those further north later still. TharkunColl 16:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This seemed sensibly settled when I last looked in, but since then Owain has deleted the county description three times despite being rv'ed. Why? Undoubtedly, "historical articles deal with historical facts", as he asserts, but one must still place these general articles in a modern context for the general reader. You can't write a good encyclopaedia article for a modern reader by pretending that you were writing it 1150 years ago! In summary, this repeated deletion seems very POVish (I infer from the Traditional Counties of England content on his user and user talk pages), and I'm reverting it. Please discuss before doing it again. - Dave Taylor 3rd Aug 2006

The location of Wantage in an administrative/ceremonial/historical context is described on the Wantage page. It seems a pointless sideshow to go on about "ceremonial counties" on a page about a person who was born and died 1,000 years before they were created. Surely it is truly NPoV to mention no ceremonial/administrative/historical counties on the page at all? Owain (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about relevance, but I think a little onhand context for the modern reader is a helpful thing here. After all, it doesn't interfere with the dynamics of the article, and adds a little understanding to Alfred himself. What do other people think? Your point about NPoV I find a little dubious! I think "NPoV" isn't the right phrase here - maybe "uncontentious" is what you meant? DT 3/8/06 14:57 BST

Cleanup

This is a weak article given the importance of the subject and the fact that he's one of the few Anglo-Saxon kings to be widely known. I don't know how much it has been changed from the EB original - not much it seems - but it really needs updating. Surely there's someone who has time to take this on. The "In Our Time" programme on Alfred and Eddington (BBC Radio 4) gives some up-to-date background for anyone who's interested. Angus McLellan 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the word "Organization" to "Organisation", because, although King Alfred wouldn't easily understand today's Queen's English, I feel it more appropriate to use Standard English as opposed to US English. I also feel that this article is actually very Wessex based and not actually even national in it's context. I myself live in Southampton, part of Wessex and feel it is a very much English article. (Dazz) (BST)

"King Alfred Syndrome"

Wikipedia does not interrupt the article on Napoleon Bonaparte— to choose a parallel— to introduce a "Napoleon Complex". I have moved this assertion here. If this were a genuinely useful syndrome, no doubt it would deserve its own article, with a "See also' at Alfred the Great; if I thought so, I'd have done it myself:

"Though the story of the cakes (or loaves of bread in an older version) is probably legendary and not historical, it has given rise to the expression "King Alfred Syndrome," referring to people born into positions of privilege who find themselves in reduced circumstances and unable to cope with humble tasks to which they have been reduced."

--Wetman 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Genealogy"

If you look at the Genealogy graph on shaftesburytown.co.uk (direct link http://www.shaftesburytown.co.uk/history/history/genealogy_of_alfred_the_great.html) you will notice they are using the same graph as wikipedia, however much to their credit they have noticed that the one on wikipedia is wrong, it misses the daughter of alfred that became abbess of Shaftesbury, Ethelgiva. Please could wikipedia make the same update.

Update: I have spoken to the original creator of the diagram and they have kindly made the update. Issue resolved.

Name

The Russian emperors and empresses e.g. Catherine II (the Great) are refered to in the article's title by their numeral. I believe that there should be some standardisation here. I therefore propose that this article's new title should be Alfred the Great of Wessex or Alfred of Wessex--Lofty 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember that uniformity for its own sake is not a universal cultural trait. Keep in mind the title a Wikipedia reader is most likely to search for, and you'll rarely make errors. --03:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point of his title, unlike the Russian's who frequently handed themselfs impressive titles, Alfred was the only English monarc to be awarded the title "great" that alone makes it significant to keep in the title. -- 04/05/06

When was Alfred styled 'the Great'? Perhaps the nineteenth century? --24.150.16.197 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning in the 16th century according to the intro of Asser's Life of King Alfred, so it is a far from contemporary label, but there was only one King Alfred and thus no need to distinguish him by an epithet or patronym. By comparison Æthelred was ill-advised by the twelfth century, Edgar was the peacemaker (and the sense is not far from the idea of a Colt revolver being a peacemaker, peaceable is a later error) at around the same time. Edwy/Eadwig was called All-Fair, Edward the Elder and Edmund Ironside before the Conquest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Canute was an English monarch with the title 'The Great'. _ Hesselius

No. Canute was a Danish monarch and a monarch of England with the title 'The Great'. There is a difference. Verica Atrebatum 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that Knut the Great was a King of Denmark AND ENGLAND and thus is an English King (e.g. King of England, whether they are 'ethnically English' or not) with the title of Great. 86.154.189.220 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Canute should be regarded as English King as he was King of England. Next people will be claiming William I and William the III weren't English Kings!--Utinomen (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

University College, Oxford

I am confused why there is a "see also" for University College, Oxford. Is there a justification for this? or shall I remove it? Waxigloo 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph of the University College, Oxford article Verica Atrebatum 07:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that before and I feel like that kind of proves my point. He had nothing to do with the founding of the college, so why would a link from Alfred the Great go to it? It makes sense to have that comment on the UCO page with a link here, but I don't see the logic for this link here. Waxigloo 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Random deletion?

How did this article get altered into an unverified, ancedotal story about Alfred as a beggar? I am reverting the article to its pre- October 4th state.

Djma12 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Name Pt II

I have read contemporary Anglo-Saxon literature referring to our subject, and his name is spelt with the letter "Æ" (pron. 'ash') instead of "A", meaning the title of this article should be "Ælfred the Great" instead of "Alfred the Great". His name is a compound word of two Anglo-Saxon words- "Ælf"+"Red", being "elf"+"wisdom", or "one who has the wisdom the elves". There was differentiation in old English between the letters "Æ" and "A", just as there was between the now defunct characters Đ ("eth") and Þ ("thorn"), even though superficially they were pronounced similarly. In addition, there has only ever been one Ælfred, meaning there is no need to call him Ælfred I of Wessex or Ælfred I the Great - Ælfred the Great is sufficient. Surfren 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Dave (Surfren)

But the general Wikipedia rule is to prefer the title that is commonly used in English (i.e., current English). Alfred is commonly used now; and this form is easier for non-specialists and also easier to type into a search box. Generally, giving the original spelling, original script, variant forms, etc., is best done in the first paragraph of the article, I think. Andrew Dalby 14:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! Imagine the chaos of every middle-school student trying to find Alfred the Great here, and having to go through a dogged procedure of studying up on Old English! It would be madness. For the sake of simplicity, I believe it should be left as it lay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.59.97 (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In Addition

I believe it would be helpful if perhaps there was a section devoted to anecdotal stories regarding Ælfred - separating what we know about him courtesy of contemporary documents such as Asser's work and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; from other, later depictions where romance took precedence over academic investigation. Surfren 04:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Dave (Surfren)

Yes, that's a good idea. Mind you, there has been controversy about whether Asser is a contemporary source or not! Andrew Dalby 14:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

May I also add my support to this proposition? I think that the entry is more or less fine, but it could certainly do with more contributions from historians or enthusiasts centred on the numerous stories attached to Alfred! saintjohnny

Shaftesbury website

Earlier this month, user:Shaftesbury added links to ShaftesburyTown.co.uk to three wikipedia pages, including this one. I removed all links to that website from the site because most were off-topic, and had been repeatedly added to inappropriate pages. The user has since complained on my talk page that these were not spam, and that the articles were written by shaftesbury and are based on that site. I traced the link on this page back to 21 April 2006, when it was added by an IP whose only edits were to add links to that site. The link was added at the top of the list of links, but I can find no evidence for its importance or contribution to this article. The site itself appears to be somewhat broken. Unless anybody of the writers of this article think it provides and important and unique contribution I intend to submit it to the spam filter if, and when, it next appears? Joe D (t) 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad sex?

Removed "He then had sex with his child hood friend Hannah and killed her in a rage about having bad sex." as completely random pending a reference of some sort. Also, if true, it really doesn't belong in a paragraph concerning the military campaigns. Viciouspiggy 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Alfred jewel.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Alfred jewel.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

Is the cultural references section really relevant? To me this section is almost on the point of trivia and this section is what is holding this page back from becoming a featured article page. Please write your views on wheter or to delete this section with either Agree or Oppose at the begining of your comment. please would all new comments be placed at the bottom of the article or else they may not be counted. Thank you for your coperation (Electrobe (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Agree Starter of the discusssion. Reasons stated above. (Electrobe (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

I agree that this section needs a major rewrite: the trivial instances should be removed and then the section refocused away from a list of appearances and towards a discussion of how Alfred is depicted and portrayed throughout history as historians and authors assess and re-assess his life. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please begin your sentence with either agree or oppose and put it in bold and then continue explanation. This is to avoid confusion over exact context of words and to make it obvious as to the general opinion. Thank You. (Electrobe (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

The Great

Various kings have also been known as the "Great"- Egbert, Cnut and William- also known as "the Bastard" (though rarely to his face) but never until much later, "the Conqueror".--Streona (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Need a section on cultural influence

To establish notability.

... >_> --149.4.211.210 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Alfred the Great would be notable by any measure--Streona (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think that King of England would do it, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll. Ignore him/her. --149.4.211.210 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Bretwalda?

I thought that Egbert, Alfred's grandfather, was the last Bretwalda. --Streona (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I was on the way here to revert, see Mike already got it though. Sorry about that, I really should have thought through the whole English vs. US thing. Hope I didn't offend anyone. Reverted a couple others of English articles, will try to go back through and check Ched (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal Reform

Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson, a man I neither respect or admire, obviously didn't know much about Anglo-Saxon England. US Navy? The US navy didn't exist until almost 1000 years after Alfred; whereas the Royal Navy can claim affiliation, the US Navy cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.212.5 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are there comments from Churchill and Jefferson here? They were not objective historians, the comments relate to their worldview. Should the comments not be deleted? --Utinomen (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WRT Churchill: see A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Jefferson is placed in context within the article: "tracing the history of English common law" --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

elf-advice??

"(Old English: Ælfrēd, Ælfrǣd, "elf advice"; 849 – 26 October 899)"

So I tried searching for sources on this and I didn't find anything that was definitely not a derivative of this article itself. It seems a little weird, and could use a citation I think. It's a little funny-sounding, and could possibly be an example of amazingly subtle vandalism (successful too, if it's spread to all those other sources). But it could also be right. Anyone speak Old English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty0 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Any Old English dictionary should confirm that ælf means elf, among other things, and ræd means counsel, advice and the like. There's one online here, but I suppose I should also plug wiktionary: wikt:aelf, wikt:rede. But But Alfred wasn't called Alfred because of any elvish influence. If I remember right, his parents already had "noble stone" and "noble advice" and "noble bold" and "noble bright" and "noble strong" (a female name that one), which pretty much exhausted their preference, names starting with Æthel-, before Alfie was born. So why Ælf-? No idea, but maybe Alfred had an uncle Ælf-something on his mother's side, or a great auntie Ælf-something on either side. We'll never know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the confirm. Looks like I should've checked back here earlier. Instead I did some more searching and eventually found the answer myself, with two sources saying the name Alfred derives from "elf counsel." It was just a recent edit, an odd-seeming fact, and no independent source referring to Alfie the Great and "elf advice." Man, you guys are good, though. I like when Wikipedia impresses me like this.Qwerty0 (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Some discussion of the presence of Ælf- in Old English personal names can be found in Elves in Anglo-Saxon England by Alaric Hall (who happens to edit here every once in a while). The use of this element in Anglo-Saxon naming practices apparently goes back a long way and surely look mythologically significant, but by Alfred's own time, such semantics mean very little here (are we, for instance, going to translate the name "John" in every article who bears that name?). A weightier factor, as Angus points out, is that he got this name and that it may tell us something about family connections, whatever it is. Cavila (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the text smaller than normal?

I want to know: Why is the text smaller than normal from Parts 10-15 of this article?! Did somebody forget to fix the text in the article? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken HTML: there needs to be a </div> tag for every <div> one and there wasn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV?

Quote from article; "then, four days later, Alfred won a brilliant victory at the Battle of Ashdown"

Quote from Battle of Ashdown page; "he battle was little more than a great clash of shield walls and resulted in a victory for Alfred. The battle, however, was not decisive. This was a pyrrhic victory, for a great many lives were lost on each side and the Danes were subsequently able to win several victories after receiving reinforcements."

I begin to wonder if the article isn't written by someone who rather likes this old king!

Toby Douglass (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace

"Alfred was born in the village of Wanating, now Wantage, Oxfordshire"

This is stated as a fact, but my understanding is that there is some doubt about it. Should we change this to "probably born in", or is it more certain than I'm thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.23.169 (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Consul?

In the "Childhood" section, it says 'A letter of Leo IV shows that Alfred was made a "consul"' while he was in Rome. The article does not indicate what a consul is, or why it is given in inverted commas. Clicking on the link doesn't answer much either, eg. why would an Anglo-Saxon be given a Roman political office title (if that is what is meant by "consul" in this case), and why was the Pope handing out this title? Can anyone out there explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaffui (talk • contribs) 08:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A consulship in this period in the West was an honour handed out by the Pope. The Roman consul#Under the Empire article almost mentions this when it says that "the title of Roman consul was offered by the Pope to Charles Martel in 739", but doesn't go into details. The inauguration ceremony was impressive and was "more than once confused with regal ceremonial" (i.e. king-making or "coronation" if you like, although crowns weren't part of either sort of ceremony in this period) here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research

This is one of many articles on pre-Norman England which contains a few vague citations, and lots of (what I suspect is) original research. The section on the Military seams to be an essay using sources rather than an encyclopedic article. I think articles like this need a serious clean up. see WP:Original research Matthewcgirling (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncritical

The article is on the level of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Norman F, Cantor's assessment is that "he made no contribution to the growth of royal leadership in Anglo-Saxon society" and that though his successors recovered the Danelaw, "they were unable to stem the rise of lordship and the passage of real power in society to the earls and thanes who constituted the local nobility" (Civilization of the Middle Ages 166).

The blurb about being the only "Great" omits Cnut the Great, no doubt because he wasn't "really" king of England.

Nor was Alfred the Great, he was only King of Wessex, as the article makes clear. 78.146.168.192 (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has moved on beyond this. Alfred the Great needs some editing to catch up. --Wetman (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cnut was known as "the Great" and so was William I but these epithets have not really lasted. Many of the Wessex kings had quite flattering cognomen. Edmund the Mganificent, Athelstan the Glorious, Edgar the Peaceful etc. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Alfred IS the only king called "Great" but not "WAS"--Streona (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Alfred I?

If Alfred was King of all England, then why isn't he labelled "Alfred I"? Some English kings have nicknames ("the Conqueror", "the Lionheart", etc.) but as long as they are King of all England, they are labelled with a Roman Numeral stating that they are the (number here) king named (name here). I've checked my books, and none of them call him "Alfred I". Does anyone know why? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Because he's the only Alfred. John of England is in the same position, as is Stephen of England and Anne of Great Britain. If there are no others that need to be distinguished from, he's just "Alfred". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, regnal numbers in England began with William I of England (1066-1087); otherwise, Edward I of England (1202-1307) would have been Edward IV, because earlier on there had been Edward the Elder (899-924), Edward the Martyr (975-978) and Edward the Confessor (1042-1066). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's wierd, because my Kings and Queens of England and Scotland book had "Edmund I", "Edmund II (Ironside)", "Aethelred I", and "Aethelred II", and all those kings came before William the Conqueror (this message is in response to Redrose's comment). The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Different historians name these four kings differently. I can lay hands on six books which style these four kings in up to four different ways (e.g. "Saint Ethelred", "Ethelred I", "Æthelred I", "Ethelred I (St Ethelred)") - and no two of the six books are in complete agreement.

The fact remains though, that there has only ever been one King Alfred of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom (and, AFAICT, no King Alfred of Scotland or Ireland), so he does not need to be distinguished any further: the epithet "the Great" is itself redundant and is much more of an honour than a necessary identifier. See also regnal number. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Catholic?

I am very leery about calling Alfred a "Roman Catholic" monarch. It's true he lived in an era when the English church was still in union with Rome... but it was also in union with Constantinople - however we wouldn't call him an Eastern Orthodox monarch! It's my firm belief that people who died before the East-West Schism should be called "early Christians" - not Catholics. More importantly, does the literature refer to him as "Roman Catholic"? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Catholic or Christian would be fine. "early Christian" usually means before Constantine, i.e. before the church became the established church. I just usually don't bother much with the "religion" label in infoboxes, it's rather a silly field, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you want Chalcedonian Christian since during this time there were still two seperate Christian churches with the Chalcedonian Christians and the Oriental Orthodoxy.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential copyright issues in section "Military reorganisation"

This edit and others from the same editor contain large chunks of text that appear to be under copyright from Early peoples of Britain and Ireland isbn 9781846450099 and others, though presumably with permission of its original author(s). Just to be on the safe side, maybe the section should undergo a solid rewrite with proper attributions so as to remove any cloud about compliance with CC-BY-SA and the GFD. I may find the time to do this myself over the next few days. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Taken up

"About a fifth of the law code is taken up by Alfred's introduction" - what kind of sentance is it?, maybe it would be better to write: About a fifth of the law code was presented on Alfred's introdution - you have to understand that these weird sentances are not familier to non-english speakers and since english is an oniversal language and many people read articles in english - the text should be written in a normal english rather then non-simplfied sentances like this - and there are many more unclear sentances in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.168.95 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over educational reforms

Recent work by Malcolm Godden, in 'Did King Alfred Write Anything?' (which I can anecdotally confirm is widely accepted by his fellow Oxford academics, and has thus far remained almost unchallenged) has questioned the notion that Alfred genuinely instigated anything like a systematic educational reform movement, or indeed any cultural project.

Although it's a very recent development (2007, I think) it certainly seems worth at least pointing out in the article that much that was taken for granted about Alfred's political life is now in question.

EDIT: Also, Charlemagne's attempts to 'revive learning' are equally fictitious. In fact, it was the debunking of that myth which prompted a similar movement amongst Alfredian scholars. Quite simply, the timescale in which Alfred supposedly worked on the books he is meant to have translated and prefaced don't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.92.148 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Germanic

I bed most of you guys here - would not even understand one single sentence of Ælfrǣds language. I am German and I would! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.47.57 (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Alfred was a learned and merciful man (lead)

Should this be "is described as", presuming some good sources describe him as such? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Inverted Commas

Is there meant to be a set of inverted commas where citation 78 is? George8211 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have added them. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Health

"Alfred was troubled by health problems throughout his life"

And yet he lived 20 years longer than any of his brothers. I don't get that. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Deaths in battle --Streona (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Byzantine icon" picture

I have removed this from the article as off-topic. Whatever it is, it is not a genuine "Byzantine" icon. It is, based on its Commons [[1]] "self-published work" category, a modern artwork done in a pseudo-Greek Orthodox style. I can see no reason for it to be in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As author of said image, I think it speaks to contemporary veneration of King Alfred as a Catholic saint. There is at least one current religious community dedicated to his memory--q.v. facebook.com/companionsofstalfred, companionsofstalfred.org. Icons are universal to the Church following the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. PadreDelElToro (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Citations removed from the References section

Citations removed from the list of references in the References section as they do not currently support inline citations

• Keynes, Simon (2001), "Edward, King of the Anglo-Saxons", in Higham, N.J.; Hill, D.H. (eds.), Edward the Elder 899–924, Routledge, pp. 44–45, ISBN 978-0-415-21497-1 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Snyder, Christopher A., ed. (2008). The Early Peoples of Britain and Ireland. ABC-CLIO. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-84645-009-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Vince, Alan (1990). "Saxon London: An Archaeological Investigation". The Archaeology of London series. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85264-019-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

-- PBS (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

saint?

The text says "Alfred is regarded as a saint by some Catholics,[123]" and if you go to the source of footnote 123 (Catholic.org "Saint Alfred") you find "Alfred is regarded as a saint by some Catholics,[123]", which is an exact copy of the Wiki article. I suppose there might have been an earlier shorter article at catholic.org but as it stands now this can hardly be a good source.

Butlers 'Life of Saints' says that Alfred was described as saint in some sources however there is no evidence that any church proposed him. The Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome list him as a saint on their website. When Alfred was alive the pope did not have a monopoly on declaring people as saints, so it would be perfectly possible that a bishop did canonise him, however the evidence is pretty thin. I think the mainstream regard him as a Christian hero but NOT a saint. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW - Catholic.org is a privately owned for profit website. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Alfred isn't listed in Oxford Dictionary of Saints by David Farmer (fifth edition 2003). He is listed in A New Dictionary of Saints: East and West by Michael Walsh (2007) page 27 where his feast day is given as 26 October. Walsh's entries assume that if there is no listing of which denomination venerates the saint, they are venerated by the Roman Catholic Church. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A good source on this may be Simon Keynes's article The cult of King Alfred the Great. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In the Benedictine Monks 'The Book of Saints' [2002], it says that Alfred was venerated as a saint and had an informal cultus in England in the Middle Ages, but this was never confirmed and is now extinct. I have thus modified the page to make it less confusing (I hope!) Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Asser

In para 1, why is Asser listed as 10th century? He lived mostly in the 9th century (dying 909) and wrote "Life" in 893 apparently. -- SGBailey (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Only English king called "The Great"

We also have Cnut the Great, though perhaps not English, just king of England. The reference/cite actually just goes to a line saying this. Needs sorting.--Mongreilf (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Canute is also called 'the Great.' This much cannot be up for question. Saying Canute doesn't count as an English king because he was Danish is more than a bit disingenuous. For most speakers of English, the terms King of England and the English king are the same person. If a pedant wants to consider them possibly separate, and a non-English person able to hold the title of monarch, it is quite silly to declare Alfred any more English than Canute because there was no such thing as England when Alfred was born. And does this non-Englishness apply to the Norman Plantagenets? Or to James VI of Scotland, or to William of Orange? Better, I think, to just remove a spurious claim to be the only English monarch to be called 'the Great' which does nothing to help Alfred's claim to 'greatness.' <Mdw0 (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)>

It's a silly claim. It gets repeated a lot all over the web, but it's nonsense. I say get rid of it. --Lanfranc (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim that Alfred is the only English monarch to be accorded the epithet "the Great" is carefully worded, and as so worded it is not untrue. One might argue it is an outdated claim, an outmoded claim, an anachronistic claim (though Alfred apparently did consider himself "English") or even an Anglocentric claim, but both the epithet and the claim of its uniqueness have long been part of the popular English idea of Alfred. I have a feeling (but can cite no source) that in England Alfred has been called "the Great" much longer than Cnut: I cannot remember ever hearing of "King Canute (or indeed Cnut) the Great" in my younger days, though the stories of both Cnut and Alfred were well known. Was Cnut perhaps always "Cnut the Great" in Scandinavia, and was the epithet more recently borrowed thence into the English? I think that to say Alfred is the only English monarch to be accorded the epithet "the Great" is unexceptionable and I'd leave it as it is. --Frans Fowler (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Unexceptionable"? It's just not correct. All else aside, we call Cnut "the Great" now. His Wiki page is under Cnut the Great. There are tons of books and articles that call him "the Great". I would say that counts as being "accorded the epithet". These silly myths need to go away. Lanfranc (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Canute has only just about become Cnut at all in COMMONNAME terms in English, and is certainly not yet "the Great". Obviously in Scandinavia, with squads of other King Cnuts, things are different. See the talk page there (archive 2) for the discussions over that naming, which confirm the point. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this RM? How does a failed RM confirm anything? You could make a new RM to change Cnut the Great → Cnut and see how that goes, be my guest. But it's nonsense to claim Alfred is the only one as long as the title of another Wiki page literally says the opposite.

Besides, since this is getting into sophistry anyway, the claim doesn't say anything about being accorded the epithet by the English or British specifically. So surely getting it from the Scandinavians would count as well, right? :3 --Lanfranc (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the 2 RMs there have a ton of evidence as to what RS use use, which this page lacks. It is slightly sneaky to rely on Cnut not being "English", but if the claim is amended to reflect English names, as used by the English, Alfred is certainly the only "Great" English king. As I'm sure you know, Wikipedia titles don't count as RS, & rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, look. Here's "the official website of the British Monarchy" referring to him as Canute 'The Great'. Would you consider that an RS? Here's the British Museum. Here's the BBC (excellent programme, by the way). Britannica has "Canute (I), byname Canute the Great". UCL has an upcoming conference about "Cnut the Great". Are these RS? Can we agree that at this point in time, he is reasonably commonly known as "the Great", and that this is the same as being "accorded the epithet"? --Lanfranc (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No, we can't. Look at the debates on his talk. There's no need to do that twice. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need whatsoever. Because going all the way back to 2008, the debates have concluded that he is called Cnut the Great. I'm seeing a lot of a priori assumptions that he is somehow not "commonly" known as that, but nothing to support it. On the other hand, there are plenty of RS to show that he is (some of which I put just above), and nothing to counter them. So can we end this debate now and agree that there are, in fact, two English kings called "the Great"? --Lanfranc (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I stick my outdated nose where its probably not wanted and give a reference? Simon Schama says the Tudors thought him insping enough to award him alone of all their predecessors the honoric appellation of 'Great' in direct analogy with Charlemagne the Great. And ...it can't be said they were wrong. Schama doesn't mention Cnut who I feel is much less significant to English readers. If there are no protests, I can add it & remove what I regard as a well intentioned but confusing ref. to Cnut. Because this book isn't easily accessible I'm willing to send more details -see my page. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly worth adding. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure whether we are having two separate conversations here but:

What then are the facts behind Alfred's decisive war with the Vikings? Who began the Alfred myth? Does he alone amongst English monarchs really deserve to be called 'the Great' ..Success or failure for a king in the ninth century was how he dealt with the Vikings. ..to concentrate on the cultural achievement of this vigorous but barbaric race is to deny the achievements of Alfred the Great & his son & grandson who were amongst the most effective kings to rule in England. No ref to Canute as great though his reputation was probably as a Danish king but p221 "Canute you may say was a brutal hypocritical opportunist." He does however get credit for listening to advice. Who wrote the www.royal.gov.uk article? My suspicion is that refs to Cnut the Great are recent and have come from Denmark hence both Schama and Wood reject it. JRPG (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The interesting question is why we have articles like Canute I of Sweden, and why the list of kings at Canute (disambiguation) is so incomplete - I'm sure very randomly so. And why Cnut does not redirect to Knut. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think this is going somewhat off-topic. The question isn't what Simon Schama or Michael Wood think about Cnut and his merits, and I don't even understand what Canute of Sweden has to do with anything. The question is, is Cnut referred to as 'the Great' or not? If he is, then it is self-evidently incorrect to claim that Alfred is the only English king with that epithet.

So I carried out a little survey of some major historical encyclopedias, and as it turns out, almost all of them agree that Cnut is called 'the Great', even as far back as 1830; and not just British encyclopedias, but French, German and American ones as well:

• Edinburgh Encyclopedia, 1808-1830, vol. 5 p390 link: "Canute, King of Denmark, surnamed the Great..." "Historians have surnamed this prince the Great..."

• Encyclopædia Metropolitana, 1845, vol. 11 p512 link: "The character of Canute, not undeservedly surnamed the Great..."

• Chamber's Encyclopedia, 1901, vol. 2 p729, link: "Canute, a Latinised form of Cnut, called the Great, and by Scandinavian writers the Mighty and the Old..."

• Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, vol. 5, link: "CANUTE (CNUT), known as 'the Great'..."

• New American Cyclopedia, 1879, link: "CANUTE, or Knut, the Great..."

• Brockhaus' Kleines Konversations-Lexikon, 1911, vol. 1 p981, link: "Knut (Kanut) der Große..."

• Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, 1885-1892, vol. 9 p890 link: "1) K[nut] der Große..."

• Nouvelle Biographie Générale, 1852-66 , link: "CANUT II, ‘le Grand’, roi de Danemark et d'Angleterre..."

• Grand Larousse du XIXe, 1866-76 , vol. 3 p296 link: "CANUT II, le Grand, roi d’ Angleterre..."

Just in case that's not enough, I also went through JSTOR and looked for early references to "Cnut the Great". I suppose this borders on "original research", so disregard this if you wish; but they too go back quite a while, and that's not even bothering with the alternate "Canute the Great":

• Saxon Coins found in the Island of Gothland, 1846 (p170)
• John Thrupp, On the Domestication of Certain Animals in England Between the Seventh and Eleventh Centuries, 1866 (p168)
• C. F. Herest and C. F. Herbst, Note upon "Penny of Cnut the Great: A Rectification", 1881
• William Henry Schofield, Chaucer's Franklin's Tale, 1901 (p412)
• Albert E. Egge, The Making of the English People, 1908 (p300)
• Henry Goddard Leach, The Relations of the Norwegian with the English Church, 1066-1399, and Their Importance to Comparative Literature, 1909 (p555n179)

Considering the above, I think it is demonstrated that Cnut is and has been quite commonly and broadly called 'the Great', and that this usage was established well over 100 years ago, and certainly is now. Accordingly, I will change the sentence in the article intro to the following: "Alfred is one of only two English monarchs to be given the epithet 'the Great', the other one being Cnut the Great." --Lanfranc (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lanfranc and Johnbod: For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think anyone is being obstructive & I appreciate the effort you've put in. The simplest explanation is that whilst Cnut was so labeled in Denmark & Norway, he wasn't called that in England. Both Wood & Schama are serious English historians and this theory fits the facts. There exists someone somewhere who can immediately resolve the issue & I will try & find out. Regards & thanks. JRPG (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is being obstructive either, but I do feel we're talking past each other to a considerable degree. Which particular point in time are you talking about when you say Cnut is not labelled 'the Great' in England? He wasn't by his contemporaries, but then neither was Alfred. Both of them are by the mid 19th to early 20th century as the encyclopedias I have listed above show. Your quote from Schama talks about the Tudors, who may very well have given the epithet to Alfred, but not to Cnut, whom they didn't know very much of for historigraphical reasons (brief dynasty and disruptions from the Conquest). So are you arguing that Cnut has never had the title because the Tudors did not give it to him? I must admit I don't really understand the argument. --Lanfranc (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So just who is it that gets to determine if a given king is to be dubbed "the Great"? Seems to me, an American, that there are several other English/British/UK monarchs worthy of the term besides Alfred and this Cnut guy I've never heard of before. How about Elizabeth I or Victoria for starters? Is there some organization that gets to make the call? Or can anyone start it and if enough people start using it, it'll stick? Enquiring minds want to know! Wschart (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Alfred is generally regarded as the greatest king in British history. According to Patrick Wormald in the Dictionary of National Biography "The historical record plainly establishes that he was among the most remarkable rulers in the annals of human government." However, being known as "the Great" may have more to do with the Victorians' fanatical admiration for him. Cnut is much less commonly known as "the Great", and I doubt he deserves the title, although other editors disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

his religion

I came to this article from the Wiki article on holidays and celebrations for Oct 26, where Alfred is listed as being celebrated by the Anglican Church. When I clicked through, I found his religion here listed as Roman Catholic. Is there another category he could be listed in?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

He was Catholic - the split between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church came long after Alfred's death. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Alfred's observance in the Anglican Church is known as a Lesser Festival, it's observance is not obligatory and does not have to be for someone who was necessarily part of the Anglican Communion, in fact most are not. Wilfridselsey (talk)

Alliance with Ceowulf

Shouldn't this be mentioned? Doug Weller talk 21:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean Ceolwulf II of Mercia? What do you mean by alliance? After a very quick look I've only found mention that Alfred and Ceolwulf apparently shared moneyers in London. Is there more? Nortonius (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume that Doug is referring to the TV programme Digging for Britain, which claimed coin evidence for cooperation as a new discovery. The cooperation in coinage has long been known, in spite of the misleading claims in the programme. As you say, there is no evidence that their alliance extended to military matters. Indeed, it is likely that while Alfred was winning Edington, Ceolwulf was invading Wales and killing Rhodri Mawr. I intend working on getting Alfred up to FA if no one else does it first, but it will be a long time before I get around to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dudley, that makes sense. If you get around to Alfred and I'm available, I'd be happy to help, if you think I might. Nortonius (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The hoard was announced in late 2015. I know about earlier discussions in reliable sources about similar coins, but I think these were all from the same mint. These are from a variety of years and different mints. Doesn't this make it a new discovery? Doug Weller talk 06:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I missed the announcement of the new hoard, and it does obviously add to the evidence for monetary cooperation, but I doubt whether it suggests a wider alliance. My impression, based on Thomas Charles-Edwards' Wales and the Britons, is that Ceolwulf, and Æthelred at the beginning of his rule, were more interested in maintaining the Mercian hegemony in Wales than fighting the Vikings. The "variety of years" might throw further light on how long Ceolwulf's reign lasted, and it will be interesting to see any comments by historians on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder, which edition of Digging for Britain did the hoard appear in? I'm not much of a telly-watcher so I haven't seen it, but I'd be grateful if someone might point me to the relevant show, if it's currently available on iPlayer. I take it then that there are not yet any reliable sources for post-excavation analysis, or historical assessment? Sharing mints might indicate an extremely high degree of co-operation, but we'd need reliable sources to start talking about alliances. Interesting, anyway. Nortonius (talk) 10:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it was episode one on west of Britain at [2] although I could be wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dudley. Nortonius (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nortonius and Dudley Miles: East of Britain, episode 3, found in Oxfordshire, It's the Watlington Hoard. Take a look at this source use in the article on the hoard. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

And if the Ashmolean doesn't raise the funds by the end of the month, it will be sold.[3] Doug Weller talk 13:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Found a mention of this: "Williams, G. & Naylor, J (forthcoming). Watlington Viking Hoard (Oxford: Ashmolean Museum)" which is probably the book you get if you donate £50.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Doug Weller, that does sound intriguing! Williams at least should be highly qualified to comment on the coins' historical significance. Nortonius (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, hello?

What about the legend about giving the little bit of food he had to a monk and having a dream afterward that God would help him unite the two kingdoms and rule all of England?

It's on the BBCs King Alfred 3 episodes that are still available on the iPlayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2B05:EA00:8012:D22F:D88D:8E63 (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Osburh - wife or concubine

"He was the youngest son of King Æthelwulf of Wessex by his first wife, Osburh.[c]"

Osburh was not Ethelwulf's wife but a concubine. She was a butler's daughter and there is no precedent in English history for a king or an heir to the throne or any king's son marrying a member of staff from the colonization in the fifth century to the present day. There are other reasons for knowing Alfred was illegitimate such as the difference in the his name from his siblings, the fact that he was born in Mercia, a foreign country, his trip to Rome at the age of four, the fact that his mother was alive when he learnt to read at the age of twelve and his claim of consecration as a king by the pope. I don't expect this to become mainstream thought on Alfred for some time, if ever, despite there being absolutely no evidence that she was Ethelwulf's wife. However, there is also no evidence at all that she was Ethelwulf's 'first' wife and this claim should be removed from the page.

Dantes Warden (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Edre on the coints

Wouldn't Edre be the forerunner of Eire the Island of Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.42.108 (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2017‎ (UTC)

The inscription on the coin reads "Ælfred Rex", as it says in the image caption. Nortonius (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Intro

Personally feel introduction too brief. Increased it partly, but room for improvement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.234.240 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Pewsey

No criticism of Pewsey, but KGV was crowned in 1911. To put up a statue 2 years later seems a little tardy and might need a note. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Family

The grid in this section suggests that Elfthryth was Alfred's youngest child whereas this was actually Ethelweard. Perhaps someone could change it? Asser's Life of King Alfred, para 75 refers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantes Warden (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A reader writes

Saxon or Celt????? I came here to discover if Alfred was a Saxon or Celt. This is a critical entry-level fact and it is nowhere to be found in the introduction. Please put it in the opening sentence. Thank you.

Dude, you have to struggle on till line 7: "He was also the first King of the West Saxons to style himself "King of the Anglo-Saxons"." Tough, but there you are. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

England or Wessex?

Hello. I know Alfred was king of Wessex, but was he ever king of England, or the England that it was at that time in history? Thank you, Ramesty (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

No. He ruled Wessex and in around 883 the ruler of the western half of Mercia accepted his lordship. But the eastern half of Mercia, East Anglia and Northumbria were still ruled by the Vikings when he died. His son and grandson conquered the Vikings over the next thirty years. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be great to mention on what year he started using the title of king of the Anglo-Saxons, as that could arguably be considered the year of foundation of the English monarchy. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It was around 886, but the title only meant the Anglo-Saxons not under Viking rule, that is Wessex and western Mercia. The first king of England was his grandson Æthelstan, who conquered Northumbria in 927 and thus brought all England under his rule. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that the Anglo-Saxons considered that they had to re-conquer the Anglo-Saxon territory that was under the Vikings is an indication that they considered the title to refer to more than just the Anglo-Saxons of Wessex and western Mercia. Do we have any source on this? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not think there is any source on this but it seems significant that they dropped the title when they controlled the whole of England and adopted grander titles such as " king of the English and ruler of the whole of Britain". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Echoes of undergraduate studies decades ago are telling me to dispute "re-conquer" – but I'd have to look for a source, which would be more problematical. Nortonius (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Miles. By "re-conquer" I just meant that they occupied/conquered Britannia in the 5th century and then had to retake it from the Vikings/Danes. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Great Heathen Army, a better map?

The map is very misleading, Berkshire is shown as part of Mercia, but it had reverted to Wessex in the 840s. Consequently the battles of Englefield and Ashdown (both of which took place in Berkshire) are shown in some vague Hampshire location and Basing has migrated south to the region of Winchester. The Battle of Reading was fought on 4th January 871 and not 870 as implied by the map and although Æthelwulf was himself a Mercian, he was fighting for the West Saxons under Æthelred. It's unlikely a West Saxon army would have sprung to the defence of a Mercian town. 87.224.37.114 (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)The Hidden Paw.

I agree that the map is misleading in showing Berkshire in Mercia and the location of the battles of Englefield and Ashdown, although Basing looks OK to me. I also agree that the Battle of Reading was fought in 871 in Wessex, although it is not correct that the West Saxons would not have assisted the Mercians against the Vikings. They did in 868, as the article says. I am not however hopeful of getting the map improved. The last time I asked for help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop I got no reply. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)