Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelred of Mercia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:26, 22 March 2008.

---

Æthelred of Mercia

An Anglo-Saxon king; the most useful FA for comparison is probably his brother and predecessor, Wulfhere of Mercia. Æthelred and Wulfhere share a lot of historical context, so I reused quite a bit of the material written for Wulfhere. It's been rewritten, both to suit this article and to provide variety, but there's a lot of evident similarity remaining and several identical sentences which I couldn't easily rephrase. I feel this is OK but I wanted to point it out to reviewers so they can make their own judegements. The relevant material is in the first two sections, "Mercia in the seventh century" and "Ancestry and early reign". Other than that, several contemporary kings are now FA and they might be useful for context: Ine of Wessex, Cædwalla of Wessex, Aldfrith of Northumbria and Wihtred of Kent. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I'll be back by later to review and support or oppose. For now... we should just note that the linkie tool checker thingie up there isn't quite right, it tries to send you to a page that doesn't exist. I think it doesn't like the Æ in Æthelred, but if you cut and paste it in, it works fine. Also returns no issues. No issues with the sources either.
  • One quibble... you use Bede Ecclesiastical History and Bede HE interchangably in the footnotes. Probably should stick with Ecclesiastical History. (footnotes 13 and 24 right now are the HE occurances I saw).
  • I'm not seeing a bibliography entry for Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, sub anno 656, p. 29 (footnote 17)
  • Yorke, p. 107, accepts the account in the Life of St Mildburh, which makes Merewalh and Æthelred brothers, as genuine. Kirby, p. 93, expresses doubts (footnote 18). Which Yorke?
  • I'm not seeing a References entry for :Eddius Stephanus, Life of Wilfrid, 20, in Age of Bede, pp.&216–127 (footnote 19) Also I think you wanted a non-breaking space in place of that &

That's it. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the above are now fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my first edit back..if only for the simple fact i dont want to study. But a cursory glance over the intro--the tone is a little colloquial, and you will need some footnotes in it too. --Osbus (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes aren't compulsory in the lead, unless there is something controversial there; do you see anything that needs a citation? Everything there is cited in the body. I'd be glad of any specific comments on the lead, since I'm trying to improve it, but I'm not sure what you're referring to at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support lede's much improved, every concern addressed. Slight oppose Mainly due to the following concerns/quibbles/issues/pickiness: (picture me standing here with a nice dark English ale in one hand...)

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • You say in the lead that he was the son of Cynewise, then in the main body it's more nuanced than that. Probably better to just strike the bit about Cynewise from the lede. And was she crowned queen, referred to as queen, or are assuming she was queen because she was Penda's wife? (ooh, BIG can of worms there!)

Agree on the lead; I cut it. Yes, Bede explicitly says "Queen"; IV 24 is the chapter. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • "However, AEthelred was unable to re-establish the domination of southern Britain that his father and brother had enjoyed." seems awkward to me. Perhaps "However, AEthelred was unable to re-establish his predecessors' domination of southern Britain."

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Ugh. Wilfrid. The last sentence of the lede is unclear, because (while *I* know more about Wilfrid than I ever wanted to) when you say "argued his case for the return of his ecclesiastical lands." it's unclear WHICH ecclesiastical lands you're referring to. I know you mean York, but most folks won't know that, especially as the sentence before has AEthelred giving Wilfrid a bishopric, and the logical inference is that the ecclesiastical lands Wilfrid wants returned are the ones AEthelred just gave him.

I made it "the ecclesiastical lands he had been deprived of in Northumbria"; I didn't want to be more specific. Does that do it? Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Who is Oswald? He just appears, some context would be good. Likewise, what are the two kingdoms that made up Northumbria? You mention them later, it might work better if you list them when first mentioned.

I added "Edwin's nephew" to Oswald, and named Bernicia and Deira at first mention. Let me know if this is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Hm. I wouldn't say (talking about Bede's HE) "this work also provides valuable information about the early pagan kingdoms." I'd say "Anglo-Saxon" instead, as by this time, the kingdoms are mostly (at least nominally) Christian. At least they are not all pagan.

I made this change, but I think what I wanted to say was that Bede doesn't provide information only about the Christian areas but also to some degree about the pagans. I think your change is an improvement though so I went ahead with it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Need a citation on the "stirred up all the southern nations against [Nothumbria]" (all quotations have to have a citation on them direct, blech).

Done -- it was the Stephen of Ripon cite from the end of the sentence, so I just moved it up. Mike Christie (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I think I'd say "A third suggestion is that the kings of Essex solicited the invasion, in response to recent Kentish attempts to ..."

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • By the way, Putta ended up as bishop in Hereford after leaving Rochester. Was hereford in AEthelred's kingdom? Note I am still bogged down in the Bishops of Ely, so Hereford hasn't been done yet so I'm not as conversant with Putta as I should be yet.

Yes, Hereford was in Mercia. Do you think this needs to be added? I didn't think it was important what happened to Putta (for this article, anyway!); it's just the effects of the destruction of Rochester I wanted to describe, and naming Putta and Cwichelm seemed a way to make it more direct. Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This one was more informational, and also to alert you to why you suddenly had wikilinks in your article. (Also for why the articles I wikilinked suck so bad at the moment...) You could expand it a bit, if we think that AEthelred put Putta on the see at Hereford, but I don't have any explicit sources that say that. It might show he was expanding his influence if it had been outside Mercia. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • You give no context on who Theodore was in the quote about AElfwine's death, it might be nice to have a bit. Especially as it intertwines with Wilfrid's life. (Theodore was in favor of dividing the NOrthumbrian see)

I've added a note that he was Archbishop of Canterbury, but I'm not sure what you mean about Wilfrid -- do you just mean that the connections between Theodore and Wilfrid should be expanded on at some point? Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to leave the Theodore-Wilfrid spats in their articles, but you should be aware that the two of them were like oil and water appearantly. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Same section this sentence is just awkward "Osthryth was buried at Bardney in Lindsey, the monastery where she had caused the relics of her uncle..." it is the "she had caused" that makes it seem off to me.

Reworded: "the monastery where, at her urging, the relics of her uncle, Oswald of Northumbria, were kept and revered". Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, something's wrong with the whole last paragraph. Was Ceolred a son or a daughter? You call C both.And did the Evesham chronicle name or not name the mother of C? It says it did, but the context really implies that it did not. What's the date for the Evesham chronicle anyway? How reliable is it likely to be?

Oops. Fixed the "daughter" slip; he's a son; fixed the "name" error -- it did not name her, apparently. If you look for the Latin title in Google Books you can find the Rolls Series Macray text from 1863; according to Kirby the reference is on p. 73. My Latin is not strong but I can see near the top that the chronicle simply says Chelredus is not the son of Ostritha, and doesn't name his mother. (Kirby isn't clear on this so I thought you might want to see the source.) As for date, Macray's edition runs to 1418 but he lists the authors in the preface; from what I can make out it appears some of it is twelfth century. For reliability, I'm really relying on Kirby here -- he uses it so I figure it's OK. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than use my (beyond rusty) Latin, I'll take Kirby's word for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And hey, given the anglo-saxon names (and I'm using one as my user name!) it's not easy to tell the sex of the person just from the name... we all make that mistake upon occasion. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • need a direct citation on the Bede quote in the first paragraph of the Abdication section.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Hunter Blair in The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society says (p. 93) that AEthelred gave 44 hides at Fladbury to Bishop Oftfor of Worcester. He quotes the charter "so that just as when [the land] was first handed over, so again through his diligence the most proper life of monks living on it under an abbot may be recovered".
    • Same source, page 105. "Before 705 two nuns, Dunne and her daughter Bucge, were granted twenty hides of bookland at Withington (Glos.) by King AEthelred and his Hwiccian sub-king to establish a minster"
    • Same source, (p. 229) it appears that after his death, AEthelred was honored as an abbot. "...it was as abbots rather than as founders that King AEthelred of Mercia (d. 716), and the Nothumbrian king's thegn Eanmund, were buried and honoured in the churches of their ministers." He footnotes Bede HE iii II v. 24 (P. 246 and 566 of the Colgrave and Mynors edition), AEthelwulf De Abbatitbus II p. 395-402 ed. by Campbell, and an article by Blair on page 507 of Local Saints and Local Church in the Early Medieval West ed. by Thacker and Sharpe (Which I don't have).
    • Yorke, in The Conversion of Britain (Second edition, p. 63) at least speculates that perhaps the Picts were acting in concert with Mercia in pressuring Northumbria. "The history of the Norhtumbrian overlordship in the south had effectively been ended in 679 when at the battle oft he river Trent King Aethelred of Mercia (675-704) had avenged an earlier defeat of his brother Wulfhere by Ecgfrith and permantently detached the former kingdom of Lindsey from Northumbrian control. Whether Mercia and the Picts had been acint in concert against Northumbria is not known, but in the eigth century Onuist of the Picts (729-61) and AEthelbald of Mercia (716-57) may well have operated in unison to hold the northern and southern overlordships respectively between them."
    • Same source, it does appear that AEthelred was promoted as a saint. Page 193 "The body itself [of Oswald] was retrieved from the battlefield at Maserfelth, whose site was either in Lindsey (Lincs.) or at Oswestry (Salop), by Oswiu's dauther Osthryth who placed it in the monastery at Bardney (lincs) that had been founded by herself and her husband King AEthelred of Mercia (son of Penda) and where subsequently both of them were also to be promoted as saints." (My lord, that's a LONG sentence!)
  • Consider varying the first word of the first sentences of the lede. Each one starts "AEthelred..."

I changed the middle one to "He", which I hope is enough -- let me know if you think more is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Maybe a brief mention of the other extant Anglo-Saxon kingdoms? Which ones were still around, which ones had been subsumed by AEthelred's time?

Do you mean in the lead, or the background section? I was hoping that the map would save me from having to provide that sort of geographical survey; is that not enough? Mike Christie (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me look at this tomorrow. I'm too tired to think straight. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the map, I'm not sure which are considered subkingdoms (such as Deria and Bernicia) and which are true kingdoms at this time. I think a simple sentence right after the first sentence of the first paragraph of Mercia in the 7th century should do the trick, something like "The independent kingdoms at this point consisted of Mercia, Northumbria (rest of list giving any subkingdoms that stayed under one overlordship this whole time) (then list any subkingdoms that tended to change hands)." You'll notice *I* can't write the stupid sentence... I had the sense to not study this period for precisely this reason. Much easier to keep track of Wales/England/Scotland with bits on France and Ireland impinging...

I won't oppose if you really feel it's unneeded, but I know I felt a bit at sea on the who was really a king while I was reading the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're at sea, others will be drowning. I had a go at this; take a look and let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • try "For kingdoms other than his native Northumbria, such as Wessex and Kent, Bede had an informant in the church at Canterbury who supplied him with information." which cuts the wordage and is more accurate. (This is Nothelm, later Archbishop, whose article (plug plug) is probably as good as it'll get)

Didn't Bede have an informant in Wessex, too, though? Daniel, if I remember rightly? How about dropping the unnecessary reference to Northumbria and just making it "For Wessex and Kent, Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in each province, but he appears to have had no such contact in Mercia, about which he is less well-informed"? Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. That reminds me the Bede article needs some work, it passed GA back in 2006. Anyway, I'd have to look. Add to my list for tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've used the wording above; let me know if you have more comments on this one. Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's our informant - Daniel of Winchester Bishop of Winchester. So that covers that part. Good ole Leo Sherley-Price says in the intro to HE (p. 26) that "Bishop Daniel of the West Saxons, who had provided information abou thtat province and the Isle of Wight." Not sure what you want to do with it, but it was bugging the back of my mind... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, yeah and that wording works. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Why is it presumed that Hlothhere was forced to accept AEthelred's overlordship? Did he accept it and it is just presumed that it was forced? Or is it presumed that he accepted the overlordship? If the latter, why is it only presumed?

This is from Zaluckyj, who says "Certainly, after the defeat of their army, the Kentish kings Hlothere and Eadric were only allowed to stay on as rulers under Mercian overlordship". She cites Dutton, which I don't have. I read her "Certainly" as "Presumably, and in fact almost certainly" -- I don't think there's anything in the primary sources to say this but she and/or Dutton are right to say it's pretty sure to have happened that way, given how these things worked. I felt I needed to signal to the reader that this was a deduction, not a recorded fact, so I used "presumably". How do you think this should be read? Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not take the easy way out... "Regardless of the reason for the invasion, the historian Zaluckyj believes that Hlothhere was forced to accept Æthelred's overlordship after this." That's one great thing about writing an encyclopedia as opposed to research papers, we can do that sort of cop-out. (If you tried that in a research paper you'd be laughed out of all the good historian parties!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the trouble with that is that I really don't like using Zaluckyj as an authority -- the impression I get from the book is that she is more of a synthesist than an original researcher with a reputation, and I don't think it would be good to name her as a source that way. Her book is extremely thorough, and I've found it often contains details I can't find elsewhere, so it's been useful to have, but I prefer to only use her when she is citing something else identifiable. Dutton, in this case. Can I get away with just changing "Presumably" to "It is likely that"? Mike Christie (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Dutton? I'll go dig and see if I can find something that will cover this. The problem being... our libraries overlap a lot! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Dutton, Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Yes, I'd noticed that! Thanks for looking; I hope you find something. I think some rephrasing will probably work if you don't, though. Mike Christie (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with "Regardless of the reason, Hlothhere was likely then forced to accept Æthelred's overlordship." Likely just doesn't make it sound so ORish, at least to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK -- done. Mike Christie (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Note that Wilfrid was able to return to Nothumbria in 704, I wonder if AEthelred had anything to do with that?

I don't have anything that speaks to this, but I don't think it's a safe assumption -- Aldfrith of Northumbria died on 704 or 705, so it could also be connected to that. Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Penda converted to Christianity when? Was AEthelred raised a Christian from birth? OR did he convert past childhood? There is little mention of how recent conversion was in Mercia, and of any conflicts with pagans.

Penda died a pagan, but he didn't object to Christian missionaries, and two of his sons were converted -- Peada and Wulfhere. This was in the early 650s. Æthelred's date of birth is unknown, and it could well be that he was raised a Christian; it may also be that he was converted as an adolescent. Without any sources I simply left it that he ruled as a Christian king -- do you think this would be useful background? I'm not sure what I could say -- I could talk about Penda and Peada, but the background material is already quite long relative to the overall article and I'm reluctant to extend it without a good reason. Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. you know. You say "He was known as a pious and religious king." up in the lead, but don't really go into that in the main text. You mention the fact that he retired to Bardney, but there really isn't much in the article to back up the claim in the lead. Some at the bottom, but it's not really tied together in a manner to say "Pious and religious", or at least not to me. Certainly attacking a bishopric so harshly that the bishop flees, the relics of Oswald are said to have been moved on his wife's influence, and you don't specifically say that any charters went to religious houses. I'm thinking this needs a bit more, maybe mention any grants to religious houses, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Done, with a nice quote from William of Malmesbury I found in Zaluckyj. Mike Christie (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • In the further data (to incorporate or not incorporate as you desire) department:
    • From Brooks The Early History of the Church of Canterbury p. 77 (discussing events after the death of Theodore of Tarsus in 690) "For it is interesting to find that Wilfrid's friend and protector, King AEthelred of Mercia, was exercising an overlordship over Kent at about the time that Theodore died. Thus in 689 he confirmed a grant of land made by the Kentish ruler Oswine, and on 8 January 691 he confirmed a charter of King Swaefheard. The later charter is particularly intersting since it shows that in January 6981 AEthelred had invaded Kent, for the confirmation was made dum ille infirmaverat terram nostram. We know nothing of the reasons for AEthelred's invasion nor of its results, but as Wilfrid's position in Nothumbria was again becoming untenable in 691, it is possible that one of the things that AEthelred hoped to achieve was the translation of his friend and protege to the vacant metropolitan see. But if this was indeed AEthelred's aim, he was thwarted." (others have speculated that wilfrid wished to be translated to Canterbury at about this time....)

For everything except the Brooks I think we're OK as it stands. The charters Blair mentions don't seem worth making special mention of; Æthelred is already described as a religious king. The article already says he was made abbot of Bardney so I think we're OK there. From Yorke: I think the Pictish connection isn't definite enough to be mentioned for Æthelred, though it does for Æthelbald. Æthelred's (and Osthryth's) sainthood is already mentioned, so that's covered. Brooks: I think the article covers the charters, but I could add Brooks' suggestion that Æthelred wanted to see Wilfrid installed at Canterbury. It seems a little far-fetched, though -- Wilfrid was a Northumbrian, after all. And I already have three possible explanations for that invasion listed! How much evidence is there of Wilfrid and Æthelred being close friends at that early date? I can add this if you think it's justified, but I'm on the fence at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rembember Brooks is talking about around 691, not 676. Wilfrid had already gone into exile twice at this point, and the one big thing about Wilfrid isn't that he's Northumbrian, it's that he's very cosmopolitan. He's all over the place, Frisia, Gaul, Sussex, etc. He was in exile for about five years in Sussex, before returning to York, and then getting expelled again, which is when he headed towards AEthelred. It's entirely possible that he was good friends with AEthelred before this. Wilfrid definitely had a knack for living in style and consorted with kings easily. I know it's plausible that Wilfrid wanted to become ABC. (It would have suited his inflated notions of his own importance) His article is still very much a mess, because try as I might, I can't LIKE Wilfrid. So I keep putting off working on it and getting the needed sources. (grins). What a horrible reason to avoid an article, but there you are. Brooks definitely thought it was possible, and he's certainly an expert on this sort of thing. Remember this is not the 676 invasion, but AEthelred exercising overlordship in Kent in around 691. So it's not ANOTHER reason for the invasion and destruction of Kent. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh. Wasn't reading it properly. Yes, this is worth adding; I put in a sentence. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to run and pick up the child, I'll get back to the other replies when I get back. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• • All in all, the lede feels lacking somehow, more like a section of facts tacked together (and I know my leads are often like this) with no real compelling "hook" to make the reader keep reading.

I have this problem a lot; I think it's in the nature of leads. I'll have a think about ways to smarten this up a bit, but I've left this point to last and haven't come up with anything yet. If you have any good ideas, please let me know ... Mike Christie (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I had a go at this; not sure whether that's enough. Let me know if it's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You knew I'd be long-winded. Hope this helps! I'm of course, happy to support when some of the clarifications are made, etc. Feel free to argue with me about some of the more "opinionish" of these concerns. I reserve the right to find other things too.... Ealdgyth | Talk 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. Certainly meets all the criteria. Two things: be nice if the map labeled where Rochester was, and in what community in Mercia did Æthelred live? --maclean 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not put Rochester on that map -- it's a general map used in multiple articles and I don't think it would add a lot of value. I've created specific maps for some articles, but I'm not sure there are enough locations mentioned in the article to help. How about if I give a specific location for Rochester when it's first mentioned? E.g. "destroying Rochester (in northwestern Kent), the seat of the bishops of West Kent"? For your second point, nothing is known for certain. There are towns known to have significant royal connections, such as Derby, Tamworth, and Repton, but nothing specifically to connect them to a residence for Æthelred. It's likely he moved around and stayed at different places, judging from what is known of other kings, but there's nothing in the secondary sources that mentions this with respect to Æthelred. Mike Christie (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support but some comments I think the section on Osthryth's murder should be expanded. Who might have killed her and why is covered too fleetingly. Bede says she was killed by members of her own household, so this should be mentioned, and the other potential reasons for her murder, such as the very obvious deterioration in relations between Northumbria and Mercia (including a war, or at least a battle, and support for Northumbrian political exiles, or at least an exile), should be spelled out. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the info about Mercian nobles killing her, cited to Bede; you're right -- that should have been in there. I can't find any secondary sources to support your (reasonable) comments about the possible causes, though; do you have something I can cite? I looked at Kirby, Yorke and Stenton without seeing anything along those lines. Mike Christie (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.