Jump to content

Talk:Eadbald of Kent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleEadbald of Kent is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 2, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted

New family tree

[edit]

I'm not convinced the new tree is an improvement, though I understand the old one was a little small and hard to read. I guess I'll wait and see if anyone else has a preference.

If we're going to keep the new one, there are a couple of errors on it that do need fixing, and a couple of stylistic changes I'd suggest.

  • "Anna King of East Anglia" -- I would suggest a comma after "Anna"; I think that's the usual way to do it.
  • "Eomenred" should be "Eormenred"
  • "Seaxbufh" should be "Seaxburh"
  • "Hlother" should be "Hlothhere"
  • "Eormenhil" should be "Eormenhild"

Personally I would also suggest making the background white, instead of that checkered grey and white. I also think it would be better to make the text upper and lower case, instead of all upper case. Just my two cents. Mike Christie (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "checkered". It's transparent, and thus show the background image (which is indeed checkered, a tradition borrowed from graphic editing program). I asked for a SVG version because tehse resize more easily (and gifs are notorious for quirky resizes). I'll ask Sagredo (talk · contribs) to make the corrections. Circeus (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eadbald_of_Kent&action=submit Editing Talk:Eadbald of Kent - Preview - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for explaining the apparent checkered effect. I'd wondered about that; I saw it in another image and was baffled when I realized it didn't show up in the article display. Good point on the resizes -- I have seen that problem and I agree it's worth fixing. One other question: do you think it adds value to have the lines blue and the text black? I find it a bit distracting, but that may just be because I made the old image so I have preset expectations. Mike Christie (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got the spelling changes. Actually I expected some sooner. White background is easy. All caps is a little easier to read in a small image/thumbnail. Look at "of" Not a big deal to change, basically typing, but typing isn't my thing. You'd want to proof read it carefully again. Or give me a list so I can cut and paste. Blue vs black, another easy change, it just looked kind of boring to me in all black. (Family Colors, perhaps?)

What about:


ANNA,
KING OF
EAST ANGLIA

(different line break placement?) Let me know. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My graphics ability is pretty much zero, and I have no visual sense, so I think we should go with whatever you think looks best. Thanks for doing this, by the way. And I really like your user name; I used that handle myself on LambdaMOO, once, a long time ago, and found myself talking to a chair of a university philosophy department as a result. Mike Christie (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article and realized that it should match the other diagram, and so changed it to all black. Some do use color. Sagredo⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄ 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Æthelberht was a great guy and all...

[edit]

...but should he really take up that much of the second sentence in the lead paragraph? This article is supposed to be about Eadbald, not his father. I'm deferring to those who have worked on it longer, but it seems a bit much to me. Thoughts? Kafziel Complaint Department 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to improve the article, and leads are hard to get right, so I'd love to hear suggestions. The reason Æthelberht is mentioned so early is that Eadbald's significance is largely in relation to his father: Æthelberht's conversion, and his dominant position, are the background against which Eadbald's reign has to be seen. I don't think a single sentence is too much in the lead for that scene-setting. Can you think of a way to improve that paragraph? Mike Christie (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this:

Eadbald (Old English: Ēadbald) was King of Kent from 616 until his death in 640. He succeeded his father Æthelberht, who had made Kent the dominant force in England during his reign. Although Æthelberht had been the first Anglo-Saxon king to convert to Christianity, Eadbald retained his indigenous Anglo-Saxon paganism; he did not convert to Christianity for at least a year, and possibly as much as eight years, after taking the throne. He was ultimately converted by either Laurentius or Justus, and separated from his first wife, who had been his stepmother, at the insistence of the church. Eadbald's second wife was Ymme, who may have been a Frankish princess. She bore him two sons and a daughter.

Eadbald was not as influential as his father, but Kent was powerful enough to be omitted from the list of kingdoms dominated by Edwin of Northumbria. Edwin's marriage to Eadbald's sister, Æthelburg, established a good relationship between Kent and Northumbria which appears to have continued into Oswald's reign. When Æthelburg fled to Kent on Edwin's death in about 633, she sent her children to Francia for safety, fearing the intrigues of both Eadbald and Oswald. The Kentish royal line made several strong diplomatic marriages over the succeeding years, including the marriage of Eanflæd, Eadbald's niece, to Oswiu, and of Eorcenberht to Seaxburh, daughter of King Anna of East Anglia.

Upon his death, Eadbald was succeeded by Eorcenberht, the younger of his two sons.

It covers Æthelberht's conversion to Christianity while keeping the focus on Eadbald. A bit less about how it affected the church as well, since there's plenty of time to get to that in the main body. The question of whether Eormenred ruled as a junior king can wait until later, too. That way the end of Eadbald is the end of the lead. Several changes, but nothing too drastic. Just enough to keep the focus on the subject of the article. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First to convert?

[edit]

I believe it was his father Æthelberht the first one as it states in its wiki page. If he wasn't the one of the two pages is wrong and should be corrected. Please discuss. 190.195.112.29 (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but the lead does say that. It says Æthelberht "made Kent the dominant force in England during his reign and became the first Anglo-Saxon king to convert to Christianity". I think you're reading the second half of that sentence as if it referred to Eadbald. Can you think of a better way to phrase it? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

This edit made three sets of changes. Do we really need to mention Charibert in the lead? It's not something the sources emphasize particularly so I think it would be OK to relegate it to the body. If we keep it I suggest we tweak it a bit: there's now no mention of Charibert in the body, and there should be if we mention him in the lead. Adding that back to the body would also allow us to move the citation back down into the body, which is cleaner-looking for the reader.

The second part of the edit adds a mention of the church's consternation at Eadbald marrying his stepmother; this is already in the article, in the section on his accession. Right now it just says the consanguinity meant it was forbidden by the church; if we need to mention the church's reaction we can do that in the second section though I don't recall offhand what Bede says about the church's response. I don't see a need to raise the question of the church at the first mention of his re-marriage if it's covered later.

I'm also concerned about the part of the edit that states that it was Laurence who converted Eadbald. That's certainly what Bede says but Kirby makes a case that it was Justus, and the article gives the case for both. I think we should be less definite.

Any objections to me doing a revision based on these comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the editor who made the changes, but according to me all your proposals seem reasonable; I agree in particular with keeping the mention of Charibert in the body and avoid being too definite regarding Eadbald's conversion, unless modern sources are unanimous on the issue.Aldux (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who made the changes, I am happy for you to revise it. I was trying to correct wording I was unhappy with in the light of ODNB, but I obviously then went on to make unsatisfactory changes. Apologies. By the way, is there any source for the suggestion that Aduluald may have been Eadbald's brother? The source is given as Yorke, but so far as I can see she suggests that there may have been two sub-kings in succession, Aduluald and Eormenred, without giving any opinion on whether they were related to Eadbald. Dudley Miles 18:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a family tree on p.36 that shows Aduluald/Aethelwald listed with a dotted line as a son of Aethelberht. I think that's enough, though I agree it would be easier to cite if she had discussed it in the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One further point. I added that historians think Hengist was probably mythical as I did not think he should be mentioned without that qualification, but I think it would be better to delete the reference to him altogether as irrelevant to the article. Dudley Miles 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to hear another opinion on this -- I partly agree, but Bede is worth citing and Yorke starts by mentioning the genealogical information he gives, and mentions Hengist and Horsa. Even if it's only to dismiss it I think it should be mentioned. I was hoping "legendary" was enough to cast doubt on their historicity; I didn't want to make it stronger than that because some historians do think they may have existed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the word 'legendary' in this context. It can just mean remarkable, as in 'descended from the legendary Alfred the Great'. Dudley Miles 08:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Kirby on Eorcenberht

[edit]

A comment was just added about this; here's what Kirby says (this is visible in Google Books): "It is possible that Eorcenberht shared royal power with his brother, Eormenred, and the claim in the Mildrith legend that Eadbald left the kingdom wholly to Eorcenberht, his younger son, thereby effectively disinheriting Eormenred, may have been part of a later attempt to discredit royal claimants from this branch of the family." (top of p. 37). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent revert

[edit]

@De la Marck: I recently reverted to an old version of a paragraph about Eadbald's repudiation of Christianity, and you've restored essentially the same text. The main changes are:

  • the use of "inspired" instead of "persuaded" to describe Eadbald's conversion
  • the long quote from Bede
  • the mention of the founding of the church
  • mentioning that his fits appear to have stopped

The source given is Kirby, pp 37-42; this is the section of that chapter subtitled "The pagan reaction under Eadbald". I think Kirby's language doesn't support "inspired"; in fact he makes it clear that he regards Bede's account as pious but unlikely to reflect the political realities. To me that's a good reason not to use the quote, and to revert to "persuaded". The mention of the church is OK, but we'd need a source for it -- once we're agreed on the rest of this paragraph I can find a source for that if you don't. I don't think we can mention his fits having disappeared without a secondary source making the same point. I'd like to revert these changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I'm happy with the persuaded and the rest of what you say, removing the quote; however, I do think the fact that the fits are thought to have stopt can be kept; we mention them to begin with, and all comes just from Bede in the end, regardless of secondary sources. If it is made clear that the info is from him, can't it be kept? I'll amend the page just for now...Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now do what you like; I'll step out Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to mention the fits ending, because that gives credence to the idea that the fits had anything to do with his conversion. Phrased as a comment on Bede's preference for a pious explanation it would be OK, but that would require a secondary source, since we'd be making an editorial comment about Bede. So I think it needs to be removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise I can't quickly find a secondary source for Eadbald founding St. Mary's; I see it in Rollason's Mildrith Legend, but he's only reciting what the primary source says, not commenting on it. I'll remove this tomorrow if I can't find a source, but I would think it can be re-added soon as I am confident a source exists. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eadbald_of_Kent&oldid=1252331356"