Talk:Edmund I

Military Threats Subheading

The end of this section contains an out of place sentence on the revival of monasteries. That said, the entire paragraph is just as much about his alliances and conquering as it is the threats posed to him or his kingdom. Request moving of last sentance or retitling the subheading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.18.119 (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

Edmund I of England → Edmund the Deed-Doer — Consistency. No other pre-Conquest kings of England are titled with their numeral. All use their epithet or patronymic. I know this move is unobstructed, but I want to make sure there is concensus first. Srnec 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Except Ethelred I -Streona

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. Srnec 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is true that pre-Conquest kings of England are not usually known by regnal numbers, but the epithet Deed-doer is really very uncommon and rather archaic. The subject is usually only known as Edmund (as in Edmund, k. of England; Edmund, k. of Wessex) with the other Edmund being known as Edmund Ironside. Plausible numeral-free alternatives include Edmund of England, which redirects here, or Edmund of Wessex, which doesn't presently exist. Edmund actually ruled Athelstan's new-fangled regnum anglorum for only a short part of his reign. For much of the time he wasn't much more than king of (Greater) Wessex, so either is reasonable. I'd suggest Edmund of England and an Edmund of England (disambiguation) page (as there are more than just the two of them to disambiguate). Apologies for the overlong comment. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments here.

AKA "Edmund the Magnificent"- Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand (I think from Stenton) that Olaf and Edmund made an agreement, after fighting one another, that whoever survived would succeed to the kingdom but Olaf died first.

Also I believe the same source has it that Edmund secured friendship with the KIng Malcolm in Strathclyde by poking his sons' eyes out with white hot pokers. Obviously diplomacy in those days was more direct than schmoozing over the Ferroro-Rochers...

Edmund also apparently had a tendency for "seducing" nuns. - Streona

Polychronicon

There doesn't seem much point in quoting Higden's paraphrase of William of Malmesbury when Giles' translation of the Gesta Regum Anglorum is available here [archive.org]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2

I suggest moving to Edmund the Elder, as this seems to be his most common cognomen. We seem to be moving away from using regnal numbers for pre-Conquest kings on Wikipedia, see the talk page for Harold Godwinson. PatGallacher (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it the most common cognomen over Edmund the Deed Doer or Edmund the Magnificent? Presumably he was not called the Elder during his life nor until 1012 or so--Streona (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"the Elder" has been used on occasion, but it's still rare and in view of his father's identical nickname, potentially confusing. I guess that "the Magnificent" was more in vogue with 19th-century historians, but the problem with all these nicknames is not necessarily that they are late (as so often) or biased, but that they are only sporadically used to identify him these days. Per Angus's comments above (2006, no less), I'd suggest "Edmund of England" (or perhaps "Edmund of Wessex"), though I'm not extremely bothered by the numeral. Cavila (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We need a way of disambiguating him from Edmund Ironside. Edmund of England doesn't do that, Edmund of Wessex is clearly incorrect. Edmund I of England is late as well. PatGallacher (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states for 938 "and his brother eke, Edmund atheling, elder of ancient race" so the term has some contemporary backing. PatGallacher (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right to ask whether there's a suitable alternative to the ordinal to distinguish the two Edmunds. Unlike Harold Godwinson, however, and in fact most other 9/10/11th-century kings with shared names, Edmund (I) is not widely known by any cognomen in secondary sources these days. Perhaps a modern biography will appear one day (hopefully so!) and breathe new life into one of these, but until such time, it would be unwise to use any of them to replace "I". In modern usage, it's either Edmund I or simply Edmund (perhaps Edmund Ironside's nickname and brief reign make disambiguation slightly less necessary?). The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for instance, has "Edmund I", with an obit attached to it, while in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, his entry is to be found under "Edmund" (the others under "Edmund Ironside" and "Edmund, St, King of East Anglia"). (BTW, the Brunanburh poem has ealdorlange tir, which refers to the half-brothers Æthelstan and Edmund achieving "long-lasting/eternal fame" in battle, not "elder of ancient race".) Cavila (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Louis IV of France

I am confused about this section. It says that Hugh brushed aside Edmund's threats, yet the quotation below says that Hugh responded by restoring Louis to his kingdom. Can anyone clarify? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The article on Louis IV says Hugh the Great agreed "ultimately" to restore Louis and credits Edmund, among other things, for this. Maybe we should drop the "brush aside" bit? It's only referenced to Richer's history rather than a secondary source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Done as you suggest. The whole section is OR, and the article needs drastic revision. Some day I hope to get around to it, if no one else does. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you have Halloran's "A Murder at Pucklechurch" article. It can be downloaded here (free registration needed). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead pic

This needs a caption stating clearly that it is a 19th century illustration. (It is a coloured lithographic print)

Amandajm (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Murder ? surely not.

The good available description of the death of Edmund I does not indicate a murder took place, rather, Edmund started a fight which resulted in his death. As the poor Leofe was in fear for his life, a reasonable court could only consider that he defended himself using reasonable force, which hardly would count as committing murder. there is no indication that he came to the feast to kill Edmund, and quite clearly the fight was started by Edmund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyyours137 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)