Talk:Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies

please remove the links that redirect the user back to this page. it is quite annoying.

Merger

I have merged much text from Ancestry of the kings of Wessex into this page. Please see Talk:Ancestry of the kings of Wessex#Different merger for my rationale. Agricolae (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading verses Original Text

The original text of the genealogies has been removed as misleading. Why is this? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The table was unnecessary detail and does not belong in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The true text is misleading and unnecessary! This does not begin resolving or explaining the question of disputed factual accuracy on this page, it doesn't even start... Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you are being less than honest again. This article is about a body of genealogical material that includes the Anglian collection, Bede, Nennius, AEthelweard, the Chronicle and an Essex pedigree of unknown derivation. To insert text that there is an 'original source' for this body of material, some of which predates, some of which is completely independent of, and some of which shares a common source with but is not derived from your favorite source, is what is misleading. The list of names is not misleading - it is simply an unnecessary duplication, as the names in the different manuscripts are already summarized in the existing text and thus a second accounting of the same information is redundant. Agricolae (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Paul, the source you have cited for the names does not contain that information, and those bs you are putting in the middle of the names aren't bs, they are thorns. Agricolae (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You have quoted manuscripts and then made up your own names, claiming them as the source. These are unreliable, factually innacurrate, completely false, fabricated hoodoo. Please put the disputed tag back until resolved. I am also putting an NPOV on it as you appear to be only one source, along with a good chunk of imagination. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, please quote a manuscript name from the current version of the article that you believe to be made up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The name forms used are those found in the cited sources, which as per Wikipedia policy is a scholarly secondary sources in each case. It does draw heavily (although not exclusively) from one source, but it is a source that represents the modern scholarly consensus. To be a violation of NPOV, there would need to be an alternative POV that should be given due weight, but is not. Agricolae (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag. The discussion above does not name any specific instance of an NPOV violation in this article. To put the tag back, a specific example of a problematic passage should be provided. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Geat is not mentioned in Anglian Collection V Lindsey. The list ends with Godulf Geoting and no Geat is mentioned. Frank Stenton also says Five names of god in the list on page 127 of the online version of the book. An alternative, offline version has been suggested to say Six names on page 137, but in this case, I suggest we should go for the readable, and hence more reliable, online version. Stenton, F. M. (Frank Merry) (1970). Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England: Being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton : Edited by Doris Mary Stenton. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–. ISBN 978-0-19-822314-6. Retrieved 1 December 2012. If there is a typo, we should go with the latest version, which is mine, presumably corrected and published in 1970, as a pose to the 1969 version that you are using. 1969 was a big year. Lots of changes. 6 kings presumably became 5 as the church lost it's grip on the information and the sources got less biased analysis.

This reading of 5 can be clearly demonstrated as an error to be attributed to the offline content through comparison of the actual data as provided by the full names can be found in the authentic versions in Vespasian B VI, Tiberius A. VI and B. I, Parker version, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 183 and Anglo-Saxon chronicle.Source Chambers, R. W., Beowulf, p. 200, Cambridge University Press, 1959

Vespasian B VI (Mercia), Tiberius A. VI and B. I, Parker version	Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 183	Chronicle
Godulf Geoting	Godwulf Geating	Godulf Geating
Finn Goduulfing		Finn Godulfing
Friodolf Finning	Freobowulf Godwulfing	Fribulf Finning
Frealaf Friodulfing	Frealaf Friobowulsing (sic)	Freobelaf Freobulfing
Woden Frealafing	Woden Frealafing	Woden Freobalafing

Richard North also exposes that the original text with brackets, he reads Geot(ing) at position number 5, as Godulf(ing)'s father in his list on page 134 of this book Richard North (11 December 1997). Heathen Gods in Old English Literature. Cambridge University Press. pp. 134–. ISBN 978-0-521-55183-0. Retrieved 1 December 2012.

North says "When the West Saxons transcribed Geot as WS Geat, this figure took up a standard position in their royal genealogy". He is arguing here that the Anglo-Saxons adapted the Geot mentioned in Vespasian Lindsey into Geat as part of "politically motivated attempts to connect the Anglo-Saxon kings with the Goths and Lombards." He even notes that the Historia Brittonum presents Geta as "the son of god (fuit, ut aiunt, filius dei), although it is also made clear that Geta was not thereby God of gods, 'but one of their idols which they themselves used to worship' (sed unis est ab idolis eorum, quod ipsi colebant). Asser states Geata whom the pagans quite recently worshipped as a god", making this alternate name also worthy of mention as the historical source name.

Now I know I've lost some other sources along with recent deletion discussions, but here's a new one on the topic, highlighting the invention of Geat as part of biased propoganda on the part of the Anglo-Saxon kings trying to imitate the gothic roots being claimed by the Carolingian dynasty.

Malcolm Godden; Michael Lapidge (31 May 1991). The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature. Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–. ISBN 978-0-521-37794-2. Retrieved 1 December 2012.

This scholarly, recent, comprehensive, Cambridge University source also notes the five ancestors added to the genealogies around 892 in the ASC; Scyld, Scef, Beaw, Heremond and Hwala. He gives the suggestion of Scyld being related to Danish Scydlings, which is equally as valid a statement to be covered as the selective concentration on Geat, and this one particular spelling of his name.

As responsible historical encyclopedia editors, we should be analysing sources with exceptional scrutiny to pick up on POV and factually wayward arguments and I suggest work is done on this page to accommodate a comprehensive view of the data. A good encyclopedia should give full coverage, accurate reflection of historical sources as per WP:COMMONNAME (with alternates if notable), and awareness of bias and notable arguments about it. As far as I can see, we are currently simply reflecting and promulgating the heavily Christian-biased POV and specific fantasy of some dark-age King. Until this is resolved, I would re-request the NPOV and disputed tags replaced on this article for the reasons mentioned. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, actually we shouldn't, because as responsible editors, we should recognize that we do not have the expertise to do this. It should be left to those who are experts, and we should synthesize their opinions. Of course, even this is problematic when an editor is unable to understand the writings of these scholars. Agricolae (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert Gordon Latham

I would like to argue for the inclusion in this article of the following piece of text about Robert Gordon Latham's discussion about the philology of the patronymic usage of the -ing ending of the original names of these ancestors. It was involved in the recent Godulf Geoting deleted article, but did not form part of it when it was deleted and was not discussed. This information is of highly notable importance for everyone living in Britain in a city or town with a name that has "ing" as a composite part, from Birmingham to Nottingham, Huntingdon to Uffington and onwards even to Buckingham Palace. It also adds another source accurately recording Godwulf as the last fully named ancestor in these lines according to original sources:

Goeting

Robert Gordon Latham, in a study of philology notes that the use of the "-ing" ending of the Anglo-Saxon patronymic is similar to the Ancient Greek "ίδης". Speaking of the use of this type of surname, he says "In the Bible-translation the son of Elisha is called Elising. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle occur such genealogies as the following: —

Ida wæs Sopping, Eoppa Esing, Esa Inging, Inga Angenviting, Angenvit Alocing, Aloe Beonocing, Beonoc Branding, Brand Baldaging, Baldag Vodening, Voden Friowulfing, Friowulf Finning, Finn Godwulfing, Godwulf Geating = Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of Aloe, Aloe of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Bseldseg, Baeldaeg of Woden, Woden of Fridowulf, Fridowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat."

As was discussed in the first article into which it was placed, this summary of Latham adds nothing of value. Oh, and Latham explicitly gives Geat as one of the names, the earliest, appearing in this text. To claim otherwise and even want to use this source that indicates the opposite of what is it supposed to prove only serves to reinforce the problem from the start.Agricolae (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

He notes it as the patronymic of Godulf, not explicitly as a name. He doesn't give Geata's patronymic name as he does Godulf, indicating Godulf is the end of the list. How can the origins of the name of so many notable place names not be of value? How is that judged? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae; there's no reason to add this material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I think it is important for my fellow countrymen, even if you don't think so. Perhaps it is better placed elsewhere if you don't want it here though. How about on the Legendary progenitor page that I am about to expand? I think that's the perfect place to go do some work with all this information and get this section improved correctly. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, there's no particular reason to add the material to legendary progenitor, either. Please stop trying to shoehorn this stuff into whatever article strikes your fancy; it's no fun having to play whack-a-mole. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There have been other names for this game you speak of. Surely every mole just needs to find the right hole, sorry if mine might have been invading other people's recently. That page is surely the appropriate place for comprehensive discussions about legendary progenitors and legendary genealogies of all peoples. Sorry if you don't like it, but I will try to keep the game interesting and sensible for you, and in the right hole! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Legendary founder

I suggest the replacement of this text with legendary progenitor because founder is innaccurate terminology. Founder is more applicable to an organization or structure. It is also more singular in form than alternatives. In ancestry, the suggestion of having lots of founders of a dynasty is not expressed well here. In English, we have a wider vocabulary with better words such as ancestor or progenitor of a royal family. There can however be many legendary progenitors, which has plurality implied and is a viable alternate word for Ancestor, as is founder in most modern Thesauruses that you could look into.

As for terminology used in sources, we shouldn't be violating copyright and copying every word per se where better alternatives are available. D.G. Scragg uses this word to note Scef as a progenitor of Aethelwulf in Aethelweard's Chronicon, if you want to check. Scef is referenced in the article.

D. G. Scragg (2003). Textual and Material Culture in Anglo-Saxon England: Thomas Northcote Toller and the Toller Memorial Lectures. DS Brewer. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-0-85991-773-5. Retrieved 2 December 2012.

Using good vocabulary gives Wikipedia greater breadth and depth, and extends links to other pages otherwise orphaned, all core values not to be disregarded. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the change you're proposing allows you to link to an article where you've included material that's been rejected here. Whack-a-mole seems like the right label, all right.

Oh, and I see no reason to change from "founder" to "progenitor". Your concern about copyright is specious, your appeal to "good vocabulary" silly—"legendary founder" is perfectly good vocabulary, and perhaps even better when dealing with the sort of pedigree that is interested in a line of direct male descent. Certainly many scholars have no hesitation referring to the founders of dynasties, so neither should we—especially when the editor proposing the change seems to have hidden motives behind the shift in terminology. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article it doesn't read "legendary founder" it reads "legendary founders", which is silly, and bad english. Please read the article on plural for further detais. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is good English, you're not reading it properly. The sentence begins "These trace each royal family from legendary founders..." Multiple families, each with a legendary founder, means that there are legendary founders. It's easy to rephrase to "These trace each royal family from a legendary founder..."

Telling me to "read the article on plural for further detais" is unnecessarily snarky, as well as bad spelling. I understand what a plural is, perhaps better than you. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It is more complex than it is being portrayed - some of the families do indeed have more than one legendary founder (sources conflict). That being said, legendary progenitor is not an appropriate substitute. That article is explicit in saying it refers to the legendary ancestor of an ethnic group or tribe, not of a family, so it doesn't apply here. Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really, I think it's simple and I am not sure why you don't want to expand Wikipedia correctly. Here is a reference that shows both are used, but in this form obeys the laws of plurality. In various Greek myths, Melampus is the "legendary founder and progenitor of a great and long-continued family of prophets".George Grote, Esq. (1854). History of Greece; I. Legendary Greece, II. Grecian History to the Reign of Peisistratus At Athens. National Academies. pp. 122–. NAP:34576. Retrieved 2 December 2012. You can't say "These trace each royal family from legendary founders, and on to Woden", because this implies multiple founders of the royal family and There can be only one; Woden, who is mentioned in the sentence and is recorded as such in the majority of sources. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Woden wasn't a founder of anything. Agricolae (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If Paul continues to make personal attacks I think the next stop is ANI, and I've told him that. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no personal attack, I am just wondering why we can't wikilink appropriate alternate words and requesting further explanation of an apparent breach of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking guidelines, where it says "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links bind the project together into an interconnected whole. Interwiki links bind the project to sister projects such as Wikisource, Wiktionary, and Wikipedia in other languages; and external links bind Wikipedia to the external World Wide Web." That's all. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, people may have little patience with you and call 'personal attack' where none was intended, but there is a reason for this. The reason is that you test people's nerves by being completely unreasonable and wasting everybody's time for no other reason than your own lack of knowledge and/or common sense.

In the article it doesn't read "legendary founder" it reads "legendary founders", which is silly, and bad english. Please read the article on plural for further detais.

If the author of such a comment is any older than 14 years of age, it is completely unacceptable and childish behavior. It they are 14 or younger, they should invest their time in trying to learn the basics from the people with tertiary education instead of annoying them. Enough said. --dab (𒁳) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, but editing out the wikilink to Legendary progenitor in the first place is about the 14 year old mindset that I have to argue with sometimes. Won't let it happen again though. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Euhemerism section

Can people please try and resist the temptation to heap up material related to Woden? I know it is cool that the genealogies construct descent from Woden, and even an ancestry for Woden, but this is kind of a red herring. We have a full Woden article, and there you can go into as much detail as you like, but try to stick to a summary here.

Yes, this may continue an actual pagan tradition of deriving their leading families or kings from gods, you may mention this, but you should explore the topic at Germanic king (this may involve discussion of even the etymology of the word king itself). Conversely, the flipside of this is the swift "demotion" of Woden to a human ancestor after Christianization. There is a deep topic of the nature of "gods" in paganism here, but this is not the page to go into it. This page is supposed to be about the genealogies, to which the legendary bits are more or less just a preface. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree. Mostly because I suggest Wihtlaeg was Ataulf and we should concentrate on him. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, unless you have a reliable source that says Wihtlaeg may have been the same person as Ataulf, this is the sort of original research that the RfC/U was commenting on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have an "amateur" history book by a notable author; Bo Gabriel Montgomery, Royal Houses an Ancient Migrations which suggests it, I know this can't be used in articles, but it isn't original research and I think a fair discussion point in context of Woden-concentricity.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not entirely following DBachmann here, but if it is being suggested that the part on the ancestry of Woden go elsewhere, I couldn't disagree more. As indicated, this is about the pedigrees and not Woden, but it is about the construction of the entire pedigree and not just the part back to Woden. It is not as if there was an existing pedigree for Woden that was just linked into by the Anglo-Saxon pedigree makers. They invented links to Woden and then (it would seem) went ahead and invented a pedigree for him too, as part of the same process of progressive extension of the royal pedigrees. A division before and after Woden is nothing more than a convenient divide in a discussion of the overall development of the full genealogical tradition, and not somehow removed from it (and best to be removed from it). I also think a discussion of the manuscripts that provide this material is as important as discussing the motivations (the Euhemerism section should complement the Documentary tradition section, not replace it). I am also going to modify the statement that it all derives from Bede. While Bede is our earliest source, we know there were people keeping such records in his time (because he refers to them) so it is far from clear that the later pedigree makers designed their framework entirely from his writings. Agricolae (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and oppose. We need to handle the Old English Woden-related genealogy stuff here. We do not even need a separate article for Woden from Odin. I am currently preparing a rewrite to replace the big mess we currently have on our hands and the last thing we need is more arbitrary, pointless splintering into yet more poor articles. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are planning on making major changes, perhaps a discussion first would be good, as it is unclear that everyone with an interest in this article has the same concept of what it should be. Agricolae (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean that I am preparing a rewrite for this article, but rather a long coming rewrite of the Odin article and its satellites. You can see it in progress here. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification - I wasn't sure which you were talking about, and as I am intending some rewriting here I didn't want us to be setting out in different directions. Agricolae (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dismissed by scholars

This was fact tagged last year and removed today. It's obviously the case and is discussed in the article. I reinserted it. Another source is The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England

By Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes, Donald Scrag[1]. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

A thesis/dissertation from 1939 isn't exactly going to trump a 1953 journal article. But the 1953 article isn't a really strong source either. This isn't my field - what's the current scholarship looking like? Either way - the proper way to approach this is ... someone was bold, they were reverted, now we discuss with sources. And hopefully we can find recent scholarship on the disputed text. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)