Talk:Edward the Confessor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Eastern Orthodox Saint?
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox church considers this man a saint. Could someone cite a source which claims this?
- It doesn't, generally. The reference has been removed. InfernoXV 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rank?
What does "Rank: 21st" mean? It sounds like monarch Top Trumps. Marnanel 18:11, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
- 21st king of England since Egbert of Wessex (who wasn't a king of England, but he was the first West Saxon king to dominate England). A pretty poor system, if you ask me. Everyking 18:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Someone who knows where 'the Confessor' came from should add it to the article. -- Kizor 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- done shsilver
- That was fast. Thank you.
[edit] Tom a Beck
Where is our old friend? Surely THIS is a large missing block here...
That's because Thomas a Becket doesn't turn up in the history books till the reign of Henry II. His presence in this article would be an anachronism.
[edit] Not the first Edward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs
The Confessor was actually the third Saxon king by the name of Edward.
- Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Remember you can fix errors yourself if you like, even if you're anonymous. Everyking 19:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Why a saint?
That article doesn't fully explain why Edward is considered a saint. Would smoeone who knows please add that in?
- Why is anyone a saint?
[edit] Confessor response
It was my understanding that Edward would not sleep with his wife because she was the daughter of Godwin, and forced upon him, and that as his worldly power declined he turned to the heavanly as a retreat...and not minding what would follow after his death, apparently....
- This is an interpretation proposed by some historians. It is not historical fact. Valiant Son 20:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- If you have a reputable source for this you can put it in if you like, verifyability is not the same as truth. If you can verify this with a reference then it doesn't matter if it is an interpretation, as long as you point this out. This is an encyclopedia, not an historical text book. Alun 06:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] His Vow Of Chastity
according to rumor he had shot himself himself in the groin with a arrow (can't quite figure out how!?!?) which left himself permanantly impotent
- I think the important word here is "rumour". There is no evidence to support this view. Indeed, it isn't even that widely accepted as a rumour to be honest. There are a number of theories that surround the issue of Edward's failure to produce an heir. Valiant Son 08:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- See above comment in Confessor response about verifyability. Historical accuracy isn't important as long as you have a reputable source and keep it neutral. By this I mean that if you want to put a rumour in then it must be properly referenced, and it must be noted that this is considered a rumour, this should be referenced as well, although a good reference will probably give both points of view anyway. Neutrality just means giving both (all) POVs and verifyability just means giving a reputable (published) source. See WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Alun 06:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read the above, particularly the line, "Historical accuracy isn't important." My God, if historical accuracy is not important then why bother with anything here? Interpretations can be included, but only if they are very clearly marked as such and a proper balance is provided. People are quite right, this is not a history text book and as such should not advance once single interpretation (a history text actually should because all history is written to advance a specific intepretation - that is the very nature of the subject. However, in an encyclopaedia a degree of dispassionate objectivity is what is called for.) If any body wants to look at the theories surrounding why Edward had no issue then that is fair enough, but doing so in the article requires that the balance is present and more than one interpretation be properly referenced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
-
[edit] Naming
This name:
Edward the Confessor or Eadweard III
was replaced by this
King Edward III the Confessor
I can see no reason for this. It seems strange to me. He is either King Edward, Edward the Confessor or simply Edward III. Much as the current queen is either Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth. It seems odd to me to include both, I don't think a British person would ever include both the title and the number. So as it's a British related article I've reverted to British convention. No reason was given for the change anyway. Alun 06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)i have no idea
why don't we call him King Eddie Snr for our american readers? 62.3.70.68 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Albino
Shouldn't it be stated somewhere that he was an Albino? He is mentioned in the list of famous Ablbinos and his picture highly suggests he was one.
- What??? I'm assuming this is somebody trying to be funny. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 09:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
- Apparently not. The second source listed (Illustrated biography of Edward the Confessor) claims that he "was said by some chroniclers to be an albino". Certainly if we're going to keep this it should be mentioned in the article with a proper cite. Algebraist 18:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Danish Invasion
Every where I read it was the Vikings invasion not the Danish Invasion as you have it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.216.71.114 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
- The Danish invasion is not an unreasonable term. Where do you think the Vikings came from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valiant Son (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
-
- In case of confusion: some Vikings came from Norway, what is now Sweden, and other places. These vikings were Danes. Algebraist 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] big mistake
on this page it says edward the confessor died on 4th January but in fact he died on the 5th January 1066. from maxine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.58.19 (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- maxine is tright. he died on 5th january. > Stuart
- Yes, Stuart and Maxine have a point, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says "the vigil of Epiphany" which is 5 January. Whether there are conflicting sources I don't know. Can anyone comment? Andrew Dalby 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)