186:
would have a king of
England template of some kind, that's probably better than using a Mercia template. I don't think there's a lot of value in having multiple templates at the bottom of the article -- one is a definite help to a reader; two isn't great but can be done if it's really necessary; I don't think we should ever have more than two. (Actually I don't like having more than one but I think there are cases where it's the best choice.)
373:
count for something, though by way of comparison, we shouldn't be surprised to find Egbert and
Ecgfrith used beside one another in the same secondary source. Personally, I'd prefer "Ecgberht" because (a) I presume it's closer to the 'original form', retaining some features of pronunciation, and more importantly, (b) it matches the conventional spellings of other Anglo-Saxon names containing either Ecg- or -berht.
772:"Ecgberht of Wessex" (545). Leaving the name (and the article title) at "Egbert" should be fine and I don't think a dab like "Egbert (Ecgberht)" is necessary for the template. (Btw, PASE is a slightly different ball-game - it's a database that needs to normalise spellings in order to systematically organise names. We have dab pages to sort out those differences).
749:
Having said that, there are three very reliable sources going with "Ecgberht": PASE, the
Blackwell, and Kirby. So if everyone still thinks, after seeing the list above, that "Ecgberht" is better, I can live with that. I would suggest that in that case we drop "Egbert" completely, and we should also
21:
I suggest that OE letters be changed to modern equivalents in this template. I think "Æ" and "æ" can be preserved, since they are still in use in modern
English orthography, but "þ" has not been in use for centuries. I also suggest that the accents on the names be removed -- this may be correct OE
771:
Hi Mike. I'm not going to belabour the point, but "Ecgberht" for the king of Wessex is a little more common than you might think based on those sources. That said, the balance is indeed in favour of "Egbert", as our friend Google Books has just confirmed to me: "Egbert of Wessex" (672 hits) against
185:
Post-850 I have little opinion and less knowledge so I'll let y'all sort it out. One thing I'd say is that a good way to figure out who should be in the template is to invert it and figure out which templates would be on the articles involved. For example, if a later ruler such as Edgar or Canute
848:
I'm not
English, and I'm not familiar with this area of English history or language, but my feeling as a reader is that if it's close to a draw - and from the discussion this seems to be pretty close - the version that is likely to be more familiar to the casual reader should be used, in this case
733:
I think it's worth noting that in some cases Egbert of Wessex is spelled "Egbert", but other
Egberts are spelled "Ecgberht". (Those cases are included under "Egbert" above; I pointed a couple of them out in the list.) Perhaps the fact that this Egbert is better known than any of the others means
121:
I changed "earldormen" to "ealdormen" just to get the spelling right, but I don't think it's the right change in the first place -- I would be surprised if the Lady of the
Mercians was ever called an ealdorman. I don't know if deputy is correct either, but if we're going to include the rules from
372:
Tough one. This actually appears to be one of those grey areas where common usage in modern RS is divided. For what it's worth, "Ecgberht" is the preferred form for all persons of this name in ODNB, but with "Egbert" between square brackets. In a situation like this, the consistency argument may
198:
Apologies for my misspelling. One of the recent books (I think by Walker) was able to show that Mercia retained an identity distinct from Wessex for a generation or so after
Aethelfaed's death. Her daughter Aelfwynn was in practice prevented from ruling. I would suggest that successors should
75:
No hurry. I've been doing it as I edit each article. Sometimes consistency is difficult; I haven't checked yet, but I rather suspect "Egbert" is the common form for the king of Wessex, but "Ecgberht" seems to be used for the king of Kent. I've been using a count of spellings in the scholarly
283:
At the moment I'm on a ship in the middle of the North Sea, costing 25p per minute satellite
Internet access lol. I may not be able to make as full a contribution to the discussion as I'd like. My position is simply this - in a list such as this, consistency is always best. It just looks funny
745:
should be discarded from the list above, since spelling other people "Ecgberht" does not imply they would have spelled the king of Wessex that way; and in
Colgrave's case another of his works uses "Egbert". The writers of works that only mention other Egberts (spelled that way) are, however,
828:
Yeah, I always feel hesitant about using those 'statistics', admittedly. Adding a relevant modern scholar or year sometimes helps to restrict your searches, though that has side-effects as well. I haven't considered using the variant "X king of Wessex", which may get you different results.
258:
OK. I'd prefer to stick with the usage in the secondary sources myself. How about we invite others to comment? Deacon isn't active at the moment, but we could ask Angus, Cavila and a couple of others who've contributed to A-S articles. Or I could try to find a central place, perhaps
746:
unlikely to have spelled the king of Wessex as "Ecgberht" -- when there's an inconsistency it's always the king of Wessex who is Egbert. So I would suggest this is a fairly strong bias in the secondary sources in favour of "Egbert", and I think that's the spelling we should use.
199:
appear up to the point where there was a common ruler for Mercia and Wessex. Cnut was king of England, not merely of some of its constituents and should thus not appear. I am not sure whether the template could be amended to make "ruling ealdormen" a separate section.
815:
With regard to Google Books, I wondered how many of those sources are older works and don't reflect current usage. I tried searching for e.g. "Egbert of Wessex" + 1991, and found the same thing you did: "Egbert" is slightly the more common form.
411:
Agree with Cavila's reasoning. Perhaps the least bad way to go for templates would be "Ecgberht (Egbert)", as readers unfamiliar with the issue-at-hand will need a hint that "Ecgberht" alone does not necessarily provide. Regards,
122:
the second Ceolwulf onwards (which we don't have to do) then it's probably better than ealdorman. I don't think these Ceolwulf or Aethelred were ever called "King", were they? How about just leaving them off the template?
547:
Here's what the sources I have use. For sources that predate the Egbert/Ecgberht in question (or discuss other Egberts) I've looked at how they spell others of the same name, and marked those sources by underlining them.
225:
TharkunColl just changed Egbert to Ecgberht; this came up above and I still think Egbert would be better -- it's almost universal in modern secondary sources. Any objections to changing it back?
58:
My aim has been consistency, but as it happens I have been thinking along the same lines. I'll go through it and remove the accents, and change the thorns to th. May take a bit of time though.
29:, makes it clear there's debate on similar issues, so I thought I'd post here before making any changes. If I hear no objections I'll make the edits in a few days.
790:
So you're suggesting "Ecgberht" (without the parenthetical "Egbert") for the template, and "Egbert" for the article? I.e., no change from the current situation?
26:
42:
I see TharkunColl has reverted the changes I made. Could you post here and comment? I still think it would be better to use the modern spelling.
793:
No, "Egbert" for the pair of them (which I assumed was originally in the template, but now I see the edit history goes back a bit further).
506:
it becomes the thin end of the wedge, as it were, and we end up with multiple names for everyone and everything. How can we prevent the
147:. I'd go with "ruler" or "lord" and "lady". But shouldn't Æthelstan be on the list? He was king in Mercia (only) after Edward's death.
502:
Hi, 'tis me, speaking from a fjord somewhere near Bergen, Norway. Anyway, the above sounds fairly reasonable for this template -
734:
that the "Egbert" spelling has become established in the minds of some writers, rather as Alfred is never spelled "Ælfred"?
340:
I've posted a note or two; we'll see what people say. We can wait till you have time to comment before a decision is made.
76:
sources I have access to, with a bit of a bias towards the most recent ones if it seems there are two good choices.
163:
Edgar and Canute too. Although they were kings of other places as well, just not Wessex - at least, not at first.
140:
136:
144:
820:
762:
462:
344:
316:
267:
229:
204:
190:
151:
126:
80:
46:
33:
417:
521:
291:
245:
168:
854:
817:
759:
755:
459:
341:
313:
264:
226:
200:
187:
148:
123:
77:
43:
30:
413:
834:
798:
777:
751:
640:
Colgrave & Mynors' Bede, also giving alternative spellings of "Ecgberct" and "Ecgberect"
516:
378:
286:
240:
164:
101:
59:
587:. Campbell uses "Egbert" for the king of Wessex but "Ecgberht" for the archbishop of York.
260:
312:
When will you be back on shore? No reason we can't wait till then to make a decision.
858:
838:
823:
802:
781:
765:
525:
465:
421:
382:
347:
319:
295:
270:
249:
232:
208:
193:
172:
154:
129:
104:
83:
62:
49:
36:
850:
830:
794:
773:
374:
238:
To keep it consistent with the other names, the original spelling is used here.
758:; it's silly to have the template say one thing but the article say another.
514:
necessary at all? Can't we just stick with consistent spelling throughout?
22:
usage, but the common use in secondary sources now does not include them.
510:
situation occurring in the future, with this as a precedent? Is it
564:(giving one abbot as "Ecgberht" and all others as "Egbert")
575:Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England
557:Anglo-Saxon England series (I looked at vol. 5)
683:Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England
8:
454:So long as we don't have to go as far as
600:(specifically Patrick Wormald's essays)
139:. Æthelred is not king in any source:
7:
737:This suggests to me that Colgrave's
645:Wallace-Hadrill's commentary on Bede
14:
617:Mercia and the Making of England
143:. Æthelflæd is sometimes queen:
579:Wessex in the Early Middle Ages
458:, that seems reasonable to me.
567:Keynes & Lapidge, Asser's
1:
859:13:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
839:10:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
824:10:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
803:10:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
782:09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
766:00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
702:Felix's Life of Saint Guthlac
526:22:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
466:21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
422:17:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
383:14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
348:12:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
689:Suffolk in Anglo-Saxon Times
611:English Historical Documents
209:16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
194:12:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
173:12:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
155:12:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
130:11:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
105:11:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
84:11:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
63:11:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
50:11:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
320:10:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
296:08:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
271:22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
250:21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
233:13:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
874:
677:The Earliest English Kings
590:Grierson & Blackburn,
718:The Conversion of Britain
592:Medieval European Coinage
562:The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
263:or something associated?
569:Life of Alfred the Great
37:10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
25:The relevant guideline,
634:Historia Ecclesiastica
135:Ceolwulf II was king:
739:Life of Saint Guthlac
623:Bedae Opera Historica
585:The Anglo-Saxon State
508:Æthelstan (Athelstan)
456:Æthelstan (Athelstan)
117:Ealdorman vs. deputy
660:The Mildrith Legend
605:Anglo-Saxon England
598:Anglo-Saxon England
221:Egbert vs. Ecgberht
17:Old English letters
756:Ecgberht of Wessex
27:Naming conventions
743:An English Empire
725:An English Empire
865:
752:Egbert of Wessex
652:Latin Historians
632:and also Bede's
524:
519:
294:
289:
248:
243:
873:
872:
868:
867:
866:
864:
863:
862:
630:The Age of Bede
517:
515:
287:
285:
241:
239:
223:
119:
19:
12:
11:
5:
871:
869:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
785:
784:
731:
730:
729:
728:
720:
709:
708:
707:
705:
697:
691:
685:
679:
673:
665:
664:
663:
655:
647:
642:
637:
625:
619:
613:
607:
601:
594:
588:
581:
571:
565:
558:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
460:Angus McLellan
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
276:
275:
274:
273:
253:
252:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
178:
177:
176:
175:
158:
157:
149:Angus McLellan
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
111:
110:
109:
108:
107:
100:Okay done it.
91:
90:
89:
88:
87:
86:
68:
67:
66:
65:
53:
52:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
870:
861:
860:
856:
852:
840:
836:
832:
827:
826:
825:
822:
819:
818:Mike Christie
814:
813:
812:
811:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
789:
788:
787:
786:
783:
779:
775:
770:
769:
768:
767:
764:
761:
760:Mike Christie
757:
753:
747:
744:
741:and Higham's
740:
735:
727:
726:
721:
719:
715:
714:
713:
710:
706:
704:
703:
698:
696:
692:
690:
686:
684:
680:
678:
674:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
661:
656:
654:
653:
648:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
635:
631:
626:
624:
620:
618:
614:
612:
608:
606:
602:
599:
595:
593:
589:
586:
582:
580:
576:
572:
570:
566:
563:
559:
556:
555:
554:
551:
550:
549:
527:
523:
520:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
467:
464:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
384:
380:
376:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
349:
346:
343:
342:Mike Christie
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
321:
318:
315:
314:Mike Christie
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
297:
293:
290:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
272:
269:
266:
265:Mike Christie
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
247:
244:
237:
236:
235:
234:
231:
228:
227:Mike Christie
220:
210:
206:
202:
201:Peterkingiron
197:
196:
195:
192:
189:
188:Mike Christie
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
179:
174:
170:
166:
162:
161:
160:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
125:
124:Mike Christie
116:
106:
103:
99:
98:
97:
96:
95:
94:
93:
92:
85:
82:
79:
78:Mike Christie
74:
73:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
61:
57:
56:
55:
54:
51:
48:
45:
44:Mike Christie
41:
40:
39:
38:
35:
32:
31:Mike Christie
28:
23:
16:
847:
748:
742:
738:
736:
732:
724:
722:
717:
711:
701:
699:
694:
688:
682:
676:
667:
659:
657:
651:
649:
644:
639:
633:
629:
627:
622:
616:
610:
604:
597:
591:
584:
578:
574:
568:
561:
552:
546:
511:
507:
503:
455:
414:Notuncurious
224:
120:
24:
20:
609:Whitelock,
284:otherwise.
165:TharkunColl
102:TharkunColl
60:TharkunColl
700:Colgrave,
693:Zaluckyj,
687:Plunkett,
658:Rollason,
596:Campbell,
583:Campbell,
849:Egbert.
681:Lapidge,
621:Plummer,
603:Stenton,
560:Swanton,
851:Scolaire
723:Higham,
668:Ecgberht
628:Farmer,
615:Walker,
716:Yorke,
712:Ecgbert
675:Kirby,
650:Dorey,
573:Yorke,
831:Cavila
821:(talk)
795:Cavila
774:Cavila
763:(talk)
695:Mercia
553:Egbert
518:ðarkun
512:really
504:unless
463:(Talk)
375:Cavila
345:(talk)
317:(talk)
288:ðarkun
268:(talk)
242:ðarkun
230:(talk)
191:(talk)
152:(Talk)
127:(talk)
81:(talk)
47:(talk)
34:(talk)
750:move
261:WP:MA
855:talk
835:talk
799:talk
778:talk
672:PASE
577:and
522:coll
418:talk
379:talk
292:coll
246:coll
205:talk
169:talk
145:PASE
141:PASE
137:PASE
754:to
857:)
837:)
801:)
780:)
420:)
381:)
207:)
171:)
853:(
833:(
797:(
776:(
416:(
377:(
203:(
167:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.