1618:
mistake. Woden is Woden. As an aside, though, I am sorry to disabuse you but 1) Cambridge
University is not a monolithic infallible entity that controls all global publishing. Books are edited and published by humans and humans make mistakes all the time. 2) Cambridge University did not publish the cited book, Oxford did. 3) Oxford did not originally publish Stenton's paper - they reprinted it almost 30 years after it was first published by Clarendon Press. 4) Clarendon Press is not an infallible entity - this work was edited by Henry Wilson Carless Davies (a human) as one article in a tribute book. 5) Tribute books are usually compiled by invitation only, and it is the expectation that the author, a recognized expert in the field, will do his or her own fact checking. The only editing done by the editor is usually formatting and grammar. 6) The editing that matters, then, was done by Stenton, a human, so, it is entirely possible that a mistake could, under these circumstances, have been published. But that is not what happened. Stenton is not the one who counted incorrectly, the pedigree lists five names before Woden, and Uuoden is Woden.
694:
completely irrelevant to it. What makes a legend on a coin a legend is that is says what the coin is. The same with an inscription on a monument - "this monument is to commemorate the Battle of the Pig". A pedigree, a list of names - it is the object. A line of text at the bottom saying "This is the ancestry of the Kings of
Lindsey" (or the legend that John of Worcester used, "Genealogia Lindisfarorum"), that would be the legend - the description of the pedigree is the legend, not the pedigree itself. That being said, you are mixing apples and oranges. The term 'legendary' refers to a legend, but not this definition of legend. Legendary does not describe the legend on a coin, nor does it describe the title of a figure or object. It refers to the other kind of legend, the unverifiable story.
618:- "a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical." The second definition listed is "the body of stories of this kind, especially as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan: the winning of the West in American legend." the two definitions listed above are the THIRD and FOURTH definitions given. Obviously, the first two definitions are much more often encountered - which in this case is correct. A legendary king is one who is only known through legends, or nonhistorical or unverifiable story". It has nothing to do with "pedigreed king"... yikes. I've never even heard of any sort of usage like that and I"ve been researching genealogy for 30 years - and studying medieval history for about 25 years.
1932:." An explanatory table of the symbols appearing on a map or chart. Look at the figure to the right (Fig 3), where the little inset box contains a table showing what the colors mean - that is what this is referring to. Can this apply to a family tree? yes, but not the way you are using it. Figure 4 is a pedigree that contains a legend. It is the part in the upper right corner that tells you what the abbreviations and different line types represent - that is the legend for this pedigree. We should not adopt this terminology because it is entirely inapplicable to the situation, as Stenton would have well known. Legendary "nobility" is no more accurate because, again, they are just names in a pedigree and you know nothing more about them.
2955:
title, just some name someone both clueless and lazy at Google Books decided to put on it. (This is not the first time this has come up. One needs to do more than a superficial gaze at Google Books to determine the correct bibliographical information. Getting the title right is very important, maybe not for Google Books, but for
Knowledge (XXG).) The idea itself, that Nennius placed the name Folcwald in this generation rather than Godulf, is already in the article in the next section. And to top it all off, there is a conflict
3123:
535:- that is what definition 'a' is calling a legend. The text I have added to the the bottom of the image naming and describing the figure, that is another usage of the same definition 'a' - the legend for the figure, the 'figure legend', the title on an object. Then there is Figure 2. The little rainbow bar in the upper left that indicates what the color spectrum represents - that is what definition 'b' is referring to. None of these definitions have anything to do with someone's byname.
1902:
2007:
an alternative reality where a family tree is actually the legend to a larger collection of material, just so you can in turn call it a legend and then misuse the word legendary to apply to names in the pedigree is just another pointless exercise in begging the question. You have the whole scholarly process backwards - you derive hypothetical conclusions based on the evidence you have, you don't derive hypothetical evidence based on the conclusions you wish to reach.
2834:
happening here - either there are multiple copies of HB, and the ones to which Sisam and
Chadwick were referring contain different information than the one being cited here (which, dating from 1848 is not exactly going to have benefited from modern scholarly analysis), or else the editor of this work has 'corrected' the pedigree based on that found in the ASC, Asser and the Anglian collection. Either way, we have a problem that needs resolved.
241:. What he says of Godulf is the following: ". . . the ninth-century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to Godulf Geoting, . . . " and "the list runs . . . Godulf Geoting. With the five names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned." (Godulf being one of those five names) In other words he is a mythological name with whom the author has nothing to say. Sterling proof of notability, that.
316:
assumed to have been king, because
Ealdfrith might have succeeded his grandfather or uncle or even a distant cousin - we know that in both Mercia and Wessex, there was succession by lines that were only distantly linked to the previous kings. With those pedigrees we have the ASC to tell us which names in the lineages are those of kings and which were not. For the Lindsey pedigree, all bets are off.
2456:. Irrelevant info perhaps, but highlighting the personal importance of the subject for me right now, and everyone's family trivia as a subject for which the origins of should be notable. On topic, I've sectionalised the page, redone it in light of all our discussions. Even given you some new sources to play with that generally correlate and explain some of the "assumptions" and my "extreme focus" on
1704:
thought would sound cool as the father of Finn. I don't mean that he existed as a real man - I mean that there ever was even a legend about a man of this name. Let me give you a specific example from real life. I knew a genealogist who out of frustration over his inability to extend his family pedigree took ancestor Martin Peck and made a pedigree that named his father 'Woody Wood Peck' (
2509:
additional names ends with Geat. No, a 'name' cannot have babies, but these are made-up names, and a made-up name can be put above another made-up name in a pedigree. There is not a single source that refers to Godulf as anything but a name in a pedigree, except perhaps the speculations of
Chambers who tries to equate him with a person of a distinct name in a legend about Finn.
3269:
which may have been informative to an 18th century product of the
British elite educational system, but has very little value to the average reader of English Knowledge (XXG). Price summarizes the names found in different pedigree sources, that is all. And he uses the words "their deities" but is not explicitly referring to Godulf, so this is no evidence that Godulf was a god.
999:
legendary figure but whom most others concluded was just made up by the pedigree artisans. The claim itself is a bold-faced lie. In the cited text
Chadwick says Godulf is confused with Folcwalda by someone familiar with Finn son of Folcwalda, a king in epic poetry - Finn is the epic hero, not his father Folcwalda and certainly not the guy Folcwalda has been confused with.
100:, published in 1921, on page 200 about a third of the way down the page. There as part of his section on the pedigrees from "Woden to Geat" the author has a three-column tabular layout of the pedigrees in Vespasian, CCCC and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and ends there with "Godulf Geating". The author then starts a paragraph of commentary with a sentence that begins "The
518:
1379:"Godulf" - the only time "Geoting" would have been used is if there were more than two Godulf's needing to be distinguished. In this time period, personal names were not as restricted to a few names - most folks had somewhat unique names because of the pattern of naming used - combining parts of various names into a new name. As for use name - look it up.
1040:
way suggests that Godulf was a king nor that he has anything to do with epic poetry. Further, you had better reread the citation, as it never says anything about
Folcwalda being a title. And you are just making things up when you suggest he was "an ancient legendary king that might have inspired Beowulf." Please stop making things up.
1894:
634:
On point 3) in your dictionary it says "an inscription, especially on a coat of arms, on a monument, under a picture, or the like." In my version is says "object, such as a coin", I would argue that titled nobility given in a list format such as a genalogy is a) an object similar to a coin. b) especially similar to a
1295:. It is important information whatever, the way those patronymics is expressed in sources, and at the time is of use and note. I have "son", they had "ing". We should have an article explaining why specifically that was and until we do, I'd suggest the original sources are used and not forged with personal opinions.
2864:) that you have been demanding of me all weekend? It's there. It's mostly a direct quote for goodness sake. The scale of what you are doing here is amazing me. All sorts of unsourced text is appearing in the article. You are going to get my article deleted by inserting all this made up baloney. This is not fair.
1708:). What you are doing would be like saying that Woody Wood Peck was a legendary man - he wasn't, he was made to order when the pedigree was concocted. The same is the case for Godulf, as far as we know, and so thinking about it (not him) as anything but a name invented by the ancestry artisan is misplaced.
3252:
information about the
Goeting or Geating surname without cause. The greek origins are important. Price lists "Gudolff, Gudolfr, Godwulf, Foleguald and Godulf, (alias Geta)" page 71, History of English Poetry from the Twelfth to the Close of the ..., Volume 1, By Thomas Warton, Richard Price - he even
2833:
The second problem is that this pedigree directly contradicts what the article then proceeds to quote Chadwick as saying that the Historia says - that it gives Finn the father Folcwald, son of Geat. Sisam said the same thing, that Historia Brittorum calls Finn son of Folcwald. One of two things are
2006:
We are talking about Modern English, (which, like Excel, did not exist in the dark ages) not Latin. The reference provided is describing the legend or key exactly as I am using it and completely different than what you were trying to twist it into. So, what do you do now? Make things up. Creating
1781:
And your evidence that he was a king? You have none. Your evidence that there was ever a legend about him? You have none. The evidence is on my side, or rather, I am stating the null hypothesis and you have no evidence to challenge this, because you have no evidence at all, because there is none.
1039:
The claim that is a lie is that Chadwick "considered it possible that he could be an ancient king, like in epic poetry" What Chadwick said is that a pedigree maker may have confused become confused and replaced the name of Godulf with that of the father of an individual from epic poetry. That in no
723:
When you come up with a definition that has never, ever been used before, as you are doing when you apply the word legend to a genealogical tree, then you are indeed redefining it. You are coming up with entirely novel and entirely incorrect definitions of what legend means, and then suggesting that
2886:
Already explained. And no, I am not inserting all this made-up baloney. I am taking it out and leaving what little is actually supported by the sources. (Except that last part on the Edda, where I drew directly from your source, which is made-up baloney, but made up by Snorri, and you thought it was
2829:
Witta";... It then continues, "... Witta of Wecta; ...." This is not just a name of a man called Witta "of Wecta", dropped without context into the middle of a list, it is a continuation of what came before - Wihtgils was the son of Witta; Witta of Wecta. The list then continues to the end, "...
2386:
The only way you can use this argument to establish the notability of Godulf Geoting is if you can find a secondary source making this argument specifically with regard to Godulf Geoting, and you have not introduced such a source. Paul, do you really not understand the arguments that are being made
2297:
There was no such thing as a 'last name' or surname in 10th century Dark Age Britain when the pedigree in the Chronicle was concocted. It calls him Geat son of Taetwa. "Son of Taetwa" is just identifying his father, it is not a last name or a surname or any other kind of personal name. Further, at
1051:
I'm still confused following you on this one, what I am referring to is this bit of text in the article, "He mused; "Is it not possible that Godwulf was a traditional, probably historic, king of the Frisians, father of Finn, and that Folcwalda was a title which, since it alliterated conveniently, in
1012:
It sets the scene for an ancient legendary king that might have inspired Beowulf. I might have to go write some more stuff about it to explain. What claim is a lie? I'm not following the sentence that starts "Godulf is confused" but suggest you read that citation again, it explains that Folcwalda is
633:
I'm impressed someone can keep up with us. Thanks for your assistance. I don't think it applies to those points particularly well yet, although one professor seems to have made up his own little legend, that's not great. The connection to Beowulf and others needs improving, will have to do tomorrow.
2856:
He (Chadwick) tells a legend of various figures having royal descent from a mythological son of god called Godwulf of Geat, saying "In the meantime, three vessels, exiled from Germany, arrived in Britain. They were commanded by Hersa and Hengist, brothers, and sons of Wihtgils. Wihtgils was the son
2228:
You don't even know what 'use names' means - you just learned the expression from Ealdgyth a couple of days ago and you misunderstood what she said. The people you list are Winta son of Woden, Woden son of Frealaf, Frealaf son of Friodulf, Friodulf son of Finn, Finn son of Godulf and Godulf son of
1815:
Quote the text wherein Vespasian B vi (that is a roman numeral, not the nickname for someone name Violet) says that he was king. You can't because it doesn't. Quote for me the text wherein Vespasian B vi says that he is known from legend or appeared in a legend or was legendary. You can't because
1563:
Stenton doesn't have to mention Geat explicitly, because he mentions Godulf son of Geat, making it clear to almost anyone reading it that Geat is the name of the father of Godulf. If you say "the Queen's eldest son" you have not just named one person of unknown parentage - theQueenseldestson. You
1251:
and hence not surnames. I disagree completely with this argument. My surname is patronymic, many surnames are, I still use mine. This is no reason to delete them, we cannot delete all patronymic names from Knowledge (XXG), it would be absurd. This is distortion of the sources, please can we replace
1192:
I have concerns with the Osborn reference, to which I do not have ready access - the title of her thesis suggests that she is summarizing the work of others. Therefor, it is unclear to me whether the conclusion that Godulf = God- -wulf should be attributed to her, rather than whatever research she
834:
Notability is determined by the criteria established on Knowledge (XXG) for WP:NOTABILITY. You don't get to make up criteria for notability, make up characteristics of the individual to match your made-up criteria, and then demand sources to prove that what you just made up is wrong. The title of
693:
Which is tripe. Look up pedigree. Look up coin. You will find nothing in these definitions that allow an analogy. It is pointless to use definitions for reference when you redefine any other word necessary in order to force the definition to be applicable, in a twisted sort of way, to something
315:
Let me add something that I think some will not like. You ask which names in that pedigree were not kings. I would ask the counter-question. Which names in that pedigree do we know were kings? The answer is just one - the Ealdfrith at the bottom of the pedigree. Nobody else in it can safely be
38:
The cited source does not make Godwulf a Folcwald. - he refers to a pedigree that rather than making Finn son of Godulf son of Geat instead makes Finn son of Folcwald son of Geat, i.e. identifies the Finn in the pedigree with the heroic Finn of legend, who is Folcwalda's son, and hence replaces the
2538:
The next name in the pedigree is Uuoden Frealafing. It is rare when something is this obvious, but what would you call the first two vowels in that name - a U, then another U. Two of them, right there in a row, doubled, doubled Us, a double U, a double-u. How else, other than two successive Us,
2508:
It obviously isn't simple because Stenton names no gods - zero, and Stenton doesn't call them kings, and Stenton says the source gives us five names past Woden, and when one counts these after figuring out that Woden is, in fact, the person in the list named Woden and not his son, the list of five
3268:
Goeting simply means son of Geat - it is not helpful to talk about anyone by this name, as it gives the false impression that this expression references someone's surname. There are no Greek origins - just a Greek analogy, which means we can summarize the meaning without relating it to a language
3215:
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle section had one flawed sentence (to say that a manuscript is annotated means someone wrote in the manuscript, not that someone printed it 1000 years later with this bit of text added). The other sentence had nothing to do with the Chronicle and repeats information given
353:
Assumed what? That every single one of the mythological names was of a king? No. He didn't, we shouldn't. And once you admit that one name in the list might not have been a king, you have to accept that we have no way of knowing who was and who wasn't (except for Ealdfrith - every other pedigree
2971:
No, Paul, it is not sufficient to just make it say that the ASC has been annotated with the words Nennius, Folcbald or Folcpald. It is meaningless nonsense, conveying no information whatsoever. It makes it sound like this was in a manuscript of the ASC, when it was just in the appendix to some
2954:
The addition about Nennius annotating the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle couldn't be more wrong. The source does not say that Nennius, who wrote about 830, was annotating the chronicle of 855 - he was probably already dead before that entry was ever written. The citation has given the book an incorrect
2489:
I have introduced Stenton, thoroughly, count his named gods, count his named kings. It's simple. As is a bit of biology. A 'name' cannot have babies, reproduce or be an ancestor, you have to be a being. All sources are very clear on this so please stop changing the subject to a name. This is not
2464:
according to your naming convention. Hector has a go at teaching us about the word Geat, and questions how these assumptions have happened appropriately. You're not the first to have missed the difference in the very ancient (but probably original) manuscript Stenton is discussing. I should have
1617:
You are just wrong, and no matter how many times you repeat it, you will still be wrong. He doesn't mention Geata Taetwaing, as such, because his source doesn't call this man Geat Tetwasson. It refers to him as Geot (no patronym given) when indicating that Godulf was his son. There is no math
2162:
You are still putting words in Stenton's mouth. How does "Lindsey and its Kings" allow any conclusion to be reached about any individual in a source he is using for the article? How does reference to 'mythological names' clearly show anything about kings? And not everything mythological is a
1703:
The above discussion highlights the central problem with this page - the entire page is predicated on the supposition that there ever was a legendary Godulf Geating. There isn't the slightest shred of evidence that he ever existed, that the maker of the pedigree didn't just pick a name that he
1633:
Paul - can you kindly quit treating us like idiots - believe it or not, we all know what a goat is. There is no need to link to it ... nor do we need to know what mathematical means. And oddly enough, we're familiar with Cambridge University. The constant linking of things on talk pages is very
1418:
No, this is wrong - unless these legendary kings lived beyond the 13th century (and in Wales and Cornwall in some cases, the 19th century), they would not have used surnames of any type. These patronyms exist solely for the sake of stringing names together in a pedigree, and provide no further
1378:
I'm sorry, it's late and I should have said "patronym" not "patronymic" - but the point is still the same. There are not what we consider "surnames" until the 12th or 13th century. Calling "Geoting" in "Godulf Geoting" a surname is wrong. It's quite likely that he would have been introduced as
998:
because both were presidents of nations in the Americas? It doesn't work that way - an illustration about Beowulf is appropriate for a page about Beowulf, not any page about any old legend let alone a page about someone who is just a name in a pedigree, whom someone speculated may have been a
383:
So you tell me, other than Ealdferth, who is the other king in the list? - you can't do it, because nobody can, because they are just names completely devoid of historical context and unknown to history except for this pedigree. You either pick a name at random and without the slightest bit of
1857:
No, I cannot produce any evidence that he was a "King". That is incorrect terminology. I can produce a "legend", by the dictionary definition of "An explanatory table" (i.e. a genealogy of "nobility") in V that shows him to be part of that "legend". Not by the primary definition of that word
1634:
annoying and treats the other folks in the conversation like we don't know what those words mean. When those words are basic words you learn in primary school, it feels like a subtle form of telling us we're stupid. Why else would you be linking common terms in conversation? Please stop it.
417:
No, they are not legendary kings! Where in that pedigree does it say 'this one is a king' - it doesn't, ever. They are portrayed as one thing and one thing only, as ancestors of the last person in the list. Describing them as anything other than names appearing in Ealdfrith's pedigree is
1131:
Sorry, I hadn't realised I got the author wrong, they're all just a big bunch of professors to me and I can get them very muddled up. I'll improve my referencing. Someone notable suggested he might have been real though and I think he's got a valid point. He's even created his own little
758:
You are making up definitions for legend, legendary, and now mythological. Stenton neither said nor implied that these were gods - that too you are making up. 'Sticking to what sources say' loses all meaning when you redefine their words to match your pre-determined interpretation.
510:
1275:
Surnames, as opposed to patronymics or use names, did not exist at the time. They aren't neccessary when you're giving the descents - it's patently obvious what the patronymics would be. Patronymics would be used if we were trying to distinguish two different Godulf's in a list.
1957:
is used when comipiling family trees. These initial genealogies were part of a much larger genealogy in V, of which this list of legendary kings had legendary descendants, for which the list served as the "key" or "legend" for. Making them legendary ancestors at the very least.
3223:
An External Links section in not to include a link to any Wikis, let alone to a Knowledge (XXG) pseudo-mirror of this article that preserves material since removed from here - this is an inappropriate way to bypass Knowledge (XXG) requirements for verifiability and consensus.
1093:
Shouting won't make it go away. He said "Is it not possible that Godwulf was a traditional, probably historic, king of the Frisians, father of Finn, and that Folcwalda was a title which, since it alliterated conveniently, in the end supplanted the proper name in epic poetry?"
2387:
here? You have enough edits on Knowledge (XXG) that it's hard for me to believe you are misunderstanding almost every argument that has been here and in the related AfDs. Do you genuinely not see the numerous problems that have been pointed out to you with these articles?
1949:, in which the word "legend" means "things to read". The pie charts are all very nice, but they didn't have Microsoft Excel in the dark ages. I'll let others who know more speak for me on this in relation to pedigrees and family history. The following source describes how a
2578:
My explanation is based on the English language. I am not going to provide evidence for what a double-u looks like. A minimum knowledge is necessary to conduct basic conversation, and that doesn't go so low as having to explain the letters in the language we are using.
51:
See the word "original" there. That is the opposite of the word "fake". It reads perfectly well and is a full copy for everyone to see. I've changed the text of the article on your advice though, to read an exact quote so you won't misinterpret and get confused by those
3155:
Thanks for that patronizing and incivil grammar pointer. It is too bad you didn't notice that "their" does not apply to the names in the list (although the incautious use of pronouns and adjectives in that paragraph-long sentence would make many a reader's head spin).
1533:
Five names past Woden. Past, as in beyond, not on the near side of - Frealaf, FrioΓΎulf, Finn, Godulf and Geat - Five. You don't have to count, you have to understand what you are talking about and not try to force your interpretations onto authors who knew better.
1205:
I dug out the text and two things are clear - the author is, in fact, summarizing someone else's views, and so this should not be attributed to her. Without seeing the original study, it is hard to say what is actually being said. Google Books strikes again.
1116:
Who knows, though. Maybe it will get your attention. The text you are quoting is not found anywhere in Chadwick's entire body of work, not once. While I would have thought the difference in spelling would have made this obvious, Chadwick and Chambers are
526:
A legendary king is a king about whom there are legends. Godulf wasn't a king, and there is not the slightest shred of evidence that there were any legends. That means you don't have to coin a new term, because he is described quite simply - "a name in a
3333:
The external link to the full wiki was to embarass you and highlight to everyone else the scale of your POV, unsourced, factually innaccurate material and bogus arguments. You are being a massive threat to Knowledge (XXG) and this behaviour needs to stop.
2928:
Paul, I don't even know to what you are referring here. You have built a house of cards around your own misreading of a source - two sources now, Stenton and the Historia Brittonum. I have explained that to you, for each misreading. Don't pretend that
2857:
of Witta ; Witta of Wecta ; Wecta of Woden ; Woden of Frithowald ; Frithowald of Frithuwulf ; Frithuwulf of Finn ; Finn of Godwulf ; Godwulf of Geat, who, as they say, was the son of a god, not of the omnipotent God."
896:
the poem is shoehorned into the text, not Beowulf the man, who is illustrated. Still, it is not even Beowulf the poem that is relevant to Godulf. An illustration of Beowulf, the legendary man, cannot legitimately be justified by the fact that the poem
724:
is how Stenton was using the word, just so that you can in turn use Stenton as a source for your completely unsupportable conclusions. It is an elaborate game of begging the question, with accuracy, Stenton and the English language all as victims.
2432:
Paul, that was just an edit conflict accident - you should understand that, having done the same thing earlier this week, so don't pretend that you haven't been able to make yourself clear because of single slip that was fixed within 9 minutes.
3205:
Removed incorrect and unnecessarily vague information from lead, neither cited source calls him a deity from Germanic mythology; the fact that Snorri, writing 500 years later, co-opted the pedigree is no reason to be vague about its origins.
2413:
from this discussion page. This one was just cut from the discussion - "That leaves you with only four names after Woden and Stenton says five." I am not sure by who, but I cannot have this. Please investigate. Particularly Agricolae's math.
1564:
have named the Queen and her son. I am not arguing this anymore. The individual in the list named Woden - that is Woden. The individual in the list named Winta Wodensson, that is not Woden but Woden's son. That is all there is to it.
2824:
This is misparsing the text - there is no Godulf of Geat, and Geat is the son of the god. Note, the meaning of the whole string is set up at the start: "They were commanded by Hersa and Hengist, brothers, and sons of Wihtgils. Wihtgils
3219:
The Prose Edda section really had nothing to do with Godulf other than to indicate that he is named. That fact could be summarized more briefly and has been consolidated with the discussion of what later sources copied the pedigrees.
2233:
I can't help you. "Mythological names" doesn't say they were Gods. Yours is not a reasonable reading of "mythological names" - there are all kinds of non-Gods who appear in myths. I will not discuss things that you simply make up.
486:
In this case the "title" of the "object" is "Geoting" of "Godulf". This is why the title, usename, patronymic, original text needs replacing, not falsifications. This also explains why the status of this category of king restored to
3360:. It is not I who would be embarrassed by a link to a bunch of fringe nonsense that has rightly been removed from the article, except that it is an embarrassment to the whole project that it was ever in the article to begin with.
2543:
Woden - it isn't just an alternative name for the god, or a nickname, or something where you have to made a deduction - in the script of the manuscript that says precisely 'Woden'. It troubles me that this has to be explained.
735:
I haven't made anything up. I've just pointed out that Stenton has made up a legend about him being a King or mythological name (god - I go with god after scrutinizing text) and that Chambers made up a legend about him being a
530:
Regarding the definition, you are just having me on, aren't you? You can't possibly think that definition refers to what you are describing, can you? See Figure 1 to the side. The text around the outside of the coin reading
2298:
the time of the creation of the Lindsey pedigree in the late 8th or early 9th century, he wasn't Geat Taetwa's son. He was just Geat. It wasn't until a century later that someone decided to invent a name to give his father.
123:
Sure, thanks for the help. That is really useful, as is upping the quality of the sources constantly to keep ahead. I've added the following to the page to clarify the point raised in the deletion discussion regarding
3355:
And that, sir, is an admission by you to breaking Knowledge (XXG) policy intentionally. It is not OK to introduce material into an article with the sole intent of embarrassing another editor. That is a violation of
3121:
Actually, I think Price's preface is prior to 1871 - see p. 8 where there is a note that the "Mr Price's Preface" is "also attached to the ed. of 1841 without any palpable improvements or changes." - Yes, looks like
3109:
And nowhere on that page does he refer to Godulf as a deity, individually or collectively - in fact, his opinion was that they are real people, but then he was writing in 1871 and historians are less credulous now.
1858:
admittedly, but still applicable. I suggest Stenton is calling them Legendary kings on that basis and we adopt his terminology. Perhaps Legendary nobility might be more accurate, but I couldn't find it in sources.
2677:
as a "real" king is open to much question, through the logic we've discussed about the simple naming of his article. It is however the focus of where I should be concentrating my research to improve our coverage.
800:
I am not the one who called them 'names' - that was Stenton. These people are not mythological people or mythological figures, and they have not left a big impact on anything. There is no notability to negate.
1827:
And I suggest a pedigree implies the nobility needed to meet the dictionary definition of the word Legend as being similar in use to that under a coat of arms. The use of a patronymic here gives the notion of
2081:
for now) and he is classing the 5 names before as "mythological", and as ancestors of Woden, they are logically Gods by that definition. Those five names do not include any Geat or Goet. Hope you follow.
2163:
deity, logically or otherwise. You are distorting Stenton to match your preconceptions of what you need him to have said. Woden, Frealaf, Frithwulf, Finn, Godulf, Geot - five names farther than Woden.
1720:
There is a legendary Godulf Geoting in various genealogies. The maker of the pedigree, or someone made him up. The article isn't about your mate round the corner, it's about a legendary king or god, like
1364:
There was no "at the time" that he would have existed in - he is made up. No banquet halls, no chieftains, nothing but a single pedigree in which someone used the name Godulf to bridge from Finn to Geat.
1751:
No, it isn't about a legendary king or god - he never was a king and he never was a god. He didn't inspire literature, he wasn't inspired by literature. All he ever was was a name in a pedigree, ever.
3167:
Let's leave aside the whole issue of the typographical conventions of a previous age... any time you encounter texts/sources with "Κ" in place of "s" you know you're dealing with outdated scholarship.
664:
Yes, while it is frequently misused to refer to anything not historical (pre-history or pseudo-history), to be legendary, there needs to be a legend - a story, not just a name amidst dozens of names.
39:
name of his father. Perhaps this would be more clear in the original publication rather than in a Google scan of a badly formatted reprinting of the Project Gutenberg transcript of the original book.
112:, appears . . . ." The author is not calling Godulf Goeting "the Folcwald". Now, perhaps you might want to reconsider the talk of me misinterpreting things and getting confused, don't you think?
3027:. Thanks for the help making him sparkle at the start. We have a really punchy, nice looking article now, it is starting to make a great read. Just need to get the factual accuracy correct on the
2254:(as above), rather than pretending the fifth isn't there. You are saying that the person named Woden was not Woden just because you refuse to accept the name the pedigree gives Godulf's father.
1729:
admittedly, but his legend should be of note here with relevant scholarly discussion about what this pre-eminent figure has inspired in literature and various fields of history through the ages.
3049:
No, Price doesn't. Price only mentions Godulf twice, and in neither instance calls him a deity. Tolkien doesn't either. The only thing this page will be any time soon is good to go away.
2444:
You must excuse me. I've been visiting my dying Gran in hospital today, Joan Bedson from the Guest family originally from Glamorgan area in Wales, she had some nobility in her family, a
3327:
And he is again speaking generically and not specifically. Were he specifically referring to Godulf, then it shouldn't be a problem to find an epic poem that represents him as a god.
2465:
taken a wider view at the start before creating the article entirely focussing on that perhaps. Nevertheless, the original Lindsey names need replacing in the correct section now.
384:
evidence or logic behind it arbitrarily decide that person was a king, or you honestly admit that there is no basis to call any other specific individual in the pedigree a king.
2707:
Well, have a think about it. Do some numbers and you might inject the same interpretation. There is a rich history in those last names, their usage and relation to the word
913:, whom most scholars consider to have been distinct from the Finn of the pedigree who was son of the subject of this page. It is like a game of free-association gone wild.
812:
A name of a "figure" is implied by his title of the article. I would hope notability is judged by sources rather than your opinion. I'll go and try to improve them with the
2959:
where scholars are quoted as saying completely conflicting things about what Nennius said. - see the the Nennius section above on this Talk page. The text cannot remain.
2556:
Your explanations are based on your own interpretations and assumptions. I have provided a sourced argument. Please reply using sourced content and not your own. Thanks.
2902:
Sorry Agricolae, but if you can't argue with sourced content, there is no argument to be had. I cannot waste time arguing with someone who cannot even count up to five.
1492:
Please read your sources correctly. Stenton never refers to Winta as Woden, not once, not ever, nor would he because Stenton knew what he was talking about. And they
2061:
Here is how the opinions are directly attributed to Stenton, none of my own work - a) Artice title - "Lindsey and its Kings" b) He says "No one would learn from the
557:, so I suggest legendary is an appropriate title. To be clearer, the dictionary also goes by a second form, I should have noticed and pointed out earlier (sorry) -
271:
He wrote an article called "The Kings of Lindsey", but that doesn't mean that every single name in that article can just be assumed to have been a King of Lindsey.
599:
So back to inventing our own definitions? The Magna Carta is also an inscription on a manuscript, that doesn't make it a legend. Godulf never inspired a legend.
3473:
1336:
Plus, I think that we should use the names that people would have been notable for at the time. If Godulf Geoting was to stride on into some legendary chieftan's
327:
Howcome his article isn't called "Mythological names of Lindsey" if I am the one putting words in his mouth? He has obviously assumed that through his use of the
2210:, but I lost that red link in round 1. I have a top agent investigating the Serbian press that might turn up some results and restore that terminology oneday.
1419:
information than to name their father, and since we go right ahead and name their father, there is no benefit to the duplication of listing the patronyms too.
638:, and that the dictionary put this to emphasize the use of the terminology "legend" to equate with expressions of nobility or title. c) A in inscription in a
1474:. This is why it's so important their surnames, use names, titles they were known by, whatever, the original source, and secondary sourced text is replaced.
561:. This is perhaps where the article needs more work in connection to Beowulf and other legends he inspired. I'm working on that right now as it happens with
835:
an article implies one thing - what title the author chooses to give his article (and maybe not even that - I have had articles get renamed by the editor).
1193:
is summarizing at that point. (Not that I am questioning the derivation, which is patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about Anglo-Saxon names.)
1442:
and notes that his article "is not concerned with the five names beyond Woden" (because he is discussing GL, not V). Those five names beyond Woden are
2989:
Seriously? You are now going to cite a Knowledge (XXG) pseudo-mirror of your own made-up information as a source for information? Stop. Just stop.
2535:
Woden. The -ing ending given in a pedigree format means 'son of'. Thus Uinta Wodning means Winta, son of Woden, or Winta Wodensson if you prefer.
2050:
You are mis-attributing your opinions to Stenton, and you have no more evidence that they were noble or deities than you have that they were royal.
2780:, saying "In the meantime, three vessels, exiled from Germany, arrived in Britain. They were commanded by Hersa and Hengist, brothers, and sons of
2729:
Paul, your behavior on this page -- especially regarding the laughable claim that "legendary" means "appearing in a table" -- is truly appalling.
874:
Beowulf is mentioned in the text. The picture removed was a perfect illustration of the field in which the topic is discussed. Please replace.
2646:
Which means that Winta is not Woden - there you have it. For Stenton, we have talked about this before. Just because Tolkien named his book
1971:
3423:
3386:
3089:
2830:
Godulf of Geat, who, as they say, was the son of a god, not of the omnipotent God." It is Geat who is the son of the non-omnipotent God.
2400:
1846:
In other words, no, you cannot produce the slightest bit of evidence that he was a king, or that there is any legend that relates to him.
3419:
3382:
2396:
3212:
Latham can just be summarized rather than quoted, as he basically is just giving a very long explanation of how -ing means 'son of'.
2760:
There are two problems with the text from Historia Brittonum. The first is that it is being misread - the text that was there read:
2229:
Geat. Woden is Woden, and the five names beyond Woden are Frealaf, Friodulf, Finn, Godulf and Geat. If you simply insist on playing
2696:
No, we are not getting anywhere because you are making things up again - injecting your own interpretations into Stenton's article.
3060:
He calls every god in those lists of his "their deities". We should have pages on each one really. They all meet notability now.
2077:. This shows us clearly that Stenton is referring to the names in the pedigree after Woden as "Kings" (albeit better described a
1396:
for now. I think in the case of legendary nobility a surname should stand in this instance. Legendary nobility would have used
2930:
2309:
Sorry if I seem really picky about this, but I will interject the point that these names are highly important in the study of
2230:
2317:
and the migrations of peoples. The development of -son, -ov, -ing, -ung as patronymic suffixes is important for the study of
2073:
themselves." c) He also says "the ninth century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to
991:
2247:
That leaves you with only four names after Woden and Stenton says five. Paul Bedson βtalkβ 20:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
581:, gotta get all the original sources and stuff in place and make it squeaky clean first or I suspect you'll shout at me.
3078:
He doesn't, we shouldn't and they don't. Your desire for it to be so is insufficient bases for concluding that it is.
2612:
you claim is one Stenton desribes as the first real "King of Lindsey" that his article is primarily concerned with is
1928:
If only that definition didn't continue after that part you have lifted out of context, "An explanatory table or list
1060:
was possibly supplanted and used as a proper name in epic poems. c) Godwulf was possibly a historic king. All clear?
705:
I am not redefining it. I am merely trying to explain how Stenton has defined it in source "The Kings of Lindsey".
137:
2279:, like we don't know his last name for some reason. I think it's important information we are dealing with here.
3317:
He further quotes that they have "been introduced into epic poetry, and represented as gods". Hence they're all
3209:
Price never talks about Godulf, so to put his discussion of other people is unnecessary, let alone in the lead.
3430:
3028:
2661:
Now we're getting there. Stenton divides his kings into Legendary ones and non-legendary ones on the basis of
2593:
2029:
1471:
1435:
2601:
1579:, you have made an incorrect assumption, which we all do, but this one is funny to me because it sounds like
3415:
3378:
2392:
188:
64:
3137:"their" is a possessive form of the subject word "deities" applying to the object (their names in a list).
1816:
it doesn't. Vespasian B vi is a pedigree, nothing more. Godulf is a name in that pedigree, nothing more.
183:
2062:
962:
779:
2183:
1447:
775:
3441:
3400:
3342:
3145:
3099:
3068:
3039:
2910:
2872:
2719:
2686:
2636:
2564:
2498:
2473:
2422:
2333:
2287:
2218:
2179:
2090:
2040:
2025:
1992:
1866:
1836:
1805:
1771:
1737:
1657:
1603:
1553:
1523:
1482:
1408:
1352:
1303:
1264:
1229:
1152:
1102:
1068:
1029:
980:
939:
928:
882:
824:
790:
748:
713:
683:
650:
589:
499:
407:
373:
343:
294:
261:
175:
149:
83:
2457:
1443:
2850:
More sourced text is going missing. Thought I'd open another discussion for Agricolae to explain why.
2187:
1901:
1451:
562:
304:
Not for us to decide - he calls them "mythological names", so we don't get to put words in his mouth.
2777:
2191:
2021:
1592:
1584:
1141:
639:
283:
214:
2674:
2613:
2461:
1455:
1315:
Paul, a 'Use name' is not the same as a patronymic, not at all, but now you have gone and created a
430:
68:
3365:
3308:
3274:
3229:
3161:
3115:
3083:
3054:
3010:
2994:
2977:
2964:
2938:
2892:
2839:
2701:
2666:
2655:
2584:
2549:
2514:
2438:
2303:
2259:
2239:
2175:
2168:
2055:
2012:
1937:
1851:
1821:
1787:
1757:
1713:
1623:
1569:
1539:
1508:
1501:
1463:
1431:
1424:
1370:
1328:
1211:
1198:
1125:
1087:
1045:
1004:
931:
has clarified the connection above. Hopefully this will explain why it needs a replacement please.
918:
902:
840:
806:
764:
729:
699:
669:
604:
540:
423:
389:
359:
321:
309:
276:
246:
117:
44:
23:
3005:
He wasn't one. You don't have a single source that calls him one. Please stop making things up.
614:(ec - reply to Paul's definitions of "legend") I get this for the first definition of "legend" at
3411:
3374:
3245:
3172:
3131:
2388:
1639:
1384:
1281:
770:
I think we are talking apples and oranges on this one, but am concerned you are reducing them to
623:
222:
153:
145:
3357:
2805:
2801:
2268:
1507:
He gives a list, he says he is not concerned with the five names past Woden. The sixth name is
163:
3392:
You should also be asking for his sources Mike. Good job I have consensus to delete him then.
1967:
1646:
509:
202:
167:
1961:
3435:
3394:
3336:
3241:
3139:
3093:
3062:
3033:
2904:
2866:
2861:
2734:
2713:
2680:
2630:
2558:
2492:
2467:
2453:
2416:
2327:
2281:
2212:
2084:
2034:
1986:
1860:
1830:
1799:
1765:
1731:
1705:
1651:
1597:
1547:
1517:
1476:
1402:
1346:
1297:
1258:
1253:
1223:
1146:
1096:
1062:
1023:
974:
933:
876:
818:
784:
742:
707:
677:
644:
583:
493:
401:
367:
337:
288:
255:
77:
17:
2621:
2272:
972:. He explained the connection. The picture is of a legendary ancient king in epic poetry.
1905:
Figure 4. A pedigree with a legend to explain the abbreviations and different lines used
3361:
3304:
3292:
cited source disagreeing with your wild theories DIRECTLY showing you that Geata is an
3270:
3225:
3157:
3111:
3079:
3050:
3006:
2990:
2973:
2960:
2934:
2888:
2835:
2697:
2651:
2580:
2545:
2510:
2434:
2318:
2299:
2255:
2235:
2195:
2164:
2074:
2051:
2008:
1933:
1847:
1817:
1794:
1783:
1753:
1709:
1619:
1565:
1535:
1497:
1459:
1439:
1420:
1366:
1324:
1207:
1194:
1121:
1083:
1041:
1000:
958:
914:
906:
836:
802:
760:
737:
725:
695:
665:
600:
546:
536:
488:
419:
396:
385:
355:
317:
305:
272:
242:
113:
40:
3091:
Page 71. (perhaps best I speak with page numbers alone from now on to save argument).
3168:
3127:
2769:
2662:
1635:
1380:
1277:
619:
452:
you'll see it has three forms of meaning, listed in the third form, the word can mean
615:
3373:
I agree with Agricolae's view; Paul, you don't have consensus to revert Agricolae.
3318:
3249:
1588:
1337:
813:
635:
566:
365:
He assumed the list was made up of more than one legendary king. Seems reasonable.
3429:
Great, then perhaps you can tell me the book and page number and names written on
782:, which have left a big impact on the historical record. Any arguments with that?
174:. But this is a mistake which could only have been made by some one familiar with
1392:
I couldn't find much on it and have better things to research. Did a REDIRECT to
2730:
2605:
2314:
1649:
anyhow. We all make mistakes, i'll try and be clearer pointing the ones I spot.
969:
550:
354:
ended with a king, so at least for that one name we can be reasonably certain).
226:
125:
1247:
The surnames of the lists have been deleted. The reason given is that they are
2773:
1782:
You have been making this stuff up and then pretending it is real - it's not.
1397:
1393:
1248:
995:
554:
446:
3253:
calls them all "their deities" (these are direct quotes, please look them up)
1344:
castle, he would be announced as "Godulf Geoting", not just "Here's Godulf".
1052:
the end supplanted the proper name in epic poetry?" He's saying here that a)
128:, I think it reads really nice now, but let me know if you spot any problems.
2310:
2078:
2070:
1722:
1057:
1053:
332:
218:
179:
482:
b. An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.
517:
450:
2781:
2708:
2322:
2207:
2199:
2066:
1341:
1316:
1288:
910:
194:
2650:
does not mean that every character named in it must have been a hobbit.
2448:
of some sort. The Bedson name apparently having descended from the clan
1897:
Figure 3. A pie chart with a legend indicating what the colors represent
3020:
2860:
Why are you removing the mythological legend (albeit a load of made up
2813:
2313:, where patronymics and their development can assist with the study of
1726:
1434:
being Woden, you need to read this again thoroughly to see he compares
1292:
434:
213:"It is not possible that Godwulf was a traditional, probably historic,
171:
2820:, who, as they say, was the son of a god, not of the omnipotent God."
2765:
2617:
2449:
1137:
1133:
578:
574:
570:
438:
328:
57:
2202:. Mythological names doesn't say they were kings. It says they were
968:
He considered it possible that he could be an ancient king, like in
642:
is like "a monument" or "under a picture" and henceforth a legend.
1587:
because then his list would be incorrect and he'd have published a
1575:
He isn't using your first name terminology Agricolae. There was no
3293:
2797:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2670:
2625:
2609:
2597:
1946:
1900:
1892:
1512:
1467:
1018:
516:
508:
442:
253:
He wrote a book called "The Kings of Lindsey", it's on the cover.
238:
Stonton does not call Godulf a king as you have claimed elsewhere
3216:
elsewhere, so combined with that material farther down the page.
3024:
2817:
2809:
2445:
2276:
1893:
1580:
1576:
1014:
208:
159:
141:
53:
2065:
that Lindsey was ruled by kings of no less noble ancestry that
2409:
I am trying to make arguments Mike, but my comments are being
2203:
445:
means "things to read". If you look the word "legend" up in a
1645:
OK, sorry, points taken, it's late. Stenton was published by
1793:
My evidence that he was a legendary king is the legend in
1511:. I am surprised I have to explain this. You just have to
1221:
I'll bow to you on this one point. Good work. Keep it up.
1021:. I'll maybe try a page on that too, for further tuition.
957:
He has done nothing of the sort. There is no connection.
479:
a. An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.
3126:
we're dealing with almost 200 year old scholarship here.
2020:
If you're not happy with Stenton's definition of them as
3248:, Geoting is mentioned. You have erased perfectly valid
239:
225:
conveniently, in the end supplanted the proper name in
3202:
The edit summary line was too short to describe, so:
2198:" in Stenton. You'll see you are referring to their
1291:? I wasn't aware of a difference between that and a
2887:good enough to use so you can't rightly complain.)
2032:. Take your pick. They pass notability either way.
774:in order to negate notability rule over them being
2206:. Some professors would probably have called them
675:Not necessarily, check dictionary argument above.
1963:The Practical Guide to the Genetic Family History
740:. This is what sources say, let's stick to them.
1400:surnames in their titles, as the sources prove.
395:I am not calling any of them Kings. They're all
3303:Note that, unsurprisingly, this too is untrue.
2539:can one write a double-u? ===> 'W'. UUoden
1595:doesn't let mistakes like that get published.
2931:your unwillingness to hear these explanations
1725:. Now more has been written about him in the
418:unsupported by the evidence, and dishonest.
8:
3410:I have some of them, and Agricolae's right.
2592:And to clarify what sources say, you claim
2460:, which I propose becomes a section within
1763:That's rampant assumption again Agricolae.
429:A legend is a pedigree. You just can't say
1930:of the symbols appearing on a map or chart
1797:. See dictionary for use of word legend.
73:"Godulf Geating The Fodepald or Folcpald"
3472:was invoked but never defined (see the
3458:
2452:, who had a famous Earl once that knew
1966:. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 72β.
1112:Shouting can't make it go away because
521:Figure 2. Scatterplot of relevant data.
2933:has anything to do with math skills.
1960:Robin L. Bennett (20 September 2011).
3031:genealogical names and it'll be gtg.
7:
2528:It is not necessary to count names.
2250:No, that is five names if you count
905:, which involved the legendary king
3464:
1056:was possibly a title. b) The title
331:. Do you understand the concept of
158:"The exception is that the name of
24:User:Dougweller/Talk:Godulf Geoting
2711:that needs further looking into.
2174:Ok, now we can compare. I've got "
31:
2853:This time it's this bit of text:
152:notes that it differs from other
3426:) 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3389:) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3232:) 06:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3164:) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3086:) 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3057:) 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3013:) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2997:) 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2967:) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2842:) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2704:) 03:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2658:) 02:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2552:) 01:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2441:) 20:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2403:) 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2306:) 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2242:) 20:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2171:) 19:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2058:) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1940:) 16:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1854:) 04:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1824:) 03:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1790:) 02:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1760:) 01:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1716:) 00:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1572:) 03:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1542:) 02:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1504:) 01:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1427:) 00:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1323:and understand before you edit.
1252:with the originals and stop the
1201:) 23:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1128:) 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1090:) 02:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1048:) 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1007:) 19:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
965:) 15:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
809:) 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
767:) 20:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
732:) 17:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
702:) 03:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
672:) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
543:) 02:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
426:) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
392:) 19:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
362:) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
324:) 04:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
312:) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
279:) 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
249:) 23:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
120:) 00:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
47:) 23:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
3368:) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3311:) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3277:) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3118:) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
2980:) 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2941:) 14:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2895:) 01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2737:) 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2587:) 02:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2517:) 14:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2275:, we should not be calling him
2262:) 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2015:) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1626:) 04:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1373:) 00:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1331:) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1214:) 00:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
921:) 01:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
843:) 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
607:) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
3407:19:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3349:19:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3152:23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3134:22:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3106:22:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3075:18:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3046:22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2879:01:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2726:03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2693:02:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2643:02:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2571:01:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2531:Uinta Wodning is emphatically
2505:13:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2429:20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2294:20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2225:19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2047:17:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1999:17:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1843:04:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1812:02:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1778:01:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1642:03:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1610:03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1560:03:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1545:Stenton doesn't mention Geat.
1530:01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1489:00:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1415:00:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1387:00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1359:00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1310:23:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1284:23:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1271:23:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1109:02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1075:01:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1036:23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
987:17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
889:00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
831:22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
797:20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
755:20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
720:17:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
690:03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
626:03:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
596:03:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
506:01:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
414:00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
380:17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
350:13:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
301:00:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
268:00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
90:00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1:
3448:19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
3175:23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
2917:12:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2480:00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
2340:20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
2097:18:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1873:11:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1744:01:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1664:03:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1236:02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1159:03:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
946:13:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
657:03:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
138:genealogy of Hors and Hengist
2325:, especially this far back.
221:was a title which, since it
96:It does read perfectly well
71:at the end of a line saying
217:, father of Finn, and that
191:discussed the concept of a
182:was a well-known figure in
162:'s father is here given as
3495:
2784:. Wihtgils was the son of
2768:of various figures having
2608:was the son of Woden. The
1583:. Stenton doesn't mention
994:you would put an image of
513:Figure 1. a coin from Offa
1140:there; about him being a
901:, happens to recount the
559:One that inspires legends
3431:Vespasian B VI (Lindsey)
3288:Note that this is now a
3029:Vespasian B VI (Lindsey)
2673:. His interpretation of
2594:Genealogia Lindisfarorum
2030:Legendary ancestor deity
2024:, they could be a Noble
1698:
1472:Genealogia Lindisfarorum
1436:Genealogia Lindisfarorum
992:Isabel MartΓnez de PerΓ³n
2628:) and his descendants.
2602:Vespasian B Vi (Mercia)
2271:and his first name was
1114:CHADWICK NEVER SAID IT!
189:Raymond Wilson Chambers
140:consistent with one by
65:Raymond Wilson Chambers
2957:already in the article
2846:Deleting original text
2063:Historia Ecclesiastica
1906:
1898:
522:
514:
178:; for Finn the son of
3023:can take care of the
2804:of Frithuwulf ;
2800:of Frithowald ;
2523:
1904:
1896:
929:Hector Munro Chadwick
520:
512:
184:English heroic poetry
150:Hector Munro Chadwick
3468:The named reference
2985:Use of THE FULL WIKI
2772:from a mythological
1706:a cultural reference
1593:Cambridge University
1142:King of the Frisians
1119:NOT THE SAME PERSON!
780:mythological figures
569:, where he mentions
282:Which names weren't
215:king of the Frisians
156:manuscripts, saying
98:in the original book
3240:This is outrageous
2950:Nennius and the ASC
2184:Frealaf Friodulfing
2026:Legendary ancestors
1448:Frealaf Friodulfing
1013:a title similar to
816:connection anyhow.
776:mythological people
286:in that list then?
3246:Germanic mythology
2812:of Godwulf ;
2267:His last name was
2231:WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT
2180:Uuoden Freealafing
1907:
1899:
1430:Stenton speaks of
903:Fight at Finnsburg
523:
515:
176:English traditions
154:Anglian collection
110:Historia Brittonum
3470:ChambersWrenn1959
3001:Godulf as a deity
2788: ; Witta of
2458:Genealogy Lindsey
1973:978-1-118-20981-3
1647:Oxford University
1444:Uuoden Frealafing
990:So on a page for
234:Stenton on Godulf
22:(Redirected from
3486:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3471:
3463:
3447:
3444:
3438:
3406:
3403:
3397:
3348:
3345:
3339:
3242:literary forgery
3151:
3148:
3142:
3105:
3102:
3096:
3074:
3071:
3065:
3045:
3042:
3036:
2916:
2913:
2907:
2878:
2875:
2869:
2862:literary forgery
2796:of Woden ;
2725:
2722:
2716:
2692:
2689:
2683:
2642:
2639:
2633:
2570:
2567:
2561:
2504:
2501:
2495:
2479:
2476:
2470:
2454:Robert the Bruce
2428:
2425:
2419:
2339:
2336:
2330:
2293:
2290:
2284:
2224:
2221:
2215:
2188:Friodulf Finning
2096:
2093:
2087:
2046:
2043:
2037:
1998:
1995:
1989:
1984:
1982:
1980:
1872:
1869:
1863:
1842:
1839:
1833:
1811:
1808:
1802:
1777:
1774:
1768:
1743:
1740:
1734:
1663:
1660:
1654:
1609:
1606:
1600:
1559:
1556:
1550:
1529:
1526:
1520:
1488:
1485:
1479:
1452:Friodulf Finning
1414:
1411:
1405:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1309:
1306:
1300:
1270:
1267:
1261:
1254:literary forgery
1235:
1232:
1226:
1188:Osborn reference
1158:
1155:
1149:
1108:
1105:
1099:
1080:NEVER SAID THAT!
1074:
1071:
1065:
1035:
1032:
1026:
986:
983:
977:
945:
942:
936:
888:
885:
879:
830:
827:
821:
796:
793:
787:
754:
751:
745:
719:
716:
710:
689:
686:
680:
656:
653:
647:
595:
592:
586:
563:Snorri Sturlsson
505:
502:
496:
413:
410:
404:
379:
376:
370:
349:
346:
340:
300:
297:
291:
267:
264:
258:
89:
86:
80:
27:
18:User:Doug Weller
3494:
3493:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3469:
3467:
3465:
3460:
3442:
3436:
3434:
3401:
3395:
3393:
3343:
3337:
3335:
3244:. Snorri wrote
3200:
3146:
3140:
3138:
3124:World Cat entry
3100:
3094:
3092:
3069:
3063:
3061:
3040:
3034:
3032:
3003:
2987:
2952:
2911:
2905:
2903:
2882:
2873:
2867:
2865:
2848:
2808:of Finn ;
2778:Godwulf of Geat
2758:
2720:
2714:
2712:
2687:
2681:
2679:
2637:
2631:
2629:
2565:
2559:
2557:
2526:
2499:
2493:
2491:
2490:brain surgery.
2474:
2468:
2466:
2423:
2417:
2415:
2334:
2328:
2326:
2288:
2282:
2280:
2219:
2213:
2211:
2192:Finn Goduulfing
2091:
2085:
2083:
2041:
2035:
2033:
2022:Legendary kings
1993:
1987:
1985:
1978:
1976:
1974:
1959:
1867:
1861:
1859:
1837:
1831:
1829:
1806:
1800:
1798:
1772:
1766:
1764:
1738:
1732:
1730:
1701:
1658:
1652:
1650:
1604:
1598:
1596:
1585:Geata Taetwaing
1554:
1548:
1546:
1524:
1518:
1516:
1483:
1477:
1475:
1409:
1403:
1401:
1353:
1347:
1345:
1304:
1298:
1296:
1265:
1259:
1257:
1245:
1230:
1224:
1222:
1190:
1153:
1147:
1145:
1103:
1097:
1095:
1069:
1063:
1061:
1030:
1024:
1022:
981:
975:
973:
940:
934:
932:
883:
877:
875:
872:
825:
819:
817:
791:
785:
783:
749:
743:
741:
714:
708:
706:
684:
678:
676:
651:
645:
643:
640:royal genealogy
590:
584:
582:
500:
494:
492:
408:
402:
400:
397:Legendary kings
374:
368:
366:
344:
338:
336:
295:
289:
287:
284:legendary kings
262:
256:
254:
236:
84:
78:
76:
60:of yours again.
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3492:
3490:
3481:
3480:
3457:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3453:
3452:
3451:
3450:
3449:
3371:
3370:
3369:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3328:
3315:
3314:
3313:
3312:
3298:
3297:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3199:
3198:Recent changes
3196:
3195:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3184:
3183:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3119:
3002:
2999:
2986:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2951:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2897:
2896:
2847:
2844:
2827:was the son of
2822:
2821:
2757:
2754:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2675:Cretta Uintung
2614:Cretta Uintung
2590:
2589:
2588:
2525:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2462:Vespasian B VI
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2319:family history
2265:
2264:
2263:
2196:Godulf Geoting
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2075:Godulf Geoting
2018:
2017:
2016:
1972:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1795:Vespasian B Vi
1746:
1745:
1700:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1460:Godulf Geoting
1456:Finn Godulfing
1440:Vespasian B Vi
1376:
1375:
1374:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1244:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1216:
1215:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
950:
949:
948:
947:
923:
922:
871:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
738:King of Frisia
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
616:dictionary.com
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
547:Godulf Geoting
528:
489:Legendary king
484:
483:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
431:Pedigreed King
235:
232:
134:
133:
132:
131:
130:
129:
69:Godulf Geating
62:
61:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3491:
3475:
3462:
3459:
3445:
3439:
3432:
3428:
3427:
3425:
3421:
3417:
3413:
3412:Mike Christie
3409:
3408:
3404:
3398:
3391:
3390:
3388:
3384:
3380:
3376:
3375:Mike Christie
3372:
3367:
3363:
3359:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3346:
3340:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3322:
3320:
3310:
3306:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3287:
3286:
3276:
3272:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3251:
3247:
3243:
3239:
3238:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3231:
3227:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3210:
3207:
3203:
3197:
3174:
3170:
3166:
3165:
3163:
3159:
3154:
3153:
3149:
3143:
3136:
3135:
3133:
3129:
3125:
3120:
3117:
3113:
3108:
3107:
3103:
3097:
3090:
3088:
3087:
3085:
3081:
3077:
3076:
3072:
3066:
3059:
3058:
3056:
3052:
3048:
3047:
3043:
3037:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3015:
3014:
3012:
3008:
3000:
2998:
2996:
2992:
2984:
2979:
2975:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2966:
2962:
2958:
2949:
2940:
2936:
2932:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2914:
2908:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2894:
2890:
2885:
2884:
2883:
2880:
2876:
2870:
2863:
2858:
2854:
2851:
2845:
2843:
2841:
2837:
2831:
2828:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2803:
2799:
2795:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2779:
2775:
2771:
2770:royal descent
2767:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2755:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2727:
2723:
2717:
2710:
2706:
2705:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2694:
2690:
2684:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2667:Godly descent
2664:
2663:royal descent
2660:
2659:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2644:
2640:
2634:
2627:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2586:
2582:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2568:
2562:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2551:
2547:
2542:
2536:
2534:
2529:
2524:Where's Woden
2516:
2512:
2507:
2506:
2502:
2496:
2488:
2477:
2471:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2442:
2440:
2436:
2431:
2430:
2426:
2420:
2412:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2389:Mike Christie
2337:
2331:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2305:
2301:
2296:
2295:
2291:
2285:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2248:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2241:
2237:
2232:
2227:
2226:
2222:
2216:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2176:Uinta Wodning
2173:
2172:
2170:
2166:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2094:
2088:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2059:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2048:
2044:
2038:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2014:
2010:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1996:
1990:
1975:
1969:
1965:
1964:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1903:
1895:
1870:
1864:
1856:
1855:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1834:
1826:
1825:
1823:
1819:
1814:
1813:
1809:
1803:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1789:
1785:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1769:
1762:
1761:
1759:
1755:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1741:
1735:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1661:
1655:
1648:
1644:
1643:
1641:
1637:
1632:
1625:
1621:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1601:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1573:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1551:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1537:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1521:
1514:
1510:
1509:Uinta Wodning
1506:
1505:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1480:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1464:Uinta Wodning
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1432:Uinta Wodning
1429:
1428:
1426:
1422:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1406:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1372:
1368:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1350:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1301:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1262:
1255:
1250:
1242:
1233:
1227:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1200:
1196:
1187:
1156:
1150:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1100:
1092:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1078:And Chadwick
1077:
1076:
1072:
1066:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1027:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1006:
1002:
997:
993:
989:
988:
984:
978:
971:
967:
966:
964:
960:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
943:
937:
930:
927:
926:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
895:
892:
891:
890:
886:
880:
869:
842:
838:
833:
832:
828:
822:
815:
811:
810:
808:
804:
799:
798:
794:
788:
781:
777:
773:
769:
768:
766:
762:
757:
756:
752:
746:
739:
734:
733:
731:
727:
722:
721:
717:
711:
704:
703:
701:
697:
692:
691:
687:
681:
674:
673:
671:
667:
663:
654:
648:
641:
637:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
625:
621:
617:
613:
606:
602:
598:
597:
593:
587:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
542:
538:
534:
529:
525:
524:
519:
511:
507:
503:
497:
490:
481:
478:
477:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
425:
421:
416:
415:
411:
405:
398:
394:
393:
391:
387:
382:
381:
377:
371:
364:
363:
361:
357:
352:
351:
347:
341:
334:
330:
326:
325:
323:
319:
314:
313:
311:
307:
303:
302:
298:
292:
285:
281:
280:
278:
274:
270:
269:
265:
259:
252:
251:
250:
248:
244:
240:
233:
231:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
210:
206:
204:
198:
196:
190:
187:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:) instead of
169:
165:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:Discussing a
127:
122:
121:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
93:
92:
91:
87:
81:
74:
70:
66:
59:
55:
50:
49:
48:
46:
42:
33:
25:
19:
3466:Cite error:
3461:
3332:
3319:mythological
3316:
3296:of Godulf!!!
3289:
3250:philological
3222:
3218:
3214:
3211:
3208:
3204:
3201:
3019:Price does.
3004:
2988:
2972:guy's book.
2956:
2953:
2881:
2859:
2855:
2852:
2849:
2832:
2826:
2823:
2759:
2647:
2540:
2537:
2532:
2530:
2527:
2410:
2385:
2251:
1977:. Retrieved
1962:
1954:
1950:
1929:
1702:
1589:mathematical
1493:
1338:banquet hall
1320:
1246:
1191:
1118:
1113:
1079:
898:
893:
873:
814:Langfedgetal
771:
636:coat of arms
567:Langfedgetal
558:
532:
485:
437:, so we use
237:
212:
200:
192:
157:
135:
109:
108:who, in the
105:
101:
97:
72:
63:
37:
3437:Paul Bedson
3396:Paul Bedson
3338:Paul Bedson
3141:Paul Bedson
3095:Paul Bedson
3064:Paul Bedson
3035:Paul Bedson
2906:Paul Bedson
2868:Paul Bedson
2764:He tells a
2715:Paul Bedson
2682:Paul Bedson
2665:(should be
2632:Paul Bedson
2606:Weothulgeot
2560:Paul Bedson
2494:Paul Bedson
2469:Paul Bedson
2418:Paul Bedson
2329:Paul Bedson
2315:ethnography
2283:Paul Bedson
2214:Paul Bedson
2086:Paul Bedson
2036:Paul Bedson
2028:or perhaps
1988:Paul Bedson
1979:25 November
1862:Paul Bedson
1832:Paul Bedson
1801:Paul Bedson
1767:Paul Bedson
1733:Paul Bedson
1699:'Legendary'
1653:Paul Bedson
1599:Paul Bedson
1549:Paul Bedson
1519:Paul Bedson
1496:surnames.
1478:Paul Bedson
1404:Paul Bedson
1348:Paul Bedson
1299:Paul Bedson
1260:Paul Bedson
1225:Paul Bedson
1148:Paul Bedson
1098:Paul Bedson
1082:All clear?
1064:Paul Bedson
1025:Paul Bedson
976:Paul Bedson
970:epic poetry
935:Paul Bedson
878:Paul Bedson
820:Paul Bedson
786:Paul Bedson
744:Paul Bedson
709:Paul Bedson
679:Paul Bedson
646:Paul Bedson
585:Paul Bedson
551:inscription
495:Paul Bedson
441:, which in
403:Paul Bedson
369:Paul Bedson
339:Paul Bedson
290:Paul Bedson
257:Paul Bedson
227:epic poetry
223:alliterated
146:H. E. I. 15
126:inspiration
79:Paul Bedson
2806:Frithuwulf
2802:Frithowald
2774:son of god
2648:The Hobbit
1398:patronymic
1394:Patronymic
1321:slow down!
1249:patronymic
996:Ron Reagan
573:being the
555:manuscript
527:pedigree".
447:dictionary
3474:help page
3362:Agricolae
3305:Agricolae
3271:Agricolae
3226:Agricolae
3158:Agricolae
3112:Agricolae
3080:Agricolae
3051:Agricolae
3007:Agricolae
2991:Agricolae
2974:Agricolae
2961:Agricolae
2935:Agricolae
2889:Agricolae
2836:Agricolae
2698:Agricolae
2652:Agricolae
2581:Agricolae
2546:Agricolae
2511:Agricolae
2435:Agricolae
2311:philology
2300:Agricolae
2269:Taetwaing
2256:Agricolae
2236:Agricolae
2208:God-Kings
2200:use names
2165:Agricolae
2079:Legendary
2071:Aethelred
2052:Agricolae
2009:Agricolae
1934:Agricolae
1848:Agricolae
1818:Agricolae
1784:Agricolae
1754:Agricolae
1723:King Puru
1710:Agricolae
1620:Agricolae
1591:mistake.
1566:Agricolae
1536:Agricolae
1498:Agricolae
1421:Agricolae
1367:Agricolae
1325:Agricolae
1319:. Please
1287:What's a
1208:Agricolae
1195:Agricolae
1122:Agricolae
1084:Agricolae
1058:Folcwalda
1054:Folcwalda
1042:Agricolae
1001:Agricolae
959:Agricolae
915:Agricolae
909:, son of
837:Agricolae
803:Agricolae
761:Agricolae
726:Agricolae
696:Agricolae
666:Agricolae
601:Agricolae
537:Agricolae
420:Agricolae
386:Agricolae
356:Agricolae
333:plurality
318:Agricolae
306:Agricolae
273:Agricolae
243:Agricolae
219:Folcwalda
180:Folcwalda
164:Folczvald
114:Agricolae
67:mentions
41:Agricolae
3420:contribs
3383:contribs
3358:WP:POINT
3169:Ealdgyth
3128:Ealdgyth
2792: ;
2782:Wihtgils
2709:Folcpald
2397:contribs
2323:ancestry
2252:them all
2067:Ecgfrith
1636:Ealdgyth
1381:Ealdgyth
1342:dark age
1340:in some
1317:redirect
1289:use name
1278:Ealdgyth
1243:Surnames
911:Folcwald
620:Ealdgyth
577:form of
533:OFFA REX
203:Fodepald
195:Folcpald
168:Fodcpald
106:Folcpald
102:Fodepald
34:Folcwald
3424:library
3387:library
3021:Tolkien
2814:Godwulf
2776:called
2756:Nennius
2669:) from
2411:deleted
2401:library
1945:I know
1727:Puranas
1470:of the
1293:surname
899:Beowulf
894:Beowulf
870:Picture
435:English
172:Godwulf
58:legends
3321:gods.
2766:legend
2731:Phiwum
2618:Creoda
2450:McDuff
1970:
1951:legend
1828:title.
1494:AREN'T
1466:being
1138:Godulf
1136:about
1134:legend
579:Godulf
575:Danish
571:Gudolf
549:is an
439:Legend
329:plural
207:. He
3294:alias
3025:myths
2798:Woden
2794:Wecta
2790:Wecta
2786:Witta
2671:Woden
2626:Cryda
2622:Crida
2616:(aka
2610:Winta
2604:says
2598:Winta
2596:says
2273:Geata
1947:Latin
1513:Count
1468:Woden
1438:with
1019:Count
772:names
553:on a
443:Latin
209:mused
166:(al.
54:myths
16:<
3443:talk
3416:talk
3402:talk
3379:talk
3366:talk
3344:talk
3309:talk
3275:talk
3230:talk
3173:Talk
3162:talk
3147:talk
3132:Talk
3116:talk
3101:talk
3084:talk
3070:talk
3055:talk
3041:talk
3011:talk
2995:talk
2978:talk
2965:talk
2939:talk
2912:talk
2893:talk
2874:talk
2840:talk
2818:Geat
2810:Finn
2735:talk
2721:talk
2702:talk
2688:talk
2656:talk
2638:talk
2624:aka
2620:aka
2585:talk
2566:talk
2550:talk
2533:NOT!
2515:talk
2500:talk
2475:talk
2446:Lady
2439:talk
2424:talk
2393:talk
2335:talk
2321:and
2304:talk
2289:talk
2277:Geat
2260:talk
2240:talk
2220:talk
2204:Gods
2169:talk
2092:talk
2069:and
2056:talk
2042:talk
2013:talk
1994:talk
1981:2012
1968:ISBN
1938:talk
1868:talk
1852:talk
1838:talk
1822:talk
1807:talk
1788:talk
1773:talk
1758:talk
1739:talk
1714:talk
1659:talk
1640:Talk
1624:talk
1605:talk
1581:goat
1577:Geat
1570:talk
1555:talk
1540:talk
1525:talk
1502:talk
1484:talk
1458:and
1425:talk
1410:talk
1385:Talk
1371:talk
1354:talk
1329:talk
1305:talk
1282:Talk
1266:talk
1231:talk
1212:talk
1199:talk
1154:talk
1126:talk
1104:talk
1088:talk
1070:talk
1046:talk
1031:talk
1015:King
1005:talk
982:talk
963:talk
941:talk
919:talk
907:Finn
884:talk
841:talk
826:talk
807:talk
792:talk
765:talk
750:talk
730:talk
715:talk
700:talk
685:talk
670:talk
652:talk
624:Talk
605:talk
591:talk
541:talk
501:talk
424:talk
409:talk
390:talk
375:talk
360:talk
345:talk
322:talk
310:talk
296:talk
277:talk
263:talk
247:talk
160:Finn
142:Bede
118:talk
85:talk
56:and
45:talk
3422:-
3385:-
3290:3rd
2816:of
2399:-
1955:key
1953:or
1017:or
778:or
565:'s
433:in
199:or
148:),
104:or
3476:).
3433:?
3418:-
3381:-
3171:-
3130:-
2600:,
2541:IS
2395:-
2194:,
2190:,
2186:,
2182:,
2178:,
1638:-
1515:.
1462:.
1454:,
1450:,
1446:,
1383:-
1280:-
1256:?
622:-
399:.
335:?
229:?"
211:;
186:."
75:.
3446:β
3440:β
3414:(
3405:β
3399:β
3377:(
3364:(
3347:β
3341:β
3307:(
3273:(
3228:(
3160:(
3150:β
3144:β
3114:(
3104:β
3098:β
3082:(
3073:β
3067:β
3053:(
3044:β
3038:β
3009:(
2993:(
2976:(
2963:(
2937:(
2915:β
2909:β
2891:(
2877:β
2871:β
2838:(
2733:(
2724:β
2718:β
2700:(
2691:β
2685:β
2654:(
2641:β
2635:β
2583:(
2569:β
2563:β
2548:(
2513:(
2503:β
2497:β
2478:β
2472:β
2437:(
2427:β
2421:β
2391:(
2338:β
2332:β
2302:(
2292:β
2286:β
2258:(
2238:(
2223:β
2217:β
2167:(
2095:β
2089:β
2054:(
2045:β
2039:β
2011:(
1997:β
1991:β
1983:.
1936:(
1871:β
1865:β
1850:(
1841:β
1835:β
1820:(
1810:β
1804:β
1786:(
1776:β
1770:β
1756:(
1742:β
1736:β
1712:(
1662:β
1656:β
1622:(
1608:β
1602:β
1568:(
1558:β
1552:β
1538:(
1528:β
1522:β
1500:(
1487:β
1481:β
1423:(
1413:β
1407:β
1369:(
1357:β
1351:β
1327:(
1308:β
1302:β
1269:β
1263:β
1234:β
1228:β
1210:(
1197:(
1157:β
1151:β
1144:.
1124:(
1107:β
1101:β
1086:(
1073:β
1067:β
1044:(
1034:β
1028:β
1003:(
985:β
979:β
961:(
944:β
938:β
917:(
887:β
881:β
839:(
829:β
823:β
805:(
795:β
789:β
763:(
753:β
747:β
728:(
718:β
712:β
698:(
688:β
682:β
668:(
655:β
649:β
603:(
594:β
588:β
539:(
504:β
498:β
491:.
449:,
422:(
412:β
406:β
388:(
378:β
372:β
358:(
348:β
342:β
320:(
308:(
299:β
293:β
275:(
266:β
260:β
245:(
205:"
201:"
197:"
193:"
144:(
116:(
88:β
82:β
43:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.