Talk:Æthelred the Unready

Untitled

According to Eilert Ekwall, Ethel means 'protection' rather than the broader 'noble'. So keep the semiotic ring-a-ding-ding-ding, but the name means 'protection advice uncounselled,' apt for his era. 64.65.73.178 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC) ==Untitled== OK, so why was he called "The Uncounselled", then? Bad habit of holding his hands over his ears and singing "My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean" when his advisors spoke? -- Paul Drye

Not a million miles away from what happened, as it transpires... Except his advisors were as twisty as a New Labour focus group.... sjc

Read The Long Ships by Bengtson. Not only will that answer your qustion, it will also entertain you. (And while we're at it, shouldn't that novel be mentioned under "popular culture?)--Peter Knutsen 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

According to [1], it means "unwise". -- DrBob

- and if you believe much of that particular take on history, you'll also believe that England is a South Sea island paradise where the trains run on time and the streets are paved with gold. sjc

There are potentially n different translations out there, and n-1 of them are historically inaccurate if not actually wrong from a linguistic point of view. However, and I was hoping not to have to go into this, it's actually a longer article than most in the Wikipedia in itself, the word in AS is unraede, "without counsel" meaning that (to paraphrase Monty Python) in the ultimate balance, when all was said and done, at the final whistle, at a time of major national crisis he had absolutely no answers whatsoever for the problems which confronted him, and, moreover, as those who gave hime the nickname would have been fully aware, nobody on which he could rely to turn to for those answers. It is an Anglo-Saxon form of joke, an ironic pun, and is a) exceptionally cruel and b) searingly accurate. It doesn't just mean he was unprepared, it means he didn't have a fecking clue.

In fact it is not an Anglo-Saxon joke - the epithet unraede is of uncertain provenance and first appears in the Middle English period. A pun certainly, but not one likely to have been coined by his contemporary.

PS: DrBob: you don't think that the chinless wonders might be being somewhat diplomatic about their forebears in their website do you, by any chance?sjc

mmmmm, royal nomenclature. My favorite English mistranslation is Philip the Fair of France. He's Philip-the-Goodlooking-who-EVERYONE-hated. Traditional nomenclature is a snare and a delusion, but how else are we going to keep Ethelred the U. separate from the other Ethelred(s)? --MichaelTinkler

My sentiments entirely. I was going to bang him in as Ethelred II but no-one would have the foggiest who Ethelred II was (I had to figure it myself). sjc

Go Cognomina! Unless anyone writes an article on "England's Rose," in which case I'll have to rethink! JHK

Best def I've seen is "poorly advised", tho I doubt "unready" will unstick... Trekphiler 11:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Adraeus, what is it about the article that needs to be cleaned up? Adam Bishop 8 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Minor issues: organize the article into sections, convert non-English letterforms into HTML entities. For exampel, Æ. See also: Manual of Style for Biographies. Adraeus July 8, 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Well it's not really long enough to have sections yet. And if you know how to convert those letters into HTML entities, please do - surely that would have been easier than slapping a cleanup tag on it and discussing it here :) Adam Bishop 8 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Well it's cleaned up now, I hope. Adam Bishop 20:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Character

What is omitted in this article is an examination of the serious character flaws that caused his reign to be one of the most disastrous in English history. He seemed unable to retain the loyalty of almost any of his subjects and was continually betrayed by various of his commanders. He was inconsistent and forgave those who betrayed him only to have them betray him again. He often rewarded his enemies and punished his followers. Instead of having his rivals executed by royal decree he had them assassinated in underhand ways so they never knew where they stood. He made war on civilians and ran away from battle with proper armies.

Much of this can be understood- though not forgiven- by reference to his childhood. He appears to have witnessed the brutal assassination of his half-brother King Edward the Martyr by his own mother when aged 10. He is reported to have cried inconsolably so his mother beat him with candles. This gave him a lifelong aversion to candles and might be expected to lead to a borderline personality disorder, which is borne out by his later behaviour. It also meant that he could not stand candles in his presence- so what did he do when it got dark? He is said to have been very lazy and slept a lot, but he also had a vast number of children. —Streona 21:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The hyperlink for first wife is incorrect; currently points to wife of Canute

Start Class

Good work on a basic outline of his life, but the article is mostly unsourced and could certainly contain more details in most facets of his life. Perhaps most lacking is any discussion of where "Unready" came from. Even though the translation of "Unraede" is in question, there should still be some description of the term and why he was not, in fact, Unready. —Cuiviénen 15:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is pretty good. In modern Dutch, a sister language of Old English, the naming pun still works: Edelraad Onraad. And so in German: Adelrat Unrat. I guess you have to viscerally "get" the joke to appreciate that the explanations offered by page writer and above posters are correct.

I have to agree with Cuiviénen, it's a good start but it needs a lot of work. Æthelred deserves much better than this, as it stands: for example, so that his government can no longer be described as a 'total failure... in the face of the Danish threat' (he continued to rule for over 30 years after the new Danish attacks started!), and so that it is adequately provided with decent citations (I'm sorry, but as if citing a Florida Supreme Court handout as a reference for Æthelred's legal reforms weren't already a bad idea, the fact that it describes Æthelred as a 'Danish' king makes it laughable!). It might take a while, but I'll try to make up for these rather negative comments by making some contributions of my own. Nortonius (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Marriages

As pointed out above, there is some confusion about Ethelred's wives. The text gives three, Elflaed with a broken link, Elgifu with a link to a woman born born in 997 and had two children, and yet by 1002 he is married to Emma of Normandy. The summary box lists only the last two wives with the same wrong link for Elgifu. Dudleymiles 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• This link should clear up the confusion of which children were born from Aelflaed and Emma of Normandy under marriage with Ethelred the Unready. Sundehul 1 Dec 2007

Please correct the name of Aelgifu to Aelflaed, per this link showing her marriage to Ethelred the Unready. On the other hand, Emma of Normandy adopted the name of Aelgifu when she married Ethelred. On the sidebar of Ethelred's article, please separate the children - firstly to Aelflaed, then secondly to Emma (she had Alfred, Edward and Goda), all other children from Aelflaed under Ethelred. Sundehul 1 Dec 2007.

Barlow's Edward the Confessor says Æthelred's first wife was Ælfgifu. Higham's Death of Anglo-Saxon England says Ælfgifu. Pauline Stafford's Unification and Conquest says Ælfgifu. Sean Miller's "Æthelred the Unready" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says Ælfgifu. I think we should stick with Ælfgifu. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethelred II vs. Ethelred

In the last few hours, the 'II' in Ethelred II has been removed, with some insistence. The editor in question argues that this enumeration is spurious and incorrect, and adduces the examples of the three pre-Conquest kings of England called 'Edward'. I have countered that this enumeration is in fact found in fundamental historiography outside the confines of Wikipedia, e.g. in Stafford, P., Unification and Conquest, Edward Arnold, 1989, index, and so is not spurious; and would argue that, within the context of Anglo-Saxon kingship, it is both correct and useful. Also, I would say that the argument regarding kings called 'Edward' does not apply, since there are no post-Conquest kings called 'Æthelred' (or however you want to spell it). I have also indicated that, as this enumeration has been present on Ethelred's page since 2001, through a large number of edits, the consensus appears already to be in favour of its inclusion. At the moment, I don't want to pursue this any further with the editor in question, but I invite interested comments here. Nortonius (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely this is a nobrainer? How many scholarly articles do we need to show that it is common to use the 'II'? eg Archbishop Wulfstan and the Homiletic Element in the Laws of Æthelred II and Cnut M. K. LawsonT he English Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 424 (Jul., 1992), pp. 565-586, a review by Barbara Yorke of King Alfred's College Winchester where she writes "where the case is made for Alfred anticipating his descendant /Ethelred II in having to buy off his enemies through the payment of tribute." Doug Weller (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, for restoring the 'II', and for being observant enough to also restore 'Ethelred the Unready' - I had noticed its incidental deletion, but didn't have the stomach for yet another discussion! Great. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation problems

Given the wealth of works published in the last 30 years which treat of Ethelred and his reign, it is rather embarassing that the reference list for this article is so sparse. Many of the articles from the Millenary Conference book altered the way historians perceive his reign; most of these articles should show up in the Wiki entry. Above all, the following work could not be referenced enough, I think: Simon Keynes, The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘The Unready’, 978-1016: A Study in their Use as Historical Evidence, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 3, vol. 13 (Cambridge, 1980). Also, the method of reference is uneven and unstandardized. I intend to contribute what I can to the bibliography, though help would be appreciated.

Last, has anyone checked the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (under “Æthelred II [Ethelred; known as Ethelred the Unready] (c.966x8–1016)”)? Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Laws

I am fascinated by the legislative achievements during Ethelred's reign, particularly in how the king collaborated with Wulfstan II, Archbishop of York, in the promotion of secular and ecclesiastical law. We remember that Wulfstan is famed for composing one of the most interesting 'documents' from this period, the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, which (in one of the versions) alludes to and strongly condemns Ethelred's brief expulsion from the kingdom. The fact that Wulfstan, who seems to have had ambiguous feelings about Ethelred as king, nevertheless upheld his right to rule, and supposedly helped arrange to have him re-instated after his brief exile, suggests that not everyone was quick to condemn the King as an utterly deperate case.

The laws that Wulfstan drew up for Ethelred are like few other Anglo-Saxon legal codes. They are highly rhetorical and call for a sort of pan-English devotion to correct practice of the Christian faith as a method of opposing the Danish 'scourge' (sent, Wulfstan says, as retribution from God for the wicked contemporary customs of the English). Yet they are also innovative in terms of their more standard legal pronouncements, like coinage, defence, etc. (these I think are already mentioned briefly in the Wiki entry - they could be expanded upon). That a reign supposedly filled with governmental incompetance was able to see through such legislatiove reforms (albeit only with aid of a remarkable Archbishop's) speaks to our overly-simplified view of the situation.

Further, how does St. Brice's day get only cursory mention in this article? Whatever our feelings about it, it was a major event in the reign of Ethelred. That something this drastic, momentous, and (presumably) far-reaching could be pulled off surreptitiously by the King and his witan again suggests a different picture of Ethelred than as a king who held the reins of government by a thread. and, agains, it seems relevant that Wulfstan was promoted to the archbishopric of YORK in this year (Jon Wilcox has an article exploring this connection). Last, with Wulfstan as (probably) the most important political figure in the north of England 1002-16, a region which was thoroughly populated with Danes and Norwegians, surely more can be said of his role in Ethelred's conflict with the Danish invasions.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The jury

I have forgotten where I read it (it may have been Keynes' book on the Diplomas, or Patrcik Wormald's on Making English Law), but I believe that the notion that the jury had its origins in the juridical practices of the Anglo-Saxons is now out of fashion. Also, as has been mentioned above, the fact that the "Grand Jury Handbook" is cited here is laughable.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'm still laughing about that one! (apologies to the editor responsible, but it is funny!) I suspect you're right about the jury issue - I've got Ann Williams' recent(ish) book right here, but the index is a bit too opaque for me to look it up right now. But I think the jury thing probably belongs in the same skip as the idea that King Alfred founded the royal navy... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth having a proper look at Williams, Ann, Æthelred The Unready The Ill-Counselled King, Hambledon & London, 2003: a quick glance (p.57) found me "Edgar's Wihtbordesstan code ... ordered the establishment of ... panels of jurors' - not even Æthelred... But I've looked no further, so there might be something for or against - as I say it's got one of those annoyingly opaque indexes, where you have to check every page number listed to find what you want. Common practice, but tedious in the extreme. Though you can occasionally find interesting stuff that you weren't looking for that way... Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have that. I'm off to bed now but I'll have a look tomorrow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Great - I wish there was always someone to pop up with a helpful offer like that! ;o) Any chance you could look something up in the EPNS Surrey volume?! Just being cheeky in a cheery sort of way, so don't worry, but it would be handy... Nortonius (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No luck so far - all I can see is the part you quoted, which isn't really about juries - but I'll go through it again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok - and, no indeed, talking of jurors is one thing, establishing juries as we understand them would be quite another! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I should still prefer to give Wormald the last word in this. I will check his Making English Law next week. For now, this note in Williams' book is interesting, but I wonder if she isn't being uncareful with her terms: the word 'juror' is a vague term and has been used rather recklessly in the past in an attempt to equate Anglo-Saxon reeves and compurgators to Anglo-Norman juratores and jurati. I believe Maitland thought the jury stemmed from Frankish practices, while Jollife, in his The Constitutional History of Medieval England (3rd ed., 1954, p. 209), doesn't mention anything about forerunners to the Grand jury until his discussion of Henry II's Norman reforms of English law (suggesting 1166 as the very earliest date for such an (proto-)institution). I'll go read the Edgar code, and review the relevant part of the Ethelred code as well. I can probably dig up some recent articles on JSTOR too.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(undid indent)

Not sure Williams would be "uncareful" about anything, exactly - is she just reflecting current thinking? But you're the one digging into it, not me! ;o) Maybe a good idea for a new section for legal history, as it seems to be an issue - I'd just be careful not to make it unwieldy, & check that it isn't covered more fully under some more "legal" article - maybe you have? Admittedly I haven't thought about it for more than a millisecond, but isn't there at least a conceptual link between A-S jurors, & juries...? There's lots of subcutaneous continuity between A-S & A-N institutions, e.g. Domesday Book couldn't have been written w/o pre-existing A-S admin... Just thinking out loud, really, in case it helps. And, I'd be surprised if those Old English law codes aren't available in good, modern English translation somewhere...? EHD I...? Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Shouldn't have said "uncareful". Perhaps she means 'jurors' in the basic sense 'people who have sworn an oath', in which case she would be perfectly accurate.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Juries in some form probably go back to Roman times: it would be interesting to have an expert describe ordinary civil and criminal trial procedure in Roman 5th century. Certainly the Bretons had juries in the early middle ages. Work by Julia M. H. Harris and others presents the results of studying hundreds of legal documents from the reigns of Erispoe (849-857) and Salomon (857-874). It was standard practice for disputes to be taken to court - interesting examples include several of a peasant taking a local lord to task for trespass - the peasant won in each case. Sometimes cases were escalated to a higher court. In those that went to the Prince, he would choose an eminent panel who were sent to the place where the case originated to select a jury comprising peers to the disputants to try the case. Zoetropo (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New Section?

I propose making a new section for discussion of legal matters pertaining to Ethelred's reign. It's beginning to look like much of the matter in the "Lagacy" section is legal-ish. To clean things up a bit, I think we should separate all the discussion of legal matters (except perhaps the jury section) to its own section.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned something about this is my comment for The Jury section above... Nortonius (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems good, especially if you can have access to Wormald's magnum opus [which is, as I understand things, the last word on the matter]. Something on the mini-renaissance of the age - not just Wulfstan but also Byrhtferth and Ælfric the Homilist - would be good. I did do some doodling on the structure of the article at User:Angusmclellan/Ethelred. If there's anything useful there, help yourself, if not, ignore it. The article is looking much better! Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's great. Those refs will come in handy.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy Editing

What needs to be done to satisfy the copy-editing alert?Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To Be Done:

• The introduction may need an overhaul.
• 'Marriage and Reissue' needs the support of references.
• 'Legislation' is still basically a stub
• 'Conflict with the Danes' needs to cover the final years of his reign more fully.Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriages again

When (?and where) did Ethelered marry his respective wives? Why did his first marriage end (death; divorce)? How did he manage to snag a girl like Emma (i.e. what arrangements were made with Normandy)?Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Differentiated this "Marriages" section from the earlier one, so clicking on a link actually brings you here! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of marriages under Ethelred he is said to have had a daughter Aelfgifu who married Uchtred the Bold, yet under the Uchtred heading there is no mention of Aelfgifu only an Ecgfrida whom he put aside so he could marry Sige. Have no idea where else to put this question. So who did Uchtred the Bold marry? was it a daughter of Ethelred? Is this an incorrect entry?Strathbrook (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@Strathbrook: This is very late, but I've lately been researching specifically that family for a project - my notes mention Uhtred's wife as being Aelfgifu, daughter of King Aethelred. I have found a source (secondary) as Kappell, William E. from his work The Norman Conquest of the North (1979). I am assuming he was working from a primary source or sources. Momspack4 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Momspack4

Aethelred vs. Ethelred

Shouldn't this article be called Aethelred the Unready? As it is an article primarily concerning England, surely British English should be used, which leaves in ligatures (eg. Archaeology vs. Archeology, Manoeuver vs. Maneuver) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.67.44 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the spelling 'Aethelred' that I can remember. It's always either 'Æthelred' or 'Ethelred'. Eltheodigraeardgesece (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If his Old English name was Æþelræd why are we calling him Æthelred? Surely consistency demands either Æthelræd or Ethelred, preserving either both instances of æ or neither? -- Picapica (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Aethelreda, daughter of Ethelred?

The previous version of this article lists an additional possible daughter, Aethelreda, married to Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria, and the article on Gospatrick states this as definite. However, she is not shown in Barlow's family tree, and the DNB article on Gospatrick at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/11110/?back=,50322 says that the name of his wife is unknown. I have therefore deleted her from both articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudley Miles (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of English monarchs

Ælfweard is listed as an undoubted monarch and Harold Godwinson as a disputed one. This is surely the wrong way round, as the Wikipedia entries for both make clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Ethelred the Unready.jpg

Recently the file File:Ethelred the Unready.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. This is the full image that the current lead image is a detail of. Dcoetzee 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Æthelred the Unready → Ethelred the Unready – We should follow the Wikipedia convention to use people's common names. This sort of typographical ligature is no longer in everyday use in English. The present title is an awkward halfway house, being neither his common name using normal current English spelling, nor his actual contemporary name in Old English, which was Æþelræd. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Oppose. [Clinched by remarks from Nortonius, below.–N] I hope that all articles incorporating ligatures will have redirects from forms that can actually be typed by real people. But the ligature "æ" (along with its capital) is meaningful in Old English. If the usual Old English form (they vary!) is indeed "Æþelræd" (see above), then there is a job of sorting out to do. It is, I believe, pretty standard not to preserve the "þ". Should "æ" be there if the "Æ" is kept? Not necessarily. For one thing, it is the initial letters that loom large in searching for and sorting such names (and see Google evidence below). WP:MOS says something on all this:

When quoting from early modern sources, normalize disused glyphs and ligatures to modern usage when doing so will not change or obscure the meaning of the text. Examples of such changes include the following: æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and ye→the.

That is about allowable typographical changes when quoting, but the recommendation might be extended to other situations too. Still, that is early modern sources. In the scholarly literature, when Old English names are used in any systematic way "æ" is definitely kept, and not reduced to "ae" or "e". This point is made in major contemporary style guides. Unfortunately Google ngrams cannot handle such ligatures; but this evidence may be useful in deciding between "Aethelraed", "Aethelred", and "Ethelred" (the three possible forms that avoid ligatures). Two cautions though: ngrams survey all literatures, not just what we might regard as "reliable sources"; and Wikipedia style should determine things (where it does make recommendations), not "reliable sources" alone.

Finally, here is a useful Googlebooks search on "Æþelræd" OR "Æthelræd" OR "Æthelred". Even bearing in mind that Google may not handle the ligatures well, among these options our current title vastly dominates in the literature, as we can see when it is removed from the search: "Æþelræd" OR "Æthelræd".

Noetica^Tea? 23:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Modern reliable English-language sources in the secondary literature predominantly use the ligature in names of this type, and we should follow their example. For example: Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England; the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England; Whitelock's English Historical Documents; Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England; Swanton's Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; Keynes' and Lapidge's Alfred the Great; Abels' Alfred the Great. The ones that don't use it almost invariably use "Ae": e.g. Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, Kirby's Earliest English Kings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No offence to the proposer, but this sort of thing comes up fairly regularly, here, or at Cnut vs. Canute, etc. In modern terms the man's "common name" was Æthelred, according to modern RS as Mike Christie says, plus others (e.g. Ann Williams' Æthelred the Unready of 2003). Understood about his contemporaries calling him "Æþelræd", but they will also have called him "Æðelræd" and other variations. In that sense, as I understand it, modern usage of "Æthelred" already owes much to modern standardisation of spellings - we can only really spell his name one way, if we are to avoid confusion. Similarly we don't refer to Æthelthryth as "Æðelðryð", "Æðelþryð", "Eldreda" or "Audrey". Likewise Æthelstan, Æthelberht of Kent, Æthelbald of Mercia (where, incidentally, there's a wonderful illustration of variant, contemporary spellings, from a charter of 736, where his name is spelled "AETDILBALT" (possibly "AETĐILBALT", but it's unclear) - but no, we can't use that!), etc... "Ethelred" is comparable to "Audrey", since it is merely how the "common names" of the people concerned became corrupted over time. Also, there's already a re-direct for "Ethelred the Unready", and a disambiguation page for "Ethelred", so no reader can reasonably fail to find this article. I think that's how it should be. And, it's not for me to co-opt Noetica's comment above, but I see the information given there as contributing to an oppose. Thanks for reading. Nortonius (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's all very fair, Nortonius. Well elucidated. I am turning my comment into an oppose. Noetica^Tea? 12:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As previous contributors have said, Æthelred is the most common academic usage. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Move to Ethelred II, per Britannica, World Encyclopedia, and Oxford's A Dictionary of World History. We are a reference for the general reader. The titles for these articles should be in a standard format for monarchs. We should not be following conventions specific to Anglo-Saxon specialists. Kauffner (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Well I'm glad that somebody has confirmed that "Ethelred" is the version most often used by reference works. Let's deal with "II v. the Unready" separately from the issue of with or without the ligature. Whatever the merits of "Cnut v. Canute", at least both versions use the normal letters of the English alphabet. PatGallacher (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

A famous battle ?

In the section Conflict with the Danes the article currently says, "A period of six years then passed before, in 988, another coastal attack is recorded as having taken place to the south-west, though here a famous battle was fought between the invaders and the thegns of Devon" (my emphasis).
This is not encyclopedic. We shouldn't be saying, "a famous battle" without saying which battle it was, and if it is that famous why is there not a link to the Wikipedia article about it? I "think" the battle referred to was at Watchet, but that page says the raids took place in 987 and 997 not, as this article suggests in 988 so I'm not sure.
I found a link but I can't post it because the website is blacklisted, that seems to be the source of the above editor's information. It says the "huge battle" was in 988, that several Devon nobles were killed. Meanwhile, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says for the year 987, "This year was the port of Watchet plundered" and for the year 997, "Then went they up at Watchet, and there much evil wrought in burning and manslaughter" which would seem to suggest that if any "Devon nobles" were murdered (Watchet is not in Devon, but in Somerset) it would have been in 997 not in 987 or 988. Anglo-Saxon history is not my specialist subject so I might be wrong about which one it is but either way we can't just say, "a famous battle" and leave it at that. Cottonshirtτ 07:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Old English

I question the utility of having the lengthy passages in Old English. If the language is unintelligible to a majority of readers, why include it? Mikeroetto (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unrǣd

"...because the present-day meaning of "unready" no longer resembles its ancient counterpart, this translation disguises the meaning of the Old English term."

It's a minor point, but unrǣd would be 'unrede'/'unredy' in Modern English, not 'unready'. The word rǣd(e), n. "counsel, advice", adj. "advised, decided", is etymologically distinct from rǣde, "ready, prepared", the former going back to Proto-Germanic *rēdaz/*rēdiz, "counsel"/"deciding", and the latter to *raidijaz, "arranged, prepared".

As mentioned earlier in the article, it's a mistranslation. Anglom (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's the point. Most older writers either intentionally or unknowingly mistranslated the name, and it easily caught on. It helped ruin his reputation that his new title labeled him "unready" or "unfit" to rule. In the past this ambiguity may have been commonly understood and played with. But when nowadays someone sees "Unready" there is but one possible (though wrong) meaning. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This part of the article is extremely badly written. Looks to me like it is the result of some kind of high-school project or the like.

The epithet would seem to describe the poor quality of advice which Æthelred received throughout his reign, presumably from those around him, specifically from the royal council, known as the Witan. Though the nickname does not suggest anything particularly respectable about the king himself, its invective is not actually focused on the king but on those around him, who were expected to provide the young king with god ræd (i.e. good counsel). Unfortunately, historians - both medieval and modern - have taken less of an interest in what this epithet suggests about the king's advisers, and have instead focused on the image it creates of a blundering, misfit king.

This is unreferenced nonsense. All that needs to be pointed out is that "unrede" does not mean "unready" (as in "ill-prepared") but "bad counsel" or "folly". The "royal council" doesn't enter into it, the king is named, posthumously, for being "foolish". No evidence is shown that any historians have ("unfortunately" -- who writes like this?) misunderstood the epithet in the slightest. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't unrǣd in modern English be "unread" (as in uneducated, so not exactly the same meaning, and rather old-fashioned, but closer in meaning than "unready")? Iapetus (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No, "ill-advised" would be more like it – at a quick glance, the meaning is already explained (rather badly) in the article, and in the preceding comments in this section, above. Nortonius (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Where can I find the written (and translated) restoration laws?

That the nobles forced upon King Ethelred to support his return in 1014? I can't find them anywhere on the net. Seeing how constitutionally important they are, this surprises me. Solri89 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You could try the sources to the DNB article on Æthelred at [2]. You need a British public library card to access it. Whitelock's English Historical Documents is a possibility, but they are probably not on the web. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am almost certain that the following is the text of his agreement with his subjects.

In Christi nomine promitto haec tria populo Christiano mihi subdito. In primis, me praecepturum et operam pro viribus impensurum ut ecclesia Dei et omnis populus Christianus verum pacem nostro arbitrio in omni tempore servet; aliud ut rapacitates et omnes iniquitates omnibus gradibus interdicam; tertium ut in omnibus judiciis aequitatem et misericordiam praecipiam, ut mihi et vobis indulgeat Suam misericordiam clemens et misericors Deus. English Constitutional History from the Teutonic Conquest to the Present TimeThe Constitutional History of England in Its Origin and Development, Volume 1

This [3] source carries it in the following translation:

In the name of the Holy Trinity, three things do I promise to this Christian people my subjects: first, that God's Church and all the Christian people of my realm hold true peace; secondly, that I forbid all rapine and injustice to men of all conditions; thirdly, that I promise and enjoin justice and mercy in all judgments, that the just and merciful God of his everlasting mercy may forgive us all.

The terms of Ethelred's return certainly need to be expanded in the article. Progressingamerica (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the terms needs expanding but this oath is described in the source as Æthelred's coronation oath, not the one he swore in 1014. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added the passage in the Chronicle from Williams's biography. She implies that that is all there is. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This article links to the Corfe Castle article in the Early Life section.

That article starts its history after this and even the village article does not mention Ethelred. Aoeuus (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That the article links to the castle is surely wrong, I believe the most useful link would be to the village – which is also called Corfe Castle – confusing, but that's life! That the article for the village doesn't mention the subject of this article is no more than proof that there's no rush, i.e. Wikipedia isn't finished yet. You can help! Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Momspack4 thanks for your recent edits, but I am doubtful about some points. I do not think Elizabeth Norton is the best source. She appears to be mainly a Tudor specialist judging by the list of books she has written, whereas there are two first rate biographies of Æthelred by specialists on Anglo-Saxon England, Ann Williams and Levi Roach. The point that Ælfthryth acted as regent is a useful addition and is confirmed by Roach, but it is unclear whether she was sole regent - Roach also refers to "sometime regents (above all Æthelwold)" (p. 138). The statement that she rarely visited court afterwards is very dubious. She was banished after Æthelwold's death in 984 but she was restored to favour in 993 and brought up Æthelred's eldest son. Simon Keynes's analysis of Anglo-Saxon charters shows that she frequently attested them between 993 and her death c. 1001. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Thanks for your input. I think the nature of studying the Anglo-Saxon period is that there are varying primary sources, with spotty information, and each researcher has to put together his or her own picture of it in the end. I also have some issues withe Elizabeth Norton; however, even though she is a Tudor scholar, she has a special interest in Ælfthryth and has studied her life enough to write a full length biography. Like her, I am concerned that Ælfthryth's role is often underestimated by modern scholars who don't realize the power an Anglo-Saxon (pre-Norman) queen could have had. The idea that she stayed away for a decade is based upon both the fact that she drops off witness lists (from being listed directly behind the king) and from mentions of her being in residence at other places. You're right that she did appear again years later - although never in the political role she had formerly - and our text could be amended to reflect that. Also, I chose to list Elizabeth Norton as a source not only because she wrote a biography but because if one were to list individual primary sources, it would be quite cumbersome for an article, and her text is based upon those sources. I appreciate that you were working from biographies of Æthelred, but I would suggest that many bios of a male don't do thorough research into the women around him; it's a common problem. As a woman reading, I noted that the role of Ælfthryth, which was considerable, had been neglected. I believe, as you seem to, that she "ruled" in conjunction with the bishop while her son was still a child. If you study her behavior during the reign of her husband, you realize that she was intelligent, educated, politically savvy, and quite willing to insert herself. During Edgar's reign she witnessed many charters behind the king and acted as forespeca - as sort of legal advocate, between defendant and crown. There is no reason why she would have stood mildly by when given the chance to rule the country for her child. She also had a longtime friendly relationship with the bishop. So it's a logical conclusion for Norton and others to make that she was heavily involved as regent.

I have found two additional sources that speak about her as regent for Æthelred. Nick Higham speaks of it in The Death of Anglo Saxon England; also, Ryan Lavell speaks of it in his biography of Æthelred. If you would like I can add those in as sources as well. Let me know what you think. I see you have a real love of this subject, and like me, perhaps you feel a deep responsibility to these people who one thousand years away, can't speak for themselves. We need to get it right, and two heads are better than one. :) Momspack4 (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Momspack

Momspack4 as I said I am happy with the addition that Ælfthryth acted as regent. My issues are 1. the citing of a non-specialist such as Norton as a source. If you have specialists such as Higham and Lavelle then you do not need Norton as well. 2. The statement that she rarely visited court after 984 is wrong. The attestations show that she did attend court, although as you say she attested lower down than before. It must be significant that she rather than Æthelred's wife was entrusted with bringing up his eldest son - and perhaps other sons - although we can only guess at the reason.

If Norton thinks that modern scholars don't understand the power of an Anglo-Saxon queen, then she has not read historians such as Pauline Stafford, who has written extensively about that very subject. She has shown that the status of kings' wives was much higher in Mercia than Wessex in the ninth and early tenth centuries, and Ælfthryth's high status is evidence that this was changing in Wessex in the later tenth century. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Dudley Miles I agree with all you've stated. I have amended the statement about her not returning, and I will recheck that, as well as amend the citations, within the next 48 hours. Thanks for all.

By the way, you pose such a fascinating question as to why Aelfgifu, Athelred's queen, wasn't raising her own child. However, as you know, fostering was common. But that would not have been with one's mother, one would think - that would be missing the point of it. I wonder if she was ill, or just didn't like mothering. Ha! The answer is lost in time... Momspack4 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Momspack4