This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 3, 2010, April 3, 2012, April 3, 2014, April 3, 2016, April 3, 2018, April 3, 2021, and April 3, 2024. |
All of this material about who was the patron saint of that, etc., (in all such articles) gets very unencyclopedic and boring. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a "Sunday School" lesson. It is also very slanted towards the Roman Catholic religion. Make an encyclopedia for everybody! 74.249.92.92 ( talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is, Edward was a tedious old scrote who sold out his kingdom to the Normans and a religious nutter to boot. He was probably quite hard though.-- Streona ( talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox church considers this man a saint. Could someone cite a source which claims this?
I believe that the Orthodox Church in England does, along with Harold And Edward rthe Martyr-- Streona ( talk) 13:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What does "Rank: 21st" mean? It sounds like monarch Top Trumps. Marnanel 18:11, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Someone who knows where 'the Confessor' came from should add it to the article. -- Kizor 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where is our old friend? Surely THIS is a large missing block here...
That's because Thomas a Becket doesn't turn up in the history books till the reign of Henry II. His presence in this article would be an anachronism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs
The Confessor was actually the third Saxon king by the name of Edward.
That article doesn't fully explain why Edward is considered a saint. Would someone who knows please add that in?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia at [1]Edward was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast day, according to the same source, is 13th October. For further info, see [2] Zach Beauvais 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There were a number of individuals who attracted a cult following after their deaths from this period. If these were strong enough the Church would make them official, but often the cult would die away - as in the case of Edward's predecessors, Kings Aethelwulf and Ethelred I. However later on (I think perhaps 1161) the Church reviewed the rather vague list of saints and confirmed them or not as the case may have been. Mostly those saints with advocates were confirmed and those who did not failed. The Normans mostly did not re apply for Anglo-Saxon saints unless, like Edward, they suited their propoganda. Saints were usually either "martyrs", who had died for the faith, or "confessors" who had not but who had done a lot of praying, chastity etc. like Edward or Dunstan. Edward was thus a -or rather "the" - Confessor. the Orthodox Church had by this time split away (or the Romans had split away) and thus maintained their own list of saints, continuing to recognise many that Rome did not.-- Streona ( talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It was my understanding that Edward would not sleep with his wife because she was the daughter of Godwin, and forced upon him, and that as his worldly power declined he turned to the heavanly as a retreat...and not minding what would follow after his death, apparently....
To the best of my knowledge, the view about Edward and his unwillingness to sleep with Godwin's daughter is put forward in Simon Schama's History of Britain (Volume 1) Zach Beauvais 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
according to rumor he had shot himself himself in the groin with a arrow (can't quite figure out how!?!?) which left himself permanantly impotent
This name:
Edward the Confessor or Eadweard III
was replaced by this
King Edward III the Confessor
I can see no reason for this. It seems strange to me. He is either King Edward, Edward the Confessor or simply Edward III. Much as the current queen is either Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth. It seems odd to me to include both, I don't think a British person would ever include both the title and the number. So as it's a British related article I've reverted to British convention. No reason was given for the change anyway.
Alun
06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)i have no idea
That is not accurate. People call her Queen Elizabeth II all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.200.146 ( talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
why don't we call him King Eddie Snr for our american readers? 62.3.70.68 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The comment you responded to was posted almost a year and a half ago. This was resolved and this is why these pages should be archived from time to time. -- SECisek 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) So why was he called the confessor? Callum1st2 ( talk) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be stated somewhere that he was an Albino? He is mentioned in the list of famous Ablbinos and his picture highly suggests he was one.
Every where I read it was the Vikings invasion not the Danish Invasion as you have it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.216.71.114 ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
on this page it says edward the confessor died on 4th January but in fact he died on the 5th January 1066. from maxine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.58.19 ( talk) 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
In the ALbinism article it clearly states King Edward the confessor was albinistic but does not say that he was an albino in the article about him, help please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sydney2892 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
My understanding is that his remainds have NOT been found, but that a series of rooms were located under the Abby by means of ground penetrating radar. These rooms were never entered, owing to the fact that it would damage or destroy an ancient mosaic on the floor. It is believed that one of these rooms was used in preparing the king for burial, but whether it was the burial chamber itself will not be known until someone figures out how to get down there. Besides, if his remains were indeed moved several times (as stated, and I accept it), then there is no reason to believe he would be now inside a chamber that could not have been entered many centuries prior to these moves.
If someone could fill me in on the explanation, I'd appreciate it.
==
<aside: historical note for reference> - Times, July 31, 1847 (#19616); page 7, column D. "A Discovery in Westminster Abbey - In making the alterations now in progress in Westminster Abbey Church, the supposed tomb of St. Edward has been discovered, at least such is the opinion of some of the abbey dignitaries. This tomb is situated exactly in the centre of the cross, it is rectangular, eight feet long, east and west, five feet wide, north and south, and two feet three inches deep. The bottom is formed of concrete, the sides and ends of rubbed stone, and it was originally covered with a slab six inches thick, but the covering disappeared ages ago, and the tomb has remained filled with rubbish. Let no-one, however, imagine that this is the original tomb of the Confessor. It is stated by the oldest authorities, quoted by Widmore, that St. Edward was buried beneath the high altar, that his remains were afterwards removed to a higher place, and then again to another still higher; while no doubt can possibly exist that his dust still reposes in the shrine prepared for it by King Henry III".
(longer version of this letter also at
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5fUIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=widmore+edward+confessor&source=web&ots=tfxnjj-AYG&sig=u_unaOVWRhENL9f5iIKiwTLvhxA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result in The Gentleman's Magazine for July 1847)
Harami2000 (
talk)
20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the ahnentafel, there is a discussion at Talk:Louis V of France#Ahnentafel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Who calls him this? All the JSTOR hits appear to be about Eadweard Muybridge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Edward the Confessor" is the nickname of this particular King Edward and serves mainly to help people keep distinguish him amidst all the other King Edwards England has produced. Even academics generally use the modern spelling of his name. If you want to search JSTOR I'd try "Edward the Confessor" first, since even though today's academics, at least, are liable to shy away from calling him by a name he wasn't known by during his life, I should think the nickname would at least be mentioned in most any article on this bloke. Mia229 ( talk) 08:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Note 2 says:
The numbering of English monarchs starts with Edward the Confessor, but, because the Normans used the French numbering system, the truth was only discovered in computerised chromatographic analysis of previously water-damaged Latin texts. This explains why historians regnal numbers started counting from the later Edward Edward I (ruled 1272–1307) and do not include Edward the Confessor (who was the third King Edward).
I do not understand this and no reference is given. What is the French numbering system? Can the editor or anyone else explain? Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's actually pretty straightforward (I'm not ready to buy into allegations that the French had some special "numbering system"): the Conquerer and his heirs don't count the old Anglo-Saxon kings (the native Britons don't even seem to have had kings who ruled over the whole island anyway). Even if there had been a Norman king named Alfred, he still would have been Alfred I. (William the Conquerer probably expected them all to have French names anyway...not Anglo-Saxon names like Edward.) The French brought with them different ways of government, so it wasn't really just a change of dynasty, anyway. They introduced feudalism, which was a completely different economic system (with all its attendant difficulties), to the island kingdom (not to mention the French language, which was even worse :) ).
It certainly wasn't a matter of there being 1 kinds of people (those who count starting from 0 and those who don't), because the whole concept of 0 as a whole number that comes before 1 didn't exist in European culture. (Zero was used in India, but even there I think it was only a place-marker, similar (or analogous) to the way we do in numbers like 10, 6003, 2.200000000008, etc.) Mia229 ( talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on Saint George says that the patron saint of England before George was Edward the Martyr, who is someone else entirely. Unless in the next 7 days someone can verify, with a proper source, that Edward the Confessor was ever patron saint of anything, I am going to remove this whole paragraph. Richard75 ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added a ref for this but don't know how to make them visisble - maybe someone else does. 86.137.180.154 ( talk)
The page fails to mention that Edward was educated at The King's School Ely; the word King's being a reference to him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.238.106 ( talk) 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The initial correspondence under this heading was originally posted at User_talk:Dudley_Miles.
Hi Dudley, Thanks for your interest in the Edward the Confessor page. You may not be aware that the King's Ely page (the school was founded in 970) lists Edward as an alumnus, and quotes a source for this : http://www.upsdell.com/StEdwardTheConfessor/saint.htm
As an alumnus myself, I have always believed this to be correct. As far as I am aware, all alumni since the year 1013 have also believed this to be correct. Do you have reason to believe this is incorrect - or do you perhaps not trust this source? Piedmont ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to be blunt, but I have to say that the King's Ely claim on Edward the Confessor as an alumnus strikes me as a classic instance of historically illiterate, institutional puffery. Of course people were educated at monasteries. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to function, let alone leave us archives to pore over. To claim that Edward may have received education on the same site would not make him an alumnus of a school, merely a student of whoever might have been available to teach him at the monastery. For example Hugh Candidus reports that Ealdwulf, who was Peterborough Abbey's first abbot after Æthelwold of Winchester's intervention there, was a layman when he entered the monastery, was Æthelwold's godson and was taught by him; and the fact that Ealdwulf went on to be a bishop at Worcester and archbishop at York does suggest that he received a great deal of education along the way. But that doesn't make him an alumnus of The King's (The Cathedral) School at Peterborough. Hugh Candidus' own education at the abbey, which he entered when he was a boy, is attributed to Abbot Ernulf, the other "elders" and his own brother: this was an entirely normal function of the monastery, and did not make it a school. As things stand, then, I really think the encyclopedic value of the King's Ely claim for the present article is nil: I think it might have a place at the King's Ely article, but it would need to be heavily qualified – its current presentation there is unsustainable, in my view. As Ealdgyth says, a recent, scholarly, secondary source saying otherwise is needed. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:EdtheCon.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
Surely this is wrong - Harold Godwinson was the lasts king of the house of Wessex? -- rossb ( talk) 06:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised," is not Charles I St. Charles the Martyr? http://skcm.org/
I have just caught up with this. I had never heard of equipollent canonization either. The article on it links to [3] which says that it is nomination as a Doctor of the Church. I think Ealdgyth said this applies to Bede, but presumably not to Edward the Martyr. So did he have an equipollent or "pre-congregation" canonization, and should the articles on both Edwards be revised accordingly? I am very unclear how long ago someone had to live before (and whether) it is meaningful to say they were not canonised. According to the List of canonizations the first one was in 993 and canonised Ulrich of Augsburg, who died in 973, just before Edward the Martyr, and in 1441 Henry VI unsuccessfully attempted to get Alfred the Great canonised. Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The explanation that "the Confessor" is "the name for someone believed to have lived a saintly life but who was not a martyr" is not very satisfactory. I am interested as to where the epithet is first recorded. this miniature (as usual on commons, nobody thought it worthwhile to identify the manuscript, apparently saying "13th century" is considered a reference now) just calls him "Saint Edward". I can only assume that the above explanation is supposed to mean that he used to be called Saint Edward the Confessor as opposed to Saint Edward the Martyr, as it were the "Confessor" vs. "Martyr" disambiguating two people already known as "Saint Edward". This would appear to suggest that the necessity for disambiguation arose after 1161, when he was canonized.
The suggestion that he was ever known as "Ēadweard Andettere" seems to be a complete fabrication produced for Wikipedia. I have no idea why this was left unchallenged. This was apparently just coined as an article title for ang: (by looking up "confessor" in a dictionary) and not with the intention of claiming historicity. -- dab (𒁳) 10:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The caption from the image of Edward's seal reads: "Edward's seal: SIGILLVM EADWARDI ANGLORVM BASILEI (Seal of Edward crowned/King of the English)." Does the part in English in brackets purport to be a translation of the text on the seal? Because if it does then it is incorrect, the translation would be "The Seal of Edward - Emperor of the English". At this time the Greek word Basileus meant emperor; in Byzantine political theory the title was restricted to the sovereigns of Constantinople. Earlier English kings, such as Offa of Mercia and Aethelstan, also used the title Basileus as an imperial pretension. Urselius ( talk) 08:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
How can Edward the Confessor be an Anglosaxon when he is the son of a Normand? AFOH 06:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The rulers of the various European states were interrelated with their neighboring competitors through marriage. To increase communication, understanding and commerce and especially to decrease the potential for violence and war, the exchange of land and brides was an essential process in maintaining the religious, political and military elite.
Unless a woman owned property in her own right, her status was based on her paternity and the quality of her husband. She gained the most power by adapting to the culture of her husband rather than fighting the status quo.
As a noble, Edward the Confessor was expected to understand the customs and mores of his Anglo-Saxon father's people, and to sit in judgement over them. The culture of his Norman mother's youth was simply irrelevant to his daily life. 24.11.170.191 ( talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon is not, nor has it ever been, a race or a biological grouping - this is a later historiographical nationalist creation. Instead it WAS (ie. no longer is, as one cannot be an 'Anglo-Saxon' unless a millennia old) a shared set of (material) cultural norms. Edward is very clearly an Anglo-Saxon. Faust.TSFL ( talk) 15:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Dudley Miles: Since you seems to have added considerable content to this article, are you able to verify that all citations placed after a paragraph or body of text support its entirety? (Sorry if that's confusing, but it was the best wording I could think of.) I would like to see this article at FAC sometime, so I'm doing the work that I can at the moment. I've also added {{cn}} tags to bring attention to the unreferenced passages I was able to find. Thanks, -- Biblio worm 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
What about the dream Edward the Confessor had on his deathbed in which two monks told him that "demons" would come and destroy his kingdom within a year and a day of his death?
It's on the 3 episodes of Dan Snow's new 1066 documentary on the BBC iPlayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2B05:EA00:8012:D22F:D88D:8E63 ( talk) 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
L'arbre vert ke du trunc nest, Quant diluée serra severée, E a trois arpenz éloigné, Par nuli engin u mein Au trunc revendra premereîn, E se joindra a la racine, Dunt primes avoit orine, Li ceps recevera verdur. Fruit portera après sa flur. (The green tree which springs from the trunk, when thence it shall be severed and removed to a distance of three acres, by no engine or hand, shall return to its original trunk and shall join itself to its root whence first it had origin. The head shall receive again its verdure, It shall bear fruit after its flower.); there's no "within a year and a day" in there. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the statement that "Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised" is somewhat confusing and possibly wrong. Is it meant to indicate that he was the first Anglo-Saxon to be canonised (though whether by date is unclear), or that he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised. To me at the moment it reads like the former, but there is a problem here as the date given in the article for his canonisation is 1161. However the article for John of Beverley, who was also an Anglo-Saxon dates his canonisation to 1037. Similarly there is also the issue of Anglo-Saxon's who lived earlier, but were not canonised until later. An obvious case here would be St Bede who lived more than 300 years earlier than Edward the Confessor, but was not formally canonised until the 19th century. If it is saying he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised this leaves the issue of who the others were as it is noted in the article that others were venerated as saints, but not formally canonised. I therefore wonder if some form of rewording is in order? Dunarc ( talk) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The article states that "The abbey held a set of coronation regalia bequeathed by Edward for the use of his successors." This is based on a royal publication and is wrong. Barlow in his biography p. 269 says that his crown and sceptre were probably "abstracted" from his tomb when it was opened in 1102, so whether or not they were the regalia held by the abbey until 1649, they were not bequeathed by Edward. A post on X at [4] says that the regalia were erroneously believed to have belonged to Edward. In the absence of reliable sources, I think that the story should be deleted. Can anyone find a reliable source? Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
For some time the abbey had claimed that it possessed a set of coronation regalia that Edward had left for use in all future coronations." The source was this. No page was given, but it looks like it may have been page 6. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Who was Princess Agatha Von Brunswick? Presumably not Agatha (wife of Edward the Exile). Why is it claimed that she married Edward the Confessor? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 3, 2010, April 3, 2012, April 3, 2014, April 3, 2016, April 3, 2018, April 3, 2021, and April 3, 2024. |
All of this material about who was the patron saint of that, etc., (in all such articles) gets very unencyclopedic and boring. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not a "Sunday School" lesson. It is also very slanted towards the Roman Catholic religion. Make an encyclopedia for everybody! 74.249.92.92 ( talk) 06:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This is, Edward was a tedious old scrote who sold out his kingdom to the Normans and a religious nutter to boot. He was probably quite hard though.-- Streona ( talk) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox church considers this man a saint. Could someone cite a source which claims this?
I believe that the Orthodox Church in England does, along with Harold And Edward rthe Martyr-- Streona ( talk) 13:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
What does "Rank: 21st" mean? It sounds like monarch Top Trumps. Marnanel 18:11, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Someone who knows where 'the Confessor' came from should add it to the article. -- Kizor 08:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Where is our old friend? Surely THIS is a large missing block here...
That's because Thomas a Becket doesn't turn up in the history books till the reign of Henry II. His presence in this article would be an anachronism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs
The Confessor was actually the third Saxon king by the name of Edward.
That article doesn't fully explain why Edward is considered a saint. Would someone who knows please add that in?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia at [1]Edward was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast day, according to the same source, is 13th October. For further info, see [2] Zach Beauvais 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
There were a number of individuals who attracted a cult following after their deaths from this period. If these were strong enough the Church would make them official, but often the cult would die away - as in the case of Edward's predecessors, Kings Aethelwulf and Ethelred I. However later on (I think perhaps 1161) the Church reviewed the rather vague list of saints and confirmed them or not as the case may have been. Mostly those saints with advocates were confirmed and those who did not failed. The Normans mostly did not re apply for Anglo-Saxon saints unless, like Edward, they suited their propoganda. Saints were usually either "martyrs", who had died for the faith, or "confessors" who had not but who had done a lot of praying, chastity etc. like Edward or Dunstan. Edward was thus a -or rather "the" - Confessor. the Orthodox Church had by this time split away (or the Romans had split away) and thus maintained their own list of saints, continuing to recognise many that Rome did not.-- Streona ( talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It was my understanding that Edward would not sleep with his wife because she was the daughter of Godwin, and forced upon him, and that as his worldly power declined he turned to the heavanly as a retreat...and not minding what would follow after his death, apparently....
To the best of my knowledge, the view about Edward and his unwillingness to sleep with Godwin's daughter is put forward in Simon Schama's History of Britain (Volume 1) Zach Beauvais 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
according to rumor he had shot himself himself in the groin with a arrow (can't quite figure out how!?!?) which left himself permanantly impotent
This name:
Edward the Confessor or Eadweard III
was replaced by this
King Edward III the Confessor
I can see no reason for this. It seems strange to me. He is either King Edward, Edward the Confessor or simply Edward III. Much as the current queen is either Elizabeth II or Queen Elizabeth. It seems odd to me to include both, I don't think a British person would ever include both the title and the number. So as it's a British related article I've reverted to British convention. No reason was given for the change anyway.
Alun
06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)i have no idea
That is not accurate. People call her Queen Elizabeth II all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.200.146 ( talk) 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
why don't we call him King Eddie Snr for our american readers? 62.3.70.68 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The comment you responded to was posted almost a year and a half ago. This was resolved and this is why these pages should be archived from time to time. -- SECisek 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) So why was he called the confessor? Callum1st2 ( talk) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be stated somewhere that he was an Albino? He is mentioned in the list of famous Ablbinos and his picture highly suggests he was one.
Every where I read it was the Vikings invasion not the Danish Invasion as you have it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.216.71.114 ( talk) 16:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
on this page it says edward the confessor died on 4th January but in fact he died on the 5th January 1066. from maxine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.58.19 ( talk) 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
In the ALbinism article it clearly states King Edward the confessor was albinistic but does not say that he was an albino in the article about him, help please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sydney2892 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
My understanding is that his remainds have NOT been found, but that a series of rooms were located under the Abby by means of ground penetrating radar. These rooms were never entered, owing to the fact that it would damage or destroy an ancient mosaic on the floor. It is believed that one of these rooms was used in preparing the king for burial, but whether it was the burial chamber itself will not be known until someone figures out how to get down there. Besides, if his remains were indeed moved several times (as stated, and I accept it), then there is no reason to believe he would be now inside a chamber that could not have been entered many centuries prior to these moves.
If someone could fill me in on the explanation, I'd appreciate it.
==
<aside: historical note for reference> - Times, July 31, 1847 (#19616); page 7, column D. "A Discovery in Westminster Abbey - In making the alterations now in progress in Westminster Abbey Church, the supposed tomb of St. Edward has been discovered, at least such is the opinion of some of the abbey dignitaries. This tomb is situated exactly in the centre of the cross, it is rectangular, eight feet long, east and west, five feet wide, north and south, and two feet three inches deep. The bottom is formed of concrete, the sides and ends of rubbed stone, and it was originally covered with a slab six inches thick, but the covering disappeared ages ago, and the tomb has remained filled with rubbish. Let no-one, however, imagine that this is the original tomb of the Confessor. It is stated by the oldest authorities, quoted by Widmore, that St. Edward was buried beneath the high altar, that his remains were afterwards removed to a higher place, and then again to another still higher; while no doubt can possibly exist that his dust still reposes in the shrine prepared for it by King Henry III".
(longer version of this letter also at
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5fUIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=widmore+edward+confessor&source=web&ots=tfxnjj-AYG&sig=u_unaOVWRhENL9f5iIKiwTLvhxA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result in The Gentleman's Magazine for July 1847)
Harami2000 (
talk)
20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the ahnentafel, there is a discussion at Talk:Louis V of France#Ahnentafel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Who calls him this? All the JSTOR hits appear to be about Eadweard Muybridge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Edward the Confessor" is the nickname of this particular King Edward and serves mainly to help people keep distinguish him amidst all the other King Edwards England has produced. Even academics generally use the modern spelling of his name. If you want to search JSTOR I'd try "Edward the Confessor" first, since even though today's academics, at least, are liable to shy away from calling him by a name he wasn't known by during his life, I should think the nickname would at least be mentioned in most any article on this bloke. Mia229 ( talk) 08:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Note 2 says:
The numbering of English monarchs starts with Edward the Confessor, but, because the Normans used the French numbering system, the truth was only discovered in computerised chromatographic analysis of previously water-damaged Latin texts. This explains why historians regnal numbers started counting from the later Edward Edward I (ruled 1272–1307) and do not include Edward the Confessor (who was the third King Edward).
I do not understand this and no reference is given. What is the French numbering system? Can the editor or anyone else explain? Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's actually pretty straightforward (I'm not ready to buy into allegations that the French had some special "numbering system"): the Conquerer and his heirs don't count the old Anglo-Saxon kings (the native Britons don't even seem to have had kings who ruled over the whole island anyway). Even if there had been a Norman king named Alfred, he still would have been Alfred I. (William the Conquerer probably expected them all to have French names anyway...not Anglo-Saxon names like Edward.) The French brought with them different ways of government, so it wasn't really just a change of dynasty, anyway. They introduced feudalism, which was a completely different economic system (with all its attendant difficulties), to the island kingdom (not to mention the French language, which was even worse :) ).
It certainly wasn't a matter of there being 1 kinds of people (those who count starting from 0 and those who don't), because the whole concept of 0 as a whole number that comes before 1 didn't exist in European culture. (Zero was used in India, but even there I think it was only a place-marker, similar (or analogous) to the way we do in numbers like 10, 6003, 2.200000000008, etc.) Mia229 ( talk) 07:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The article on Saint George says that the patron saint of England before George was Edward the Martyr, who is someone else entirely. Unless in the next 7 days someone can verify, with a proper source, that Edward the Confessor was ever patron saint of anything, I am going to remove this whole paragraph. Richard75 ( talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I've added a ref for this but don't know how to make them visisble - maybe someone else does. 86.137.180.154 ( talk)
The page fails to mention that Edward was educated at The King's School Ely; the word King's being a reference to him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.238.106 ( talk) 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
The initial correspondence under this heading was originally posted at User_talk:Dudley_Miles.
Hi Dudley, Thanks for your interest in the Edward the Confessor page. You may not be aware that the King's Ely page (the school was founded in 970) lists Edward as an alumnus, and quotes a source for this : http://www.upsdell.com/StEdwardTheConfessor/saint.htm
As an alumnus myself, I have always believed this to be correct. As far as I am aware, all alumni since the year 1013 have also believed this to be correct. Do you have reason to believe this is incorrect - or do you perhaps not trust this source? Piedmont ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to be blunt, but I have to say that the King's Ely claim on Edward the Confessor as an alumnus strikes me as a classic instance of historically illiterate, institutional puffery. Of course people were educated at monasteries. Otherwise they wouldn't have been able to function, let alone leave us archives to pore over. To claim that Edward may have received education on the same site would not make him an alumnus of a school, merely a student of whoever might have been available to teach him at the monastery. For example Hugh Candidus reports that Ealdwulf, who was Peterborough Abbey's first abbot after Æthelwold of Winchester's intervention there, was a layman when he entered the monastery, was Æthelwold's godson and was taught by him; and the fact that Ealdwulf went on to be a bishop at Worcester and archbishop at York does suggest that he received a great deal of education along the way. But that doesn't make him an alumnus of The King's (The Cathedral) School at Peterborough. Hugh Candidus' own education at the abbey, which he entered when he was a boy, is attributed to Abbot Ernulf, the other "elders" and his own brother: this was an entirely normal function of the monastery, and did not make it a school. As things stand, then, I really think the encyclopedic value of the King's Ely claim for the present article is nil: I think it might have a place at the King's Ely article, but it would need to be heavily qualified – its current presentation there is unsustainable, in my view. As Ealdgyth says, a recent, scholarly, secondary source saying otherwise is needed. Cheers. Nortonius ( talk) 14:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:EdtheCon.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 10 October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC) |
Surely this is wrong - Harold Godwinson was the lasts king of the house of Wessex? -- rossb ( talk) 06:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
"Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised," is not Charles I St. Charles the Martyr? http://skcm.org/
I have just caught up with this. I had never heard of equipollent canonization either. The article on it links to [3] which says that it is nomination as a Doctor of the Church. I think Ealdgyth said this applies to Bede, but presumably not to Edward the Martyr. So did he have an equipollent or "pre-congregation" canonization, and should the articles on both Edwards be revised accordingly? I am very unclear how long ago someone had to live before (and whether) it is meaningful to say they were not canonised. According to the List of canonizations the first one was in 993 and canonised Ulrich of Augsburg, who died in 973, just before Edward the Martyr, and in 1441 Henry VI unsuccessfully attempted to get Alfred the Great canonised. Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The explanation that "the Confessor" is "the name for someone believed to have lived a saintly life but who was not a martyr" is not very satisfactory. I am interested as to where the epithet is first recorded. this miniature (as usual on commons, nobody thought it worthwhile to identify the manuscript, apparently saying "13th century" is considered a reference now) just calls him "Saint Edward". I can only assume that the above explanation is supposed to mean that he used to be called Saint Edward the Confessor as opposed to Saint Edward the Martyr, as it were the "Confessor" vs. "Martyr" disambiguating two people already known as "Saint Edward". This would appear to suggest that the necessity for disambiguation arose after 1161, when he was canonized.
The suggestion that he was ever known as "Ēadweard Andettere" seems to be a complete fabrication produced for Wikipedia. I have no idea why this was left unchallenged. This was apparently just coined as an article title for ang: (by looking up "confessor" in a dictionary) and not with the intention of claiming historicity. -- dab (𒁳) 10:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The caption from the image of Edward's seal reads: "Edward's seal: SIGILLVM EADWARDI ANGLORVM BASILEI (Seal of Edward crowned/King of the English)." Does the part in English in brackets purport to be a translation of the text on the seal? Because if it does then it is incorrect, the translation would be "The Seal of Edward - Emperor of the English". At this time the Greek word Basileus meant emperor; in Byzantine political theory the title was restricted to the sovereigns of Constantinople. Earlier English kings, such as Offa of Mercia and Aethelstan, also used the title Basileus as an imperial pretension. Urselius ( talk) 08:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
How can Edward the Confessor be an Anglosaxon when he is the son of a Normand? AFOH 06:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The rulers of the various European states were interrelated with their neighboring competitors through marriage. To increase communication, understanding and commerce and especially to decrease the potential for violence and war, the exchange of land and brides was an essential process in maintaining the religious, political and military elite.
Unless a woman owned property in her own right, her status was based on her paternity and the quality of her husband. She gained the most power by adapting to the culture of her husband rather than fighting the status quo.
As a noble, Edward the Confessor was expected to understand the customs and mores of his Anglo-Saxon father's people, and to sit in judgement over them. The culture of his Norman mother's youth was simply irrelevant to his daily life. 24.11.170.191 ( talk) 20:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Anglo-Saxon is not, nor has it ever been, a race or a biological grouping - this is a later historiographical nationalist creation. Instead it WAS (ie. no longer is, as one cannot be an 'Anglo-Saxon' unless a millennia old) a shared set of (material) cultural norms. Edward is very clearly an Anglo-Saxon. Faust.TSFL ( talk) 15:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Dudley Miles: Since you seems to have added considerable content to this article, are you able to verify that all citations placed after a paragraph or body of text support its entirety? (Sorry if that's confusing, but it was the best wording I could think of.) I would like to see this article at FAC sometime, so I'm doing the work that I can at the moment. I've also added {{cn}} tags to bring attention to the unreferenced passages I was able to find. Thanks, -- Biblio worm 15:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
What about the dream Edward the Confessor had on his deathbed in which two monks told him that "demons" would come and destroy his kingdom within a year and a day of his death?
It's on the 3 episodes of Dan Snow's new 1066 documentary on the BBC iPlayer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:2B05:EA00:8012:D22F:D88D:8E63 ( talk) 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
L'arbre vert ke du trunc nest, Quant diluée serra severée, E a trois arpenz éloigné, Par nuli engin u mein Au trunc revendra premereîn, E se joindra a la racine, Dunt primes avoit orine, Li ceps recevera verdur. Fruit portera après sa flur. (The green tree which springs from the trunk, when thence it shall be severed and removed to a distance of three acres, by no engine or hand, shall return to its original trunk and shall join itself to its root whence first it had origin. The head shall receive again its verdure, It shall bear fruit after its flower.); there's no "within a year and a day" in there. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the statement that "Edward the Confessor was the first Anglo-Saxon and the only king of England to be canonised" is somewhat confusing and possibly wrong. Is it meant to indicate that he was the first Anglo-Saxon to be canonised (though whether by date is unclear), or that he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised. To me at the moment it reads like the former, but there is a problem here as the date given in the article for his canonisation is 1161. However the article for John of Beverley, who was also an Anglo-Saxon dates his canonisation to 1037. Similarly there is also the issue of Anglo-Saxon's who lived earlier, but were not canonised until later. An obvious case here would be St Bede who lived more than 300 years earlier than Edward the Confessor, but was not formally canonised until the 19th century. If it is saying he was the first Anglo-Saxon king to be canonised this leaves the issue of who the others were as it is noted in the article that others were venerated as saints, but not formally canonised. I therefore wonder if some form of rewording is in order? Dunarc ( talk) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The article states that "The abbey held a set of coronation regalia bequeathed by Edward for the use of his successors." This is based on a royal publication and is wrong. Barlow in his biography p. 269 says that his crown and sceptre were probably "abstracted" from his tomb when it was opened in 1102, so whether or not they were the regalia held by the abbey until 1649, they were not bequeathed by Edward. A post on X at [4] says that the regalia were erroneously believed to have belonged to Edward. In the absence of reliable sources, I think that the story should be deleted. Can anyone find a reliable source? Dudley Miles ( talk) 09:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
For some time the abbey had claimed that it possessed a set of coronation regalia that Edward had left for use in all future coronations." The source was this. No page was given, but it looks like it may have been page 6. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Who was Princess Agatha Von Brunswick? Presumably not Agatha (wife of Edward the Exile). Why is it claimed that she married Edward the Confessor? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 11:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)