This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I find the first paragraph very confusing and I can't figure out what it is saying. Very convoluted sentences. (guest)
The tree is hard to understand and appears to be wrong. Can anybody who's better with such tables (and has the knowledge) fix it? Srnec 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It's just ugly and incomplete. I'd prefer it be removed altogether or spruced up, but I don't want to work with tables. Srnec 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This family tree is wrong. William the Conquerors father was not Richard II, Duke of Normandy but his younger brother, Robert.
The text is incorrect as well. Only Alfred returned in 1036, and as he came with 500 men this could hardly be an attempt to overthrown the king.DeAragon 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking en.wikipedia should have English text informed by local (albeit foreign) authorities, rather than some bizarre pidgin: "Emma of Normandy might verily have seen herself as one made second to two women, in two marriages. In England, with respect to Ethelred's first wife, Aelfgifu, who possibly died in childbirth, or with a complication after labour[1], she, was known as Aelfgifu[2], a mere replacement. With her marriage to Cnut, set in the shade of his 'handfast' wife, Aelfgifu of Northampton, she, contemporally, was known as Aelfgifu of Normandy. Each of her marriages, then, in some way leaves her as some second Aelfgifu, which she was clearly want to abandon, in preference to her otherwise prominent name, Emma. Her marriages, as a noble, no matter if they were as a secondary wife, were the England and Normandy connection, which was to find its culmination under her great-nephew William the Conqueror, and 1066."
Which one is more common? This article is about 50-50 and I think it should be made consistant. Storeye 06:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Long ago this comment was made "I find the first paragraph very confusing and I can't figure out what it is saying. Very convoluted sentences. (guest)" The whole account of her life could be improved: it may not be biased but there it seems rather more like an argument than a statement of the known facts.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Two things:
If this can be cited it should be included here too.One famous instance of the ordeal of ploughshares concerned Emma of Normandy, accused of adultery with the Bishop of Winchester in the mid-eleventh century. If church chroniclers are to be believed, she was so manifestly innocent that she had already walked over the blades when she asked if her trial would soon begin.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of this on the page: Trial by ordeal#Ordeal_of_fire CapnZapp ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In the section Psychological Speculation [1] I have corrected the name of Æthelred's first wife, previously given as "Ælfflæd " to Ælfgifu of York together with some associated minor changes to the wording/style. ( Ælfflæd was the second wife of Edward the Elder.) — Rkbooth ( talk) 13:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
In the section called, "Reign of Æthelred" it says, talking of Emma, "She was an ally of her husband's most trusted adviser, the deeply distrusted Eadric Streona, ealdorman of Mercia..." Can I suggest that this be clarified? It is not necessarily the case that he has to be either most trusted or deeply distrusted because he could be trusted by one person or group and deeply distrusted by some other person or group, but this does need explaining because at the moment it reads as unintelligible gibberish. Cottonshirt τ 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Under the section entitled "Sons" the history of Alfred Aethling's death is given. After stating that the Encomium Emmae Reginae says Harold Harefoot was to blame, this follows: "Some scholars suggest that Emma may have had a hand in her own son’s murder."
Who are "some scholars" and where is the citation for this?
The next paragraph reads:
"Our understanding of the story states that the young men had received a letter from their mother asking them to come to England from Normandy. If the letter had originated from Emma, rather than a trap set by their competitors, was she aware of the danger she was placing them in? Was she intending to put them in danger? These are questions which, though they may forever be unanswered, scholars ponder over."
"Our understanding"? Whose? And again, no citation, without which this paragraph is pure speculation. Even with a citation proving that Emma wrote to invite her 2 sons back to England, it proves nothing at all about Emma's possible involvement in a possible conspiracy. It does not belong in an encyclopedia.
If anyone can provide good reason for leaving this in the article, please do. History Lunatic ( talk) 23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic
Epinoia has reverted my deletion of a paragraph concerning Emma in Cnut's reign without explanation. This states that she developed a close relationship with Ælfsige of Peterborough after 1020, and that he was her spiritual adviser. Ælfsige links to a bishop who died in 959. Ælfsige, abbot of Peterborough is mentioned in Pauline Stafford's Queen Emma and Queen Edith as an ally accompanied her into exile in 1013, but he is not presented as a significant figure. He is not mentioned in ODNB on Emma and only briefly as a minor figure in Lawson's biography of Cnut. He does not have an article in Wikipedia. The whole paragraph is unreferenced POV and should be deleted. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It was said on the BBC Radio 4 programme Sunday on May 19 2019 that Emma's bones had been discovered in Winchester Cathedral. This could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee ( talk) 06:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I find the first paragraph very confusing and I can't figure out what it is saying. Very convoluted sentences. (guest)
The tree is hard to understand and appears to be wrong. Can anybody who's better with such tables (and has the knowledge) fix it? Srnec 04:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It's just ugly and incomplete. I'd prefer it be removed altogether or spruced up, but I don't want to work with tables. Srnec 16:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This family tree is wrong. William the Conquerors father was not Richard II, Duke of Normandy but his younger brother, Robert.
The text is incorrect as well. Only Alfred returned in 1036, and as he came with 500 men this could hardly be an attempt to overthrown the king.DeAragon 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking en.wikipedia should have English text informed by local (albeit foreign) authorities, rather than some bizarre pidgin: "Emma of Normandy might verily have seen herself as one made second to two women, in two marriages. In England, with respect to Ethelred's first wife, Aelfgifu, who possibly died in childbirth, or with a complication after labour[1], she, was known as Aelfgifu[2], a mere replacement. With her marriage to Cnut, set in the shade of his 'handfast' wife, Aelfgifu of Northampton, she, contemporally, was known as Aelfgifu of Normandy. Each of her marriages, then, in some way leaves her as some second Aelfgifu, which she was clearly want to abandon, in preference to her otherwise prominent name, Emma. Her marriages, as a noble, no matter if they were as a secondary wife, were the England and Normandy connection, which was to find its culmination under her great-nephew William the Conqueror, and 1066."
Which one is more common? This article is about 50-50 and I think it should be made consistant. Storeye 06:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Long ago this comment was made "I find the first paragraph very confusing and I can't figure out what it is saying. Very convoluted sentences. (guest)" The whole account of her life could be improved: it may not be biased but there it seems rather more like an argument than a statement of the known facts.-- Felix Folio Secundus ( talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Two things:
If this can be cited it should be included here too.One famous instance of the ordeal of ploughshares concerned Emma of Normandy, accused of adultery with the Bishop of Winchester in the mid-eleventh century. If church chroniclers are to be believed, she was so manifestly innocent that she had already walked over the blades when she asked if her trial would soon begin.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of this on the page: Trial by ordeal#Ordeal_of_fire CapnZapp ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In the section Psychological Speculation [1] I have corrected the name of Æthelred's first wife, previously given as "Ælfflæd " to Ælfgifu of York together with some associated minor changes to the wording/style. ( Ælfflæd was the second wife of Edward the Elder.) — Rkbooth ( talk) 13:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
In the section called, "Reign of Æthelred" it says, talking of Emma, "She was an ally of her husband's most trusted adviser, the deeply distrusted Eadric Streona, ealdorman of Mercia..." Can I suggest that this be clarified? It is not necessarily the case that he has to be either most trusted or deeply distrusted because he could be trusted by one person or group and deeply distrusted by some other person or group, but this does need explaining because at the moment it reads as unintelligible gibberish. Cottonshirt τ 07:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Under the section entitled "Sons" the history of Alfred Aethling's death is given. After stating that the Encomium Emmae Reginae says Harold Harefoot was to blame, this follows: "Some scholars suggest that Emma may have had a hand in her own son’s murder."
Who are "some scholars" and where is the citation for this?
The next paragraph reads:
"Our understanding of the story states that the young men had received a letter from their mother asking them to come to England from Normandy. If the letter had originated from Emma, rather than a trap set by their competitors, was she aware of the danger she was placing them in? Was she intending to put them in danger? These are questions which, though they may forever be unanswered, scholars ponder over."
"Our understanding"? Whose? And again, no citation, without which this paragraph is pure speculation. Even with a citation proving that Emma wrote to invite her 2 sons back to England, it proves nothing at all about Emma's possible involvement in a possible conspiracy. It does not belong in an encyclopedia.
If anyone can provide good reason for leaving this in the article, please do. History Lunatic ( talk) 23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic
Epinoia has reverted my deletion of a paragraph concerning Emma in Cnut's reign without explanation. This states that she developed a close relationship with Ælfsige of Peterborough after 1020, and that he was her spiritual adviser. Ælfsige links to a bishop who died in 959. Ælfsige, abbot of Peterborough is mentioned in Pauline Stafford's Queen Emma and Queen Edith as an ally accompanied her into exile in 1013, but he is not presented as a significant figure. He is not mentioned in ODNB on Emma and only briefly as a minor figure in Lawson's biography of Cnut. He does not have an article in Wikipedia. The whole paragraph is unreferenced POV and should be deleted. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It was said on the BBC Radio 4 programme Sunday on May 19 2019 that Emma's bones had been discovered in Winchester Cathedral. This could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee ( talk) 06:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)