Talk:Æthelred the Unready

Featured articleÆthelred the Unready is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 21, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
January 7, 2026Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 13, 2006, November 13, 2007, November 13, 2009, November 13, 2010, November 13, 2011, November 13, 2014, November 13, 2016, November 13, 2019, and November 13, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

@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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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[reply]

Peer review

Æthelred the Unready

This is the latest in my articles on later Anglo-Saxon kings, which I plan to nominate for FAC. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim riley

Has FA running through it like Blackpool rock, but this is a long article, and I'll need more than one go at commenting. First go, down to the end of "Æthelred's second reign 1014 to 1016":

  • "a new generation partially reassessed his ..." – I'd be a bit cautious about "partially", which can equally mean "partly – to some extent" or "not impartially – biased".
  • Partially is wrong. It was a full reassessment resulting in a partial rehabilation. How about "when a new generation reassessed his record and argued that although his reign ended catastrophically there were significant achievements in the 990s and early 1000s" Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But skaldic poetry has been less influential…" – I'd bet a small sum that some well-meaning soul will object to this, and so I draw to your attention Fowler's wise words: The widespread public belief that But should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. Yet it has absolutely no foundation in grammar or idiomatic usages, and examples are frequent in good literature (Fowler 2015 edition, p. 125).
  • "He was a strong, indeed overbearing ruler" – is the "indeed" a touch editorial?
  • The source has "firm, perhaps overbearing, rule of Edgar". I could also cite ODNB on Edgar: "It seems that Edgar's arm was not only long but also heavy; certainly the faction-fighting and other disturbances which marked the brief reign of his elder son, Edward the Martyr, suggest the sudden loosening of a tight and masterful grip." I think my version is OK but I am open to suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which led to him being called "Æthelred the Unready" – as this is a gerundive construction "his" would be preferable to "him" here (though some grammarians stoutly defend the "non-possessive" form of the latter) – Fowler p. 639–641).
  • Well, if I were to say you don't like it when I hit you, it might be the hitting you didn't like, or the person who's doing it. The former would be "You don't like my hitting you" and the latter "You don't like me hitting you". The hitting in the first is a gerund (a verbal noun) and is the object of the verb and the one in the second is a plain participle and I am the object of the verb. Tim riley talk 14:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but not Æthelred, so he cannot have been born then" – I take the traditional BrE view that "so" is not a conjunction in formal prose (though fine in speech). I'd chuck an "and" in before the "so".
  • "Both sons are listed in a genealogical tract of 969, so Æthelred must have been born between 966 and 969" – ditto.
  • "The death of King Edward the Martyr" – Do we need the definite article in the header?
  • "as she usually attested the same charters as them" – I think "as they did" would be better than "them" here.
  • "the ignorance of my youth...and partly on account" – see MOS:ELLIPSIS: the group of three dots should have a space on either side, here and later in the article.
  • "The cult of King Edward the Martyr" – another definite article I'm not sure we want in a header.
  • "In 1001 a Danish fleet … ravaged in Hampshire" – I don't think I've ever seen the verb used intransitively before, but the OED and Chambers both give the usage the thumbs-up.
  • "However, the slaughter was limited even in this region" – not sure the "However" adds anything here.
  • I'd say "however" is a good and useful word in the right place but is greatly overused and often adds nothing to a sentence. You don't overuse it: there are six howevers in the main text of the present article and this was the only one to which I objected, and I don't object very strongly. Tim riley talk 14:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Æthelmær and Ordwulf … retired to monasteries, while Wulfgeat had his land confiscated" – "while" is not ideal here, as it has a temporal sense as well as a contrastive sense. A semicolon would do a better job than "while" here.
  • "intended from the start to conquer England and make himself king" – this unequivocal statement could do with a citation.

More shortly. – Tim riley talk 09:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding batch of comments
  • "Ælfric of Hampshire from 999 to 1009x1012 … From 1009x1012 this pattern was broken" – something awry here with the intrusive x.
  • "records of law suits" – according to the OED "lawsuit" is a single word.
  • "lawcodes" – a word unknown to the OED and Chambers. If you make it two words your meaning will be clear enough.
  • "They were able to raise vast sums through … reminting of the coinage" – it isn't obvious to me how reminting the coinage would raise vast sums.
  • OK. Perhaps our resident expert on coinage, Wehwalt, can throw some light on this. Tim riley talk 18:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From Ian Stewart's essay, '"The English and Norman Mints, c. 600—1158" which occupies pages 1 to 82 in The New History of the Royal Mint, full cite for the book to be found in many of my British coin articles, for example, Fourpence (British coin), I find this at pages 58 to 59, "It is difficult to believe that the weight changes in Ethelred's coinage were not designed in some way to produce revenue for the Crown, although the process by which this was achieved is not known." So he doesn't know either. If you want the page image, email me.-- Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - and any changes within issues. Naismith says that the purity of the silver occasionally declined late in some issues, but I cannot find any comments on the weight of the coins. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked and I don't have anything that covers that. Perhaps the British Numismatic Society, which has many online articles, might have something, here (I would check multiple categories because this is not the best organised collection I've ever seen). Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "influential on the coinages of the central Middle Ages" – just the English ones or Continental ones too?
  • "in hoards in Scandinavias" – just "Scandinavia" singular?
  • "There were, it is true, always some who were both prepared and able to exploit a situation in which their own interests … as damning as it is understandable" – I'm struggling with this sentence, and I suspect the inclusion of "which" is a slip of the pen.
  • "In Abels' view" – Fowler 2015 again: Names ending in -s: Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car. (p. 58).
  • Fixed. I usually add the extra s, but Abels's sounded a bit odd so I made an exception. Dudley Miles (talk)
  • "partly due to the strength of the Viking armies and partly due to the "treachery and incompetence of the men" – in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
  • "partial rehabilitation of his reputation" – as above for the ambiguous "partial"
  • I think it is clear in the context. The only alternative I can find is "qualified" which is also ambiguous. Do you have a suggestion? (BTW I have the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus as it was by far the most highly recommended one I could find. Do you disapprove?) Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his sister, the abbess of Wherwell" – but "Abbot of Glastonbury" gets his capital A – equal rights for abbesses, I say!
  • "separate one off amounts" – could do with a hyphen.
  • "Æthelred's laws are translated by Agnes Robertson and summarised by Richard Huscroft" – do you mean these are the versions you use in the article or that these are the only translations and summaries?
  • There are plenty of translations and summaries of specific laws. These are the only full ones I know of, but there may be others. The note is intended as informtion for people who want to know more about the laws Dudley Miles (talk)

That's all from me. I hope some of these points are of use. Please give me a shout when you go to FAC. Tim riley talk 11:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. A few more queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All now fine to my eye. See you at FAC! Tim riley talk 18:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article

Shouldn't the name of the article be "Æthelred II the Unready" to reflect continuity of Æthelred I who also has an article. John George III (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would cause confusion as some people would think that Æthelred I was also unready. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dissagree, it wouldn't people would understand the same way "the Great"work John George III (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we can make it like this: Æthelred II "The Unready" John George III (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We follow reliable sources and they have Æthelred the Unready, or occasionally Æthelred II, but none use your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
objection, there are reliable sources disagreeing with your previous statement John George III (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a compromise idea dudley John George III (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. We go by the usage of reliable sources and the current title already complies with that. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the new one would to John George III (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

From my talk: I have nominated Æthelred for FAC and a reviewer has suggested adding images of relevant objects. As historians say that some of the best illuminated manuscripts are dated around 1000, I think an illustration from one (or more) of them would enhance the article. Do you have any suggestions for relevant images? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - gives me a day or two. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sticking rigidly to his reign dates this proved more difficult than I had expected, partly because the BL site is still half down, and didn't throw up anything with a certain personal connection - Emma was much easier in this respect. Let me know if this is the sort of thing wanted.

-more later, probably Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod. The Ramsey Psalter looks as if it probably dates to Æthelred's reign. What do you think of an illustration from the Bosworth Psalter? The BL list at [1] p. 29 dates it late 10C early 11C? Any more suggestions welcome. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle P Brown dates the Ramsey to Oswald of Worcester's period as Archbishop of York from 972 to his death in 992. Commons has some slightly faint-looking images from the Bosworth. Oddly, it has a French article but not Bosworth Psalter. The images from Psychomachia_of_Prudentius_(11th_C)_-_BL_Add_MS_24199 are lively, if b&w, but the ones on Commons aren't good. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
c:File:Bosworth Psalter - British Library Add MS 37517 f33r (Quid Gloriaris).jpg and c:File:The Ramsey Psalter, BL Harley Ms 2904, Initial B, folio 4.jpg look OK to me. [2] on the BL site shows that the original Psychomachia_of_Prudentius images are a bit dirty. c:File:Anglo-Saxon Chariot 10th century.jpg seems to me sharp but just B&W. I have downloaded another copy from the BL site at c:File:Prudentius's Psychomachia BL ADD ms 24199 fol 18r.jpg, but the only way I could find to do it was a screen print, which seems to me better on colour but not quite as sharp. What do you think Johnbod? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Ramsey is in the gallery above, & the other is fine. On Prudentius’s Psychomachia, I think there are better ones elsewhere on the Internet - eg thwe most famous one here. Also this - Wrath attacking Patience in Prudentius’s Psychomachia: London, British Library, Cotton Cleopatra C VIII, fol. 12r is a different MS, apparently 980-1040 per BL now, which is rather vague, but "late 10th century" per Michelle P Brown's book (Brown, Michelle P., Manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon Age, 2007, British Library, ISBN 9780712306805). Those ones have more colour. Here's "Chastity rebukes the corpse of Lust", folio 08v , which they date to "c. 1000". Others on this site. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have enough now. I have ordered Brown's book. Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph edits on puns and murder

I made a few small changes to the opening paragraph of the article today that were quickly reverted by User:Dudley Miles, who has been a frequent contributor to this article. I would like to discuss why I think these edits would be warranted, or how the sentences in question at least need a rework to be justified inclusions in this otherwise very top-notch article.

"[...]a crime that deeply shocked people" — I believe that this clause in reference to the assassination of Aethelred's predecessor pretty unambiguously goes against Wikipedia:NPOV. It reads as an authoritative emotional claim about a generalized public reaction, which harms the neutral tone and nonpartisan voice articles should maintain. Additionally, I think that this line doesn't have a real place within Aethelred's opening paragraph; it may predispose a reader to blame Aethelred or his associates for the death of his predecessor, which the later "Death of King Edward the Martyr" section gives a much more nuanced rundown of where scholars agree or disagree on the subject. I think removing the clause is the best solution, but if not, I think it should be attributed in the text to the particular source that makes this claim.

"The epithet "Unready" is a pun on his name in Old English, Æthel (noble) and ræd (counsel)." — I removed this line because it doesn't actually explain the pun like it used to in older versions of the article; it just gives us the meanings of his name, but doesn't explain how the modern word "Unready" is a pun on either of those, since it fails to mention the Old English version of it. It is a very fun piece of trivia about him, but I think the line needs a rework, as it doesn't make any sense to someone not already familiar with his name's origins. Much less importantly, I think it breaks the flow between talk of his predecessors death and his accession to the throne—but I won't fret about that if more invested contributors think its placement is fine. OpdqbdpbqO (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C3%86thelred_the_Unready