Talk:Godwin, Earl of Wessex

Untitled

Some how it should be worked in that HRH Prince Edward was created the Earl of Wessex upon his marriage in 1999, ressurecting this long dormant title.

reference: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page473.asp

Earls of Wessex

Earl of Wessex needs to know when this title was first created, presumably it ended with the death of Harold II of England at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, but who was the first. And for that matter, who was Godwin's father? Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wulfnoth Cild, Thegn of Sussex as already stated in the article. User: Dimadick

During 1051 Edward had suppressed Godwin by recruiting armies from the northern earls leofric and siward but then... During 1052 Godwin more than just reappaeared and reclaimed his lands in englnd he pretty much undermined the entire monarchy by making edward a puppet while the Godwin Family ruled over england from the background after leofric and siward would not support Edward upon Godwin's return.

"Godwin Sands"

The Godwin Sands are connected to/named after lands granted to Godwin - can someone put in a line or two about them? (Location etc)

Jackiespeel 16:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean the Goodwin Sands ? Do you have a source that says the name is derived from Earl Godwin ? RGCorris (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with this in the Legacy section now. In a word, it's just a story. --Antiquary (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(1).Due to the workings of genealogy everyone who lived at this age is probably the ancestor of every English person now except for those who are the ancestors of nobody. (2).Edward the Confessor owed his position as king to Godwin who offered it to him on Hardicnut's death. Edward did most of the undermining himself. (3).The title Earl replaced that of Ealdorman under Cnut and Godwin was the first creation. Godwin was to my mind, the first Emglish modern politician. He attained power through proving himself as a military commander under Cnut, but he maintained that power by his manipulation of the Witenagemot and by appeals to popular support, especially as the supposed champion of English interests over Edward's Norman favourites-supposed in asmuch as whilst he supported English people such as the citizens of Dover and the "butsecarls"(boatmen)of Kent, his wife Gytha was selling them (especially good looking women) into slavery.Like I said- a politician.Streona 18:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

As much as I love the photo taken of the seal-die belonging to Godwin the thegn, I haven't come across any secondary source which identifies him with our man (or the nun, monacha, Godgytha with Gytha), so I've found a new home for it at "thegn". I'll see if I can come up with some alternatives. There's a 14th-century manuscript drawing of him choking to death at table (admittedly, not very flattering) in Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.10.2, f. 41r, and better still, there's an illustrated version of Edward's Anglo-Norman Life (available online here, [1]). Not the faintest idea how to get hold of a copyright-free image though. In haste, Cavila (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can trust the judgement of the British Museum, unless you believe the uploader misread the caption. Zacwill (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that the uploader wrote the caption, not the museum. Its not uncommon for uploaders to misidentify or mislabel the images they upload to Wikipedia (here's one example I can remember of a featured article that had such an image). So, just like text, images should be verified. That makes it less likely that incorrect information is introduced into articles.

As for this seal, it's appears in plate 17 of:

• Heslop, TA (2014) [1999]. "Seals". In Lapidge, M; Blair, J; Keynes, S; Scragg, D (eds.). The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 426–427. ISBN 978-0-470-65632-7.

Heslop states that this ivory seal dates to the reign of Harthacnut, and that it belonged to an otherwise unknown thegn called Godwine whose seal matrix was used by a nun named Godgyth.

Actually, the seal also appears on the museum website which states that the identities of Godwin and Godgyth are uncertain [2].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Eldest Son

If Sweyn was the eldest son, why does it say he was born in 1023 and Harold in 1022? -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.132.123 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Most sources I am aware of state that Sweyn was older than Harold, as does Sweyn's own article, so why does this article have him as the second son ? RGCorris (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

(Copied from User talk:Dudley Miles)

Please take a second look at this revert and your edit summary? I take it you meant to revert something in a different browser tab you had open? Blue Danube (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources are preferred for reference. Primary sources are better assessed by historians, not Wikipedia editors. In addition, referring to the 'the ancient Abingdon manuscript' is vague and unencyclopedic and the reference is incorrectly shown with the title 'Archived copy'. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorting through the objections as follows:

1. "original research" - a primary source is not original research. I'm still unclear what this was intended to mean, in the original revert edit summary.
2. "Primary sources are better assessed by historians" - I agree... which is why I did not assess it. I simply included a quotation for situational context. The source is a contemporary record. Does your objection mean you are erasing all contemporary record-sourced quotations you find on all Wikipedia articles? I feel like I might be missing something here. Can you specify what part of WP:NOR I got wrong? Blue Danube (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
3. "'the ancient Abingdon manuscript' is vague and unencyclopedic" - A minor issue. I'll fix it since I'm not a fan of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
4. "the reference is incorrectly shown with the title 'Archived copy'" - Another minor issue. I'll fix it since I'm not a fan of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I believe we're in good shape now. Blue Danube (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Earl of Kent

An editor has twice added that Godwin was earl of Kent, citing Britannica and Bedford Council. Neither of these are specialists on Anglo-Saxon history. Frank Barlow in The Godwins says that by the end of his life Godwin was titled ealdorman (an older term for earl) by the end of Cnut's reign, that is by 1035. Ann Williams in her Oxford Dictionary of Biography entry on Godwin says that he witnessed charters as an earl by 1018, but the area of his jurisdiction is not specified. Neither says that he was earl of Kent. These are specialists on Anglo-Saxon history and reliable sources, and we go by them. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone like Frank Barlow or Ann Williams doesn't take a position on a matter—it means they cannot be said to be for or against it—but it sounds like you're instead illogically telling me that their silence should be taken to be mean that Eorl/Ealdorman Godwin wasn't Eorl of Kent. The Bedfordshire and Luton Archives and Records Service are preserving Records from reputable Sources; they themselves aren't the ones making the claim that Eorl Godwine was Eorl of Kent—they're recording that a reliable Source made that claim. The Britannica staff have already Fact-Checked this claim of Eorl Godwine being Eorl of Kent and found it to be genuine. Granted, Eorl Godwin's Tenure in Kent isn't as widely-documented as his Tenure as Eorl of Wessex, but 12th-Century Historian Eadmer took a definitive position that Eorl Godwine was indeed made Eorl of Kent—thank goodness that this information survived given the age of the matter and the destructive effect of the Norman Invasion on the Ængelseaxan/Ænglisc system. 203.142.136.254 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Historians say that Godwin's jurisdiction was not confirmed until the 1030s, when it was given as Wessex. Sothebys cites Eadmer for saying over 100 years later that Godwin was earl of Kent. We go by specialists on Anglo-Saxon history, who are qualified to judge the reliability of original sources, which non-specialists such as Sothebys are not. John Gillingham is very critical of Eadmer's trustworthiness. The bottom line is that we rely on specialists, not the sources you cite. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't saying Sotheby's as an institution are the specialists (though I have no idea who they have working for them as individuals); I was saying Eadmer himself was the specialist and thus his judgement of original sources is what I was invoking—especially considering he was born in the Ænglisc Era. [For the record—all Sotheby's did here was state what Eadmer claimed without making any indication of whether they believed what was claimed to be truthful or not—it was quite a neutral mention in passing; I had no intention of misrepresenting their position as being otherwise.] Whilst Gillingham finds Eadmer to be untrustworthy about certain matters pertaining to the Post-1066 Norman/Anglonorman Era in which he stands to gain from being biased—he doesn't find him to be untrustworthy about everything and indeed praises the vast majority of his work as unparalleled in quality. Sally N. Vaughn, despite her criticisms elsewhere, nonetheless said 'I myself have accused Eadmer of lying, which I am now convinced he did not—at least not in the usual, pejorative sense' and that 'Eadmer was truthful, I believe—in the way that truth can be told yet with certain unedifying facts omitted'. Her tone has harshened since but not to the point of dismissing everything Eadmer has ever said. Richard Southern even goes so far as to say 'attempts which have been made to convict him of wilful distortion have not been successful' as well as 'Eadmer was very ready to listen to disreputable stories about William Rufus but it is hard to think that they greatly falsified his character' and, whilst perhaps this is a tad too generous, perhaps also there is some truth to it that criticisms of him have been unfair at times. Anyway; omission of certain details and putting a spin on certain motivations of figures he's writing about and the like is hardly the same thing as inventing the inheritance of an Eorldom. To outright dismiss Eadmer's judgement of original sources across the board because of his conduct in a few instances where he was personally involved, especially in matters not directly related to the Anglo-Saxon Era, is a Genetic Fallacy.

I have another reference written for the Royal Historical Society by William Winters, F. R. Hist. Soc. wherein it's stated that 'Harold the Second, and last of the Anglo-Saxon Kings, was son of Godwine, or "Gudin," Earl of Kent ...': 203.142.136.254 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This whole discussion - my comments as well as yours - is original research, which is forbidden. Wikipedia articles on Anglo-Saxon history should be a summary of modern academic experts on the period. They do not descibe Godwin as earl of Kent, so we do not. Winters is too dated, but if you can find a modern historian of Anglo-Saxon England who supports your view, that could be added citing it to him or her. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Dudley here - unless there are modern secondary sources (not Eadmer) who say he was Earl of Kent, then we can't say it. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The references you quote are a bit old, there are more recent sources, for example Stephen Baxter writes, "The mid-eleventh-century annals in [ASC] E are conspicuously favourable to the family of Earl Godwine. As one scholar has observed, they are 'written in a partisan style which admitted of no public doubts about the probity of earl Godwines conduct'.In this connection, it is surely relevant that Godwine was earl of Kent, the shire in which St Augustine’s lay, for most of Edward the Confessor’s reign." – (English Historical Review 2007 CXXII:1189-1227) According to Tom Licence "Godwine was not short of land, but one of Edward’s early actions was to extend his earldom to include Kent..."  – ('Kingship', Edward the Confessor: Last of the Royal Blood. 80-118) There are not very many primary sources from that period. The only one I could find was that of Florence of Worcester (s.a.1051) who says that Godwines earldom included Kent, Sussex and Wessex. Barbara Yorke and Ann Williams talk about south eastern England or Eastern Wessex which I think reflects fairly accurately what the primary source says. I agree that there is not enough to say whether Godwine was actually earl of Kent, but there is enough for the article to reflect the academic discussion.Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out these sources. Baxter does say that Godwin was earl of Kent, but in his footnote (p. 1191 n. 14) he is more cautious and says in Kent:

The evidence that Godwine was appointed earl in Kent by King Edward is as follows. Godwine is not addressed in any of Cnut's writs for Kent (P. H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography, Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks 8 (London, 1968), revised edn, ed. S.E. Kelly, currently available online at www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww [hereafter 'S'] nos 986-90, and cf. S 1386); nor does he subscribe S 1390, a Christ Church Canterbury lease datable 1020 x 1038, or S 1400, a grant of land near Canterbury datable 1038 x 1050. A memorandum relating to a plea of c. 1078-9 asserts that the archbishop of Canterbury was entitled to the third penny in Kent until it was assigned to Earl Godwine by King Edward during the time of Archbishop Eadsige (1038-50): D.C. Douglas, 'Odo, Lanfranc, and the Domesday Survey', in Historical Essays in Honour of James Tait, ed. J.G. Edwards, V.H. Galbraith and E.F. Jacob (Manchester, 1933), 47-57 at 52. In addition, it is known that Godwine brokered an agreement between Ælfstan abbot of St Augustine's and a priest named Leofwine concerning property in Kent in S 1472, a vernacular document datable 1044 x 1045; and he is addressed as earl in S 1091, a Kentish writ datable 1042 x 1050. Godwine was later said to have despoiled St Augustine's of its property, but the evidence for this is late: see, for example, Charters of St Augustine's Abbey, Canterbury, and Minster-in-Thanet, ed. S. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters IV (Oxford, 1995), 115.

Licence cites Baxter's comment for saying that the jurisdiction of Godwin's earldom of Wessex was extended to include Kent, but not that he ever had the title earl of Kent. This seems to be supported by the evidence. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting; perhaps, if further modern sources were found referring to Godwin only as 'Earl of Kent' rather than also as '... in Kent', the wording could specifically mention this—but, as this is hard to come by at present and Baxter's wording shifted from 'of' to 'in' in the same publication—I'm prepared to accept the recently-modified wording, at least for the time being, as reflective of the academic discussion. In spite of the wavering in Baxter on that matter—well done finding that source there and integrating it as has been done. I think the matter of when Kent joined Godwine's jurisdiction looks accurate now in the article, being in the time of Edward, based on Baxter's decisiveness about it—so thorough commendations to the joint effort of finding it and putting it in and, in doing so, relocating mention of Kent within the article. Thank-you to all of you for your time here. [My apologies about my lack of involvement in the last few days; a calamity has struck my family shortly after my previous Edit and I've been tending to the situation as best I can since then.]203.142.136.254 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)