Talk:Alfred the Great

Main image

The main image has been changed frequently, often to a later portrait. It's invariably changed back with an edit summary that we prefer a contemporary image. (I've just done that myself.) However, I'm not seeing anything in Talk about that, or in any of our MOS pages. Is there something I'm missing? Should we finally have "the talk" and make it a consensus decision? Does it really matter? Woodroar (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be this one. It is a later portrait but it qould do the job. Gwlaadhwylhwyl (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There are a bunch of different repetitions of the basic concept. Inter alia, you could look at wp:imgcontent. The important bit is relevant. Gwlfiahfaoifhow's image is less relevant than the coin because the contemporary minter can be assumed to have roughly copied the actual guy's actual face, versus the medieval copyist having absolutely no idea who he was making a picture of.

That said, there can be a trade-off between essentially unhelpful images versus highly culturally relevant ones. If there's a specific piece of art that everyone in the English speaking world would picture instead, that might have enough weight. George Washington leads with a portrait instead of a death mask. If you could show the coin was just copied off the same press used by Alf's dad, e.g., it would go back to being essentially irrelevant and you could use any generally accepted artistic representation of the guy. Given the lack of 1st century Judaean sculpture, Jesus currently defaults to a Greek icon of a constipated bearded white guy. If there were a 1st century mud effigy in a clearly Christian context, we'd probably lead with that even though it would almost certainly be uglier. See, e.g., Julius Caesar leading with a fairly ugly bust given that it has the potential to have been a work based directly on the living guy. — LlywelynII 20:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

What the heck, fam

Article badly needs a specific separate treatment of the works credited to Alfred, given with their generally accepted titles. If it's not too long, there should also be a list of the English editions of them. If it is too long, the list should be on Wikisource but still available somewhere via this article. — LlywelynII 21:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Polemical tone in Death and Burial

I tried to edit the following section in "Death and Burial" from:

“In 1536, many Roman Catholic churches were vandalised by the people of England, spurred by disillusionment with the church during the Dissolution of the Monasteries. One such Catholic church was the site of Alfred's burial, Hyde Abbey. Once again, Alfred's place of rest was disturbed for the now 3rd time. Hyde Abbey was dissolved in 1538 during the reign of Henry VIII, the church site was demolished and treated like a quarry, as the stones that made up the abbey were then re-used in local architecture.The stone graves housing Alfred and his family stayed underground, and the land returned to farming. These graves remained intact until 1788 when the site was acquired by the county for the construction of a town jail.

“Before construction began, convicts that would later be imprisoned at the site were sent in to prepare the ground, to ready it for building. While digging the foundation trenches, the convicts discovered the coffins of Alfred and his family. The local Catholic priest, Dr. Milner recounts this event:

Thus miscreants couch amidst the ashes of our Alfreds and Edwards; and where once religious silence and contemplation were only interrupted by the bell of regular observance, the chanting of devotion, now alone resound the clank of the captives chains and the oaths of the profligate! In digging for the foundation of that mournful edifice, at almost every stroke of the mattock or spade some ancient sepulchre was violated, the venerable contents of which were treated with marked indignity. On this occasion a great number of stone coffins were dug up, with a variety of other curious articles, such as chalices, patens, rings, buckles, the leather of shoes and boots, velvet and gold lace belonging to chasubles and other vestments; as also the crook, rims, and joints of a beautiful crosier double gilt.

”

To

“During the English Reformation many churches were vandalised, beginning with the Dissolution of the Monasteries. One such was the site of Alfred's burial, Hyde Abbey. Once again, Alfred's place of rest was disturbed for the now 3rd time. Hyde Abbey was dissolved in 1538 during the reign of Henry VIII, the church site was demolished and treated like a quarry, as the stones that made up the abbey were then re-used in local architecture. The stone graves housing Alfred and his family stayed underground, and the land returned to farming. These graves remained intact until 1788 when the site was acquired by the county for the construction of a town jail.

“Before construction began, convicts that would later be imprisoned at the site were sent in to prepare the ground, to ready it for building. While digging the foundation trenches, the convicts discovered the coffins of Alfred and his family. A local recusant priest, Dr. Milner recounts this event:

Thus miscreants couch amidst the ashes of our Alfreds and Edwards; and where once religious silence and contemplation were only interrupted by the bell of regular observance, the chanting of devotion, now alone resound the clank of the captives chains and the oaths of the profligate! In digging for the foundation of that mournful edifice, at almost every stroke of the mattock or spade some ancient sepulchre was violated, the venerable contents of which were treated with marked indignity. On this occasion a great number of stone coffins were dug up, with a variety of other curious articles, such as chalices, patens, rings, buckles, the leather of shoes and boots, velvet and gold lace belonging to chasubles and other vestments; as also the crook, rims, and joints of a beautiful crosier double gilt.

”

Which was a brief attempt to remove the apparently meaningless mention of 1536 when Hyde had not yet surrendered, being a larger house, and remove the driving polemical mention of the split in religion.

I’m a Roman Catholic myself so I know what my own denominations polemicism looks like and that it’s not appropriate in a shared encyclopaedic context. Can we look at revising that section to include the Bishop James Milner quote still but with more neutral language in our surrounding commentary? Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for your consideration, I've tried my best to rewrite it. How is that? Remsense ‥ 论 04:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Sound rewrite mate. Takes the polemical undertone out of it. I only noticed it perhaps because I agree with its thrust - there’s nothing more heartbreaking than lost monasteries and royal and saintly relics. However I fear someone let that understandable emotion dribble a bit too much when writing. I’m going to add a link to “Dr Milner”, he’s got a page, and perhaps remove the repetitive reference to Hyde by name but you solved the “eek sectarianism” vibe Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually on reflection going to swap recusant with Catholic. It’s lost the heavy overtones and the 1780s is a a few decades too late for full blown recusancy status to still apply. Perhaps me being overly cautious to remove all RC references in the first place Me.Autem.Minui (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated sections

There are two sections called 'Family'. Sections should not duplicate headings. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Add Bretwalda in infobox?

I don't know if this discussed before. I would like to add Bretwalda in either succession or title parameters in the infobox. Most luckily, we can put "Bretwalda" title in the title parameter, like we had "Head of the Commonwealth" for King George VI, Queen Elizabeth II and current king Charles III. This also add many of Bretwaldas in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other rulers who claim the title. SpartanMazda (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Per what's made pretty clear in its own article, Bretwalda was not an office or formal title – meaning it's quite misleading to present it like one. Remsense 🌈 论 10:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, he was never given that title so far as I know, even though he is included in the unreferenced list in the Bretwalda article Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I do have a feeling of it. There's however was labeled on the succession box as a regnal title. I guess it should be deleted as such, no? SpartanMazda (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Aye. Per Jennifer Paxton (in the guidebook for the "Medieval England" lecture series she hosted for The Great Courses, but I'm certain this is in her published work also),

There seems to have been an informal pecking order within the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy. The top dog at any one time was called the bretwalda, meaning "Britain ruler," But bretwalda was not an official title per se; it was used more as a compliment or term of deference among leaders.

(Also, she probably needs an article! Unfortunately she apparently shares a name with someone discussed in the press for being the victim of some truly awful things.) Remsense 🌈 论 10:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Well the literal meaning is disputed. Mercian rulers also preferred as bretwalda. I also come to understanding that the word is basically a word, not a title. SpartanMazda (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Quite. Much more as I understand like being called "big boss" than "King of Kings". Remsense 🌈 论 10:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. SpartanMazda (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)