Talk:Cerdic of Wessex

Moderation

I would like to make a suggestion that makes an assertion more accurate and moderate, and Wikipedia articles need to be as accurate as is possible. My suggested additions are in bold. "A 10th century charter from Edward the Elder, son of Alfred the Great, which transferred 10 hides of land (roughly 11,000 acres), which now makes up St Mary Bourne parish in Hampshire, to Winchester Cathedral suggests contemporary people believed that he was buried in a barrow, then known as 'Ceardices Beorg', within the boundary". Given the centuries separating Cerdic from Edward the Elder folk memory may have become distorted and unreliable. Urselius (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be editorializing on our part, and therefore original research, if that claim is not reflected in the sources. Remsense诉 11:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense, this barrow business is all mere speculation, and my suggestion is merely logical, not editorialising . Cerdic's historical existence is not certain, claims of any sort concerning finding the burial place of a possibly non-existent person needs very careful handling and moderating such claims is essential. Urselius (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I vote the whole matter should be removed until and unless higher quality sources are available. Urselius (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me, as long as what is there is sourced. Remsense诉 11:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted. It leaves the previous text unreferenced, but the refs were dated or not RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The barrow has been identified numerous times in aerial photography surveys, and there's a striking image which shows the ring ditch. The barrow was deliberately situated near an ancient trackway, Offa's Dyke style ditch and Roman Road. Various academic sources mention Cerdic's Barrow and which stem from the reference in Edward's 10th century charter.

1, Bruce Eagles, a well respected academic, references Cerdic's Barrow in the: following paper

2, This is a direct reference from Barbara Yorke's paper in 1989 - (Yorke, Barbara A. E.. (1989) - In: Reading medieval studies vol. 15 (1989) p. 95-117. 90, Essay, The Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex). Prof Yorke is one of the foremost scholars on Wessex's history.

3, Cerdic's Barrow is referenced in The English Settlements - (Myres, John (1989), The English Settlements, Oxford History of England, p.155). The existing Cerdic of Wessex page quotes from this book which is a very good background source for Cerdic.

4, There is an earlier reference to the barrow in Stoke, Hampshire, - Copley, Gordon (1954), The Conquest of Wessex in the 6th Century, Phoenix House, p142. 'The Ceardices Beorg at Hurstbourne Priors has been regarded as the actual burial-place of the first king of Wessex.'

This barrow is commonly placed in 'Stoke, Hurstbourne' because that is the title for land in the charter, but the actual land transferred is 11,000 acres and now makes up what is now St Mary Bourne parish. It is up to Wikipedia editors if they want to use the research or mention the barrow. Just wanted this very public page relating to Cerdic to show that Cerdic's Barrow has been referenced by a number of academics and not treated as 'mere speculation'. Thanks. PH8288 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

When and if the barrow is excavated and a very high status burial dating to around 500 AD is found, then there would be sufficient evidence for inclusion as a possible burial place of Cerdic. The bottom line is, that the existence of Cerdic as a real leader in the future Hampshire area, or even as a real person, is not definitively known. Talking about the possible burial place of a possibly fictitious confection is pointless. As a pointer to the ridiculousness of this situation, there is a place near Manchester called Boggart Hole Clough, would anyone using this as evidence of the existence of boggarts (evil beings of folklore) be taken seriously, or that the prominent hill above Edinburgh, called Arthur's Seat, was where King Arthur held court? The sources you quote were looking at placenames referring to Cerdic and comparing them to the area that is described as Cerdic's stomping ground in the AS Chronicle and elsewhere. To advance such references as proof that the academics concerned were advocating that the reference to a place called 'Cerdic's Barrow' was to the actual place where the possibly fictitious Cerdic was buried is a distortion of their intent. Urselius (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You dismissed this as 'mere speculation', so I responded with references from prominent academics who mentioned the existence of Cerdic's Barrow in this same area but did not then state that it was purely speculation. So how is this distorted?

I did not refer to George Grundy's field research on the charter and presence of the barrow, which is crucial, who himself concludes: 'It is just possible that this may be the grave of the famous Cerdic, founder of the realm of the West Saxons.’

Your comparisons are disappointing but expected. This reference stems from a royal charter from Edward the Elder. There's no reason why they would have made this random association - why not one of the many barrows dotted around Winchester, the capital of the kingdom? At the time of Cerdic's reign this was a place of huge significance near the edge of his kingdom and next to two ancient trackways and a huge ditch. This point is key. The fact that numerous aerial photos have shown a barrow with the presence of a ring ditch in this location, one almost conclusively, proves this was not simply a hill (as you previously suggested). Other barrows are called 'beorge, beorga' in the charter in the same way as Cerdic’s Barrow is called Ceardices Beorg.

Moreover, on the question of whether Cerdic was a real person, there is a general consensus, as the main page alludes to, that Cerdic did in fact exist. Why would Wessex have invented a mysterious founder with a Brittonic name? Why would Charford as is generally agreed be named after Cerdic? Can you explain the princely burial at Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight from the sixth century which ties with the entry for Wihtgar being buried there? In my view the fact that this barrow was named by Cerdic's descendants in a place where it has been shown there was a burial next to several historic landmarks is further proof of his existence.

My original issue was that another anonymous Wikipedia editor, after a disagreement on YouTube, had created a new section stating Cerdic was buried in a different location on the back of a completely random 'Find A Grave’ entry.

I had absolutely no intention of becoming involved in discussions on Wikipedia and neither I am concerned whether Wikipedia uses the research. My frustration, however, was that the research is being undermined by anonymous editors on a very public page for Cerdic who have very likely never visited the place in question but have made a snap dismissive judgement or inaccurate claims. PH8288 (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Attributed coat-of-arms

I re-added my rendition of the attributed coat of arms for Cerdic of Wessex, with the compromise that it be further down on the page, after it was removed with no discussion. I thusly decided to open a Talk section, as suggested by the other user, to discuss concerns over whether or not the attributed arms should be allowed on the page; as of currently, I reverted the edit removing it, with the arms at the bottom of the page. The reason why I added the arms was because said arms, which are also considered anachronistic - as medieval heraldry did not exist at the time Cerdic of Wessex lived - are not only depicted in the main image for the page, but attributed and anachronistic arms were allowed on the page for House of Wessex, to which Cerdic of Wessex is also assigned. By the same logic of "no attributed or anachronistic arms are allowed", the main images for Cerdic of Wessex and House_of_Wessex#Attributed_coat_of_arms would need to be removed. I also did specify in my original contributon to the page that the arms were attributed by John Speed to Cerdic of Wessex, rather than the arms being self-assumed by Cerdic. Obversa (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

While subjects like Cerdic have few if any contemporary images available, so that the use of much later images is unavoidable, heraldry is a rather unique case. There has to be an especially cogent reason for the use of anachronistic heraldry, the mere existence of an attributed coat of arms is not really sufficient. Take for example the arms attributed to Edward the Confessor, there are two reasons that these are relevant, they are based on a design of silver pennies minted during the reign of this king and they were made use of by much later Medieval kings of England. One of the banners that King Henry V had close to him at the Battle of Agincourt was that showing the arms of the Confessor. In general, the consensus of Wikipedia editors working on Early Medieval subjects is against the use of anachronistic heraldry. Urselius (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Disputed reality

The reality of this person is disputed. I think we have over categorized and some of these categories are not justified for a person we do not know is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Arthurian legend

This is a person connected with Arthurian legend. I do not think we should mix historical people and Arthurian legend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert respectfully, you've posted something to this effect across a large number of pages lately, sometimes several times per page. You are not making a substantial point, and you are making it rather disruptively. Please stop.

There's nothing we can do with your concerns as floated here; we present figures holistically as our sources do, and we trust readers to understand the plain meaning of what is said. Remsense ‥ 论 05:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

My argument is we should not put people whose existence is not fully verified in catehories for people who are verified. I am saying we should remove him from from the English monarchs Category and the death year category. At a minimum. I do not think we should have him in either of those categories because I do not believe we can justify that placement. I do not believe we should have people whose existence is not verified in death year categories at all. So I am arguing we should remove this article from those 2 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Additionally in some articles based on legends we have not been transparent enough that what is said in the article is based on legend. We need to be more clear about that in many cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with taking Cerdic out of the "534 deaths" category, because I agree with you, that implies a certainty about his existence and his death date that isn't warranted. But I'd also take him out of the "Arthurian legend" category, because as far as I can tell he has no connection with the Arthurian legend beyond supposedly living in the same historical period as the supposedly historical Arthur supposedly did. Cerdic is primarily a figure of Anglo-Saxon genealogical legend. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The basic problem is that Wikipedia is not configured to deal with subjects with genuine uncertainties - the stupid concept of 'weasel words' does not help, for example. Infoboxes have sections that may not be relevant to a particular subject, but because they exist certain editors will want to fill them in, however tenuous is the evidence. If Cerdic existed, he would not have been known as 'King of Wessex', as this title was not used until the late 7th century. By all means remove speculative dates and titles, and make it entirely clear when evidence is from writings created centuries later than the persons and events they purport to describe. Cerdic as a real person, or as a legendary ancestor, remains an important part of the early history of the English people. Urselius (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)