Talk:Penda of Mercia

I removed this line: "but after the defeat of the Welsh king at Oswald at "Hefenfeith" in 644, Mercia seems to have been for a time subject to Northumbria."

Oswald of Northumbria defeated Cadwallon of Gwynedd at Hefenfeith near Hadrian's Wall in 633 or 635. Penda and the Mercians were unwilling allies of Cadwallon. Penda killed Oswald in 642. Until 644 Penda ruled southern Northumberland. In 645 Penda overthrew Cenwalh and ruled Wessex for three years. When could Northumbria have ruled Mercia after 644? Rmhermen 16:58, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Kirby in The Earliest English Kings seems to think that Bede is overstating Oswiu's position as top dog of the area in the 640s, but the evidence either way is very scanty; 1911EB was probably oversimplifying. What it meant to "rule" in any of these situations is hard to know, since there were lots of subkings and overkings and never an explanation of what that actually meant. Stan 18:34, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We follow the 1911 in saying that the AS Chronicle is probably wrong about his age based on the ages of his children but as far as I can see we never establish the ages of his children either here or in the three articles we have on his children. Do we have any reason for this claim about Penda's age? Rmhermen 04:55, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Bede calls Wulfhere "a youth" (book III, ch. XXIV) three years after Penda's death, and the circumstances in which he came to power (Bede's describes him being installed in power by two rebel leaders, after being kept in hiding, and does not seem to imply Wulfhere's active participation) do seem to suggest he was still pretty young. We might guess that Penda's other son, Aethelred, was younger still, since he became king after Wulfhere's death, and we know he lived until 716, which would make him over 60 even if he was just an infant at Penda's death, and it's pretty unlikely an 80 year old man would have such young children. It has been suggested that the claim he was 50 years old in 626 may actually be a mistake meant to apply to the time of his death in 655, and that does seem plausible. Everyking 11:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this article is getting to the point where I can consider nominating it for FAC. I still have some more stuff I want to work on, but some of that may take time, since it can be hard to find the sources I'm looking for. But the article has a problem in that it has no image. The best thing I know of is a map, but I've never been able to find one that was both public domain and adequate for the purposes of this article. Does anyone have an idea about this? Everyking 10:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am uploading some antique maps of Britain this evening to Commons including the useful Britannia Saxonica showing the boundaries of Mercia. You could either include such maps - or trace the kingdom borders onto a modern map. Most useful would be two maps: one prior to his reign and another post-reign - showing his impact. Also, are there any "artist impressions" of him? --Oldak Quill 19:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is it's all very obscure. The pre and post idea would be nice, but would be virtually impossible to do accurately. The Mercia maps might be useful, though. I don't know of any artist impressions. Everyking 19:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about separating Geoffrey of Monmouth's account from the Hatfield section completely, and moving it to what would be a more complete summary of his history as it deals with Penda near the bottom of the article. This would eliminate the risk of misleading the reader with information taken from Geoffrey's semi-mythical history, but I'm not sure if this organization would be preferable. Any thoughts? Everyking 13:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A better method of referencing Bede? Cite the chapters in-line with the text? I'm not sure what to do about that, but I feel there needs to be a better method of identifying which chapters of Bede are being referenced. Everyking 22:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two alternative antique maps as images, that I have uploaded: Image:Robert Morden - Britannia Saxonica.jpg and Image:Saxon England according to the Saxon Chronicle.jpg. Not sure if Mercia is as clear on these, but they look more magnificant - could always subtly bring Mercia forward with Photoshop (as long as the originals are not overwritten). --Oldak Quill 20:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, why'd you add a reference that wasn't actually used in the article? Perhaps more suited to "further reading" classification? Everyking 07:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to do a little trimming to this article: I want to snip a few unnecessary cites and perhaps remove a few details that are perhaps better suited for other articles. However, since this is a featured article, I want to be very careful in doing so. If anyone finds anything even marginally objectionable about a change I make, please revert it and put it up for discussion. Everyking 00:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any change of getting a picture? I'd love to feautre this on the main page, but biographical article more-or-less necessitate a picture of the person (with occasional expections such as using a picture of an artist's work in place of a picture of the artist)? →Raul654 21:22, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen even a fanciful representation (such as those Victorian anachronistic drawings of medieval kings we've got all over the place, where they'll be wearing armor or fashion from 500 years down the line or so), and there's certainly no contemporary image to use. Everyking 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm not picky - most anything will do. →Raul654 21:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

My point was that there is nothing. We have the map...I honestly don't know what else could be used. There could be something obvious that is escaping me right now, but I don't think so. Everyking 21:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

 

If we want to stretch it, there's this beautiful image from Sutton Hoo which is contemporary with Penda, but unfortunately it's an East Anglian artifact and not Mercian. But it is very pretty, and could work if we're primarily concerned with decorative use. Everyking 22:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I removed the suggestion that his name was the origin of the word penny - since cognates of the word exist in other Germanic languages (German Pfennig, Swedish penning etc.) it is highly unlikely. Hedgehog 11:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but it is considered a possibility, and I actually left it out until I was specifically asked by someone to include it. If you can add it back and at the same time shed a little more light on the subject (without getting too far off track) that would be great. Everyking 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it's considered a possibility by anyone who actually knows anything about English etymology - while a Google search for 'penny' and 'Penda' comes up with loads of sites, none of them seem to give any sources. Neither the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology nor Duden's Herkunftswörterbuch suggest it, and it seems unlikely that it would have been borrowed into Old Saxon or Old High German from Old English (although it might have been borrowed in Old Norse). Its forms in the various early Germanic languages suggest a common West Germanic *panning, *paning or *panding, which look rather less like 'Penda' and suggest that it was probably a loanword. The ODEE suggests a link with pawn, which may be from Latin pannus, piece of cloth, while Duden suggests a a derivation from early forms of the word pan. 'Penda' seems pretty unlikely though. Hedgehog 09:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

What about the Welsh "pen," meaning "head" or "prominence" (hence a secondary meaning - a hill - as in, Penrith, Pendle Hill etc.)? Penda could easily be a Welsh-bestowed nickname meaning chief or overlord. More than one "Anglo-Saxon" king had a Brythonic/Welsh name eg. Caedwalla and Cerdic and possibly Ceawlin. Penda was certainly an ally of Welsh princes, and after the death of Cadwallon of Gwynedd probably achieved some measure of overlordship over at least some of his Welsh allies. A precedent for the use of "pen-" names to indicate overlordship could be seen in the term "pendragon" or "chief-dragon" connected to Arthur.

Urselius 16:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

50 (!) footnotes, most of which seem to be refering to very simple and uncontroversial facts, is definetly over the top and don't really add to the otherwise high standards of the article. Could someone do something about this?

Peter ^Isotalo 23:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not really. They could be slightly excessive, but what you've got to understand is the obscurity of the subject...there is very little about Penda that is certain. So, I think, the more a subject is lost in the mist of time, the more you need to cite historians, to avoid stating as fact things that may just be interpretations. Also as a general principle I do like thorough referencing in Wikipedia articles; it helps deflect the most common charge against us, which is inaccuracy. Everyking 04:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

(Transferred from Wikipedia:featured article candidates))

Has a map of england, but it sort of cries out for a picture of Penda himself→Raul654 21:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe any portraits of him survive. --Oldak Quill 20:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know of any images of Penda that have survived. -- Francs2000 | Talk   23:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are none. This demand is pointless. Raul raised this on the talk page but apparently ignored me when I told him there was no way for me to get the kind of image he wanted. Everyking 01:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Are there any other images that would be appropriate for the article? It is rather a long article. Any important places to Penda's life perhaps? -- Francs2000 | Talk   22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Francs' thinking - in lieu of a picture of Penda himself, can anyone suggest an alternative image (besides, obviously, the map; as I have said before, maps generally don't make good main page images). How about a heraldric crest or some other iconographic symbol? →Raul654 22:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Look at this link. I contacted Mr. Ford, who offered to sell the rights to the photo to me and said the window was at Worcester Cathedral. If there's anyone near there handy with a camera...--Pharos 22:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

What a good idea. If only I lived near Worcester... -- Francs2000 | Talk   23:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

...coughcough... →Raul654 23:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as I live in Worcester I should be able to take a picture of that. I'll get onto it later this week. violet/riga (t) 10:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

That sounds great. Does anyone have more information on this picture, such as what exactly it's supposed to illustrate? A battle, obviously, but it would be helpful to know if it's depicting a specific event. Everyking 14:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well if you hover your mouse over the image it tells you it's depicting the death of Penda, presumably at the Battle of Winwaed. Perhaps Violet might be able to find out more while she's there? -- Francs2000 | Talk   21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not my greatest act of photography ever (it was rather high up!), but it's something: Image:Penda of Mercia.jpg. I might try and get another when I have some more time in town. Sadly there wasn't any further information I could find out about it, though I'm sure someone will know about it - just a matter of luck as to whether they are there or not. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, this is a big improvement, I think. Everyking 18:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Me too, I think it's an excellent shot. Well done. -- Francs2000 | Talk   18:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Violet, it was excellent work getting that shot. Wikipedia is amazing; say "we need a photo from X part of the world", and you have it in a couple of days.--Pharos 07:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I have an idea. Whenever I think of Penda, the first thing that always comes to my mind is "penny", since I have always heard that the etymology of "penny" has it taking its name from this Mercian king. I'm a little surprised this fact isn't even mentioned anywhere that I could see. So, why not use a picture of the earliest English penny, if none exist from his specific reign? Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • There's a story to this: someone before asked me to include that about the penny, so I did; but then recently someone else removed it on the grounds that it's unlikely. I don't have any strong opinion about it. The idea about Penda=penny seems to be notable enough for inclusion, but at the same time the argument against that origin of the word is quite convincing, in my opinion. Everyking 18:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I just noticed that from the discussion and history. The article on pfennig says the term was used in Germany since the "Middle Ages", and IMO could easily have been borrowed into other N. Eur. languages from English, where it seems to appear first (from what I have just learned, under Offa who ruled Mercia in the next century)... I'll see if I can find a clearer account... Codex Sinaiticus 18:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

It sounds very much like an urban legend of sorts (which Wikipedia is not a collection of). You probably shouldn't mention it unless you can point to a reputable source that claims it is true. →Raul654 18:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a preliminary Google for (Penda penny) brings up 100's of references, including banks' and professional numismatists' sites, though granted these sources may not be "reputable", and it still could be an 'urban legend' - though even urban legends that are this widely held perhaps ought to be given some mention. Just browsing through, I have seen the 'original penny' attributed to various other Saxon kings ca. 600-800 besides Penda and Offa, including Ina of Wessex and Heaberht of Kent. The coin name is mentioned in the A-S Chronicle entry (as penga) for 775 AD. Some sources state that King Penda issued no coinage, others, that he had silver "sceattas" minted. But at least there can be no doubt that the silver "penny" replaced the sceatta in England around this timeframe, far, far earlier than any continental cognates (like pfennig) show up. Codex Sinaiticus 19:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I could get an early seventeenth century image from John Speed's atlas - the quality may not be great as it would be a photograph and is quite small. The same sheet has images of several other early Saxon kings - naturally, based solely on Speed's imagination. Would this be of any interest? Warofdreams 13:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, could be interesting to put maybe in the historical appraisal section or something. Everyking 18:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if anyone else noticed but I deleted the huge penis someone put on the page. Not that I have a thing against huge penises in fact if the owner of said instrument would like to meet for some...well nevermind...

I'm not happy with this article, even though it is featured. There are so many sources I want to get my hands on that aren't available to me, and I just feel like this article is inadequate in a lot of ways. I've been thinking about some ways to improve it. One thing I want to do is split the Geoffrey of Monmouth stuff into an independent, expanded section, and get it away from the "real" history. Does anyone have any suggestions? Be merciless. I would willing to consider nominating it for FA removal, depending on what others think. But what I really want to do is improve it. Everyking 09:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's a great article, any of the "pro" encyclopedias would be happy to have it as-is. Definitely shouldn't be removed from FA. I don't think it wants to expand much though, already quite lengthy considering the sketchiness of the primary sources; once you've covered what all the secondary sources say, anything further is original research. IMHO it would be more useful to fill in all the red links and expand on all the connected articles - if you could click on any blue link and get a good article instead of a stub, that would probably be a first in WP! Stan 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

One problem, I think, is that the referencing is mind-bogglingly complicated—to the extent that I am discouraged from editing the article because dealing with changing the order of the references and the citations is just nightmarish. But I don't know of any better way to do it. Anybody have suggestions on how to simplify the system, without losing any of the referencing? Everyking 07:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

That is my great concern with the reference tag system. violet/riga (t) 08:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, it doesn't do us any good to just say it's flawed, we need to decide how it could be improved. Everyking 09:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

There are two ways I can see:

1. Use named references instead of numbered, perhaps ordering them by date or alphabetically rather than by the order they are found in the text
2. Add support into the MediaWiki code

The former is a possible solution, but the latter would be best (though unlikely). violet/riga (t) 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm just perpetually unhappy about this article...I think the intro is maybe too short. I feel like there's no "middle ground", between what the needs of the reader who wants just the bare essentials (that's the current intro) and in depth coverage (the rest of the article). I wish there was a paragraph or so more info in the intro, but I can't decide what to put in there. Any suggestions? Everyking 06:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

It reads fine to me :) The fellow reminds me slightly of Haakon Sigurdsson, the last pagan lord of Norway (I'd love to expand that article).

I'm familiar with the problem of writing about something where the primary sources are scant. Sometimes I like to just quote the sources and let them speak for themselves. It's not as readable as paraphrasing but paraphrasing can sometimes make something which is really an exhaustive collection of facts about the subject seem like a summary of something more. And sometimes there just isn't anything more - or it'd be in the article :) - Haukur 23:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of modifying the reference system so that primary source references (or at least Bede, the most important one here) will be dealt with in line with the main text. I sometimes see it treated this way, and I think it would be an effective way to trim down the citation bloat, while at the same time not losing any of the referencing (and possibly making it more accessible). Everyking 07:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Using Cite.php helps enormously in ref'ing the article (it doesn't do anything for size, but who cares about that ?) : you can see it on Óengus I of the Picts, which I yesterday changed from this with ref/note to the current version using Cite.php. I used it from the start when rewriting Picts and Dalriada, and it was far, far easier than the ref/note nightmare. The only problem appears to be that you can't put notes in image captions, but this is also broken with ref/note anyway: see the discussion on Talk:Scotland in the High Middle Ages. This is one of only a very few English history articles that has refs. Please don't remove or reduce them. Angus McLellan 14:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think fixing the problem is over my head, but if you (or anybody else) want to take a stab at reworking the refs, please do so. (Or if you can explain how to do it in simple terms, I'll give it a try.) What's important is that the notes get preserved; beyond that I don't think it really matters. Everyking 10:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Penda fought battles, two really notable ones - where these to just get power and control over land and people or to fight against the spread of Christianity? Or a bit of both? Robert C Prenic 08:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Probably much more the former, at least in my opinion. It's unknown to what degree, if any, he was motivated by opposition to Christianity, but several things we do know suggest this shouldn't be seen as the primary factor in events: most importantly, Bede says that Penda tolerated the preaching of Christianity within Mercia; there's also the intermarriage of his children with the (Christian) Bernician line and his alliances with the (Christian) British. The latter two things could have been done in spite of his feelings toward Christianity, due to strategic imperative, but it is difficult to reconcile his tolerance of Christian preaching with the idea of a ruler fiercely opposed to the spread of Christianity. Everyking 07:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

It may be worthwhile to make some comment about the possible connections of Penda's family with the British. None of the names of Penda, his father Pybba and his son Peada have very convincing Anglo-Saxon etymologies. The name Penda itself would seem to be connected to the Welsh "pen" meaning head or chief and Pybba might derive from the Welsh "pybyr" meaning "strong-stout." Another "pen" name occurs in the Mercian royal family, St. Guthlac's father was called Penwalh; this could be a composite Welsh-English name meaning "Head-Welshman." Penda's wife's name has a "cyn" element which though meaning "kin" in A-S could alternatively be derived from "cuno" meaning "hound" in Brythonic (many cuno names in the early Welsh upper classes eg Maglocunus (Maelgwn) and Cuneglassus (mentioned by Gildas)). Finally there is the sub-king Merewalh, another son of Penda, whose undoubtedly A-S name means "Illustrious Welshman."

Penda seems to have been a ferocious and generally astute warlord who eventually became the overlord of a number of peoples, some of which were undoubtedly mainly Welsh-speaking, and in doing so laid the foundations of a major insular state. Given the evidence of the personal names his family may well have had a rather ethnically mixed origin, like that of Cerdic of Wessex, and the identification with a purely Anglian origin may have been attributed later.

Urselius 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This all seems very improbable, and a single reference to something written over a century ago by Sir John Rhys is not really sufficient for radical claims in a featured article. Starting with the obvious, negative evidence of Bede: Bede does not say that Penda was a Briton. And the negative evidence piles up: D.P. Kirby doesn't say that Penda was a Briton, Barbara Yorke doesn't say that he was a Briton, and Frank Stenton doesn't remark upon his British origins. Can you provide modern references which make the case for Penda's British origins? Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Urselius 08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe that I'm stating anything particularly improbable. Neither am I saying that Penda was a Briton. I am saying that there are no likely Anglo-Saxon origins for his name, or for those of the other members of his family I mentioned. On the other hand there are the possible Old Welsh derivations I have suggested. Have a look at the words, see if they appear possible or likely. In this context an ethnically mixed origin for his family is a possibility, though only a possibility.

There are undoubted Celtic names in other English dynasties, such as the founder of the Wessex royal line Cerdic, and Ceawlin and Caedwalla of the same dynasty. There is also Caedbaed of the Lindissi. I have read a number of works where the British name origin of some or all these leaders is not remarked upon. I take this as reflecting on the scholarship of the writers rather than the basic linguistic case for Celtic derivation.

The Welsh gave names to English kings in their own language, it is not a great stretch of the imagination to consider that in some cases, where the owner of the Welsh by-name had great intercourse with the Welsh and probably ruled many Welsh speakers (as Penda did), the Welsh name might become the one in general usage.

The names of the ecclesiastics Cedd, Chad and Caedmon are all of Welsh origins, from 'cat' meaning "battle," but Bede doesn't remark on their Welshness or the Welshness of their names. Your argument that Bede did not remark on the derivation of Penda's name is therefore somewhat undermined by Bede's obvious insensibility to the Welsh name origins in general and particularly those of his pious heroes. Bede also mentions the Northumbrian royal centre Ad Gefrin without remarking that it is a British, not Anglo-Saxon, name.

The fact that Penda was a pagan seems to have closed the minds of many scholars to the anomalous non-Germanic features of his name and that of the names of some members of his family. This is despite the paucity of knowledge as to the extent of Celtic paganism surviving into the period. It also ignores the well attested phenomenon of the acculturation of hostages and exiles. Both the Northumbrian kings Edwin and Oswy spent some of their (in the case of Oswy most of) younger formative years in exile at Celtic and Christian courts. Oswy certainly gained a Gaelic by-name whilst in exile in Dal Riada, and both kings were exposed to Celtic Christianity. That Penda might have been from a British or mixed family and was raised, as a hostage or exile, at a pagan Anglian court and became an acculturated pagan is therefore not unthinkable.

In short Penda had a name which doesn't mean anything in Anglo-Saxon, and is probably of Welsh derivation. He might have gained this name from the Welsh and not been of British origins himself. Alternatively, as in the case of the West Saxon dynasty, Penda's name might reflect a British origin for his family or one that was ethnically mixed. Incidentally I've seen references to Penda's queen as being a relation of Cynddylan of Powys, but I don't know their veracity. BTW King Oswy married a British princess, Rhianfellt of Rheged, so such marriages were not unknown.

Rhys was an excellent linguist, I don't think the age of a piece of scholarship has any direct bearing on its usefulness.

Urselius 13:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're assuming I disagree with the idea, but I don't. What I disagree with is including it here. Adding comments implying a British origin of Penda's name may be blindingly obvious, but until some of the Anglo-Saxonists take their heads out of the sand and rethink things based on more modern ideas of the origins of Anglo-Saxon England, we should not be aiming to lead the field. Nobody else writing about Penda appears to think his name is worth remarking on, so neither should we. Wikipedia doesn't do original thinking, not even through hints to the reader. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rethinking the origins of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the light of personal name origins has been done before, notably by Myres in "The English Settlements" concerning the origins of Wessex and the Cerdicings, and on a smaller scale in "Defining the Magonsaete" (The Origins of A-S Kingdoms, Ed. Steven Basset) regarding Merewalh the supposed son of Penda. The surprising thing is that a similar reappraisal of Penda hasn't happened although the literature is littered with passing references to his non-A-S name.

In a more general sense authors such as Hodges, Higham, Arnold and also the geneticists such as Sykes have highlighted the population continuity between Roman Britain and A-S England, so that the "Little Englander" tone of the Penda Wiki entry strikes a distinctly old-fashioned note.

By way of a "commodious vicus of recirculation" the antiquity of Rhys's observation is a help in this, as it is hardly "leading the field" to highlight an observation that is over a century old.

Perhaps merely noting the lack of A-S etymology of Penda's name without suggesting the Welsh candidate meanings would be a conservative option?

Urselius 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

That seems fine to me. As regards the point about Rhys and older sources, while it may seem reasonable, it is something of a slippery slope. Sticking to modern sources means that we don't get swamped with Victorian imaginings on royal genealogies and the like. Not so bad here, but in some other areas of the Insular Early Middle Ages there is an awful lot of old tat on google books and the like which could be used to "source" discredited claims which would be unhelpful in Wikipedia articles. It's not always easy to find a specific refutation of such things, even when they are clearly discredited and no longer mentioned in modern works. If you're ever at a loose end, I did some work on Wulhere and Æthelred, but there's still a lot needs doing. Is there anything like a plausible argument that Mrs Penda, Cynewise, was a kinswoman of Cynegils? I thought I saw one in print but can't put my hands on one. I'm not aware of Cyne-names being at all common outside of Mercia and Wessex. Likewise, -walh names seem more common there than elsewhere. Time for some amateur statistical anthroponymy perhaps, aided by the wonderful Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the Welsh suggestions, leaving just the bald statement about the lack of A-S etymology. In regard to references to old sources, yes it can be counter productive in some cases, but I think not in all. I was surprised to find extensive references to Beddoe's "Races of Britain," written in the 1880s, in a recent book by the population (and ancient DNA) Oxford geneticist Sykes (Blood of the Islands?). As I lent my copy of the Beddoe book to a friend who was Sykes' post-doc at the time perhaps I'm responsible for any number of archaic references. ;) There is another advantage in using older references now as so many older books in the public domain have been scanned and are available, on the web, to the non-specialist reader.

It would be very good for someone to get to the bottom of the cyne- names; perhaps, like hanging bowls and their suspension chains, they are survivals in the insular upper classes dating back to the Iron Age. It would be attractive to think that a name element survived from the time of Cunobelin into the Anglo-Saxon era.

Urselius 08:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've found a more recent reference! "Some elements in Mercian royal names may possibly also be British" in Sims-Williams, Religion and Literature, p. 26. Cambridge 1990.

Wundorlice (or something like that).

Urselius 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I hoped there was a reference somewhere, so perhaps miraculous is a bit strong. Still impressive though. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

To return breifly to the cyne- names, St. Chad's brother Cynebil would seem a good candidate for a survival of Cunobelin, also the king Cynegils might display another with a b-g shift (scribal error?).

Urselius 13:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think Nora Chadwick questioned why an Anglo-Saxon war-chief would have a name which meant "Good-Chief" in Welsh. Can't find the reference on't internet tho. Boynamedsue 11:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good! I have at least one of her books at home, I'll have a quick scan though. Urselius 11:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Pages 125-126 the authors of the work below describe the members of a Northumbrian [spiritual] brotherhood who have Celtic names, described in the ninth century Liber vitae Dunelmensis, the name Penda occurs as a British name in this list. This is the first instance of the name Penda being used for another person than the Mercian king I have come across.

Filppula, M., Klemola, J., Paulasto, H., and Pitkanen, H., (2008) English and Celtic in Contact, Routledge. ISBN 0415266025

There is a preview of this book available online via Google Book Search.Urselius (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've cut the following two sentences:

• "Oswald's moves toward alliance with the West Saxons, who occupied territory to the south of the Mercians, could be seen as an attempt to counter Mercian power."
• "This may indicate a special hereditary claim over southern Mercia by Penda's line that it did not have over the north."

Both are reasonable, but I've been unable to source them. The latter was at the end of a paragraph about Penda's kingship of southern Mercia; the relevant source (Kirby) doesn't get close enough to saying what the cut sentence says for it to be a source for the statement. The first statement is also reasonable, but I can't find anything specific about Oswald making alliances; the sources I have all simply talk about the conflict between Penda and the West Saxons, and not about any Northumbrian involvement, known or guessed.

If either can be sourced, please add them back. Mike Christie (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have grave concerns over the Germanic etymology presented for the name Penda, one supporting link is to a page of unpublished matter of uncertain origins the other is to an online etymology which gives a putative West Germanic word which is unrecorded or an ultimately Latin origin!

The whole is a circular argument - Penda is an English king therefore his name has to be Germanic, therefore there must be a word of Germanic origins to fit - let's use something not recorded in Anglo-Saxon writing, that might even be of Latin origins but possibly, by reconstruction, might have existed in Proto-West Germanic. This smacks of desperation.

I do not think these are nearly adequate as supporting material for a featured article.Urselius (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is no direct statement concerning a number of remarkable facts about Penda. He was a warlike pagan Anglo-Saxon king who never fought the British, his recorded enemies are all Anglo-Saxon and throughout his career he was always allied to British kings. All his major battles were fought alongside British warbands against Anglo-Saxon armies.Urselius (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP:FA status on this page was granted over 6 years ago but it is clearly is no longer up to scratch. Any experts out there willing to help me try to fix it? (I know very little of the subject or indeed of that period of history so couldn't do it alone). Otherwise it goes to WP:FAR - which may be a good thing as that would bring it to wider attention that it needs a thorough overhaul. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

It went through an FAR in 2009, as you can see from the article history or look at it Wikipedia:Featured article review/Penda of Mercia/archive1. What specifically do you find lacking in the article that deserves the two big tags at the top ... you should know that both Mike Christie and myself looked and worked over the article at the 2009 FAR, and we're probably some of the closest to subject matter experts available here on Wikipedia. As mentioned in the previous FAR - the "uncertain" language used in the article is a reflection of the scholarship - not much is known definitively about the period so the article necessarily reflects the uncertainty in the sources. I do find it curious that someone who states that they "know very little of the subject or indeed of that period of history" would sweepingly tag the article as not up to snuff ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ealdgyth. It's not obvious to me what is missing from the article; perhaps you could be specific? This was mostly written by another editor, who is no longer active in this area, but I think it's in good shape now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have some particular problems with the page as it stands, as I have outlined above, though in general I think it is well written but perhaps somewhat old-fashioned in outlook.

I think the Germanic etymology for 'penda' is so slight it should be stricken, the sources are just not of sufficiently reputable scholarship for inclusion in a FA.

There are a number of hugely important facets of Penda's life that cry out for a more prominent treatment. He was an Anglo-Saxon pagan king who never fought the Welsh, all his recorded enemies were Anglo-Saxon. In all his major campaigns he was allied to Welsh princes. I believe that this is very important and points to ethnicity and religion playing only a limited role in the politics of Penda's era.Urselius (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You need reliable sources that point out those facts. And quite honestly, calling anyone the "Welsh" at this time is anachronistic. Find the sources, then it can be included, but without reliable sources for this information it's just original research. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Take a look at the sources for the Germanic etymology - they are ridiculous.

Read the article, there are no recorded instances of Penda fighting the Welsh - by Penda's day Old British had transformed into Early Welsh, and those who spoke this language were presumably Welsh - call them Welsh, British, Cumbrogi or Cymry if you like. Steven Basset (ed.) The Origins of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, page 168: "it is certainly clear that Welsh [not just me who is anachronistic!] support played a part in determining Penda's fortunes at critical moments of his career." Also "We do not know whether the alliance between Mercia and certain Welsh kingdoms survived Penda's death."Urselius (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have Basset and can add anything necessary from that, but I'm heading to the airport in an hour and won't be back till September. I suggest that rather than another FAR we simply work on improving the article. If we don't have consensus on how to do that in a month or so, we can revisit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the article could be merely re-ordered to deflect most objections. The most compelling criticism is that of an essay-type format. The article could be made more encyclopaedic by using headings such as "Relations with Northumbria," "Religion," "Alliances with the Welsh," "Role in the creation of a Greater Mercia," "Paganism and Christianity in Penda's Mercia," "Creation of Mercian sub-kingdoms - Magonsaete, Hwicce, Middle Anglia" etc.Urselius (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to make changes as you see fit, although I don't find the section headings that unencyclopedic myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello all. Months ago, in the bibliography at the article's very end, the books were numbered in a neat order. At a moment when I was not logged in (therefore you may have a hard time finding the exact point), I re-sorted the books into an alphabetical order. At the time, I did not edit the book-referring numbers in the "References" section's text, so I did not realise that I was making a mess out of it, making the numbers point wrongly. The mistake was made in good faith and I have intended to correct it ever since. During the time since my mistake, someone took the numbers off altogether. Maybe they realised that the numbers were all wrong anyway, and, not having the information I had (of when exactly the mistake was made), maybe they thought that the numbers could not be recovered as they had been and so chose not to proceed with correcting them, eliminating them instead. Maybe not. Anyway, after approximately two years, I just reinstated the bibliography's book order as it was in May 2009 (which was the original, correctly-numbered bibliography) and renumbered the books as they were then too. Sorry about everything. SrAtoz (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

no, the numbers are not used in the bibliography section at all. That is why they were removed. The books/sources in the bibliography should be listed in alphabetical order, with bullet points in front - not with numbers. So, no, your edit, while well intentioned, is incorrect. I've reverted it to the correct alphabetical listing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like you are confusing these entries with references which automatically generate numbers with active links to the content on the page. This section you are editing is not references and those numbers you added do not link to anything. If those sources were used to reference facts in the article they should be added as proper references instead. Rmhermen (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes and no. For one thing, I am relieved by both responses above; no real harm has been done then. But please let me clarify this. Along the text, there are links from the text to the Notes section (I called them "References" above; I stand corrected). Those are one thing. But I wrote about something else entirely. In the *contents* of the Notes section, some of these notes end with links to the bibliography below. See, for example, note #11, which pointed to Henry of Huntingdon (item #5 in the bibliography). Now, originally (May 2009), the links-from-notes-to-bibliography had been numbered, not automatically ("#"), but manually -- I found that out from the wiki code -- while, at the same time, the bibliography itself was numbered automatically. Of course there was a discrepancy there: should anyone add a book somewhere in the middle of the list, it would dislodge all the following books and the numbers in the links would become wrong. Harm could only be avoided if new books were added to the bibliography's end only. Anyway, back when I made my original mistake, what I did was reorder the books into an alphabetical order without changing the static, manually-added numbers where the Notes section sent to them. A few days ago, just before I strived to correct the mess, I checked: it really was a mess; the numbers did send to books different from the ones that had originally been pointed to by the notes. That is why I tried to correct my mess-of-old. Now, of course, if the books really should be in an alphabetical order, then so much the better! I had been right in mid-2009 without knowing it...

I suggest we remove the manually-added numbers that are within the Notes section. On a second, smaller note, Fisher now comes before Filppula, so I am changing this next.

Thanks for all the understanding! I try not to behave like a newbie, and yet these minor fails occur... SrAtoz (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Penda (name) could be a standalone page. As long as the topic is covered here,

Despite the formulaic claim to descent from Woden, some suggest that none of the names of Penda, his father Pybba and his son Peada have very convincing Anglo-Saxon etymologies

is rather dubious editorializing. The descent claim from Woden has nothing to do with the name's etymology, come on, Germanic etymology only became accessible to study in the 19th century, and it isn't "despite" the medieval claims that "some claim" Celtic origin. THe fact of the matter is that "some claim" Celtic and "others claim" Germanic derivation, and both have reasonable evidence, and the upshot is that the communis opinio is simply that the etymology has not been explained satisfactorily. --dab (𒁳) 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The descent from Woden, if accurate in its later parts, would indicate a Continental Germanic origin for Penda's ancestors. If, however, it is inaccurate then the names of Penda and his father could be Brythonic because these persons had native British ancestry or connections. There is a logical connection. Of course we know that the British gave certain Anglo-Saxon leaders nicknames in Welsh, one early Northumbrian king was known as Flamddywyn (sp?) "Flame-bringer" to his British enemies. Therefore Penda (from pen- "head", "chief", "eminent", etc. in Welsh) could have been given the name he is known by by the Welsh, without having been of Welsh extraction himself. Also Pybba looks suspiciously like the Welsh word pybyr meaning "strong" "ardent". Urselius (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I propose the following: PEN is in fact BEN and BEN is the contraction of BEREN (bears or bear's). -DA is DAG or day. With 'day' is meant daylight, brilliant. So, his name was "brilliant as a bear" or 'shiny bear' or 'clearly a bear' (ref: voornamen etymologisch woordenboek, Vd Schaar, 1964 - the name 'Penda' does not occur, the parts do). The contraction of 'beren' to 'bern' (Bern = capital of Switzerland) and the attested names Ben, Bein, Benne, Biene, Bintje (name given to a potato) and more, names of prevailing Fries origin with reduction of 'r'. DA from 'dag' is also frequently shortened to da, di, dei, from pgm *daga. At the time nobody cared about how a name was written down, providing everybody knew who the person was, hence the P(en) for a B. That is undoubtedly the case here. So, the name is duly Germanic. Michael042 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

And your Reliable Source for this is? The TP are not for original research theorizing, but for the discussion of how best to utilize Reliable Sources for the betterment of the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I quote from the article:

"Others have suggested that the name Penda comes from an unrecorded, and therefore putative, Old English word meaning "pledge".

This assertion is false, or at least it is misleading. It suggests that scholars investigating the origins of the name Penda have found Old English etymologies. This is true of the Celtic etymology asserted earlier in the article - the citations here are to scholarly works of direct relevance. The citations that the above sentence links to, are obviously sources that wikipedia editors have sought out in order to uphold their opinions. The sources are related to the etymology of Penda only indirectly, they are not from scholarly works that were directly investigating the etymology of the name.

This constitutes original research and is poor stuff for a FA to contain. Urselius (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penda of Mercia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110054848/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen.htm to http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Penda of Mercia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616074012/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen2.htm to https://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

One source states that the Worcester Cathedral Cloister stained windows "were designed and executed in the 1930s by Archibald John Davies (1877-1953)"[1]. Can anyone confirm this? If this is the artist we would do well to credit him. I think there shouldn't be a copyright problem since the UK has a broad freedom of panorama. Haukur (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

According to Pevsner (ed. of 2007, p. 697), there were two artists for these stained glass vignettes: James Eadie-Reid (1868–1928) did most of the east and north sides in 1916–23, while Davies did the west side from 1930 to some time in the 1940s. Eadie-Reid was apparently widely active in ecclesiastical stained glass, like Davies; he designed for the Gateshead Stained Glass Co. We have a series of images of the complete windows on Commons that do ascribe many to Eadie-Reid, but we obviously can't just rely on that ascription. However, the V&A has designs by him for some Worcester vignettes, for example the consecration of Diuma, but not including the death of Penda. Those may suffice to determine whether the Penda scene is on one of the two sides he worked on; or a visit, or another publication. I didn't see mention of the different sides in the pdf, but I think the V&A and Pevsner together cast doubt on the accuracy of the pdf when it ascribes all the scenes to Davies. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting! We'll get to the bottom of this... Haukur (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply