Talk:Heptarchy

The Heptarchy really isn't a distinct historical period on the level of, say Sub-Roman Britain: it's considered a sub-period of Anglo-Saxon England (which probably does need its own article). The fact that it's not included in either the History of the UK template (seen at, for example Britain in the Middle Ages), nor is this article linked to in History of England. merely underlines my point. -- llywrch 17:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I note on the map of the post-Roman heptarchy that there is the word "Gainas" just south of the River Humber in northeastern Mercia. I would appreciate an explanation if possible of what this referes to. Thanks!

Nan Hawthorne hathorn@drizzle.com

P.S. Just answered my own question. Gainas was an earldom of Mercia abutting the Kingdom of Northumbria. Mucil Aethlred was Ealderman of Gainas. That's all I have now.

Heptarchy (Greek: ἑπτά seven, ἀρχή realm) is the name applied by historians to the period in English history after the Anglo-Saxon conquest of the southern portion of the island of Great Britain, named Angleland (England) by them (Scotland and Wales each had several kingdoms of their own), up to the time when the Vikings started their predations into parts of Britain, establishing notably a danelaw and Norse kingdoms at York and on the Isle of Man.

This period is generally intended as covering the timespan from AD 500 to 850.

The word heptarchy refers to the existence (as was thought) of the seven kingdoms which eventually merged to become the Kingdom of England during the early 10th century, and comprising Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Wessex.

The term itself dates back to the twelfth century, and the English historian Henry of Huntingdon, and has been in common use since the sixteenth century.

More recent research has revealed that some of these kingdoms (notably Essex and Sussex) did not achieve the same status as did the others.

??¿¿ :

", establishing notably a danelaw and Norse kingdoms at York and on the Isle of Man."

Kingdom of England:

This article is about the historical state called the Kingdom of England (927-1707). For the main article about the modern country (United Kingdom), see England.

exceeded the military achievements of his father by establishing his rule over the Danelaw.

Hopiakuta 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian. I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries. The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia#Map if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. Let's see how it looks. -- llywrch (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The previous map was incorrect as it shows Cornwall as included in Wessex - this map indicates that this was not the case in 1035. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EmpireNorth.JPG -- William of Malmesbury, writing around 1120, says that King Athelstan of England fixed Cornwall's eastern boundary at the Tamar in 936 after the remaining Cornish had been evicted from Exeter and the rest of Devon in 927 - "Exeter was cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race". (ref: Professor Philip Payton - (1996). Cornwall. Fowey: Alexander Associates). In 944 Athelstan's successor, Edmund I of England, styled himself 'King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons' (ref: Malcolm Todd -- The South West to AD 1000 - 1987), an indication of how that accommodation was understood at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.88.221 (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why is East Anglia grouped with Mercia, Wessex, and Northumbria as a major kingdom, while Kent is grouped with Sussex and Essex as a minor one? The text suggests that Sussex and Essex were kind of in their own category as minor kingdoms, and also that Kent was a more important kingdom than East Anglia. john k (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and an even worse problem: In the introduction, it does not make sense to give a rather full list of Brythonic kingdoms, but completely ignore the many minor Anglo-Saxon kingdoms like Lindsey. --KnightMove (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the Mercia coat of arms is incorrect. I believe it should be a yellow cross (as in St Andrews cross) on the blue background rather than the current 3 crowns. Current image appears to be the Munster coat of arms (modern day southern province in Rep. Of Ireland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.191.216 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply