Talk:Ælfwynn

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

English Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Ælfwynn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,210 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Ælfwynn became the second woman to rule the Mercians when her mother Æthelflæd died in 918, but was deposed by King Edward the Elder and sent into exile in December of that year?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/January.

Wikipedia

Sources[edit]

I have not been able to find anything supporting the claims here about Leofwine's parentage. Unless someone can come up with references linking Leofwine to either parent, I'd rather see that part deleted. Havard 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would I. Common sense says that King Edward packed her off to a nunnery. Marriage seems unlikely. Could be that some amateur genealogists accidently-on-purpose confuse her with another Ælfwynn, if it's not just made up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better late than never, this from Volume 4 of John Burke A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland (1838):

That of WOLRICH descends in a direct line from
ETHELRED, last king, and first DUKE OF Mercia, who married Elffleda, daughter of ALFRED THE GREAT, and had a dau. und heir,
ELFWINA, who married a nobleman of WESSEX, and was mother of
LEOFWINE, Earl and Duke of MERCIA, who married ALWARA, and had issue,
Norman, slain at the battle of Assandun, in Essex, 1016.
Edwin, slain in battle, in Wales, 1039
Leofric, Earl of Mercia, who m. the celebrated Lady Godiva, and hand issue,
Algar, father of Edwin, Earl of Mercia; Morcar, Earl of Northumberland, both of whom died without issue; Aldith, m. first to Griffin, King of Wales, secondly to Harold II. King of England; Lucy, who m. first, Ivo Tailbois, Earl of Anjou, secondly, Roger de Romara, Early of Lincoln, thirdly, Randle, Earl of Chester.
Godwin.
Ermenhild, the mother of Hugh Lupus, Earl of Chester.
GODWIN, fourth son, had issue,
WOLFRIC.
Godric, slain at the battle of Hastings.
Egelric, Bishop of Durham, starved to death by WILLIAM the Conqueror, 1072.

Now, that might be incorrect or subsequently disproved in one of the other sources, but the fact that Burke said so (not just an amateur genealogist) needs mentioning if only to show how he was misled or wrong, as demonstrated by subsequent sources, if there are any - although the above discussion seems to hinge on a lack of evidence. However, I've not read all the references

Worth also noting that the same page ties it into the start of the Audley-Stanley family (from Wolfric to Gamel to Adam de Aldithley), which was (as the text there says) complicated by the invented Norman ancestry, which Burke seems to have got around.

I won't make any changes, but that should at least help move the discussion forward. (Emperor (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

There is a discussion here about the problems with that (nothing you can use as a source though), which suggests some of the claims are so flawed that later scholars didn't even bother refuting them, which is problematic (trying to make it fit with what is now known is impossible, as I well know). However. that seems to be the main source of the claims and should probably be mentioned, even if followed swiftly by a "However, more recent scholars..." even if no one has gone out of their way to address them head-on. Anyway not my area of expertise and I don't have access to all the sources mentioned, so I'll leave the final (tricky) call to you folks. (Emperor (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Revolt[edit]

The article mentioned some sort of revolt in 921, but I couldn't figure out what that was supposed to be, so I removed it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]