Talk:Ine of Wessex

Hehil

I took out this line:

Ine was unable to establish his authority over the neighbouring Cornwall. In 722, the West Saxons were defeated by the Cornish at a river identified as the Hehil.

The source appears to be the Annales Cambriae, but the entry for 722, which can be read here, says just:

722 Beli son of Elffin dies. And the battle of Hehil among the Cornish, the battle of Garth Maelog, the battle of Pencon among the south Britons, and the Britons were the victors in those three battles.

Of course this pretty much has to be Ine, since Wessex was the only Anglo-Saxon kingdom with a border on Dumnonia, but I think without a secondary source to comment on this would be original research. I've checked several sources (Stenton, Kirby, Yorke); if anyone can find a good ref for this please add it back in. Mike Christie (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added it -- Stenton mentions it without much explanation, but he states the Hehil is the river Hayle and gives the AC source. Mike Christie (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This exchange is copied here from the FAC discussion:

• Comment A pronunciation guide would be useful. Is the name "Eye-n" or "Ee-nay" (or something else)? —Cuiviénen 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. I have no idea on this one, but I know a couple of people I can ask. I'm pretty sure none of the references I'm using cover this. I've always assumed it rhymed with "wine", but I could be wrong. I'll post here again if I can find out more. Mike Christie (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The rule of doubled consonants for short vowels gets regularized later, so the vowel could be long or short. If short, the logical pronunciation is "innuh." If long, the vowel would have been the "continental i" (η). The "i" of "I" and "wine" would be the least likely. If we have Latin authors writing it as "Ine," then it's likely the "eennuh," as Latin did obey the doubled consonant rule. It would be my best guess that it is the ήnuh. (If we found rhymes, we'd nail it down, but they don't exist from the period with the name.) Geogre 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of looking at Latin versions. The only source I know for the Latin is Bede, and it's indexed there in my Penguin translation as "Ini". So would that be "eeny"? I don't have the original Latin. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Followup note: at the AS prosopography site, they list Inus, Yny, and Yni as well as Ine and Ini. Yny and Yni come from charters. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

| may be right. It is, then, "eeny," as in "meeny, miny, moe." The Yny would be "eeny," but the "Yni" suggests "Eenuh," so, when combined with the others, it's likely that the most common (and Bede is probably the "Ine" source) pronunciation was "een" with the /i/ we have in "thin" and "in," which would put it like the contemporary "Enid" but without the final stop. Geogre 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mo? -- !! ?? 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(End of copied text)

If we can find a text that could be used to reference this, I'd like to add it, but since it's not certainly one way or the other, I think it shouldn't go in. Mike Christie (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's now 2013, 6 years later, and still no answer to this?? Disappointing and shameful! Caeruleancentaur (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to over-react. If there is no proper source for a pronunciation, then the article can't say how his name should be pronounced. Bencherlite^Talk 16:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We can be reasonably sure that the final vowel is sounded but the exact pronunciation may have depended on regional differences in Old English pronunciation. Greenshed (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently I dug this up again. I've been watching some Youtubes on this and historians seem to mostly use /inə/ ("in-uh"). I found one so far saying /aIn/ (like "wine"). I've tried a couple suggestions and they got reverted. Can we come to consensus? I'm studying these kings now and it would be handy to know how to read this word. Robertl30 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You have to cite a reliable source for edits. Youtube videos do not qualify, even if they were cited, which you do not. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Surrey

"Surrey was not an independent kingdom". Does this mean that it was a non-independent kingdom, or that it was not a kingdom at all? I'm moving towards the idea that it was considered a sort of sub-kingdom or unified polity. That might explain the fluctuations in its status and the complications over the bishopric. Checking this out, I've noticed that a guy called Frithuwold of Surrey was a sub-king of Surrey as late as 675, under Wulfhere of Mercia. Eorcenwald was already bishop of London then, and it might be that the religious organisation was out of line with the shifts of power by which Surrey seems to have been variously under Mercian, East-Saxon, West-Saxon, and maybe even Kentish control during his episcopate. It strikes me forcibly that this switching of overlordship is characteristic of a sub-kingdom, with each major kingdom vying for overlordship there. It seems that in 705, Surrey was transferred from the diocese of London to that of Winchester, perhaps reflecting Wessex overlordship. I wonder if this is worth mentioning somewhere. qp10qp 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting; I'll see what I can find on this tonight. Can you tell me a ref for the switch of Surrey from London to Winchester? That seems worth mentioning all by itself, even without the additional points you make. Mike Christie (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yorke, 48. Came across it on Google Books.qp10qp 20:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a bit, and reworded some of what I had before -- my line about Essex having usually controlled the province seems rather optimistically pro-East-Saxon now I've read those pages of Yorke; it looks as if Surrey was a bit of a shuttlecock. As for independence, all Yorke says is (p. 47): "his existence could suggest a tradition of independent rule in Surrey". I put in a glancing reference to this; is any more needed, do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shires

I found some more discussion in Yorke, p. 146, of the origin of the shires. She says: "Subkings are not known after the reign of Ine, and it is in Ine's laws that the first references to ealdormen and shires appear. Ealdormen also appear in the witness lists of the charters of Ine and his successors, generally bearing the title patricius, princeps or praefectus. It would appear from the charters of Aethelheard and Cuthred that the maximum number of ealdormen was seven. It is likely, as Chadwick argued at the beginning of the century, 'that the shires of Wessex owe their origin to divisions of the kingdoms between members of the royal family', but as we know so little about the territories controlled by the subkings the topic cannot be studied in detail." It sounds to me as if Yorke is studiously avoiding saying that the division of the kingdom among the royal family, the creation of ealdormen and shires, and the disappearance of the subkings, may all be the same sequence of events. It's easy to construct a narrative connecting all these things, but Yorke doesn't, so I'm inclined to leave this the way I have it now. I did just add a sentence based on Chadwick. Mike Christie (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirection

"Ingild of Wessex" redirects here; in fact, Ingrild was Ine's brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Gowers (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This was the result of a deletion discussion. It was deemed by the consensus that Ingild was not sufficiently notable to merit his own page. Agricolae (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingild of Wessex. Personally, I feel that a redirect to List of monarchs of Wessex would be better. Greenshed (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

At the time this and Ecgberht's pages were the only two on which he appeared - the List of monarchs page did not contain the tree that now names him. That being said, there is something special about Ine's family that makes this connection qualitatively different than the other merely genealogical entries of Eoppa and Eafa. I don't think there is any other pre-Ecgberht king for whom the Anglo-Saxon sources name his siblings in a non-political setting (not in the context of 'he gave his sister in marriage to king X', but just to name them) as they do with Ine, and likewise in the Wessex pedigree of the Anglian Collection ms R, it interrupts the descent at the generation of the siblings to give biographical details on Ine, the only case in the whole collection where it deviates from the direct lineage or gives any historical detail, and this aberration got transferred into the earliest Icelandic genealogies that derived from it. That makes this connection between Ingild and Ine more noteworthy than the others, and I would rather redirect to text than to a genealogical table. None of this applies to Eafa (currently redirecting to Ecgberht) and I would suggest his should instead go to the List of monarchs tree. Agricolae (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If we had something in this article which explained the significance of Ine and Ingild's relationship (as is thoughtfully explained above) then any reader looking for information on Ingild would be usefully redirected. As it stands, readers get redirected here but see just three mentions that they were brothers - i.e. less information that can be seen at the List of monarchs of Wessex. Greenshed (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

How so - on List we don't even get a text mention, just his name in the tree. As to including something like the above in this article, the problem is that accounts of Ine don't go into detail on this, so neither should we. Agricolae (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the tree tells us, in its diagrammatic format, who Ingild's father, grandfather, brothers,and descendants were. As to your point above about the accounts of Ine not going into the brotherly connection, are you sure that we could not describe what the primary sources say without giving an interpretation (as per WP:PRIMARY)? Overall, my concern is that everything you note is valid for the fully informed Anglo-Saxon expert but that the re-direct is a bit surprising for the average reader. Greenshed (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

We already describe what the most relevant primary source says - the West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List names the siblings, and so do we. What is unique is that this is the only kig for whom the WSGRL does so, and that the Anglian Collection and the Icelandic pedigrees use Ingild's position in the pedigree to coatrack in a two-sentence biography of his brother, but there is a difference between relating what is in a source and doing an analysis of an entire source and drawing attention to what one perceives as an anomaly. While I am pretty sure this means the pedigree compiler thought Ine's link to the pedigree particularly noteworthy, it is not my place to say so, and I am not sure this observation really adds something of value in understanding Ine. Agricolae (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I have changed Ingild of Wessex to redirect to the 'Genealogy and accession' section of this article. This should give users a clue that they are being redirected to an article on a different person. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, and I brought the sentence about Ingild from the end of the article up into the same section and you flagged for the redirect. Agricolae (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The redirect works in a much better way now. Greenshed (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Rome, Italy

Italy wouldn't exist for over a thousand years. I think it should say either Italian Peninsula, Byzantine Empire, or just Rome. It's not like anyone studying mideval history doesn't about Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.146.205 (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

There is a box to the right of the lede that tell us nothing which is not in the lede except that Ine's father was Cenred. The box also says that he died in Rome, while the lede indicates only that he went there upon abidcating. Since it would be very easy, requiring a few words at most, to incorporate these tidbits (which are already in the article text) into the lede, what purpose does the box serve? As it stands, it invites the reader to not read even the just first paragraphs, but to instead rely on the box.

I also learned the other day that ledes (and infoboxes) should not carry images not of the subject of the article. I see that this infobox dutifully avoids carrying any picture because, of course, there is no surviving likeness of Ine. But why then does it make sense to put the image of the manuscript on the Main Page? If it is better than nothing on the Main Page, why isn't it better than nothing in the article? If it would cause confusion and/or surprise in the article, why wouldn't that problem be magnified on the Main Page? Srnec (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of infoboxes and would be happy if this one were removed. I can tell you from experience, though, that if you remove it it is likely to be re-added, particularly while the article is on the main page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the infobox gone, but I would like to see some image on the right hand side as eye candy at the top of the article. Do you think the manuscript is acceptable in that position? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I do, but see this recent RFC, where everybody disagreed with me. Srnec (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the infobox back but it would be much improved with an image of Ine. While there is no contemporaneous image of Ine available, possibly Webb's stained glass representation might be used (with a caption which explains that it is interpretative, not historical). See Commemoration section below. Greenshed (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

First Line Grammar Question

Shouldn't it say "Ine was the King of Wessex from 688 to 726", not "Ine was King of Wessex from 688 to 726."? (there would not be italics for 'the' in the actual article!) Newyorkadam (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Either works, I think; I prefer the way it currently stands in the article (i.e. without the "the"). Bencherlite^Talk 16:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Bencherlite that either is correct but have a slight preference for putting the "the" back. Leaving it out in the lead sentence makes the sentence sound abrupt. See Cædwalla of Wessex for comparison.--71.163.153.146 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If we're comparing this with other articles, then Æthelstan, Edmund I, Eadwig, Edgar the Peaceful, Edward the Martyr, Æthelred the Unready, Sweyn Forkbeard, Edmund Ironside, Harold Harefoot, Harthacnut, William II of England, Henry I of England, Stephen, King of England, Henry II of England, Richard I of England, John, King of England, Henry III of England, Edward I of England, Edward II of England, Edward III of England, Richard II of England, Henry IV of England, Henry VI of England (etc... you get the idea) don't use "the". Bencherlite^Talk 19:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Commemoration

Ine is commemorated in stained glass in the East Window of Sherborne Abbey's Lady Chapel. The glass is by Christopher Webb (died 1966) and so is not yet freely reproducible in photographic form. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/sic_itur_ad_astra/6812485579/ Could a (different) low resolution photograph of the glass be uploaded under fair use? Greenshed (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, there is a commemoration stone to Ine in Wells Cathedral. See http://www.saintsandstones.net/saints-wellscathedral-2011l.htm Perhaps a wikipedian could photograph this and upload it for use in this article. Greenshed (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A photo of this stained glass could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons using the 'Freedom of panorama' exception in UK copyright law. It would need to be uploaded by the photographer, or with proof of a free license by the photographer. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral images added. Greenshed (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Saint Ine

Several websites (e.g. SPQN) claim that Ine and his wife are Christian saints, with a feast on February 6. Annoyingly, they do not give references for their claims, and I haven't been able to find any on my own. According to this Italian website, there is no evidence for their cult, and their feast day only occurs in "late English and Benedictine martyrologes" – but that's not very specific. I don't even know if scholarly references exist that would allow a mention in the article, but maybe someone reading this will be able to find something. Ælfgar (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ine's claim to sainthood is mentioned in Baring-Gould, Sabine (1911). Lives of the British Saints. p. 318. Baring-Gould mentions Ine as a possible dedicatee of St Ina's Church in Llanina near New Quay, Wales, but says that a more likely dedicatee is Ina (Welsh saint). I think this is sufficient to mention a tradition that Ine was a saint, and was the dedicatee of this church. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added this to the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Grammar problem

The last line of this article reads as follows:-

"... it may be that Mercian support for Æthelheard in the unsettled aftermath of Ine's abdication both helped establish Æthelheard as king and also brought him into the sphere of influence of Æthelbald, the king of Mercia.[1][22] His brother Ingild, who died in 718, is given as ancestor of king Egbert of Wessex and the subsequent kings of England."

This clearly reads that Ingild is Ethelheard's brother when it is supposed to convey that Ingild was Ine's brother. Given that Ingild is the putative ancestor of Alfred the Great, this is quite important and those with the ability may like to tweak the sentence. It probably requires a new paragraph such as:-

"Ine's brother Ingild, who died in 718, is putatively an ancestor of West Saxon king Egbert and by that virtue of the subsequent kings of Wessex and England."

86.140.91.187 (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I just changed "his" to "Ine's", which I think is all that's needed -- you're right that this was ambiguous, so thanks for pointing it out. I'd prefer to avoid a single-sentence paragraph, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reinstate the Infobox

I am starting a movement to reinstate the infobox. I have a few reasons as to why it should be reinstated.

1. It looks silly to have the infobox removed on just ONE of the Kings of Wessex. It should be an all or nothing kind of deal. The pages need to be as uniform as possible in setup/layout since they are all Kings of Wessex. Because of how the other pages are setup, users add an infobox thinking it is a simple mistake. "Oh... looks like someone forgot to add the infobox or accidentally removed it." People won't think it was purposely removed because of how the other pages look.

2. Removing the infobox makes it much harder to navigate the lineage of a particular individual. The process is must faster with the infobox as you know who the parents/family members are. It is also easier to trace a monarchy back through time if you are just reading some details about each king/queen as you go along.

3. The infobox provides important details such as when a person was born/died, came into power, and a several other items. The article is there for a more detailed explanation of the life of the individual. The infobox is there to provide quick details if someone has a simple question.

Those are all reasons why I feel the infobox should be reinstated on this article.

Cheers, --Figfires (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Nothing, then. 2. Wikipedia is not optimized for one particular use. 3. Truly important details should appear in the first paragraph. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing the infobox made it harder for Wikipedia to be used in that manner. Infoboxes are there to connect similar articles together so they may be easily accessed. How people read the article and use it is up to them.

True, however there are details throughout an article that would be added to an infobox. Figfires (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I favour an infobox here for the reasons outlined by Figfires. However, only those infobox fields that are helpful should be used. For example, we should not use the religion field here. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

How is learning that Ine was a Christian not helpful? Srnec (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Weak oppose. I don't feel that strongly about the infobox; I agree with Srnec that it is not particularly helpful, but in the for monarchs one can make a case that the infobox is useful. They do tend to attract well-meaning edits adding dubious data, particularly genealogical data. In this case there would be very little useful in the infobox that's not in the first sentence or two. They are annoying on mobile displays, though less so now that they're not the first thing displayed. So, overall, I'd prefer not to add one, but I don't think it would be that bad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Support per Figfires. Some readers are used to looking in an info-box for summary facts and so having one helps them find what they want to know quickly. Greenshed (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. The infoboxes are helpful, not really clutter, and the articles of the kings on this line of succession value from consistency. --Ifrit (Talk) 13:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Joint Ruler?

The current article on Ine's wife, Æthelburg states that they were joint rulers. Is this supported by WP:RS? If so it seems pretty significant and should be noted in the Ine article. Greenshed (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the source cited there, but I'd want to see it supported by a secondary source before including it here -- e.g. something like Kirby's or Yorke's overview books. I wrote much of this article and don't recall seeing anything about joint rule in any of the material I read for it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

After some digging, I think the ref is at https://books.google.com/books?id=u49PAAAAMAAJ&dq=1858943701&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ine As this is a book about The Dinner Party - "a monumental work of art conceived as a symbolic history of women in Western civilization," I am not sure it counts as a historically reliable source. Perhaps more symbolic than historical? Greenshed (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I think so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Æthelburg is listed as queen on Charter s.250 (+ Ego Æthilburga regina consensi}, this has led to some speculation that she may have been joint ruler. However s.250 is also regarded as a forgery. There's a bit of a discussion here [1]. The Æthelburg in "The Dinner Party" is a fiction but is based on Æthelburg of Wessex AND Æthelburg of Kent. Not sure that it helps with this discussion but does give a bit of background!!Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Greenshed (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ine in Rome

At Celtic Britain and the Pilgrim movement, p. 199 we read that Ine founded the Schola Saxonum in 727 and subsequently grew to old age in Rome while "clothed in the plebeian habit among beggars." I am minded to include this in the article but am unsure as to whether it is likely to be reliable or something of a myth. Other views welcome. Greenshed (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The Schola Saxonum is already mentioned in the article in the "Abdication and succession" section. The quote you give isn't used in a couple of secondary sources I've checked; can you tell where it comes from? The book you cite is quite old, and older writers often uncritically included material drawn from later medieval chroniclers who could be unreliable and who are treated with more caution today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The source above cites xv, Scriptores, p. 248 but what this exactly is, I have not yet been able to ascertain (but will keep looking). I know that the Schola Saxonum is already mentioned in the article but I was interested in the fact that this (possibly unreliable) source specifies the year 727. While I agree with your caution about later medieval chroniclers, because we have very little on Ine's time in Rome, I tend to the view that we should include this material even if it needs to be identified as coming from a late source (assuming that's the case). Obviously, if the source is definitely unreliable then I would just exclude it. Greenshed (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is Thomas Gale's Historiae Britannicae, Saxonicae, Anglo-Danicae scriptores XV published in 1691. Greenshed (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should use this unless a modern historian gives it credence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I imagine that Griffith Hartwell Jones (1859 - 1944), the author of Celtic Britain and the Pilgrim movement, who cites Scriptores, does not count as a modern historian to your mind? Greenshed (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cerdic of Wessex which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Birth year

Greenshed, I just noticed (several years late) that you added an approximate birth year of 670, here. The source is Panton's Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy, which doesn't have an entry on Ine but gives the approximate date in the entry on Coenred. Panton is a British Studies scholar, not a specialist in the period. None of the other sources I have give an estimate for Ine's birth. I think we should remove this unless a specialist in the period gives the date. Dudley Miles, what do you think? Do you have any sources that support this date? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

DOBs for Anglo-Saxons are very rarely given. The earliest I have seen is Alfred the Great. I have corrected the details based on ODNB. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)