Talk:Hereward the Wake

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.

Additional information:
/
	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Hereward and Harvard?

I remember reading somewhere that a possible ancestor of Hereward's was John Harvard, the man for whom the university was named.

Hareward 'the Wake'

According to Peter Rex (Hareward the Last Englishman, 2005, Tempus Publishing Limited (ISBN 0-7524-3318-0)), ..the appellation 'Wake' can be disposed of. I am reading Peter Rex's book out of a general interest in early mediaeval history and am not, in any way shape or form, any sort of authority. I am assuming that Peter Rex is an authority. So forgive me if what I suggest is inappropriate, but should the entry therefore just be entitled Hareward? A redirect for Hareward the Wake could be employed. I have absolutely no idea how to change the title of an article or how to redirect something. Can anyone help?--Alun 21:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A)What is the reason for saying it should be disposed of?

B)He is still widely known as "the Wake" whatever one historian says, so by general convention we would say that should be the title. Everyking 14:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A) And the name, 'the Wake'? Well, it would seem that this first appeared more than 200 years after the events at Ely, when the Wakes, a family owning much of the land that Hereward had been associated with, claimed descent from him, adopting him as their ancestor. [1]. I have no reason for disputing Peter Rex's research. He seems to have done a very thorough job of concentrating on primary sources, rather than repeating legends and other peoples work.

B) If a term is widelly used, but still factually incorrect, then is it not the explicit remit of an encyclopedia to give accurate information? No general convention should be used carte blanche to perpetuate innacuracies.--Alun 17:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We don’t have to resolve this. If there is currently an argument about the use of the name Wake, then we report that. We also report that the name Wake has been associated with this person for centuries. Lumos3 08:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Wake Family Tree

Just finished it (... at last!). Worth the effort though; hope you agree. Fergananim 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you a reason for not calling Hereward the son of Leofric, for not calling him the husband of Torfrida, for not calling him the father of his daughter, Torfrida and for not saying that it was she who married Hugh of Envermeu (Huges d'Envermeu)? (RJP 11:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

1 - Because his relationship with Leofric is far from certain. 2 - Because her actual name is uncertain. 3 - Because Torfrida in this instance looks suspeciously like duplication of her mother's (?) name. In any case (unless I muddled) Emma was the name given as the wife of Hugh de Envermeu. If you have any sources which could help sort this out, by all means jump in; its an era where records are often sparce, and family trees are sometimes later forgerys. Thanks for your interest! Fergananim 17:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the work that has gone into the geneology charts I dont believe they have a place in this article as they are now dominating it. Nowhere is there an explanatory note which says why they are here. I cant think of any other article which includes extensive geneology of someones decendents. I think we should move them to axillary pages linked from the article. Or even delete them. Perhaps The Autingas link ( whatever that is ) should hold them. Lumos3 00:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just converted both trees to the familytree template. Because of disagreements with other sources, I've suppressed his ancestral tree, and for compactness' sake (and relevancy) I've trimmed his descendants. Hopefully this will avoid the "domination" mentioned above. Fergananim, I've left your original work intact (just commented out), but I think some serious work needs to be done to these trees, both on the genealogy and on integrating them more usefully into the article. —Ryan McDaniel 21:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]