Talk:Harold Godwinson

King Zedekiah

Watched a podcast with Marc Morris recently, in which he suggested that the arrow-in-the-eye tale may have been a deliberate reference to the Biblical King Zedekiah, who was an unfaithful vassal of the Babylonians (similar to what the Normans claimed Harold to be). He saw his sons killed in front of him (brothers in Harold's case) before being blinded.Paulturtle (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

We would need a better source than a podcast but it seems unlikely that the Normans would have wanted to identify with the Babylonian destruction of the temple of Jerusalem. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As I am sure you know, there has been a good bit of scholarship discussing on the arrow in Harold's eye. Even with a better quality source, it would probably still be an WP:UNDUE drop in this bucket of speculation. Not every novel take from a scholar, even a respected one, trying to squeeze one more paper for their CV out of thoroughly-tread history is fit for a general biography. Agricolae (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I’m not sure any of that is true – stating that the Normans would not have wanted to be compared to Nebuchadnezzar (who is, after all, portrayed as a mighty ruler in the Bible) looks like overthinking things, and if it was a recognised trope of art or literature at the time that a perjurer or disloyal vassal received a blinding injury in the course of meeting his end then it’s probably worth a brief mention. Morris discusses the matter on p 185 of his book on the Norman Conquest, sourced to a 1983 article by somebody else. He also argues that the story of Harold being hunted down and killed by a squad of Norman knights is very plausible because Norman sources ignore rather than denying it, and that it’s perfectly possible with so many arrows flying around that King Harold actually did just get an arrow in the eye. Still, it’s “not my period” and I’ve no real interest in having an argument about it.Paulturtle (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Which Edith?

The present text of the "Marriages and children" section makes it hard to tell how many Ediths there were, and hard to know for certain which Edith is being referred to each time that name appears. It's probably clear enough to those who already know the facts, but someone learning the facts here for the first time might be lost. I certainly was. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have hopefully clarified this. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Harold's death

@User:Ealdgyth can you please explain the reason for repealing the edits clarifying the dispute surrounding Harold death. 51.7.67.215 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It had unsourced speculation/conclusion drawing - we don't do that. "however, this would not account for the Tapestry's prior depiction of a lance and the figure to the left (who would be the first instance of Harold in the case of being lanced then dismembered) does not have an arrow wound." and "In the case that Harold was lanced and then dismembered the Tapestry's prior depiction of a lance would suggest that he was speared in the back, potentially in an act of treachery." Ealdgyth (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case the correct course of action would be to request a source/correction, or in the extreme remove that speculation, not to repeal the whole edit (which had other edits as well) forcing other users to redo those edits and potentially creating a dispute.

Some might consider such a repeal, or even wholesale removal of text, (rather than a request for citation) to be vandalism. 51.7.67.215 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

For "correction" please read "citation" 51.7.67.215 (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Ealdgyth again you are deleting edits rather than requesting references. As advised before, if you disagree with an edit the proper course of action is to request a reference to the academic work that supports it, not for you to delete text that you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.67.215 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If there are sources to support the edits - they should be used. The material has been challenged, it should not be restored without reliable sources. And inserting the information into already sourced information does not count as being sourced, nor does historytoday.com Ealdgyth (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@user:ealdgyth new sources for the information were included in the edit, deleting edits without requesting refernces prevents additional sources being added to the update. 51.7.67.215 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

'Powerful nobleman'

The section title 'Powerful nobleman' in this article does not fit the styling of other section titles across wikipedia. Perhaps it could be renamed to 'career' or 'life'? Hiding in your wifi (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Any reason other than perceived consistency that explicitly does not need to exist? Remsense 🌈 论 07:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

"forced march"

Addley, Esther (21 March 2026). "'A Fascinating Discovery': Research Challenges Battle of Hastings Narrative". The Guardian. ISSN 1756-3224. OCLC 60623878.

new evidence seems to have come to light which contests this phrasing as a victorian misinterpretation of old english sources. the conference hasn't been held yet so recommend WP:WAIT, but something to keep an eye on and potentially edit around until consensus among academics has been reached.--Plifal (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)