Æthelflæd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2018.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 14, 2016 WikiProject A-class review Approved February 20, 2017 Featured article candidate Promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2017, June 12, 2023, and June 12, 2024.
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility 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 This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / Medieval 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 Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Middle Ages Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. English Royalty Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This gives some insight into the emergence of England from the union of Wessex and Mercia. The Danes overran most of the English Kingdoms such as Northumbria, Eastern Mercia, East Anglia etc. Alfred and his descendants reconquered these lands from the Danes by 896
I do not think this statement is true, does it have a reference? By the time of Alfred's death in 899 he had consolidated Wessex, Kent and the rump of Mercia into a Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons. The Danelaw was still very much in existence and Danes controlled not only the five boroughs (basically east Mercia) but also East Anglia and Northumbria (with the exception of Bamburgh). Edward the Elder conquered East Anglia and and his sister Æthelflæd Lady of the Mercians conquered the five boroughs, these were incorporated into the Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons. Athelstan Completed the conquest of England at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937. It was at this time that England became a Kingdom for the first time. This information is from The Age of Athelstan by Paul Hill. Alun 03:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the writer meant that it gave insight as in "an understanding of the motivational forces behind one's actions, thoughts, or behavior"; meaning it gave an idea of how it came to be. Although he didn't bring England to be as we know it, he contribuited to it in some extent. Of course I might be wrong, but I guess it's just a matter of interpretation of the sentence. Diana Prallon (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that there is a good source for the story about her ambush on her way to her wedding. It is not mentioned in the Chronicle, in William of Malmsbury or any of the usual suspects. Is there actually a source for this story? If not, I would rather see it out of the article. Selina.

I skimmed through Walker's Mercia and it isn't mentioned, nor does Henry of Huntingdon have anything like that, nor "Florence of Worcester". Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case this story ever pops up again: it is from the book The Edge on the Sword by Rebecca Tingle. It is pure speculation from a fiction book. Evil berry (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The http://www.number8.org/What's-On/Gallery/Craft-Exhibitions/163/Pershore_Heritage_Centre_-_'Royal_Visits'.html web page includes the following.

[quote] It's known that Aethelflaeda, the daughter of King Alfred, often visited the early monastery at Pershore, whilst relics of his grand-daughter, acquired for the abbey, resulted in the town becoming something of a pilgrimage centre. [/quote]

There is no statement on the page as to the evidence for this, yet this note here is added in case it may be of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.120.36 (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the previous line about her being featured in Sword Song; Ethelfleda first makes an appearance in the first book of the series and becomes clearly important to Uthred from much earlier than the fourth book (he even claims to have sworn himself to Alfred only because she was watching, and it is his affections for her that make her such a big character in the last novel), although I kept the reference of the book. Diana Prallon (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was quite properly listed for copyright review given its resemblance to this 2009 blog: [4]. There's no question that there's some similarity, but in spite of the blog author's assertion that "This is entirely self written from my own thoughts. If there are any similarities between other online entries, it is simply by coincidence", Wikipedia did not copy from it. Compare the following passage from that blog:

While her husband was alive, Aethelflaed signed agreements, leading some to think that she was the real leader of Mercia. On her husband’s death in 911 C.E. after the Battle of Tettenhall, she was elevated to the status of “Lady of the Mercians”. She was called this because she was a formidable military leader and tactician in battle.

Our article on 18 December 2009 said:

While her husband was alive, she signed agreements, leading some to think that she was the real leader. On her husband's death in 911 after the Battle of Tettenhall, she was elevated to the status of "Lady of the Mercians". This title was not a nominal position; she was a formidable military leader and tactician.

The first sentence in that passage was added by an unregistered user to Wikipedia on 20 November 2005, [5], over four years before that blog entry was written. The second sentence is even older, having been part of the foundation of the article in 2002. The third sentence entered the article in November 2004, [6].

Given this, one has to wonder about the blog disclaimer. Perhaps somebody pointed out the similarities between her blog entry and this long-standing Wikipedia article. Whatever the case may be there, there's clearly no borrowing here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a section listing references to her in fictional books etc...? (e.g. Bernard Cornwell's "Death of Kings" has a lot of the story involving her). Maitchy (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's usually better to let the links go the other way -- from the article about Cornwell's book to here, for example. The only reason to discuss those references here would be if a secondary source about Æthelflæd discusses them as significant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles on historical figures have a section on their portrayals in popular culture - books, films, plays etc - with those most often portrayed, such as Alfred the Great, Richard III, Henry VIII and Charles I having separate articles on their cultural depictions. Others who have not been portrayed as often, such as King John and Edward V, have this within their main articles. Æthelflæd has not been portrayed very often, so it makes sense to include portrayals of her in the main article. Therefore the entry "In the 2017 television series The Last Kingdom she was played by Millie Brady.^[1]" should remain under the sub-heading "In popular culture". RGCorris (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to include it -- it doesn't tell the reader anything about her. If a reliable source that is primarily about her mentions the show, perhaps to comment on its accuracy, then we could do so. Let's wait for others to comment here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelflæd is a Featured Article, and it is monitored for content reaching FA standard. The only article you mention as having a cultural depiction section which is FA is John, King of England, and the 'Popular representations' section is referenced to academic discussions. This is quite different from who played her in a TV series, which as Mike say tells us nothing about her. The article on John has a link to Cultural depictions of John, King of England, and the Æthelflæd article could similarly have a link to Cultural depictions of Æthelflæd in a 'See also' section. This would obviously be very short, but other people could add to it. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a reasonable approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Kingdom is a pretty high-budget international production, and Æthelflæd is a fairly major character in the drama. I've no strong feelings either way about whether it should be acknowledged on this project page or in Cultural depictions of Æthelflæd, but I think i should be captured somewhere. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above suggestion by Dudley Miles to link to a separate article, but I think something like Depictions of Æthelflæd in popular culture would be easier for readers to find.Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page Cultural depictions of Æthelflæd (using the same terminology as the equivalent page for her father Alfred the Great) - perhaps those interested can add other mentions of her apart from the Cornwell books and TV series ? RGCorris (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had no idea that there would be so much interest in this character. I went ahead and added the Last Kingdom citation before reading this section. Wasn't trying to start an edit war! Student7 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link to the Cultural page at the top of the Legacy section. RGCorris (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick ce, blammed a few typos, wayward commas and put quotes in {{quote|}} format. Rv as desired; good read by the way. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I do not like putting the author at the end of quotes as it duplicates the name at the start, but apart from that I am happy with your edits. I have nominated the article for A-Class at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Æthelflæd, and should be grateful if you have time to comment there. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure, I did the quotations like that because there's a WP somewhere but I doubt it's essential. I couldn't keep Gargamadua from Chelmsford 123 out of my mind though.;o)) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried four variations to fix the intro sentence, but the additional word or three is too verbose. Rather than collaborate, I've been reverted each time. Please try to collaborate on a phrasing that follows the WP:LEDE suggestions, since they are not onerous. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this seems terse and uncollaborative, but I'm of the opinion that it isn't broken, so doesn't need fixing. I'm also rather busy with other things, which I understand will also tend to make my contributions appear terse and uncollaborative. Citing WP:OWN doesn't help. Nortonius (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the name is historical, involving non-standard ligatures, could we add Template:IPAc-en to the lead to ease the pronunciation? Brandmeister^talk 12:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there's been some recent editing and reverting of this section. In my opinion, it's perfectly valid to acknowledge Æthelflæd's portrayal as a major character in The Last Kingdom, which is a fairly high-profile dramatisation. Let's discuss it here and see what the consensus is. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a conversation about this a couple of sections above, which you may want to join. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Scrolls up) Ooh, yes. Thanks, I completely missed that! I'll join in there :-) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Re the map of england that you reverted, I don't understand why you said it's "too early to be relevant". The map describes the sitation in 878, within the decade of the subject's birth. About 50% of the content in the "Backround" section is from 860s and 870s. In any case, when I was reading the section I (a layman) often struggle with placing where Wessex, Mercia and the Danish terriories were, and when I found the map in commons I found it very helpful. If this map is inappropriate for some reason, please consider adding another map. HaEr48 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. My main objection to the map is that I think the 'Kingdom of Guthrum' would confuse readers. When I worked on her husband Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians I did find a map expert to create [[File:England Aethelred 910 EN.svg]], but when I tried to get someone to do the same for Æthelflæd I got no response. I think that the Æthelred map would be suitable, but I am uneasy that one labelled as 'at the time of Æthelred' would be seen by some readers as sexist. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This reads very wonky. The section is fairly substantial, yet a very small portion of it has been shunted away as its own article: Cultural depictions of Æthelflæd.

Why isn't all the Legacy material moved to a subarticle if the section is too long? Conversely, ff the section isn't too long, why not simply merge back the small piece about cultural depictions? CapnZapp (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The legacy section is about how historians see Æthelflæd. The cultural depictions article for people who are interested in fictional portrayals of her, but which do not tell us anything about the historical character and are therefore not relevant to the main article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#"In popular culture" and "Cultural references" material. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did she actually get abducted as the show, “the last kingdom” depicts? 47.220.164.179 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in Wikipedia we use common names rather than official titles. While Æthelflæd had the title "Lady" she was still the ruler of a kingdom, hence a queen regnant. It is not helpful to remove her from a category with colleague queens regnant. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A ruler is not the same as a monarch. By your logic, Margaret Thatcher was a queen regnant and Queen Elizabeth was not a queen. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: that comparison does not make any sense at all and you know it doesn't. Please stop removing this article from the queens regnant category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does make sense. Elizabeth was a queen regnant but not a woman ruler. They are two different things which may or may not be combined in the same person. Æthelflæd was not a queen and it is wrong to categorise her as one. She was the junior ruler of Mercia who acknowledged the authority of her brother, Edward, King of the Anglo-Saxons. He did not permit her daughter to succeed her and removed her within six months. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dudley Miles and @Mike Christie, for context: It has been decided per CfS to split this category and sort Æthelflæd as a queen regnant, hence Category:10th-century queens regnant. Æthelflæd#Lady of the Mercians and Æthelflæd#Legacy explain in detail with reliable sources that, although in neighbouring Wessex it wouldn't have been possible for a woman to be a queen, in Mercia it was, and happened again immediately thereafter with her daughter Ælfwynn. Multiple sources such as Irish and Welsh annals described her as a queen and the Annals of Ulster, which ignore the deaths of Alfred and Edward, described her as famosissima regina Saxonum (renowned Saxon queen), while only the Mercian Register says Æthelflæd became Myrcna hlædige, "Lady of the Mercians". If we had a category tree for Category:10th-century ladies of the Mercians, that would be ideal given the title mentioned in this native Mercian source, but it would only have 2 items. Given that multiple primary sources plus multiple reliable secondary sources identify both as queens regnant, it is completely reasonable to put them in the Category:10th-century queens regnant.

    Beyond what specific title we should categorise both women Æthelflæd and Ælfwynn by, Dudley also denies they were even monarchs, removing even Category:Mercian monarchs from both biographies that were there long before Marcocapelle implemented the category split as agreed. This requires a pretty strong justification; we could argue about their exact titles, but to deny they were monarchs is a whole other level. I'm not sure what Mike thinks? But the RS in both articles are very clear and unambiguous on this point, and the CfS established consensus to categorise them as queens regnant specifically, so Dudley seems to be the one only who disagrees. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: Should Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians be in Category:9th-century English monarchs, Category:10th-century English monarchs, and Category:Mercian monarchs, or not? If so, why shouldn't Æthelflæd and Ælfwynn all of the sudden not be in the latter two categories anymore? If not, why not, and why hasn't Dudley removed those categories either? This inconsistency is difficult to explain. NLeeuw (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular opinion on which categories should be applied, but just to note: CfD decides what categories exist, not what categories exist in particular articles. It is not within its scope to mandate inclusion/exclusion of a particular category here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Nederlandse for pointing out the error in Æthelred's categories. I have removed them. The case for describing him as a monarch is even weaker. He is described in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as an ealdorman, and no source (apart from the late tenth-century chronicle of Æthelweard) or historian calls him a monarch. As to Æthelflæd, it is true that some Irish and Welsh annals described her as queen, but that reflects her reputation in those areas, not how she saw herself or was seen in the Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons, which united Wessex and Mercia. A few historians argue that Mercian nationalist claims should be acknowledged until Edward removed Ælfwynn in 918, but the great majority disagree. The Mercian leadership fully accepted their subordinate status under Edward. She was not a queen and she should not be categorised as one. She should be in w:Category:10th-century women rulers, but this has been absurdly deleted even though similar categories are still kept for all succeeding centuries. See w:Category:Women rulers by century. Why should the 10th century be different from other centuries? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy off-wiki at the moment and have not had time to check many sources, but I'll just mention that the first one I pulled from my shelves, Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England, lists her in the index as "lady of the Mercians" whereas the kings are all indexed as kings. "Queen" in the index redirects to "women (royal)". There's not much discussion of Æthelflæd, but what there is does not describe her as a monarch and makes I clear she was subordinate to Edward. Chronicles are not reliable sources for this sort of discussion; we need secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must commend @Dudley Miles on at least being consistent when it comes to removing Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians from the monarch categories. If the idea is that recognising Wessex overlordship is incompatible with being a 'monarch', then perhaps that is correct / the best approach, and I'm willing to accept it. But that only leaves him as Category:Anglo-Saxon warriors. Is that all? If he was indeed an ealdorman, how about Category:Earls of Mercia? And should that also apply to Æthelflæd and Ælfwynn then? Earl of Mercia doesn't go that far back, but that seems more to do with the relatively stubby nature of that article than that it would've been too early (no pun intended) for them to have been earls. The article and category can be expanded to include this Lord and these Ladies of the Mercians as "earls" if that is a better equation than "monarchs". I agree with Mike that secondary sources are required to make that assessment and decision.

As for the "rulers" category, there is an ongoing process of phasing out the term "ruler" because of how ambiguous and therefore unfit for categorisation purposes it is. It means different things to different people. The point above about whether Thatcher or Elizabeth II was the "ruler" illustrates this very well; it depends on your definition of "ruler", and there is no consensus on what that word means. If we can argue about it endlessly and pointlessly, it's not useful for categorisation (WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT etc.). Background: User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw/Rulers (haven't updated it in a while). You're right the 10th century shoudn't be different; all of them need to phase out "rulers", and this is one of the last "by century" categories to do so. The Category:Women rulers by century tree is one of the last to be phased out by splitting, and we've only got the 13th to 21st century left to do. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful reply. Earls of Mercia is anachronistic as the term does not come in until the eleventh century. I see that there is a category Ealdormen of Mercia so I have added that to the Æthelred article. As to Æthelflæd and Ælfwynn I do not see any problem with a category Ladies of the Mercians. Is there a rule about a minimum number of articles in a category? I sometimes see categories with only one member. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]