I cut these:

Wulfhere of Mercia · Æthelred of Mercia · Ethelbald of Mercia · Offa of Mercia · Cœnwulf of Mercia

since they were never called bretwaldas. I think it would be good if we could come up with some better way to represent this information -- take a look at Egbert of Wessex; he has six templates and a vast succession box at the end of his article. Is there a more concise way to do this? Mike Christie (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Quill, could you respond to the comment about the ones above never being called Bretwaldas? They are not so named in any source I am aware of. Mike Christie (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The only one called Bretwalda by his contemporaries was Egbert. Bede doesn't use the term - his much earlier list was annexed by the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Bede, writing in Latin, says that they held imperium. ðarkuncoll 19:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Struck the above as I had misread page history. I think it's not the best approach to have a "bretwaldas" template that includes kings who were not bretwaldas. I'd suggest that we either make a separate template for the later kings or don't call this a "bretwalda" template. Mike Christie (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

To Tharkuncoll: as I recall, the ASC says Egbert was the eighth to be called bretwalda, implying the other seven were titled that too. Mike Christie (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the whole point. There's no evidence that the term wasn't just invented in the 9th century by the writers of the Chronicle, and retroactively given to the ones listed much earlier by Bede. ðarkuncoll 20:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd need to find that argument in a reliable source for it to apply here, though even then I think it's not the best way to present this information. It seems we're in agreement that several of these kings are not called bretwalda by any reliable source. Do you have a source that says the term bretwalda may not have been applied to the earlier kings? Mike Christie (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 edition states that the term was applied "retrospectively" to the earlier ones , and also makes the point that Athelstan was also called Bretwalda, so should certainly be in this list if we're going by the title "Bretwalda" alone. ðarkuncoll 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have a more recent source than the 1911 EB. I hadn't known that Athelstan was ever called "bretwalda"; my reading stops around 850. I guess we can leave this as it stands and see if any other editors have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A source of that age is hard to get hold of to confirm your word. The word "retrospectively" worries me as well as technically this means that they still weren't Bretwaldas they were just people who had similar levels of power as certain Bretwaldas meanign they shouldn't be in the template in its current form or name. The Quill (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did supply the link so it's not that difficult to get hold of. As for the retrospective bit, so you agree that the only people who should be called Bretwaldas are Egbert and Athelstan then? ðarkuncoll 01:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)