How Cnut Established Himself as Full King in England

By Annie Whitehead

Nearly one thousand years ago*, in November 1016, Cnut became king of England. How did he establish himself, a foreigner, with full authority?

For a contemporary account of the reign of Aethelred II, it is natural to look to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In it, we find the closing years of the reign fraught with difficulties; those of fending off Danish raiders. It would be easy to agree with the Chronicler who, writing with hindsight, concludes that the slide towards Danish rule in England was inevitable. The payment of the Danegeld might at first sight seem like sheer folly, yet the policy appears in the short term to have worked.

Aethelred’s problem was that paying off one Viking force would not necessarily keep another one away from his shores. The Chronicler blames the military failure of the English on the cowardice of the military leaders. But while the squabble between Brihtric and Wulfnoth caused the loss of a hundred ships in 1009, we also know that Brihtnoth’s actions at the Battle of Maldon in 991 were those of courage and loyalty, that the army of 1009 left in 1010 without tribute, and that Aethelred was assured of the loyalty of Ulfcytel in East Anglia.

King Aethelred II

If things were not as bad before 1009 as the Chronicler would have us believe, there is little doubt that the armies of Swein Forkbeard (Cnut's father) widened any existing cracks in the morale of the English. Within a year, Swein had established himself as full king. But with his death in 1014, the Witan (king's council) sent to Normandy for Aethelred, and accepted him back as their king “if he would govern them more justly than before.” In the same year, Aethelred’s ravaging of Lindsey drove Cnut’s forces away. With further hindsight than the Chronicler had to offer, and perhaps with less bias, it is probably fair to say that it was far from inevitable that Cnut would succeed Aethelred as king of the English. We must, therefore, look elsewhere to find the reasons for his ultimate success.

It is hard to find a source which places emphasis on the military prowess of Cnut; most in fact, praise his piety and generosity to the Church. He was driven back to Denmark in 1014, and his reputation as a warrior must have suffered as a result. So his success in England must be attributed to something other than military superiority. While it might be rash to say that luck was on Cnut’s side, there is no doubt that circumstances helped him a great deal.

King Cnut

Before he left Denmark, Cnut was allowed by his brother King Harald to raise an army. He was fortunate to have the support of Eric of Hlathir, who had played a great part in the overthrow of Olaf Tryggvason, and who was to prove invaluable to Cnut in England. Before Cnut set sail, he was joined by Thorkell the Tall**. It is possible that Thorkell was seeking revenge for the death of his brother at the hands of the English, although it is possible, but not universally accepted among historians, that this revenge was sought earlier, and was, in fact, the reason for Thorkell’s invasion of England in 1009. Whatever his reason, Thorkell’s presence was a bonus for Cnut; he now had with him an accomplished warrior who knew England and the English.

The champion of English resistance was Aethelred’s son, Edmund Ironside. He had procured the support of the Danelaw by marrying the widow of Sigeferth, murdered by Eadric Streona (ealdorman of Mercia) probably at the behest of Aethelred. Cnut could not, therefore, be certain that the Danes in England would submit to him, and he landed in the south and began ravaging Wessex. Edmund and Eadric were raising forces, but they separated before they met the enemy. Eadric joined Cnut, and within four months Cnut was in firm control of Wessex and had the resources of the Mercian ealdormanry at his command.

Edmund Ironside

Cnut was aided elsewhere in England by Edmund’s troubles. His army in the Danelaw dispersed after demanding that the London militia should join them. Having lost his opportunity here, Edmund joined forces with Uhtred of Bamburgh. Cnut was quick to seize the chance he had been given and invaded the Danelaw, whence he proceeded towards Northumbria. Uhtred hurried back from the midlands and submitted to Cnut. Soon afterwards he was murdered, and Northumbria was left in the capable hands of Eric of Hlathir. Cnut was free now to turn his attention to the south east.

Edmund had joined his father in London, and when Aethelred died in 1016 the men of London chose Edmund as his successor. Within a few days of Aethelred’s death, however, a more representative assembly at Southampton swore fealty to Cnut in return for a promise of good government. Cnut was again helped by Eadric Streona’s amazing capacity to vacillate. He went over to Edmund’s side, and then took flight during the definitive Battle of Ashingdon. Cnut, as victor, came to terms with Edmund, and the result was a division of the kingdom. Edmund was given Wessex, and the rest of the country beyond the Thames Cnut took for himself. This was obviously a dangerous situation, in which conflict could easily flare up again. As Stenton pointed out, it imposed a divided allegiance on all those noblemen who held land in both Mercia and Wessex. [1] But circumstances once again favoured Cnut when, less than two months after the Battle of Ashingdon, Edmund Ironside died, and the West Saxons accepted Cnut as their king.

King of all England now, Cnut was by no means secure in his position. Good fortune and opportunity had helped him thus far; now he had to rely on his judgement and ability. He eliminated any chance that Richard of Normandy might support the claims of Aethelred’s children by Emma, by marrying the lady himself. For military rather than administrative reasons he divided the kingdom into four: Wessex he controlled himself, Eadric Streona was appointed to Mercia, East Anglia went to Thorkell, and Eric of Hlathir remained in Northumbria. In the same year, 1017, the atheling Eadwig was exiled and subsequently murdered. The Anglo-Saxon aristocracy also lost at least four of its prominent members, among them Eadric Streona. ('Streona' means 'The Grasper' or the 'Acquisitive' and the name first appeared in Hemming's Cartulary, an 11th-century manuscript, pictured below.)

Cnut set out to win the respect of the English church, and in this he was successful, being fully prepared to accept the traditional responsibility of being an agent of God with the duty to protect his people. He claimed to be occupying a throne to which he had been chosen at Gainsborough in 1014, and at Southampton in 1016. Though in reality much was changed during his reign, Cnut sought to establish himself by emphasising the importance of continuity. There was not such a large scale change in land ownership as was to occur in 1066, nor was there a great change in the personnel within the leadership of the Church. Archbishop Wulfstan drew up Cnut’s lawcodes drawing on those he’d written for Aethelred. The lawcodes themselves stressed continuity; very little in them was new.

Cnut (top centre)

Before the end of 1017, with Eadric Streona dead, and the alliance with Normandy secured, Cnut dismissed his fleet, retaining only forty ships. Its dismissal showed that henceforth he intended to rule as the chosen king of the English. At a council at Oxford it was agreed that the laws of Edgar (Aethelred's father, whose reign of 959 to 975 was already beginning to be looked upon as a golden age) should be observed.

In 1018 the military rule was relaxed. Two earldoms were re-established in Wessex, and in Mercia the earldoms of Herefordshire and Worcestershire were re-established. Stenton says that it was then that Cnut's reign began in earnest. [2] But throughout his reign the presence of the huscarls (housecarls) and the distribution of the heregeld (military tax) to them made it difficult for the English to forget that they were being ruled by a conquering alien king. There is no doubt though that by this point Cnut had established himself, for afterwards he felt sufficiently secure to leave the country in four separate expeditions to the north.

Cnut had invaded a vulnerable country in 1015, a country which was war-torn and weary. There were no clear dividing lines of loyalty; Edmund's army included Danes, Cnut’s included Englishmen. There can be no doubt that Cnut benefited considerably from the untrustworthiness of Eadric Streona, and from the dispersal of Edmund’s army in the Danelaw. For Cnut, the death of Edmund Ironside was nothing short of a blessing. Thereafter, his success rested on the fact that he did not conspicuously behave as a conqueror, stressing the importance of continuity, and keeping to the path that the pious King Edgar had trodden.

King Edgar

This emphasis must have taken attention away from the changes  his reign brought about. Keeping his military forces for less than a year Cnut reduced feeling among the English that they were a conquered people. Cnut made good use of his opportunities. By 1018 he had successfully established himself as full king of the English.

[1] Anglo-Saxon England - FM Stenton p387
[2] Op cit p 393

**Some historians, Campbell among them, argue that Thorkell did not join Cnut until 1016/17

Further reading/Bibliography:
The Anglo-Saxon Age - DJV Fisher
The Laws of Cnut & The History of Anglo-Saxon Royal Promises - P Stafford in Anglo-Saxon England 10
Encomium Emmae Reginae - Ed Campbell
The Chronicle of Thietmar of Merseberg EHD
The Sermon of the wolf to the English “ “
King Edgar and the Danelaw - Niels Lund, Med Scand 9
The Diplomas of Aethelred the Unready - Simon Keynes
Wulfstan and the Laws of Cnut - D Whitelock EHR 63

(all the above images are in the public domain)

*This article is an Editor's Choice and was originally published September 19, 2016

~~~~~~~~~~

Annie Whitehead is an author and historian, and a member of the Royal Historical Society. She has written three award-winning novels set in Anglo-Saxon Mercia. Her history of Mercia, from Penda the pagan king to the last brave stand of the earl of Mercia against the Conqueror, Mercia: The Rise and Fall of a Kingdom, is published by Amberley.

Find out more at www.anniewhiteheadauthor.co.uk

Ælfgyva: The Mysterious Woman of the Bayeux Tapestry - Part II

By Paula Lofting

Welcome to the second part of the post concerning Ælfgyva, the woman, who over the years has caused many a historian to scratch their heads in wonder. For centuries people must have pondered over this scene, in the Bayeux Tapestry, where a slim figure, clad in what would appear to be the clothing of a well-bred woman, stands in a doorway, her hands are palm upwards as if she could be explaining something to a monk, apparently behind a doorway.  He is reaching out to touch the side of her face whilst his other hand rests on his hip in a stance of dominance and he looks as if he might be touching her face in a fatherly way, perhaps admonishing her for some misdeed, or perhaps he is slapping her?  On the other hand he could be caressing her face.

The text sewn into the tapestry merely states ‘where a priest and Aelfgyva…’ and the onlooker is left with no more than this to dwell on. So just what is the author alluding to? Why did he/she not finish the sentence?

In this piece of work we will examine one of the possibilities as to who this woman could possibly be and what was her role at the time of the conquest. There are a number of theories, all of which have been thoroughly discounted by others, myself included. I would like to examine here one particular source that alludes to her representing Emma, who, as I stated in the first of this series, had taken on the English name Ælfgifu upon marriage to King Aethelred. Eric Freeman in his Annales de Normandie explains through a story that was circulating in the fourteenth century that Emma had been involved in an unorthodox relationship with a bishop of Winchester and had proven her innocence through trial by ordeal. She was said to have achieved this by walking barefoot across nine red-hot ploughshares.

What followed is even more absurd: her son King Edward, who had instigated the trial and had always shown harsh resentment toward his mother, begged her forgiveness and was duly beaten by both his mother and the accused Bishop Ælfwine. So, could this ridiculous tale be the scandal that we think the Bayeux tapestry is referring to? Bearing in mind that it is only an assumption of a scandal, however, the lewd depictions that accompany the image would indeed strongly suggest a scandal.

My research of this strange anecdote has turned up no other contemporary source. Quite how it shaped its way into the fourteenth century, we will never know, but what it does show is how the medieval mind-set could so effectively create the believable in the unbelievable. If we were to take this story as having some basis in truth, it would be a credible subject, if not for the trial by ordeal which would have been impossible to survive. So, if we put that aside and concentrate on the rest of it, what do we have? Emma/Ælfgifu, depicted as a bishop-loving adulteress whose scandal has somehow enmeshed itself into the threads of the Bayeux Tapestry.

photo credit: Caroline Williams

Now here comes the why, the how and what for. If we consider the scene and its place in the tapestry, the images before it show Harold standing before William having some sort of discussion. Incidentally, Harold appears to be touching the hand of one of William’s guards, but that is another story we will go into in part three. Our gaze next rests upon Ælfgyva and our priest, who is definitely not a bishop, otherwise the tapestry would have read, Unus Episcopus, rather than, Unus Clericus. If we can imagine that the two men are deep in conversation about some important topic, could the image of Ælfgyva have been inserted to allude to something that may have been better known at the time? If it was meant to be a representation of William’s great aunt Emma, she may well have been referred to by the English artist by her English name and this would be plausible. 

Yet the insertion of a bishop touching her face and the lewd creature underneath them in the border is a strange way to portray so great and noble a lady such as the former twice Queen of England. Not only is she William’s great aunt, but also partly the basis for his claim to the English crown. Through her, he was a first cousin once removed to the reigning monarch, Edward the Confessor. It was because of this kinship that William sought acceptance as heir to Edward’s throne. Emma, in her time was often criticised but despite this, she was respected by her English subjects. It is not likely that she would have been denigrated in this way unless she was involved in something pertinent to the story of the conquest. And I think considering the lack of a contemporary insertion in the sources for this story, we can safely assume that there is no credence to this legend.

It would seem that there is no other connection with Emma and the tapestry and the absence of a bishop and the presence of a priest, although perhaps an error but this is unlikely, means that this cannot be the Ælfgyva story the artist is referring to. In my next post on the subject, I will be exploring with you, another Ælfgyva.

We must give credit to the intriguing artistry of the creator who at every turn and twist manages to confuse us all.

~~~~~~~~~~

Paula Lofting is an author and a member of the re-enactment society Regia Anglorum, where she regularly takes part in the Battle of Hastings. Her first novel, Sons of the Wolf, is set in eleventh-century England and tells the story of Wulfhere, a man torn between family and duty. The sequel, The Wolf Banner is available now. Paula is currently working on the third book in the series, Wolf's Bane

Find Paula on her Blog
on her Amazon Author Page

Lordship in the Tenth-century – What was its Political and Social Function?

by Annie Whitehead

“No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their neck.”

So said Aelfric of Eynsham, (c955-c1010), and he tells us here of the absolute nature of kingship. The king is the lord of all the English, so if we are to discover the function of lordship, we should begin by examining the role of the king.

King Edgar

By the tenth-century ideas  about the spiritual role of kingship had developed along Carolingian lines. A well-documented example of this is Edgar’s coronation at Bath in 973. One school of thought is that Edgar delayed his coronation until he had reached the canonical age of thirty, but it is unlikely that he could have reigned successfully for so long (he succeeded his brother Eadwig in 959) without having been consecrated earlier in his reign, particularly in view of what Aelfric has to say about consecration. [1]

It is more probable that this coronation was based on the Frankish notion of ‘imperium’, stressing the king’s duty before God. Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, expanded this idea in his Institutes of Polity. His view was that a Christian king should be a just shepherd to his Christian flock, he was to help the righteous and to afflict the evil-doers, especially thieves and robbers. His true function was to purify his people before God and the world. [2]

The mutual obligation between the king and his subjects is illustrated by an incident in Aethelred the Unready’s reign. With the death of Swein Forkbeard, Aethelred was asked to return from exile in Normandy by the Witan (council), who declared that “no lord was dearer to them than their rightful lord, if only he would govern his kingdom more justly than he had done in the past."[3] The king was king, but his subjects would not allow him to neglect his duty to them.

Yet neither would they neglect to exalt a praise-worthy monarch. Florence of Worcester* summed up the virtues of King Edgar thus:-

“In the winter and spring, he used to make progress through all the provinces of England and enquire diligently whether the laws of the land and his own ordinances were obeyed, so that the poor might not suffer wrong and be oppressed by the powerful…Thus his enemies on every side were filled with awe, and the love of those who owed him allegiance was secured.”

There were, of course, more personal relationships, not only between the king and his subjects, but between the lord and his man. The argument continues among historians as to whether pre-conquest England was feudal; suffice to say that there was an English equivalent to the Frankish oath of vassalage, this being the Hold-Oath. The oath was essentially negative, a promise to do nothing to harm the lord. It included a gesture of bowing to the lord. The lord in his turn had certain obligations to his man.

“By the Lord, before whom this hallowed thing is holy, I will be steadfast and true to X, to love all he loves and shun all that he shuns, and never, by will or by thought or by deed do aught of what is loathsome to him, as long as he upholds me as I am willing to earn and fulfil all that our understanding was, when I bowed to him and took his will.” 

Naturally, the king could not rule without counsel. The witenagemot, or witan, was the royal council, and had the right, rather than the privilege, to advise the king. The king’s thegns owed their status and position to the king and were rewarded for their service (the word thegn originally meant servant.) It was usually the king’s thegns who were appointed as reeves, responsible for administration in the localities as a check on the powerful ealdormen.

The king with his witan

The most usual form of reward was that of a land grant. Many charters confirming these land grants still exist, such as King Edgar’s grant of land at Kineton to his thegn Aelfwold in 969. These grants, known as bookland, were not the same as the fief of feudal Frankia. They were granted by the king in the form of a book (charter) for services rendered. Aelfwold was granted the land at Kineton for all his life and could leave it to whomever he chose. The estate was free from all service except “fixed military service and the restoration of bridges and fortresses.”

Many grants were made to the Church, who in turn leased out land in return for service. A good example of this comes from Oswald of Worcester, who lists the service required of the beneficiaries of the land. They should fulfil the law of riding as riding men should, they should pay dues to the Church, swear to be humbly subject to the bishop and lend horses, build bridges, and send hunting spears.

Initially these endowments were made to the Church from the king, and only he could turn folkland into bookland. It soon became, however, the most common way for a lord to reward his man.

A grant by Aethelred the Unready shows how far he was prepared to support his men. His thegn, Aethelwig, gave Christian burial to men killed fighting in defence of a thief. Rather than censure Aethelwig, as Ealdorman Leofsige advised, Aethelred granted his thegn the forfeited land of the brothers who had been killed. [3]

Not all thegns were king’s thegns; many of them had another lord to whom they owed their allegiance. When these thegns died, the heriot (war gear) was surrendered to their lord and not to the king.

Aethelred the Unready

There was another aspect to lordship, an extension of the personal bond into the field of law. In the reign of Edward the Elder (899-924) a letter was written to the king explaining the history of an estate at Fonthill, Wiltshire. It describes how a thief, Helmstan, was required to give an oath to clear himself of the charges brought against him. He asked his lord Ordlaf to intercede for him, which Ordlaf did, even though his man was guilty. [4] This illustrates how a lord was bound to protect his man, whether innocent or guilty. Though the law codes might have forbidden the lord from doing this, often it was more beneficial for a man to appeal to his lord in this way than to appeal in the hundred courts.

By the middle of the tenth-century it was becoming customary for lords, ecclesiastical or lay, to receive grants of jurisdiction from the king. Usually these grants were laid down in the charters as ‘sake and soke’. The term implied jurisdiction and control of a court. It was not granted lightly, and these delegated rights were intended to emphasise rather than undermine royal authority. While the landowner enjoyed immunity from public courts, the court over which he presided was not held for his men, but was attended by men drawn from the neighbourhood.

There was also a much more specific form of private jurisdiction. All lords, be they bishops, earls, thegns or abbots, were held responsible for the behaviour of their men. “Such a responsibility involved an exercise in judgement, which would easily be formalised into the giving of judgement.” (HR Loyn) Fortunately, the monarchy was strong enough to ensure that the worst abuses were avoided.

Along with sake and soke, other judicial rights were specified. ‘Toll’ gave the lord the right to take toll on goods sold within the estate, and ‘team’ gave the right to supervise the presentation of convincing evidence that goods for sale actually belonged to the person selling them. ‘Infangenetheof’ gave the lord the right to hang a thief if he had been caught on the estate with the stolen goods still in his possession. By the end of the period, large numbers of hundred courts were in private hands.

A charter of King Aethelred's to his 'faithful man' 

Lords, of course, had always been involved with the public courts. Earls and bishops presided over the shire courts. It was here that arrangements were made for the collection of taxes. It was in the interests of landowners to be represented, as the king always was by his servant the shire-reeve. It was also important for lords to establish a presence at the hundred court, where much money could be lost and won. They were also commanded to give full support to the hundredsmen, whose job it was to supervise legal trading and to discourage cattle theft. King Edgar specifically ordered ealdormen Oslac, Aelfhere, and Aethelwine to give such support. “And they are to send them in all directions, that this measure may be known to both the poor and the rich.” [5]

Military duties were linked with the social function of lordship. From the time of King Ine (688-725) forfeiture of land and a heavy fine of 120 schillings was the penalty for a lord neglecting military service. After 899, as well as national obligations to fyrd service, and building bridges and fortifications, men were now to group themselves into tithings and hundreds to protect themselves. Ealdormen and thegns not only formed the select body of the king’s household retainers, but were, as landlords, responsible for the organisation, the summons and the assembling of the fighting forces. They were also involved in the financial and personal organisation which was essential to ensure that competent levies turned out to perform military duties on behalf of their estate. Lords, then, led their men and were responsible for them in times of peace and war and were at both times high up on the social scale, just beneath the king.

Although it was not necessarily a feudal society, a constant theme runs throughout tenth-century English society, that of mutual obligation. At the highest level, the king could demand loyalty and service from his subjects, but in return must rule them justly and protect them. The thegns, earls, and other landowners owed service to the king in judicial, military and personal capacities, for which they were rewarded. They in turn could expect loyalty and service from their men, but they were responsible for them and must protect them. Running though society in this way, the organised system which developed from the simple notion of personal loyalty was an integral part of all areas of central and local administration.


[1] DJV Fisher – The Anglo-Saxon Age Ch 12
[2] HR Loyn – The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England Ch4
[3] EHD – i 117
[4] EHD- i 102
[5] IV Edgar ‘Wihtbordesstan’ Code EHD i 41

* The authorship of the work of Florence is considered to owe more to a fellow monk, John of Worcester

~~~~~~~~~~

Annie Whitehead is an historian and novelist who writes about the Anglo-Saxon era. The author of two award-winning novels set in Anglo-Saxon Mercia, she was also a contributor to 1066 Turned Upside Down, a re-imagining of the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings. She is a member of the Royal Historical Society and an editor of the EHFA blog. Currently she is working on a contribution to a non-fiction book to be published by Pen & Sword Books in the summer of 2017. Her novel Alvar the Kingmaker is set in the tenth-century during the reigns of Eadwig, Edgar and Aethelred the Unready and contains many scenes where the above-mentioned laws and charters were put into effect.

Amazon Author Page

Blog

Website

Twitter

Government in the Reigns of Edgar and Aethelred II

by Annie Whitehead

Neither Edgar (959-975) nor his son Aethelred (978-1016) came to the throne free from controversy. Both of them succeeded their elder brothers, who reigned only briefly. King Eadwig (Edwy) succeeded his uncle in 955, while his brother Edgar was declared king in Mercia and the Danelaw. With the existence of two royal courts it seems likely that civil war was not far away when Eadwig died on this day - 1st October - in 959. He had issued so many charters that a degree of irresponsibility is probable, and he had quarrelled with Abbot, later Archbishop, Dunstan and driven him into exile.

King Edgar

Aethelred was Edgar’s younger son, and succeeded his (step) brother Edward when he was murdered at Corfe. Throughout his reign he was never entirely able to escape from the fact that the murder had been committed for his sake.

King Aethelred

The youth of these kings produced an environment where faction could arise. Powerful ealdormen could be found influencing politics and the monarch, even changing the face of war, as was the case at the end of Aethelred’s reign.

This then was the political situation over which Edgar and Aethelred had to govern.

The king normally stayed in the south, and his presence in the north was made to be felt by his appointed ealdormen. Within the royal court there was a strict hierarchy, evidence of which comes from a scrutiny of the witness lists of Aethelred’s reign, where athelings, ealdormen, thegns and bishops subscribed in strict order of seniority. This order normally changed only when one subscriber died, but the witness lists of Aethelred’s reign show how powerful particular ealdormen could become. Eadric Streona headed the lists from 1009x12 to 1016, in the lifetime of other ealdormen who had once been his seniors. The king had no choice but to rely on these men for their cooperation and support, which was to some extent ensured by their attendance at the royal council, the Witan, where laws were deliberated upon and promulgated.

The Witan

Edgar relied heavily on the bishops and abbots within the Witan. He was the great patron of the monastic revival, overseen by bishops Oswald, Dunstan and Aethelwold. Many grants of land were made to the Church, and the ecclesiastical support thus ensured gave Edgar the means to check the power of the ealdormen. Oswald was given the triple-hundred* of Oswaldslow to the exclusion of Aelfhere of Mercia, and the leases of Oswald are an indication of his power. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that in 975 “Ealdorman Aelfhere had very many monasteries destroyed...” This action arose more out of political rivalry it seems, than anti-monasticism.

In contrast, the early years of Aethelred’s reign show him undoing much of Edgar’s work, with lands being taken away from religious foundations, such as Abingdon, Rochester and Winchester. Until 993 it seems that Aethelred was being led astray by ealdormen who took advantage of his youth and ignorance. Fortunately for the church, these lands were restored after 993, when, with different ealdormen emerging, Aethelred was seen to mend his ways with the restoration of the privileges of Abingdon.

A charter from Aethelred's reign

There was a long tradition of financial organisation in Anglo-Saxon England. In the tenth century traditional renders gave way to the Geld. The payment of Geld involved the handling of coinage; King Athelstan (924-939) decreed that each burh (borough/fortified town) would have a mint, and he attempted to limit the number of moneyers. Edgar reinforced this legislation in his own law codes. “There shall run one coinage throughout the realm.” [2]  Every borough was expected to issue coinage.

Edgar’s reforms set the standard and the system was continued under Aethelred. During his reign there were more than 60 mints in operation. Of course, there was a great increase in the output of the mints at this time because of the payment of the Danegeld, something with which Edgar was not confronted. It was probably at the instigation of Archbishop Sigeric after Byrhtnoth of Essex was killed at Maldon (991), that the decision was taken to pay the Danes in the hope that they would go away.

“In this year it was decided to pay tribute to the Danes … on this occasion it amounted to £10,000. This course was adopted on the advice of Archbishop Sigeric.” [3]

The payment of the Danegeld indicates two things: the amount of fluid wealth in England and the capacity of the English to tap it.

Another form of taxation (albeit strictly a military tax) was the Ship Soke. Most of the evidence we have for this comes from the reign of Aethelred. The much quoted entry for 1008 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that

 “In this year the king gave orders that ships should be speedily built throughout the whole England: namely one large warship was to be provided from every 300 hides, and a a cutter from every ten hides, while every eight hides were to provide a helmet and a corselet.”

Aethelred was reacting sensibly to the Danish threat, but there is evidence to suggest that this was no innovation. FE Harmer (Anglo-Saxon Writs) pointed out that in 1003/4 Archbishop Aelfric made a bequest of ships and HPR Finberg [4] credited Edgar with the invention.  He cited the Triple Hundred of Oswaldslow created by Edgar, and said that Edgar organised efficient naval patrols around the shores of Britain.

The origin of the Hundred is somewhat hazy. Most of what we know about this administrative unit is derived from a document known as the Hundred Ordinance. Dated somewhere between 939 and 960, the Ordinance is the subject of controversy among historians who are unable to agree upon its author. But the Ordinance was definitely in existence by Edgar’s reign. It decrees that the hundred court should meet every four weeks, and that each man should do justice to other men there. II&III Edgar reinforces the Ordinance, by stating that the borough court is to be held thrice a year and the shire court twice, and the hundred court is to be attended as was ‘previously established.’

My very battered student copy of the translation of the Hundred Ordinance

Aethelred’s laws make frequent reference to the hundreds, in particular the importance of oath-taking. In III Aethelred, the ‘Wantage code’, which deals mainly with the Danelaw, we find what Finberg calls the earliest known reference to the sworn jury of presentment: “and the twelve leading thegns … are to come forward and swear on the relics which are put forward into their hands that they will accuse no innocent man nor conceal any guilty one.”

Edgar’s dealings with the Danelaw can be found in IV Edgar, the Wihbordesstan Code. It had often been said that Edgar was creating something new with this code. But technically speaking this is a letter to the Danes, showing Edgar eager to respect an autonomy which was already a fact.

It is probable that Edgar became king of England in 959 with the help of a powerful group of magnates who wanted a king who would not encroach on the customary law. Niels Lund [5] says that the whole point of the letter is to notify the Danelaw that he wishes a new law to apply to all his kingdom, that he knows that this is a violation of their privileges but nevertheless he asks them to accept it. Edgar stresses five times that he has every intention of respecting the Danelaw. It is possible that although IV Edgar is a recognition of established fact, Edgar himself created the Danelaw, as there are no earlier references to it. In all probability these privileges were granted by Edgar in 957, in gratitude for the support given him in the north against his brother Eadwig.

King Eadwig, who died 1st October, 959

It has been said that Aethelred also recognised the validity of the Danelaw, but in fact his dealings with these provinces sharply contrast with those of Edgar. In IV Edgar the king is careful not to offend the Danes to whom he owes a great deal. Aethelred was not so subtle. Whitelock suggests that he appointed to office men he had himself advanced, rather than men belonging to old established families. He was quick to seize lands in the Danelaw, for example those of the murdered Sigeferth and Morcar.

In the Wihtbordesstan code, sanctions against lawbreakers are left to be decided by the Danes, while Edgar and his councillors provide the rules for the rest of England. “And it is my will that secular rights be in force among the Danes according to as good laws as they can best decide upon. Among the English, however, that is to be in force which I and my councillors have added to the decrees of my ancestors.”

A comparison of Aethelred’s Wantage and Woodstock codes, shows that Aethelred on the other hand, attempted to impose English law on the Danelaw. Known respectively as III and I Aethelred, these codes were issued at more or less the same time, Wantage being specifically for the Danelaw.

I Aethelred says, “If, however he (the accused) is of bad reputation, he shall go to the triple ordeal.”
III Aethelred says, “And each man frequently accused is to go to the triple ordeal and pay four-fold.”

Not only did Aethelred set out the sanctions he imposed in the Danelaw, but he took a portion of the fines as well. Fines in the Danelaw were heavier than elsewhere in the country. It has been said that these measures show how much Aethelred was firmly in control of the Danelaw. Lund argues that rather it shows how Aethelred was attempting to gain firm control. He had no reason to think that he could rely on the north for support. On the contrary, he feared treachery, which led to his securing hostages from Northumbria in 991, and to the notorious massacre of St Brice’s day in 1002. His relations with the Danes are highlighted by the readiness with which the north accepted the Danish conquerors. The murdered Sigeferth and Morcar belonged to a northern family so powerful that Aethelred’s son Edmund Ironside’s marriage to Sigeferth’s widow gained him enough power to become the accepted king of the Five Boroughs. [6] It was people like these whom Aethelred, in total contrast to Edgar, managed to alienate by his attempts to impose English law on them.

Edmund 'Ironside'

Edgar’s was a peaceful reign, free from invasion. All he had to do was respect the Danelaw; he had already been shown their loyalty in 957. Aethelred on the other hand was plagued by raids from the sea. He had to pay tribute to the raiders from Denmark, and was never assured of the loyalty of the Danes in his own country. It is possible that Edgar introduced the Ship Soke, but is was certainly highlighted in Aethelred’s reign, because of the wretched situation in which he found himself. In short, the differences in the administration of these two kings stems from the difference in their reigns. One was always at peace; the other seemed permanently to be fighting off invasion.

[1] EHD (English  Historical Documents) 1 113
[2] II&III Edgar 59-963 EHD 1 40
[3] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (E) 991
[4] The Formation of England 550-1042
[5] King Edgar and the Danelaw, Med. Scand. 9
[6] The five main towns of the Danelaw: Derby, Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby
* Triple hundred - an area of land, three times the administrative unit of the hundred
(All above images are in the public domain)

~~~~~~~~~~

Annie Whitehead is a history graduate and prize-winning author. Her novel, To Be A Queen, is the story of Aethelflaed, daughter of Alfred the Great, who came to be known as the Lady of the Mercians. It was long-listed for the Historical Novel Society’s Indie Book of the Year 2016 and has been awarded an indieBRAG medallion. Her current release, Alvar the Kingmaker, which tells the story of politics, intrigue, deceit and murder in the time of King Edgar, has also been awarded an indieBRAG medallion. She has recently contributed to 1066 Turned Upside Down, an anthology of short stories in which nine authors re-imagine the events of 1066 and ask 'What If'.

Annie's Author Page

Alvar the Kingmaker

To Be A Queen

1066 Turned Upside Down

Annie's Website

Annie's Blog

Giveaway - Alvar the Kingmaker by Annie Whitehead

October 1st is a pivotal date in the story of Alvar the Kingmaker, and to commemorate this date, and to celebrate the fact that the book has just been awarded an indieBRAG Gold Medallion, Annie is giving away a paperback copy.

Alvar the Kingmaker is a tale of politics, intrigue, deceit and murder set in tenth-century England. Nobleman Alvar knows that securing the throne for the young and worthy King Edgar will brand him as an oath-breaker. As a fighting man, he is indispensable to the new sovereign, but his success and power gain him deadly, murderous enemies amongst those who seek favour with the king, and point the finger of suspicion when Edgar’s brother, the previous king, dies in mysterious circumstances. Alvar must fight to protect his lands, and his position, and learn the subtle art of politics. He must also, as a man of principle, keep secret his love for the wife of his trusted deputy. Civil war erupts, and Alvar once again finds himself the only man capable of setting a new king upon the throne of England, an act which comes at great personal cost. His career began with a dishonourable deed to help a good king; now he must be loyal to a new king, Aethelred, whom he knows will be weak, and whose supporters have been accused of regicide. Can he bring about peace, reconcile with his enemies, and find personal happiness, whilst all the time doing his duty to his loved ones? And what of the fragile Queen, who not only depends upon him but has fallen in love with him?

This offer is open internationally, and will run from Monday 26th September to midnight Sunday 2nd October 2016. For a chance to win, leave a comment below - don't forget to leave your contact details!

Queen Emma - One of the Neglected Figures in English History

by Helen Hollick

This is part of an essay I wrote in 1997 for a history degree course at Birkbeck College, University of London. Unfortunately I never found the time to complete the degree!

The full, original essay is here:

http://www.helenhollick.net/h2uitem16.html

The first chapters of the Norman conquest of England began in the spring of 1002, with the marriage of Emma of Normandy to Æthelred, King of the English. She was a daughter of Richard of Normandy, great grandfather of William I of England. Although of Scandinavian (Viking) descent, these "Northmen" were, by the early eleventh century, mostly Christian, and an alliance would prevent Vikings from using Norman ports from which to harass England. Henceforth, the Counts of Normandy would have a considerable interest in the English crown, with the ambition being that a son of Emma's would succeed to the throne. Two, Harthacnut and Edward, did rule, but both were childless, thus eliminating the prospect of Norman rule by direct succession. Considering that the alliance was to bring security from Viking raiders, it is ironic that when Æthelred died in 1016, Emma then married one of the most prominent Vikings of this period, Cnut, who conquered England and became King.

Emma became a queen who carved for herself a significant position within the political estate of England. Her first son, Edward, was born circa 1005 with a second son, Alfred, a year or so later. The succession to the throne however, was disrupted in 1013 by an invasion by Svein Forkbeard of Denmark and his son, Cnut. In the autumn, Emma and her sons, at her initiative, fled to Normandy soon followed by Æthelred himself.

In the spring of 1014 Æthelred dispatched ambassadors to England, with his young son Edward accompanying them, to negotiate a return to the English throne. Shortly after Æthelred's reinstatement, his son by a first (common-law) wife, Edmund Ironside, began to act independently of his father. Emma, it seems, was also dissatisfied with her husband’s failures, for she apparently transferred her support to Edmund. In the Encomium Emma Reginae (her biography written during her lifetime) Æthelred is not merely omitted as her husband, but his existence is significantly suppressed. Emma was a strong and determined women who knew her own mind, what she wanted, and was ruthless in her ambition to obtain it. It is doubtful that she would have chosen to ‘forget’ her first husband because of infidelity; more likely she was dissatisfied with his failures and weakness as a king.

A Hollow Crown cover
depicting the frontispiece of the Encomium
showing Emma, Harthacnut and  Edward
(fourth person unknown, possibly the Encomum's author)

Æthelred died in 1016. Edmund Ironside occupied the throne and withstood Cnut, with the boy Edward, who was possibly no older than thirteen, at his side. That Emma had deliberately sent her eldest son to be with his half-brother is typical of her character. Edward would have been too young to stand against Cnut on his own; her only chance of recovering her position, wealth, and estates would have rested on Edmund's success - with Edward as his successor. Unfortunately for Emma, Edmund died in 1016, and Cnut became King of England.

Cnut turned to securing his position and took Emma as his second wife in July 1017. He had a reputation of paganism and needed to establish his Christianity. The degree of involvement that Emma herself had in the betrothal negotiations is unknown, but she was certainly shrewd and politically wise. As Queen, Emma had acquired expertise in English politics, and marriage to her diverted support away from the two royal English sons, neutralizing them as potential opponents. The master plan of the sixth or seventh century usurper had three stages: murder the king, get the gold, marry the widow. Since the widow usually sat on the gold, the two went together.

Emma achieved a position of prominence under Cnut that she had not enjoyed under Æthelred. She benefitted from her second husband's control of three kingdoms, and by Cnut she had a third son, Harthacnut, reducing Æthelred's sons who were again in exile in Normandy to little more than pawns. When Cnut died in 1035, Harthacnut was ruling in Denmark, and Emma pressed for his succession, not Edward's. Harthacnut would retain for her, as King of England and Denmark, her wealth and status and would be more likely to receive support from the Angle-Danish aristocracy who had risen to power under Cnut. Her main ally proved to be Earl Godwine of Wessex. When Edward and Alfred arrived in England in 1036 to make a claim for the throne, there was virtually no support for either brother, including none from Emma herself.

Emma was a woman of considerable wealth and because of that, she held great political power. She held three types of property which would provide her with revenue. The possession of the royal treasury was crucial. It would contain essential royal documents, such as tribute lists, gold, silver, precious stones and weapons. Possibly also, the royal insignia. By having control of the treasury, Emma was able to attract - and hold - support. Harthacnut, however, remained in Denmark and when Godwine, the crux of Emma's success, unexpectedly switched sides to support Cnut’s illegitimate eldest son, Harold Harefoot, Emma fell swiftly from power and went, once again, into exile.

Harefoot died in 1039 which gave Harthacnut opportunity to renew his claim on England. It may have been during her exile that Emma commissioned the Encomium Emmae Regina to be written; a work of praise for herself and a demonstration that Harthacnut was the right choice as King of England. It shows that Emma was literate and of distinguished learning.

Harthacnut's reign was brief; he died in 1042. After all her struggles Emma must have been devastated; the crown passed to Edward, but it was of little comfort to her. For most of his life Edward had lived in exile in Normandy. His mother had abandoned him, and there was no love between son and mother. Soon after his consecration in 1043, Edward rode to Winchester to accuse Emma of treason and to dispossess her of lands and movables, although he stopped short at exile. According to the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, "They came unexpectedly upon the lady and deprived her of all the treasures …because she had been very hard to the king, her son...”

Whether by her own strength of character or her son's remorse, she was soon reinstated into favour, although at a lower scale. He took Earl Godwine’s daughter, Edith, as wife – although the marriage produced no children, and Emma retired to Winchester, an indication that her influence had decreased. She died on 6th March 1052 and was buried in the Old Minster, Winchester near Cnut and Harthacnut.

Post 1066 queens of England are discussed at length, appreciated or condemned, depending on their worth, while those of pre-Norman history are considerably neglected - even ignored. Emma was the only woman in British history to have been Queen twice, the wife of different ruling kings. This makes her unique. She was an intriguing woman, on a par with the later Eleanor of Aquitaine, and she has a significant place in English history.

Sources:

Pauline Stafford

Queens, concubines and Dowagers: The king's wife in the early middle ages

Henrietta Leyser

Medieval Women: A social history of women in England 450- 1500

Christine Fell

Women in Anglo-Saxon England

Frank Barlow

Edward the Confessor

Translator, Anne Savage:

 The Anglo Saxon Chronicles

~~~~~~~~~~

Helen Hollick is the author of A Hollow Crown (UK edition)/The Forever Queen (US edition). 
The Forever Queen was a USA Today bestseller.

Emma's story continues in Harold the King (UK title) / I Am The Chosen King (US title)

For more information  about Queen Emma : click here 

Buy the book in paperback or on Kindle: Amazon

Aelfgifu of Northampton & Emma of Normandy: Strong Women in a Man’s World

by Kelly Evans

History would have us believe that very few women had a part to play in England’s story. Typically women took a back seat, relying on their fathers or brothers to make decisions on their behalf. And while this may be true (it was, after all, a patriarchal society heavily led by the male-dominated church), there have been more and more examples of women’s involvement in traditionally male-led areas of life coming to light. Recent evidence suggests that up to 50% of Viking attackers were women (McLeod, Shane 2011. Warriors and Women: The Sex Ratio of Norse Migrants to Eastern England up to 900 CE. Early Medieval Europe, 19(3)).

In my novel The Northern Queen, I focus on two powerful women who did as much to further their respective causes, and that of England, than most men. The novel’s main character, and to whom the title refers, is Aelfgifu of Northampton. Born around 990 CE to a wealthy and respected northern family, her father’s loyalty to the Danish invaders led to Aelfgifu marrying the son of the Viking leader. From the (very) little we know it was as much a love match as an astute political union.

A panel from the Bayeux Tapestry, showing the mysterious Aelfgifu.
Aelfgifu of Northampton is one of the five potential ‘Aelfgifus’ whom this panel depicts.

At the time of their marriage, Canute’s father Sweyn Forkbeard (grandson of Harald Bluetooth, whose initials comprise the Bluetooth symbol we see everyday) had decided to conquer England, partly as revenge for the death of his sister at the St Brice’s Day massacre in November 1002 (ordered by King Aethelred). Canute fought alongside his father, who eventually won, but died five weeks later.

King Aethelred the Unready,
Emma’s first husband.
Emma was Aethelred’s second wife.

Aethelred, who had fled to his wife Emma’s (our second powerful woman – more later) homeland of Normandy was invited back by the council or ‘Witan’ to rule. Canute fled to Denmark with Aelfgifu to raise money and men and a year later returned to conquer the country, defeating both Aethelred, who died, and his eldest son. But as a ruler of a mainly Christian nation (there were still small pockets of paganism left, mainly in the Danelaw) Canute’s council declared that the king must marry a Christian wife and abandon Aelfgifu, whom he had joined in a traditional pagan hand-fasting ceremony. The woman the Witan selected was Emma of Normandy, Aethelred’s widow.

Born in 985 CE in Normandy, she was sent to England when only a young girl as part of a bargain made between her brother, the Duke of Normandy, and Aethelred the Unready, the King of England. (Side note: the ‘unready’ part of his name doesn’t mean he was unprepared, it’s an Anglo-Saxon play on words meaning that he was ill-advised by his councillors: Aethelraed = well-counselled; Unraed = ill-counselled). Her marriage to a man 20 years her senior sealed a pact that would prevent Danish invaders using the ports of Normandy to prepare their attacks on England.

Emma receiving a book about her life
that she had commissioned
(Encomium Emmae Reginae).
Her sons look on.

Of course, like many political accords of the time, someone reneged and, being close to hand, much of the blame fell on Emma. She was advised to quickly provide Aethelred with sons in order to strengthen her position at court and this she did. But Aethelred had a first wife who gave him at least ten children and the odds of Emma’s boys rising to the throne were slim.

King Canute, Aelfgifu’s only
husband and Emma’s second.

Canute, despite agreeing to the marriage, did not abandon Aelfgifu. Instead he defied the council and gave her responsibility for ruling the north of England on his behalf. He even made her his regent of Norway from 1030 to 1035.

When Canute died in 1035, both Emma and Aelfgifu pushed for their children to be crowned. Emma had had her coronation oath changed to specifically exclude Aelfgifu’s sons by Canute from the throne. This meant nothing to Aelfgifu. Her first son with Canute, Sweyn, had died in 1035. But her second, Harold Harefoot, was ready, and already in England. Emma’s son Harthacanute was not; he had moved to Denmark to protect his father’s homeland from invaders.

Harold Harefoot

While Aelfgifu sent gifts of money and land to powerful men to gain their support for her son Harold’s claim to the throne, Emma sent letters begging Harthacanute to return and take the country. Harthacanute refused, choosing instead to remain in Denmark and leaving Harold the undisputed ruler of England. Harold was still relatively young when he came to the throne, a 20 year old with little military experience, and Aelfgifu effectively ran the country until Harold was able to assume full responsibility.

But Emma did not sit idly by. She invited her sons by her first husband (Aethelred) back from Normandy where they had resided since their father’s death years ago. Sadly the ploy failed, ending in the death of her son Alfred under circumstances still debated today. Emma even tried to discredit Harold Harefoot: in the book she had commissioned about her life, Encomium Emmae Reginae, she accuses Harold of being illegitimate, not in fact the son of “a certain concubine” of Canute (as she referred to Aelfgifu) but “was secretly taken from a servant who was in childbed and put in the chamber of the concubine, who was indisposed.”

The Northern Queen tells the story of these women: their lives, their families and their passion.

Edith of Wessex

My next novel, The Confessor’s Wife, continues the Anglo-Saxon tale with Edith of Wessex, wife of Edward the Confessor and member of the great Godwin family.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kelly Evans was born in Canada of Scottish extraction but spent much of her life in London, England. She obtained degrees in History and English in Canada and continued her studies in London, focusing on Medieval Europe, landscape archaeology, and the Icelandic Sagas.

Kelly moved back to Canada eight years ago, shortly after which her first short stories were published. The Northern Queen is her first novel. Her work can be found on kellyaevans.com or via Nordland Publishing
Twitter: @chaucerbabe
Facebook