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

Eadric of Mercia: History or Calumny?

By David Mullaly

Making sense of the past is a challenging enterprise, especially when historians have generally concluded that a man or woman was demonstrably a villain, or when we are left with little actual reliable information because the person lived so long ago. In the case of Eadric of Mercia, a.k.a. Eadric “Streona,” both elements are involved.  However, I would suggest that another factor is involved in a realistic assessment of this controversial figure: the potential bias of the chroniclers who have provided the only narratives about him.

A little historical background might be helpful. King Edgar (959-975), had been very generous to the Church, and the ecclesiastical land holdings had increased substantially during his reign. That meant that there were potentially many more armed men available to do the bidding of the church authorities, and fewer who would be required to answer the call of the king or his representative and join the citizen army or fyrd.

King Edgar - detail from New Minster Charter

In Mercia, a man named Aelfric Cild served as ealdorman for only two years, and in 985 he was convicted of treason and exiled. The current king, Aethelred II (978-1016), did not replace him for over twenty years. As a result, for two decades there was no secular authority in that domain, and the Church was probably even more successful at expanding its holdings there than elsewhere.

Perhaps distracted by continual threats from the Vikings, King Aethelred did nothing to curtail Church expansion in Mercia until he named the youthful Eadric to be the ealdorman in 1007.  In fact, I would suggest that the king’s primary reason for re-establishing a representative in that domain was to recover lands and men which had been lost to the Church, and to reassert a secular authority there. He needed another strong ally.

Eadric began to get approval of charters--essentially land transfers--with the consent of the witans, which were assemblies of powerful men headed by the king himself. Presumably, the ealdorman was doing all of this with the encouragement of the king. Of course, churchmen were outraged to see lands and men being returned to private hands at the expense of the Church. Holdings in both Mercia and in nearby areas--including within the diocese of Worcester--were lost.

The young Eadric was not the only official from that part of the country accused of stealing from the Church.  Leofwine was the ealdorman of Hwicce, a domain subservient to Mercia which included Worcester itself. He--and his sons--were also accused of despoiling the Church for their own benefit.  And, like Eadric, Leofwine was probably acting with the approval of the king.

A charter from the reign of Aethelred II

Unfortunately for Eadric’s reputation, most of the clerics who wrote the chronicles--the thin narrative accounts which provide us with virtually the only historical information we have about the early 11th century in England-- lived and worked at Worcester Priory.  The one narrative roughly contemporary with Eadric was a part of what we now call The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.  While we don’t know who the writer was who made the earliest scandalous accusations about Eadric, it wouldn’t be shocking if he turned out to be a cleric at the Worcester Priory.

He accused Eadric of being responsible for the murders of two thegns from the Daneland, although it was Edmund, the heir to the throne, who directly benefited from their deaths, defying his father by illegally marrying the widow of one of the victims and taking control of that family’s estates. The writer blamed Eadric for the killing of the ealdorman Uhtred, although two other accounts gave responsibility to an enemy of Uhtred’s family.  And of course he reviled Eadric for betraying the English army and leaving the battlefield at Assandun , which gave Cnut the victory--and ultimately the throne of England.  That may be the only factual accusation that this chronicler made about Eadric.

A page from Hemming's cartulary

Who else contributed elements of the Eadric story? A monk named Hemming, who lived at the Worcester Priory around fifty years after the death of Eadric, wrote his Cartulary summarizing the property losses suffered by his diocese at the hands of powerful people, and included both Eadric and Cnut among the evil takers of Church lands. He likely originated the appellation Eadric “Streona” (the grasper or taker) as he has been named ever since. One should remember that in this document intended to support land claims of the Church, he provided between twenty-five and thirty fraudulent land charters to buttress his case.

Two other monks from the area added to the condemning narrative. John of Worcester, living at the priory, wrote about Eadric being responsible for the assassination of Ealdorman Aelfham while they were hunting together. He provided this story, as well as other condemning descriptions, approximately one hundred years after the death of Eadric. William of Malmesbury, a monk living in the early twelfth century at Malmesbury Abbey, from a neighboring diocese which probably also lost property to the ealdorman, railed against Eadric’s calumny and deceptions.

Malmesbury Abbey - image Adrian Pingstone

In fact, some have suggested that a denunciatory saga about Eadric, presumably produced at the Worcester Priory, existed during the eleventh century, but no copy has ever been found. Whatever were the sources of these stories, Eadric was reviled by churchmen from that small area of England, and the chances that his role in the history of the period would be presented without malice or distortion are pretty small.

A little information about an eminent churchman may be instructive in this regard.  The Bishop of Worcester Wulfstan, for much of his life also Archbishop of York, was one of the most highly regarded clerics of his day. He is most famous for his homily entitled Sermon of the Wolf to the English, in which he identified the attacks by the Vikings as God’s punishment for the lax ways of the English people.

However, he also created from whole cloth two non-existent historical works, Laws of Edward and Guthrum and the Canons of Eadgar because they were useful to him as precedents from the past. He had points to make, and he had no problem fabricating early writings to support them. I do not believe that he was the only cleric to be “creative” in his writing. In fact, he may have been more honest and reliable than many of his contemporaries, who were more concerned with defending the Church than they were with providing completely factual narratives.

A page from a Wulfstan manuscript

All of these chroniclers were among the very few literate people in England during this period, and their writings help us to tentatively add to what would otherwise be an almost empty slate. We can be grateful for their accounts, no matter how flawed they might be. However, we cannot forget that these churchmen had powerful agendas to further, some ecclesiastical, some political, and some personal.

Is it conceivable that a collection of Christian monks were responsible for the same sort of distortions involving Eadric of Mercia as Shakespeare committed in his portrayal of Richard III? The Bard did a wondrous hatchet job merely because he wanted the favor of Queen Elizabeth, whose ancestors were the Tudor adversaries of Richard III, and the House of York. The recent discovery of Richard’s remains has confirmed that he was not significantly deformed physically, and it’s almost certain that Shakespeare’s portrayal was less than accurate in other ways as well.

Ironically, the people who were most hostile toward Eadric of Mercia were the only historians whose accounts have survived. The monks, especially those from the Worcester diocese, saw Eadric as an enemy of the Church and its interests, and we should expect that they savaged him and his reputation in retribution. As someone suggested on a history blog a few years ago, “History is not written by the winners but by those who know how to write.” Perhaps they won’t--or at least shouldn’t--have the last word.

[all above images are in the Public Domain]

~~~~~~~~~~

David Mullaly’s first book is Eadric And The Wolves: A Novel Of The Danish Conquest of English. He bought and sold Viking artifacts for a dozen years, and he lives in Annapolis, Maryland. However, he remains desperately in love with English history, and is fascinated by what we know and what we don’t know about the Viking Age, especially in England and Ireland.

St. Wulfstan and St.Wulfric

by Lauren Gilbert

These two saints were both native Englishmen living during the upheaval of the period after the Norman Conquest. They were found in the same general area and are celebrated a month apart in the calendar: Wulfstan on January 19 and Wulfric on February 20. Their times may have overlapped, and it is not beyond reason to think that they may have been acquainted or at least may have known of each other. Yet how different they were, with one an influential bishop and the other a hermit. Both, however, were venerated during and after their respective lives.

***

Wulfstan was born approximately 1008 A.D. during the reign of Ethelred II and was a native of Long Itchington, Warwickshire. He studied at Evesham and Peterborough, and his education supposedly concluded at Peterborough about 1024. Subsequently he came under the direction of Brihtheah, Bishop of Worcester. Wulfstan joined the Benedictine monastery at Worcester and was ordained a priest in 1034. His first responsibility at the monastery was teaching children. He then advanced to precentor (a precentor’s duties at this time including being first or lead in chant, recruiting and teaching the choir, and ordering the Divine office), and subsequently became treasurer of the church. However, Wulfstan was drawn to a life of purity, and his main focus was prayer, often keeping vigil whole nights in the church. He was noted for living his life dedicated to God and was advanced to prior of Worcester in 1055 A.D. in spite of his protests.

In 1062, Wulfstan became bishop of the See of Worcester. Wulftstan was not famed as a scholar for his learning but was an affecting and impressive speaker, often leaving the congregation in tears. His duties included acting as magistrate for the Shire Court and attending seasonal gatherings of the royal court at Dover. He was credited with halting a heinous practice in Bristol which involved kidnapping men then selling them into slavery in Ireland. His duties required a lot of travel, and, while travelling, he recited psalms along the way and was known to visit every church and chapel he passed to pray. In the course of his duties, he met with influential people, including Harald Godwinson. Wulfstan was present at the crowing of Harald at Westminster Abbey after the death of King Edward in 1066. He was also present for the coronation of William the Conqueror after the death of Harald and the Battle of Hastings later the same year.

Wulfstan was unusual in that he was a Saxon bishop at the time of the Norman conquest and managed to maintain his office when English officials and dignitaries, in and out of the church, were being replaced by Normans. He was supposedly the only Englishman still holding his office in 1071. William the Conqueror came to respect and trust Wulfstan. Lanfranc (priest and counsellor of William the Conqueror, who held many offices, including Archbishop of Canterbury from 1070-1089) sent Wulfstan to visit the diocese of Chester as his deputy. Wulfstan apparently considered the Normans to be a punishment from God to be accepted patiently and chided any native English complaints about the Normans with this thought. He also tried to mediate with the Normans to lessen the harshness of the decrees against the Saxons. He set an example of humility and service. He even defended Worcester Castle for William during the barons’ uprising of 1074 and against the Welsh in 1088 when William II was king.

About 1086 A.D. the old cathedral at Worcester had to be demolished, and Wulfstan built a new one. He died in 1095, having served as bishop for 32 years, and was canonized in 1203 A.D. by Pope Innocent III, becoming known as St. Wulfstan. He was buried in Worcester Cathedral.

***

Wulfric was born at Compton (now Compton Martin), near Bristol, which was part of the diocese of Worcester. His parents were apparently English (Saxon). His date of birth is unknown, but there is speculation that he may have been born about 1090 A.D. It is not impossible that he may have actually seen or met Wulfstan; it is certainly likely that Wulfric knew of Wulfstan. Wulfric was trained for the priesthood and was ordained, but that did not stop him from enjoying a very secular life full of hunting and hawking. He was serving as a priest at Deverill, not far from Warminster, when he experienced a transfiguration of faith and radically changed his life.

Wulfric looked for a place to live a solitary, austere life devoted to God, and William FitzWalter offered him a cell connected to the church at Haselbury in Somerset approximately 1125 A.D. Living as an anchorite, Wulfric scourged himself, immersed himself in frequent and long cold baths, fasted, and wore a chain mail hauberk next to his skin, frequently prostrating himself and spending the night in the church in prayer. One of his miracles involved cutting his hauberk shorter with ordinary scissors as it interfered with his devotions. Wulfric served Mass daily and occupied himself in the copying and binding of books.

Although he was known for many miracles, including healing a mute man who was suddenly able to speak both both English and French, Wulfric was famous for prophesy and was visited by many from near and far, including King Henry I and King Stephen. He was credited with having accurately prophesied King Henry’s death to the King himself and subsequently lectured King Stephen for the iniquities of his rule. There is no record of Wulfric being canonized after his death on February 20, 1154. However, he was greatly venerated for his wonders and prophesies. He was buried in the cell where he had lived, which is now the site of the vestry of the present church at Haselbury. Stories of his works were perpetuated by a strong oral tradition, and his tomb was a popular pilgrimage site into the Reformation.



Sources include:
Catholic On-line. “St. Wulfric.” http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2053
Catholic On-Line. “St Wulfstan.” http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=2043
Catholic Herald (on line). “The hermit who informed an English king he would soon die” by Spiritual Life, posted 2/21/2013. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/spirituallife/saintoftheweek/2013/02/21/the-hermit-who-informed-an-english-king-that-he-would-soon-die
A Clerk of Oxford (blog). “A Miracle of Wulfric of Haselbury.” Posted 2/20/2013 by A Clerk of Oxford. https://www.blogger.com/profile/08919708325900229717
Diocese of Shrewsbury (on line). “Saint of the Week St. Wulfstan 19 January.” Posted for week starting 1/14/2012. http://www.dioceseofshrewsbury.org/weekly_digests/st-wulfstan-19th-january
John of Forde. The Life of Wulfric of Haselbury, the Anchorite. Introduction, translation and notes by Pauline Mattaraso. 2011: Cistercian Publication, Liturgical Press, Collegevlle, MN. (Originally written in the 1180’s according to some sources.) Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=7nQZhQSIUIMC&pg=PR3&dq=st+wulfric&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q=st%20wulfric&f=false
St. Wulfstan Millenium (on line). “The St. Wulfstan Story.” http://www.thefeldongroup.org.uk/archive/2008/stwulfstan/stwulfstan.html
Walsh, Michael, ed. BUTLER’S LIVES OF THE SAINTS Concise Edition Revised & Updated. 1991: HarperCollins, New York, NY.

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

Lauren Gilbert, author of Heyerwood: A Novel, lives in Florida with her husband. She will be attending the Amelia Island Book Festival 2/21/2015-look for her there!

Website