Download PDF | M J Porter - The Royal Women Who Made England_ The Tenth Century in Saxon England-Pen & Sword History (2024).
258 Pages
Introduction
The decision to write this book stems from my frustration when researching many of these women to offer fictionalised accounts of their lives. I consulted many secondary sources, often with only single chapters of relevance, if not only a sentence, and hunted down primary sources, which, again, might have offered only a few lines or words, some of them only available in Latin and with no translation. It is not easy to find a single title that covers this period even for the male rulers of Wessex and what would become England: Kings Alfred, Edward the Elder, Alfweard, Athelstan, Edmund, Eadred, Eadwig, Edgar, Edward the Martyr and Athelred II. It is impossible to find one where the focus is exclusively on the women of the same period, other than Elizabeth Norton’s monograph on Elfrida, England’s first crowned queen. However, readers might be more aware of Queen Emma and Queen Edith of the eleventh century, as they have both been the subject of extensive study.
Even with an acknowledged dearth of information, it must still be possible to cast a light on these women and to highlight how they, just as much as the royal men, shaped England throughout the tenth century.
That said, and as has been most eloquently stated by Wragg in Early English Queens, 650-850, ‘Working with later sources often tell us more about the needs and concerns of the community writing these sources, rather than the individuals and circumstances of their setting.’' This is a particular problem for the royal women of the tenth century. The writings which are available to us are rarely, if ever, contemporary. The happenstance of survival is entirely that. Nothing that is known about Saxon England in general, and the tenth century certainly falls into that category, even with the writing of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle throughout the period, has survived just by chance. Everything has some sort of bias attached to it, propaganda, if you will. This means travellers to this period must be aware of more than just what could be deemed as established ‘facts’. There is not a single fact that could not be disputed.
It is as important to know about the sources consulted when writing this as it is to know about what the sources themselves say.
Essentially, the sources for the tenth century must be mined, not just for what they can tell us, but for why they’ve told us that. I have spent some time with the sources for the period, but only further through the book. First, it is important to meet these royal women.
Stafford eloquently sums up the dearth of information for these royal sisters and daughters:
Were it not for the prologue to A‘thelweard’s Latin translation of an Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, we would know of only six tenth-century royal daughters or sisters from early English sources and the names of only four of them. Three of these named ones are nuns or abbesses. Only 42lfwynn, the daughter of A2thelflad and Athelred of Mercia, and the two daughters of Edward/sisters of Athelstan who married Otto I and Sihtric of York, appear in the witness lists of charters, though Eadburh, daughter of Edward the Elder, is a grantee of a charter of her brother Athelstan.?
And yet, these women, we know, existed, lived their lives, and were remembered, at least by some, after their deaths, even if that was only their children or their parents, should they have predeceased them. Yet:
Queens only feature in the historical records when they serve a distinct purpose, whether as a family connection, as progenitors or mothers, or actors in key events. Even then, they tend to occupy the margins, even when, after a careful investigation, they may have been a key agent in major cultural or political shifts.
The seeming stability of the Wessex royal house at this time is worthy of mentioning:
When Aithelwulf [Alfred’s father] succeeded his father Ecgberht to the throne of Wessex in 839, he was the first son to follow his father directly to power since 641 yet, after him his sons succeeded him in turn, followed by his youngest son’s son, grandsons and great grandsons.*
And yet, as will be seen, this is only a veneer, and one that covers much political intrigue, as well as a huge number of early deaths, some of them violent, although none, as we know it, actually in battle against Wessex and England’s enemies. This, in and of itself, is a fascinating realisation.
And so, the royal women of the long tenth century is an opportunity to delve into what is known about these women and the time in which they lived and ensure that their story is told, as well as that of their slightly better-known male counterparts. It is also an opportunity to place them into this context of seeming stability and to assign them a part other than that of mothers and grandmothers to the next generation in the proceedings of this long and turbulent period, although, admittedly, it is as mothers and grandmothers that they seem to have truly discovered their abilities to govern.
There is no surviving contemporary image of any of the royal women of the tenth century. These women are not only difficult to ‘find’ in the written sources, but they are also entirely faceless, apart from in the words of their contemporaries or near contemporaries. But, as far as is known, there are only images of King Athelstan that survive, in manuscript 183, folio [V Cambridge, Corpus Christi College,° and also King Edgar, in London, British Library Cotton Vespasian A.viii, fol. 2v.° And we seem to have only one physical item associated with these women: priestly vestments which may well have been stitched by Lady Allffied’s hands (the second wife of Edward the Elder) and that survive in Durham as part of the collection of items linked with the tomb of St Cuthbert, the Northumbrian saint associated with Lindisfarne.
Notes
Naming conventions — I have opted for those names that I have encountered most often, and most, if not all, will be the way these names appear on PASE (The Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England), an online resource, if they do appear. Notable exceptions are Wynfled (Wynnflzed on PASE) and Athelstan (4Zthelstan on PASE, equally Alfred should be Alfred). I have kept the spellings as offered in sources I have consulted and quoted from, but with the addition of the name used throughout the rest of the book if it is not immediately obvious.
The Long Tenth Century and its Kings
The tenth century, running from the death of King Alfred in October 899 to the marriage of King A‘thelred II to Lady Emma of Normandy in 1001/1002, saw huge change, and also very little change in Saxon England. (I have chosen this end date of 1001/2 as Lady Emma of Normandy, and her influence, really belongs to the eleventh century. It also marks the death of Lady A:lfthryth/Elfrida, Athelred’s mother.)
At the death of King Alfred, the menace from the Viking raiders appears to have been halted, if not averted. By the beginning of the eleventh century, the Viking raiders were back. Events throughout the eleventh century would be catastrophic for Saxon England and its rulers, resulting in the well-known events of 1066 which saw Saxon England come to an end, but also the earlier events of 1013 and 1016 when England was likewise conquered by men of Norse descent.
But ‘England’ would be born throughout the 900s. King Alfred (r.871—899) was termed the king of the Angles and Saxons (in a charter from 889 known as $346),* by 16 April 928, King Athelstan (r.924—939), his grandson, would be termed as the king of the English,’ and indeed overlord of the British.* By the reign of King Athelred II (1.978—1016), his mother would have been consecrated as England’s first queen on her union to King Edgar (r.959-975), who might have been consecrated himself on two such occasions, on his accession and also in 973, during his thirtieth year in imitation of Christ being baptised during his thirtieth year.
Despite these developments, the kingship was not secure. Not one but two kings would be murdered, others would die at a young age, a child would be named as king on four occasions, and there would be some very complicated marriages for husbands and wives to negotiate.
And here, a slight detour. Throughout this book, the concept of marriage will be encountered, and that of concubinage. It is difficult to truly determine a difference in these unions other than that marriage was sanctioned by the Church and gave both the wife and the children a sheen of legitimacy, which is missing from that of concubinage. And yet, both unions were evidently entirely acceptable, other than where the succession was concerned. Even then, it was perhaps merely a weapon in the war of words that would ensue when matters of the succession reared their ugly heads.
‘England’ would also, for much of the period, be termed as being on a military footing. There were wars and battles, and enemies aplenty. Sadly, the little-known but far-reaching Battle of Brunanburh in 937, which saw King Athelstan overawe almost every reigning king in Britain at the time, as well as a few others as well, has become lost behind the better-known events of 1066 and the Norman Conquest. And yet, as far as we know, no Wessex/English king died in battle. This is worth stressing.
Without the steadying hands of the Wessex royal women, slowly coming into prominence as the century progressed, it could be argued that this appearance of stability would not have been maintained. Certainly, it is doubtful that a child would have been proclaimed as England’s king, even when there was so little alternative. ‘It was as queen-mothers that both Eadgifu (919-964) and A‘lfthryth [Elfrida] (964—1001/2) enjoyed their highest standing.’°
Who then were these royal women of the Wessex ruling family, who held tight, firstly to Wessex, and then to England, and ensured it survived the tribulations of the tenth century, a period of not constant, but near-enough constant military expeditions, so much so that King Edgar’s (959-975) reign saw him titled ‘The Peaceable’, so rare was it to be at peace?
‘His’ tory
The tenth century begins with the death of King Alfred on 26 October 899.° We are told that, ‘He was king over all the English race except that part which was under Danish control, and he held that kingdom twenty-eight and a half years. And then Edward, his son, succeeded to the kingdom.’’ This is important to remember. Alfred was not king of all England. He was a member of the Wessex royal family who claimed their descent from Cerdic, and so the family is also known as the Cerdicings.
Alfred was the fourth brother to rule after their father, King A:thelwulf (r.839-858), and grandfather, King Ecgberht of Wessex (r.802-839). His brothers, A:thelbald (1.858-860), A:thelberht (r.860-865), and A‘thelred (7.865-871), all died without leaving known children, apart from A‘thelred, who left two sons. England, at the time of Alfred’s death, did not yet exist. If Alfred had died following such a short reign as his brothers, it is curious to consider what might have happened and whether England, as we now know it, would have truly formed.
Edward is believed to be Alfred’s second-born child, who in time would come to be known as Edward the Elder, when one of his grandsons, who became king, shared his name later in the century. Edward, born c.874 would die on 17 July 924, at Farndon, Cheshire.® He would rule from 899 until 924. This was a not insubstantial amount of time. Perhaps, the years of his rule, with their consistent attempts to drive back the aggression of the Viking raiders, as well as Wessex’s other enemies, the extremely long-lived king of the Scots, Constantine II (r.900—943, seemingly forced to abdicate, as his death is recorded in 952), to name but one, and to attempt to form some sort of superiority over these other kingdoms in the British Isles, did much to lay the foundations upon which his eldest born son, Athelstan, would formally be recognised in the charters of the time as the king of the English, and on occasion, as Emperor of Britain.
Edward the Elder is perhaps the most neglected of English kings. He ruled an expanding realm for twenty-five years and arguably did as much as any other individual to construct a single, south-centred, Anglo-Saxon kingdom.°
Athelstan (r.924—939) was not meant to become king after his father. Instead, that honour was supposed to go to 4:lfweard, Edward’s eldest son, with his second wife, Lady A2lfflaed. Sadly, 4Zlfweard died only a short time after his father, as the D text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us: ‘Here King Edward died at Farndon in Mercia; and very soon, 16 days after, his son AElfweard died at Oxford; and their bodies lie at Winchester. And Athelstan was chosen as king by the Mercians and consecrated at Kingston.’!°
While no mention is made of foul play, the death of Alfweard was serendipitous for Athelstan, as well as other interested parties. Whether foul play should be suspected, there are no later suggestions that A:lfweard was murdered to clear the way for Athelstan to claim Wessex as well as Mercia. This is worthy of remembering.
A lfweard had a brother, Edwin. No mention is made of an intention to allow Edwin to rule following the death of his brother and father. Instead, it was to Athelstan that the crown passed. It is curious that Athelstan was named as king by the Mercians first. It is to be supposed that there were some negotiations to undertake following the death of Edward and 4:lfweard. While the Mercians may have wanted Athelstan, raised at the Mercian court, and associated with his aunt, Lady 7thelfleed, Lady of the Mercians (c.880—918), the people of Wessex may have had their doubts about the suitability of a Mercian raised king in Wessex, even if he was Wessex born. Perhaps they championed the other son, Edwin, and we simply do not know about it. Athelstan was certainly accepted as the king of the Mercians before becoming king of Mercia and Wessex. ‘He [Alfred] arranged for the boy’s education at the court of his daughter, AEthelfleed and A2thelred his son-in-law, where he was brought up with great care by his aunt and the eminent ealdorman for the throne that seemed to await him.’"!
Athelstan, unlike his father, was not to enjoy as long a reign. While his consecration as king of the Mercians and Wessex only took place in 925, he ruled until his untimely death on 27 October 939, having beaten all England’s enemies at the famous Battle of Brunanburh, variously believed to have taken place either in the north-east of England (as shown on a seventeenth-century map by Robert Morden), or, as is becoming increasingly accepted, on the Wirral.’
The symmetry of the death of King Athelstan and King Alfred, his grandfather, is noted in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle A text, ‘40 years all but a day after King Alfred passed away’.'* This entry is not contemporary to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle A. It already speaks of our knowledge of the period being based on annal entries, which were not written contemporarily with the events they describe.
Athelstan, unlike his predecessors, did not marry. Instead, from early on, it seems to have been accepted that on his death, one of his half-brothers would claim England’s crown. And indeed, it was Edmund, the oldest son of the union between King Edward the Elder and his third wife, Lady Eadgifu, who was proclaimed as England’s king in 939 on Athelstan’s death.
Edmund was probably no more than a toddler at the death of his father, Edward the Elder. He would have been too young to rule then, especially with a country at war with the Viking raiders. When Athelstan died, Edmund is said to have only been 18 years old. His accession was relatively calm, but this may have had more to do with the repercussions of the Battle of Brunanburh. The alliance of Norse, Scots and the kingdom of Strathclyde, was already rising against the supremacy of the ‘English’. What the English needed, at Athelstan’s premature death, was an acknowledged and supported king. This may account for Edmund’s easy acceptance as king rather than a desire to continue the ruling line of the dominant Wessex family.
The relationship between Edmund and Athelstan deserves consideration. With his father dying so young, Edmund likely had few, if any, memories of his father. For Edmund, it would have been his older half-brother, Athelstan, who would have filled the space in his life and been like a father to him. Certainly, much is made of their close relationship in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, where they are mentioned as ‘Edward’s sons’.'4
Alas, Edmund was to have a tragically short reign, and much of it was filled with strife and heartbreak. His first wife, Alfgifu of Shaftesbury, died young, giving him two sons, Eadwig and Edgar (Eadgar). She was revered as saintly following her death. His second wife, Athelfled of Damerham, would have no children with him and became a widow very soon after her marriage to King Edmund when he was assassinated.
The D text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle writes for 946:
Here King Edmund passed away on St Augustine’s Day [26 May]. It was widely known how he ended his days, that Liofa stabbed him at Pucklechurch. And A*thelfled of Damerham, daughter of Ealdorman A‘lfgar, was then his queen. And he had the kingdom six and a half years; and then after him, his brother, the ztheling Eadred, succeeded to the kingdom."°
The reason for Edmund’s assassination is much debated. Was it political reprisal by the enemies of England? Was it purely an unfortunate occurrence? It would be intriguing to know if retaliations were taken against Liofa, and whoever arranged the death of Edmund, but sadly there is no further information. Neither, it seems, was Edmund sainted following his death. This is interesting. Many members of the Wessex ruling family who died young were later revered as saints.
Once more, England could have been left with a toddler as the king of England, either Eadwig, the first-born son, or Edgar, the second-born son, but there was, luckily, a final son of King Edward the Elder and his third wife, Lady Eadgifu, still living. Eadred (1.946—955), born c.922, was to enjoy a slightly longer rule than his brother, but just as Athelstan, his older half-brother, determined not to marry, leaving the future rule of England for one of his two nephews.
Eadred ruled until 955. ‘Here King Eadred passed away, and Eadwig, son of Edmund, succeeded to the kingdom’,'® is how the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle E writes of these events, but the D text has a slight variation on this. ‘And Eadwig succeeded to the kingdom of Wessex and his brother Edgar succeeded to the kingdom of Mercia; and they were sons of King Edmund and St A'lfgifu.’!”
The B and C texts read similarly. They inform, under 956 that ‘Eadwig succeeded to the kingdom.’'® And under 957 that, ‘Here the ztheling Edgar succeeded to the kingdom of Mercia.’!®
These terse words offer a very different interpretation of what was happening in England at the time. Had the kingdom been split along lines similar to when Edward the Elder and A2thelfleed of Mercia ruled? Or was this merely the action of a brother who wanted to share the rule of the kingdom with his brother, perhaps by offering him a role as an under-king? This had happened in the past — most notably, King Ecgberht of Wessex had installed his son as King of Kent on claiming that territory from Mercia during the 820s.
The entry for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle B and C text, when it records Eadwig’s death, perhaps hints at a similar division.
Whatever was happening, it did not last long. Eadwig was forcibly divorced from his wife by Archbishop Oda in 958. ‘Here in this year Archbishop Oda divorced King Eadwig and A@lfgifu because they were related.’?° None of the other chronicles refer to this divorce, but in 959 we are told, ‘Here King Eadwig passed away, and Edgar, his brother, succeeded to the kingdom both in Wessex and in Mercia, and in Northumbria; and he was then 16 years old.’”!
Edgar (1.959-975), like his grandfather, was to enjoy a longer reign than some of his other male relatives. And also, like his grandfather, was to potentially have three wives. Certainly, the four children that are known to have been his were born to three different women. And it is his third wife, Lady A2lfthryth/Elfrida, who is acknowledged as the first consecrated queen of the English. The Wessex royal line had finally, after many centuries, come to realise that a queen to rule alongside her king was to be an advantage. Yet, Edgar still died a young man.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D for 975 reads: ‘8 July. Here departed Edgar, ruler of the English, friend of the West Saxons, and protector of the Mercians.’”” Once more, it is illuminating that the chronicle makes mention of the split kingship, specifically mentioning Wessex and Mercia when recording Edgar’s death.
Edgar, like his grandfather before him, left sons from two different unions. Edward, was his older son, and acknowledged as such. His younger sons, Edmund (who predeceased his father), no doubt named for his father, and A’thelred, were the children of England’s first consecrated queen, Lady Elfrida.
King Athelstan suffered from the stigma of having been born before his father, Edward the Elder, was proclaimed king. This was used against Athelstan, as some believed the son of an anointed king, and therefore the sons from Edward the Elder’s second marriage, were worthier to rule. This could explain why Edward the Elder married again once he became king. Equally, this might just have been later propaganda used against Athelstan. However, it must be assumed that whenever Edward the Martyr was born, it was after 959, as there were no such difficulties surrounding his assumption of the kingship after his father, despite his youth. Not yet.
‘And here Edward, Edgar’s son, succeeded to the kingdom.’*? The D text breaks off after the full entry until the year 1016, which is the year that Edgar’s son, who ruled as A‘thelred II, died.
We are not told why Edgar died, but we can assume it was a peaceful death as England is not recorded as being at war. But events in England during the next three years were clearly difficult. And then, in 978, comes news of something befalling the young man, Edward the Martyr (1.975-978).
‘Here in this year King Edward was martyred, and his brother, the etheling A:thelred, succeeded to the kingdom.’** This comes from the C version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
The A version varies. ‘Here King Edward was killed.’*° The E version varies again, ‘Here King Edward was killed in the evening-time on 18 March at Corfe passage; and they buried him at Wareham without any royal honours.’?°
The B text ends in 977 so there is no entry. The F text has a gap between 937 and 989, and so can offer nothing further. What, then are we to believe happened to poor Edward the Martyr?
King A‘thelred II, it is a true quirk that we have an Aithelred I but an Edward the Elder and an Edward the Martyr (4:thelred I of Wessex had been one of King Alfred’s brother), would remain as England’s king until 1016. There was a break in his kingship in 1013, when Swein, King of Denmark was proclaimed as king of England, and A:thelred II was forced to flee. He was married at least twice, once to Alfgifu, and then to the much more widely known Emma of Normandy, although that union does fall outside the scope of this century and this book. With his first wife, he had at least four daughters, as well as many sons. Their names are only found in later sources.
This, then, is a very brief summary of the personal lives of men who would be kings of Wessex and then England. It does not reveal all but highlights the precarious nature of the continuation of the Wessex royal line throughout the tenth century. If Edward the Elder had not had more than one son, who would have ruled the country, not only after his death but then also after the deaths of Alfweard, Athelstan and Edmund? If Edmund had not had two children and a spare brother again, then who would have ruled after his assassination? The questions should perhaps stop there, for if Edgar had only had one son, perhaps the eldest of his sons would not have been assassinated.
This then was a perilous time for the lives of these royal men, and that is not even factoring in the raging warfare that sporadically cropped up with the Norse invaders. It is, perhaps, pure happenstance that the ruling family of Wessex survived the long tenth century. This is where the royal women of the tenth century should take precedence, despite the dearth of information regarding them in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other near-contemporary surviving sources.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق