July 2014 – MJ Porter

Æthelred II, to put it mildly, gets a bad press, the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle have nothing good to say about him, blaming him for the ills that befall the country at the hands of the Scandinavian raiders, and there is an inevitability about the events that unfold from 1009 onwards that culminate in Swein of Denmark claiming the English throne, and following his untimely death, the actions of his younger son, Cnut, to achieve the same honour a few years later.

And, don’t get me wrong, the list of places attacked by the Viking raiders is long, their demands for payment appear huge and their willingness to kill even those who should have been protected, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury, callously presented.

What’s in a name?

Yet, his by-name, Unready, is a misinterpretation and also a play on words, his name meaning wise-counsel, and Unræd meaning no-counsel and being changed to ‘the Unready’, a word nothing like no-counsel.

So if we accept that his by-name should be no-counsel and not ‘the unready’ does that make it any more appropriate?
Most assuredly not. Æthelred had his fair share of ealdormen (later the title was changed to earls, from ‘jarls’ under the Scandinavian kings) and the detailed work done by historians has attempted to uncover who they were and what they did.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle appears to have hidden much from today’s reader, so intent in its desire to paint Æthelred in as unflattering colours as possible, and mentions only some of the ealdormen. My particular favourite, Ealdorman Leofwine of the Hwicce, is mentioned once and yet charter evidence shows that he held his post for many years from 994-c.1023, quite a long time to be ignored by the main source for the period.

Other details show just how powerful the king was; he recalled his coinage about every seven years and reissued it with new images, he collected the gelds used to pay the Viking raiders, he built and provisioned a vast ship army, and he had laws proclaimed in his name. And all of this he must have done with the consent of the Witan, for England, although ruled by a king, was also ruled through the consensus of the greatest men in the land.

England, not long united, was just too big for one man to rule alone, and it was broken down almost into its constituent pre-united kingdoms, Mercia, Northumbria, the East Angles, Kent, Wessex, and the Western provinces sometimes each area having an ealdorman and at other times, ruled by the king’s High Reeve.

Æthelred was surely king over a well-organised and rich country, and no matter what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle implies, the men of the land were prepared to fight for their king, and they didn’t attempt to dislodge him from his kingship although by about 1000 onwards he had a host of sons old enough and probably strong enough, to govern in his stead.

I think even his usual by-name of Unraed is unwarranted, and certainly, his unreadiness is unwarranted. History plays tricks on how our past kings are viewed, and more often than not, they’re too harsh, too conciliatory, or, in the case of many, they’re totally forgotten about. Perhaps being a king was not all it was cracked up to be!

(Please note this is a historic blog post, which I’ve left rather than deleting as it’s kind of interesting to see what I was thinking in 2014).

Posts

Royal charters from 1006-1013

There are only 8 surviving charters for this period in history. They are from 1007, 1009, 1012 and 1013. It’s said that the missing years are due to interruptions caused by invasions of ‘Viking raiders’. This certainly applies to 1010-11 and 1006 when the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recounts tales of Viking incursions.

As is so often the case, this lack is frustrating because something monumental seems to happen at the King Æthelred’s court between 1009-1012. For a start, the number of ealdormen begins to increase, and second, the, until then, rigidly enforced precedence of the ealdormen crumbles away, and one ealdorman, Eadric of Mercia, comes out on top and Ælfric of Hampshire (who I imagine as a little doddery by now – but I may be doing him a disservice) seems to fall down the rankings, as does Leofwine of Mercia.

By this stage, it’s assumed that both Eadric and Uhtred of Northumbria (the other ealdorman who rises in precedence during this period) are related to Æthelred as they’ve both married one of his daughters.

But there seems an inherent contradiction in this because whilst the ling may be seen to be rewarding his ealdormen with marriage into his family, his own sons from his first marriage don’t seem to be getting any additional authority. This is slightly speculation on my part, but it seems clear to me that Æthelred preferred his sons-in-law to his own sons. Obviously, he now had two sons by his new wife, Emma of Normandy, and although they were only very young, he may have been trying to ensure their inheritance of the throne over and above their older half-brothers.

I appreciate that this is all speculation from only a handful of charters, but it provides a fascinating insight into the character of Æthelred if he really was so unprepared to give his sons any formal authority. Surely, in his times of trouble, when the Viking raiders attacked relentlessly and he was growing steadily older, it would have been an acceptable use of his older sons to use them as battle commanders?

Certainly, later in the 1010s the sons seem to come into their own, and must have had command and fighting experience somewhere. The king proved to be very resistant to leading his own men into battle (apart from the Battle of Chester in 1000) so I wonder why he wouldn’t chose his elder sons who he hoped would never inherit?

But that’s just my ponderings and something I’m going to explore in The Earls of Mercia Book 3.

(Please note this is a historic blog post from 2014. I’ve left it in place because it’s kind of interesting to see what I was thinking back then.)