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.
Check out The Earls of Mercia series page for more information.
(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.)
MJ Porter 