Bad English kings? – The Anglo-Saxons

There are several English monarchs from the Anglo-Saxon period who have been, for various reasons, highly rated.

We know of several mighty sovereigns, namely:

 

 

Offa 

Alfred the Great 

Athelstan 

Edgar the Peaceful

Cnut the Great

 

These all were highly-rated sovereigns in varying capacities.

Alfred the Great, of course, saved his kingdom from the Norsemen and laid in place the eventual united English kingdom. Athelstan and Edgar helped bring Alfred’s dream into reality, and Cnut with his North Sea Empire saw a new accommodation of Anglo-Saxon and Norse norms and ways.

Few would dispute they all had their varying positive effects.

But then who were the “dud” kings of this era?

Life has balance – for good there is bad. For every down, there is an up. And vice versa.

So with this in mind, which kings of this period didn’t stand out that much?

 

Let’s first analyse what a “good king” was supposed to be. Medieval scholars themselves itemised these points as worthy of a competent king:

 

• Battle-hardy
• Law-giving
• Pious

 

The medieval period, as per other eras, was violent. There were many wars in place, and a king had to defend his kingdom from aggressors. Being battle-strong was a necessity against foreign and even domestic enemies.

A king had to ensure sound laws and a strong economy. The administration of the state had to be in place, for the benefit of all in the kingdom.

The medieval period was also highly religious – and as the head of the kingdom in all affairs, the king had to be the national fount of piety and Christian virtue. He not only had to support the Church but also promote Godly duties and be a beacon of such to his subjects. His actions and deeds, as head of the kingdom, had to reflect the best in Christ and not offend nor upset the Pope and the Catholic Church.

The great kings listed above all contributed to these facets. Did the “duds”?

Let us see, shall we?

 

The bad kings

 

 

I’ll propose these kings as the “bad” ones.

Note I’m using sovereigns from 927 AD (the date of English unification) to the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD:

 

Edwy

 

 

Edwy was a son of King Edmund, who in turn was the brother of Athelstan, the first King of England.

Edwy didn’t succeed his father, as he was a small boy when his father was killed at Pucklechurch. Edwy’s uncle, Eadred, succeeded Edmund, and was noted for defeating King Eric Bloodaxe of Jorvik at Stainmoor. Eadred ensured that the united England founded by Athelstan – and furthered by Edmund – endured, and never again did Northumbria rebel as it had under Bloodaxe.

With united England secured, Edwy soon came afoul of the Church. There was a story that he was rather – shall we say – amorous with a young woman before his coronation. The celebrated St. Dunstan was said to have scolded him, and in turn, Dunstan was banished from the kingdom in punishment.

Edwy continued to have quarrels with other leading ecclesiastics and nobles in kind, leading to a schism between him and the English ruling class.

Disaffection with his rule continued – and a party emerged that challenged his reign. This party used his brother and Edmund’s younger son, Edgar, as a figurehead for its cause. Edgar was placed by this party as a viable alternative to the rule of Edwy.

In order to avert a civil war, both Edwy and Edgar agreed to divide England between them. This arrangement lasted for a few years, until the death of Edwy in 959 AD. There is no evidence of malice or underhandedness in his death, but Edwy’s reign is thus undistinguished amongst his royal familial line.

Incidentally, Edgar’s rule would be noted to the degree that he would “peaceably” subdue his enemies and under lords.

King Edwy certainly didn’t uphold piety, triumph in war, nor further good governance. So he doesn’t rank highly amongst widely-held medieval standards.

 

Battle-hardiness – 1/10

Piety – 1/10

Administration – 2/10

 

 

Athelred the Unready

 

 

Athelred the Unready is sometimes called Athelred II after Athelred of Wessex (who preceded Alfred the Great). He has gained a negative billing over the centuries, due to his perceived inability to counter the Danish invasions that characterised his reign.

This led ultimately to the Danish conquests of kings Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut the Great.

Incidentally, Athelred’s epithet “Unready” is a mistranslation of the Old English term “unred” which meant “bad counsel”. Athelred means “noble counsel”, and thus it was a cruel pun to typify the faults of his reign.

However, there has been some recent controversy on this issue.

The English and Norse had, for many years after the Great Heathen Army’s invasions, been melded. England had existed as a united Anglo-Saxon kingdom for decades prior to Athelred becoming king – and the Norse living in England had become Anglicised in culture, language and religion. The Norse in this era had largely become Christian, and were speaking English. The contemporary dialects of Yorkshire denote this linguistic melding, as does Standard English. Terms like husband, awkward, mistake, and cake from Old Norse co-exist with house, man, woman, child, street, bread or wife from Old English.

Both English and Norse in the kingdom allied and intermarried and English often supported Norse causes and vice versa.

Athelred thus couldn’t always note who his enemies were, or know where they were.

Also, the Norse in his time was different from that of his ancestors, such as Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Lady Athelflead, or Athelstan. They were more organised, and operated under a more singular and professional command. It was not the allied bands of the Great Heathen Army, as the Norse kingdoms had become far more unified at this point.

However, Athelred, unlike Alfred, had the entire English kingdom at his disposal. He could raise armies in the old Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria at his behest.

Whilst there were difficulties in allegiances between ethnic English and Norse in his kingdom, his lack of desire or heart to fight the Norse on his own soil perhaps sealed his bad billing historically.

Moreover, his Danegeld policy didn’t work and had ironic effects. It made him and England seem weak, and made the Norse realise that England was an immensely wealthy and well-organised kingdom ripe for invading. To have the metals and mints to make such massive amounts denotes this, in any era.

The St. Brice’s Day massacre of Norse further heightened angst in this case. King Sweyn’s sister was said to have died amidst the carnage, and this forced his hand in launching a full-scale invasion in revenge. Antipathy towards the Norse was understandable – but the massacre was indiscriminate and naturally inflamed Norse passions.

Athelred came into conflict with his son, Edmund Ironside, after he came back to the throne in 1014. Sweyn Forkbeard eventually deposed him in 1013, though he died the following year. Cnut, Forkbeard’s son and then King of Denmark, continued the struggle for England, though Athelred and Edmund reconciled and formed a united front against Cnut.

Athelred died in 1016, and was buried at Old St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. His tomb was destroyed in 1666 Great Fire of London, though it’s said his remains may be in the cathedral’s garden at this current point.

Edmund Ironside succeeded him as king, and for a while mounted a successful resistance to Cnut. This ended however at the Battle of Assendun in Essex, where English treachery by means of Eadric Streona secured Cnut’s victory. Cnut and Edmund signed an accord where the kingdom would be split between them, but Edmund was seemingly murdered a month after this.

Cnut thus became king of England and Denmark, and would later form his North Sea Empire after conquering Norway and part of Sweden.

As for Athelred the Unready, there are sound reasons why he hasn’t been well-received historically. The key to his “badness” as a king, perhaps, maybe complex. He may not have been an effectual decision-maker, or as his epithet suggests was badly-advised. Either way, Athelred presided over the Danish conquest of England, which ultimately cost the lives of himself and his son.

Athelred did patronise the church and provided supposedly the first trials by jury in English history. This further complicates his legacy, and shows that whilst not a stellar sovereign, he did have some positive facets to his troublesome reign.

 

Battle-hardiness – 1/10

Piety – 5/10

Administration – 5/10

 

St. Edward the Confessor

 

 

This may be a controversial choice in the eyes of some.

But there are some points here that could classify him as a bad king:

 

• The succession

 

William the Conqueror justified his rule via the promise given to him by Edward the Confessor.

If this is true, and we’ll never know of it for sure, then this is treachery.

No king at that point had the right to promise the throne to anybody.

Anglo-Saxon kingship operated on a loose hereditary basis – with the eldest male family member succeeding a deceased or deposed king. This is why Eadred succeeded Edmund, despite Edmund having Edwy and Edgar (the later Edgar the Peaceable) as legitimate sons. If a king had a legitimate son, then ordinarily he would take up the throne. But if the son or sons were young, then another close relative would succeed them. In the time of Alfred the Great, Athelwold was not chosen to succeed him, as he was the son of the deceased king Athelred. Athelwold was young at the time, and couldn’t be expected to resist the Norse onslaught. Hence Alfred was appointed by the Wessex Witan as king.

Edward the Confessor was childless, and after he died his closest relative Edgar Atheling was deemed too young to take the throne in the time of potential conflict. Thus, Harold Godwinson succeeded him, and the rest is literally history.

There was no tradition of sitting kings promising the throne since it wasn’t their duty to do so. The Witan – the ruling council of leading nobles and bishops who supported the king – proclaimed the new sovereign on the aforementioned basis.

 

• Powerful nobles

The Godwin family had risen under the Danish kings Cnut the Great, Harold Harefoot, and Harthacnut. So St. Edward cannot be blamed for having to accommodate them or acquiesce to them.

However, the succession could have been secured more fully by announcing Edgar as his successor, with support from the Godwins. The Godwins would have been hungry for power, though they risked rocking the wider boat if they disrupted a direct descendant of the Wessex kings as Edgar himself was.

If a civil war erupted in the future, between Edgar and the Godwins, then many may have supported Edgar out of principle. He was of the blood of great kings such as Edgar the Peaceful, Athelstan, and Alfred the Great. The Godwins only had a loose and unprovable connection to this line, though had long-held thegn holdings in Sussex. A thegn though, certainly by the mid-11th century, could be any freeman who owned a certain amount of land and had given levels of holdings. So over generations, a poor family could grow and become wealthy enough to be amongst the noble elite.

In this case, though, it was more attuned to English political norms than seemingly promising the throne to a foreigner. Yes, he and William were related, but that is immaterial. Familial ties on loose descent were not signifiers to the throne.

St. Edward isn’t entirely at fault for the Norman Conquest – and yes these points are controversial. But then some of his actions didn’t aid the situation either.

He is a recognised saint by many Christian denominations, however, and with the initial founding of Westminster Abbey, he did expand the church and be a symbol of piety. His laws were also extended under the reigns of William I, William II Rufus, and Henry I. The Normans, however, did this to ensure they were the legitimate heirs to Edward, and because they were his relatives via his mother Emma of Normandy.

So St. Edward does rank in one of the primary criteria of sound medieval kingship. He was also the patron saint of England until St. George became such in the 14th century.

 

Battle-hardiness – 1/10 

Piety – 10/10

Administration – 4/10 

 

 

In part 2, I will expand on more picks from the Anglo-Saxon period.