King Cnut or Canute
kerry...@yahoo.com
guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
him!
William Black
<kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed a
reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
Denmark.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
IE_Johansson
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:dkr71o$7n9$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> <kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
> > guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
> > more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
> > him!
> >
>
> Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed a
> reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
>
> He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
> Denmark.
>
> --
> William Black
Re: King Cnut/Knut/Canute
those who can read a Scandinavian language probably could read this:
http://www.europas-historie.net/kongknut-a.htm
Many scholars have believed the Icelandic Saga's tales that King Cnut was
the son of Sigrid Storåda,
that wasn't so. His mother, called Gunhild after being baptist was first
married to Erik Segersäll of Sweden. Thus Cnut was halfbrother of the
Swedish King Olof Skötkonung. In her marriage with the Danish King Svein
Gunhild and Svein also had Estrid who in her second marriage, she was
married to the Duke of Normandy
b e f o r e, had Svein Estridson(called Svein Ulfson in Norway) together
with Jarl Ulf. Jarl Ulf was from Skane but had from his mother's side
inherited land in Vaestergötland. When King Svein(Tveskägg) died Gunhild
flead to her brother the first King of Poland to who's court her sons came,
begged her and made her return to Denmark.
Gunhild's birthname was Swietoslawa Sygryda (but only called Storråda in
Icelandic tales). She was born 953 AD according to some sources.
Inger E
Larry Swain
> <kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
>>guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
>>more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
>>him!
>>
>
>
> Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed a
> reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
>
> He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
> Denmark.
>
Where did he claim a reasonable chunk of Western Russia?
Martin
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dkr71o$7n9$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> <kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
> > guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
> > more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
> > him!
> >
>
> Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed a
> reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
>
> He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
> Denmark.
My favourite memory of him was a cartoon of him up to his knees in water, with
one courtier whisperint to another "silly Cnut..." in the background
kerry...@yahoo.com
English throne. However, was he much more powerful than his
predecessors? I think he is often eclipsed by the other conqueror,
William I, but that is mainly because Cnut's sons died and William's
did not. Not because he was less able. Just luck!
Grethe
"IE_Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Ey9cf.37808$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
> news:dkr71o$7n9$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> <kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
>> > guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
>> > more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
>> > him!
>> >
>>
>> Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed a
>> reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
>>
>> He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
>> Denmark.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
Hi there! I've got a little material from a Danish website
about the old Danish kings. Enjoy. Maybe you can find
an English website and compare the material, if you want.
Not all historians agree on things..................................
Canute the Great.
The Viking Warrior who created a North Sea Empire of England,
Denmark, Norway and a part of Sweden. Canute the Great was a
son of Sweyn Forkbeard, his grandfather was Harald Bluetooth and
his great grandfather was Gorm the Old.
Sweyn Forkbeard left two sons. The oldest, Harald, was made king
of Denmark, while Canute, after his father's death wish, was acclaimed
by the army in England as king of this kingdom.
The English, however, achieved new courage by the death of their
feared enemy, and under Ethelreds brave son, Eadmund Ironside , they
rose and forced Canute to leave the counrty and sail at sea with his fleet.
The English hostages, who were in his power, he mutilated by cutting off
ears, nose and hands and sent them ashore.
Canute went to Denmark and had help for new armaments from his
brother. Also from Norway and Sweden warriors came, and finally
Thorkil the Tall, who had left Ethelreds party again.With a great army
power Canute sailed back to England, where he and Eadmund Ironside
fought a row of bloody battles, until they agreed to share the kingdom.
At this time Ethelred was dead.They switched sword and robe and
swore each other broterhood.
Canute had the northern, Eadmund the southern kingdom. And when
Eadmund unexpectally died in 1016, the chiefs from all England acclaimed
Canute king of the whole kingdom. The tough resistance had learned
Canute that he was only safe to enoy his kingdom, when its people forgot
that he was a foreigner. Therefore his wishes were to create as close a
bond to England as possible.
The nearly twenty year old king, who in spite of his youth already had
had a wife or frille from North England named Elfgilfu, whith whom he
had two sons, Harald and Svend, now married Ethelreds widow Emma
of Normandy, and he promised that the sons, she might give him, would
have right of inheritance before his two sons with the northenglish
Elfgilfu.
In this way a connection was made to the old English Royal family, and
Emma had two children with Canute, Hardicanute and Gunhild.
Canute had to reward the big war fleet, which had followed him from
Denmark. They received a huge sum - 72.000 pound silver in Danegeld,
besides the big sums , which was given as extort contributions from
London i.e. 10.000 pound silver. But after this he allowed the war fleet
to go home in the year 1018. To his English people he gave the solemn
promise that he would keep "Eadgars laws", which made Danes and
Angles equal, so that every people obeyed their own law.
The still alive members of the old English royal family, which might come
in his way, he removed abroad. When he also ruthlessly deposed or wiped
out the magnates, who were most dangerous to his power, he was soon
safe upon the throne of England.
By sending back home the army which had helped him conquering England,
Canute meant to remove everything, which might remind the English people
of the fact that he came to the kingdom as a foreign country stealer.
But he needed a big armed force in order to secure himself. He found this
force in the housecarls, who had been by Ethelred, among them were
many Nordic warriors.
From the English hird, who until then had fought with the Danes, and
from his own hird he created a very big army of men,for whom the war
was the real way of life. It was the famous Thinglid, which is said to have
counted 6000 men. In order to keep order in the big group of housecarls,
who had to live together in and by the king's castle, he let the old Danish
army laws be effective, like they had been for the hird in Denmark.
(.....)
Later Canute became enemy with the Danish earl, Ulf, who was married
to his sister Estrid. Ulf had, as an earl in Denmark, aimed at an
independence,
which suited very badly with Canute's power. Furthermore it was said that
he because of Canutes longlasting absence from the kingdom, had let his son,
Hardicanute, been acclaimed king of Denmark. When Canute then arrived
in Denmark, Ulf hid in St. Lucii Church in Roskilde, but Canutes anger was
so violent, that he let his brother in law cut down at this holy place.
(....)
For a time Canute thought of freeing the Danish church from the archbishop
of Bremen and let his English archbishop of Canterbury become its leader.
But he soon came to terms with Bremen and allowed a priest from Cologne
to become bishop in Schleswig. This fitted together with the fact that
Canute
befriended and united with Germany's king and emperor, Konrad II.
They needed each others support against Poland, which at this time had
become a powerful state, expanding its control to the west among the Vends.
Canute subjected a big part of Vendland, or more like renewed the old Danish
superiority in these areas.
(....)
Like Konrad II in the south was emperor over many countries and princes,
thus Canute regarded himself as overlord over all the nordic kingdoms. He
called himself emperor of Bretland, which was both Scotland and England,
and on coins , made in Sigtuna, he is mentioned as king of Sweden. If his
power over Scotland and Sweden hardly was more than a name control,
then he won a real kingdom in Norway.
During his ruling period England also got a new English aristocracy, which
owed him thanks for its progress. During the many battles since 991 the men
in many of the old families died in brave fights, killed by the kings
because of
suspicion of treason or they had gone into exile.
Canute carried on the main structure in the English king power, but his men
were different from Ethelreds, and in connection with these changes came
big redistributions of land and changes in the ruling of the kingdom.
In 1018 king Harald II of Denmark died, and in the winter 1019-20 Canute
went there to secure the power after his brother, while the rule in England
was taken care of by Thorkild the Tall. From Denmark Canute sent a
message to the English people, where he told about his results and that he
had secured England against threats from Danish side, and that he
emphasized his role as a Christian king of England and his authority there.
Later Thorkild the Tall was possibly Canutes representative in Denmark for
the young Hardicanute.
In 1020's Canute started his demands on Norway, and in 1028 he
conquered the country from Olav the Holy. Soon after this Norway was
ruled by Elfgifu and her son Svend. In 1027 the Scottish king surrendered,
and in a message to the English people, which Canute sent during his
travel to Rome in 1027, he calls himself king of all England and Denmark
and of the Norse and a part of the Swedes.
In Rome he was present at the crowning of the German emperor Konrad
and was highly honoured. He also entered into practical agreements for the
benefit of the English and the Scandinavians, and he arranged to a marriage
between Konrads son Henrik, who later became emperor and his daughter
Gunhild. The marriage was in 1036, but she died few years later.
First of all Canute was English king. He went to Scandinavia, if there
were problems, among other things to prevent new viking attacks on
England. He created peace in the country which had been harrased
through so many years, and there are no signs of inner rebellion.
The peace cost payment to his Thinglid, but this was probably both
cheaper and more pleasant than lootings and paying Danegeld to
ravaging enemies.
He attached importance to the old English laws, and he was a big
benefactor to the church. In great publicity he made amend for old viking
sins. In order to amend king Edmund of East Anglias marthyr death in
869 he let build a big church by the abbey in Bury St. Edmunds. And
for the murder of the archbishop of Canterbury in 1012 he let under
a big ceremony his body be brought from London to Canterbury.
As an amend for the bloody battle by Assandun in 1016 he let build
a church at the battlefield. Many churches recieved big gifts - and the
assignment of one of them, a golden altar cross for New Minster in
Winchester, was ab.1031 depicted in a drawing in the church's memorial
book. This is the only contemporary picture of Canute.
Canute and Emma were often in Winchester, and here he was buried in
another of the city's main churches, Old Minster, when he died in 1035,
about 40 years of age. This young viking king had succeeded in changing
his image to English king and manage this in an excellent way.
After Canute the stability was gone and the big empire was split at once.
Hardicanute was in Denmark, and in spite of much resistance from Emma
and others Elfgifus son Harald became king of England. Alfred, one of
Emmas two sons with Ethelred, arrived from Normandy, but was killed,
and Emma had to take flight. Harald died in 1040. Hardicanute and Emma
returned to England where he craved a huge tax fot his 60 following ships.
He died in 1042, "he was standing with his drink and fell suddenly to the
floor in terrible cramps" the chronicle tells, and another version says, "in
his ruling time he did nothing, which was worthy of a king."
(A bad ending for Canute's son I must say!)
In 1066 Harold Godwinsson was elected king..................and so on.......
Enough! `:)
Cheers
Grethe
zeb...@yahoo.com
He conquered the English, had two wives, conquered every other country
he wanted to. Pretty powerful!
IE_Johansson
you are right on spot.
Inger E
<zeb...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:1131500373....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Julian Richards
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
><kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
>> guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
>> more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
>> him!
>>
>
>Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed a
>reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
>
>He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
>Denmark.
He made his name by being suprisingly even handed amongst all his
subjects, Viking or Saxon. For a Viking king, that meant of course,
killing, blinding and mutilating with equal severity, but the thought
was appreciated by the Saxons.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
stacyli...@hotmail.com
orginal question posted by Kerry "how powerful was this guy:" I'd have
to say pretty powerful. He was the master of too many people to be
easily overcome. Vikings couldn't attack England...because he
controlled the Vikings too. Has any other king (or queen) of England
during medieval times ruled so many countries?
And, Kerry, just for fun: I think Cnut could do pretty much what he
wanted. As stated before, his laws prohibited having 2 wives (but he
was obviously above the law). Can't you just see him, swaggering into
countries, conquering them, and being a total badass?
Martin
"Julian Richards" <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote in message
news:skp3n11i06nj6ncq1...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:59:05 -0000, "William Black"
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> ><kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
> >> guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
> >> more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
> >> him!
> >>
> >
> >Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed a
> >reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
> >
> >He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
> >Denmark.
>
> He made his name by being suprisingly even handed amongst all his
> subjects, Viking or Saxon. For a Viking king, that meant of course,
> killing, blinding and mutilating with equal severity, but the thought
> was appreciated by the Saxons.
It's not what you do, it's the fairness with which you do it. The English have
always appreciated that.
William Black
<stacyli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131540799....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Has any other king (or queen) of England
> during medieval times ruled so many countries?
Edward III probably controlled more people and land.
Countries?
England, Wales, Scotland (on and off) France (most of it) Ireland.
Paul J Gans
Powerful by law or powerful by force of personality.
I'd suspect it was the latter. He was the ruler of a rather
large empire (England was only one part). But he had to
follow the same (unwritten) rules as everyone else.
Indeed, the famous story about Cnut and the tides is an
example of him attempting to teach his advisors about
the power of a king.
They would urge him to do this and to do that and pay
no attention to arguments against the action.
So he took them down to the sea and, in full kingly regalia,
as the waters swirled in, commanded the tide to go out.
They got the point.
----- Paul J. Gans
stacyli...@hotmail.com
Either way, what an intriguing personality. Too bad the information
about his rule is so scant. No we can only ponder over whether he was
a ruthless Viking or a sage Christian. Strangely enough, both hats
fit.
Larry Swain
> Very good point. Did he really follow the rules, though? I wonder...
>
> Either way, what an intriguing personality. Too bad the information
> about his rule is so scant. No we can only ponder over whether he was
> a ruthless Viking or a sage Christian. Strangely enough, both hats
> fit.
>
Paul J Gans
>Very good point. Did he really follow the rules, though? I wonder...
>Either way, what an intriguing personality. Too bad the information
>about his rule is so scant. No we can only ponder over whether he was
>a ruthless Viking or a sage Christian. Strangely enough, both hats
>fit.
Hmm. I 'm not so sure. The picture of a maniacal Viking
killing and stealing for the pure fun of it is a bit off
anyway, to my way of thinking. Cnut was an astute, self-assured
man with a dominant personality. We can, I think, assume that.
But his reign is not, I think, noted for torture, maiming,
and serious cruelty. In fact the evidence seems to be that
he not only governed England well, he introduced a number of
reforms and new ideas, such as the the "knights" of the king's
household.
The women in his life ended up giving William of Normandy a
tenuous claim to the English throne, but that's another story.
----- Paul J. Gans
Michael W Cook
Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <stacyli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131540799....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Has any other king (or queen) of England
>> during medieval times ruled so many countries?
>
> Edward III probably controlled more people and land.
Henry II controlled more.
erilar
<grethe....@webspeed.dk> wrote:
very interesting. I saved it 8-)
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar), biblioholic medievalist
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM]
books, of books: the habitual longing to purchase, read,
store, admire, and consume books in excess.
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Todd A. Farmerie
> I think he is often eclipsed by the other conqueror,
> William I, but that is mainly because Cnut's sons died and William's
> did not. Not because he was less able. Just luck!
William's sons also died.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Re: King Cnut/Knut/Canute
>
> those who can read a Scandinavian language probably could read this:
> http://www.europas-historie.net/kongknut-a.htm
>
> Many scholars have believed the Icelandic Saga's tales that King Cnut was
> the son of Sigrid Storåda,
> that wasn't so. His mother, called Gunhild after being baptist was first
> married to Erik Segersäll of Sweden. Thus Cnut was halfbrother of the
> Swedish King Olof Skötkonung. In her marriage with the Danish King Svein
> Gunhild and Svein also had Estrid who in her second marriage, she was
> married to the Duke of Normandy
> b e f o r e, had Svein Estridson(called Svein Ulfson in Norway) together
> with Jarl Ulf. Jarl Ulf was from Skane but had from his mother's side
> inherited land in Vaestergötland. When King Svein(Tveskägg) died Gunhild
> flead to her brother the first King of Poland to who's court her sons came,
> begged her and made her return to Denmark.
This, for the most part, is modern scholarly consensus.
>
> Gunhild's birthname was Swietoslawa Sygryda
This, however, is nothing but rampant speculation, turnrd into 'fact' by
those unwilling to admit that we just don't know.
taf
Alina
point is not sons, necessarily, but children. William's sons did die,
without issue, but his daughter's son ended up coming to the throne.
People always talk about William's legacy, but all the royals who had
some of William's blood in their veins can claim descent from him
through his daughter. If the same had been true for Cnut, then we
never would have even heard of a William the Conqueror. When you
compare what Cnut did in his career to what William did in his, I'd
say Cnut was superior. William fought Harold I right after England had
already been attacked by another army. He won because he was fighting
with a tired and depleted army. He then rid England of its aristocracy
and replaced it with Normans. Cnut, on the other hand, defeated a
native king and did not dispossess most of the existing nobles. He was
a better king. Unfortunately, his dynasty did not survive b/c his sons
(and daughter) all died very young. Yes, in the long run, William has
had a longer impact. But if you compare the men and what they
accomplished in their lives and the approximate 20 years they each
ruled England, I think Cnut comes out on top.
Martin
"Alina" <alina...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131634223....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Let's face it, they were both right cnuts when it came into it, one merely had a
more unfortunate name - or is my dsyelxia playing up again?
Alina
to think of it!
95 Thesen
Thanks to Grethe of Jutland and others,
this thread has been a very good read.
It reminds us that the Norse created the
English by their two centuries of conflict
and commingling with Anglo-Saxons.
The Norman French had already lost their
Nordic ways by the time they landed.
The English resistance to their Gallic
culture endures to this very day.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Swain
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Thanks to Grethe of Jutland and others,
> this thread has been a very good read.
> It reminds us that the Norse created the
> English by their two centuries of conflict
> and commingling with Anglo-Saxons.
> The Norman French had already lost their
> Nordic ways by the time they landed.
I wouldn't say that. That they had adopted FRENCH LANGUAGE is true, and
they they had adopted some French culture is also true, but there is
still much there that is Norse.
> The English resistance to their Gallic
> culture endures to this very day.
Hmm, interestingly enough, for much of the Anglo-Saxon period, there
were very strong cultural ties between France and England, mostly
positive until the eleventh century. So much so that it has been
remarked that behind every good Anglo-Saxon stands a Frank; overstated
in my view, but there ya go.
Michael W Cook
1131634223....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Alina"
<alina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Someone mentioned that William's sons died, just as Cnut's did.
I think he was being sarcastic.
I.e. We all die in the end.
Martin
"95 Thesen" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:1131678196.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'd hardly call it 'Gallic' or 'culture'! The Normans were dreaded by the
French, who were very glad to see them move on. I'd say they had more in common
with Hardrada, though they picked up all that was useful for pillaging and
raiding, such as their equestrian prowess and ruthless use of Christianity to
keep order.
The English, in fact most Britons are the end result of many gangs of plundering
invaders, who interbred, stayed and 'went native' very quickly. The influence of
each subsequent band of marauders - Celt, Roman, Saxon, Norse and Norman (to
name a few) resulted in 'the British', who eventually turned into the most
successful Empire building exporters of 'culture' since the Mongols. Naturally,
all that Viking seamanship came in very handy....
Even today, especially if you go up to the north east of England, you will see
Viking throwbacks all around you, as you will find the descendents of other
ancestors around you in various parts of Britain.
Cheers
Martin
Michael W Cook
"Martin" <martin...@spamfuktiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Quite true
The people of Northern Britain have much in common with the Norse.
The people of the South are more Saxon and and ancient Briton (Celt) on the
western fringes.
Any Norman influence would have been completely lost in the jumble.
95 Thesen
Martin & Michael,
Thanks for these insights. I have noticed the large
number of Norse place-names in the Lake District maps.
My theory is that Viking males won over many A-S girls by attending
their Christian churches and by bathing regularly.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael W Cook
1131737227.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "95 Thesen"
<dcho...@ev1.net> wrote:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Martin & Michael,
>
> Thanks for these insights. I have noticed the large
> number of Norse place-names in the Lake District maps.
Check out those in the Land of the Saxons.
Wessex, Essex, Sussex etc.
Sid
hard to answer this because there is not a lot of information about his
rule, at least compared to later monarchs. My guess would be that he
was not a man to cross, and he could keep other strong people like Earl
Godwin and Earl Leofric under control while he was alive. He also
seemed to have a tight grip on Denmark for eighteen years or so.
Clearly, he was powerful enough to keep people in line. The people who
did rebel against him (Jarl Ulf, Thorkell the Tall, King Olav) all
ended up dead or obscured. What I don't quite get is what exactly made
him so powerful. Any ideas?
Martin
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Martin & Michael,
>
> Thanks for these insights. I have noticed the large
> number of Norse place-names in the Lake District maps.
>
> My theory is that Viking males won over many A-S girls by attending
> their Christian churches and by bathing regularly.
The certainly had their way with the ladies 'tis said...
Probably more down to rugged good looks and their blond hair and beards than
washing though?
Paul J Gans
>Quite true
In spite of their best efforts... ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Todd A. Farmerie
> Someone mentioned that William's sons died, just as Cnut's did. The
> point is not sons, necessarily, but children. William's sons did die,
> without issue, but his daughter's son ended up coming to the throne.
You dropped a generation. You are thinking of Henry I's daughter.
> When you
> compare what Cnut did in his career to what William did in his, I'd
> say Cnut was superior. William fought Harold I right after England had
> already been attacked by another army. He won because he was fighting
> with a tired and depleted army.
. . . with a seasick and already once shipwrecked army, sailing too late
in the season, and without the provisions he should have needed to
succeed. He won victory that demoralized the enemy, and then progressed
around the country subjugating it.
> He then rid England of its aristocracy
> and replaced it with Normans.
Is that weakness or strength - the ability to replace the entire ruling
class. He also surveyed the entire nation before his death, in order to
regularize taxation and government.
> Cnut, on the other hand, defeated a
> native king and did not dispossess most of the existing nobles.
Well, he fought a native king to standstill and partition, and then
(perhaps) had him assassinated and sent the sons off to his half-brother
to be murdered.
It's all about the spin.
> Unfortunately, his dynasty did not survive b/c his sons
> (and daughter) all died very young.
Not all that young - we're not talking Queen Anne here.
taf
Michael W Cook
Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>> He then rid England of its aristocracy
>> and replaced it with Normans.
>
> Is that weakness or strength - the ability to replace the entire ruling
> class. He also surveyed the entire nation before his death, in order to
> regularize taxation and government.
Which he couldn't have done were it not for the Saxon administration he
inherited.
William has far too many faults to be even considered one of the greats.
A great warrior, that is undeniable, but not a great king.
Through his conquest of England and the problems he left over his
inheritance, there is a very strong case to place the roots of the Hundred
Years War on his shoulders.
Larry Swain
> On 12/11/05 05:56, in article dl405i$ms7$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu, "Todd A.
> Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>He then rid England of its aristocracy
>>>and replaced it with Normans.
>>
>>Is that weakness or strength - the ability to replace the entire ruling
>>class. He also surveyed the entire nation before his death, in order to
>>regularize taxation and government.
>
>
>
> Which he couldn't have done were it not for the Saxon administration he
> inherited.
>
> William has far too many faults to be even considered one of the greats.
>
> A great warrior, that is undeniable, but not a great king.
WHy not? Specifics, please.
>
> Through his conquest of England and the problems he left over his
> inheritance, there is a very strong case to place the roots of the Hundred
> Years War on his shoulders.
Um, no. The "problems" of inheritance of the Norman lands were resolved
if I recall correctly by Henry I, his son.
Michael W Cook
<thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Michael W Cook wrote:
>> On 12/11/05 05:56, in article dl405i$ms7$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu, "Todd A.
>> Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> He then rid England of its aristocracy
>>>> and replaced it with Normans.
>>>
>>> Is that weakness or strength - the ability to replace the entire ruling
>>> class. He also surveyed the entire nation before his death, in order to
>>> regularize taxation and government.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which he couldn't have done were it not for the Saxon administration he
>> inherited.
>>
>> William has far too many faults to be even considered one of the greats.
>>
>> A great warrior, that is undeniable, but not a great king.
>
> WHy not? Specifics, please.
Any king who holds his kingdom together through sheer brutality can never be
classed as a great king.
The Harrying of the North would today be classed as genocide, and that's a
rather serious blot to have on your CV when discussing greatness.
>> Through his conquest of England and the problems he left over his
>> inheritance, there is a very strong case to place the roots of the Hundred
>> Years War on his shoulders.
>
>
> Um, no. The "problems" of inheritance of the Norman lands were resolved
> if I recall correctly by Henry I, his son.
Temporarily.
Henry was a good king and much underrated, but he died without leaving a
son, leaving both England and the inheritance of William's lands in turmoil.
Henry II steadied the ship again, but in the long run he didn't help matters
by extending these lands and giving the English monarch huge chunks of
France.
It's all a snowball effect and just about all roads lead back William's
conquest of England and joining it with Normandy - A King paying homage to
another King was always going to be a recipe for disaster.
Cheers
MWC
--
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
William Black
"Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:opKdnXjnKs5zu-ze...@rcn.net...
> William Black wrote:
> > <kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
> >>guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
> >>more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
> >>him!
> >>
> >
> >
a
> > reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
> >
> > He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
> > Denmark.
> >
>
>
> Where did he claim a reasonable chunk of Western Russia?
He claimed to be 'King over the Rus', not sure how he worked that out or if
anyone ever took any notice.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Soren Larsen
Once he controlled both Denmark and England he was virtually immune
to military threats. Both kingdoms was protected by the sea and he
controlled both the largest fleet in northern Europe and one of the most
organised military call-up systems. If need be he could also rely on free-
lance warriors and shiplids from Norway and Sweden.
He purged the anglosaxon aristocracy of anyone with ties to the old royal
lines like Uthred of Northumbria, and untrustworthy allies like Eadric
Streona.
He practically invented the Godwinsons by raising Godwin who had supported
the Danes from the beginning to Earl of Wessex, and marrying him into the
Danish
royal family.. So it was a small wonder that he could control Earl Godwin
and the rest of the anglo-danish aristocracy
The Scots submitted to Cnut once it was clear that he controlled both
kingdoms. They probably didn't fancy the perspective of being sandwiched
between a Danish fleet and an English invasion ,or even the possibility of
Cnut exempting Scotland from his ban on viking raids ,or Cnut supporting
the Norse in Ireland, Orkney and the Isles. Cnuts level of control in
Scotland
was probably not more than the Scots recognising him as The Daddy and
promising to behave though.
Once Cnut had mopped up resistence in England he could offer peace and
freedom from viking raids and excessive danegeld taxation, so no wonder
he was accepted by the English.
He was also an absolute darling and posterboy to the church.
He was the third christian generation of a pagan dynasty that had converted,
he had stopped the viking raids, he was a big donor to the church,
he appointed english bishops to danish sees, and so both helped build church
organisation in Scandinavia and the prestige of the english church.
He also brought stability to what used to be very unstable border regions
for the holy roman empire and france, and since he had no designs
in these areas, he was readily accepted as a peer by the emperor.
Cheers
Soren
Z.A.
against his own laws!). I've also read somewhere that he killed one of
his own housecarls with obviously no repercussions. Does anyone know
anything about that?
Larry Swain
> "Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:opKdnXjnKs5zu-ze...@rcn.net...
>
>>William Black wrote:
>>
>>><kerry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1131484920.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm interested in learning more about King Cnut. How powerful was this
>>>>guy? Could he pretty much do whatever he wanted to? He seems a lot
>>>>more powerful than the average Anglo-Saxon king, either before or after
>>>>him!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Cnut the Great was king over England, most of Scandinavian and claimed
>
> a
>
>>>reasonable chunk of Western Russia.
>>>
>>>He wasn't an Anglo-Saxon king, he was the younger son of the king of
>>>Denmark.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Where did he claim a reasonable chunk of Western Russia?
>
>
> He claimed to be 'King over the Rus', not sure how he worked that out or if
> anyone ever took any notice.
Where and when? I'm looking for a citation of some primary text where
Cnut says this. Thanks.
Soren Larsen
> How powerful was Cnut? Well, we all know that he had 2 wives (he went
> against his own laws!). I've also read somewhere that he killed one
> of his own housecarls with obviously no repercussions. Does anyone
> know anything about that?
Actually the story goes (Saxo) that Cnut submitted to the law and asked the
hird to judge him, but that the tough hirdmen cried and asked him to judge
himself. Cnut suitably sobbingly judged himself to 9 times the ordinary
vergeld and added gifts, but somehow he forgot to make himself an outlaw..
Cheers
Soren
Z.A.
Z.A.
I think Soren gave some information about this on the "Svein
Estrithson" thread, but since this Cnut thread is getting more traffic,
I wondered if any of our medieval experts knew about this. Where,
when, and why did Cnut kill his own housecarl?
Paul J Gans
>Cheers
>Soren
Great post! Thanks!
----- Paul J. Gans
erilar
Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote:
You keep offering me neat things to save 8-) thank you!
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar), biblioholic medievalist
There is no such thing as too many books.
Too few bookshelves can, however, be a problem.
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Vaughan Sanders
"Z.A." <zeb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132016575....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I think you mean Jarl Ulf (Svein Estrithson's father)
Heimskringla says Cnut had Ulf (his brother in law) assassinated
Snorri appears to have got this slightly wrong, earlier sources like the ASC
say Ulf opposed Cnut at "Helge-a" (battle of the Holy River, a defeat for
Cnut)
Google "Medieval Source Book", saga of St Olaf is where you will find the
assassination story I think.
Cnut had Eadric Streona executed, but he was an ally rather than huscarl,
Eadric was son in law of Athelred and deserted Edmund Ironside at Ashingdon
in 1016. He was given the earldom of Mercia by Cnut but never trusted,
Thorkell the Tall given East Anglia was likewise not trusted, Cnut relied on
Jarl Eric, (given Northumbria) his father's old ally.
Jamie
IE_Johansson
"Vaughan Sanders" <v...@jamie-san.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:dld4fr$o06$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Z.A." <zeb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1132016575....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Does anyone know the full story about Cnut killing his own housecarl?
> > I think Soren gave some information about this on the "Svein
> > Estrithson" thread, but since this Cnut thread is getting more traffic,
> > I wondered if any of our medieval experts knew about this. Where,
> > when, and why did Cnut kill his own housecarl?
> >
>
> I think you mean Jarl Ulf (Svein Estrithson's father)
> Heimskringla says Cnut had Ulf (his brother in law) assassinated
> Snorri appears to have got this slightly wrong, earlier sources like the
ASC
> say Ulf opposed Cnut at "Helge-a" (battle of the Holy River, a defeat for
> Cnut)
That story is confirmed in non-Saga contemporary documents.
>
> Google "Medieval Source Book", saga of St Olaf is where you will find the
> assassination story I think.
>
> Cnut had Eadric Streona executed, but he was an ally rather than huscarl,
> Eadric was son in law of Athelred and deserted Edmund Ironside at
Ashingdon
> in 1016. He was given the earldom of Mercia by Cnut but never trusted,
> Thorkell the Tall given East Anglia was likewise not trusted, Cnut relied
on
> Jarl Eric, (given Northumbria) his father's old ally.
Jamie do you by any chance know more about this Jarl Eric? From the sources
I have access to I am not sure of his background especially not on his
mother's side.
Inger E
>
> Jamie
>
>
>
Larry Swain
> On 12/11/05 18:17, in article OaSdnRp3u8p...@rcn.net, "Larry Swain"
> <thes...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael W Cook wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/11/05 05:56, in article dl405i$ms7$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu, "Todd A.
>>>Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>He then rid England of its aristocracy
>>>>>and replaced it with Normans.
>>>>
>>>>Is that weakness or strength - the ability to replace the entire ruling
>>>>class. He also surveyed the entire nation before his death, in order to
>>>>regularize taxation and government.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Which he couldn't have done were it not for the Saxon administration he
>>>inherited.
>>>
>>>William has far too many faults to be even considered one of the greats.
>>>
>>>A great warrior, that is undeniable, but not a great king.
>>
>>WHy not? Specifics, please.
>
>
> Any king who holds his kingdom together through sheer brutality can never be
> classed as a great king.
>
> The Harrying of the North would today be classed as genocide, and that's a
> rather serious blot to have on your CV when discussing greatness.
I think that very much depends on one's perspective. From William's
perspective he was dealing with rebels and a potential threat of
invasion. It matters little how it would be classed today, what matters
is how it was classed at the time. Yes, it was cruel, even by medieval
standards, but very effective. While I think it disqualifies from
consideration as the greatest, I don't think I can agree with your
assessment that: ">>>William has far too many faults to be even
considered one of the greats."
>
>>>Through his conquest of England and the problems he left over his
>>>inheritance, there is a very strong case to place the roots of the Hundred
>>>Years War on his shoulders.
>>
>>
>>Um, no. The "problems" of inheritance of the Norman lands were resolved
>>if I recall correctly by Henry I, his son.
>
>
> Temporarily.
Aren't all things? YOu can hardly hold William responsible for what the
lords of the land and Henry I decided to do.
>
> Henry was a good king and much underrated, but he died without leaving a
> son, leaving both England and the inheritance of William's lands in turmoil.
Not entirely true. Henry's son died before Henry did. He had left
things in the hands of his capable daughter Maud, but there were
misgivings from the important sectors of the nobility about having a
queen, esp. one married to the Duke of Anjou, in spite of the fact that
they had given Maud their allegiance at Henry's command. Henry died in
Normandy allowing Stephen of Blois to make a move on the throne and the
nobility by and large quickly backed him.
So a) Henry left a clear succession that his nobles didn't accept AFTER
he was dead, hardly can be laid at his door and b) furthermore can not
be laid at WIlliam's feet as his fault that the nobility preferred
Stephen of Blois to Empress Matilda, wife of Geoffrey of Anjou, widow of
Henry, Holy Roman Emperor.
>
> Henry II steadied the ship again, but in the long run he didn't help matters
> by extending these lands and giving the English monarch huge chunks of
> France.
Oh, I don't know. Expansion isn't a bad thing by itself, and Henry II's
expansion into France is his own policy, not Williams. If you really
want to press this you could simply say that the Hundred Year's War was
really Hengest's fault.
> It's all a snowball effect and just about all roads lead back William's
> conquest of England and joining it with Normandy - A King paying homage to
> another King was always going to be a recipe for disaster.
This is an interesting view of history. So by analogy the current war
in Iraq must be George III's fault, since he it was who instituted the
Stamp Act and Tea Act etc that the American colonists objected to...it
is after all a snowball effect from that point to this.
So why not take the snowball back further, isn't it all Edward the
Confessor's fault since he at one time indicated William as heir? Or
Harald's fault? Or Cnut and Emma's fault for not supporting Edward?
Why is Cnut's annexation of England a good thing, but William's
annexation of England a bad thing?
Vaughan Sanders
"IE_Johansson" <ingere.j...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:YKoef.38158$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
Eirikri, son of Hakon Sigurtharson Hlathajarl, ruler of Norway circa 970,
sorry don't know his mother's side, apparently the saga of the earls of
Hlathir is now lost.
He married Cnut's sister Gytha and also the daughter of the King of Sweden.
Jamie
Alan Crozier
news:dld8ob$qn4$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
If Snorri's story is to be believed (Haralds saga Gráfeldar ch. 8), Jarl
Hakon Sigurtharson was visitng Uppland and slept with a woman of low birth.
The result was Eirikr. The mother brought the boy to Hakon and declared that
he was the father. Hakon had little regard for this son, whom he gave to a
friend called Thorleif the Wise to bring up.
The woman's name is not recorded.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Vaughan Sanders
"Alan Crozier" <name1...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:Pbqef.38161$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
Apparently Eric slew Skopi a friend of his father Hakon and was exiled, they
appear to have been reconciled by the time of the "Jomsvikings" expedition
to Norway. Eric appears to have withdrawn to Sweden with his famous ship
"Barthi", soon after his / father's victory, when Olaf Tryggavason returned
to Norway.
Presumably the "Long Serpent" was no match for "Barthi" in AD 1000 at
Svold, this appears to have been the start of Eric's long relationship with
Svein Forkbeard and Cnut the Great.
"Eirik, as we have lately heard,
Has waked the song of shield and sword --
Has waked the slumbering storm of shields
Upon the vikings' water-fields:
From Gotland's lonely shore has gone
Far up the land, and battles won:
And o'er the sea his name is spread,
To friends a shield, to foes a dread."
"Earl Eirik, he who stoutly wields
The battle-axe in storm of shields,
With his long ships surprised the foe
At Stauren, and their strength laid low
Many a corpse floats round the shore;
The strand with dead is studded o'er:
The raven tears their sea-bleached skins --
The land thrives well when Eirik wins."
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Heimskringla/trygvason3.html
116. FLIGHT OF SVEIN AND OLAF THE SWEDE.
This battle was one of the severest told of, and many were the
people slain. The forecastle men of the Long Serpent, the Little
Serpent, and the Crane, threw grapplings and stem chains into
King Svein's ship, and used their weapons well against the people
standing below them, for they cleared the decks of all the ships
they could lay fast hold of; and King Svein, and all the men who
escaped, fled to other vessels, and laid themselves out of
bow-shot. It went with this force just as King Olaf Trygvason
had foreseen. Then King Olaf the Swede laid himself in their
place; but when he came near the great ships it went with him as
with them, for he lost many men and some ships, and was obliged
to get away. But Earl Eirik laid his ship side by side with the
outermost of King Olaf's ships, thinned it of men, cut the
cables, and let it drive. Then he laid alongside of the next,
and fought until he had cleared it of men also. Now all the
people who were in the smaller ships began to run into the
larger, and the earl cut them loose as fast as he cleared them of
men. The Danes and Swedes laid themselves now out of shooting
distance all around Olaf's ship; but Earl Eirik lay always close
alongside of the ships, and used hid swords and battle-axes, and
as fast as people fell in his vessel others, Danes and Swedes,
came in their place. So says Haldor, the Unchristian: --
"Sharp was the clang of shield and sword,
And shrill the song of spears on board,
And whistling arrows thickly flew
Against the Serpent's gallant crew.
And still fresh foemen, it is said,
Earl Eirik to her long side led;
Whole armies of his Danes and Swedes,
Wielding on high their blue sword-blades."
Jamie.
Sid
Or, as a colleague recently mentioned, why is William so unlikeable?
Is it because William conquered a very likable foe (Harold Godwinson),
while Cnut ended up replacing an ineffectual one like Aethelred? Or is
it because William completely wiped out the existing Saxon aristocracy
and replaced everything English with Norman--while Cnut allowed many
Englishmen to remain in power and did not change much about English
government? (Have I just opened up a can of worms?)
Bryn
<syedi...@yahoo.com> writes
Yes!
>
Posting from soc.culture.medieval
--
Bryn
" There is not a British Naval vessel
within a 1000 miles of us! "
Capt Hans Wilhelm Langsdorff
Grav Spee, Dec 1939.
To email remove GREMILNS
Paul J Gans
No you haven't. But since we don't agree on what "bad" or
"good" means in this context, it isn't really possible to
say much.
I will say that many Anglo-Saxonists prefer Harold to William
while the Normanist crowd (R.A. Brown the rather famous historian
was a leading one) prefer William to Harold.
Cnut may have been a bit hard on a few of the notables in
England, but William's harrowing of the North caused even
the Normans some problems. The monk Orderic Vitalis, whose
mother was English but whose father was a Norman priest,
supported the Normans. But he makes his upset with William
plain.
I think that this has carried on down to the present.
But it says nothing about the relative governing abilities
of Cnut and William.
William initially kept a number of Anglo-Saxon nobles in
place, but rebellion made him change his mind. Cnut had
a fair number of people of Norse and Danish descent already
living in England to support him. Thus there was no
large-scale revolt.
So again, happenstance played a part in how things worked
out.
----- Paul J. Gans
shannonki...@yahoo.com
stand William? I think he just seemed so brutal and he got rid of a
popular king. Cnut, on the other hand, replaced a very worthless king.
Therefore, under Cnut, England went from being a country that was
constantly under attack to becomming a relatively safe and stable
country. So, in Cnut's case, the ends justify the means. But I don't
think that Harold Godwinson would've done a bad job as king, since he
was virtual king under Edward the Confessor anyway.
Paul J Gans
This too is an interesting topic. I don't know if Harold
would have been a popular king. The Godwins were certainly
the most powerful family in England and I suspect cordially
hated in some circles.
Harold more or less forced his own election to the kingship.
Had he defeated William he'd doubtless have been not only
popular but legendary. But the ups and downs of kingship
could well have undermined his reputation. Look at Richard I.
Great warrior but not highly regarded as a king.
Don't forget that Harold was king for less than a year. And
he also succeeded a beloved but useless king. Edward the
Confessor arranged things so that serious trouble was almost
certain to break out on his death.
I do not know the truth of the story that Edward promised
the crown to William of Normandy. On the face of it I doubt
it. But any choice that Edward might have made before his
death would have likely led to unrest and rivalries.
So William, in fact, ensured that England would become a
relatively stable nation -- with the exception of the
occasional civil war, etc...
---- Paul J. Gans
Larry Swain
doing the attacking.....hardly to his credit if the attacks stopped when
he became king.
Julian Richards
wrote:
Harold made his name by killing Welshmen. The Godwins were the Saxon
Mafia. Would Edward have been a more successful king without being
undermined by "The Family"?
Without Harold and a bloodless takeover by William, would more of the
Saxon culture survived? Indeed, as England was becoming more
"Normanised" under Edward, were the cultural changes inevitable
anyway?
Haven't I asked a lot of questions, and not one bloody answer amongst
all of them!
Was a clash with the Norse dominated North a certainty that Harold
would have had to face at one time as king?
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
www.richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Website of "Robot Wars" middleweight "Broadsword IV"
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
Larry Swain
Good points about Harold, Paul. On the question of Edward and William I
actually would not be surprised if Edward had promised the crown to
William. William was related to Edward, second cousins if memory
serves, and in 1051 William visited Edward, and it was in 1051 that that
Godwins were in exile and Edward was increasing Norman advisors in the
kingdom. I wouldn't be surprised if as a counter measure against the
Godwins, and his penchant for things Norman and French, Edward didn't
intimate to William that he might make William his heir.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Interesting topic. I've wondered the same thing too: why can I not
> stand William? I think he just seemed so brutal and he got rid of a
> popular king. Cnut, on the other hand, replaced a very worthless king.
Both William and Cnut ended up replacing monarchs with extremely short
reigns, Edmund Ironsides and Harold. Neither was particularly unpopular.
> Therefore, under Cnut, England went from being a country that was
> constantly under attack to becomming a relatively safe and stable
> country. So, in Cnut's case, the ends justify the means. But I don't
Cnut and his father being the main attackers. It is sort of like
crediting the Romans with bringing peace to Carthage, or Germany,
Austria and Russia for freeing Poland from concerns over its rapacious
neighbors.
You credit Cnut with bringing peace to England by the power of his
sword, and you blame William.
> think that Harold Godwinson would've done a bad job as king, since he
> was virtual king under Edward the Confessor anyway.
I have my doubts how long the elite would have tolerated the increasing
concentration of the highest levels of power (the Ealdormanry) among
Harold's brothers and brothers-in-law. Not unrelated, how many years
would he have had his run before Edgar built a following among the old
order, now disenfranchized? On the flip side, how do you think
Ironsides would have fared as king?
taf
shannonki...@yahoo.com
of the same problems his dad had: untrustworthy nobles and continued
attacks from Cnut. I can't imagine that even if Cnut had lost
Ashingdon that he would've just sailed away for ever. He'd probably
just keep coming back. If you remember, during the conquest of
England, his family lost overlordship of Norway, and he eventually
pressed his rights there too and got rid of Olav.
Paul J Gans
Good question. Since Edward did not lead his armies, he needed
*someone* who did. And that person automatically became a
serious force in the nation. So if it wasn't the Godwins it
would have been someone else.
So Edward's first fault was being saintly in this respect. The
times demanded a king who led from in front.
The other problem was that Edward fathered no successor. The
first rule of kingship was always "produce an heir". Without
that warfare was almost inevitable.
So to my mind Edward failed the two most important tests of
kingship.
>Without Harold and a bloodless takeover by William, would more of the
>Saxon culture survived? Indeed, as England was becoming more
>"Normanised" under Edward, were the cultural changes inevitable
>anyway?
I think so. For me the largest change was in the abbeys which
were rather "ruthlessly" normanized. This changed the sorts
of manuscripts produced in some ways. But in truth I don't
know the answer to this. Can we identify "Saxon" culture as
a distinct entity?
>Haven't I asked a lot of questions, and not one bloody answer amongst
>all of them!
Well, I think your first question had an answer. Edward, by
his religious beliefs, was bound to create a warlord in England
no matter what.
>Was a clash with the Norse dominated North a certainty that Harold
>would have had to face at one time as king?
No. Not after having killed Hardrada and installed earls of
his choosing in the North. I think that the Norse were by
then "Englishified" enough to make it safe.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I've just put up a post on the necessity of a warlord in
England with Edward unwilling to lead an army.
But I have two questions: did William really visit England
in 1051? I thought that the weight of opinion was against
that. But I could be wrong.
The other question is: would the English nobility have taken
William as king? The "Normanification" of England was, I think,
already resented -- although it is hard to really tell from the
meagre sources on that subject.
---- Paul J. Gans
Julian Richards
wrote:
>The other question is: would the English nobility have taken
>William as king? The "Normanification" of England was, I think,
>already resented -- although it is hard to really tell from the
>meagre sources on that subject.
Was the resentment by the Godwins rather than by the others? I can't
imagine the nobles complaining about the stone churches and other
Norman influences. Their problem was that the Normans were not part of
the family business.
If William had not had to promise so much to his army and had not
killed so many of the Saxon nobility at Hastings then perhaps the
Normanisation would have been a lot more subtle.
Paul J Gans
>> think that Harold Godwinson would've done a bad job as king, since he
>> was virtual king under Edward the Confessor anyway.
>I have my doubts how long the elite would have tolerated the increasing
>concentration of the highest levels of power (the Ealdormanry) among
>Harold's brothers and brothers-in-law. Not unrelated, how many years
>would he have had his run before Edgar built a following among the old
>order, now disenfranchized? On the flip side, how do you think
>Ironsides would have fared as king?
I have no idea about Ironsides. But you make an excellent
point about the concentration of power. I've made a similar
one. And that is why I think that Edward was a very poor
king. He set things up so that almost inevitably there
would be one major military leader who, ipso facto, would
then be in a position to take the throne.
Being king was probably good, but it did involve some major
work, many political complexities, and necessitated a long
view.
Not all kings had that.
---- Paul J. Gans
Soren Larsen
> shannonki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Interesting topic. I've wondered the same thing too: why can I not
>> stand William? I think he just seemed so brutal and he got rid of a
>> popular king. Cnut, on the other hand, replaced a very worthless
>> king.
>
> Both William and Cnut ended up replacing monarchs with extremely short
> reigns, Edmund Ironsides and Harold. Neither was particularly
> unpopular.
>> Therefore, under Cnut, England went from being a country that was
>> constantly under attack to becomming a relatively safe and stable
>> country. So, in Cnut's case, the ends justify the means. But I
>> don't
>
> Cnut and his father being the main attackers. It is sort of like
> crediting the Romans with bringing peace to Carthage, or Germany,
> Austria and Russia for freeing Poland from concerns over its rapacious
> neighbors.
Not really.
Other major Norse players like Thorkill the Tall were also neutralised by
Cnuts takeover.
The point is that not only did Cnut stop demanding danegeld for himself
after his army was paid off. He was also powerful enough to stop other
dudes like Thorkill to make withdrawals on the expense
of the english taxpayer.
Something I guess the taxpayers appreciated.
>
> You credit Cnut with bringing peace to England by the power of his
> sword, and you blame William.
Cnut certainly won England by the sword, but he did not have to keep
winning it by the sword to the same degree as William.
He did have an advantage in the norse populated areas, but it was
far from all of England that was populated by the Norse at the time
of his conquest.
>
>> think that Harold Godwinson would've done a bad job as king, since he
>> was virtual king under Edward the Confessor anyway.
>
> I have my doubts how long the elite would have tolerated the
> increasing concentration of the highest levels of power (the
> Ealdormanry) among Harold's brothers and brothers-in-law. Not
> unrelated, how many years would he have had his run before Edgar
> built a following among the old order, now disenfranchized?
Very plausible.
> On the
> flip side, how do you think Ironsides would have fared as king?
Soren Larsen
Paul J Gans
>On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:35:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>>The other question is: would the English nobility have taken
>>William as king? The "Normanification" of England was, I think,
>>already resented -- although it is hard to really tell from the
>>meagre sources on that subject.
>Was the resentment by the Godwins rather than by the others? I can't
>imagine the nobles complaining about the stone churches and other
>Norman influences. Their problem was that the Normans were not part of
>the family business.
>If William had not had to promise so much to his army and had not
>killed so many of the Saxon nobility at Hastings then perhaps the
>Normanisation would have been a lot more subtle.
We were assuming a peaceful transition.
But I think that there was resentment toward the Normans
who were, according to the Meagre Sources, getting preferential
treatment. It was the Godwins, I believe, who led the
push to get rid of them, but certainly they were not alone.
Of course, this is all mostly speculation.
---- Paul J. Gans
Alina
seems his choice of successor--whether William or Harold--was very
ambiguous (even at the time). Since he was childless, he should have
had a clearly chosen successor. There are some texts that say he gave
his wife Edith to Harold's care, which implied that he thought of
Harold as his successor. Another point: someone mentioned that people
were probably sick of the Godwin family's power. This is true;
however, I doubt that they would have chosen a foreigner like William
if given the choice.
Larry Swain
We have one source that explicitly mentions William's visit, though
several sources say that Edward promised William the crown in 1051. The
reasoning behind questioning the visit is that William was busy on his
southern borders and so it is argued too busy to take off to England for
a trip. Could be, but it isn't a strong argument and one can think of
just as plausible reasons for thinking that it could have occurred.
> The other question is: would the English nobility have taken
> William as king? The "Normanification" of England was, I think,
> already resented -- although it is hard to really tell from the
> meagre sources on that subject.
Depends, not everyone was unhappy about the French at court. Certainly
Godwins and their faction were and they had a lot of power and influence
at court. It is unlikely though that William would have been accepted
as king, though Edward had no children, there were closer claimants
other than Harold and William whom Edward could have chosen. In the
end, I think you hit the nail on the head that Edward the Relunctant
King knew he needed a warrior and able general to succeed him, and so in
1051 was looking to William, who was too busy to send help vs the
Godwins in 1052.
Paul J Gans
I think that you are responding to me. But it would really
help if you'd include a bit of context. That way folks will
not have to examine previous posts in the thread to find out
what you are agreeing with when you write "You're right."
The problem of the succession is very difficult and has
plagued a number of rulers over the years. Anybody chosen
would have had to deal with the power of the Godwins. And
that power was substantial.
Edward tried to break that power by exiling the Earl, but
in the end that failed.
By leaving the choice of successor ambiguous he left
*nobody* in a position to take steps prior to his death.
Of course, that left Harold Godwinson as the prime
candidate.
What has always bothered me about this is that if Edward
had, in fact, chosen William to be his successor, he did
not announce it. Had he done so, the choice would have
been recorded. Of course we understand why he did not
annouce it, if it happened, for the reasons I've given
above.
On the other hand, by not announcing it, it became a non-
event and null and void on Edward's death.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> But I have two questions: did William really visit England
>> in 1051? I thought that the weight of opinion was against
>> that. But I could be wrong.
>We have one source that explicitly mentions William's visit, though
>several sources say that Edward promised William the crown in 1051. The
>reasoning behind questioning the visit is that William was busy on his
>southern borders and so it is argued too busy to take off to England for
>a trip. Could be, but it isn't a strong argument and one can think of
>just as plausible reasons for thinking that it could have occurred.
I'd be interested in which source that was. Got to get
all my references down pat... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Todd A. Farmerie
> Julian Richards <s...@sig.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Harold made his name by killing Welshmen. The Godwins were the Saxon
>>Mafia. Would Edward have been a more successful king without being
>>undermined by "The Family"?
>
>
> Good question. Since Edward did not lead his armies, he needed
> *someone* who did. And that person automatically became a
> serious force in the nation. So if it wasn't the Godwins it
> would have been someone else.
Looking north, MacBeth basically got himself in a position to take over
in much the same way.
taf
Vaughan Sanders
"Alina" <alina...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132259299.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Edith was Harold's sister, she kept all her estates under William's rule btw
(Domesday)
Harold's mother Gytha (sister of Jarl Ulf) on the other hand supported her
grandsons (Harold's sons) attempts to retake the crown, she was stripped of
her lands and forced to take refuge in Flanders when this failed.
Edward was virtually forced to marry earl Godwin's daughter to get the
backing of the Witan, Edward then brought in his relatives from Normandy and
Flanders to try to break Godwin power. He nearly succeeded with the backing
of the northern earl, Siward, but after 1051 Edward was just a puppet of the
Godwins and his only weapon was to refuse to consummate the marriage.
I think it very likely Edward nominated William as successor, probably
through Robert Champart, his Norman Archbishop of Canterbury, who the
Godwins forced into exile in 1051.
Siward btw, was a relative of Harald Hardrada, as was Malcolm Canmore of
Scotland, who Siward put on the throne after defeating Macbeth.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dljahd$lbp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
ASCd 1051
Jamie
Paul J Gans
>"Alina" <alina...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1132259299.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> You're right. Edward the Confessor was a very poor king. Also, it
>> seems his choice of successor--whether William or Harold--was very
>> ambiguous (even at the time). Since he was childless, he should have
>> had a clearly chosen successor. There are some texts that say he gave
>> his wife Edith to Harold's care, which implied that he thought of
>> Harold as his successor. Another point: someone mentioned that people
>> were probably sick of the Godwin family's power. This is true;
>> however, I doubt that they would have chosen a foreigner like William
>> if given the choice.
>>
>Edith was Harold's sister, she kept all her estates under William's rule btw
>(Domesday)
>Harold's mother Gytha (sister of Jarl Ulf) on the other hand supported her
>grandsons (Harold's sons) attempts to retake the crown, she was stripped of
>her lands and forced to take refuge in Flanders when this failed.
>Edward was virtually forced to marry earl Godwin's daughter to get the
>backing of the Witan, Edward then brought in his relatives from Normandy and
>Flanders to try to break Godwin power. He nearly succeeded with the backing
>of the northern earl, Siward, but after 1051 Edward was just a puppet of the
>Godwins and his only weapon was to refuse to consummate the marriage.
That's an interesting theory. I've never seen it
any place else. Most authors seem to think that
Edward really was that saintly.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>ASCd 1051
Thanks. I've got that laying around here somewhere...
---- Paul J. Gans
Todd A. Farmerie
I guess more like when a mafia 'family' successfully takes over a
neighborhood - they bring peace because they and all the other
'families' are no longer competing for the ground. However, I am not
sure that should gain them that much credit.
>>You credit Cnut with bringing peace to England by the power of his
>>sword, and you blame William.
>
>
> Cnut certainly won England by the sword, but he did not have to keep
> winning it by the sword to the same degree as William.
Just to keep playing devil's advocate, Cnut (and his father) had to keep
_trying_ to win it by the sword for a good while before Cnut finally
pulled it off. Perhaps had he, like William, been successful at the
start, he would have had more cleaning up left to do while wearing the
crown.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
How about Edgar? I don't have the chronology handy to mind, but he
couldn't have been that much younger than AEthelred when he was chosen
figurehead leader. They were certainly willing (although powerless) to
back Edgar after Hastings. I just don't think, as things stood in 1066,
there was anyone with enough push to stand up to the Godwins. As has
been mentioned, the highest level of the power structure had been
monopolized through a combination of two factors: there were fewer
Ealdormen each ruling larger domains; and all but one (a boy) were
Harold's brothers or brothers-in-law. It looks like a palace coup in
all but name, just waiting for the king to die to finish the process.
By the time the problem became evident, there was no one left, including
the king (not that he didn't try), with the power to resist. Harold
wins Hastings and some time passes, and now the three boy-Ealdormen are
adults and more autonomous, while Edgar grows more promissing a
candidate every year, and it may be an entirely different dynamic,
particularly if Harold still lost one or more of his brothers at
Hastings, and hence another Ealdordom passed out of the clan. That
being the (hypothetical) case, and knowing the Godwins' character, I
wouldn't have bet money on Edgar living to adulthood.
I guess this is why people like these counter-factual what-if
discussions. There are so many variables that just about anything is
possible.
taf
Vaughan Sanders
It's a widely held opinion Paul, Edward's sanctity can be traced to later
Norman propaganda.
For instance "The History of Westminster" written by Sulcard a monk of that
house circa 1080 gives no prominence to Edward.
"Proof that there is no cult of Edward at Westminster at this time" (Barlow)
Edward was responsible for the building of Westminster Abbey where William
chose to be crowned, but he also had a ceremony at the old Anglo-Saxon
capital, Winchester.
Barlow thinks the rumours of the unconsummated marriage were in circulation
from 1051, Edward had Edith stripped of her lands and incarcerated at Wilton
at this time.
She was only reinstated when her father and brothers came back with Irish
and Flemish mercenaries and the backing of the Wessex fyrd. Siward backed
off and Edward's Normans were forced to flee, some to Macbeth in Scotland,
this doesn't appear to have gone down to well with Siward, Macbeth was soon
history and Malcolm Canmore was installed.
William of Malmesbury says Edith was suspected of adultery both during her
marriage and after, but took an oath on her deathbed that she was dying a
virgin (de perpetua integritate) .. he goes on to say, Edward had not
consummated the marriage; but whether this was because he hated the Godwin
family or loved chastity, he did not know.
Jamie
Alina
found little to say about it. He also said that Cnut's reign was "in
like a lion, out like a lamb." Can the same be said about William?
He, to this day, has a reputation for being very brutal.
Paul J Gans
Exactly.
But I'd not denigrate the Godwins too much. It was the style
of the times, after all, to have your opponents meet with
accidents...
That's why, in my opinion, the institution of the herediary
monarchy was an improvement -- at least as long as one had
adult male children by the time you died. It cut down a
lot on the backstabbing...
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Your examples seem to indicate that he really was "saintly",
or at least that opinion was abroad at the time.
I'm not saying your theory is wrong. I'm just saying that
I've never seen it before.
---- Paul J. Gans
allan connochie
"Vaughan Sanders" <v...@jamie-san.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dlkopl$gn2$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Siward btw, was a relative of Harald Hardrada, as was Malcolm Canmore of
> Scotland, who Siward put on the throne after defeating Macbeth.
Siward helped Malcolm gain power in southern Scotland it's true, but what
you claim above is simply not possible and is basically just an old myth.
Apart from the fact that the Scottish throne wasn't Siward's to put on whom
he pleased - the Earl Siward died in 1055. Malcolm consolidated his
position in Lothian and Strathclyde which were still areas which had only
recently been annexed by the Scottish kingdom. Macbeth remained in control
in Alba proper and didn't lose the throne until 1057, then his step-son
Lulach succeeded for a short while with Malcolm not becoming king until
1058, three years after Siward's death. Some sources ignore Lulach but even
that would put Malcolm on the throne a couple of years after Siward's death.
Allan
Todd A. Farmerie
> Siward btw, was a relative of Harald Hardrada, as was Malcolm Canmore of
> Scotland, who Siward put on the throne after defeating Macbeth.
As to Siward being related to Hardrada, I have not seen the claim
before, but I doubt it is well supported. I have also seen it claimed
that he was kin to Harold II, and/or to Cnut. His father is said to
have been a certain Bjorn "Bearson", which led to a tradition of a
virgin out in the woods, and a bear, but may instead represent Berasson,
or some other proper name not involving beastiality. I know one old
pedigree source made this Bjorn son of Styrbjorn (which presumably
postdates the traditions making Styrbjorn the father of Thorgils,
maternal grandfather of harold, while more recent alternatives make him
son of Harold's older brother, which is chronologically impossible.
Whatever his true pedigree, it seems to be lost.
taf
Sid
were Styrbjorn's parents and why did he not become ruler of Sweden then?
Larry Swain
Sorry for the delay, needed to correct papers and not do much else. Its
ASCd for the year 1051 if I recall correctly.
Paul J Gans
Yeah. Somebody's already posted it. Strikes me as curious.
I'll think on it.
---- Paul J. Gans
Larry Swain
separate here.
1) What is known about Edward's personal life from contemporary sources
is slim to nothing. Whether he was particularly saintly or not depends
on later sources.
2) but not much later: Edith commissioned the Vita Aedwardi Regis in
1066-7, in which work Edward comes off as a pretty saintly fellow, even
coming up with the "celbate marriage" presented as a kind of martyrdom
that Edith is very interested in promoting since as William points out
there were rumors of her adultery etc. Did Edith invent the celibate
marriage to protect herself (she would surely have died as a known
adulterous deposed queen, but as virtuous, celibate life of a saintly
king she would be allowed to retire to Wilton...which she did) or was
she presenting something Edward came up with (and again Edward may have
come up with the idea himself in order to have an excuse not to
impregnate Edith giving the Godwins the throne, or he may have come up
with for "saintly" reasons, or for some combination of the two, unknown.
I prefer thinking that Edward did it, rather than Edith, it would seem
that from 1052 onward according to the Vita Edward became more and more
"saintly", and both politically and religiously this could be a response
to the Godwins, a bid for a different kind of power since he had little
to no military power to hand, and refusing to sleep with Edith needed
more than just mere kingly wish. But of course, other than the Vita,
we've no independent proof either way, but it does explain Edward's
childlessness and the rumors of Edith's adultery, not only forced into a
marriage, but forced into a spiritual one.
3) Not sure what Jamie means by saying that Sulcard gives "no
prominence" to Edward since Sulcard bothers to record Edward's illness
at the moment of consecration and then death. That Sulcard does not
credit Edward with the foundation of Westminister, but only an
enhancement, is true, but then Sulcard presents Westminister as having
been founded in the early seventh century at the instigation of a vision
of St. Peter, and associates lands, gifts etc from most of the important
rulers in England (including Offa) up to his own day, so in such a
schema it would be surprising if Edward were given the kind of
prominence as founder that he in fact seemed to be. Sulcard's history
is of more use in telling us how quickly or slowly the CULT of Edward
the Confessor developed rather than anything specifically about the
sanctity of the king himse.f, in this regard. Overall though Edward
comes off in Sulcard's work as a pretty saintly king who actively
supported Westminster and its brothers.
4) William of Malmesbury does indeed report that Edith claimed perpetual
virginity by oath on her deathbed in the face of rumors of
probri...disgrace, misconduct, shame. He does prevaricate and say he
doesn't know whether Edward's policy was due to hatred of the Godwin's
or to love of chastity, and to that point Jamie has it right. But
William does conclude by emphatically stating that Edward NUMQUAM illum
cuisuqaum mulieris contubernio pudicitiam lesisse: NEVER did he offend
chastity with any woman as bedmate. Such a statement certainly lends
credibility to Edith's story and the "saintliness" of the king. William
also records several hagiographical stories about Edward complete with
visions and so on.
Thus far, then, the reputation of Edward's sanctity begins shortly after
his death if it didn't have roots in his life, and was begun by his
wife, an Anglo-Norse woman, not the Normans. That the Normans picked up
on it and enhanced it, particularly after Henry II, is true, but they
didn't the story. And isn't surprising either....under Henry I many
Anglo-Saxon cults were revived, and under Henry II those cults thrived,
were recognized, and in fact encouraged.
Finally I'll point out that Jamie seems unwilling to distinguish two
separate though related questions: Edward's personal sanctity in life
in contrast to the growth of his cult. His use of Sulcard for example.
Barlow, on whom Jamie is here drawing, distrusted religious texts as
sources of history and so he rejected or at the very least seriously
questioned any kind of hagiography and doubed that it had any basis in
historical fact.
Hope that helps some.
Vaughan Sanders
"allan connochie" <al...@EASYNET.CO.UK> wrote in message
news:437e...@news.greennet.net...
Without Siward, Mael Coluim mac Donnachada would have secured the throne?
... I like your "it wasn't his to give" :-)) ... someone should have told
Eddie the Hammer :-))
Siward attacked Macbeth in 1054, ASC c d, he had also attacked Macbeth in
1046 installing a rival, possibly Maldred brother of Donnchada whom Macbeth
had killed in 1040 when taking the throne, Maldred and the young Malcolm had
fled south to Siward, Maldred had married a daughter of earl Uhtred..
Macbeth was able to regain the throne in 1040 but not all his previous
territory, again in 1054 Siward kept the territory south of Forth from where
his protégé Malcolm launched his assault in 1056.
Siward's son Osbern was killed in the battle with Macbeth in 1054, this
would have far reaching consequences in the saga of 1066, it allowed Tostiq
Godwinson to grab the earldom in 1055.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:dloq0f$dk7$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
Siward like Godwin was one of Cnut's men, not much is known of the origin of
either.
Siward, installed at York in 1033 by Cnut, controlled all of Northumbria by
1041 and half of Scotland by 1055.
Godwin was well on the way to being regent of England during this time, if
only Edward hadn't been so saintly.
Of course knowing that by producing a Godwin heir, he would suffer the same
fate as his brother Alfred, would make anyone saintly :-))
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
"Larry Swain" <thes...@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:D8qdnbh8ypmpFB7e...@rcn.net...
Not bad Larry, but you failed to point out that much of the Vita Edwardi was
written after 1066, Edith would not want to upset cousin William would she
(btw a lot of it is missing isn't it?)
I think you will find that according to Domesday, Edith was one of the
largest female land owners in 1086, wise move I would say
Jamie
IE_Johansson
"Vaughan Sanders" <v...@jamie-san.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:dm2kcd$6dq$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message
> news:dloq0f$dk7$1...@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu...
> > Vaughan Sanders wrote:
> >
> >> Siward btw, was a relative of Harald Hardrada, as was Malcolm Canmore
of
> >> Scotland, who Siward put on the throne after defeating Macbeth.
> >
> > As to Siward being related to Hardrada, I have not seen the claim
before,
> > but I doubt it is well supported. I have also seen it claimed that he
was
> > kin to Harold II, and/or to Cnut. His father is said to have been a
> > certain Bjorn "Bearson", which led to a tradition of a virgin out in the
> > woods, and a bear, but may instead represent Berasson, or some other
> > proper name not involving beastiality. I know one old pedigree source
> > made this Bjorn son of Styrbjorn (which presumably postdates the
> > traditions making Styrbjorn the father of Thorgils, maternal grandfather
> > of harold, while more recent alternatives make him son of Harold's older
> > brother, which is chronologically impossible. Whatever his true
pedigree,
> > it seems to be lost.
> >
> > taf
>
> Siward like Godwin was one of Cnut's men, not much is known of the origin
of
> either.
Well I don't know much about Siward, but since I read a lot about Godwin's
background I looked around to see if some of it was mentioned on net, and it
was. If you look up Godwin's son Harald you will find:
"Haralds far var Godwin, den mäktige earlen av Wessex. Godwin var son till
Wulfnoth Cild, thegn i Sussex och hade varit gift två gånger. Först med
Thyra Sveinsdóttir (994 - 1018), en dotter till Sven Tveskägg kung av
Danmark, Norge och England. Hans andra hustru var Gytha Thorkelsdóttir som
var barnbarn till den legendariske svenske vikingen Styrbjörn Starke och
barnbarnsbarn till Harald Blåtand, kung av Danmark och Norge och Svens far.
Detta andra äktenskap resulterade i de två sönernas Harald och Tostig
Godwinsons födelse.... "
<http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Godwinson>
Harald's father was Godwin, the mighty/powerful Earl of Wessex. Godwin was
the son of Wulfnoth Cild, thegn in Sussex and had been married twice. First
with Thyra Sveinsdóttir (994-1018), a daughter of Sven Twobeard King of
Denmark, Norway and England. His other wife was Gytha Thorkelsdóttir,
grandchild of the legendery Swedish Viking Styrbjörn Starke and
grandgrandgrandchild of Harald Blueteath, King of Denmark and Norway and
Sven's father[Sven Twobeards]. This second marriage resulted in the two sons
Harald and Tostig Godwinson's birth ....."
info Styrbjörn Starke.
" Styrbjörn Starke, död ca 995, son till Erik Segersälls bror Olof och gift
med en dotter till danske kungen Harald Blåtand. Styrbjörn nämns i en
isländsk skaldedikt men hans existens är inte historiskt belagd."
<http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrbj%C3%B6rn_Starke>
"Styrbjörn Starke, dead ca 995, son to Erik Segersäll's brother Olof[Erik
Segersäll was King of Sweden] and married to a daughter of the Danish King
Harald Blueteath. Styrbjörn is mentioned in an Icelandic skalde-poem but his
existent isn't proven historically."
Inger E
shannonki...@yahoo.com
successful and powerful during his lifetime. In history books, we
always read how he was "loved" by his subjects or at least seemed to be
a popular king by his death. How true is this really? Could he have
been loved after all the pain that his father and he brought to England?
allan connochie
Mebbies aye - mebbies no! I don't think Malcolm would have succeeded in the
military conquest without outside help. It didn't need to be Siward though.
Edward the Confessor may have found another powerful noble to help his allie
had Siward not existed. Anyway I wasn't arguing that anyway. Obviousy
Siward had the clout to greatly assist Malcolm. He also probably had the
reason as they are thought to have been related. However your claim that
Siward put Malcolm on the throne after defeating Macbeth is simply not true,
and you have to keep what is true in perspective. Siward and Malcolm
defeated Macbeth in the south with a mixed Anglian-Scandinavian-Scottish
army. Siward seems to have then left the fray and in fact was dead shortly
after. The area that Malcom held, and we don't know how much of the Southern
Uplands that was, was only recently incorporated into Scotland. Macbeth had
lost a battle and control over this fronteir area but still had the
traditional Alba power base around Fife and Perthshire etc, despite pressure
from the south from Malcolm, form the Norse in Caithness, and even possibly
from within. There are some suggestions that Lulach was in league with
Malcolm, or at least was opposed to his step-father. When Macbeth was
finally defeated and killed, several years after Siward's death, the crown
passed to Lulach. It was only on the death of Lulach that Malcolm was
accepted as King. When Siward was alive there was no forgone conclusion that
Malcolm would ever be crowned, never mind your suggestion that Siward
actually put him on the throne.
The comparison with Edward I doesn't work either. Siward took Malcolm's side
in what was an internal dynastic struggle. Edward I was invited by the
Scottish realm to help decide on the succession in order to avoid an
internal dynastic struggle. Edward only became the enemy when he blatantly
attempted to abuse the position he'd been put in.
Allan
Vaughan Sanders
"IE_Johansson" <ingere.j...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:Fz5hf.38711$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
The earliest mention of Wulfnoth as the father of Godwine is the 12th
century ASC f
There is some suggestion of Svein Godwinson being a son of Cnut by Gytha
rather than Earl Godwin.
Jamie
Vaughan Sanders
I just don't think any of these characters would have understood your
"didn't have the right".
Btw, my original remark was about the Normans who fled to Macbeth and were
killed by Siward in 1054, my remark about Malcolm was fair comment as he had
much of Scotland in 1054 thanks to Siward
Macbeth appears to have controlled Cumbria until 1046, by 1054 he had been
forced north of the Forth by Siward.
Jamie
allan connochie
> "didn't have the right".
Well he couldn't put someone on the throne if he didn't control the country.
Never mind that his legitimacy would not have been recognised anyway! The
reason Malcolm was a rival for the throne was because of his royal ancestry,
not because of Siward.
> Btw, my original remark was about the Normans who fled to Macbeth and were
> killed by Siward in 1054, my remark about Malcolm was fair comment as he
had
> much of Scotland in 1054 thanks to Siward
> Macbeth appears to have controlled Cumbria until 1046, by 1054 he had been
> forced north of the Forth by Siward.
As you've already said, but none of this backs up your original assertion
that "Siward put Malcolm on the throne after defeating Macbeth". Siward
defeated Macbeth in a battle but he did not put Malcolm on the throne.
Siward returned south leaving Malcolm in possession of a part of southern
Scotland. This territory had only recently become part of Scotland. In what
was then Scotland proper Macbeth was still King and remained so for several
years before Malcom defeated him again. Even then Malcolm did not take the
throne until Lulach was killed the year after. Siward had been dead for
several years before Macbeth was finally defeated.
Allan
Vaughan Sanders
Malcolm had secured the throne by 1057 two years after Siward's death,
Lulach was a stepson of Macbeth and was also proclaimed king on his death in
1057, Lulach continued to challenge Malcolm until his death in 1058.
It is very likely that Malcolm was proclaimed king in 1054 and met Macbeth
in single combat in 1057 to settle the matter.
Thorfinn earl of Orkney is also a powerful character in this saga, Malcolm
drew support from him, eventually marring his widow Ingibjorg, who was a
relative of Hardrada.
Macbeth may be the Karl Hundason mentioned in Orkneyinga Saga, but whatever,
there was deep enmity between Thorfinn and Macbeth.
Siward's Northumbrian kingdom had collapsed within 5 years of his death.
I think Siward's link to Hardrada and Thorfinn comes through his first wife,
the mother of Osbern killed in the battle with Macbeth, Hardrada appears to
have been appointing bishops to Northumbria around this time, challenging
Hamburg / Bremen, who presumably had been given the right by Cnut.
Siward's second son Waltheof by /Elffaed granddaughter of Uhtred (executed
by Cnut in 1016) was to young to oppose the Godwins, he would only regain
the earldom with the coming of William the Conqueror.
Jamie