To move forward in the history of Anglo-Saxon England, we have to move backwards a bit in time and a little South and East in geography. To Normandy.
Normandy, as you might vaguely recall from your history, was a territory that belonged to the Frankish Empire and was settled by Vikings under Rollo (The viking, not Rolo the caramel filled candy). The actual story, of course, is a bit more complicated.
Rollo (Old Norse Hrolfer) was the leader of a group Vikings that raided not to the West and Britain but to the South the Kingdom of West Francia. He is associated with a raid on Paris in 885 A.D. and remained apparently successfully there, having secured territory (with other Viking settlers) in the areas of the lower Seine Valley in what is now France. In 911 A.D the King of West Francia, Charles III ("Charles the Simple") signed a treaty with Rollo, granting him the lands of the old church boundaries of Rouen in return for fealty to the Frankish King (on Charles' part, quite possibly trying to end the raids by effectively buying Rollo out). The new territory was called Normandy from origins of the now settled peoples (Northmen).
Rollo and his now ex-Vikings were successful in their new province: by 922 A.D. they had achieved supremacy over the other Viking settlements in the Seine valley. Rouen, the capital, became a trading port for Scandinavia and the Viking territories, including the Danish parts of England. The Old Norse they spoke was largely abandoned in favor of the Gallo-Roman French of its inhabitants (but with the addition of Old Norse words not otherwise present). By 996 A.D. Normandy was French speaking, Catholic, and busily working on expanding its territory. It also, as you may recall, continued to be associated with Viking raids in England, resulting in a treaty between Normandy and England in 991 A.D.
Familial links between the two geographies came as well. In 1002 Æthelred Unræd King of England married the Duke of Nomandy's daughter Emma. They had two sons, Edward (The Confessor), and Alfred. Upon Swein Forkbeard's conquest of England in 1013, Emma and her two sons fled back to Normandy. Edward and possible Alfred returned upon Æthelred's restoration in 1016, but then fled again upon the death of Æthelred and his son Edmund Ironsides. Emma, as you may recall, then married King Canute and bore him Hardecanute (and a daughter, Gunhilda).
Edward remained in exile in Normandy throughout the reign of Canute, Harald Harefoot, and Harecanute. He and his brother attempted a return in 1036; his brother Alfred was captured by Earl Godwine of Essex and blinded, resulting directly (or indirectly) in his death. Edward returned back to Normandy, seemingly consigned to a life of waiting.
Meanwhile, in England...
In 1009 A.D. Wulfnoth cild, a thegn of Essex, was exiled by Æthelred Unræd. Wulfnoth had a son, Godwine, who stayed in England to try and rebuild the family's fortunes. In this he was successful, regaining the lands of his father and expanding them. He supported Æthelred's son Edmund Ironsides and, somehow, upon the accession of Canute in 1016 as King of England, became one of the few Anglo-Saxons to not be purged by King Canute. In fact, he was raised to the status of an earl. In the earl 1020's he was raised to Earl of Wessex and married Gytha, King Canute's sister in law. He served Canute loyally during his reign and in 1035 A.D. declared Hardecanute against those that declared for Harald Harefoot. It is possible that Godwine's capture and blinding of Alfred was to gain the favor Harald Harefoot (which, apparently, it did). When Harald died in 1040 A.D. and Hardecanute came back to power, Godwine managed to survive the power transfer (again).
In 1041 A.D. Hardecanute invited Edward back to the kingdom, possibly to share the rule and perhaps bolster his popularity with the Anglo-Saxon community. Before this could be truly put into place Hardecanute died. It is said that Godwine, Earl of Wessex, led the call for Edward to ascend to throne and thus, in 1042 A.D., Edward Æthelred's son, exile, became King of England.
Undoubtedly at the accession of King Edward, his children were present, among them his second son who was around 20 years old at the time. His given name was Harold; history would know him as Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon King of England
Works cited:
Brooke, Christopher: From Alfred to Henry III 871-1272. Norton Library: USA, 1961.
Hollister, C. Warren: The Making of England 55 B.C. to 1399. D.C. Heath and Company: United States, 1976.
Nictolle, David: The Normans. Osprey Publishing: Hong Kong, 1987.
Trevelyan, G.M.: History of England Volume 1: From the Earliest Times to the Reformation. Anchor Books: USA, 1953
Thanks for your work on posting this series of posts TB and for the websites re:books I read earlier.
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome Nylon12. This is becoming a bit of an addiction; sadly we are almost at the end of the Anglo-Saxon period - at least for history. But then, on to language!
Delete"The Old Norse they spoke was largely abandoned in favor of the Gallo-Roman French of its inhabitants." Somehow, this seems to suggest a lot about how the area was settled by the Norse. I recently watched a video about a new theory of British history that suggests that the Saxons didn't invade and conquer Britain, but rather trickled in peacefully until they dominated the population. Numerous comments to this video pointed out that if that were the case, the Saxons would have adopted the Briton language, rather than the inhabitants suddenly deciding they wanted to switch to speaking Saxon. In other words, the promoters of this new theory weren't taking language into account, and most commentors weren't buying it.
ReplyDeleteGood post, TB.
Leigh - One of the theories I read that supports that view is the acknowledged fact that, alone among the Germanic "invasions" of the 4th and 5th century, only the Anglo-Saxons ended up essentially "remaking" a country linguistically. I suspect (neither a philologist nor archaeologist nor trained historian, only an amateur) that is was due to the fact that those conquests resulted in a thin Germanic aristocracy over a large native population. The Lombards, Gepids, Vandals, Franks, Ostro-and-Visigoths were never of a sufficient number to truly "convert" a society, nor were the interested in doing so. They wanted 1) to rule; and 2) to get money. As long as that happened, there was little need or interest in making a greater Lombardy or Francia or Visigothia. Of note, this is (eventually) true of the Norman conquest of England as well.
DeleteThe theory referenced above runs that because of the initial success of the Romano-Briton resistance in the late 5th century, perhaps including the successes of Ambrosius Aurelianus (the basis of King Arthur, perhaps) and the Battle of Mons Badonicus, the Anglo-Saxons were stopped and kept in a smaller part of the country. Rather than diffusing throughout as an aristocracy, the region they were in became thoroughly Anglo-Saxon as they were trapped there (and likely, native Romano-British fled to more friendly territories). Thus, when they re-emerged during the latter 6th Century it was essentially as a unified people group, not a disparate one. Also - and perhaps a small part - the Anglo-Saxons remained able to recruit new settlers from the Continent, something the other Germanic peoples did not seem to do.
Glad you are enjoying it. I am learning a lot as well.