Æthelwulf, King of Wessex

gigatos | March 21, 2022

Post Views: 20

Summary

Æthelwulf of Wessex (839 – 858) King of Wessex and Kent (839 – 858) was the eldest son and successor of Eger of Wessex. In 825 his father Ebert defeated Beornwulf of Mercia ending Mercia”s long rule south of the Humber estuary. Ebert sent his son Ethelgulf, who ousted the regent of Mercury and installed himself as regent. After 830 Ebert maintained good relations with Mercia, which continued when Ethelgulf succeeded his father (839), the first son to succeed his father in the kingdom of the West Saxons since 641.

The Vikings were not a serious threat during the reign of Ethelgulf, who was defeated by the Vikings at Somerset (843), but then crushed them at the Battle of Aklea (851). In 853 he took part in the Mercian campaign in Wales to restore their hegemony in the region, and he also married Ethelswyth”s daughter to King Burgent of Mercia. He then went on pilgrimage to Rome (855), donating a tenth of his fortune to his subjects. He appointed his eldest son Ethelblald king of Wessex during his absence, and his next son Ethelblald king of Kent in the south-east. Ethelwulf lived for a time in Rome and then decided to return to Wessex. On his way back he married in his second marriage Judith of Flanders, daughter of Charles of Flanders, King of the West Franks.

When he returned to Wessex his eldest son Ethelwald refused to hand over the throne of the West Saxons to him, and to avoid civil war Ethelwulf decided to divide his kingdom, keeping the eastern part himself and leaving the western part of the kingdom to his son. On his death (858), Ethelwulf bequeathed Wessex to Ethelwald and Kent to Ethelbert, but with Ethelwald”s untimely death just two years after his father, his kingdom was reunited under Ethelbert.

Ethelwulf is the lead character in the History Channel television series, Vikings.

Dominion of Wessex

During the 20th century Ethelwulf”s reputation among historians was very poor, and he was considered too pious, to the extent that he abandoned his royal duties to join a pilgrimage. Later 21st century historians have a contrary opinion, considering him one of the leading Saxon kings, who consolidated Wessex”s rule in England, defeated the Vikings and paved the way for his son Alfred the Great to become the dynasty”s leading king.

In the early 9th century southern England was under Anglo-Saxon control, with Mercia and Wessex being the two most important kingdoms. Mercia had the dominant role in the south until the 820s, exercising power over the kingdom of East Anglia and that of Kent, but Wessex managed to maintain its autonomy against its powerful neighbour. Ophas, king of Mercia in 757-796, was the dominant figure throughout England in the second half of the 8th century. Beatrick of Wessex (786-802) married the daughter of Ophas of Mercia (789), then Ophas and Beatrick led his father Ethelwulf Ebert into exile, who spent the next few years at the court of Charlemagne, king of the Western Franks. Ebert was the son of Ilmund of Kent, who had briefly served as king of Kent (784). Koenulf of Mercia (796-821) retained rule in Mercia but it is uncertain whether Beauregard offered his allegiance, since when he died Ebert became king with Charlemagne”s support (802). Ebert retained his rights to the throne of Wessex since he was the great-grandson of Ingild who was the brother of Ine of Wessex (688-726) so he managed from 802 to establish his dynasty.

There is nothing recorded about the first twenty years of Ebert”s reign apart from his campaigns in Cornwall in the 810s. The historian Richard Abels (b. 1951) says that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle deliberately conceals these years because it did not want to show Ebert”s allegiance to the nobles of Beatrick. Relations between the kings of Mercia and their vassals in Kent were very hostile. The nobles of Kent were part of the court of Cohenwulf, who was at odds with Archbishop Wolfrent of Canterbury (805-832) over control of the monasteries of Kent. Koenigulf”s priority was to gain control of Kent, and his successors, Keogulf I (821-823) and Beowulf (823-826), restored good relations with Archbishop Wulfrent, and Beowulf appointed Baldred as regent of Kent.

England suffered from Viking raids in the late 8th century, but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mentions nothing about the period 794-835, during which the island of Sheppey in Kent was sacked. Ebert was defeated by the Vikings at Somerset (836), but his magnificent victory against a Viking-Cornish alliance at the Battle of Hingston Down brought Cornwall under his rule.

Also read, history – Great Plague of Marseille

Marriages and heirs

Ethelwulf”s mother is not known, nor are any siblings listed. He had two wives, and his first wife Osburga was the mother of all his children. Osburga was the daughter of Oslac, described by Monk Asher, biographer of Alfred the Great, as “King Ethelwulf”s famous butler,” a man of Utah descent who had ruled the Isle of Wight. Ethelwulf had six well-known children with Osburgh. His eldest son, Ethelstan of Wessex, who was born in the early 820s and died in the early 850s, was named king of Kent (839). His second son, Ethelbald of Wessex, who is recorded in a charter for the first time as a martyr when he was about six years old, like his brother Alfred in 641, i.e. born in 635, was king of Wessex in 858-860. His third son, Ethelbert of Wessex, born about 839, became king of Wessex in 860-865, and his only daughter, Ethelswyth, married Burgfred of Mercia (853). Ethelwulf”s other two younger sons were Ethelred of Wessex and Kent, who was born about 848 and became king in 865-871, and the younger Alfred the Great, who was born about 849 and became king in 871-899. In 856 Ethelgulf married in a second marriage Judith of Flanders, daughter of Charles of Phalacru, King of the Western Franks, and future emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Osburgh was probably deceased, but there are also many possibilities that he had divorced her. No children are recorded from his second marriage to Judith, who after his death married the eldest of his surviving sons and successor, Ethelwald.

Also read, battles – Battle of Bosworth Field

Contract with his father Eberto

Ethelgulf is first recorded (825) when his father Evertus won the decisive Battle of Elladan against King Beorwulf of Mercia, a battle that ended Mercia”s long rule over the whole of southern England. Ebert then sent his son Ethelwulf, along with Elstan, Bishop of Sherborne and Wulfheard Earl of Hampshire and a large army to Kent to oust Viceroy Baldred. Ethelwulf who was descended from kings of Kent became viceroy of Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Essex, then inherited the throne of Wessex (839). His regency is recorded in documents in some of which Evert himself sought permission from his son, on one of these occasions he wished to make a grant to Bishop Beornmont of Rochester, Ethelwulf in the same year issued a document as king of Kent. Unlike his predecessors the kings of Mercia who were alienated from the people of Kent, Evert and his son successfully managed to gain their support to further their interests. Abels further states that Everbus and his son had rewarded their friends and followers handsomely. Historians take different views of the role of the new regency in the Kent church. Evert gave privileges to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the bishopric of Rochester, and according to Simon Caines both Evert and Ethelwulf succeeded in gaining the support of Archbishop Wulfrent. The medievalist Nicholas Brooks (1941 – 2014) on the other hand stresses that Wulfrent”s lineage and connections with Mercia proved to be sufficient. Ethelwulf made a seizure of an estate in east Mulling from Canterbury church on the grounds that it had been granted by Waldred at the time he was driven out by the West Saxon forces, granted to Wulfrent after 825 by King Wiglaf of Mercia. Ebert conquered Mercia (829) but Wiglaf managed to retake it a year later. The historian Kirby states that the recapture of Mercury was disastrous for Ebert who lost control of the London mint, as well as the Essex and Berkshire regions; the historian Heather Edwards states that “the huge conquest could not be sustained”. Caines, however, notes :

“It is interesting that both Evert and his son Ethelwulf respected the traditions and specificity of Kent since there was no plan to incorporate the region into the wider kingdom of southern England. It was not in the original intentions of Eger and his successors to assume power in Mercia, very likely Eger resigned of his own volition, any ensuing rivalry between the kings of Wessex and Mercia never affected their relations.”

Rise to the throne

Ebert called an assembly at Kingston (838) at which his son Ethelwulf was anointed king by the archbishop. At the same assembly he transferred the land he had conquered in east Mulling to Keolnoth the heir of Wulfrent in the archbishopric of Canterbury on condition that he should give ”firm support to Ethelwulf and his descendants”, the same was repeated by a donation to the diocese of Winchester. Eger was sure that he was the first king of the West Saxons whom his son would succeed from 641. At the same time the monasteries of Kent chose Ethelwulf as their lord after receiving a promise that after his death they would have the opportunity to elect their heads. Wulfred had dedicated his archbishopric against the secular power; Keonwulf, on the contrary, after the promises he had received, surrendered all powers to the king. The priests of Kent moreover sought protection from Viking attacks which they could only find in the kings of Wessex and Mercia. Ebert”s conquests brought Wessex more wealth than all his predecessors and stability in the succession to the throne on behalf of his descendants. This stability led to a great expansion of agricultural and commercial incomes with an expansion of the royal income itself. The wealth of the West Saxon kings was increased by the agreement they made with Archbishop Caenloth (838 – 839), the monasteries accepted the king as their supreme ruler in return for his protection. This agreement, however, could in no way bring about a demonstrable supremacy of Wessex over Mercia.

Ethelwulf”s regency in Kent proved to be a valuable experience for him, so when he inherited his father”s estate (839) he followed the same example by making his sons regents. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that on his accession to the throne Ethelgulf ”gave to his son Ethelstan the kingdom of the people of Kent, the kingdom of the East Saxons (Essex), the people of Surrey and the South Saxons (Sussex)”. Ethelwulf, however, did not give his eldest son Ethelstan as much authority as his father had given to him, and while he waited for Ethelstan to see his name written in a charter as king he did not see it realized as time went on. Ethelwulf ruled Wessex and Kent as regions with different spheres of influence backed by the aristocracy of each region. Historian Janet Nelson (b. 1942) states that “Ethelwulf ruled like the Caroline monarchs, keeping central power for himself like a father monarch”. He governed Kent following his father”s example with support from the local aristocracy who elected the local earl but took less interest in the church.

Also read, biographies – Charlie Chaplin

Relations with Mercia

In 843 Ethelwulf granted ten “hayd” to Ethelmond, the brother of the Earl of Kent Elhire, Ethelmond then succeeded his brother in this position (853). In 844 Ethelwulf ceded lands of Horton of Kent to Earl Edred with permission to be able to grant portions of land to local landowners, in this way he managed to create a network of mutual support among the king”s followers. The earls in the decrees were in very high positions often superior even to the king”s sons, the period of his reign being the first for which there is evidence of royal priests. The Abbey of Malmesbury considered him an important benefactor since he is said to have donated the bones of St. Aldhelm to it. After 830 Eger followed the policy of good relations with Mercury which Ethelwulf had followed when he became king, London which had traditionally been under the control of Mercury in the early 830s was under the control of the West Saxons and when Ethelwulf came to the throne again under the control of Mercury. Wiglaf of Mercia died (839) and his successor Beorthulf of Mercia reopened the Mercian mint in London, the two kingdoms probably signed a treaty in the mid-840s by which the West Saxons allowed Mercia to operate its mint. Berkshire was part of Mercia but in 849, the year of Alfred the Great”s birth, it was part of the kingdom of Wessex. The local earl of Mercia who was also called Ethelwulf retained his position with the kings of West Saxony. Berthulph died (852) and was succeeded by Burgred of Mercia who continued his association with Wessex and married Ethelgulf”s daughter Ethelswyth shortly afterwards (853). In the same year Ethelwulf assisted Burghcred in his successful campaign in Wales to restore Mercury”s hegemony in the region.

In the 9th century in Mercia and Kent royal decrees were issued in the monasteries but in Wessex there was a tradition of issuing decrees from the royal offices. The tradition began in the 840s and became more prominent when Ethelwulf used a Frankish secretary named Felix, there were strong links between the West Saxon court and the Carolingians. The annals of St. Burtin recorded the Viking invasion of Britain, then Lupus the Abbot of Ferrier and protégé of Charles the Bald wrote a letter to Ethelwulf to congratulate him on his victory over the Vikings and to ask him for a gift to cover the roof of the church. Lupus wrote the letter to his dear friend Felix whom he asked to convey the request. In Wessex, unlike Canterbury and the south-eastern parts of England, there was no change in the use of Latin thanks to Felix and his contacts with continental Europe. Lupus furthermore had a great influence on the king, this was clearly seen in the counties which were related to ancient Wessex such as Hampshire, Summerset, Wilshire, Dorset and a little bit of Kent.

Also read, biographies – Charles Lindbergh

Prevail over the Vikings

An ancient division between east and west Wessex continued during the 9th century, the boundaries being the forests of Selwood on the borders of Summerset, Dorset and Wilshire, the two dioceses of Wessex being Selborne and Winchester to the east. Ethelwulf”s family connections seem to have been west of Selwood but his guardianship was largely in the east, where his father was buried and Swithan succeeded Helmstan as bishop in the period 852 – 853. On 26 December 846 he granted a large tract of land in west Devon to Eanwulf Earl of Summerset, changing its use from a royal residence to a bookshop so that he could safely make the transfer as it was in a marginal area. Viking raids increased in the early 840s from both sides of the English Channel, Ethelwulf was defeated by 35 Danish ships at Carthampton in Summerset (843). In 850 Viceroy Ethelstan and Earl Elhire of Kent crushed a large army of Viking ships off the Isles of Sandwich, capturing nine enemy ships, driving out all others. Ethelwulf granted Elhire a large tract of land in Kent but Ethelstan is not heard of afterwards probably died soon afterwards. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records five consecutive raids into the south of England the following year. A fleet of 350 Viking ships captured London and Canterbury and when King Berthulph of Mercia went to reinforce them they were defeated, the Vikings moved to Surrey where they were defeated by Ethelwulf and his son Ethelwald at the Battle of Acre. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that “there was the greatest massacre of a people known up to the present day”, it further states that it had the support of the comets as opposed to the 870s implying that there was subsequently a greater consensus against them than in the early years. In 850 an army of Danes spent the winter at Thanet and then (853) Elhire of Kent and Hood were killed in the same place in battle against the Vikings, then the raiders spent the winter at Sheppey before beginning their depredations in eastern England. In any case, Viking raids during Ethelwulf”s reign were limited, never posing much of a threat.

Also read, biographies – Marilyn Monroe

Monetary system

The silver penny was the only currency used at that time in Saxon England. The Ethelwulf coin was produced basically at the central mint at Canterbury and to a lesser extent at Rochester, both mints being used by Everton from the time he conquered Kent. During Ethelwulf”s reign four phases of coinage were observed without any clear distinction between one phase and another. The first phase at the Canterbury mint placed a symbol ”Saxonorum” on the coins and was similar to one of the phases of Evert”s monetary system, in 843 the ”Saxonorum” symbol was replaced by a bust of the king. The early coins were harder than later ones, at the Rochester mint the opposite process was observed, the bust of the king was replaced by a cross-faced design on the obverse. From 848 the two mints followed a common direction by placing the inscription “Darby” on the obverse denoting Canterbury or Rochester on the front and the inscription “Cad” on the reverse denoting Kent. The Canterbury issue appears to have ceased with the Viking raids in the period 850 – 851 and the coinage only continued to be issued in Rochester. In the last phase after 852 we see coins issued by both mints with a cross on one side and a bust of the king on the other. Ethelwulf”s coinage was significantly devalued in the last years of his life and the problems continued more acutely after his death until the time when changes in the manner of coinage were introduced in 850.

The issue of Ethelwulf”s Rochester coins probably began during the period when he was viceroy of Kent under his father. A large collection of coins from that period were found around 840 in the great temple of London with 22 coins from Rochester and 2 coins from Canterbury in the first phase of each mint. These coins prove that the minting of coins in Rochester began in the period when his father was still alive, an alternative explanation could be that Ethelwulf had greater access to this particular mint. No coins were struck by his sons throughout his reign; Coelnoth Archbishop of Canterbury struck his own independent coins with three designs of different shapes in the bust of the king, this relates to the three phases which we can discern in the Canterbury mint. In Rochester, on the contrary, a phase with cross designs on the obverse was observed at the same time as the Saxonorum was issued at Canterbury mint, in the latter phase all the mints produced coins with the cross on one side and the bust of the king on the other. Historians Philip Grierson (1910 – 2006) and Mark Blackburn (b. 1953) state : “the monetary system observed proves that the issue of coins in Ethelwulf”s time followed a path independent of the king, oriented to the needs of the trading communities of each town”.

Also read, biographies – Clyfford Still

Investigations into the royal decrees

In the early 20th century, the historian Stevenson (1858-1924) says of Ethelwulf”s decrees : “few things in early history have led to such extensive discussion”. A hundred years later the writer Susan Kelly (b. 1950) says of Ethelwulf”s Ordinances that they were ”one of the most controversial groups of Anglo-Saxon Ordinances”. Asser and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle report that Ethelwulf participated (855) in a pilgrimage to Rome then ”offered a tenth of his fortune in order to thank God for his eternal salvation”. Asser in turn states that “Ethelgulf released one tenth of his property in the service of God in order to glorify the memory of his predecessors”. Keynes notes that “Asser made a loose translation of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle; the disposition of a portion of the estate to God was always a pious act; it in no way implies that his aim was to gain the support of the church.”

The ordinances according to Susan Kelly are divided into four groups:

Stevenson dismissed them all as false except for Kent”s decree, the king made donations to both clergy and laity with caution lest the latter bring reactions from the church. By the 1990s his view of the inauthenticity of the decrees was accepted by historians with the exception of Finberg who argued that most were authentic. Finberg created the terminology of the “first restoration” of 844 with the donation of one tenth of the tax and the “second restoration” of 854 with the donation of one tenth of the king”s property to the churches. He considered it impossible to carry out the first restoration because of the Viking threat, his terminology was adopted but his claims for the first restoration were rejected. Keynes defended (1994) the six decrees of Wilton”s group as authentic and his argument was accepted.

Also read, biographies – Lyonel Feininger

Ethelwulf”s donations

Historians have disagreed on the interpretation of the second restoration, Keynes in his account stated that it was “one of the most complex problems” in the study of the 9th century decrees, proposing three alternatives; it transferred one tenth of the royal property to the churches and the laity, in Anglo-Saxon England the property was either a lay estate or a library. The transfer of the peasant estate was determined by kinship rights pending the king”s confirmation, while the transfer of the library was only by royal approval and could be freely made by the owner. The use of land could be freely changed by royal decrees from popular land to library, the royal residence was the crown”s popular land while the royal library was the personal property of the king and could only be transferred by his will. In the case of the tithe donation, the popular land could be converted into a library by the laymen who had leased the land. The landlords could then convert it into a church, this was the reduction of the tithe of one-tenth of the burdens on the lands held by the landowners. The burdens included providing provisions to the king and his servants as well as paying taxes. Some writers such as Frank Seddon author of the “History of the Anglo-Saxons” along with Caines and Avels see the “second restoration” as a reduction of the royal estate. Avels states that Ethelwulf sought the loyalty of the aristocracy and the church during the period when the king was absent from Wessex as a sense of insecurity. Keynes concludes that Ethelwulf”s purpose was to gain divine support in his upcoming battles against the Vikings.

Pilgrimage to Rome

In the early 850s Ethelgulf made a pilgrimage to Rome. Abel states that “Ethelgulf was then at the height of his power and considered it the most appropriate time for him to claim a place among the great emperors of Christianity”. His two older sons Ethelwald and Ethelbert were adults, whereas his two younger sons Ethelred and Alfred were still minors. He first sent his younger son Alfred to Rome (853), apparently to prepare the ground for his own upcoming visit. Alfred, like Ethelred, was probably at the centre of a ”conspiracy zone”. Ethelred”s participation in the pilgrimage is not mentioned in contemporary sources nor in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle until later in a document found in Brescia probably because it diminished Alfred”s glory. Abels sees the mission of Ethelwulf”s youngest son and most expendable as a gesture of goodwill for the pope, but Pope Leo IV anointed Alfred as his spiritual son bringing a spiritual connection between the two fathers. Kirby says that Alfred”s mission indicates that his father probably intended his youngest son for the church. Nelson instead states that Ethelwulf also wanted to confirm his younger sons” rights to succeed to the throne of Wessex which at the time were very weakened. Ethelwulf himself departed for Rome in the spring of 855 accompanied by his youngest son Alfred and a large guard, leaving Wessex to his eldest son Ethelwald and Kent to his second son Ethelbert, at the same time appointing them his successors in the event of his death. On his way to Rome he stayed a short time at the court of the King of the Western Franks, Charles of Phalacrux, with whom he dined and exchanged gifts. Ethelwulf stayed a year in Rome, his gifts to the bishopric of Rome included a gold crown weighing 1.8 kg, two gold hats, a gold sword, four silver pebbles, two silk robes and two forked veils.

Also read, history – Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604)

Reports on the trip

The historian Joanna Story (b. 1970) says that Ethelwulf”s gifts were equal to those of Carolingian kings and Byzantine emperors, wanting to emphasise that ”the wealth and glory of the kingdom of Wessex was in its heyday and that it was not so underestimated compared to the early Germanic Christian kingdoms”. The 12th century chronicler William of Malmesbury reports that the aim of Alfred”s visit was to restore the Saxon quarter of Rome for English pilgrims which had recently been destroyed by fire. In trying to resolve the puzzles created by Ethelwulf”s pilgrimage, Kelly points out : “it is extraordinary for a Western king at that time to leave his kingdom at such a time of extreme crisis”. He states that the probable reason was a personal religious impulse of the king himself. Ryan states that the purpose of the journey was to appease the wrath of the god to whom he was charging the Viking attacks. Nelson respectively says that the purpose of the trip was to increase his personal prestige which had been hotly contested of late by his two adult sons. Kirby states : “Ethelwulf”s trip to Rome can in no way be seen as a resignation and retreat from the world, similar trips had been made before by other Anglo-Saxon kings such as Kentvalla and Ine of Wessex. The most likely aim of the visit was to demonstrate the international prestige Ethelwulf enjoyed in Frankish and papal circles.”

Second marriage with the daughter of Charles the Bald

On his way back from Rome he stayed for some time again at the court of the Frankish king Charles of Phalacrux with whom he agreed to undertake a campaign against the Vikings. On 1 October 856 Ethelwulf married in his second marriage Charles of Baldy”s daughter Judith of Flanders, she was only 12 years old and he over 60, Judith was crowned queen by Himmkar Archbishop of Rheims. The marriage was hotly debated because normally princesses from the Carolingian dynasty rarely married foreign kings, usually ending up as nuns, her case was the first in which a princess from the Carolingian dynasty was anointed queen. Asser strongly criticizes Frankish customs, citing as “disgusting and burdensome” the fact that a king”s wife could not be crowned queen and sit next to him on the throne.

Ethelwulf returned to Wessex to face the rebellion of his eldest son Ethelwald who attempted to overthrow his father from the throne. Historians give different interpretations of the second marriage and the rebellion, Nelson states that the marriage to Judith resulted in Ethelwulf gaining powerful allies from the Frankish kingdom. Charles the Bald was at this time under attack on a double front from both the Vikings and his own nobility, he needed the help of Ethelwulf who had become famous for his considerable military successes. Kirby and Pauline Stafford (b. 1946) report that the purpose of the marriage was a dual alliance against the Vikings. This marriage gave Ethelwulf great fame the prestige he gained was equal to that of monarchs from the Carolingian dynasty, Kirby reports that he crowned her in a magnificent ceremony and made her sit next to him on the throne. The king”s eldest son, fearing that one of their future sons would be anointed by Ethelwulf as heir to the throne, decided to rebel against his father. Historian Michael Enright denies that the purpose of the marriage was a joint campaign against the Vikings stating that he performed the marriage in response to his son”s rebellion, his son with a Caroline princess would have had a much higher position in the royal court and would most likely have been his heir. Abels reports that Ethelwulf asked Charles the Bald for his daughter”s hand in marriage to gain support against his son”s rebellion. Kirby and Smith on the other hand state that it was unlikely that Ethelwulf would seek war with his son especially at that time because of the great difficulties he would face. Ethelwald, moreover, was at that time evidently annoyed with his father for depriving him of a considerable part of his inheritance by the gift of his tithe.

The Ring of Ethelwulf

Ethelwulf”s ring was found in a carriage at Laverstock, Wilshire in August 1780 by Sir William Petty, sold to a silversmith in Salisbury, the silversmith sold it to the Earl of Radnor and his son William, who in turn donated it to the British Museum (1829). This ring, together with the ring of Ethelwulf Ethelswith”s daughter, are the leading examples of 9th century metalwork. This can be seen in the renaissance of metalwork which can be seen in the reign of the West Saxons with unusual iconography such as two peacocks at the base of the source of life representation which symbolised Christian immortality. The ring was inscribed “Ethelgulf king” and the inscription is part of the design which was probably added later. These representations are only common in the 9th century, such as the peacocks and a section of arrows, were probably made in Wessex but the place of manufacture was the whole of England. In the opinion of 9th century medieval art expert Leslie Webster (1891 – 1975) ”this fine ornament is undoubtedly of 9th century manufacture”. Nelson states “this gift was certainly an example of the successful reign of the 9th century”. Art historian David Wilson sees it as a survival of the pagan tradition of the generous king as “ring-giver”.

Also read, history – Klemens von Metternich

Rebellion of his eldest son

Ethelbald”s rebellion was supported by Ealchstan, Bishop of Sherborne, and by Eanwulf, Earl of Summerset, who were advisers to the king. Asher reports that the nobles met in the western part of Shelwood and many of them supported Ethelwald because they claimed Ethelwulf”s dominion over eastern Wessex. Asser further states that Ethelwulf agreed to give the western part of his kingdom to his son to avoid civil war, according to Keynes and Avels his kingdom was limited to the southeast. Historians such as Kirby claimed that the kingdom of Wessex was divided, Ethelwald retained the area west of Shelwood, Ethelwulf himself retained the centre and east while Ethelber retained the south-east. Ethelwulf insisted that Judith was his lawful wife until his death; Asser, moreover, met with no dissent or displeasure from his nobles. Ethelwulf”s wish did not succeed in surviving but Alfred had given a typical example of his father”s intentions, he divided his kingdom between his two eldest sons to Ethelwulf he gave Wessex and to Ethelwulf he gave Kent. Ethelwulf”s purpose for his sons Ethelwald, Ethelred and Alfred was to bequeath libraries to them, Abels and York report that this bequest was made in order that his younger sons should not lose their hereditary rights to the throne if it should come to pass. Other historians disagree such as Nelson who states that the bequest of the library has nothing to do with the inheritance of the kingdom, Kirby notes “such an arrangement would surely lead to civil war between the brothers, with three older brothers Alfred”s chances of inheriting the throne when he came of age were slim”. Ethelwulf at the end of his life wanted to distribute his estate “to his children and nobles for the salvation of his soul”. He sent to Rome 300 gold coins each year-100 for the lights of St. Peter”s, 100 for the lamps of St. Peter”s and 100 for the pope.

Succession

Ethelwulf died on 13 January 858, according to the Chronicles of St. Neot he was buried at Steyning in Sussex but his body was moved to Winchester on the initiative of his son Alfred. His successors were Ethelbald in Wessex and Ethelbert in Kent. The increase in popularity given to Ethelwulf by his second marriage to Judith led to Ethelwald marrying his father”s widow Judith herself which brought strong opposition from the church. Asser describes the marriage as “a great shame, against the law of God and Christian dignity”. When Ethelbald died just two years later, Ethelbert inherited both Wessex and Kent despite the fact that their father”s will mentioned the division of his kingdom, probably because the two younger brothers were underage and unfit. Kirby and Nelson report that Ethelbert became the trustee in his younger brothers” portions of the library. After Ethelbold”s death as well, Judith fled to Flanders with her fortune and married in her third marriage Baldwin I of Flanders general lord of the House of Flanders; their son Baldwin II of Flanders married the granddaughter of Ethelwulf Elfthrith of Flanders.

Also read, biographies – Ptolemy I Soter

References

Ethelwulf”s reputation in the 20th century was very poor among historians. The writer Robert Howard Hodgkin (1877-1951) states (1935) that Ethelwulf “made his journey to Rome because of his great piety, leaving his kingdom in great danger”, describing his marriage to Judith as “insanity”. Stendon in the 1960s describes him as “a religious and ambitious man, his involvement in the war was inevitable”. Fynberg similarly (1963) says “an ambitious man whose wartime manipulations were reminiscent of heroic times”. Enring (1979) notes : “he seems above all to have been an amateur religious enthusiast”. The early medieval kings portray Ethelwulf as highly religious and conciliatory so he made great concessions to his son to avoid civil war when he returned from Rome.

The early medieval writers, particularly Asher, emphasise both his strong religious faith and his desires for consensus, which were reflected in his initiatives to avoid the outbreak of civil war when he returned from Rome. Storrie states “the legend that Ethelwulf was intensely annoyed at the accusations he received about his strong religious faith contrasts with the needs he had to deal with in the early years of his reign.” In 839 an unnamed Anglo-Saxon king wrote to the Roman Emperor Louis the Pious from whom he asked permission to travel to Rome passing through his territories, he mentioned a dream of an English priest who had predicted the destruction of the country because of the sins of its inhabitants. It was probably the plan of Ebert”s father in the last years of his life which he did not have time to carry out and was subsequently entrusted to Ethelgulf.Historians see this matter in the 20th century from a different perspective. Ethelwulf is not mentioned in Peter Hunter”s list of kings in his Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England. In the 2003 edition of the same work Keynes states : “he is one of the kings who did not receive the attention he deserved … he was the guarantor of his kingdom”s fortunes in the 9th century after opening the kingdom”s channels of communication with both the Franks and Rome”. Storrie states: “Ethelwulf guaranteed the reputation of his kingdom to both the Franks and Rome to a great extent which is in no way comparable to earlier kings such as Ophas of Mercia and Cohenwulf in the early 9th century. “Nelson complains that although he was one of the leading English kings only 2 have been written about him. 500 words in the “Oxford Dictionary” compared to the 15,000 words written about Edward II and the 35,000 words written about Elizabeth I. He writes: “Ethelwulf”s reign contains very little scholarship, yet he paved the way for the later glory of his son Alfred. He had tremendous successes both in dealing with internal enemies and civil conflicts in his family, he extended his kingdom to Devon in Cornwall and Kent. He went to Rome destined not to die like his predecessor Ine but to return with political supports like Charlemagne, he was able to deal with Scandinavian attacks more effectively than later kings.”

Sources