|
Notes for Egbert III , King of Wessex
General Note
|
Egbert laid the foundations for the ascendancy of Wessex among the English kingdoms. At first
an unsuccessful claimant to the Wessex crown, he finally became King in 802. Egbert defeated
the Mercian King Beornwulf at Ellandune (825) and briefly (828-29) held the kingdom of Mercia
itself. He was also recognized as King in Kent, Surrey, Sussex,and Essex and received the nominal
submission of Northumbria. The later years of his reign were marked by frequent Danish raids
on England. The male line of kings descend from him to Edward theConfessor and the female line
to the present time.
Ref. (Asc 800,823,825,827,828,836;NSE,X 209-210;Searle, 342-43).(See:Harold
W. Smith, Saxon England, Gens. 9-13. This ref. omits Cutha(1-6) in early portion of pedigree.).
Also see Ref: Academic American Encyclopedia.
The death of Egbert looks like it took
place in 839, as there are many ref. refering to his reign from 802-839. "Egbert dies leaving
a greater Wessex 839". King Egbert of Wessex has died, ending a 37-year reign in which he reshaped...
Eighth
King of all Britain, claimed title of Bretwalda. Reigned 802-839. In 800 at the decease of
King Brithric, Egbert was called by the voice of his countrymen to assume the Government of
Wessex, and he subsequently succeeded in reducing all the Kingdoms of the Heptarchy under his
sway. His reign, a long and glorious one, is memorable for the great victories he achieved
over the Danes. See Europäisch Stammtafeln Bund II tafel 58.
Stewart Baldwin says:
The "orthodox" genealogy of Egbert makes him a son of Ealhmund, son of Eafa, son of Eoppa,
son of Ingild, brother of king Ine of Wessex (688-726). The generations prior to Ine are a
separate matter, and this posting will be concerned with the generations listed above. Egbert's
father Ealhmund is not otherwise identified in any source from the ninth century, but it has
been frequently noted that there was a king of Kent of that name (ruling ca. 784) who would
make a chronologically plausible father. If you make the reasonable assumption that the two
Ealhmunds were one and the same, this gives Egbert a known (but extremely obscure) father.
Although this assumption cannot be considered certain, it does seem at least probable, so let
us assume this identity for the remainder of the posting.
Some believe that the pedigree
back to a brother of Ine has been fabricated. It must be admitted that the evidence for Egbert's
pedigree is not so good as we would prefer to have. However, in my opinion, the case for a
fabricated pedigree has been overstated. If the pedigree is fabricated, what evidence is there
that this was the case? The argument that Ealhmund was a king of Kent (and therefore not of
the West Saxon dynasty) is not a good one, for the Kentish monarchy was very unstable during
the entire period, and had a succession of kings that were either of obscure origin, or were
princes from foreign dynasties. During the same period, the dynasties of both Essex and Mercia
had supplied kings to Kent. If Essex and Mercia could do it, why not Wessex? A prince from
Wessex obtaining the Kentish throne would just be one more example of what was going on there,
both before and after the reign of Ealhmund.
WAS THE PEDIGREE FABRICATED?
So,
what direct evidence is there that the generations between Egbert and Ingild (or some of them)
were fabricated? To my knowledge, there isn't any. The well known fact that SOME of the generations
(i.e.,
pre-Cerdic) in this genealogy were fabricated does not constitute evidence that
THESE generations were. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume for the moment that
the generations back to Ingild were fabricated, in order to give Egbert a relationship to Ine
that he did not have, and let us see where such an argument would lead.
The first
question would then be, when was the pedigree written down for the first time? In principle,
it could have been written down any time between the accession of Egbert in 802 (since it would
be unlikely to have been written down earlier), and the reign of Egbert's grandson Alfred the
great (the age of the earliest manuscripts giving the genealogy). Now, 802 is only 76 years
after the death of Ine, which is pretty close to living memory. One of the basic facts about
the fabrication of genealogies is that the earlier the fabricated generations are, the easier
it is to get by with it without being caught. Fabricating such a link during the time of Egbert
without being caught would have been very difficult, so if the genealogy is fabricated, then
we would almost have to assume that it was written much later, say in the reign of Alfred,
and even then, it would not be that far outside living memory.
If we make that assumption,
we run into another problem, that of motive. The obvious motive for a phony genealogy is to
strengthen claims to the throne on the face of possible opposition. However, by the time of
Alfred, the dynasty of Egbert was already quite secure on the throne. Of course, they were
in danger from the Danes, but that was an external threat. By the time of Alfred, Egbert and
his sons and four grandsons had occupied the throne of Wessex for six consecutive reigns, and
the only other claimants to the throne who are known were also descendants of Egbert. (Faking
a genealogy only helps if the other claimants don't have the same descent.) Of course, these
arguments do not prove that the pedigree is genuine, but they do serve to illustrate how inconclusive
the argument for fabrication is.
WHAT WAS THE KENTISH CONNECTION?
In addition
to the probability that Egbert's father was king of Kent, the other evidence of a Kentish connection
is onomastic, as there were two kings of Kent named Egbert. In what one might call the "revised
orthodox" genealogy of Egbert, his patrilineal line of descent is kept exactly as in the orthodox
genealogy, and a marriage with a Kentish princess is hypothsised (with differences in the details,
depending on who is doing the hypothsising), in order to explain Ealhmund's reign as king of
Kent and Egbert's first name.
Another possibility that has been mentioned is a patrilineal
Kentish descent for Egbert (abandoning the "orthodox" genealogy). If this is supposed to mean
a patrilineal descent from the kings who ruled Kent in the seventh and early eighth centuries,
then I think that this can be considered very unlikely. The reason for this (in addition to
the lack of supporting evidence) is that if it were true, it would make Egbert (and Alfred)
a direct male line descendant of both Aethelbert, the first Christian Anglo-Saxon king, and
Hengist, the mythical (but real to people of the ninth century) first Anglo-Saxon invader of
Britain. I consider it unlikely in the extreme that Alfred would have abandoned such a politically
useful genealogy if there were any truth to it.
So, what of the "revised orthodox"
genealogy. It is plausible enough, but there are other possibilities. Given the chronology
of his reign, Egbert of Wessex was probably born during the reign of Egbert II of Kent (764-79).
If Ealhmund had been an exiled West Saxon prince seeking his fortune in the turbulent Kentish
politics of the time, naming his son after the king of Kent might be a politically astute move,
even if there were no genealogical reason for doing so. (If this is true, Egbert II of Kent
might have even been the Godfather of Egbert of Wessex.) (In fact, we see something similar
a couple of generations later, when Aethelwulf of Wessex gave two of his sons, Aethelbald and
Aethelred, the names of previous Mercian kings, despite the fact that there is no evidence
for a Mercian descent. Could Aethelwulf have been giving his sons names which would be acceptable
to the people of Mercia?) This is admittedly speculative, but it does show that there is a
plausible scenario which has no genealogical connection to the earlier kings of Kent.
CONCLUSIONS
The
following two conclusions are my main opinions on the matter. Given the sometimes heated arguments
which have been made on this subject in the past, I suspect that others may have different
opinions.
1. The "orthodox" genealogy of Egbert back to Ingild is most likely correct,
although it would certainly be nice if we had better evidence to that effect.
2. The
suggestion that Egbert was a descendant of the kings of Kent in the female line, while plausible
enough, is too weakly supported to be regarded as anything more than one possibility.
Stewart
Baldwin
|
| . |
