Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:06:56.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing Thegns: Cnut's Conquest and the English Aristocracy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Katharin Mack
Get access

Extract

England was conquered twice in the eleventh century: first in 1016 by Cnut the Dane and again in 1066 by William Duke of Normandy. The influence of the Norman Conquest has been the subject of scholarly warfare ever since E.A. Freeman published the first volume of his History of the Norman Conquest of England in 1867—and indeed, long before. The consequences of Cnut's conquest, on the other hand, have not been subjected to the same scrutiny. Because England was conquered twice in less than fifty years, historians have often succumbed to the temptation of comparing the two events. But since Cnut's reign is poorly documented and was followed quickly by the restoration of the house of Cerdic in the person of Edward the Confessor, such studies have tended to judge 1016 by the standards of 1066. While such comparisons are useful, they have imposed a model on Cnut's reign which has distorted the importance of the Anglo-Scandinavian period. If, however, Cnut's reign is compared with the Anglo-Saxon past rather than the Anglo-Norman future, the influence of 1016 can be more fairly assessed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , Winter 1984 , pp. 375 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

An abbreviated version of this article was presented at the Haskins Society Conference at the University of Houston, November, 1983. I wish to thank the participants of the conference for their comments. I am especially grateful to Professor C. Warren Hollister, Professor Robert Patterson, and Dr. Robin Fleming for their insightful criticism and assistance in preparing this article.

References

1 Freeman, E.A., The History of the Norman Conquest of England, 6 vols. (London, 1867–1875).Google Scholar

2 For example, see SirStenton, Frank, Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 415–417Google Scholar [hereafter cited as ASE].

3 For example, see “Cnut's Proclamation of 1020,” “Cnut's Proclamation of 1027,” Prologue to Cnut's Laws. All references to laws are to Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, Felix, 3 vols. (Halle, 1903–1916)Google Scholar [hereafter Anglo-Saxon Laws are cited under the title and chapter assigned by Liebermann]; the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, ed. trans. Whitelock, Dorothy (London, 1961), s.a. 1016 [hereafter cited as ASC]Google Scholar; Florence of Worcester, Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Thorpe, B., 2 vols. (London, 1848–1849), s.a. 1017 [hereafter cited as F1. Wig.].Google Scholar

4 Larson, L.M., “The Political Policies of Cnut as King of England,” American Historical Review 15 (1909–1910): 720–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., Cnut the Great (New York, 1912), pp. 104-136; Stenton, , ASE, pp. 320–363Google Scholar; Loyn, H.R., Anglo Saxon England and the Norman Conquest (London, 1962), pp. 212–219, 235Google Scholar and passim; idem., The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1984).

5 S. 969, 1121, 1063, 961 are the only extant grants to known housecarls by Cnut. All references to Anglo-Saxon diplomas are cited according to the number assigned to them by Sawyer, P.H. in Anglo-Saxon Charters: An Annotated List and Bibliography (London, 1968) [hereafter cited as S.]Google Scholar. Moreover, there are only thirty-three instances of housecarls holding land in 1066 recorded in Domesday Book. None of them held large estates, which suggests that housecarls were not introduced as large landholders at the expense of native Englishmen. Domesday Book, ed. Farley, Abraham and Ellis, Henry (London, 1783–1816), 1, Fols. 36, 56, 75, 95, 99, 129, 130, 130b, 136b, 138, 138b, 140, 140b, 147, 149, 152, 152b, 164, 167, 195, 202, 213, 216, 217Google Scholar; DB, 2, fol. 59 [hereafter cited as DB].

6 Encomium Emmae Reginae, ed. Campbell, Alistar, Camden Third Series, 72 (1949), Cap. 2, 19 [hereafter cited as EE].Google Scholar

7 Stenton, , ASE, p. 413Google Scholar; Fisher, D.J.V., The Anglo-Saxon Age 400-1042 (London, 1973), pp. 314–341Google Scholar

8 ASC, s.a. 991-1016; F1. Wig., s.a. 991-1006; Simeon of Durham, Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae, ed. Arnold, T., 2 vols. (London, 1882–1885), 2: 134–155 [hereafter cited as SD].Google Scholar

9 Brihtnoth's death at Maldon in 991 is recorded in the ASC, s.a. 991, and celebrated in the Old English poem The Battle of Maldon, ed. Gordon, E.V. (London, 1937)Google Scholar. Earl Uhtred's death is described by F1. Wig., s.a. 1016, and in De Obessione Dunelmi et probitatae Uchtredi Comities in, Symeonis Monachi Opera Omnia. ed. Arnold, T., Rolls Series, 2 vols. (London, 1882–1885) [hereafter cited as DOD], 1:215–217Google Scholar. See also Whitelock, Dorothy, “The Dealings of the Kings of England with Northumbria in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” in The Anglo-Saxons, ed. Clemoes, P. (London, 1959), pp. 70–88Google Scholar; ealdormen AElfric, Godwine, and Ulfketel died at Assandum (F1. Wig., s.a. 1017).

10 ASC, s.a. 1017 (C,D,E); F1. Wig., s.a. 1017.

11 ASC, s.a. 1020(C,D,E).

12 This conclusion is based not only on the narrative sources but also on an examination of the witness lists of royal charters. The two surviving charters of Edmund Ironside (S. 947, 948) do not have witnesses, so it is impossible to know if Cnut retained any of those who served Edmund. It seems likely, however, that he did, in light of the passage quoted below (see note 29).

13 Thorkell is called Cnut's foster father in the sagas. Although the sagas are not wholly reliable, Larson argues the possibility that they are correct on this point (“The Political Policies of Cnut as King of England,” p. 726); Flateyarbók, eds. Vigfusson, G. and Unger, C.R., 4 vols. (Christiania, 1859–1868), 1: 203.Google Scholar

14 Larson, , “The Political Policies of Cnut as King of England,” p. 727.Google Scholar

15 S. 880. For a discussion of Leofwine's role during Ethelraed's reign, see Keynes, Simon D., The Diplomas of King Ethelred “The Unready” (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 197, 213–214.Google Scholar

16 Godwine first signs as “dux” on a charter dated 1018 (S. 951).

17 Fleming, Robin, Royal and Aristocratic Landholding and Alliance 871-1087 (Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1984), pp. 89–132.Google Scholar

18 The Battle of Maldon.

19 F1. Wig., s.a. 1003.

20 ASC, s.a. 1010 (C,D,E); F1. Wig., s.a. 1010.

21 ASC, s.a. 1015 (C,D,E), 1006 (C,D,E).

22 F1. Wig., s.a. 1016; DOD, p. 216.

23 ASC, s.a. 1016 (C,D,E).

24 F1. Wig. s.a. 1016.

25 ASC, s.a. 911, 1006, 1013, 1014, 1016; F1. Wig., s.a. 911, 1006, 1013, 1014, 1016.

26 ASC, s.a. 1001 (E).

27 F1. Wig., s.a. 1017.

28 F1. Wig., s.a. 1016.

29 EE, Cap. 2, 15.

30 Wormald, Patrick, “AEthelred the Lawmaker,” in Ethelred the Unready: Papers from the Millenary Conference, ed. Hill, David, British Archeological Reports, 59 (1978), pp. 41–80.Google Scholar

31 Whitelock, Dorothy, “Wulfstan and the Laws of Cnut,” English Historical Review 63 (1948): 433–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 The laws relating to widows promulgated prior to the second wave of Viking attacks are: AEthelberht 75, 76, 78; Ine 38; 6 AEthelstan 2. The new laws which appear in the later codes of AEthelraed and Cnut are: 5 AEthelraed 21, 6 AEthelraed 26, 39, 47; 1 Cnut 7, 2 Cnut 73.

33 AEthelberht 75.

34 6 AEthelstan 2.

35 AEthelberht 78; Ine 38.

36 5 AEthelraed 21.1; 6 AEthelraed 26.1; 2 Cnut 73a.

37 6 AEthelraed 12; 1 Cnut 7.

38 2 Cnut 73a, 3.

39 Wulfstan of York, Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, ed. Whitelock, Dorothy, 2nd ed. (London, 1952).Google Scholar

40 2 Cnut 78.

41 2 Cnut 73a.

42 5 AEthelread 32.1.

43 2 Cnut 19.

44 Hazeltine, H.D., “General Preface,” in Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. Whitelock, Dorothy (Cambridge, 1930), pp. vii–xl.Google Scholar

45 Whitelock, Wills, nos. 2, 14, 15.

46 Whitelock, Wills, no. 14.

47 Whitelock, Wills, no. 2.

48 DB, 2, fol. 13b.

49 Whitelock, Wills, no. 15.

50 AIfred 41.

51 Whitelock, Wills, no. 11.

52 Whitelock, Wills, no. 18.

53 The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, part 1, Catholic Homilies, ed. Thorpe, B., AElfric Society 2 vols. (London, 1844–1846), 1:256.Google Scholar

54 Whitelock, Wills, nos. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18.

55 When the heriots which appear in these wills are compared with 2 Cnut 71, it is clear that these thegns were both wealthy and of the highest standing. They fall into categories of those thegns described as being particularly close to the king. Furthermore, all of these names appear as ministri in the witness lists of AEthelraed's charters in years which would be consistent with the dates of the bequests. Although there is no way to prove that the testators are the thegns who subscribe the charters, and indeed all of the names are common, the possibility does exist.

56 Whitelock, Wills, nos. 13, 19.

57 Whitelock, Wills, no. 13.

58 DB, 1, fols. 217b, 218.

59 DB, 1, fol. 197.

60 DB, 1, fol. 190; DB, 2, fols. 299, 330b, 366b, 398b, 405b.

61 DB, 1, fol. 70, 71b. A Karl first signs in 1019 (S.955) and is one of the most frequently attesting of Cnut's thegns from that date forward. In 1066, a Karl controlled several estates in Hampshire, Somerset, Surrey, and Wiltshire.

62 Whitelock, Wills, no. 19.

63 DB, 1, fol. 173.

64 DB, 1, fol. 279.

65 DB, 1, fols. 186, 257b.

66 Whitelock, Wills, no. 19. The bequest begins “[th]is is Wulfgates gewide aet Donnintune.…”

67 DB, 1, fol. 253b.

68 DB, 1, fol. 172b.

69 DB, 1, fols. 5b, 7b, 67, 70, 71b, 136b, 139b, 140b, 142, 190b, 191b, 195, 195b, 196, 197b, 201, 277, 277b, 289b; DB, 2, fols. 8, 10, 10b, lib, 21b, 22b, 31, 53b, 70, 82b, 83, 96b, 339b, 340, 343, 356b, 385b, 402, 406b.

70 Fleming, Robin, “Domesday Estates of the King and the Godwines: A Study in Late Saxon Polities,” Speculum 58 (1983): 987–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 The authentic royal charters of Cnut are: S. 950, 951, 952, 955, 956, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 983, 984.

72 I have adopted this time period because of the changes which occurred in the composition of AEthelraed's witan demonstrated by Keynes, Simon, Ethelred, pp. 209–227Google Scholar. The identification of the individual thegns and the figures for AEthelrad's reign are based on the careful analysis by Keynes presented in tables 7 and 8.

73 I have adopted 1019 as the terminal date for two reasons. First, no authentic charters survive from 1020 or 1021, thus providing a break in the evidence. Second Cnut's return from Denmark in 1020 was accompanied by important changes in the personnel of his royal officials.

74 The inconsistancy of Anglo-Saxon naming practices precludes positive identification of those who attested as thegns. For example, the rare and sporadic use of bynames, and the peculiar tendancy of the Anglo-Saxons to act according to current fashion when choosing names for their offspring, make it difficult to ascertain kinship connections. Likewise, the lack, or inconsistant applications, of bynames or cognomens to thegns when attesting chatters, frustrates attempts to distinguish between attesting thegns. Nevertheless, from the table below, it seems likely that those who attested for AEthelraed were different men than those with the same names who subscribed for Cnut.

75 S. 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225. None of the thegns who attest these charters bear the same name as those who signed as ministri on the secular diplomas dating from AEthelraed's reign. Historians must consider both the poor survival rate of non-royal, non-ecclesiastical charters, and the cartularies in which these charters are preserved. Nevertheless, the extant evidence suggests that those thegns who witnessed secular charters during AEthelraed's reign did not continue to do so under Cnut.

76 This conclusion is based on an examination of the charters of Cnut and Edward the Confessor, the results of which I presented in a paper entitled “The Great Thegns in Council: Aristocratic Participation in Late Saxon Governance,” at the Seventeenth International Congress on Medieval Studies at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan (May, 1982).

77 Keynes, , Ethelred, pp. 115–120.Google Scholar

78 This conclusion is based on an examination of the landholding patterns and jurisdictional privileges of the Domesday Book thegns, and of the charters of Edward the Confessor.

79 John, Eric, Orbis Britanniae (Leicester, 1966), p. 61.Google Scholar