GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1995-12 > 0818130446


From: Gordon Fisher <>
Subject: Re: Re[6]: HELP: Ethelbald - Ethelbert - Ethelred
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 1995 21:27:26 -0500


Chris and Todd wrote what appears after the row of asterisks at the end
of my addition to their message. I haven't been following this thread
much, and I hope I'm not going to be caught off base. In Barabara Yorke's
*Wessex in the Early Middle Ages*, 1995, p 96-97, she says: "When Edward
the Elder died in 924, it seems to have been his original intention that
his eldest son Aethelstan should succeed him in Mercia and that his second
son Aelfweard (half-brother to Athelstand) should become king in Wessex.
The death of Aelweard a few days after his father helped Athelstan to
become king of both provinces, but at the battle of *Brunanburh* in 937
the West Saxon and Mercian armies fought as two separate units, possibly
one led by Athelstan and the other by his half-brother Edmund." A footnote
by Yorke to the first of these two sentences reads: "A. Williams, 'Some
notes and considerations on problems connected with the English royal
succession, 860-1066', in *Anglo-Norman Studeis*, 1, ed. R. A. Brown
(1978), 149-151; B.A.E. Yorke, 'Aethelwold and the politics of the tenth
century', in *Bishop Aethelwold: His Career and Influence*, ed.
B.A.E. Yorke (1988), 70-3. A footnote to the second sentence of the
quotation is to the ASC, s.a. 937.

I hope this isn't something you already knew!

Gordon Fisher

************************************************************************

Todd --

I posted a quote on Aelfweard from the Dictionary of Dark Age Britain on this
issue, which I hope made it to the group; this at least says I'm blowing smoke
in good company! But I have to say I have seen another discussion somewhere,
which was what I had originally hoped to post. I had thought it was in the
other Kirby book, but this turns out to be wrong. Its probably in the Wood or
Stenton references, or possibly in a 1990 book by Barbara Yorke. As I recall,
this discussion said that, although it has long been known that Aelfweard died
16 days after his father, it has only recently been realised that he was the
intended successor, on the basis of some newly discovered or reinterpreted
charter evidence I think. I agree that being eldest son was not the issue, he
was eldest son by Aelfflaed AND he was Edwards's intended successor in Wessex
(Athelstan was intended to inherit Mercia). The suggestion was made that
Athelstan may have had Aelfweard murdered.

I may not be able to track this down quickly, if anyone else has access to any
of these authors and can resolve the point, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it!

CHeers,
Chris
_______________________________________________________________________________
<snip>

I looked at my ASC last night, and it does report a son of Edward who died
16 days after his father. I suspect that this is the individual you have
in mind. The problem with the interpretation that he succeeded his father
is two fold. First, no indication is made in the chronicle that he was
either the oldest son, or that he was king. No account that I have seen of
the family of Edward place this prince as even belonging to the first wife,
but I do not know whether there is a direct statement as to his maternity
among the later historians (whose work servs as the basis for the marriages
of the varios daughters), or if it is just a guess. Also no statement is
made that he was king when he died. More importantly, it took more to be
king than just be the oldest son of the predicessor, and I suspect that 16
days is too short a time to bring together the witan to vote on the
succession, and subsequently hold the coronation. I see nothing to suggest
that he was the heir, or that he was ever crowned.

Todd

This thread: