Elite Households in Tenth-Century Francia and Anglo-Saxon England

Domina et Fidelibus Eius 15

Chapter 1 Domina et Fidelibus Eius: Elite Households in Tenth-Century Francia and Anglo-Saxon England

Megan Welton

The welfare of early medieval kingdoms depended not only on the king or emperor, but also on the clergy who governed the church, and the aristocratic laity who administered the royal household. In his De ordine palatii, Archbishop Hincmar of Reims argued that proper management of the palace by these aux- iliaries freed the king to focus on administering his wider realm.1 By outlining the principles of correct governance for Carloman, the young Frankish king, Hincmar hoped to spark the “restoration of the honor and peace of the church and the kingdom, the governance of the church, and the administration of the royal household within the sacred palace.”2 Kingdom, church, and household: these three institutions stood as pillars of the early medieval political order. Should one fall, the other two would soon follow. Within the Carolingian royal household Hincmar identified three principal administrators: the apocrisarius (diplomatic envoy), the archchancellor, and the queen.3 The queen, in particular, was charged with the smooth management of the palace. With the chamberlain, the queen allotted annual gifts, orchestrated arrangements for important assemblies and feasts, cared for for- eign legates, and attended matters that directly affected the honestas palatii.4 The ninth-century queen – along with the apocrisarius, archchancellor, masters

1 Hans H. Anton, Fürstenspiegel und Herrscherethos in der Karolingerzeit (Bonn, 1968), pp. 281- 355; Josef Fleckenstein, “Die Struktur des Hofes Karls des Großen im Spiegel von Hincmars De ordine palatii,” Zeitschrift des Aachener Geschichtsvereins 83 (1976): 5-22; Daniel Eichler, “Karolingische Höfe und Versammlungen-Grundvoraussetzungen,” in ed. Matthias Becher, Streit am Hof im frühen Mittelalter (Bonn, 2011), pp. 121-48; and Rachel Stone, Morality and Masculinity in the Carolingian Empire (Cambridge, 2012). 2 “ad reerectionem honoris et pacis ecclesiae ac regni ordinem ecclesiasticum et dispositionem domus regiae in sacro palatio.” Hincmar, De ordine palatii, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH) Fontes Iuris 3, eds Thomas Gross and Rudolf Schieffer (Hannover, 1980), p. 34; in Carolingian Civilization: A Reader, trans. Paul Dutton, 2nd ed. (Toronto, 2004), p. 517. 3 Hincmar, De ordine palatii, pp. 67-72. 4 Hincmar, De ordine palatii, pp. 72-74.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004360761_003 16 Welton of lodgings, keepers of the purse, hunters, and other officials – directed household affairs in order to allow the king to concentrate on loftier matters.5 Politics did not always conform to Hincmar’s ninth-century ideal.6 Kings in the tenth century rarely remained long at a single royal residence; the term palatium was rarely employed.7 Spatial and architectural features were not the only divergences from Hincmar’s ideal order. The shape of the administration varied considerably. Governance of the kingdom, and the royal household, was often shared between the king and queen, or between the queen and crucial magnates. Nevertheless, tenth-century century courts relied on the household’s administrative structure to furnish the daily necessities of food and shelter and to manage royal estates and moveable wealth. This chapter investigates ruling households headed by two women: Æthelflæd, hlæfdige of Mercia (c.870s-918) and Queen Gerberga of Francia (c.913-post 968). Both women controlled their own territories while married and continued to govern their realms after their husbands’ deaths. Both women created their own political networks within and outside their familial bonds. Both women fortified carefully chosen burhs and villae with martial and spiritual defenses. Perhaps most interestingly, both women destroyed the

5 Hincmar, De ordine palatiii, p. 74. For a more extensive discussion of the Carolingian household, see Rachel Stone, “Carolingian Domesticities,” in eds Judith Bennett and Ruth Karras, The Oxford Handbook of Women and Gender in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 2013), pp. 229-45. 6 It has debatable to what extent Hincmar’s rendition of the Carolingian court reflected the “real” royal household, whether in his own time or during the court of Louis the Pious, when his (now lost) source, Adalard of Corbie’s libellus, was composed. See Louis Halphen, “Le ‘De ordine palatii’ d’Hincmar,” Revue Historique 183 (1938): 1-9; Brigitte Kasten, Adalhard von Corbie: Die Biographie eines karolingischen Politikers und Klostervorstehers (Düsseldorf, 1985), 72-84; and Janet L. Nelson, “Aachen as a Place of Power,” in eds Frans Theuws, Mayke de Jong, and Carine Van Rhijn, Topographies of Power in the Early Middle Ages (Leiden, 2001), pp. 217-42, at pp. 226-32. 7 Thomas Zotz, “Palatium publicum, nostrum regium. Bemerkungen zur Königspfalz in der Karolingerzeit,” in Die Pfalz: Probleme einer Begriffsgeschichte vom Kaiserpalast auf dem Palatin bis zum heutigen Regierungsbezirk. Referate und Aussprachen der Arbeitstagung vom 4.-6. Oktober 1988 in St. Martin/Pfalz (Speyer, 1990), pp. 71-101 at pp. 91-95; idem, “Königspfalz und Herrschaftspraxis im 10. und frühen 11. Jahrhundert,” Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 120 (1984): 19-46; idem, “Kingship and Palaces in the Ottonian Realm and in the Kingdom of England,” in eds David Rollason, Conrad Leyser, and Hannah Williams, England and the Continent in the Tenth Century (Turnhout, 2010), pp. 311-30; Stuart Airlie, “The Palace Complex,” in eds John Hudson and Ana Rodríguez, Diverging Paths? The Shapes of Power and Institutions in Medieval Christendom and Islam (Leiden, 2014), pp. 255-90; and Simon MacLean, “Palaces, Itineraries and Political Order in the Post-Carolingian Kingdoms,” in eds Hudson and Rodríguez, Diverging Paths?, pp. 291-320.