THE HOUSE OF AETHELRED David H. Kelley Thepresent paper will attempt to showthat the descend­ ants of King Aethelred I, elder brother of King Alfred, played a continuously important role in the history of England from Alfred's time to the Norman Conquest. The emphasis, however,is genealogical rather than historical. The most important development of recent times for Anglo—Saxongenealogical studies is the appearance of several series dealing with Anglo-Saxon charters.1 The extremely useful series of biographies, nearly 300for the ofnorthern material charters, available. pregared Hart by has Hart also makesa done tremendousa moreextended mass study of Aethelstan, the Half-King, and his family,3 and has written on BishopOswald's relatives, especially Ead­ noth.4 Finberg has written on the family of Ordgar and Ordulf,5 and Williams on Aelfhere of Mercia and his fami­ ly. The emphasis in all these papers is more on the historical role of the particular families than ondetailed demonstration of the genealogies. Available evidence to reconstruct genealogies is ex­ tensive, particularly the massof charters, whichnot only give evidence concerning the descent of land but also, from the witness lists, always arranged in a strict order of protocol, give evidence of the changing status of indivi­ duals. Offices, though not inherited in any fixed way, tended to run in families. Although there were no family names, names also give evidence of relationships. Fre­ quently, members of a family will share names beginning with a particular soundor related group of sounds, such as the vowels. Names may consist of a single element, or theme, but more frequently consist of two themes. Twonames which share the same initial theme [Aelf—red, Aelf-wine] are said to be linked by end—variation, whereas two names which share the same final theme [Aelf—red, Aethel—red] are linked by front-variation. Occasionally the initial theme of one namelinks it to the final theme of another [Wulf­ ric, Aethel—wulf]. Both elements maybe repeated, and this is quite normal between grandparents and grandchildren or between uncle and nephewor aunt and niece. It was rare to give two living children the same name, although it hap­ pened occasionally, and apparently even morerare to give a child the nameof a parent. To recognize such linkages, it is desirable to standardize the form of the name, and customary to adopt for this purpose the Wessex dialect forms. In our sources there is no such consistency, so that a single theme mayappear in numerous spellings. For one example, beorht- mayalso appear as bert-, briht—, byrth, bryth-, bercht-, berht—,brict—, bric—, brid-, byrhtt-, bris—, brith—, brics—, bricht-, burht—, or others, de­ pending on the local dialect, the date, the person re­

63 A Tribute to Charles Evans cording the name, and, sometimes, the vagaries of copyists. For the purpose of this paper, consistency has been ex­ tended to such names as Edward and Alfred, showing them hereafter as Eadweardand Aelfred, though the Anglo-Saxon form IE is not used, Ae being used instead. Whereproperty inheritance is concerned, people often found it desirable to meddle with the evidence, so that charters range from genuine contemporary documents through a wide range of copying and mis—copyingto outright forged instruments. Mis-copyingand a desire for noble ancestors mayalso affect pedigrees; casual statements of relation­ ship are particularly prone to copying error. Despite these handicaps, the wealth of material does make it possible to obtain results considerably morefull than has been usually acknowledged either by Anglo-Saxonists or genealogists. In a remarkable article on the genealogy of Earl God­ wine, Lundie W. Barlow was able to present very convincing evidence of the great importance of the families descended fron1KingAethelred and good evidence that Godwinebelonged to this lineage.7 However,while his hypotheses were very carefully thought out andhis citation of evidence strongly supports his conclusions, the material was presented in a very condensed form and a casual reading does not makeclear the nature of the evidence. I have found that genealogists familiar with Barlow's work profess themselves unable to judge it. Hart makes passing reference to it in his biography of Godwine,3 but to my knowledge no Anglo­ Saxonist has madea detailed appraisal of Barlow's con­ clusions. I have also had the good fortune to have access to a series of pencil notes on the LondonLibrary copy of Searle's standard work,9 by a still anonymouscommentator, whosenotes do for Leofric of Mercia what Barlow did for the house of Godwine, demonstrating the descent of the later ealdormen of Mercia from the elder son of King Aethelred. The evidence strongly suggests that muchof our avail­ able data fronlcharters and other documentsrelate to a much smaller and moreclosely inter—related.group of people than has been recognized. For these preliminary remarks, the study is directed to the relationships of Aethelweard, Ealdorman of Wessex and his son Aethelmaer, Ealdorman of Devon. King Aethelred's confirmation charter to Eynsham Abbey, edited and studied by Salter,1° mentions Beorhtnoth [Brithnoth], Ealdorman of Essex and Beorht-helm [Brith­ helm], Bishop of Winchester, as relatives of Ealdorman Aethelmaer, whois himself called a relative of the king. The will of Aelfheah, Ealdorman of Hampshire11mentions his brother Aelfhere, knownto be the Ealdorman of Mercia, and his kinsman Aethelweard, apparently the above-mentioned Ealdorman of Wessex, to whomhe devised Wicuman. This is presumably Wycombe,co. Bucks, held at a later date by the family of Godwine. Since it will be shownthat Godwine's family held a considerable numberof properties previously

64 The House of Aethelred held by Ealdorman Aethelweard of Wessex, this tends to support the Viewthat the Aethelweard called "kinsman" of Ealdorman Aelfheah was that same Ealdorman of Wessex. Aelfheah's will also mentions Crondall, which had been devised to him by his relative Aelfsige, Bishop—E1ectof Canterbury. This Aelfsige also held Clere, which had been devised by Ealdorman Aethelweald to an unnamed son of his brother Aelfstan;12 Aethelweald also devised Carcel to Aelfsige, his brother's son. This will be discussed later at greater length, but it may already be assumed with considerable probability that these statements are in part parallel and safely identify Aelfsige, Bishop—e1ectof Canterbury, as nephewof Aethelweald and son of Aelfstan. This Aethelweald, Ealdormanof Wiltshire, also mentions in his will his brother Aethelstan, knownfrom other sources as the "Half-King", Ealdorman of East Anglia and, for a time, of Mercia. Aethelstan is described in the history of RamseyAbbeyas "from royal ancestors".13 His son Aethel­ wine is called in his epitaph "relative of King Edwin" [Regis Eadwini cognatus] and in the life of St. Oswald14as "bornof royal lineage". All of these items indicate direct royal ancestry for the family of Aethelstan. The other previously mentioned individuals are also known to be royal relatives. King Eadred gave land at Bockland, co. Dorset to his kinsman “Elfere" [Aelfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia] in 951.16 Aelfhere is described by Florence of Worcester17 as "a relative of Ed ar, Kingof the English" and as "prince of the Mercians".1 Aelfheah, the previously mentionedbrother of Aelfhere, is described as a relative of King Eadwig.19 Beorhthelm [Brithhelm], the previously mentioned Bishop of Winchester, is described in a grant of 960 as a "blood relative" of King Edgar and "of the biological lineage" of the sameking in a charter of 961.20 His name suggests some possible relationship to manofBeorhthelm, Essex, the described father of as Beorhtnoth "prince".2 Ebyrthnothl, Beorhtnoth's ealdor— wife was a sister of the wife of King Eadmund,and his ownsister was married to Aethelstan, the Half-King.22 Thus the families of Aelfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia, of Beorhtnoth, Ealdorman of Essex, of Beorhthelm, Bishop of Winchester, and, as will be shown, of Aethelstan, Ealdorman of East Anglia, were all related to Aethelweard, Ealdorman of Wessex. Moreover, all five families were related to the royal family, and the families of Aelfhere and Aethelstan are known to be related to each other. The simplest explanation for this series of relationships is a common royal descent for all or most of them; for some of them, indeed, such a descent was alleged. Evidence from land descent also supports this view. Thewill of KingAelfred23 left a series of properties to "Aethelm"[Aethelhelm], the son of his brother (King Aethelred) with the proviso that they be inherited in the male line "while there shall be any worthyof it" andwith ultimate reversion to Aelfred's next

65 A Tribute to Charles Evans of kin. Noreversion occurred. Amongthese properties were Aldinbourn, left in the will of EaldormanAelfheahll to his brother Aelfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia, Compton(probably including the Little Comptongiven by Ealdorman Aethel­ maer, son of Ealdorman Aethelweard, to EynshamAbbey), and Crondall, devised by Aelfsige, Archbishop-Elect of Canter­ bury to his relative Ealdorman Aelfheah, as previously mentioned. Aethelweald, uncle of Aelfsige, also held Newnton, which had been separately granted by King Aelfred to his nephew, EaldormanAethelhelm, and devised it to his brother Aethelstan. Thusthree of the five families weare considering are knownto have held property which, under the will of KingAelfred, were limited to descendants of his nephewAethelhelm in the male line. If this is accepted as a valid indication that Aethel­ stan and his brothers were descendants of Aethelhelm, chronology prevents their being more remote descendants than grandsons. Fenton Aylmerwas able to show24that there is goodevidence that Aethelstan's father wasAethelfrith, Ealdormanof Mercia. This Aethelfrith lost his property titles by fire and someof the lands were reconfirmed to him, including Wrington, co. somerset and Princes Ris­ borough, co. Bucks, the latter of which had previously belonged to a certain Aethelwulf [Athulf] and his daughter Aethelgyth. Aethelfrith's property at Wringtonwas sub­ sequently given to Glastonbury, according to a note on the charter, by "Athelstan dux filius Etheredi" (ealdorman Aethelstan, son of Aethelred). But Aylmerpoints out that an early index of Glastonbury charters has as the fortieth entry Edwardus, de Wring [Uurinton] dat. Aethelfritho, quam ejus filius Ethelstanus dux ded. G. (Edward, holder of Wrington, gave it to Aethelfrith, whose son, ealdorman Aethelstan, gave it to Glaston­ bury). Here the EaldormanAethelstan is called son of Aethelfrith and not of Aethelred. It would seem that "Etheredi" was written in error for "Ethelfredi" on the charter note; the latter would have been an acceptable rendering of Aethel­ frith. The explicit index entry is preferable to the previously widely accepted view that Aethelstan was a son of an otherwise unknownAethelred (as Searle says). Napier and Stevenson26 are cited by Chadwick27as noting that "Aethelferth" [Aethelfrith], a Mercian ealdorman, held the property subsequently held by Aethelstan, and suggesting that "Etheredi" was an error, while Hart gives Aethelfrith without comment;28but the widespread use of Searle's workmakesit desirable to cite this evidence at some length. It was suggested by Aylmer that Aethelgyth, daughter of Aethelwulf, by way of whomPrinces Risborough passed to Aethelfrith, was the latter's mother, and Barlow considers this likely. Areasonable alternative is Hart's suggestion that Aethelgyth was probably the wife of Ae­ thelfrith.29 Aylmerpointed out3° that the charter was

66 The House of Aethehed endorsed "regnante" [ruling]: which should indicate a royal charter given by Aethelwulf. He therefore tried to associate the charter with King Aethelwulf (died 858), father of Kings Aethelred I and Aelfred. This seems chronologically unlikely. Hart thought that various docu­ ments associatednwith the family might refer to no less than three different persons of the samename:Aethelwulf per­ haps father of Aethelfrith, Aethelwulf his father—in—law, and Aethelwulf his brother.31 This seems to be an unneces­ sary multiplication of entities. It is mostunlikely that Aethelfrith's father and.brother should have the samename; well documented cases of father and son having the samename at this time do not exist among the Anglo—Saxons, and a practice contrary to Anglo—Saxonnamingpatterns should not be postulated unless the evidence is overwhelming. It seemsfar more likely that all the references and all the properties in question relate to one single man. I prefer Barlow's view that the father of Aethelgyth wasAethelwulf, Ealdorman of Mercia, brother—in-law of Kin Aelfred and son of Aethelred Mucelby'a Mercian princess. This Aethelwulf seemsto have held a semi-royal position in Mercia and might have been privileged to use the endorsement "regnante". The crucial grants are: by King Aethelwulf to "another Aethelwulf" of land at Cluttone, co. Somerset (Hart sug­ gests that this second Aethelwulf ma be the father of Aethelfrith, father of the Half—King); 3 by King Eadweard in 901 to Aethelwulf of land at Wilig, co. Wilts (Hart suggests that this maybe an otherwise unknownbrother of Aethelfrith);34 and confirmation charters for land at Wrington, co. Somerset, and Princes Risborough, co. Bucks (discussed above), the latter having passed from Aethel­ wulf to Aethelgyth to Aethelfrith by 903, the year in which / Aethelwulf of Mercia died.35 subsequently these lands weré all held by Aethelstan the Half—Kingorhis brother Aethel­ wea1d.3 All are noted during the life of Ealdorman Aethelwulf of Mercia.37 Hart objects that Aethelwulf, a Mercian, was not likely to receive lands in Somerset, 3 but if he is the same person as King Aelfred's brother—in-law he might surely have been granted lands anywhere in the kingdom. Hart himself has shownthat the geographic bases of the great families were not limited to one area, nor was their political powerso limited. The charter confirming Risborough to Aethelfrith also throws light on the family connections of Aethelweard, for Risborough was amongthe properties owned later by Aelf­ gifu, relative of the king and sister of Aethelweard. This does not prove that Aelfgifu was descended from Aethel­ frith, but, as Whitelock observed, it does suggest it.38 Aelfgifu's relationship to Aethelweard has been fully shown by Barlow and had been widely suggested previously. Whitelock cited most of the relevant evidence. 9 Aelfg­ ifu's will devises Berkhamsteadand Mundingwelljointly to Aelfweard, Aethelweard, and Aelfwaru and gives other pro­ perty to Aelfwaru, called her sister. In a charter of 974

67 A Tribute to Charles Evans appear the signatures of "Ego Athelwerd fraterque meus Aelfwerd ministri" (I Aethelweard and mybrother Aelfweard thegns). Aelfgifu's will also mentions one Aethelflaed, her brother's wife, and a manumission by an Aethelflaed refers to her husband "Athelwerd dux" (ealdorman Aethel­ weard), the manumission being confirmed by Aethelweard and Aelfweard. Taken together, this seems reasonably conclu­ sive proof that Aethelweard, Aelfweard, Aelfgifu, and Aelfwaru were brothers and sisters. If these siblings were descendants of Aethelfrith, the only possible solutions for their parentage would seemto be those proposed by Barlowand Hart respectively. Aethel­ frith's son Aethelweald devised land to an unnamedson of his brother Aelfstan, and also to Aelfsige, son of an unnamedbrother. Barlowthought that this Aelfsige was the same as Aelfsige, Archbishop-elect of Canterbury, who later held Clare, whichAethelweald had left to the son of Aelfstan. In short, the unnamed son of Aelfstan and Aelfsige, son of the unnamedbrother, were the sameperson. It followed that Aelfgifu andher siblings were children of Eadric, the younger brother of Aethelweald.4° Onthe other hand, if one assumes that the unnamedson of Aelfstan and Aelfsige are different persons, it wouldfollow that Aelf­ sige was a son of Eadric, while Aelfgifu and her siblings are children of the unnamedsonof Aelfstan. This is Hart's position.41 Nowif one accepts Barlow's conclusion that Aethelfrith was the son of Aethelhelm, nephew of King Aelfred, it is probably impossible that Aethelweardand his siblings are great—grandchildrenof Aethelfrith, because the generations are too crowded, even though Anglo-Saxon generations tended to be short, and there is little chrono­ logical control. That is to say, one must reject both Barlow's solution of Aethelfrith's parentage andhis solu­ tion of the parentage of Aelfgifu if Hart is correct. However, Barlow does establish that Aethelweard and his siblings and descendants held lands whichhad been received by Eadric. Taken all together, Barlow's position is at least slightly preferable to Hart's. Barlow's hypothetical pedigree of Ealdormar1Aethelweard maythus be constructed solely on what we knowfrom charter evidence. The hypothesis that Aethelweard was a son of Eadric is original with Barlow. Theevidence that Eadric's father was Aethelfrith of Mercia was first brought out by Fenton Aylmer and Barlow, again, is responsible for the hypothesis that the father of Aethelfrith wasAethelhelm, son of King Aethelred I. This reconstruction would make Aethelweard a great—great—grandsonof King Aethelred. It has long been supposed that Ealdorman Aethelweard was identical with the author of a well knownchronicle who called himself "Fabius Aethelweard" and gave himself the title of "Consul", apparently as a learned Latin equivalent of "Ealdorman". The chronicler Aethelweard was, according to his own testimony, a great—great-grandson of King Ae­ thelred. His literary pursuits and knowledgecoincide well

68 I. Barlow’:reCo11$truCcio_noftheancestryand prLncipaLdescendantsof’ AETHELF_RlTHoFMerC1awiflwa summary ofthe principabargumcntx su ppm-cmgdm hyp eses.

tang AETH [ELM/uu=

II King;AETH ELRED I

AETI-‘IELHEIM

AETI? ELFRJTH , Ealdorman OFMeru'.a(he1dPrinces Risbomugh) I I I *| 69 AETHEU/\/EALD(he1d Newmzm, AELF5TAN AETH ELSTAN Halfiking EADRIC

gmrrted to Aetheuictm) :I ‘ | royabancestorx’ E AEIIFSIGE AETH EUA/1N E AELFGI FU AETH ELMJEARD TheHouseofAethelred Archbishapelecr/oFC3n1:erbury. 'oFmyal, lineage ’ (held Princes chr1rn‘Lc1er;’g1-ear/— ‘ (held Clerc, bequeardued by Iusborough) gr-aae:—gmndsonoF Aethelweatd to his nephewand K1‘ngAe;d1elnd cmndau, bequeathed byKing | Aelfred to his nephewAe,d1euveLm) AETHEIMAER, (held U11:LeComp1zm, probably the. lizzde Comptem _ bequeaawd byKingAelfred —- ———.induntes postutzcedmhfinnships tohisnepheu/,AetheLheLrn) A Tribute to Charles Evans with those of the Ealdorman,whowasa patron of literature. That the chronicler and the Ealdormanwere the sameperson is accepted by Campbell, the most recent editor of the chronic1e,42 and also by Hart.43 Neither considers the relevance of Aethelweard's statement to the reconstruction of his pedigree. The conclusion that the Ealdormanand the chronicler wereidentical is not basic to the establishment of the pedigree, yet the agreement of the chronicler's statement with the hypothetical pedigree further reinfor­ ces the probability that in fact the chronicler and the Ealdorman were the same person, as seems to me highly likely. Table 1 shows the principal features of the arguments for the pedigree as worked out by Barlow. The EaldormanAethelweard was the father of the Ealdor­ man Aethelmaer, the founder of EynshamAbbey. According to a pedigree given by Florence of Worcester, 4 Godwine, Earl of Wessex, father of King Harold, was the son of Wulfnoth, son of Aethelmaer, son of a certain Aethelric. Anscombemaintained45 that Godwine's grandfather was ac­ tually the Ealdorman Aethelmaer, son of the chronicler Aethelweard, mistakenly confused with a second Aethelmaer who was actually son of an Aethelric and brother of the notorious Eadric Streona, Ealdorman of Mercia. The main feature of Anscombe's argument is that Compton,co. Sussex, willed by King Aelfred to Aethelhelm, was held in the eleventh century by Wulfnoth and then by his son Godwine. Barlow found a very considerable amountof support for his view in the descent of lands, and I have found somefurther support, with modifications. As will be shown, it now appears extremely likely that Earl Godwine was in some fashion the representative of EaldormanAethelmaer, either through descent or through some sort of systematic con­ fiscation and regrant en bloc of the lands of Aethelmaer's family. While such systematic confiscation and regrant seem to have been typical of the early Normanperiod, I am unaware of other evidence for this process during the Anglo-Saxon period. If in fact Aethelmaer, Godwine's grandfather, is to be distinguished from the Ealdorman Aethelmaer, the two were probably relatives, but if in the male line, it wouldhave to be as distant as third cousin, which seems remote for an heir. No positive evidence supports the hypothesis of an inheritance through females. Thus it becomesdesirable to examineother evidence bearing on Anscombe's hypothesis. The first point to be madeis that there is no need to reject the testimony of Florence of Worcester regarding a relationship between Eadric Streona and Earl Godwine. Both Anscombeand Barlow followed the pseudo-chronological ar­ guments for this rejection stated by Freeman:4 [C]an we conceive a man marrying the great—great-niece of his own brother—in~1aw?... can we believe that he [King Eadweard] belonged to the samegeneration as his wife's great—grandfather?

70 The House of Aethelred Theserhetorical questions are permitted to stand as their own answer. No attempt was made to examine the relevant dates, which immediately showthat the answer to the first question is "yes" and that the second question is mislead­ ing; Eadweard.was born about 1004 and married in 1045, aged about 41. Godwine, his wife's father, married as a young adult in 1019 and had a large family by this marriage. His birth mayreasonably be put about 995, give or take a few years on either side. Thebirth of his father wulfnoth may reasonably be placed at about 970-75 and his grandfather Aethelmaer about 950. If Eadric Streona were a younger brother or half-brother of Aethelmaer, born about 955-60, he wouldhave been in his late forties or early fifties at the time of his marriage in 100947to Eadweard's sister. By juggling the figures, one could makeEadric Streona con­ siderably younger or older at the time of his marriage. In any case, the impression given by Freeman's questions is not relevant to a true appraisal of the validity of the relationship. The fact is that Eadweard's sister was married someten years before Eadweard's father—in-law'was married, at a time whenher half-brother wasonly five years old, to a substantially older man. The true reason for Freeman's argument is probably rooted in Freeman's emo­ tional attachment to his paragon, King Harold, and Free­ man's desire to disassociate Harold from Eadric Streona, who is universally given a very bad character in the historical sources. I therefore think that there is no reason to reject the testimony of Florence of Worcester on the relationship of Eadric Streona to Godwine. Both are said to have been of "low birth", yet the former married a daughter of King Aethelred II and the latter a relative of King Cnut. Such marriages do not suggest "low birth" whenone considers the general nature of Anglo—Saxonsociety. Instead, the depre­ ciation of someonedisliked as low-born is standard in a society which values "high birth". The namesof membersof Godwine's family offer some support to the idea that his grandfather was the EaldormanAethelmaer. Five of the names of Godwine's children showthe Scandinavian affinities of his wife (Swegen, Harold, Tostig, Gyrth, Gunhild); the other five were Leofwine, Wulfnoth, Eadgyth, Aelfgifu, and Eadgifu.43 Godwinehad a brother, Abbot Aelfwig, and his relative Aelfric was Archbishop-elect of Canterbury in 1050. Florence identifies the brothers of Aethelmaer, Godwine'sgrandfather, as Eadric Streona, Beorhtric, Aelf­ ric, Goda, Aethelwine, and Aethelweard.4 Ealdorman Aethelmaer's father was Aethelweard and I have accepted Barlow's argument that his grandfather was Eadric. His uncle wasAelfweard and his aunts wereAelfgifu and Aelfwaru. Amongrelatives of Ealdorman Aethelmaer mentioned in Aethelred's confirmation charter to Eynsham are Godwine, Leofwine, Ealdorman "Byrhtnotus" and Bishop "Byrthtelmus". Thus in both families are found the names

71 A Tribute to Charles Evans of Aethelmaer, Aethelweard, Eadric, Aelfgifu, Godwine,and Leofwine, and names in Beorht- and -noth. Given the fact that the late tenth and early eleventh centuries show rather rapid changes in name-giving patterns, there is sufficient similarity here to support the conclusion of a relationship. Finally, the nameof Aethelric, given by Florence to Aethelmaer's father, might easily have arisen from mis—copying"Aethel-weard, son of Ead—ric". Another possibility is that the namesof son and father have been reversed. The strongest onomastic argument against the reconstruction is that Florence showsan Aethelweard as a brother of Aethelmaer and, therefore, a son of the Ealdor— manAethelweard; as I have pointed out, it is very unusual for an Anglo-Saxon child to have the same nameas his or her parent. The land evidence is valuable not only to support the identification of Aethelmaer, grandfather of Godwine,with Ealdorman Aethelmaer of Devon, but also to support the View that the latter was the grandson of Eadric. Most of the properties held by other membersof the family of Aethel­ frith did not come into the possession of the house of Godwine. On the other hand, Godwine's family did hold a number of estates which had been devised to churches or monasteries. In some cases, when a name is fairly common, it is difficult to identify particular estates. In other cases the intermediate history of an estate maybe consid­ erably moredifficult than we suppose. Nevertheless, the possession of a considerable number of the same lands should be considered an indication of descent. The family of Godwineis knownto have held lands in Sussex, Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Ox­ ford, and Surrey which had previously been held by Aethel­ maer, Ealdorman of Devon, his close relatives, or his presumed.ancestors. Considering properties knownto have been held by Ae­ thelmaer himself, the confirmation charter to Eynsham Abbeylo shows that Aethelmaer gave to Eynshamthe manors of Sceaptun (Shipton-on—Cherwell, co. Oxford, subsequently held by King Harold), Aescaron (Esher, co. Surrey, held by QueenEdith'r.R.E.), and.Dicton (ThamesDitton, co. Surrey, held by King Harold). Esher had been given to Aethelweard, Aethelmaer's father, by Bishop Beorhthelm, his relative, and the manner in which the other two cameinto Aethelmaer's possession is not known. This suggests that there mayhave been grounds for somelegal dispute about title to these lands. In 1015 the Aetheling Aethelstan devised to an otherwise unidentified Aelmaer [Aethelmaer] "those lands at Hamelanden which he possessed aforetime". This is Hambledon, co. Hampshire, and it was received with the adjoining estates of Chalton and Catherington. All three were held T.R.E. by Earl Godwine. This strongly suggests that the Aethelmaer in question is that person who, ac­ cording to Florence of Worcester, was father of Wulfnoth and grandfather of Earl Godwine. In the samewill, these

72 The House of Aethehed devises are followed immediately by a devise of Comptonto one Godwine,whose father Wulfnoth had previously held it. It is natural to identify the latter with WulfnothCild, Thane of Sussex, in somesources identified with Wulfnoth, father of Earl Godwin, and to infer that the Comptonin question is Compton, co. Sussex. This Comptonwas held T.R.E. by Earl Godwineand his son King Harold held Little Compton, co. Sussex. These data led Freeman to suppose that Wulfnoth, father of Earl Godwineof Wessex, was the Thane of Sussex of that nameand that the property held.was indeed the Compton in co. Sussex. While Compton is a common English place name, it is not unreasonable to identify Little Comptonwith the Little Comptonheld by Ealdorman Aethelmaer in 1005. It has also been supposed that Compton, co. Sussex was the same Comptonwhich had been devised by King Aelfred to his nephewAethelhelm. This dual identification led Ans­ combeto propose a descent of Earl Godwinein the male line from Aethelhelm.45 If both Comptonsare identical, the conclusion would be likely. It would also seem probable that Aethelmaer, father of Wulfnoth, had held the two Comptonsand his identity'with the EaldormanAethelmaer who held Little Comptoncould be safely inferred, as could the identification of Little Comptonitself. However,Salter thought that the Little Comptonheld by the Ealdorman Aethelmaer was Newent, co. Gloucester, though his reasons for this identification are unclear to me. At least one other estate named Compton was held by the family of Godwine; his daughter QueenEdith held ComptonDurville in South Petherton, co. Somerset.5 The dangers of coincidence can be seen in the fact that Archbishop_Oswealdgranted to a certain Aethelmaer, ap­ parently the heir of an Aethelweard, "one hide at his homestead in Compton".52 However, this Aethelmaer is described by Oswealdas "myfaithful and loyal servant" and can hardly have been the Ealdorman. We know little of the properties held by Ealdorman Aethelweard, but Aelfheah devised to him land at Wycombe, co. Bucks, which was subsequently held T.R.E. by Godwine's daughter, QueenEdith. Aelfgifu, Aethelweard's sister, gave Berkhamstead, co. Hertford jointly to Aethelweard, Aelfweard and Aelfwaru, with a reversion to the Old Minster at Winchester. The reversion did not take place and Berkhamstead was held T.R.E. by King Harold. Harold also held Risborough and Wing in the same county, both of which outhad been of the held family.4 by Aelfgifu, although they were devised by her Amongthe lands devised by Ealdorman Aethelweard to his brother Eadric were Ogburn, co. Wilts and Washington, co. Sussex. Earl Godwineheld two dependencies of Washington, East Esewrith and Ashinton, T.R.E.; his son Gyrth held Washington; and his son Harold held Ogburn. However, the intermediate history of Washingtonis puzzling. 24 hides

73 A Tribute to Charles Evans there were granted to Aethelweald, Bishop of Winchester, in 963, and he exchanged them with Wulfstan Ucca.53 If this is the sameproperty, howit passed to the family of Godwine is not known. Since no wills have survived for any of these persons hypothesized as direct ancestors of KingHarold, this seems to be a substantial amountof evidence from the descent of land, even though it admittedly represents only a small percentage of the tremendous volume of lands held by Earl Godwine and his family. someof these other lands also throw additional light on the relationships of Earl Godwine. Anscombehas an ex­ tended discussion of Godwine's relationship to Archbishop Aethelnoth of Canterbury.54 Godwineheld T.R.E. an estate of 54 hides at Bosham, co. Sussex. According to Walter Map, this had previously belonged to Aethelnoth, but Godwine tricked him out of it by a play on words. Florence of Worcester says that the Archbishop was the son of the nobleman Aethelmaer. The puerile story of the trick by which Godwinegained possession of the lands is unlikely to be true; saintly or not, archbishops are usually shrewd administrators. But it seems likely that Aethelnoth did hold Bosham. If Godwine inherited it from him, it seems highly likely that Aethelmaer, father of the Archbishop, was identical with Godwine's grandfather of that name, and that the Archbishop was a brother of Wulfnoth. This kind of variation was commonin Anglo-Saxon naming practices; the first theme of Aethelnoth's namewould be shared with his father Aethelmaer and the second with his (presumed) brother Wulfnoth. Moreover, —noth, though commonin East Anglia, is relatively rare in southern England. I knowof no specific evidence for the suggestion that Aethelnoth was the son of Ealdorman Aethelmaer of Devon, son of Aethel­ weard, but this would further support the pedigree if established. It mayalso be pointed out that Archbishop Aethelnoth allowed an estate in Halton, co. Bucks to remain in the possession of one Toki, husband of Aethelflaed, according to the will of Wulfnoth. This tract was held by Godwine's son Leofwine T.R.E., although it had been supposed to pass to Christchurch. Barlow suggests55 (see also Robertson55) that Aethelflaed was Godwine's sister. EaldormanAethel­ maer of Devon is knownto have had a daughter Aethelflaed, whowould be a paternal aunt of the tenant of Halton if the series of hypotheses so far proposed is correct. Whileneither ecclesiastical nor secular offices were inherited according to strict rules in Anglo-Saxontimes, there was a tendency to draw upon particular families for particular offices. Wehave seen or will see that among apparent descendants of KingAethelred to be elected Arch­ bishop of Canterbury were Aethelhelm, Oda [by adoption], Aelfsige, Dunstan, Aethelgar, Aethelnoth, and Aelfric.

74 The House of Aethehed Such a grouping is in itself support for the general accuracy of the reconstructed pedigree. It may also be pointed out that King Harold held the estates of Theddingworth, Kegworth and Barrow—on-Soar,co. Leicester, the last believed to have been an early resi­ dence for the kings of Mercia, but that none of the later Mercian earls seemto have held land in that county.58 This mayfurther support.a royal origin for the Houseof Godwine. Auseful approximate guide to the chronology arises from consideration of the time period and numberof generations in the proposed pedigree. Barlow has suggested that Aethelhelnnwas born about 855, or somewhatlater, and it is known that Godwine was married about 1016-19. Thus, the seven-generation average is only 23 years to a generation. Since it is so short, there can be relatively little variation from it, particularly as someof the ancestors would be younger sons. Without trying to makeadditional allowances, the following approximate marriage dates might be calculated: Aethelhelm, 878; Aethelfrith, 90l; Eadric, 924; Aethelweard, 947; Aethelmaer, 970; Wulfnoth, 993; Godwine, 1016. There is other evidence that Anglo—Saxon nobles habitually married younger than manyof the sur­ rounding people, including the Danes, and that an average of 23 years may even be somewhat high for this group. All in all, there is goodreason to accept the pedigree of Godwineof Wessex as worked out by Barlow, not merely in outline, but in detail. Notwithstanding the different parentage assigned to Aethelmaer, Godwine's grandfather, by Florence of Worcester, there seems to be good reason to accept Anscombe'sidentification of himwith the ealdorman Aethelmaer, son of the chronicler Aethelweard. Once the general evidence of Aethelweard's descent from King Ae­ thelred's son Aethelhelmis accepted, Barlow's reconstruc­ tion of Aethelweard's pedigree seems even more certain. Further study should identify descendants of at least someof Aethelmaer's manybrothers and earlier branches of the family mayalso be traced. The other main branch of the descendants of King Aethel­ red is well represented by Aelfheah, Ealdorman of Hamp­ shire, and his brother Aelfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia. Barlowbrought forward property evidence suggesting Aelf­ heah's derivation fromKingAethelred, but his attempts to place him are very weakly based. Aelfhere has been the object of a special study by Williams6 and several members of the family are supplied with brief biographies by Hart.59 These studies emphasizethe political and.economic role played by the family and cite the most important genealogical evidence but are not genealogical in their orientation. They do go substantially beyond Searle's deficient and incorrect account of the family.5°

75 A Tribute to Charles Evans Searle's account of the family included Aelfhere, Eal­ dormanof Mercia 956-83, his brother Aelfheah, Ealdormanof Hampshire, Wiltshire and Sussex, whodevised Froxfield to Aelfwine, his sister's son, and some later membersof the family. Hart59 gives biographies of additional brothers: Eadric (a thegn who probably died in 961) and Aelfwine, a king's disc-thegn (seneschal) as Aelfheah had been, later a monkat Glastonbury. Bya curious error Eadric is called "Edgar" in the account of Aelfhere but by his correct name in his own biography. Although Whitelock thought that Aelfheah, the king's disc-thegn, should be distinguished from the later ealdorman of the same name, 1 Williams showedthat her data for distinguishing the two were in error.62 Hart showsthat this Eadric received an estate at Froxfield, co. Hampshire.53 Since Aelfheah devised an estate here to Aelfwine, his nephew, it seems likely that Eadric, who disappears from the record in 961, left the Froxfield estate to his brother Aelfheah the ealdorman. Aelfweard, another brother, is attested by the Chronicle of Evesham54 and discussed by Williams,55 who suspects an error of confusion with Aelfheah's son Aelfweard and ex­ presses doubt of this brother's existence. But the brother is accepted.by'Hart and.I see no reason for the doubt. Close relatives may often have the same names. Both Williams and Hart accept a series of suggestions by Gordon65 which make the father of this family Ealhhelm, Ealdorman of Mercia 940-51. The epic ofndaldon says that a Mercian namedAelfwine died in the battle (991), that his father's namewas Aelfric and that his grandfather was Ealhhelm, Ealdorman of Mercia. Gordon identified this Aelfric with Aelfric cild, Ealdormanof Mercia, and Aelf­ wine with the son of the sister of Aelfhere, Ealdormanof Mercia. Both Aelfric and Aelfwine are commonnames and I cannot see the faintest justification for these conjec­ tures. Although Ealhhelm is identified in the epic as ealdorman of Mercia, no title is given to Aelfric, and the only place associated with Aelfwine is Mercia. In order to accept these baseless conjectures of Gordonit is necessary to reject the explicit testimony of Florence of Worcester that Aelfric cild was son and not brother—in—lawof Aelf­ here. Williams67 says that the testimony of Florence is probably an inference from the fact that Aelfric succeeded him as ealdorman of Mercia. Weknowthat Gordon's own interpretation is a mere infer­ ence fromthe titles. If there wereexplicit contradictory testimony, one would have to makea reasoned choice, but no such testimony exists. Plummerseemsto have been the first to use the term "inference" for the statement of Florence and the first to suggest that Aelfric, father of the Aelfwine killed at Maldon, was Aelfric cild, Ealdormanof Mercia.68 He, however, interpreted this to mean that Ealhhelmmighthavebeen the father (rather than father-in­ law) of Aelfric cild and still thought that Florence's testimony was "probably true".

76 The House of Aethelred Williams points out that the Chronicle of Abingdoncalls Eadric,rnajor domus regiae, and Eadwine, abbot of Abingdon, sons of Ae1fhere.57 He suggests that this Eadric is an error for an ealdormanAelfric because Eadric plays a role similar to that assigned to Aelfric by Florence. Williams does not, however, conclude from this that Aelfric was Aelfric cild and the son of Aelfhere, as Florence said. The fact that the Chronicle of Abingdonassigns a role to Eadric which is similar to the role assigned by Florence to Aelfric need not meanthat they are identical. Brothers mayhold the sameor a similar office. Kemblecharter 684, consid­ ered by Kemblea forgery,59 refers to the dux (Ealdorman) Aelfric and his brother Eadwine the prior. Most of the numerousAnglo-Saxon forgeries incorporate somevalid ma­ terial and are constantly used by historians. We have testimony that the EaldormanAelfric cild was a son of the Ealdorman Aelfhere; that the Ealdorman Aelfric was the brother of Eadwine, prior of Abingdon; and that Eadric and Eadwinewere all sons of Aelfhere. I aminclined to conclude that Aelfric cild, Eadwineof Abingdon, and Eadric were all sons of Aelfhere, Ealdormanof Mercia. This is certainly far more likely than Gordon's suggestion that Aelfhere was a son of Ealhhelm because Aelfhere had a nephewAelfwine and Ealhhelm had a grandson Aelfwine. Gordonalso suggested56 that the mother of Aelfwine was "Aethelflaed, Ealhhe1m's daughter" whoreceived a bequest from Wynflaed. 70 The bequests were of serfs and the assage reads: "To Aethelflaed, the daughter of Ealhhelm". 1 Un­ less a clause has dropped out, this should mean that an unnamed female serf, "the daughter of Ealhhelm", was be­ queathed to an otherwise unidentified Aethelflaed (proba­ bly Wynflaed's daughter of that name). Aethelflaed as daughter of Ealhhelm is probably the sole result of a careless reading of the will. Bya curious coincidence, and on other grounds, I suggest later that the sister of Aelfhere and mother of Aelfwine was indeed namedAethel­ flaed, but I see nothing to connect this womanwith the legatee of Wynflaed or to connect either of them in any direct waywith Ealhhelm. Ealhhelm and Aelfhere were both Ealdormen of Mercia, like Aelfhere and Aelfric; this may raise the possibility of a relationship but cannotjustify making Ealhhelm the father of Aelfhere. Williams brings forward strong evidence that the God­ wine mentioned in Aelfheah's will is Godwine princeps, holder of Towcester, co. Northampton, and identical with the Ealdorman of Lindsay who was killed in 1016 at the battle of Ashingdon.72 Althoughthese identifications are based on far stronger grounds than the arguments concerning Ealhhelm and Aelfwine, they are phrased in much more tentative terms, perhaps because they rely on Williams’ own work rather than on the "authority" of Gordon. I find them fully acceptable. The parentage of Godwineis disputed. The will of Aelfheah73 first mentions "Aelfhere, his bro­ ther" [the Ealdorman of Mercia] and then "Godwine, his

77 A Tribute to Charles Evans son". Does the second "his" refer to Aelfhere, as supposed by Searle and Hart, or to Aelfheah, as supposed by Williams and Whitelock?74 Recognizing some small element of doubt, it seems to me more in keeping with the normal usage in Anglo-Saxonwills to refer "his" to Aelfheah, whomI regard as Godwine's father. Aelfheah devised Crondall to Winchester in his will (about 970). In 979, however, Crondall was held by one Aelnoth [Ae1fnoth, Aethelnoth] whose brother Wulfric had apparently predeceased him. Aelnoth made a great show of turning over Crondall to Winchester pursuant to the terms of Aelfheah's will.75 Unless he was a close relative of Aelfheah, it is difficult to see howAelnoth had obtained possession of Crondall; if he was, whyisn't he mentioned in Aelfheah's will? Perhaps he was a son (by a previous wife?) whohad already received formal possession of some of Aelfheah's lands and therefore did not need a devise. Williams also discusses twopossible relatives of Aelf­ wine, Aelfheah's brother. One of these is the thegn Wulfric, from whomAelfwineinherited substantial proper­ ties. Wulfric is identified by Hart75 as the brother of Saint Dunstan (compareWilliams).77 Analternative iden­ tification by Sawyer7 seemsvery weakly based but need not be considered here because it has no genealogical implica­ tions. Williams suggests that Wulfric mayhave been the father-in-law of Aelfwinebut presents no evidence for this identification except the fact of the bequests. Mysug­ gestion is that Wu1fric's father was the brother of Aelf­ wine's grandfather and that, except for his brother Saint Dunstan, Wulfric had no closer relatives. Whetherthis is or is not correct, I see no reason to accept the view that Wulfric was Aelfwine's father—in-law. It is generally accepted that Aelfwine, brother of Aelfheah, is the king's "venerable kinsman" who in 975 requested that a grant of land at Aston, co. Salop be given to the thegn Ealhhelm. Williams, accepting the view that Aelfwine's father was an earlier Ealhhelm, thought that this Ealhhelm might be Aelfwine's son.77 It seems reason­ able to suppose that the monkAelfwine might have made such a request for a relative, but the beneficiary might have been a nephew, or more remote relative, on presently available evidence. Aelfwine, the venerable monk, is distinguished by Hart from the thegn Aelfwine who received a grant of land at Yaxley in 956 because this land was in possession of others before Aelfwine's death.79 I shall return to this complex problem. Oneclaimant to these lands was.Aelfric cild, whom I regard as Aelfwine's nephew, and it seems reasonable to suppose that Aelfwine in his lifetime might have conveyed someproperty to his nephew. Another claimant was Wulfstan Ucca [Uccea], son of Aelfsige. His father was presuma­ bly either Aelfsige, son of Brihtsige, whowas living at

78 The House of Aethehed Yaxley in 961 (as presumed by Hart) or Aelfsige, son of Hunlaf, whoobtained Alwalton, next to Yaxley, in 955. If the two Aelfsiges were related, as I think, Hart's argu­ ments from the property inheritance that particular re­ ferences are to the son of Brihtsige are weakened. My argument is that Aelfsige son of Hunlaf was an older manin 955 and probably died about that time, so it is morelikely that Aelfsige, sonof Brihtsige, is to be identified as also the father of Wulfstan Uccea. The evidence that Aelfwine whoreceived lands at Yaxley and Farcet was the brother of Aelfhere rests largely upon the claims of his nephew(?) Aelfric cild to Yaxley and Farcet. If so, I suggest that Aelfsige, son of Brihtsige, was another nephew. Since all the other names in the immediatefamily of Aelfwine showvocalic alliteration, it is unlikely that Brihtsige wasa brother of Aelfwine; it is muchmore likely that the relationship was through Aelf­ sige's mother. Unless there is a sister about whomwedo not know, Aelfsige who held Yaxley was probably a brother of Aelfheah's nephewAelfwine, who inherited Froxfield. NowI must turn to the evidence and interpretations written in pencil notes on the LondonLibrary's copy of Searle's work.9 Because I do not knowhis nameI shall call him APC["anonymous pencil commentator"]. His thinking on the family of Aelfhere seems to have undergone three stages, judging from partly incompatible notes. In the first stage (searle family 26) he seems to have accepted Ealhhelm, Ealdorman of Mercia, as the father of Aelfheah, Aelfhere, and their brothers and sister. He was not following Gordonin this, since he apparently never doubted that Aelfric cild was the son of Aelfhere. APCindicates (searle family 33) that Aelfwine, killed at Maldon,was the son of Aelfric, the treacherous ealdorman of Hampshirewho was in turn a son of Ealhhelm, Ealdorman of Mercia, and APC denies that this Aelfwine's father could be Aelfric cild because Aelfric cild was the son of Aelfhere of Mercia. In the second stage (Searle family 20) APCnotes that Ealhhelm of Mercia signs so frequently with a certain Aelfsige that they were probably brothers. He identifies this Aelfsige as the husband of Aethelhild and father of Aelfwine, a landowner in Hampshire. Both parents are iden­ tified as royal relatives, whichno doubt influenced APC's identification of the landownerAelfwine with the vener­ able monkAelfwine and Aelfwine, brother of Aelfhere and Aelfheah. Emphasizing the rarity of the Ealh- theme in noble namesof this period, he points out that Ealhmundand Ealhstan sign together in 900-03 and suggests that Eahlmund might have been the father of Ealhhelm and Aelfsige. He goes on to identify Ealhmundwith Ealhmund, son of Aethel­ weald (searle family 7) whomaypossibly have been that son of King Aethelred I who claimed the throne upon the death of King Aelfred.

79 A Tribute to Charles Evans I had independently reached the conclusion that Aelf­ sige andAethelhild were the parents of Aelfwine, Aelfheah, Aelfhere and others, but I knewnothing of Ealhmundand his possible relatives, and myreasons to identify Aelfsige as father of these noted brothers were not very strong. However, I had noted that an Aelfsige received Batcombe, co. Somerset, which was subsequently held by Ealdorman Aelfheah. The third stage of the analysis by APCmaybe diagrammed as follows (/ representing a postulated identity):

HUNIAF AELFSIGE,rudvcd Auvau-nn. AELFSIGE, = AETHELHILD, next-/1:0Yaxtcy,955' ruyab ruzalvc royal. relative (appzmrdy +4:955)

AELFWI N E AELFWI N E, AELI-‘WINE, AELFWI NE, AELFW IN E, bnrdueror mtaycd Yzxwy356 land in Wu-chmzer vcnuzbu m0"h-4, Auihah,Alihu-o, wab. - had Morudon,Wilu‘. rvyabrblatzia/6 LEOFWINE,prinups, yvc LEOFWINE Alwalzonto Ptarbmvugh Ealdorman oFMLrci2

The identity of Leofwine, Ealdorman of Mercia, with the Leofwine princeps who gave Alwaton to Peterborough, is accepted by Hart,3° whopoints out that this is the only documentgiving Leofwine's parentage. Hart and Whitelock have extended discussions of Yaxley.3 Hart points out that Wulfstan Uccea held Ailsworth, co. Northampton, which had been granted in 948 to an Aelfsige. Not unnaturally, he supposed that this was Aelfsige, father of Wulfstan Uccea. He also supposed that this Aelfsige received Haddonin 951 and Kettering in 956, and he denied that this Aelfsige could be the son of Hunlaf, as Whitelock had thought, because "the Aelfsige who held Yaxley I is referred to as the son of Brihtsige." But the document to which he refers does not say that Aelfsige son of Brihtsigeheld Yaxley, but rather that he wasat Yaxley, probably living there. I suspect that it wasAelfsige Hunlafing whoreceived Ailsworth and Haddon and that he was the maternal grandfather of Aelfsige son of Brihtsige. WulfstanUccea,whofirst appears definitely in the 960s, would be a great—grandson of Aelfsige Hunlafing. I see no reason for Hart's assumption that Wulfstan Uccea "must be" one Wulfstan father of Wulfgar mentioned in connection with Aelfsige son of Brihtsige. It is chronolo­ gically unlikely in terms of the pedigree Ianlproposing and its relationship to APC'sconclusions. That Aelfwine and later Aelfric cild held Yaxley and Farcet seems to me in itself goodreason to identify the Aelfwine whoheld Yaxley with the brother of Aelfhere of Mercia, presumedfather of Aelfric cild. There is also the fact that Aelfheah held

80 The House of Aethelred Froxfield, co. Huntingdon, which he left to his nephew Aelfwine, possibly a brother of Aelfsige at Yaxley. All of the identities postulated by APCin the previous table seem to me highly likely; the one which is most independent of the others is precisely the equation of Aelfwine, son of Aelfsige, with Aelfwine, brother of Aelf­ here and Aelfheah. As will be seen, it makes very good sense. These identities do not, of course, imply the completerejection of APC'searlier analyses. Theidea that Ealhmundand Ealhstan were sons of the anti-king Aethel­ weald, son of King Aethelred, and close relatives of the postulated brothers Ealhhelm and Aelfsige are hardly af­ fected by postulating that Hunlaf, rather than Ealhmund, was father of Ealhhelm and Aelfsige. Indeed, there are substantial reasons for regarding all these individuals not only as closely related to each other but also as related to the family of Saint Dunstan. Someof these arguments are implicit in APC'snotes, but I have workedout a number of them, particularly the following onomastic arguments. To understand the implications of the nameswe will be considering, the historical relationship betweenthe Eng­ lish and the Danes must be examinedbriefly. The policy of Aelfred and most of his successors was to oppose the Danes whenever possible and to buy them off whenever they seemed to be too strong. However, Aethelred and some of his successors seem to have felt that alliances rather than battles were the best wayto deal with the turbulent Danes. Harold Bluetooth, the first Christian king of Denmark,was the son of Gormby his wife, whomthe Danes called Thyra. A number of the sagas say that Thyra was the daughter of KlakHarold of Jutland, but this seemsto be chronological­ ly impossible, and the account of Saxo Grammaticus, who makes her the daughter of King Aethelred, is to be pre­ ferred. Harold, whodied in 986, is usually said to have been born in 911, when a daughter of Aethelred would have been at least forty years old, but KlakHarold seemsto have been adult by the 8205. The matter is fully discussed by Rason.32 In my own opinion, there has probably been a confusion of two Gorms,but that is not directly relevant here. Theaccount of Saxohas at least lesser chronological difficulties; if it is accepted, it wouldseemlikely that Aethelred's daughter was married to the Danish king in the deliberate hope that the Danes would thereby be converted to Christianity. WhenAelfred died (899) his son and successor Eadweardimmediately attacked his cousin Aethel­ weald, son of Aethelred, who is said to have seized the manor at Wimborneand Christchurch without the consent of the king.83 Aethelweald first barricaded the gates, then slipped awayduring the night and joined the Danes. In 903 Aethelweald returned with a Danish fleet and in 904 per­ suaded the Danesof East Anglia to join him in marching into Mercia. King Eadweardordered a retreat, but the Kentish­

81 A Tribute to Charles Evans menstayed to fight. Manyof themwere killed, but Aethel­ weald and the Danish king Eohric were also killed.34 The minister Ealhmundis last mentioned in this sameyear (904) and his presumed brother Ealhstan in 903. The record of an Ealhmund, son of an Aethelweald, in Worcestershire in 89485 seems to refer to Ealhmundas a boy, but Anglo-Saxon youths acted in public capacities when still very young. If Ealhmund and Ealhstan were indeed sons of the anti—king Aethelweald, they may have been in some measure hostages whoselatter potential waskilled. usefulness vanished completely when the Aethelhelm, Aethelwea1d's brother, has already been discussed. He was probably the Aethelhelm who adopted a Danish boy named Oda, who later became Bishop of Ramsey and Archbishop of Canterbury.35 It has already been argued that the latter office wasparticularly associated with the House of Aethelred. Here we see, again, a more positive attitude towards the Danes than one might have expected. Odahad a "brother", probably adoptive, the priest Aethel­ stan.37 This Aethelstan maybe the individual mentioned as a relative of Ealhmund, son of Aethelweald;86 under the preceding hypothesis he wouldhave been his first cousin. It is nowworthwhile to look at the family of Saint Dun­ stan. He is said to have been: (1) a royal relative; (2) a nephewof Aethelhelm, Archbishop of Canterbury and son of Heorstan the Archbishop's brother; and (3) brother of Wulfric.é3 Archbishop Aethelhelm would probably have been of the next generation after the Aethelhelm who adopted Oda. If we begin with the tentative hypothesis that Archbishop Aethelhelnnwas namedfor 0da's adoptive father, it is more likely that he would be a nephewrather than a son, because it was so rare for an Anglo—Saxonchild to be named for a parent. Namesof relatives frequently showvariation of either the initial or the terminal theme, as with Dun-stan and his father Heor-stan. Oneis remindedof Ealh-stan, postulated son of Aethelweald. This offers some slight additional support for the conclusion that Aethelhelm and Heorstan were sons of Aethelweald and at the same time would explain whythe precise relationship of Saint Dunstanto the royal family is unnoted. Aethelweald, a traitor whoran off with a nun, would not have been deemed an appropriate grand­ father for Dunstanthe saint. Minor support is also given by the fact that the nameof Wulfric repeats the initial theme of a queen Wulfthryth attested in 868.39 Aethelred I was ruling in 868 and Wulfthryth was either his queen or, less likely, the widow of his older brother whois not knownto have been married. In our hypothesis Wulfric would be the great—grandson of Queen Wulfthryth. Three other names throw a quite unexpected light upon these relationships. Ealhmund'snamerepeats that of the

82 TABLE 2. l{LngActheLred.andd1cDames.Postulated mlafionships.

King AETHELRED 7 QueenWULFTHRYTH II GURM King= THYRA 'Ki.ng’AETHELl«\/EALD AETHEIJ/VEALD AETHELHELM AETHELHEUVI ofDenmark, supported bythe,Engiish adoptedfithzrof Danes. 96,904.

IIIIII HAROLD AETH ELHELM H EORSTAN HU NLAF EAU-IMU ND AETI-IEL“ ODA,.aDane, Btueuxrth Archbishopof (Danishtype (Danish relatwe OFAETHEISTAN STAN Archbishapof fi‘ns1-,Christian Carrcerbury name) type,name) Canterbury 83 Iu’ngoFDenmarIo

IVIII SWEGEN King Satnt DUNSTAN WULFRJC AELFSI GE EALHHELM TheHouseofAethelred ofparr/oF Archbishop of I£Fbpr‘o”per1:y15O England Canterbury

I CNUT King AELFWINE AELFWINE, of Engjand son oFAeu%i3v -— —- — indirzces postulatedrelationships / indixzcesposwLzwdidenciq A Tribute to Charles Evans father of King Ecgbeorht. This latter Ealhmundwas an under-king in Kent and the names of various membersof the Wessex royal family descended from him have suggested to me a derivation in the female line from the kings of Kent.90 The Kentish royal family claimed descent from the invader Hengest ("Stallion"), brother of Horsa ("Mare"), believed by someto be a Dane. There is considerable dispute as to whether this Hengest is the one whoappears in TheFight at Finnsburg and even more as to whether the Saxons themselves would have thought they were the same or different.91 I suspect that, then as now, there mayhave been different opinions. The Hengest of The Fight at Finnsburg also appears in Beowulf, where he receives from his lord, the Dane Hnaef, the sword called Hunlafing which had once presumably belonged to a memberof the Danish royal family namedHunlaf. Nearly all the membersof the Danish royal family mentioned inBeowulf had names beginning with H-.92 The name Hunlaf is exceedingly rare in England and would immediately have suggested the sword of Hengest (himself probably a Dane) to a literate Anglo-Saxon. Not only is a name beginning with H- a distinct anomaly in the Wessex royal family, but the practice of giving a name from literature is generally anomalousin Anglo-SaxonEngland. There is, however, another nameof this period pointing in exactly the samedirection and this is the nameHeorstan. The themeHeor- is so rare in England that Searle lists only two individuals besides the father of St. Dunstan whose amongnames beginthe names with of it. members Yet Heor- of the occurs Danish twice royal in family. Beowulg Hence the name Ealhmund suggests the possible Kentish connections of the royal family of Wessex, while the names Hunlaf and Heorstan seem designed to suggest the Danish origins of the kings of Kent. In effect, such namesare a claim of kinship with the Danes. Aethelweald, who was supported by the Danes in his bid to be king of England, seems to be the only memberof the royal family at all likely to have given children such outrageously pro—Danish names. In any case, it seems to meexceedingly likely that the two names Hunlaf and Heorstan, both pointing to the Danish royal family, both of literary origin, both ap­ parently of royal origin but breaking with the naming pattern of the Wessexroyal family, must have been given by the sameperson and that Hunlaf and Heorstan must have been brothers (see Table 2). It will be seen that Aelfsige would have been as close a relative as Dunstan and his brother Wulfric had, ex­ plaining whythe latter left property to Aelfwine, son of Aelfsige. It is interesting to note that the nameof Aelfhere (of Mercia, presumed son of Aelfsige), although thoroughly in the tradition of the Wessexroyal family, is also the repetition of a name in Beowulf which Woolf belieggsself. to have been the original name of Beowulf him­

84 The House of Aethehed This leads to a consideration of certain other relatives of Saint Dunstan. He is said to have had a female relative namedAethelflaed who left him some property.95 Dunstan was also a relative of Aethelgar, Bishop of Crediton (934­ 53)95 and he was succeeded as Archbishop of Canterbury by another Aethelgar whose father is not known but whose mother is -- a very unusual situation.97 Her name was Aethelflaed.98 It seemsto meplausible to assumethat this Aethelflaed and the relative of Saint Dunstan are the same person. I would further suggest that she was a daughter of Aelfsige and Aethelhild. We know that Saint Dunstan's relative, Aethelflaed, was a niece of KingAethelstan. We also knowthat King Aethelstan had a ha1f—sister Aethel­ hild, daughter of King Eadweard by his second wife Aelf­ flaed, daughter of EaldormanAethelhelm.99 It seemslikely that Aethelhild, wife of Aelfsige, described as a royal relative, was in fact King Eadweard's daughter. APCalso suggested this identificationloo but I do not knowhis reasons for it; he does not mention Aethelflaed in this context. If Aethelflaed was indeed the daughter of Aelf­ sige, it follows necessarily that her motherAethe1hild.was identical with the daughter of King Eadweard. FromAelf­ heah's will we know of only one daughter for Aelfsige. Putting all the strands together, I suggest that this daughter wasAethelflaed, wife of Beorhtsige, and mother of Aelfsige (at Yaxley, co. Huntingdon), Aelfwine (at Frox­ field, co. Huntingdon), and Aethelgar, Archbishop of Can­ terbury, who began as a monkat Abingdon, a monastery much favored by the family of Aelfhere of Mercia. Table 3, below,will illustrate:

TABLE 3. ThenzlattionshipsuFActhe1flacd.

HshunAN HONLAF KmgEDWARD

Sainc DUNSTAN AELFSlGE[AELF5lGE T AETHELHlLD[AETHELH|LD KingAETHEL$TAN

I BEORHTSIGE= NNZ N N XAETHELFLAED,nuwoFKz‘ngActhclstan ruauhvaof Dunstan lAETHELFL.AED

AELFSIGE, AELFWI NE, AETHELGAK at Yaxuy 3vtFrm<fi‘.eld Ayrhbishopofcarrcerbury

—-- —— i.ndi4;2tL¢postulatzd mladowships ilrdicnesposwlzud wurriq

85 A Tribute to Charles Evans Of other membersof this family some mention should be made of Odda Aethelwine, Ealdorman of Devon, his brother Aelfric, and their sister Eadgyth.101 This 0ddauAethelwine is said to have been the heir of "Delfer" [Ealdorman Aelfhere of Mercia] but the relationship is unknown.Wil­ liams argues that he is too late to be a son of Aelfhere.102 Even upper-class Anglo—Saxonmales do not normally seem to have been long—lived and, in this context, Williams is probably right, though a father—sonrelationship wouldnot have been an absolute biological impossibility, as Odda Aethelwine was a minister 1017-45 and Aelfhere had been Ealdorman 956-83. If Aelfhere were indeed a royal nephew he might easily have been appointed as a young manof 20 or less and still have been in his fifth decade at the time of his death. OddaAethelwine died in 1056; if he were born about 980 he would have been in his eighth decade when he died. But it is far more likely that "heir" means"heir of line" and that Odda Aethelwine was a grandson or great­ grandson of Aelfhere. From Ealdorman of Devon, Somerset, Dorset,before his and death. Cornwall in 1051, he became a monk shortly It is nownecessary to turn a ain to Leofwine, Ealdorman of Mercia103 and to his family. 04 Searle shows Leofwine as son of Leofric, son of Aelfgar, son of Aelfgar, son of Leofric. He cites Freeman, who considers the pedigree a preposterous forgery, without citing Freeman's opinion. Noserious scholar seems to have paid any attention to the pedigree, but its appearance in Searle's work has led many writers of secondary accounts to assume that it has some validity.105 It does not. Hart had earlier accepted the identity of Ealdorman Leofwine whoheld Alwaton with the Ealdorman of Mercia, but he does not mention this in his 1975 biography,l°3 which substantially modifies accepted opinion about Leofwine's dates androle. Nevertheless, thereis considerable reason to accept it. Noother Ealdorman Leofwine is knownwithin the date limits of Leofwine's gifts to Peterborough. The two most likely families from which Leofwine of Mercia might have originated are those of Aelfhere of Mercia and Aethelstan the Half-King. Williams emphasizes the rivalry between the families of Aelfhere of Mercia and the Half­ King, whose power base was in East Anglia but who held Mercia for a time. This historical situation makesit more likely that Leofwine of Mercia came from the family of Aelfhere, which had a substantial political and economic base in Mercia, than from the family of the Half-King. Leofwine was clearly of royal descent. The contemporary biographer of King Eadweard [Edward the Confessor], writ­ ing in 1065 of the revolt of Morkere of Northumbria, son of Aelfgar, son of Leofric, son of EaldormanLeofwine, calls the sons of Aelfgar "those boys of royal lineage". Freeman felt that "royal lineage" could refer only to somepossible descent from the ancient Mercian kings because there was

86 The House of Aethelred "no sign" of a connection with the West Saxon royal fami­ ly.106 In fact, the phrase adds support to the evidence that Leofwine was of the house of Aethelred. Bridgemancites a grant by Earl Aelfgar to the Abbeyof Saint Remigius in 1061.107 The grant is madeby "Algar", "quondamAnglorum comitem" ["a certain earl of the Eng­ lish"] and the list of witnesses begins for the first truth—speaking witness was Edward by the grace of God king of the English, then Edgith the queen, from whose stock he [Aelfgar] has drawnhis origin... Bridgeman was puzzled as to how the relationship between Eadgyth and Aelfgar came about. The phrasing suggests a commonmaleline origin. There is no evidence that Aelfgar had Scandinavian ancestry and it seems highly likely that he was somehowrelated to the Queen's father, Earl Godwine. When it was widely believed that Godwine was "of low birth", his relationship to a family "of royal lineage" seemed very puzzling. Now,after the work done by Anscombe and Lundie Barlow, the two statements seem complementary. Queen Eadgyth would be a descendant of Aethelhelm, son of King Aethelred I, while Aelfgar would be descended from Aethelhe1m's brother the anti-king Aethelweald. If Ealdorman Leofwine, who held Alwalton, was, as pos­ tulated, a grandson of.Ae1fsige, whohad received Alwalton, and if his father Aelfwine was that sameAelfwine, brother of Aelfhere of Mercia, whomI regard as the father of Aelfrid cild, Ealdorman of Mercia, and if Aelfhere was a nephewof Ealhhelm, Ealdormanof Mercia, then three closely related membersof his family had already held the office of Ealdormanof Mercia. In these circumstances his iden­ tity with Leofwine, Ealdormanof Mercia seems highly like­ ly. The tendency for offices to be maintained in the same family was in process of changing to strict hereditary succession. From the time of Leofwine to the NormanCon­ quest the office of Ealdormanof Mercia was held by Leofwine himself, his son Leofric, Leofric's son Aelfgar, andAelf­ gar's son Eadwine. Eadwine's sister Ealdgyth married Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (from whommany descents can be traced) and Gruffydd's half—sister Iweryd married Eadwine, "Prince of Tegeingl". It was long ago suggested by Vaughan1°8 that this "Welsh" prince was actually Eadwine of Mercia himself, provided with a Welshpedigree as false as the pedigree assi ned to Leofwine. I have supported that identification.1° If it is correct, and the pedigree of Leofwinehas been correctly established, then the senior male line of the Saxonkings of Englandis still extant, represented by Griffith of Garn and many other Welsh families. A considerable number of royal relatives remain un­ placed and our knowledge of the House of Aethelred can surely still be expanded substantially. The family of Beorhtnoth [Brithnoth] deserves attention, as does that of

87 A Tribute to Charles Evans Wulfric Spot of Tamworth. What I regard as the final pedigree prepared by APC111gives Aelfsige, son of Hunlaf, a brother namedWynsige. No evidence is cited, but the intended individuals may be those mentioned in Kemble 353.59 APCmakes the flat statementllz that Ealhhelm of Mercia, whomhe elsewhere postulated as a brother of Aelfsige, son of Hunlaf, was also a brother of Ordgar, Ealdorman of Devon. This seems chronologically unlikely, since Ealhhelmis last attested in 951while Ordgar first appears as a thegn in 958 and as an ealdorman in 964. However, it is far from impossible. Aethelgar, Bishop of Crediton and relative of Saint Dunstan, shares the -gar theme in Ordgar's nameand is geographically close, so they might well be relatives. Finberg traces Ordgar's family down to Ordulf II, Ealdorman of Devon and Somerset (1044­ 59),5 probably with one or two missing generations. The family is well worth further study. The present paper has been built upon inferences and statements from charters and chronicles, as well as ono­ mastic evidence. Someof the conclusions seem virtual certainties, while others are muchmore doubtful. The two main lines have been established by the work of Barlow and of the AnonymousPencil Commentator, for both of whomI have found additional support. Myownadditions are primarily the family of Saint Dunstan and the suggested placement of his relative Aethelflaed. Further details on the inheri­ tance of property should eventually substantiate or dis­ prove manyof the individual hypotheses put forth here. Our general conclusions -- that both of the sons of King Aethelred I left issue and that their descendants were of great importance in the period 900-1066 -—are more likely than the specific propositions. It is evident that the pedigree which has been constructed is weaker than ones based on a solid sequence of contemporary statements, where there is no question of the identity of the individuals under discussion. Nevertheless, the pedigree shows that substantial progress may yet be made in the relatively little-studied field of Anglo-Saxongenealogy.

NOTES 1. H. P. R. Finberg, The Early Charters of Devon and Cornwall (Leicester, 1963); H. P. R. Finberg, The Early Charters of Wessex (Lei­ cester, 1964); H. P. R. Finberg, The Early Charters of the West Midlands (2d ed., Leicester, 1972); Cyril Hart, The Early Charters of Essex (Lei­ cester, 1971); Cyril Hart, The Early Charters of Eastern England (Leices­ ter, 1966); Cyril Hart, The Early Charters of Northern England and the North Midlands (Leicester, 1975); Peter H. Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey (Oxford, 1979). 2. Cyril Hart, The Early Charters of Northern England and the North Midlands (Leicester, 1975). 3. Cyril Hart, "Athelstan ‘Half King" and His Family", Anglo­ Saxon England 2:115-44 (1973).

88 The House of Aethelred 4. Cyril Hart, "Eadnoth, First Abbot of Ramsey and the Founda­ tion of Chatteris and St. Ives", Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society 56—57:61-67 (1964). 5. H. P. R. Finberg, Lucema (London, 1964), especially pp. 186­ 203. 6. A. Williams, "Princeps Merciorum gentis: the Family, Career and Connections of Aelfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia, 956-83", Anglo-Saxon England 10:143—72 (1981). 7. Lundie W. Barlow, "The Antecedents of Earl Godwine of Wes­ sex", New England Historical and Genealogical Register 111:30—38(1957). 8. Hart, supra note 2, pp. 339-40. 9. W. G. Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles: The Suc­ cession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings and Nobles (Cam­ bridge, 1899). 10. Herbert E. Salter, Cartulary of the Abbey of Eynsham (Oxford Historical Society, 49, 51, 2 vols., Oxford, 1907-08), 1:19-28. 11. B. Thorpe, Diplomatarium Anglicum Aevi Saxonici (London, 1865). pp. 526-28. 12. Thorpe, supra note 11, pp. 499-500. 13. Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis (ed. W. Dunn Macray, Rolls Series, 83, London, 1886), p. 11: "ab atavis regibus praeclara ingenuae successionis linea transfusa...". 14. "Vita Sancti Oswaldi: The Anonymous Life of St. Oswald'', in The Historians of the Church of York and Its Archbishops (ed. James Raine, Rolls Series, 71, 3 vols., London, 1879-94), 1:399-475, cited with­ out page reference by Fenton Ay1mer,"Aethelstan, the Half-King", Mis­ cellanea genealogica et heraldica (5th'ser.) 6:341-47 (1926-28) at p. 342. 15. Aylmer, supra note 14, pp. 341-47. 16. Walter D. Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum: A Collection of Charters Relating to Anglo-Saxon History (3 vols., London, 1885-93), no. 889. 17. The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester (trans. Thomas Fores­ ter, London, 1854), s.a. 983, "...regis Anglorum Eadgari propinquus". 18. Florence, supra note 17, s.a. 975, "princeps Merciorum". The term princeps was used as a Latin translation for ealdorman, but was not applied to all ealdormen. 19. Birch, supra note 16, no. 948. 20. Id., nos. 1054, 1076, "consanguinitatis" and "carnalis prosapie". 21. Id., no. 966, "princeps". 22. Searle, supra note 9, family 28. 23. Thorpe, supra note 11, pp. 487-92. 24. Aylmer, supra note 14, p. 346. 25. Searle, supra note 9, family 27.

89 A Tribute to Charles Evans 26. A. S. Napier and W. H. Stevenson, The Crawford Collection of Early Charters and Documents now in the Bodleian Library (Analecta Oxoniensis, Mediaeval and Modern Series, 7, Oxford, 1895). 27. H. Munro Chadwick, Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cam­ bridge, 1905, repr. New York, 1963), PD. 193-94. 28. Hart, supra note 2, p. 116. 29. Id., table, p. 117, and p. 116 n.3. 30. Aylmer, supra note 14, p. 347. 31. Hart, supra note 2, table, p. 117. 32. Barlow, supra note 7, pp. 33-34. 33. Hart, supra note 2, p. 125, especially note 7. 34. Id., p. 119 n.5. 35. G. N. Garmonsway, ed. and trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London, 1953), pp. 92-93. 36. Hart, supra note 2, passim. 37. As noted, he died in 903; his date of birth is not known, but his sister, wife of King Aelfred, was born c.830, following Searle, supra note 9, family 10. 38. Dorothy Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills (Cambridge, 1930), p. 119. 39. Id., DD. 119-20. 40. Barlow, supra note 7, pp. 34-35, nn. 12, 18, 19. 41. Hart, supm note 2, table, p. 117, 118 n.3. 42. A. Campbell, The Chronicle of Aethelweard (London, 1962), p. xiii. 43. This is implicit in his reference to Campbell, supra note 50, for his biography of Aethelweard in The Early Charters of Northern England.... supra note 1, p. 291. 44. Florence, supra note 17, s.a. 1007. 45. Alfred Anscombe, "The Pedigree of Earl Godwin", Royal His­ torical Society Transactions (3d ser.) 7:129-50 (1913). 46. Edward A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England... (2d ed., 5 vols., Oxford, 1870), 1:705. 47. Florence, supra note 17, s.a. 1009. 48. Searle, supra note 9, pp. 358-59. 49. Florence, supra note 17, s.a. 1007. 50. Freeman, supra note 46, 1:705-06, 711. 51. Victoria County History of Somerset, 1 (London, 1906), p. 440 lists this property among those formerly held by "Eddid, the Queen". 52. A. J. Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 135, 378-79.

90 The House of Aethelred 53. Id., pp. 69, 323. 54. Anscombe, supra note 45, pp. 147-49. 55. Barlow, supra note 7, p. 32. 56. Robertson, supra note 52, pp. 155, 402-03. 57. Barlow, supra note 7, table. 58. Victoria County History of Leicestershire, 1 (London, 1907), p. 299. 59. Hart, supra note 2, p. 257 (Aelfheah), 260 (Aelfhere), 277-78 (Aelfwine), 318 (Eadric), 328-29 (Ealhhelm). 60. Searle, supra note 14, family 26. 61. Whitelock, supra note 38, pp. 121-22. 62. Williams, supra note 6, p. 148 n.29. 63. Hart, supra note 2, p. 318. 64. Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham (ed. W. D. Macray, Rolls Ser­ ies, 29, London, 1863), P. 78. 65. Williams, supra note 6, pp. 169-70. 66. V. Gordon, The Battle of Maldon (London, 1937). D. 83. 67. Williams, supra note 6, p. 171 n.38. 68. Charles Plummer, Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel (2 vols., Oxford, 1892-99, repr. with some additions by Dorothy Whitelock, Oxford, 1952), 2:170. 69. J. M. Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici (6 vols., London, 1839-48), usually cited as KCD. 70. Williams, supra note 6, p. 147 n.21. 71. Kemble, supra note 69, No. 1290. 72. Williams, supra note 6, pp. 171-72. 73. Thorpe, supra note 11, pp. 526-28; Whitelock, supra note 38, pp. 22-24. 74. Williams, supra note 6, table, p. 144 and discussion, pp. 171­ 72; Whitelock, supra note 38, pp. 22-24. 75. H. P. R. Finberg, The Early Charters of Wessex (Leicester, 1964). p. 56, No. 128. 76. Hart, supra note 2, pp. 371-72. 77. Williams, supra note 6, p. 154. 78. Sawyer, supra note 1, p. xlviii. 79. Hart, supra note 2, p. 277; compare Cyril Hart, The Early Charters of Eastern England (Leicester, 1966), PD. 160-65. 80. Hart, supra note 79, pp. 244-45. 81. Id., pp. 110-11 (Ailsworth), 160-65; Whitelock, supra note 38, p. 130.

91 A Tribute to Charles Evans 82. Ernest Rason, "Thyra, the wife of Gorm, the Old, who was she, English or Danish?", Saga Book 8:285—301(1913-14). 83. Garmonsway, supra note 35, pp. 92-93. 84. Id., pp. 94-95. 85. Searle, supra note 9, family 7. 86. The prominence of Oda at the court would be well accounted for if he were the adopted brother of Aelfflaed, King Eadweard's queen. 87. Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis, supra note 13, p. 49. 88. William Stubbs, ed., Memorials of Saint Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury (Rolls Series, 96, London, 1874), passim. 89. William G. Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum (Cambridge, 1897, repr. Hildesheim, 1969), p. 520. 90. Although I have not written on this in full, some of my reasons have been presented by Sir Anthony Wagner, Pedigree and Pro­ gress (London, 1975). D. 53. 91. Henry B. Woolf, The Old Germanic Principles of Name—giving (Baltimore, 1939), D. 29. 92. Id., pp. 146-47, 149. 93. Id., p. 146 and Searle, supra note 89, p. 291. 94. Woolf, supra note 91, pp. 155-57. 95. Stubbs, supra note 88, pp. 3-4. 96. Hart, supra note 2, p. 283 (biography). 97. Id., pp. 283-84. 98. Plummer, supra note 68, 2:137 (the Hyde Register, p. 58). 99. William of Malmesbury, Chronicle of the Kings of England (trans. J. A. Giles, London, 1866), p. 124. Aethelhild is there called a lay sister, but this need not preclude her having been married before. Her grandfather Ealdorman Aethelhelm is presumably the only Ealdorman of this name at this time, Ealdorman of Wiltshire and almost certainly son of King Aethelred I. 100. Notes on Searle, supra note 9, families 12, 20, 69, especially p. 452. 101. Robertson, supra note 52, pp. 457-58; Searle, supra note 9, family 62. 102. Williams, supra note 6, p. 168. 103. Hart, supra note 2, pp. 344-45. 104. Searle, supra note 9, family 69. 105. For example, W. H. Turton, The Plantagenet Ancestry (London, 1928, repr. Baltimore, 1984), p. 130, citing Searle. 106. "...eos regiae stirpis pueros", cited by Freeman, supra note 46, 2:435 n.1.

92 The House of Aethelred 107. C. G. O. Bridgeman, "Staffordshire Preconquest Charters", Staffondshire Historical Collections 37:67-137 (1916), pp. 126-27. 108. H. F. J. Vaughan, "Chief of the Noble Tribes of Gwynedd", Archaeologia Cambrensis (5th ser.) 8:211-61 (1891). 109. David H. Kelley, "Edwin of Tegeingl", The American Genealo­ gist 46:75-80 (1970). 110. For the false ancestry as well as several generations of de­ scendants of Edwin in all lines see Peter C. Bartrum, Welsh Genealogies: A.D. 300-1400 (8 vols., Cardiff, 1974), 2:272-91 [Edwin 1-20] and Welsh Genealogies: A.D. 1400-1500 (18 vo1s., Aberystwyth, 1983), 4:522-65 [Edwin 1—19]. 111. Notes on Searle, supra note 9, p. 452. 112. Id., family 26, notes.

93