The Chronicler suggests that manner of rule had changed after his brief Æthelred’s exile. The English themselves were affected by the removal: if failing loyalties had king’s been responsible for initial expulsion in 1013, then these loyalties were Ӕthelred’s successfully renewed after the return in 1014. Despite these promising conditions, king’s the account lacks any enthusiasm for or celebration of restoration. Chronicler’s Æthelred’s Recall that the Chronicler was writing with hindsight of the events up to and following death, and so the mutilation of the hostages is only one of these Æthelred’s ‘all evils’ (eallum which befell the English in 1014. þissum yfelum) The Chronicler was aware, for instance, of a remarkable number of betrayals and reversals that persisted to the end of reign. Sigeferth and Morcar, two northern Æthelred’s thegns who had been close to sons Edmund and were killed by Earl Ӕthelred’s Ӕthelstan, Eadric Streona in 1015, apparently with the consent if not by his command. king’s Edmund then and established himself as king in the North married Sigeferth’s widow against his will. Edmund himself was betrayed by his new ally, Eadric Streona, father’s who then absconded with forty ships from fleet and defected to Æthelred’s Cnut’s returned Danish army. attempt to lead another army in 1016 faltered because of the Edmund’s to assemble without the presence of or the aid of London; army’s refusal Ӕthelred Æthelred agreed to join the soldiers, but warnings of a plot against him caused the king to return to London instead. The newly acquired role as warlord was limited, then, to king’s his routing of Cnut in 1014. The betrayal of Earl Eadric would certainly have been damaging to Æthelred, and the Chronicler seems critical of the continued faith in this individual. The rebellion king’s of son, however, is a startling demonstration of weak grasp of Æthelred’s Æthelred’s power despite any initial successes after his restoration as king. Edmund was persistent in establishing his own power base and joined forces with Ealdorman Uhtred of Northumbria, further demonstrating the regional divisions which thwarted Æthelred’s
The Chronicler suggests that Æthelred’s manner of rule had changed after his brief exile. The English themselves were affected by the king’s removal: if failing loyalties had been responsible for Ӕthelred’s initial expulsion in 1013, then these loyalties were successfully renewed after the king’s return in 1014. Despite these promising conditions, the Chronicler’s account lacks any enthusiasm for or celebration of Æthelred’s restoration. Recall that the Chronicler was writing with hindsight of the events up to and following Æthelred’s death, and so the mutilation of the hostages is only one of ‘all these evils’ (eallum þissum yfelum) which befell the English in 1014. The Chronicler was aware, for instance, of a remarkable number of betrayals and reversals that persisted to the end of Æthelred’s reign. Sigeferth and Morcar, two northern thegns who had been close to Ӕthelred’s sons Edmund and Ӕthelstan, were killed by Earl Eadric Streona in 1015, apparently with the king’s consent if not by his command. Edmund then married Sigeferth’s widow and established himself as king in the North against his father’s will. Edmund himself was betrayed by his new ally, Eadric Streona, who then absconded with forty ships from Æthelred’s fleet and defected to Cnut’s returned Danish army. Edmund’s attempt to lead another army in 1016 faltered because of the army’s refusal to assemble without the presence of Ӕthelred or the aid of London; Æthelred agreed to join the soldiers, but warnings of a plot against him caused the king to return to London instead. The king’s newly acquired role as warlord was limited, then, to his routing of Cnut in 1014. The betrayal of Earl Eadric would certainly have been damaging to Æthelred, and the Chronicler seems critical of the king’s continued faith in this individual. The rebellion of Æthelred’s son, however, is a startling demonstration of Æthelred’s weak grasp of power despite any initial successes after his restoration as king. Edmund was persistent in establishing his own power base and joined forces with Ealdorman Uhtred of Northumbria, further demonstrating the regional divisions which thwarted Æthelred’s
Final%20PhD%20Submission%20with%20Corrections%20-%20William%20White.docx