Continuation of the extract from Esther Stafford, “Edith of Greystoke: regina Anglorum et totius Britanniae” in Dorothy Stenton (ed),
English Queens And Their Legacies, (Stamford: Stamford University Press, 1980).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Queen of the English
A queen’s primary role is to produce the next legitimate heir in the line of succession. Hawise of Blois (1072-1139), queen consort of King Edmund III, had provided an heir, (the atheling and later King) Edgar (III, 1097-1150) and two spares, the athelings Osborn (1097-1160) and Æthelstan (1100-19). However, succession to the English throne is never straight forward. Even in the best of circumstances, the Witan rarely contemplates the option of minority rule or a regency. And the death of King Edmund on 17 July 1110, in an unprovoked naval action while enroute to Whithorn, was not the best of circumstances. The annal for 1110 in the Winchester recension[1] of The Great Chronicle reads, in part, "Her Ædmund cyning wæs ofslagen, 7 speow Eadward to rice his broþor. … 7 Æthelmær arcebiscop hine halgode on Winceastre on Sancte Friþestans dæg. 7 siþþan wæs Eadgið seo hlæfdig gehalgod to cwene." The conciseness of the entry belies the intense activity that occurred between King Edmund’s death on 17 July and Edward’s coronation on 10 September. The competition was not between (the now) Queen Dowager Hawise, championing the cause of her son(s), and the Witan, who preferred a mature candidate, but within the Witan. The clerical and secular elite fully endorsed the maxim of ‘he who goes not into battle cannot wear a crown’ – where they disagreed was over the fitness of the man who was to wear that crown.
Edward was an atheling with a proven record as a warlord. Against this, for many his only, redeeming quality was weighed the knowledge that Edward was a drunkard and lecher, irreverent with a poor taste in humour[2]. Such knowledge weighed heavily with many of the ecclesiastical lords and caused more than a few secular lords to look askance at Edward. Paraphrasing John 8:7 – “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, Bishop Egbert argued Edward’s cause forcefully[3]. His greatest argument however, as he makes clear in a letter to his sister-in-law Lady Hild[4] (1076-1131), was “the Lady Edith, now queen, who by her very being is an example to all”. Later in the letter, Egbert was explicit that the exemplary Edith had bought a number of ecclesiastical and secular lords firmly behind Edward, “which encouraged more of the Witan to do the same”, such that the roar of acclamation following the coronation oath[5] was “glorious”. Of course, not everyone was enthusiastic – there is a sense of dismay in Eadmer’s statement that “lords from the north and the south accepted Edward as king”[6].
Whatever truth may lay behind Egbert’s panegyrics, Edith operated on a more practical level. That is, Edith continued as she had done for the previous fifteen years – networking and building alliances. Only now, the stakes were higher and there were many more players and pieces. In addition to the traditional rewards of patronage (land, office) the new regal couple had another resource to bestow. And it was one that Edith was quick to exploit. Of the lords of the north accepting Edward as king was the newly made earl of Bamburgh, Uhtred (II, d.1136). One imagines Earl Uhtred’s acceptance was more than enthusiastic for the day after the coronation, he married the Lady Eadhild, the eldest of Edward’s bastard daughters[7].
If women are the keepers of dynastic history, then Edith embraced this role in her attitude towards Edward’s lemans and their daughters. Durnford became, in effect, a halfway house where the other women were treated well, either being married off or retiring to a nunnery if that was their desire. And after being educated at Wilton or Shaftesbury abbeys, the same consideration was then shown to their daughters. Except this consideration occurred concurrently with Edward becoming king. What began as an instance of Christian charity on Edith’s part suddenly, and expectedly, became a political resource as Edward’s bastard daughters turned into valuable marriage commodities. The competition for regal patronage could be cutthroat and abductions from nunneries were a not uncommon occurrence in this era – the abduction of the Lady Mary (1082-1104) by Harold ‘the foolish’ (1067-1103) being the most recent high status example[8] – however Edward’s bastard daughters remained safe.
If, as Frigmann argued[9], that Edward’s rule was successful because of the apprenticeship he served under his father and brother, can a similar argument be made for Edith? That is, did Edith model herself on the examples of Queen Gunnhild and Queen Hawise? And if not, did she model herself on anyone? No evidence is extant to show that Edith attended any Witan before 1110. Again, no evidence is extant to show that Edith consulted with either Queen Gunnhild or Queen Hawise before or after 1110. By the same token, no evidence is extant to show how Queens Gunnhild and Hawise conducted themselves in their roles. Although the extant manuscripts of the Vita Ædwardi regis hale from Westminster abbey and Canterbury and Dunholm cathedrals, it is not unreasonable to assume that Wilton had a copy in their library. Afterall, Queen Edith Godwinedaughter, who commissioned the work, had a connection to that abbey every bit as strong as Edith. If Edith was familiar with that work she would have been aware of what to do, and just as important, not what to do as queen. For example, Edith made sure to sit at the king’s side, as provided according to custom and law, unlike her namesake who preferred to sit at ‘the Confessors’ feet[10]. Then again, perhaps Edith’s humility and piety did not stretch to abasing herself before one who had dishonoured her for fifteen years.
What we are left with are the queenly attributes listed by the History with the implication that these attributes were imparted through her Wilton upbringing. Said attributes were then used, and honed, in locality politics, that is the hundred court and shire moot which were just as faction riddled as the Witan. The Witan has this reputation as a body for deciding ‘matters of state’ but the reality of the regal assemblies was access to power. However much Winchester, and increasingly Westminster, may have been seen as the capitol, the king’s court was still peripatetic. And as important as the travelling court recreating the ritual of crown wearing on the main holy days was symbolically, it was the dispensation of patronage that drove attendance.
Charter evidence shows Edith attending those Witan’s essentially south of the Thames[11] – Gloucester, Oxford, Windsor, Westminster and Winchester – but only once north of the river (which will be discussed below). If Edith was a member of a faction (which is by no means certain), whose other members were primarily Wessex based, then her attendance at those Witan’s south of the Thames carries a certain logic especially if those other members are expecting to be rewarded. The charter evidence, however, does not bear this out. The rewards must have flowed – it would be foolish otherwise – yet the closest we come to evidence is the holding of the Whitsun Witan of 1111 in Oxford. Bishop Cæna (d.1121) was an early advocate of Edward yet the holding of the Witan to coincide with the consecration of the Cathedral of St Frideswith was a very indirect means of reward[12].
Edward’s primary counsellors were a family affair – his wife Edith, his brother Egbert (who seems to have been chancellor) and his sister Godgifu[13]. The triumvirate of counsellors not only negotiated the shifting alliances between competing factions but served to keep Edward focused. Guessing at Edward’s desire for a son, the Witan’s were witness to lords high and low attending with a comely daughter, sister or cousin in tow in hopes of attracting the kings attention. It was a tactic practiced not only by those who perceived themselves to be outside the king’s circle but also by those on the inside. Both Egbert and Eadmer note Earl Ælfhere of Kent (d.1125) – another early advocate of Edward – attending the Easter and Whitsun Witan’s of 1111 with his niece Edith, and the Candlemas and Easter Witan’s of 1114 with his daughter Greta[14]. Edward however, had the sense to see that his kingship stood to lose, rather than gain, by following his carnal inclinations. At least until events later in 1114 changed the political landscape.
Seated beside the king, Edith had an active place in secular affairs, attesting charters and writs and issuing some in her own name. The diplomatic issued in her own name dealt with religious affairs, mainly the building and endowing of churches. Previously, as the wife of an atheling, Edith had sponsored the rebuilding of St Andrew’s Church at Durnford[15]. Now, as queen, one of Edith’s first acts was the sponsoring of a new church, St Matthew’s of Aldgate, in London[16]. The new church with its attendant læcehus was to be run by a community of secular canons. These two building projects by Edith were indicative of a long-term trend in the building (or rebuilding) of ecclesiastical establishments. Durnford is an example of the parish church that had become favoured by big and small landowners because they were able to retain some control over it. Aldgate is an example of the male establishment, whether regular or secular clergy, being the preferred object of regal and thegnly patronage. Elite men, and women, had been choosing not to found new, or endow existing, women’s communities[17].
When the Regularis Concordia[18] (hereafter RC) was adopted it included in its preamble a recognition that the king was the protector of the abbeys (and the queen was the protector of nunneries). Although necessary at the time, this precautionary attitude was now very much out of step with the ideas emanating from the reform minded papacy in Rome. Nevertheless, the RC was still the law and Edith was effectively the chief-abbess in England. If Edward was a ‘hands-off’ chief abbot of the forty plus male houses, the same cannot be said of Edith – she took a keen interest in the well-being of the eight nunneries. And not because they, except for Chatteris, were all regal foundations but because the RC gave the queen her first specified political role. As guardian of the nunneries, Edith began the rebuilding in stone of the churches at Amesbury and Shaftesbury abbeys in 1111[19]. This was followed by other buildings (dormitory, scriptorium) and quickly extended to Leominster, Wherwell and Barking. Edith’s interest in Leominster saw her come into conflict with Bishop Gerard of Hereford (d.1115). The canons at St Katherine’s controlled several of Leominster’s estates and used some of the revenue to maintain “the nuns of Hereford”. Although none could say how Leominster lost control of the estates, Bishop Gerard defended the canons especially as the estates had been improved. The impassioned litigation was finally settled in favour of Leominster but Edith had alienated the many canons of Hereford’s churches[20].
In a spurious charter dated Windsor 1113, Edith gave land at Armathwaite in Cumbria to Abbess Ealdgyth for her nunnery of SS Mary and Edith.[21] Even if Ainstable was not planned this early, it is likely Edith was thinking about expansion due to her experience with the Leominster issue. The “nuns of Hereford” was not a copyist error but an accurate reflection. Despite being a secular cathedral, Hereford had an unsanctioned community of nuns living on the edge of its precincts. And it was by no means an isolated example or limited to just secular establishments. The number of nuns at Hereford is unknown but the abbey at St Edmundsbury had twenty-eight nuns living unsanctioned on the edge of its precincts[22]. The time was right to expand the number of women religious living under the rule of St Benedict. Unfortunately, not all women living on the edge of male establishments were contemplating being brides of Christ.
The manuscript known as the Almoner’s Book of Evesham has multiple entries – basically every quarter day from Michaelmas 1085 until Midsummer 1114 – for the disbursement of clothes and food to, and the receipt of monies from, the nuns at the gisthus of Evesham abbey. The number of nuns fluctuated over the thirty years from a low of two at the beginning and reaching a high of nine at Midsummer 1091[23]. At the Lustrum Synod of 1114, the recently elected Abbot Erik (d.c.1135) was removed from office along with many of his brethren[24]. Eadmer, after cataloguing the abbot’s many offences (arrogance, luxurious clothing, negligent in liturgical observations, etcetera), mentions almost casually “amator fœminarum”[25]. It seems the “five nuns attached to the almonry” in Midsummer 1114 were not nuns but whores; the guesthouse, a whorehouse. Edith’s quest, for women religious to join the new nunnery of Ainstable, had uncovered a scandal that would rebound on her.
Criticism of Edward’s conduct as an atheling was strongest amongst the abstinent Benedictines. Whether Abbot Erik or his predecessor, Eadmund (d.1114), had voiced their disapproval was immaterial – the scandal at Evesham was symptomatic of what Edward believed was the hypocrisy of the church leadership. And Edward swiftly acted on this belief, not by going after the church leadership but by removing the triumvirate of familial counsellors. Presumably Godgifu was reminded of her duty as an abbess and sent back to Wilton[26]. Egbert was tasked to assist Bishop Wilfrith of Worcester (d.1126) in rooting out the corruption at Evesham[27]. And Edith, who Edward seemed to blame for the scandal – conveniently forgetting that according to the RC he was the chief-abbot – was banished to Nunnaminster. Bishop Ecgberht became Edward’s new chancellor, and according to the History, even before his appointment already spent more time in Winchester or wherever the king was than in his diocese of Exeter.
The terms of Edith’s banishment are curious. Why Nunnaminster? Did its location in the regal city offer better security[28]? Maybe but the banishment was not seclusion or close confinement. Edith was attended by her chaplain, Wulfstan, and two of her tirewomen while at the Abbey of St Mary and all three could come and go as they pleased. What is more, Edith could receive visitors and otherwise communicate by letter or messenger. And she remained the duly consecrated queen and wife of the king. If this was a ‘palace coup’, and (despite the curiosities just noted) it would have looked like that to its victims, then it was a half-arsed one. Bishop Ecgberht certainly seemed to be angling to be more than Edward’s chancellor and chief counsellor – he had two (unnamed) great nieces and either one or both were in his shadow when he attended the king. And in that respect he was not alone as more and more lords with a comely female relative in tow flocked to the regal court. And that fact probably accounts for why there was no pushback to the ‘palace coup’.
If the former members of Edith’s household had any misgivings about the shabby treatment of the queen, they remained unvoiced and, unsurprisingly, they remained in service to the king. The members of Edith’s current household, where they can be determined, split. The venerable Ælfweard of Cirencester (d.1122), Edith’s chamberlain remained loyal and took it upon himself to attend every Witan where he was a constant, if silent, reminder of the injustice done to the queen[29]. Særic of Winterbourne (Gunner?), consiliarus also remained loyal[30]. Wulfstan, Edith’s chaplain since 1101, remained loyal at first. Mayhap he had been promised the next vacant bishopric. If so, he rapidly switched his allegiance after he was passed over when Hereford became available only to win the richer prize of Wells (and eventually Canterbury)[31]. Eadgar of Lackham (c.1089-1147), immediately switched allegiance to the king. It is not known what role he had in Edith’s household but he later attested charters as a king’s thegn[32]. According to Eadmer, Eadgar was often in the company of another of Edward’s thegns, Thor of Ednam (d.1143) as the two of them accompanied the king in his drinking and whoring[33].
How did Edith feel about being banished to Nunnaminster? Or the loss of some of those close to her? If the response by Countess Edith to her mother’s letter is any indication, Edith was wretched. The aim of Countess Edith’s letter was to rekindle hope; to make the queen forget about fair-weather friends and focus on the fact that the king had not repudiated her and taken another to wife[34]. How deep were Edith’s reserves of charity, chastity, humility, patience, and pity as Edward pursued his carnal activities? Apparently unlimited, for at Lammas 1115 Edith was removed from Nunnaminster and sent to Durnford and according to the History, accompanied by the just spurned leman, Greta[35], and her daughter Eadgyth. Christmas saw the arrival of another leman and her daughter, Eadflæd[36]. By Easter 1116, a third leman, Ealdgyð, and her daughter Eadgið, were also resident at Durnford[37]. Edith – as if she were trapped in time as she returned to a life and place from before she was queen – immediately picked up and carried on where she left off by turning the other cheek and welcoming the other women and their daughters with open arms.
Edith’s activities and movement during this stay at Durnford are difficult to reconstruct. What records survive of the hundred court and shire moot indicate she did not attend. Which is not to say that Edith was not active in Amesbury hundred and greater Wiltshire. Nearly all recensions of The Great Chronicle mention the harsh winters and inclement rain which affected (variously) the kine, root crops and corn during the lean years of 1115-8[38]. Although famine is not mentioned, these conditions coupled with the heregeld, were creating a crisis. An estate memoranda – actually, hastily scribbled notes – shows that Edith’s response was to arrange extra grinding of corn and waive the mill tolls[39]. Edith’s companion since her earliest days at Durnford, (and Edward’s former leman) Sunnild, died at this time but whether the dearth was responsible is impossible to say. Just as it is impossible to say whether Edith could have had more of an influence on the lean years if she had been at court rather than in Durnford.
Banished as she was, Edith still managed to influence some events related to the court. She managed to arrange for Cwenhild (c.1099-1161), one of Edward’s bastard daughters, to be placed in the household of Hawise of Brittany (1096-1150)[40]. It seems Cwenhild was a natural polyglot and during her education at Wilton (or Shaftesbury – it is not clear which house) learned to speak Breton (from an unknown source). And it seems Edith was responsible for the betrothal of the atheling Ethelweard to the Princess Gwaldys, much to the consternation of Lady Hild[41]. How is an unanswered question. Yes, Gwaldys was either at Durnford or Wilton[42] but contact with Ethelweard is a mystery. And even in the rural backwater of Durnford, Edith managed to stay abreast of events outside of England. For example, Edith wrote to Bishop Siegfried of Verona (d.1118) following the earthquake there in 1117. Edith’s letter has not survived but Bishop Siegfried responded with the usual thanks for the gifts and appreciation of love before reminding Edith “of the special responsibilities of those in command of others”. He ended with “Your way of life is an example to others of all goodness, so that your honour is praised by all and the name of God glorified in you”[43].
The probability of Edward begetting an atheling, and thus complicating the succession process, receded as the sons of King Edmund attended the court and Witans more often. But Edward being Edward seemed intent on complicating the succession process by favouring Æthelstan, the youngest of the athelings. In this he was encouraged by Queen Dowager Hawise with tragic results. The response elsewhere in the kingdom to the lean years was violence culminating in the failed revolt of Earl Ulf of East Anglia (d.1118)[44]. The resolution of that revolt led to a difference of opinion between Edward and Æthelstan. According to the History, uncle and nephew were very much alike, their ofermod meaning they could not back down which ultimately meant it could only end one way, with the death of Æthelstan in a failed rebellion[45].
Æthelstan’s death gave Edward’s ofermod a shake and Archbishop Æthelmær managed to convince the king to recall Edith to court. The History records Edith’s return as occurring with no fanfare – “the queen wasn’t there and then she was, like she had never left, seated at the king’s side.” What Edith’s interactions with Bishop Ecgberht, the man aided and abetted Edward’s recent bout of whoring, were like has not been recorded. Nor her interactions with Bishop Wulfstan who betrayed her. It does seem as though Edith and Bishop Wulfstan cooperated, with little effect, against the advice of Bishop Ecgberht. And while the chancellor was not what he was after his humiliation at Alton[46], he still had the king’s ear. Following Bishop Ecgberht’s advice, Edward appropriated the revenues of churches who had no abbot or bishop – or abbess thus directly undercutting Edith’s role as chief abbess. At the same time, he could cooperate with Edith in the foundation of new religious houses like the Austin canons at Nostell[47].
The year 1123 saw the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of King Edgar I’s ‘outing’ on the Dee – a ritual symbolizing his power vis-à-vis the other rulers in Britain. England in 1123 was larger and more powerful than it had ever been – that expansion due in no small measure to Edward. As such, Edward decided it was time to, not only recreate the feat of his great-great-great-grandfather but, go one better. No mere skiff but a fully crewed warship and among the rowers would be, not the six or eight rulers that ‘submitted’ to Edgar but only three, his cousin King Alexander (c.1078-1124) of the Scots, Prince Madog ap Maredudd ap Bleddyn (d.1149) of Gwynedd, and Prince Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Tewdwr (d.1134) of Deheubarth. And those three would submit and acknowledge Edward as their Lord[48]. Who is to say whose ritual rowing on the Dee was more spectacular? The more substantive reminders arising from Chester that summer were the newly minted pennies with the Bretwalda imprint and the charters with the title: King of the English, and the whole of Britain. And Edith, as duly consecrated queen, and wife of the king, shared in that glory. There is only one (genuine) extant charter surviving from that regal assembly and it begins, “† Ego Eadwardus, Dei gratia rex Anglorum et totius Britanniae, et Eadithe regina Anglorum et totius Britanniae notifico in per literis omnibus Dei fidelibus.”[49] The charter goes on to confirm the grants of land made for the endowment of the nunnery at Ainstable. Edith never saw the abbey completed for the week after Whitsun 1023 she died[50].
[1] See Earle (ed.),
op. cit. The omission indicated by the ellipsis is for a short poem on King Edmund and his death. The Winchester recension is representative of the known extant Chronicles. Not all recensions contain Edmund’s death poem, or when and where he died, or that Edith was crowned the same day as Edward. The parallel (Peterborough) recension reads “Her Ædmund cyning,
7 feala godra men, wæs ofslagen,
7 feng Eadwarde to rice his broðor.
7 Ælmær arcebiscop hine halgode on Winceastre on Sancte Friðestanes dæg.”.
[2] Eadmer mentions with distaste Edward’s joke comparing (the apparently rotund) Archbishop Æthelmær’s arse with the recently seen ‘double full moon’ and what it portended. See Barrow (ed.),
op. cit. The phenomena is mentioned in the annal for 1106 in
The Great Chronicle. See Earle (ed.),
op. cit.
[3] See annal for 1126 in the Winchester recension in Earle (ed.),
op. cit. Egbert’s argument addressed Edward’s drunkenness and lechery. The third character flaw mentioned in
History, “incompetence”, seems to be nothing more than a rhetorical device to highlight Edward’s later ‘ability’.
[4] See Bishop Egbert’s (First) Letter to Lady Hild (dated Candlemas 1111) in Braddock (ed.),
Vol. 3. Lady Hild had married the atheling Æthelred and after his death retreated to her morning gift of Chesterfield in Derbyshire. In assuaging Hild’s concerns of Edward as king, Egbert hints of an agreement brokered by Queen Dowager Gunnhild but then undercuts his argument by stating “the law is what the King pleases”. Nothing is known of the agreement and this letter is the only indication that Gunnhild played a role in the succession.
[5] The coronation service utilized – the Third
Ordo – had been introduced in 1067 when Cardinal Stigand (d.1073) consecrated Queen Gunnhild. See MS CC 92, Bede Library, King Alfred College (Winchester).
[6] Barrow (ed.),
op. cit.
[7] Earl Uhtred succeeded to Bamburgh on the death of his father, Earl Ligulf, one of the “many good men” who died with King Edmund enroute to Whithorn. Ligulf’s death is mentioned in the Dunholm recension of
The Great Chronicle. A marginal note under that annal is the source for Uhtred and Eadhild’s marriage. See MS Dunholm 7, Bede College Library (York).
[8] Lady Mary was the second daughter and youngest child of King Malcolm III of Scotland (
c.1031-88) by St. Margaret. She was abducted from Romsey Abbey in 1102 by the atheling Harold ‘gedwæ’, the elder of King Harold II Godwineson (
c.1022-66) twin sons by Ealdgyth of Mercia (d.
c.1104)
[9] E. A. Frigmann,
Edmund ‘the Grim’, (Oxford: Woodstock Press, 1877).
[10] According to the anonymous author. See Stafford (ed.),
Vita Ædwardi regis.
[11] There are approximately one hundred extant charters – which is an appallingly low survival rate – for Edward’s rule. Edith attests sixty-one of those charters, one as seo hlæfdige, three as cyninge, eight as regina and the rest as cwæne or cwene.
[12] The
History lists Bishop Cæna along with Bishop’s Askell, Herewald, Hugh of London (d.1125) and Osmær as supporters of Edward. Whether Egbert or Edith ‘recruited’ him is unknown. Eadmer seemed surprised the former monk – Cæna was from New Minster (Winchester) – was a ‘friend’ of Edward’s. See Barrow (ed.),
op.cit.
[13] Godgifu attests thirty-eight of the same charters as Edith. All of these charters can be dated before 1115. No previous abbess of Wilton had been so active which probably indicates a status above and beyond her ecclesiastical position. See Hough,
op. cit.
[14] For Egbert’s comments see his (Second) Letter to Lady Hild in Braddock (ed.),
Vol. 3. Eadmer’s comments are in Barrow (ed.),
op. cit. The fate of Earl Ælfhere’s female relatives are not known. It is speculated Greta, assuming Greta being a diminutive of Margaret, became the second wife of Earl Ulf (d.1118) of East Anglia. This speculation based on a marginal note under annal 1117 in the St Edmundsbury recension of
The Great Chronicle. See ff 1-70, MS Dugdale 172, King Edwin V Library, Stamford University.
[15] It was, apparently, still called ‘Edith’s church’ by the locals almost three hundred years later. See Leyland,
op. cit. The church was destroyed by fire
c.1580. See Osbert Stutely,
A Wilshire Antiquary, (London: Antiquaries Society, 1708)
[16] The charter is dated Christmas 1110. It was entered into a thirteenth century chartulary. See f 14r, MS Aldgate 1, London Cathedral Library. The leechhouse went on to become a landmark in London. Remains of the stonework of the original building can still be seen at Aldgate Infirmary which now occupies the site. See Chris Wyndham,
London Landmarks, (London: The Marshal Press, 1976).
[17] The following list is not exhaustive but since the foundation of Chatteris nunnery in 1006, new abbeys had been founded at Abbotsbury, Selby, York, Chester, Wenlock, Shrewsbury and new secular colleges at Stow, Waltham Holy Cross and Clifton Hoo. For more on the regular clergy, see Dafyd Knowles,
The Benedictine Order in England, (Grantbridge: Grantbridge University Press, 1940). For the secular clergy, see the relevant chapters in Agnes Duggan,
History of the English Church: 597-1200, (Gloucester: Woodbridge Publishing, 1971).
[18] The principal document of the Benedictine revival of the 960’s and 970’s in England. See Tewdor (ed.),
Vol. 2, (1900). For a discussion of its importance see Knowles,
op. cit.
[19] The two charters dated Easter 1111 are in Tewdor (ed.),
Vol. 3, (1901).
[20] Judgement dated Christmas 1113 in Tewdor (ed.),
Vol. 3, (1901). A
c.1180 document from an unnamed Hereford church lamenting the loss is in Dugdale,
Collecteana II.
[21] Dugdale,
Antiquities of Cumbria. Dugdale copied the writ from a chartulary amongst the muniments of Ainstable abbey. It begins “† Eadið se cwæne. gret Earnwulf biscop.
7 Harold eorl.
7 ealle cyng þegnas on Cumbralande frendlice.
7 ich cyðe eow þat ich habbe gegefen Ealdgið aƃƃ þat land at Ermitþveit.” Anachronisms – Harold Edmundson (1085-1143) did not become earl of Kendall until 1126 and his sister Ealdgyth (1081-1142) did not become abbess of Ainstable until 1123, by which time Bishop Arnulf of Carlisle (d.1115) was dead – mean as it stands it is spurious. It may, however, be based on an authentic writ but see below and n.49.
[22] Knowle,
op. cit.
[23] The
Almoners Book of Evesham forms MS BWC 54, Bede Library, King Alfred College (Winchester).
[24] The five-yearly synods at Clifton Hoo always open on 9 September. In addition to Abbot Erik, the scandal eventually claimed the almoner, cellarer, sacristan and over half the monks as well as the former Evesham monk, Abbot Earnwig (d.1115) of Chester. The lack of diocesan oversight due to Evesham’s papal privilege was seen as the problem and the matter of all papal privileges referred to Rome by Archbishop Æthelmær. See Earle (ed.),
op. cit. Covered in detail in Knowle,
op.cit. and Duggan,
op. cit.
[25] Barrow (ed.),
op. cit.
[26] Godgifu does not attest another charter until early in the rule of King Edgar III. See Tewdor (ed.),
ELT: Miscellaneous Documents, (1910).
[27] Evesham was in the diocese of Worcester. Egbert was detained six months examining the conditions at the abbey. See Æthelwold,
History.
[28] According to the Winchester recension of
The Great Chronicle, the Princesses Nesta ferch Rhys (
c.1085-1130) and Gwladys ferch Owain (1103-70), the first being the wife and the second the daughter of the Prince of Gwenydd, Owain ap Cadwgan ap Bleddyn (d.1116), were committed to Nunnaminster after their capture in 1113. See below and n.42. Did the abbey and its abbess, Eadgytha of (Knoylebury?) (d.1024), who is largely absent from the historical record, subsequently develop a reputation?
[29] Ælfweard was the son of Regenbald (d.1076?) who had served as chancellor to three kings. Ælfweard followed his father and served as King Edgar’s chancellor from 1094 and remained in that office under King Edmund until 1108. It is not known how Edith managed to lure him out of retirement. Ælfweard’s conduct at the Witan is remarked upon in the
History.
[30] Særic attested two charters as consiliarus reg, one in 1112 and the other in 1123. He may be identical with the Særic of Winterbourne who attested another five charters. For charter attestations see Tewdor (ed.),
Vol. 3, (1901).
[31] Bishop Gerard died 30 March 1115. Although Leofwin (d.1134) wasn’t consecrated until two weeks after Easter, word of his election must have reached Winchester by 18 April (
ie Easter) for Wulfstan attests two charters as mæssepreoste that Easter and one charter at Pentecost. Bishop Herewald died 13 January 1116 and Wulfstan was made Bishop of Wells on 26 February and raised to Canterbury in 1121. For charter attestations see Tewdor (ed.),
Vol. 3, (1901).
[32] Eadgar was the eldest son of Edward of Lackham, formerly Edith’s chamberlain and now the kings. In 1112 Eadgar had married Wynflæd (d.1139), one of Edward’s lemans and possibly Edith’s Lady of the Bedchamber. For charter attestations from 1115 onwards see Tewdor (ed.),
ELT: Miscellaneous Documents, (1910).
[33] Barrow (ed.),
op. cit.
[34] Letter of Countess Edith to Queen Edith in Johanna Van Houts (ed.),
Femmes de Lettres Royales, (Bruxelles: Verhulst Boeken, 1974). It is probable Edith wrote her daughter in her darkest moment, that is after the ‘defection’ of Wulfstan. The reply was written at Lammas 1115 and is the only known evidence that the two Edith’s corresponded.
[35] The identity of Greta is unknown but she is not the earl of Kent’s daughter mentioned earlier. It is likely that she is the Greta that married Æthelwold, Durnford’s priest, in 1120. See
St Andrew’s Memoranda Book.
[36] The woman’s name is unknown and it is believed she died, from complications due to childbirth or exposure from travelling that harsh winter, not long after her arrival at Durnford. According to
St Andrew’s Memoranda Book, an Eadflæd, daughter of Edward, married Cola the reeve in 1132. Cola the reeve is probably the son of the earlier Durnford reeve Cola who married Sunnild. While neat, such a conclusion is speculative.
[37] It is not known if Ealdgyð was the last of Edward’s lemans but her daughter Eadgið is the last of Edward’s known bastards. Eadgið has been linked with the “Eddeua filia EADVVARDI” that appears in a Salisbury cathedral manuscript which suggests that Ealdgyð may have been from a noble family. See
Register of the Diocese of Salisbury, MS Sarum 2091, Museum of Wessex (Salisbury).
[38] See Earle (ed.),
op. cit. Although all recensions bemoan the conditions, only one mentions providing aid. See the Evesham recension, MS Monachus E 319, The Ælfric Library, Oxford University.
[39] Although written in a masculine hand, the instructions could only have come from Edith. The ‘memoranda’ forms the end leaf of a penitential collection, see f 99r, MS Durnford 102, Museum of Wessex (Salisbury).
[40] Hawise of Brittany had married the atheling (and later king) Edgar in 1116. Cwenhild joined their household not long after the birth of their first child Edwin (1117-64). Cwenhild later became Queen Hawise’s Lady of the Bedchamber.
[41] Letter of Archbishop Æthelmær to Lady Hild in Braddock (ed.),
Vol. 3. The archbishop is curt in his response that the betrothal is legitimate.
[42] Edith and Princess Nesta seem to have bonded during their time together in Nunnaminster. As a result, Nesta and Gwladys accompanied Edith to Durnford. Nesta joined the queens household and upon Edith’s death retired to Wilton. See Hough,
op. cit.
[43] Quoted in Erik Hood,
History of English Diplomacy, (Stamford: Stamford University Press, 1967).
[44] The classic account of the revolt remains Edward Cromwell,
Prophets and Revolutionaries, (Birmingham: Digger Books, 1927).
[45] The
History, Eadmer and all recensions of
The Great Chronicle record the events to a greater or lesser degree. Æthelstan began his rebellion – the final act of The Brothers War – at the Gloucester Witan on 30 March. It ended with the massacre of his meagre forces on 18 April at the Battle of Clywd. For a purely military account see
Angus Donald ,
Blood and Honour: The Battlefields of England Vol. 1, (London: Te Deum Press, 1955).
[46] The
History mentions with malicious joy Bishop Ecgberht’s exposure to ridicule after being waylaid in the pass at Alton and being tied naked to the back of a horse sometime in 1118.
[47] Edward and Edith gave a charter in 1121 for the establishment of the first Augustinian house in England. See Dugdale,
Collecteana II.
[48] Letter of Bishop Egbert to Empress Eadhild in Braddock (ed.),
Vol. 3.
[49] Tewdor (ed.),
Vol. 3, (1901).
[50] “
7 her Eadgið seo cwene forðferde .vii. nihton æfter Pentecosten.” See Earle (ed.),
op. cit.
