Talk:Æthelhelm

Untitled

I tried to make the lineage easier to follow. There were so many "his son was" statements that it was very difficult to tell who was who. It's still not well written, but I think one can at least follow the progression now.

Check for google book sources, there is absolutely no evidence that Aethelhelm was the son of a King of Wessex.

Aethelweard the Historian says he is. Streona (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is he Archbishop Aethelhelm (Athelm) of Canterbury ? He was said to have been Abbot of Glastonbury so maybe not, but undoubtedly entering the cloister would have removed him as a threat to Edward and before Dunstan's reforms, priests married & had children.--Streona (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Keynes and Lapidge (Alfred the Great), pp. 324–325, note 100, say that Æthelhelm "may have predeceased his brother", and Yorke ("Edward as Ætheling" in Higham & Hill Edward the Elder), p. 31, also suggests that Æthelhelm died between the writing of Alfred's will and whenever S 356, where Æthelwold appears but his brother does not, was witnessed. That would place Æthelhelm's death in the 880s or 890s. As for Æthelhelm being Æthelhelm the ealdorman of Wiltshire, Keynes and Lapidge, p. 321, note 66, say "probably not". Ann Williams (Æthelred the Unready), p. 31, table 3, suggests that Æthelweard was descended from yet another son of Æthelred, but Yorke is seemingly not in favour of multiplying æthelings without necessity. I've yet to come across a theory using the mysterious Osferth to explain Æthelweard's ancestry, but it can only be a matter of time. As for Æthelhelm being the cleric, Yorke, p. 28, notes, when discussing Alfred's son Æthelweard's education, "[f]or an ætheling to be entered into the church would be without parallel in Anglo-Saxon England". Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Identification with ealdorman Æthelhelm

King Alfred was born in 849, so his elder brother Æthelred was born earlier in the same decade; the aetheling Æthelhelm was evidently not old enough to have been associated with the kingship during his father’s reign, which ended in 871, when his father would have been in his mid twenties, but the aetheling Æthelhelm could easily have been of an age to exercise responsibility in 887, ealdorman Æthelhelm's first datable appearance. This was the occasion when the ealdorman "took the alms of the West Saxons and of King Alfred to Rome".

King Alfred's will was drawn up between 872 and 888 - almost certainly closer to the later date - so the aetheling Æthelhelm was in all likelihood alive into the 880s, though if he is identical with the ealdorman he may not have been holding that office at the time the will was made. The bequest to the aetheling Æthelhelm comes before that to his brother Æthelwold, so following the precedent set in the bequests to Alfred's own children, this suggests that he is the elder of the two.

There are no charters witnessed by an aetheling Æthelhelm, but Æthelwold, his brother, witnesses S356, dated between 870 and 899, which is also the only charter witnessed by ealdorman Æthelhelm. Of course the aetheling Æthelhelm could be deceased by the time of the charter, which would explain his apparent absence, alternatively if he is identical with the ealdorman then precedence would be observed as he witnesses above the younger aethelings, Æthelwold and Edward.

In the reign of Æthelwulf, Æthelbald, certainly, and Æthelbert, probably, witness charters as ‘dux’, so there is a precedent for an aetheling bearing the title of ealdorman, if not necessarily the exact responsibilities. Æthelbald invariably witnesses first among the ealdormen, the position occupied by ealdorman Æthelhelm in S356 (though admittedly only one other ealdorman witnesses).

Ealdorman Æthelhelm predeceased King Alfred by around three years; if he is identified with the aetheling this would be consistent with his younger brother Æthelwold being at the time of Alfred's death the claimant to the throne from Æthelred's side of the family.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records the death of ealdorman Æthelhelm of Wiltshire in 897. The historian Æthelweard, who lays claim to being the grandson’s grandson of King Æthelred, gives an account of King Alfred’s final years which is independent of existing versions of the Chronicle; in this ealdorman Æthelhelm's death is not mentioned, but describing a military action of 893 in which Æthelhelm leads a cavalry force against the Danes, Æthelweard refers to the ealdorman as “illustrious". Whether or not this is indicative of family pride, it is clear that, be it either as a result of birth or merit, Æthelhelm was a notable figure.

There is no chronological obstacle to Ælfflaed, the daughter of ealdorman Æthelhelm who married King Edward, being the granddaughter of King Æthelred; but the objection is that such a relationship would have made her Edward’s first cousin once removed. The marriage of Edward's grandson Eadwig was dissolved upon grounds of far more distant consanguinity than this; however, the circumstances were very different. Eadwig had quarrelled with the church, a rift for which there is some indication his wife or her mother were held responsible, and following the loss of Mercia and Northumbria to his brother Edgar, he was in a weak political position. That Eadwig's marriage took place at all, despite the Church's prohibition on marriage within nine degrees, may be more significant than that it was dissolved.

Edward seems to have taken Ælfflaed as his wife around the time of his accession. It is conceivable that, following Æthelwold's unsuccessful bid for the crown, Edward might have seen a marriage with King Æthelred's line as a means of legitimising his succession and of tying to him any male descendants of his cousin Æthelhelm. Such a dynastic union could perhaps explain the position taken by the West Saxon Witan in the succession crisis that followed Edward's own death; passing over Æthelstan, the son of an earlier marriage, they gave their support to Ælfweard, Edward's son by Ælfflaed.

More research on consanguineous marriages on the Continent during this period might perhaps be helpful in establishing the credibility of a hypothesis which would require a marriage of first cousins.

The lack of any acknowledgement of kinship in the charter from King Alfred granting North Newnton to ealdorman Æthelhelm remains a troubling objection to the identification of the aetheling with the ealdorman, but cannot be considered a conclusive argument. Timothy Hugh Smith (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A few points in reply to this interesting argument.

The fact Æthelbald was an ealdorman seems an answer to Yorke's first point. I am more doubtful about the others. That Æthelhelm witnesses above Æthelwold in S356 does not seem significant as ealdormen always witness above aethelings in the (few) charters I have looked at.

The ealdorman of Wiltshire was clearly a very important figure, and it seems significant that a status as aetheling is not mentioned in any reference to him. Æthelweard might have been expected to mention it.

Eadwig was obviously in a weak position, but if his grandfather had married a much closer relative only fifty years earlier, that would surely have been a strong defence of his marriage.

The situation following Edward's death is very confused, and (as of course you will know) historians attribute the initial appointment of different kings for Mercia and Wessex to the rivalries following their recent union and doubts about Athelstan's legitimacy. Only sons of kings were throneworthy aethelings in this period, so it is unlikely that a maternal descent from Æthelred I would have given Ælfweard greater legitimacy Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the precedence of ealdormen and aethelings as charter witnesses, practice is variable. During the reign of Æthelwulf those younger aethelings who do not hold office sign below the ealdormen; in the reigns of Æthelbert and Æthelred the aethelings sign above the ealdormen; and by the end of the reign of Alfred the aethelings again sign above the ealdormen, a practice continued by Edward. I accept that the fact that ealdorman Æthelhelm signs above Æthelwold does not demonstrate that he is the aetheling, but had he signed below Æthelwold it would have made such an identification problematical.Timothy Hugh Smith (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear what you mean by Æthelhelm signing above Æthelbald. Is this a typo for Æthelwold? It seems to me that as the second ealdorman and other witnesses also signed above the aethelings in S356, there is no question of aethelings having precedence. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes typo - now corrected. Too many Æthels! I was pointing out that if in this charter the aethelings had signed before the ealdormen that this would have been problematical for the hypothesis, since Æthelwold would then have been above Æthelhelm whom it is being suggested is his elder brother.

Both the ealdormen and the aethelings usually sign as a bloc, the aethelings first, then the ealdormen. In this charter the order has been reversed, as was done in the reign of Æthelwulf when the ealdormen included some who were also aethelings. In the case of Æthelwulf's charters this reversal preserves the bloc groupings whilst ensuring that the order of precedence is preserved among the aethelings. However, I would not want to press too hard on the significance of this reversal in S356, as I can think of a couple of instances where the order has been reversed and none of the ealdormen can be identified as aethelings.Timothy Hugh Smith (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of the 4 signatories in S356 between the dux and the aethelings? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Electronic Sawyer only shows the intervening signatories in the Old Text; in the revised Text and Translation those signatories appear after the aethelings. I have not seen the original charter, but I assume the confusion is to do with the way the witness lists were originally laid out in columns.Timothy Hugh Smith (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

On consanguinity, I have not been able to track down other contemporary instances of first cousins marrying, but given how little we know about relationships between individuals, this is not necessarily evidence of absence. Æthelbald's marriage to his stepmother, Judith, does at least imply a relaxed attitude to consanguinity by the West Saxon Kings. (The Wiki entry, echoed elsewhere on the internet, says that Æthelbald's marriage to Judith was annulled in the year of his death, but no source is cited and I have not been able to find one; the Annals of St,Bertin, which are otherwise quite detailed on Judith's scandalous career, simply says that after her husband's death she disposed of her English property and returned to her father's court.)Timothy Hugh Smith (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see that [1] and [2] give a conflicting order of signatures. Confusing.

I agree that the Æthelbald/Judith marriage does not appear to have been annulled. Asser says that it incurred great disgrace from all who heard of it, but does not say that it was annulled. Keynes and Lapidge in their notes accept that marriage to a stepmother was against Christian law, and I do not think that a single example of what one powerful man got away with implies a wider relaxed attitude. Indeed, it could be argued that if Ælfweard was the product of a consanguinuous marriage, that probably would have been used against him. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)