Emma of Normandy

I posted recently about Matilda of Scotland, a woman who famously changed her name on becoming queen of England An earlier queen also changed her name for political reasons. We know the woman who was the queen of both Aethelred II and Cnut as Emma of Normandy, but to her contemporaries in England, she was always the Lady Aelfgifu.

Emma of Normandy was the eldest of the nine children of Richard I, Duke of Normandy and his second wife, Gunnor and was born between 980 and 990. Gunnor ruled as regent for her son Richard II following his accession as Duke of Normandy in 996. The Normans, who were descended from Scandinavian settlers, had a good deal of sympathy for the Viking raiders who harried England during the period, leading the duchy into conflict with the English king, Aethelred II. In a bid to enjoy friendlier relations, a marriage alliance was proposed between Emma and the widowed English king early in the eleventh century.

In late 1001, Aethelred moved his court to Kent to await Emma’s coming. She arrived a few weeks later, early in 1002, and the couple married that spring at Canterbury. Unusually for an Anglo-Saxon queen, Emma was crowned. She also took the popular English name of Aelfgifu in order to demonstrate that she had become an English queen. Aethelred was considerably older than Emma and had a number of adult children. The couple never became close and Emma bore her husband only three children in a marriage of fourteen years. She was based at Winchester, where she owned property. She is likely to have been responsible for the upbringing of her stepdaughters, and also for raising her own children: Edward, born in 1004 or 1005, Godgiva born in around 1007 and Alfred, born by 1013. Emma rarely appears in sources for Aethelred’s reign and, with the large age gap between herself and her husband, it would have been difficult for her to establish herself politically. She was also perceived in England to have Danish sympathies. In 1003 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded that the city of Exeter was destroyed by the treachery of Emma’s French reeve who helped the Vikings gain access to the city. Emma did witness some of Aethelred’s charters, an honour that was not granted to his first wife, but, in the main, she had little public role.

Aethelred’s long reign was continually troubled by Viking raids. The biggest crisis came in 1013 when Sweyn Forkbeard, King of Denmark, landed in England, intent on conquest. Aethelred sent Emma to Normandy with her daughter, Godgiva. This was both for Emma’s own protection and in order to allow her to appeal personally to her brother for aid. She was soon joined by her sons, Edward and Alfred and, shortly afterwards, by Aethelred himself who had abandoned his kingdom to Sweyn. It was a relief, in February 1014 when, following the sudden death of Sweyn, the family were invited to return to England and Aethelred recovered his throne. It cannot have been an easy homecoming and, within a year, Aethelred’s eldest son, Edmund, was in open rebellion against his father. Sweyn’s son, Cnut, was also active in the kingdom. Aethelred died quietly in London on 23 April 1016, beset on all sides. Emma was with him.

Aethelred’s death left Emma in a perilous position whilst Cnut and Edmund fought over the country. She, at first, threw in her lot behind her stepson, Edmund, who was immediately proclaimed king. In spite of this, she was under no illusions about the danger that she faced and, soon after Aethelred’s death, her children returned to Normandy. Edmund’s death late in 1016 left Cnut as king of the entire kingdom and, in mid 1017, he ordered Emma to be ‘fetched’ as his wife.

While Emma was effectively Cnut’s prisoner at the time of their marriage, she was valuable to him: marriage to the English queen helped cement his position as King of England and neutralised Norman support for her sons. He was not, in fact, entirely free to marry, as Cnut already had a wife, Aelfgifu of Northampton, who he did not repudiate. However, it was Emma who took the role of queen and she shared Cnut’s coronation. In Cnut’s charters of 1018-1019, Emma’s name often appeared low down in the list of witnesses. After 1019, she tended to witness directly behind the king himself, demonstrating her rapidly increasing political power.

 Emma bore Cnut two children, Harthacnut and Gunnhild, between 1018 and 1020. Harthacnut was Cnut’s favourite child and, in 1023, he was sent to Denmark to be raised as the future king of his father’s ancestral kingdom. Gunnhild made an advantageous marriage to the eldest son of the Holy Roman Emperor. For Emma, her time as Cnut’s queen was much more satisfying than her marriage to Aethelred and she was given much more freedom to act. She and Cnut were often together and they jointly took part in conspicuous patronage, together presenting a shrine to Abingdon Abbey, for example. They are depicted as jointly presenting a cross to the New Minster, Winchester, on the frontispiece of the manuscript, the Liber Vitae. In 1023 Emma was present at the most important church event of Cnut’s reign, the reburial of St Alfheah at Canterbury. She and Cnut acted together throughout Cnut’s reign in their attempts to establish a new Danish dynasty in England.

Emma was at Winchester when Cnut died suddenly at Shaftesbury on 12 November 1035. She was entirely unprepared for the death of her still young and, apparently, healthy husband. Cnut’s surviving son by Aelfgifu of Northampton, Harold Harefoot, was his only son present in England and he took the initiative, rushing to Winchester and taking Cnut’s treasure from Emma before attempting to secure the crown for himself. Emma immediately threw her support behind Harthacnut and a council at Oxford agreed that her son, as the son of his legitimate wife, was Cnut’s heir, offering the compromise that Harold should rule as regent until his half-brother returned from Denmark. Emma set about trying to protect her own child’s position, both by slandering Harold and his mother, Aelfgifu, and by buying support in England. Harthacnut, however, had no desire to leave his primary kingdom of Denmark and, by 1036, with Harold’s position daily increasing in strength, Emma decided to take drastic action and recall one of her elder sons to England to take up the throne in their half-brother’s stead.

 A letter exists, summoning Edward and Alfred to England from Normandy. Emma herself, in a book she commissioned called the Encomium Emmae Reginae, maintained that this letter was a forgery produced by Harold in order to trick her sons into leaving the safety of Normandy. This is not impossible, but it is more likely that the summons came from Emma herself, desperate to maintain her position in England at any cost. Emma wrote:

‘Emma, queen in name only, imparts motherly salutations on her sons, Edward and Alfred. Since we severally lament the death of our lord, the king, most dear sons, and since daily you are deprived of more and more of the kingdom, your inheritance, I wonder what plan you are adopting, since you are aware that the delay arising from your procrastination is becoming from day to day a support for the usurper of your rule. For he goes round hamlets and cities ceaselessly, and makes the chief men his friends by gifts, threats and prayers. But they would prefer that one of you should rule over them, than that they should be held in the power of him who now commands them. I entreat, therefore, that one of you come to me speedily and privately, to receive from me wholesome counsel, and to know in what manner this matter, which I desire, must be brought to pass. Send back word what you are going to do about these matters by the present messenger, whoever he may be. Farewell, beloved ones of my heart’.

This was the first direct contact that Emma had had with her elder sons for twenty years. While Emma requested that only one of her sons come to her, Edward and Alfred, who had spent their entire adulthoods in exile and as the penniless guests of their family in Normandy, were both determined to make an attempt on the English throne. Edward arrived safely with Emma in Winchester but Alfred fell into the hands of Godwin, Harold’s advisor, who had him blinded on Harold’s orders. On hearing of his brother’s death soon afterwards, Edward returned to Normandy, leaving Emma alone in Winchester. Alfred’s death and Edward’s departure signalled the final blow for Emma’s hopes and, in 1037, Harold seized the crown, exiling Emma to Flanders.

Following her exile, Emma turned once again towards Harthacnut for support and, finally, in 1040, he sailed from Denmark, bringing a large fleet to Flanders in preparation for an invasion of England. Before they could sail, word arrived that Harold had died and that Harthacnut had been proclaimed king. Harthacnut and Emma sailed at once and Emma was able to establish herself as the power behind the throne, always witnessing immediately after the king in charters. During the reign Emma commissioned what is, essentially, her autobiography, the Encomium Emmae Reginae, which she used to justify her actions throughout her lifetime. Emma became increasingly concerned about her youngest son’s health and, loath to find herself alone and unprotected as she had been in 1035, in 1041 she persuaded Harthacnut to recall Edward to England to share in his rule. When Harthacnut died suddenly in 1042 Edward was proclaimed king in his place, just as Emma had hoped.

 Edward the Confessor, who had spent most of his life waiting to become king of England, was in no mood to share his throne with his mother. Soon after his coronation in 1042 he deprived her of all her lands and treasures. According to William of Malmesbury, this was something that Edward had been planning for some time and his ‘royal spirit was woken to hostility against his mother by the memory of past events. She had not been very generous in her treatment of her son, while he was passing through his teenage years, and so he ordered all his mother’s effects to be ransacked, down to the last pennyworth’. After 1043 Emma virtually disappears from the sources. Her last public appearance was at London in 1045 when she witnessed a charter granting privileges to Westminster Abbey.She died at Winchester on 14 March 1052 and was buried beside Cnut in the Old Minster there.

Emma is discussed in my books England’s Queens: The Biography (Amberley, 2011) and She Wolves: The Notorious Queens of England (The History Press, 2008). She is also the subject of several recent biographies. She is not the only woman to have been the wife of two English kings however and her predecessor, Judith of Francia, will be the subject of a later blog post...

Did Lady Jane Grey Influence History?

I have just been asked my view on whether or not Lady Jane Grey influenced history. It is an interesting question and I set out below one way in which I think she (or, at least the political idea of Jane) did have a long-lasting impact.

Jane as a person did not really act independently. She was sixteen at the time of her death and had been used politically, rather than formulating political policy herself. As a person, she is a fascinating figure and the main sense of her that I have is of wasted potential: she could have been so much more had she lived and her party succeeded.

In spite of this, I do think that Jane had an influence on history due to what she embodied. Before the reign of Henry VIII, the succession had been, at least nominally, based on hereditary, with sons succeeding fathers, etc. Henry VIII, with his difficulties in obtaining a male heir, moved away from this. In the first two Acts of Succession of his reign, he disinherited each of his daughters in turn, based on the supposed invalidity of his marriages to their mothers. These marriages were arguably valid but Henry did, at least, base his attempts to change the succession on the principals of hereditary: illegitimate children had no right to succeed. The second Act of Succession made a real change however in that it allowed the king to name a successor if he had no legitimate heir: something which gave him the power to choose anyone that he liked. This was followed by the Third Act of Succession, which reinstated the two daughters, in spite of the fact that they were illegitimate. Henry VIII’s Will made the final change, bequeathing the crown to his legitimate son, Edward, and then to his two ‘illegitimate’ daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, before passing the throne to the heirs of his younger sister, Mary Tudor, ignoring the heirs of his elder sister, Margaret.

Henry VIII set a precedent in altering the succession and his son, Edward VI, followed this in his Device, passing over the claims of his two half-sisters, the heirs of Margaret Tudor and his cousin, Frances Brandon (the daughter of the elder Mary Tudor) in order to pass the crown to Lady Jane Grey. Had Jane secured the throne, this would arguably have cemented the precedent into law that the monarch had some ability to choose their own successor.

The failure of Jane’s attempt at the crown therefore did influence history and once again put the emphasis on the importance of strict hereditary title. Mary I hated her half-sister, Elizabeth I, but did not attempt to divert the succession from her. On her accession in 1558, Elizabeth I’s heirs were legally Frances Brandon and her daughter, Catherine Grey, due to the terms of Henry VIII’s Will. However, it was well known that Mary, Queen of Scots and, later, her son, James VI, had the strongest hereditary title. The succession in Elizabeth’s reign was always open to question and yet she always refused to name a successor, even on her deathbed in 1603. The fact that James VI of Scotland was able to succeed smoothly to the throne arguably has its roots in Jane Grey’s failed bid for the crown. In 1603 hereditary won over strict legal title. This was the same for Jane in 1553. It would be nearly the end of the seventeenth century, and after a civil war, before the succession again moved away from the strict hereditary line.

Looking ahead to the New Year

I was featured on the David Prever show this morning on BBC Three Counties Radio, looking ahead at the likely big news stories of 2013. We were discussing the expected royal baby and the fact that any daughter will now succeed to the throne regardless of whether she has younger brothers. This will obviously be a major change to the succession given that male primogeniture has prevailed in England for one thousand years. Even the Anglo-Saxons, who recognised any son of a king as 'throne-worthy' employed a version of the system, with the elder brother always succeeding in precedence to the younger (although sometimes with a brother succeeding rather than a son). The legislation to allow an elder sister to succeed is not yet in place but the decision has been made. In any event, male or female, the royal baby must be one of the biggest news stories of the year to come.

In the programme, we also discussed the fact that the new baby will probably be elderly by the time they actually come to the throne. I mentioned Sophia of Hannover, who, had she survived for a few more weeks would have become queen of England in 1714 at the age of 83. Prince William would need to live to 114 for the new baby to beat that - but who knows?

Anyway, Happy New Year everyone!

Christmas Past

Last year, before I started this blog, I posted a piece on Christmas day 500 years ago and Christmas day 1000 years ago on my website. I will do something similar this year but, in the meantime, here is Christmas 1511 and Christmas 1011 once again:

CHRISTMAS 2011 

Christmas Day 1511 - 500 Years Ago

Five hundred years ago Henry VIII and his court prepared for a particularly lavish Christmas: the third of the king's reign. Henry brought his court to Greenwich, one of his favourite palaces, for the festivities. The celebrations at court were not just reserved for those close to the king, with the chronicler, Edward Hall, recording that an abundance of foods were served 'to all comers of any honest behaviour' - such generosity was on a scale that was rarely seen.

As usual, the main focus of the celebrations was on New Year. For Henry and his queen, Catherine of Aragon, the celebration must have been somewhat bitter as on New Year's Day one year before the queen had given birth to the couple's first son, Henry, Prince of Wales, who had survived for only a few weeks. The couple put on a united front, however, with a great pageant staged in the hall at Greenwich. A model of a castle, with gates, towers and a dungeon and laden with artillery 'after the most warlike fashion' was brought in, with six richly dressed ladies carried within. Once in the hall, the castle was brought Catherine for her approval, before the king entered with five companions, dressed to compliment the women. Henry and his companions then attacked the castle, with the ladies, seeing them 'so lusty and courageous' soon agreeing to yield the castle. The company then danced before the ladies led the knights inside the castle. The company were further amazed by a Tudor special effect when 'the castle suddenly vanished out of their sights'.

As was customary, the Christmas festivities continued until Twelfth Night, with the king taking part in a masque, dressed in Italian fashion. Once again, Henry and his companions danced with the queen and her ladies, before the Christmas festivities were brought to an end and the company departed to their beds.

Christmas Day 1011 - 1000 Years Ago

Christmas 1011 would not have been as merry for King Aethelred II of England. By 1011, the country had been largely overrun by Viking invaders. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded that the attackers 'travelled about everywhere in bands and raided and roped up and killed our wretched people'. In September 1011, the Vikings besieged Canterbury, the centre of the church in England, capturing Archbishop Aelfheah and overrunning the town. The capture of the archbishop, who was led onto one of the raiders' ships was a further blow to the country, with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recording that 'he who was earlier the head of the English race and of Christendom was a roped thing. There wretchedness might be seen where earlier was seen bliss, in that wretched town from where there first came to us Christendom and bliss before God and before the world'.

 The archbishop spent his Christmas as a prisoner of the Vikings. Archbishop Aelfheah was a pious man and refused to pay any ransom or to allow a ransom to be paid on his behalf. Finally on 19 April 1012, furious with him, and drunk, Aelfheah's captors pelted him with animal bones and then bludgeoned him with the butt of an axe.

The martyrdom of the Archbishop of Canterbury was just one of a series of disasters in Aethelred's reign. Soon after Christmas 1013, Aethelred himself abandoned his kingdom, joining his wife and children in exile in Normandy. He returned to England the following year after the death of the Viking leader, Sweyn Forkbeard, but died in 1016 beset by rebellion from his eldest son, Edmund II, and an invasion from Cnut, the son of Sweyn Forkbeard

Reigning Queens

Following the announcement of an impending royal baby, I was interviewed yesterday on BBC Three Counties radio to discuss reigning queens (Roberto Perrone show, available on the BBC I-player at http://www.bbc.co.uk/threecountiesradio/programmes/schedules/2012/12/04). It was recently agreed that the eldest child of Prince William will succeed to the throne, regardless of whether they are male or female. The legislation to bring this into force has not yet been enacted but it does look as though this baby, if a girl, will become queen, regardless of whether or not she has younger brothers.

Reigning queens enjoy a special status amongst English monarchs, with Elizabeth I, Victoria and the current queen largely considered to have been successful and memorable. Part of this must be due to longevity, but Henry III, Edward III and George III (all of whom enjoyed long reigns) are not similarly revered. Their gender certainly helped to endear them to their people and build a mythology: Mary I and her sister, Elizabeth I, both claimed to be wedded to their countries, a claim that a male king never felt the need to make. Perhaps in the popular perception women are considered better able to symbolise their country and an era. This was somewhat unexpected and there was widespread dread at the prospect of female rule in the mid-sixteenth century when Edward VI's death began to look likely.

The new baby, even if it is a girl, may not succeed for a very long time: 'her' grandfather has already waited over sixty years. She probably wont have to wait as long as another heiress to the English crown, Sophia of Hannover, who died in June 1714 at the age of 83, only weeks before she would have succeeded to the throne.

Matilda of Scotland

30 November marks the anniversary of the death of King Edmund II ‘Ironside’ in 1016, the eldest surviving son of Aethelred II. Although king for only a few months, Edmund later became an important political figure posthumously with the childlessness of his half-brother, Edward the Confessor. Edmund’s successor was his rival, the Danish invader, Cnut. Cnut exiled Edmund’s young sons and one of them, Edward the Exile, settled in Hungary. He was recalled to England by his uncle but died soon afterwards, leaving a son, Edgar Aetheling, and two daughters. At the Confessor’s death in 1066, Edgar was too young to take the throne. Instead, first Harold Godwinson and then William of Normandy won the crown.

In 1100 William’s youngest son, Henry I, became king and, soon afterwards married Matilda, a young Scottish princess. Matilda’s father was Malcomlm Canmore, King of Scotland, while her mother was St Margaret, the daughter of Edward the Exile. In spite of his father’s claims to be the heir to Edward the Confessor, in reality, Henry’s title was based solely on conquest. At the time of Henry and Matilda’s marriage, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle enthused that she was ‘of the rightful royal family of England’ and the marriage went some way to healing the wounds created by the Conquest less than forty years before. Her English royal blood had always been significant and Malcolm and Margaret pointedly gave their children English royal names: Matilda was originally called Edith, the same name as the Confessor’s wife, only later changing her name to a more conventional Norman one. This change notwithstanding, it was well known in England that Matilda was a member of the Anglo-Saxon royal house, adding legitimacy to the Norman dynasty in England.

Henry had to overcome a formidable obstacle to win Matilda as his bride. Matilda and her sister spent much of their childhoods in England at the nunneries of Romsey and Wilton and under the care of her aunt, Christina, Abbess of Romsey. It is possible that, in sending her daughters to Romsey, St Margaret intended that they would both become nuns. This was certainly Christina’s hope and she put considerable pressure on her young nieces to take the veil. According to Matilda’s own account, given to Archbishop Anselm, Christina was convinced that the veil was the only way to protect her young charges:

‘For when I was quite a young girl and went in fear of the rod of my Aunt Christina, whom you knew quite well, she to preserve me from the lust of the Normans which was rampant and at that time ready to assault any woman’s honour, used to put a little black hood on my head and, when I threw it off, she would often make me smart with a good slapping and most horrible scolding, as well as treating me at being in disgrace. That hood I did indeed wear in her presence, chafing at it and fearful; but, as soon as I was able to escape out of her sight, I tore it off and threw it on the ground and trampled on it and in that way, although foolishly, I used to vent my rage and the hatred of it which boiled up in me. In that way, and only in that way, I was veiled, as my conscience bears witness’.

While it may have been intended that Matilda would become a nun, her royal blood meant that she was the subject of considerable interest, with rumours that Henry’s brother and predecessor as king, William Rufus, was her suitor. According to William of Malmesbury, Matilda would wear the veil in order to reject unworthy suitors who came to her at the nunnery and this is borne out by Matilda’s own account of one such occasion. According to Matilda, in 1093 her father arrived unexpectedly at Wilton with Count Alan, intending that he should marry her. Malcolm, ‘when by chance he saw me veiled snatched the veil off and tearing it to pieces invoked the hatred of God upon the person who had put it on me, declaring that he had rather have chosen to marry me to Count Alan than consign me to a house of nuns’. Malcolm was so furious that he took Matilda back to Scotland without taking the time to arrange her marriage. She was soon back in England however and her use of the veil served to make her marriage a scandalous proposition in the eyes of the church.

In 1100, when plans for Matilda’s marriage were announced, Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, believing that she was a nun, ordered her to return to the convent. Matilda went personally to Anselm to ask for his help. She vehemently denied that she was a nun and set out the full story of her childhood with her aunt Christina and the pressure that had been put upon her. Anselm, to Matilda’s relief and gratitude, believed her story and called a church court at Lambeth which investigated her claims. Matilda attended the council and, according to the report of Eadmer, a follower of Anselm, she offered to swear that she was free to marry. This was enough for the Archbishop and he declared that she had never been a nun, allowing the couple to marry a few days later on 11 November 1100. Soon after the ceremony, Anselm consecrated Matilda as queen.

Matilda proved to be an excellent queen consort, often serving as regent during her husband’s absences in Normandy. Her main contribution to history however must be her role in helping to reconcile the English people to the fact of the Norman Conquest. By virtue of her English royal blood, Matilda was able to legitimise the Norman kingship and, also, demonstrate the continuing importance of the indigenous royal family and way of life to the people of England. Matilda’s children were members of both the Norman and Anglo-Saxon royal houses. Her daughter, the Empress Matilda, passed this on to her own son, Henry II, and to all future monarchs of England. In many respects, Matilda represented a amalgamation of both English and Norman queenship, something which is symbolised by her change of name – an English Queen Edith superseded by a Norman Queen Matilda.

You can read more about Matilda of Scotland in my book, England’s Queens: The Biography, which was recently released in paperback by Amberley Publishing.

Heraldic Visitations

My article on Heraldic Visitations was published today in Your Family History magazine (issue 35). Visitation records are one of the best record types for research into families in the sixteenth century and medieval periods. I always look for a visitation when starting research into a subject or family.

The visitations were compiled in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and involved teams of royal heralds touring England to make enquiries about families that claimed gentry status. The heralds interviewed family members and reviewed documents before producing a pedigree for the family, some of which go back to 1066. The claims should always be taken with a pinch of salt - everyone wants to think that they have illustrious ancestors after all. However, by cross-referencing with other documents you can generally work out what is true and what is more likely to be wishful thinking.

Visitations are a great resource for historians and genealogists and, with many available free online, it's always worth having a look when carrying out research.