GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-07 > 0964467426
From: Stewart Baldwin< >
Subject: Re: Ancestors of Egbert?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:37:06 GMT
The "orthodox" genealogy of Egbert makes him a son of Ealhmund, son of
Eafa, son of Eoppa, son of Ingild, brother of king Ine of Wessex
(688-726). The generations prior to Ine are a separate matter, and
this posting will be concerned with the generations listed above.
Egbert's father Ealhmund is not otherwise identified in any source
from the ninth century, but it has been frequently noted that there
was a king of Kent of that name (ruling ca. 784) who would make a
chronologically plausible father. If you make the reasonable
assumption that the two Ealhmunds were one and the same, this gives
Egbert a known (but extremely obscure) father. Although this
assumption cannot be considered certain, it does seem at least
probable, so let us assume this identity for the remainder of the
posting.
Some believe that the pedigree back to a brother of Ine has been
fabricated. It must be admitted that the evidence for Egbert's
pedigree is not so good as we would prefer to have. However, in my
opinion, the case for a fabricated pedigree has been overstated. If
the pedigree is fabricated, what evidence is there that this was the
case? The argument that Ealhmund was a king of Kent (and therefore
not of the West Saxon dynasty) is not a good one, for the Kentish
monarchy was very unstable during the entire period, and had a
succession of kings that were either of obscure origin, or were
princes from foreign dynasties. During the same period, the dynasties
of both Essex and Mercia had supplied kings to Kent. If Essex and
Mercia could do it, why not Wessex? A prince from Wessex obtaining
the Kentish throne would just be one more example of what was going on
there, both before and after the reign of Ealhmund.
WAS THE PEDIGREE FABRICATED?
So, what direct evidence is there that the generations between Egbert
and Ingild (or some of them) were fabricated? To my knowledge, there
isn't any. The well known fact that SOME of the generations (i.e.,
pre-Cerdic) in this genealogy were fabricated does not constitute
evidence that THESE generations were. However, for the sake of
argument, let us assume for the moment that the generations back to
Ingild were fabricated, in order to give Egbert a relationship to Ine
that he did not have, and let us see where such an argument would
lead.
The first question would then be, when was the pedigree written down
for the first time? In principle, it could have been written down any
time between the accession of Egbert in 802 (since it would be
unlikely to have been written down earlier), and the reign of Egbert's
grandson Alfred the great (the age of the earliest manuscripts giving
the genealogy). Now, 802 is only 76 years after the death of Ine,
which is pretty close to living memory. One of the basic facts about
the fabrication of genealogies is that the earlier the fabricated
generations are, the easier it is to get by with it without being
caught. Fabricating such a link during the time of Egbert without
being caught would have been very difficult, so if the genealogy is
fabricated, then we would almost have to assume that it was written
much later, say in the reign of Alfred, and even then, it would not be
that far outside living memory.
If we make that assumption, we run into another problem, that of
motive. The obvious motive for a phony genealogy is to strengthen
claims to the throne on the face of possible opposition. However, by
the time of Alfred, the dynasty of Egbert was already quite secure on
the throne. Of course, they were in danger from the Danes, but that
was an external threat. By the time of Alfred, Egbert and his sons
and four grandsons had occupied the throne of Wessex for six
consecutive reigns, and the only other claimants to the throne who are
known were also descendants of Egbert. (Faking a genealogy only helps
if the other claimants don't have the same descent.) Of course, these
arguments do not prove that the pedigree is genuine, but they do serve
to illustrate how inconclusive the argument for fabrication is.
WHAT WAS THE KENTISH CONNECTION?
In addition to the probability that Egbert's father was king of Kent,
the other evidence of a Kentish connection is onomastic, as there were
two kings of Kent named Egbert. In what one might call the "revised
orthodox" genealogy of Egbert, his patrilineal line of descent is kept
exactly as in the orthodox genealogy, and a marriage with a Kentish
princess is hypothsised (with differences in the details, depending on
who is doing the hypothsising), in order to explain Ealhmund's reign
as king of Kent and Egbert's first name.
Another possibility that has been mentioned is a patrilineal Kentish
descent for Egbert (abandoning the "orthodox" genealogy). If this is
supposed to mean a patrilineal descent from the kings who ruled Kent
in the seventh and early eighth centuries, then I think that this can
be considered very unlikely. The reason for this (in addition to the
lack of supporting evidence) is that if it were true, it would make
Egbert (and Alfred) a direct male line descendant of both Aethelbert,
the first Christian Anglo-Saxon king, and Hengist, the mythical (but
real to people of the ninth century) first Anglo-Saxon invader of
Britain. I consider it unlikely in the extreme that Alfred would have
abandoned such a politically useful genealogy if there were any truth
to it.
So, what of the "revised orthodox" genealogy. It is plausible enough,
but there are other possibilities. Given the chronology of his reign,
Egbert of Wessex was probably born during the reign of Egbert II of
Kent (764-79). If Ealhmund had been an exiled West Saxon prince
seeking his fortune in the turbulent Kentish politics of the time,
naming his son after the king of Kent might be a politically astute
move, even if there were no genealogical reason for doing so. (If
this is true, Egbert II of Kent might have even been the Godfather of
Egbert of Wessex.) (In fact, we see something similar a couple of
generations later, when Aethelwulf of Wessex gave two of his sons,
Aethelbald and Aethelred, the names of previous Mercian kings, despite
the fact that there is no evidence for a Mercian descent. Could
Aethelwulf have been giving his sons names which would be acceptable
to the people of Mercia?) This is admittedly speculative, but it does
show that there is a plausible scenario which has no genealogical
connection to the earlier kings of Kent.
CONCLUSIONS
The following two conclusions are my main opinions on the matter.
Given the sometimes heated arguments which have been made on this
subject in the past, I suspect that others may have different
opinions.
1. The "orthodox" genealogy of Egbert back to Ingild is most likely
correct, although it would certainly be nice if we had better evidence
to that effect.
2. The suggestion that Egbert was a descendant of the kings of Kent in
the female line, while plausible enough, is too weakly supported to be
regarded as anything more than one possibility.
Stewart Baldwin
This thread:
| Re: Ancestors of Egbert? by Stewart Baldwin< > |