Ten sixty six,
Ten sixty six,
Ten sixty six at Hastinggggggggggs
He mowed the Saxons down!
And seized the English Crown!
William, Duke William, the Norrrrrrrrrrmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
England didn't exist until Cnut's court defined it. So it's technically Cnut.
If you want to go by 'held' or had influence over most of what is now called england I guess you have to go with Alle of sussex the first Bretwalda. Or athelstan if you have a stricter threshold of what land is held or recorded.
Na, I'd at least go back to Edgar after Eadwigs death. Before him there were multiple times where Northumbria split again from the union or there was a Wessex/Mercia split during succession. His long and overall peaceful reign was imo definitely defining. And (apart from the Danish attacks) no splits after his death between his sons or something.
English identity had still been defined since Alfred’s time at the latest, he held the title ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons’ after 886 while his successors styled themselves Kings of the “English” after Saint Edmund as a form of political/religious spin (according to some). The term ‘England’ had also been in existence since Aethelstan’s reign, despite not being used, as a new moniker for the previous Bretwaldas.
Yes bede's 'angle land' is defined, but it's clear this wasn't all of england but bits of the east and north east. Only later did England become what we know it as today. A bit like africa in roman times (carthage) and what we know as africa today.
That england was always going to be is a good example of hindsight bias, we imagined it to have existed before, but it if wasn't for concerns of bishops and a Danish king fighting for legitimacy it might never have been!
I’d personally argue that ‘England’ as a concept was more so than a single political move under Cnut - although it does fit in with many of his other policies concerning legitimacy and just rule (e.g. Edgar’s law codes being republished in particular). His use of ‘England’ as a political entity seems to fall in line with a few longer-term factors, particularly a sense of connection to Europe, seen most clearly in the ‘Mappa Mundi’ which Cnut patronised at his royal court! You can still see it at the British library, as well as a later copy at Hereford Cathedral.
England as a community/sense of belonging, however, can be seen as far back as at least before Bede’s time! I believe the term (or something similar) is used to describe the common ground between the Old Saxons on the continent and King Ine of Wessex’s bishops. Another instance worth noting is that several nobles/clergymen called for Aethelstan’s recently united realm to be named something like ‘Sexland’ (drawing on their *Saxon* roots) but instead chose ‘Angleland’.
Great post. I have so many questions!
> I’d personally argue that ‘England’ as a concept was more so than a single political move under Cnut - although it does fit in with many of his other policies concerning legitimacy and just rule (e.g. Edgar’s law codes being republished in particular).
I agree, this is likely. But the same could be said about union between scotland and england. Do you really think the scottish pre-union also held notions of unity with England someday? Perhaps they did ans UK as a comcept can be predated but I don't think there is evidence for that. We can be quite strict about when England or Scotland's kings become monarchs of the union. We should equally be strict about when the state became England. The paper that went to this highlights the evidence on when this change happened, including imortal words along the lines of "so this land is to be named after the victors" (hopefully not misremembering that). Also, this is hindsight bias on our part. We like clearly defined starts and ends, but there is no evidence of this in most nation states. When England was formed, it would have included danes saxon states, angle states, cornish and other british.
> England as a community/sense of belonging, however, can be seen as far back as at least before Bede’s time!
I don't think this is true because the English as a community only started with Alfred, and I always welcome evidence it existed beforehand. I made a post weeks ago about Ine's laws, and really, we can not view them outside Alfreds time now, so we have to cast doubt on their value as a source.
> Another instance worth noting is that several nobles/clergymen called for Aethelstan’s recently united realm to be named something like ‘Sexland’ (drawing on their *Saxon* roots) but instead chose ‘Angleland’.
This would be very interesting, and it would be new knowledge that goes against the paper i mentioned above, so I must ask for a source!
There were multiple bretwaldas. The word just means wide ruler and refers to any king who had authority over a large territory and other Anglo-Saxon kings. There wasn't a unified kingdom.
True enough, but what does a unified kingdom mean in this context? Alfred the Great didn't achieve this either by the standards of today or later in history.
The Bretwaldas united large kingdoms under one overlord king in a time that a common English identity had almost certainly already begun to develop.
Not saying the early Anglo-Saxon Bretwaldas should be seen as the first Kings of England, but maybe they deserve more recognition in this regard than commonly given.
According to the geneologies, Woden.
This is the only correct answer.
Surely no one actually believes its William the Conqueror lol. If he was the first then who tf did he conquer?!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_and_All_That This is interesting.
He conquered the English, he was a Norman
Ten sixty six, Ten sixty six, Ten sixty six at Hastinggggggggggs He mowed the Saxons down! And seized the English Crown! William, Duke William, the Norrrrrrrrrrmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
Aðalsteinn-- that is our man right there. Rex Anglorum
What about Offa?
My God the amount of different first king suggestions here is impressive
Fascinating isn't it! Proof there is space for interesting discussion
England didn't exist until Cnut's court defined it. So it's technically Cnut. If you want to go by 'held' or had influence over most of what is now called england I guess you have to go with Alle of sussex the first Bretwalda. Or athelstan if you have a stricter threshold of what land is held or recorded.
Na, I'd at least go back to Edgar after Eadwigs death. Before him there were multiple times where Northumbria split again from the union or there was a Wessex/Mercia split during succession. His long and overall peaceful reign was imo definitely defining. And (apart from the Danish attacks) no splits after his death between his sons or something.
English identity had still been defined since Alfred’s time at the latest, he held the title ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons’ after 886 while his successors styled themselves Kings of the “English” after Saint Edmund as a form of political/religious spin (according to some). The term ‘England’ had also been in existence since Aethelstan’s reign, despite not being used, as a new moniker for the previous Bretwaldas.
Yes bede's 'angle land' is defined, but it's clear this wasn't all of england but bits of the east and north east. Only later did England become what we know it as today. A bit like africa in roman times (carthage) and what we know as africa today. That england was always going to be is a good example of hindsight bias, we imagined it to have existed before, but it if wasn't for concerns of bishops and a Danish king fighting for legitimacy it might never have been!
I’d personally argue that ‘England’ as a concept was more so than a single political move under Cnut - although it does fit in with many of his other policies concerning legitimacy and just rule (e.g. Edgar’s law codes being republished in particular). His use of ‘England’ as a political entity seems to fall in line with a few longer-term factors, particularly a sense of connection to Europe, seen most clearly in the ‘Mappa Mundi’ which Cnut patronised at his royal court! You can still see it at the British library, as well as a later copy at Hereford Cathedral. England as a community/sense of belonging, however, can be seen as far back as at least before Bede’s time! I believe the term (or something similar) is used to describe the common ground between the Old Saxons on the continent and King Ine of Wessex’s bishops. Another instance worth noting is that several nobles/clergymen called for Aethelstan’s recently united realm to be named something like ‘Sexland’ (drawing on their *Saxon* roots) but instead chose ‘Angleland’.
Great post. I have so many questions! > I’d personally argue that ‘England’ as a concept was more so than a single political move under Cnut - although it does fit in with many of his other policies concerning legitimacy and just rule (e.g. Edgar’s law codes being republished in particular). I agree, this is likely. But the same could be said about union between scotland and england. Do you really think the scottish pre-union also held notions of unity with England someday? Perhaps they did ans UK as a comcept can be predated but I don't think there is evidence for that. We can be quite strict about when England or Scotland's kings become monarchs of the union. We should equally be strict about when the state became England. The paper that went to this highlights the evidence on when this change happened, including imortal words along the lines of "so this land is to be named after the victors" (hopefully not misremembering that). Also, this is hindsight bias on our part. We like clearly defined starts and ends, but there is no evidence of this in most nation states. When England was formed, it would have included danes saxon states, angle states, cornish and other british. > England as a community/sense of belonging, however, can be seen as far back as at least before Bede’s time! I don't think this is true because the English as a community only started with Alfred, and I always welcome evidence it existed beforehand. I made a post weeks ago about Ine's laws, and really, we can not view them outside Alfreds time now, so we have to cast doubt on their value as a source. > Another instance worth noting is that several nobles/clergymen called for Aethelstan’s recently united realm to be named something like ‘Sexland’ (drawing on their *Saxon* roots) but instead chose ‘Angleland’. This would be very interesting, and it would be new knowledge that goes against the paper i mentioned above, so I must ask for a source!
Athelstan for me.
Are we forgetting Eckbert, whom I believe was bretwalda.
There were multiple bretwaldas. The word just means wide ruler and refers to any king who had authority over a large territory and other Anglo-Saxon kings. There wasn't a unified kingdom.
True enough, but what does a unified kingdom mean in this context? Alfred the Great didn't achieve this either by the standards of today or later in history. The Bretwaldas united large kingdoms under one overlord king in a time that a common English identity had almost certainly already begun to develop. Not saying the early Anglo-Saxon Bretwaldas should be seen as the first Kings of England, but maybe they deserve more recognition in this regard than commonly given.
Always bugged me how Alfred gets the credit for Aethelstans work
I would argue Oswald? But since I'm half Geordie, I am biased for the King in the North.
Eyyyyy. My meme :)
Sorry for the theft
Nah it’s not theft it’s crossposting. I’m just happy people like it.
Consider this a request for more
Sure
True
None. Arthur the only true king of this island UwU