The real Edward I of England

 

The first king to claim the title King of All English was Alfred the Great (871-899), but he did limit his title to All English not under Danish rule (meaning the Danelaw), his son and grandson Edward the Elder (899-924) and Athelstan (924-939) began a campaign to win back the north. Edward conquered all the land south of the Humber (including Mercia which had seperated itself from the West-Saxon royal line after Alfred died) and gained overlordship over Wales, but as he never controlled Northumbria he can not be considered a King of England. Athelstan did conquer Northumbria after the death of the Norse king Sihric and gained overlordship of Schotland at the Battle of Brunanburh, but after his death the Northumbrians rejected his sucessor Edmund (939-946) and chose Olaf Guthfiridsson from Dublin as their king. Olaf was succeeded by Olaf Sithricson and it wan not until 944 that Edmund could throw him out of York. When Edmund died, the Northumbrians chose Erik Bloodaxe as king. Eadred (946-955) kicked him out the next year, but in 950 the Northumbrians got Olaf Sithricson back, and after Erik Bloodaxe again. In 954, the Northumbrians decided to submit to the West-saxon king out of free will.

After Eadred died the next year, his sons Eadwig and Edgar divided the realm between them. Only when Eadwig died in 959 did Edgar rule the whole of England.

 

So who was King of England and who was not is open to interpretation. Personally I would include Athelstan, but not Edward. The kings between Athelstan and Edgar only were in posession of all of England for short stretches of time, but I suppose they could make some claim to the title. But I think historically Edgar is the first one who can realy be considered as King of England, as he was the first who did not rule an occupied hostile territory, but people who did accept him as king.

 

Yes, very much so..  Exept that not in a single case did the empire survive the emperor. I do even think it was not expected to: it was such a very personal thing, the title of Breatwealda had to be earned by hard work (war) and personal achievement (conquest) and could, I think, never be passed on to another.

 

Originally posted by Melisende The title appears very ambiguous in both its definition and appointment.

 

Yes, that is the fate of historians: not even defenitions are clear, because they tend to be adapted to the need of the historian. It is what keeps us on our toes...

The thruth is: there is no such thing as thruth, or even objectiveness. Everything is open to multiple interpretations, and 'history as we know it' is just the consensus reached by historians based on the most convincing argumentation.

 

Anyways, back to the original point, "King of the English" was an earlier title used by the Anglo-Saxon kings but once they became more settled they began using "King of England," similar to the way that "King of the Franks" eventually gave way to "King of France." 

 

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Yes, that would make sense... You would not call yourself king of England before the concept of England was established...  Good point about the law, very true.

Agreed. But I also don't think you would call yourself King of the English before the English were established as a nation. Kings of the Saxons and Kings of the Angles abound.

I think (d) could theoretically be applied to subjects of the English king living in territory not under the kings rule. Technically, as long as you have the English nationality, you are a subject of the ruler of England.

I don't think that is true. You can reject your allegiance to the Queen (though I think she may have to agree) but that doesn't stop you being English, any more than accepting allegiance to the Queen makes you English.

But in practice you would have to obey to the laws of the country you are in, and the ruler of the English would not be able to exercise much of his authority over you. But you could still commit crimes abroad punishable in England, such as treason.

 

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by Aelfgifu Yes, that would make sense... You would not call yourself king of England before the concept of England was established...  Good point about the law, very true. Agreed. But I also don't think you would call yourself King of the English before the English were established as a nation. Kings of the Saxons and Kings of the Angles abound.   Yes, but the sense of an English nation was around long before an united English country was an option, I think.

 

I read it in: "The Age of Arthur" by John Morris (and its not a book on the "legendary" King Arthur but rather a history of England from 400-800AD).

 

I will try I find it again.

Chapman, Anna, �King Alfred and the Cult of St. Edmund�, History Today  (July, 2003), pp. 37-43.

Richards, Mary P., �Anglo-Saxonism in the Old English Laws�, in: Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity, Allen J. Frantzen and John D. Niles eds. (Gainesville etc., 1997), pp. 40-59.

Smyth, Alfred P., �The Emergence of English Identity, 700-1000�, in: Medieval Europeans: studies in ethnic identity and national perspectives in medieval Europe, Alfred P. Smyth ed. (Basingstoke etc. 1998), pp. 24-52.

Thorman, Janet, �The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Poems and the Making of the English Nation�, in: Anglo-Saxonism and the Construction of Social Identity, Allen J. Frantzen and John D. Niles eds. (Gainesville etc., 1997), pp. 60-85.

 

(I did my Bachelor thesis on identity and integration in Viking Age England, you see. )