Christmas Cornorations

Tags

Charlemagne, Charles the Great, Emperor Constantine VI, Empress Irene, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, King of England, King of France, King of the English, Roman Empire, Romulus Augustus, William the Conqueror

Merry Christmas from the European Royal History Blog!!

Today I will briefly mention two coronations that took place on Christmas Day.

Charlemagne. King of the Franks crowned Emperor 800CE.
William I The Conquer, King of the English, Duke of Normandy 1066

Charlemagne

In 799, Pope Leo III did not have a good relationship with the citizens of Rome and suffered sever abuse when the Romans tried to put out his eyes and tear out his tongue. Leo III, naturally fearing for his life, escaped and fled to the court of King Charlemagne at Paderborn. Charlemagne, under the advisement of scholar Alcuin, sojourned to Rome and in November of 800 and on the first of December held a council on 1 December. On December 23rd Pope Leo III swore an oath of innocence. And two days later during a Mass, on Christmas Day (25 December), Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum (“Emperor of the Romans”) in Saint Peter’s Basilica. By doing this doing, the Pope effectively nullified the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople.

It was seen by scholars of the day that when Odoacer forced the abdication of Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476CE this did not effectively abolish the Western Roman Empire as a separate power Europe. Theoretically the powers of the Western Roman Emperor were said to have been reunited with or grafted into the Eastern Roman Empire. Therefore from that time contemporary scholars believed that there was a singular undivided Roman Empire. Pope Leo III and King Charlemagne, as well as their predecessors, also held to this political ideal of there being a singular Roman Empire that was one and indivisible.

However, the imperial coronation of Charlemagne was not believed to have caused a severance of the Roman Empire back into East and West factions. In the eyes Leo III and Charlemagne, along with contemporary political theorists, they were not revolting against a reigning sovereign, Empress Irene, but legitimately filling up the void of legitimate successors caused by the deposition Emperor Constatine VI in 797 and Charlemagne was held to be the legitimate successor, not of the Emperor Romulus Augustulus, but that of Emperor Constantine VI.

Despite the good intentions of Charlemagne’s coronation as Emperor, it intended to represent the continuation of the unbroken line of Emperors from Augustus to Constantine VI. The reality was that his imperial coronation had the effect of setting up two separate, and often opposing, Empires along with two separate claims to imperial authority.

One of the issues that has been debated by scholars is whether of not Charlemagne saw this prestigious gift bestowed on him on that Christmas Day? According to the twenty-eight chapter of Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni which says that Charlemagne was ignorant of the Pope’s intent and did not want any such coronation:

“He (Charlemagne) at first had such an aversion to being granted the imperial title that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that theses imperial titles were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have foreseen the design of the Pope.”

A number of modern scholars, however, logically suggest that Charlemagne was indeed aware of the coronation. It has been said he certainly cannot have missed the bejewelled crown waiting on the altar when he came to pray; something even contemporary sources support.

Charlemagne is counted as Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor, but many scholars believe the state that evolved into the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation began with the coronation of Otto I, Duke of Saxony in 962. Otto I was crowned Emperor by Pope John XII at Olds St. Peter’s Basilica. The Pope also anointed Otto’s wife Adelaide of Italy, who had accompanied Otto on his Italian campaign, as empress. With Otto’s coronation as emperor, the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy were unified into a common realm, later called the Holy Roman Empire.

William I

Exactly when did William I The Conqueror become King of the English? Although he certainly became the De Facto King of the English when he defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in October of 1066, it was not until his coronation on Christmas Day of that year did will accede to the throne.

William may have hoped the English would surrender to his rule immediately after his his victory over Harold II but that just was not the case. A swiftly convened meeting of the Wittan, comprising the English clergy and magnates, elected Edgar the Ætheling King of the English. Edgar the Ætheling was of the House of Wessex and a nephew of King Edward the Confessor. The support for Edgar by the Wittan was very lukewarm.

Undeterred, William continued his conquest of England. He and his armies secured Dover, parts of Kent, and Canterbury, and also captured Winchester, where the royal treasury was located. These captures solidified his holdings in that region and also his line of retreat to Normandy, if that was needed. It was unnecessary.

William then marched northward to Southwark and into London in late November. Next he led his forces around the south and west of London, burning buildings of those in resistance along the way. He crossed the Thames at Wallingford in early December where Archbishop Stigand submitted to William. He moved on to Berkhamsted soon afterwards where Edgar the Ætheling, Morcar, Edwin, and Archbishop Ealdred also submitted. This solidified his power in London where William began the construction of the Tower of London And with his troops garrisoned in London William was crowned King of the English at Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day 1066.

Advertisements

8oo Year Anniversary of the Death of King John of England.

Tags

dysentery, History, King John of England, King of England, King of the English, Middle Ages, Ttiles

On this day, 800 years ago, October 19, 1216 King John of England dies at Newark-on-Trent and is succeeded by his nine-year-old son Henry III. King John has gone down in English history as one of England’s ineffective kings. Jim Bradbury, British historian specializing in the military history of the Middle Ages, states that the current consensus among historians was that John was a “hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general”, albeit,  with “distasteful, even dangerous personality traits”, including pettiness, spitefulness and cruelty.”

His cause of death at the age of 49 after a reign plagued with numerous battles was dysentery. A condition highly curable today but often fatal in the Middle Ages. Shortly after his death rumors began circulating that he had been killed by poisoned ale, poisoned plums or a “surfeit of peaches”.His body was buried in Worcester Cathedral in front of the altar of St Wulfstan.  A new sarcophagus with an effigy was made for him  in 1232 in which his remains now rest.

An interesting factoid is that during the reign of King John the title of the monarch officially changed from “King of the English” to “King of England.” The standard title for all monarchs from Æthelstan (924-927) until the time of King John was Rex Anglorum (King of the English). Canute II the Great, King of Denmark, was the first king to call himself “King of England”. In the Norman period Rex Anglorum (King of the English) remained standard, with occasional use of Rex Anglie (King of England).  From the time of King John onward all other titles were eschewed in favor of Rex or Regina Anglie .(King of England).

Who as the first King of ……?

Tags

Bretwalda, Cerdic of Wessex, East Anglia, Egbert of Wessex, Essex, Heptarchy, Kent, King Alfred the Great, King Athelstan, King John of England, King of Bavaria, King of the Anglo-Saxons, King of the English, Kingdom of Prussia, Kings and Queens of England, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, Wessex, William the Conqueror

Figuring out who was the first King of Prussia or the first King of Bavaria was, is pretty easy given the fact that these kingdoms developed late in European history, early 18th and 19th to be precise. However, there are other kingdoms that stretch way back into history and figuring out who the first king of that nation or kingdom was, is rather difficult and subject to opinion. I am beginning a short series where I will identify the first king of England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I’m going to do something special with France and also ask who was the last King of the Franks? I may have touched on this before but I will also examine who was the first Holy Roman Emperor?

The reason why it can be hard for historians to determine who was the first king of these nations were because the idea of a unified nation-state came long after these monarchies began to develop. At first the king was more like a tribal chief over a people rather than a nation. All of these nations had many kings ruling over these territories and as time went on these smaller kingdoms either died off or were absorbed or defeated until one singular king remained. There are also other complexities special for each kingdom that I will address separately.

Today I will start with England.

Most books or lists of the Kings and Queens of England begin with William the Conqueror in 1066. Some may briefly mention the Saxon period but all-in-all a wide majority of books on this subject begin with William. However, there was more royal history before him. After the fall of the Roman Empire there began a rise of small petty kingdoms in the British Isle. These small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were known as the Heptarchy and they consisted of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. It was from the gradual unification of these early medieval kingdoms that the kingdom of England emerged. During the 9th century Vikings upset the balance of power between the English kingdoms, and native Anglo-Saxon life in general. One of the effects of the Viking invasions was that it slowed down English unification.

During the period of the Heptarchy, the most powerful king among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms might be acknowledged as Bretwalda, which translates to High King, over the other kings. However, the tendency for one of the kings of the Heptarchy to become the Bretwalda was short lived as the decline of the other Saxon kingdoms allowed Wessex to become more powerful. Wessex soon came to be the most powerful kingdom on English soil as it absorbed the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex in 825. In 827, Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex (802-839) Dore. Thus Egbert briefly became the first king to reign over a united England. . Most sources that list Egbert as the first King of England use either 827 or 828 as the starting point of his reign as Bretwalda even though his reign as king of Wessex began in 802. 

Was Egbert of Wessex the first King of England? He often is considered as such by some historians for his reign signaled that Wessex had indeed become the most powerful kingdom within England. Egbert was given the title Bretwalda and instead of viewing him as the first king of England I tend to view him as the last Anglo-Saxon king to hold the title Bretwalda. Incidentally, as mentioned at the start, most books or encyclopedias list William I as the starting point of the Kings and Queens of England, but those that do list or mention the Kingdom of Wessex often start with Egbert of Wessex as its first king, even though Cerdic of Wessex was actually the First King of Wessex in 519.

In 886, King Alfred the Great (871-899) retook London from the Danes and some historians mark this as the point when all of England came under one monarch. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that “all of the English people (all Angelcyn) not subject to the Danes, submitted themselves to King Alfred.” After retaking London he began massive reconstruction of the city and making it habitable once again. Historians cite that it may have been at this point that Alfred assumed the new royal style ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons.’ Alfred’s son, Ædward the Elder (899-924), was also titled King of the Anglo-Saxons, however during his reign the Danes still held York.

It would be a few more years until England was completely united. On July 12, 927 the remaining monarchs of Britain gathered at Eamont in Cumbria to recognize Æthelstan (924-927) as “King of the English.” This has be considered by some historians as England’s ‘foundation date’, although the process of unification had taken almost 100 years. Even after 927 England was not completely united as Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Danish and Norwegian invaders. Northumbria was definitively brought under English control by King Ædred (945-955) in 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria (Roman Bernicia), was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland. England has remained in political unity ever since.

It is interesting to note that from the time of King Æthelstan until the reign of the King John (1199-1216) the title which the monarch used was “King of the English,” in Latin, Rex Anglorum . In 1199 King John changed the title to Rex Anglia, “King of England” and this remained in effect until the unification of England and Scotland as the King of Great Britain in 1707.

It is difficult to pin down the first king of England. Egbert is often chosen because he was the king that brought Wessex to prominence over the other English Kingdoms. Alfred the Great is often chosen because he brought most of England under his rule but his grandson, Æthelstan as “King of the English,” finalized English unification. Any of these could be considered the first King of England. Personally, I tend to view Alfred the Great as the first King of England because his unifying of the nation was the one that stuck and lasted. What is your choice?