In the context of the years 875-975 how valid were the claims of Alfred the Great and his successors to be kings of all England?
The extent of the authority of the Anglo Saxon kings varied between them, and depended on many factors within their reign including unity within their kingdom, challenges to their authority and what they controlled on a geographical scale as well as social. We have to consider these factors whilst making a well rounded judgement on whether they could claim to be kings of all England. The only King I feel comfortable in supporting of that claim is King Edgar, who enjoyed unwavering authority on a greater extent compared to the others.
When considering the claim to legitimacy and who issued them, Edgar’s coronation …show more content…
In comparison, The Anglo Saxon Chronicle states that Edgar only met with six kings, and they “plighted their troth to him, that they would be his fellow workers” but did not row him down the River Dee. However, the fact that in 1117 they thought it was plausible that Edgar could control eight other kings, and was the most powerful in the English kingdom, supports he had a valid claim in history to be the king of all England. It is also from a chronicle, which was meant to accurately portray history, which may indicate that they genuinely believed it to be true, which highlights the extent of Edgar’s reputation, suggesting when he was alive he held much power and therefore validating the claim of being King of England. Although John and Florence of Worcester were churchmen, and therefore likely to support the descendants of Alfred the Great and most Anglo Saxon kings which could have caused them to exaggerate and enhance the reputation of Edgar, which may not have been as stunning. However, we can see that Edgar’s reign must have had lasting effects as the myth of the River Dee is popular and widespread, highlighting the significance of Edgar’s reign, which we can see through illustrations throughout time that depict the event noted by
The extent of the authority of the Anglo Saxon kings varied between them, and depended on many factors within their reign including unity within their kingdom, challenges to their authority and what they controlled on a geographical scale as well as social. We have to consider these factors whilst making a well rounded judgement on whether they could claim to be kings of all England. The only King I feel comfortable in supporting of that claim is King Edgar, who enjoyed unwavering authority on a greater extent compared to the others.
When considering the claim to legitimacy and who issued them, Edgar’s coronation …show more content…
In comparison, The Anglo Saxon Chronicle states that Edgar only met with six kings, and they “plighted their troth to him, that they would be his fellow workers” but did not row him down the River Dee. However, the fact that in 1117 they thought it was plausible that Edgar could control eight other kings, and was the most powerful in the English kingdom, supports he had a valid claim in history to be the king of all England. It is also from a chronicle, which was meant to accurately portray history, which may indicate that they genuinely believed it to be true, which highlights the extent of Edgar’s reputation, suggesting when he was alive he held much power and therefore validating the claim of being King of England. Although John and Florence of Worcester were churchmen, and therefore likely to support the descendants of Alfred the Great and most Anglo Saxon kings which could have caused them to exaggerate and enhance the reputation of Edgar, which may not have been as stunning. However, we can see that Edgar’s reign must have had lasting effects as the myth of the River Dee is popular and widespread, highlighting the significance of Edgar’s reign, which we can see through illustrations throughout time that depict the event noted by