Alfred, succeeded his brother Æthelred as King of Wessex in April 871. Both he and his brother were sons of King Æthelwulf. The only English King called "The Great," Alfred is renowned both for his ability as a war leader and for his love of learning. He can be counted with Charlemagne, as one of the two most outstanding rulers of the 9th century. Alfred was crowned king at Winchester, 871; founded the British Navy, organized the militia, compiled a code of laws, built schools and monasteries, and invited scholars to live at his court. He was a good scholar and translated many books.
Alfred was the first English monarch to plan systematically for the defense of his realm against the Danes, with whom he was almost constantly at war from 876 until the end of his life. He was also the first monarch of an English Kingdom to become a symbol and focus of national unity. Although effective ruler only of Wessex and English Mercia, he was regarded as the protector of all the English living under Danish rule.
At that time, the Vikings, or Danes, who had invaded England in 793, were pushing to take Wessex. They had already defeated East Anglia, Northumbria and Mercia. However, Alfred was successful in his bid to defeat the Vikings at the battle of Edington, and Wessex did not fall under Danish rule. He prevented the Danish conquest of England, defeating them at Edington (878) after a campaign of guerrilla warfare. After his victory he allowed the Danes to keep their conquests in Mercia and East Anglia provided that Guthrum, their King, was converted to Christianity. Alfred built a navy of Warships to defend the south coast against further Danish invasions (885-86 ;892-96) and protected Wessex with a chain of fortifications. He took London (886), this gaining control of all England except the Danish areas. This led to general English recognition of his leadership. After his death, however, Wessex and Mercia were still unable to expel the Danes from England.
A learned layman, Alfred tried to ensure that his country men had the opportunity to become literate. To that end, he relied upon the bishops of the Anglo-Saxon church both to teach and to seek out students. Alfred himself translated into Anglo-Saxon the Pastoral Care of Pope Gregory I, Orosius' Seven Books of History against the Pagans, Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, (possibly) the Ecclesiastical History of the Venerable Bede, and part of St. Augustine of Hippo's Soliloquies. To each of these except the fourth he added his own commentary. Alfred's military victories saved English culture and national identity from destruction, and his intellectual activities began the education of his people in the Latin heritage.Ref: Academic American Encyclopedia RASC 1-15. (ASC 853,871,891,894,897,901;DNB, I 153-162; Asser:Life of Alfred).
During his reign, Alfred bettered his kingdom and the lives of his subjects. He originated the system of burhs which emerged in England: fortified towns were located such that no one lived more than 20 miles from one, meaning that they could reach safety in a day's marching. Thirty burhs existed during the time, and many of them still survive today. A total of 27,000 men were required to defend the burhs, and the fact that they did defend them is a testament to Alfred's organizational and military skills. The army was also revamped under him, and Alfred had new ships built in order to meet the Danes at sea.
One of Alfred's greatest contributions to his people was his interest in educating them. To this end he issued a law-code, he brought scholars to Wessex, he translated books, himself, from Latin to (Old) English, and he likely ordered the writing of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a history of the Anglo-Saxons which would be updated each year. One of Alfred's laws reads as follows:
"If anyone ties up an innocent ceorl, he is to pay him 10 shillings compensation. If anyone whips him he is to pay him 20 shillings compensation. If he places him in the stocks, he is to pay him 30 shillings compensation."
Reign 955-959. He lost Mercia and Northumbria. He forced St. Dunstan into exile. By his tyranical proceedings, the immorality of his private life, his connection with Elgiva alienated the affections of his subjects.
Harold "Klak", King of Haithabu, King of Rustringen, 819-827, King of Jutland. His wife, Elgina, was a daughter of Æthelred (Ethelred) I, King of Wessex.
Eahlmund or Alemund or Edmund, son of Eafa. "A.D. 784. At this time reigned Elmund King in Kent, the father of Egbert; and Egbert was the father of Athulf (Aethelwulf)." Ref. (ASC 784, 854; ARSC 1-12). He reigned from 784 to 786. He married a daughter of Æthelbert II, Joint-King of Kent.
Sir Robert Douglas of Glenbervie, Baronet, THEBARONAGE OF SCOTLAND, Edinburgh, 1798, p. 374. "It is universally acknowledged, that the Macleods of Scotland are descended of the Norvegian kings of Man, of whom we shall heregive a brief account, as recorded in the chronicle of thatisland, published with Cambden's Britannia, anno 1586. "I.GODFRED, sirnamed [sic] Crovan, son of Harold the Black, of the royal family of Norway, being appointed sovereign of Man and the western isles, by king Harold the Imperious, came with a fleet and army, and took possession of his kingdom, anno 1066;but the superiority still remained with the kings of Norway."Godfred left three sons. 1. Lagman. 2. Harold. 3. Olave orOlaus, a child at his father's death. "Godfred reigned sixteenyears, died in the Island of Islay, and was succeeded by hiseldest son." !REIGN: Reigned 1066-1082. !BIOGRAPHY: John Burke, Esq., A GENEALOGICAL AND HERALDICHISTORY OF THE COMMONERS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, Vol. II,Baltimore, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1977, pp.175-178. It is acknowledged universally that the Macleods ofScotland, sprang from the Norwegian Kings of Man, of whichmonarchs the following is a brief narrative, as recorded in the Chronicle of the Island, published with Cambden's Britannia,anno 1586. I. Godred, surnamed Crowan, son of Harold, the Black, being appointed sovereign of Man, and the Western Isles,by Harold, the Imperious, came with a fleet, and army, and tookpossession of his kingdom, anno 1066, but the superiority stillremained with the kings. He left at his decease three sons, 1.Lagman 2. Harold 3. Olaus, or Olave, a child at his father'sdeath. !BIOGRAPHY: Rev. Dr. Donald MacKinnon, MACLEOD CHIEFS OF HARRISAND DUNVEGAN, Edinburgh, The Clan MacLeod Society, 1969, pp.1-2. !BIOGRAPHY: Alick Morrison, THE CHIEFS OF CLAN MACLEOD, EastKilbride, Scotland, Associate Clan MacLeod Societies,1986, pp.14-15. "The founder of the last dynasty to rule Man and the Isles was Godred Crovan, a son of Harold the Black of 'Ysland' (i.e. Iceland). His origin is obscure, although various conjectures have been made to trace his genealogy. It is, however, certain that he was not a mere adventurer. He derived a considerable amount of support from the Hebrides and he was successful in establishing a dynasty that lasted for two centuries and was never seriously challenged. These circumstances argue that he was in some way related to some of the previous Kings of the Isles. "He first came to notice in1066, when we find him in conjunction with Godred, son ofSigtrygg, king of man and the Isles at the time, assisting King Harold Hardrada of Norway and Tostig Godwinson, in the invasion of England. The invaders were routed by Harold Godwinson, King of England and a brother of Tostig at theBattle of Stamford Bridge. King Harold of Norway and Tostig were slain. The two Godreds managed to escape to the Isle ofMan. King Godred Sigtryggson of Man and the Isles died shortlyafterwards and was succeeded by his son Fingal. Godred Crovanseems to to have returned to Iceland, but in 1071 he is inNorway, busily collecting an army to invade the Isle of Man. Hereceived strong naval support from the Hebrides, but for somereason, he met with stubborn opposition in Man. Despite twosetbacks, he finally triumphed in battle at Scaefell. Sograteful was he to his Hebridean supporters that he gave them achoice of taking possession of the island or plundering it.Eventually the Hebrideans received the South part of the islandin close proximity to his own residence; the people of Man weredriven into the Northern portion. All accounts agree thatGodred Crovan was a powerful ruler: he conquered Dublin and alarge part of Leinster: he forbade the Scots on the westernseaboard of Scotland to build any vessel requiring more than three bolts in its construction. He was married and left issue,three sons, Lagman, Harold and Olaf. He died of pestilence inIslay in 1087."
Olav var konge på Isle of Man, og ble gift med jarldatteren Ingeborg Håkonsdtr..
Lots of nicknames: "the Red", "Dvergen", "Bitling", "Tit-Bit"
Olav I Bitling Godredson av Suderøyene yrke: konge, g. (1) Alfreca Fergusdatter av Galloway, f. Irland, yrke: prinsesse, g. (2) Ingeborg Haakonsdatter. Olav døde 1153, Suderøyene.
Cenwulf came to power after the death of Offa's son, Egfrith (distantly related). Cenwulf invaded Kent and installed his brother, Cuthred as King of Kent. He also attempted to gain power over the East Angles. He also raided the Welsh and as his power grew came to call himself "emperor", the first to do so since Charlemagne. Cenwulf was a strong king with a vicious and uncontrollable temper.
Eirik 1 Blodøks, ca. 895-954, eldste sønn av Harald Hårfagre.Etter farens død representerte Eirik riksenheten overfor brødrene,hvorav flere ble drept. Det lyktes den yngste av dem, Håkon Adalsteinsfostre, å fordrive Eirik, som så senere ble konge i Northumberland.
Eirik 1 Blodøks (blood-axe), ca. 895-954, oldest son of Harald Fair-Hair. Followed his father on the throne, ruling over his brothers, whereof several were killed. The youngest, Håkon Adalsteinforstre, succeeded in running Eirik out of the country, and Eirik later became king in Northumberland.
Malcolm's first attempt to gain the kingship came in 1054, when he invaded Scotland with an English army and fought a battle on 27 July. It was not a decisive battle for either side; higher Scottish losses were reported, but Earl Siward's son was killed, and Macbeth remained king. Macbeth does, however, appear to have been seriously weakened by the battle. In 1057, Malcolm made his second attempt on the throne. He was defeated by Macbeth on 15 August 1057, but Macbeth was mortally wounded, and died the next day. Macbeth was succeeded by Lulach son of Gillacomgain. Lulach proved to be less stern opposition, and Malcolm defeated and killed him on 17 March 1058, and took the kingship. Malcolm soon turned on his English allies, and invaded Northumbria in 1061.
Another invasion in 1070 was not well received by William the Conqueror, who invaded Scotland in 1072, and forced Malcolm to give up his son Duncan as a hostage. Malcolm successfully dealt with internal opposition in 1077, when he defeated an attempt by Lulach's son Maelsnetchai to seize the kingship. A raid on England in 1079 was defeated, but a successful raid in 1091 set off the chain of events which lead to Malcolm's death. William Rufus refused to respond to overtures from Malcolm in 1093, and Malcolm invaded England for the last time. During the siege of Alnwick Castle in Northumbria, Malcolm was ambushed and killed along with his son Edward. He was succeeded by his brother Donald Ban.
Three children with Ingeborg; at least 8 children with Margaret.
Eighth King of all Britain, claimed title of Bretwalda. Reigned 802-839. In 800 at the decease of King Brithric, Egbert was called by the voice of his countrymen to assume the Government of Wessex, and he subsequently succeeded in reducing all the Kingdoms of the Heptarchy under his sway. His reign, a long and glorious one, is memorable for the great victories he achieved over the Danes. (See Europäisch Stammtafeln Bund II tafel 58.)
Egbert laid the foundations for the ascendancy of Wessex among the English kingdoms. At first an unsuccessful claimant to the Wessex crown, he finally became King in 802. Egbert defeated the Mercian King Beornwulf at Ellandune (825) and briefly (828-29) held the kingdom of Mercia itself. He was also recognized as King in Kent, Surrey, Sussex,and Essex and received the nominal submission of Northumbria. The later years of his reign were marked by frequent Danish raids on England. The male line of kings descend from him to Edward theConfessor and the female line to the present time.
The official male line of descent for the British Royalty begins with Egbert and concludes with Edward the Confessor. The female line extends to the present time. Egbert's wife, Eadburh, was a daughter of Theodoric IV (Makhir) Aymeri of Autun, shown elsewhere in this genealogy.
The death of Egbert looks like it took place in 839, as there are many ref. refering to his reign from 802-839. "Egbert dies leaving a greater Wessex 839". King Egbert of Wessex has died, ending a 37-year reign in which he reshaped...
Stewart Baldwin says: 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.
Reigned 866-871. The vikings launched a full scale invasion of England. He died after his victory at Ashdown leaving his brother to fight on. Some say buried at Sherborne Abbey. He was reputed as a Saint after his death.
King of Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Essex. Reigned 839-856 (abdicated). Under-king of Kent 825-839 and 856-858. Renown for his military prowess, he reputedly defeated 350 viking ships in 851. He reduced taxation, endowed the Church, made lay lands inheritable, and provided systems of poor relief. He visited Rome in 839. His wife, Osburga was a daughter of Oslac (Oslake) "the Thane" of Hampshire.
Aethelwulf, King of England, 839-858, d. 13 Jan. 858; m. (1) Osburh, daughter of Oslac, the royal cup-bearer. Ref. (ASC 823,836,840,853,854).ARSC Line 1-14.
Uteks. fra T.T.L. 1904, Maskinlinjen. 1904-1905 v. Union Iron Works skibsbyggeri, San Fransisco. 1905 - 1906 gullgraver i Nome, Alaska. 1906 - 1908 på ertsfundsundersøkelser i Nevada. Kom tilbake til Norge i 1912 og bosatte seg først i Trondhjem. Kom senere til Bergen og derfra til Oslo hvor Aslaug
døde og ligger begravet på Nordstrand kirkegård.
I 1801 var Christopher fæstebonde og fisker på gården Strømmen, Tromsøysund, og oppgis å være 46 år gammel. På gården bodde deres barn: Inger Elisabeth (18 år og ugift), Kiel (16 år og ugift), Abelone (12 år), Niels (10 år), Ane Wivike (10 år) og Alit (egentlig Alethe, 6 år). I husholdet hadde de også:
Kiel Jørgensen, «tieneste dreng», 24 år og ugift.
Ingebor Olsdatter, «tieneste tøs», 20 år og ugift.
Ole Olsen, «Almisse lem», 70 år og ugift, «Nyder underholdnig i huuset med hans kones tieneste - samt noget av fattigkasse».
«Stadfested Samme dag (XVIII Søndag efter Trinit) Kiel Christophersøns barns Daab af Strømmen hiemmedøbt av Klokkeren Willum Jensøn, N: Christopher.» Faddere Hans Kihl Finfjord, Jørgen Willumsøn L..., Kield Larsøn Strømmen, Martha Larsdatter ibid og Aleth Kiel Bentsjorden.
I 1831 overdro Christopher 15 mark i gården til sønnen Niels:
«Strømsgården, «Strømsfjord med Strømmen» - Hillesø [Tromsøysundet].
Skjøte fra Christopher Kjelsen til sønnen Niels Christophersen på 15 mark i denne Gård, datert 07.01.1831, tinglyst 10.07.1832».
Det ble også foretatt en utskiftning 27.09.1831, tinglyst 10.07.1832.
