KENT

Part Two[*]

Eorcenberht ruled Kent “most nobly for 24 years and some months”, says Bede:

He was the first of the English kings who by his supreme authority commanded the idols throughout his whole kingdom to be forsaken and destroyed, and the fast of 40 days to be observed; and that the same might not be lightly neglected, he appointed fitting and condign punishments for the offenders.

HE III, 8

In the Mildrith Legend, Eorcenberht has an older brother called Eormenred.[*] According to one of the Legend texts, an incomplete Old English Life of St Mildrith (preserved in British Library MS Cotton Caligula A xiv, mid-11th century), Eormenred and Eorcenberht jointly succeeded their father, Eadbald, as king. The Historia Regum text, however, says that Eorcenberht, the younger brother, “by his father’s arrangement, assumed the sovereignty of the kingdom … but the elder, Eormenred, continued the changing course of this frail life without the rule of empire.”  In a Worcester text, Eormenred is titled ‘petty king’ (regulus). Perhaps, then, Eormenred ruled under his father in West Kent, and stayed in that junior post whilst his younger brother succeeded their father in the senior post.[*] Eormenred would appear to have died before Eorcenberht.

Eorcenberht married Seaxburh, eldest daughter of Anna, king of the East Angles. They had two daughters, only one of whom, (St) Eorcengota, was known to Bede. She became a nun in a Frankish monastery.[*] According to the Mildrith Legend, however, she had a sister, Eormenhild (St Ermenilda), who married Wulfhere, king of Mercia.

Bede reports that in the year 664:

… there happened an eclipse of the sun, on the third day of May [actually, on 1st May], about the 10th hour of the day [i.e. about 4 in the afternoon]. In the same year, a sudden pestilence depopulated first the southern parts of Britain, and afterwards attacking the province of the Northumbrians, ravaged the country far and near, and destroyed a great multitude of men.

HE III, 27

In the above-mentioned year of the aforesaid eclipse and of the pestilence which followed it immediately … Deusdedit, the 6th bishop of the church of Canterbury, died on the day before the Ides of July [i.e. on 14th July].[*] Eorcenberht, also, king of the people of Kent, departed this life the same month and day; leaving his kingdom to his son Egbert, who held it for 9 years.

HE IV, 1

Eorcenberht’s widow, Seaxburh (St Sexburga), became a nun, and later succeeded her sister, Æthelthryth (St Etheldreda or St Audrey), as abbess of Ely.[*] Seaxburh is said to have been succeeded at Ely by her daughter, Eormenhild (St Ermenilda), but Bede makes no mention.

Egbert (Ecgberht) may have been too young to rule on his own behalf when his father died – a 12th century Vita of Seaxburh (St Sexburga), his mother, indicates that, at first, she acted as regent.

Surrey was evidently under Kentish control at the beginning of Egbert’s reign – probably in 666, the monastery of Chertsey was, as recorded in a charter (S1165), founded by him.

The see of Canterbury had been vacant since Deusdedit’s death in 664.

At this time the most noble kings of the English, Oswiu of the province of the Northumbrians and Egbert of the people of Kent, consulted together to determine what ought to be done about the state of the English Church … They selected, with the consent and by the choice of the holy Church of the English nation, a priest named Wigheard, one of Bishop Deusdedit’s clergy, a good man and fitted for the episcopate, and sent him to Rome to be ordained bishop, to the end that, having been raised to the rank of an archbishop, he might ordain Catholic prelates for the churches of the English throughout all Britain. But Wigheard, arriving at Rome, was cut off by death [in 667?], before he could be consecrated bishop …

Bede HE III, 29

Later, Bede provides more information:

… the priest Wigheard, a man of great learning in the teaching of the Church, of the English race, was sent to Rome by King Egbert and Oswiu, king of the Northumbrians, as was briefly mentioned in the foregoing book, with a request that he might be ordained archbishop of the Church of the English; and at the same time presents were sent to the Apostolic Pope, and many vessels of gold and silver. Arriving at Rome, where Vitalian presided at that time over the Apostolic See, and having made known to the aforesaid Apostolic Pope the occasion of his journey, he was not long after carried off, with almost all his companions who had come with him, by a pestilence which fell upon them.

HE IV, 1

Pope Vitalian ordained Theodore, a monk from Tarsus (in modern Turkey), in Wigheard’s stead. Theodore eventually arrived at Canterbury in 669.[*] In the meantime though, Egbert, for want of his own bishop (the see of Rochester was also vacant), had been obliged to call on the services of Bishop Wilfrid to ordain: “priests and deacons in Kent till the archbishop should come to his see.” (HE IV, 2).

Egbert is one of the leading players in the Mildrith Legend. Eormenred, Egbert’s uncle, was, according to the Historia Regum text, a “pious man”. He and his “very pious wife” (other texts name her Oslafa) had two sons, Æthelberht and Æthelred: “marked by a singular beauty of holiness, bound in the closest yoke of charity, rich in the duties of meek humility, blessed with the distinction of unconquerable patience, adorned with the inmost grace of unwearying prayer, they were fulfilled with abundant reflections of the goodness of the Father of spirits.”  The brothers were orphaned and came into Egbert’s care (according to a Vita of Mildrith, composed at the end of the 11th century by Goscelin, also a component of the Mildrith Legend, they were first in the care of Egbert’s father, Eorcenberht). The Historia Regum version of events says that: “in the royal palace was found a certain man of sin, and son of perdition, a limb of Satan, and of the house of the devil, who, puffed up with the empty pomp of the world, and graced by the munificence of the king, neither feared God nor regarded man.”  The man’s name was Thunor: “which means ‘Thunder’, for he was unceasingly tormented by deadly furies of wicked spirits, by whose hideous tumults he should be sunk in the pit of hell.”  Thunor advises Egbert that the young brothers pose a threat to Egbert and his children, and should be exiled or murdered: “The king winked at these things, not asserting that he was averse to either plan”.  In Egbert’s absence, Thunor kills Æthelberht and Æthelred and buries them under the king’s throne. A heavenly column of light issues from where the bodies are buried, and Egbert discovers what has happened: “What could the king do? For struck with a paroxysm of fear, he stood stupefied and grieved to the utmost, because tormented by the sting of conscience that he shared in the infamy; since he had not strongly resisted the enemy of goodness, and because he was unable to avenge what had so wrongfully been perpetrated.”  (Other versions hold Egbert directly responsible for sanctioning the brothers’ murder.) These events are purported to have taken place at Eastry, Kent, but the corpses are said to have been immovable until it was decided to take them to Wakering, in Essex, for proper burial.[*]

Æthelberht and Æthelred’s sister, Eormenburh, was also known by the name Domne (‘Lady’) Eafe.[*] Domne Eafe had married Merewalh, who in the Historia Regum is described as “king of the Mercians”. Merewalh wasn’t king of Mercia proper. In two of the Legend texts[*] his kingdom is placed in the western part of Mercian territory, i.e. the Westerna, usually called the Magonsæte (Herefordshire and southern Shropshire). In several of the texts he is said to be a son of Penda, and, therefore brother of the incumbent king of Mercia, Wulfhere, who was married to Egbert’s sister, Eormenhild. At any rate, in the Historia Regum, Egbert invites Domne Eafe to visit him (other texts note that she and Merewalh had, by this time, separated): “The king, therefore, designing to honour her, desired that she might ask whatever she wished within the compass of his power to bestow, if it were a thing becoming his dignity, and she should immediately receive it. [Other versions make it clear that Egbert’s offer to Domne Eafe was in compensation for her brothers’ murder.] The holy woman, in a meek reply, begged that he would grant her only as much land as a doe which she had brought up, guided by divine instinct, could travel in one day.”  The royal party travelled to the Isle of Thanet, and the doe began to encompass a large area of land. Thunor, “moved by spite”, asked Egbert: “‘Since all your actions are guided by acute judgement, why do you follow, in this devout procession, this brute animal, as if it could perform something wonderful?’ As he said this, struck by the bolt of the Almighty, he fell from his steed. Immediately the very wretched Thunor was swallowed up, with his horse and arms, in a frightful chasm of the earth.”  Domne Eafe (St Ermenburga) founded the monastery of Minster-in-Thanet on the land selected by her doe, and became its first abbess. The second abbess was her daughter, Mildrith (St Mildred). Bede makes no mention of any aspect of the Mildrith Legend.

Bede notes that, in 673: “Egbert, king of the people of Kent, died in the month of July; his brother Hlothhere succeeded him in the kingdom, which he held 11 years and 7 months.” (HE IV, 5).  Frankish annals provide the precise day on which Egbert was buried: Monday, 4th July.

As far as Bede knew, Hlothhere succeeded his brother Egbert smoothly, after the latter’s death in July 673. However, in a charter (S7), the 1st April 675 is said to be in the first year of Hlothhere’s reign, in which case he cannot have become king until April 674 at the very earliest.[*] When Egbert died his sons would have been too young to succeed to the throne. There were, clearly, rivalries between branches of the Kentish royal family (as demonstrated by the Mildrith Legend), and it could be that Hlothhere’s succession was contested, leaving Kent kingless for a year.

Though the Mercian king Wulfhere does not feature in Bede’s famous list of “English kings who ruled over all the southern provinces that are divided from the northern by the river Humber and the borders contiguous to it” (HE II, 5) – and, consequently isn’t classed as a Bretwalda by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – it seems likely that he did, in fact, win the overlordship of southern England. Wulfhere was married to the sister of Egbert and Hlothhere. Egbert’s death may have presented him with the opportunity to extend his influence in Kent – perhaps he was opposed to Hlothhere’s succession. Certainly, about that time, Wulfhere took control of Surrey, which had previously been held by Egbert.[*] At any rate, not long after, probably in 674, Wulfhere’s army, which was made up of contingents from all the southern English kingdoms, was crushingly defeated by the Northumbrian king, Ecgfrith. Wulfhere’s grip on power was loosened. In 675 he fought with the West Saxons, and, in the same year, he died.

Without providing a reason, Bede reports:

In the year of our Lord 676, when Æthelred, king of the Mercians, ravaged Kent with a hostile army, and profaned churches and monasteries, without regard to pity, or the fear of God, in the general destruction he laid waste the city of Rochester; Putta, who was bishop, was absent at that time, but when he understood that his church was ravaged, and everything taken away from it, he went to Seaxwulf, bishop of the Mercians, and having received of him a certain church, and a small piece of land, ended his days there in peace; in no way endeavouring to restore his bishopric … Theodore [archbishop of Canterbury] consecrated Cwichelm bishop of Rochester in his stead; but he, not long after, departing from his bishopric for want of necessaries, and withdrawing to other parts, Gebmund was put in his place by Theodore.

HE IV, 12

Possibly Æthelred’s devastating raid was an attempt to re-establish Mercian authority in Kent, or, at least, designed to dissuade Hlothhere from trying to regain control of Surrey or extending his influence in Lundenwic, i.e. London.[*] It is clear, from a surviving Kentish law-code, that the kings of Kent had commercial interests in London – Item 16 refers to “the king’s hall in that town” and “the king’s town-reeve”.

In fact, as it now exists, this law-code is in the joint names of Hlothhere and Eadric, which is widely believed to indicate that, by the time it was issued, Hlothhere was sharing power with his nephew, Eadric.[*] If that was indeed the case, young Eadric was clearly unhappy playing second fiddle to his uncle. In 685:

… Hlothhere, king of the people of Kent, died on the 8th of the Ides of February [6th February], when he had reigned 12 years after his brother Egbert, who had reigned 9 years. For he was wounded in battle with the South Saxons, whom Eadric, the son of Egbert, had raised against him, and died during the cure. After him, this same Eadric reigned a year and a half.

HE IV, 26

Whatever the nature of the alliance between Eadric and the South Saxons, it was brought to a swift conclusion by the activities of, the West Saxon king, Cædwalla. In 686, Cædwalla and his brother, Mul, “ravaged Kent and Wight”, says the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but no further detail is given. The Isle of Wight had been subject to the South Saxons since Wulfhere had gifted it to their king, Æthelwalh. Sometime between 681 and 685 (before he had taken the West Saxon throne in 685/6), Cædwalla had attacked the South Saxons and killed Æthelwalh (so it isn’t clear whether or not it was Æthelwalh who helped Eadric defeat Hlothhere). Cædwalla returned, as king of the West Saxons, killed one of Æthelwalh’s successors, and took control of Sussex.

A charter (S9) shows that Eadric was alive in June 686. According to Frankish annals he was buried on Friday, 31st August 686.[*] “On his death”, says Bede, “kings of doubtful title, or of foreign origin, for some time wasted the kingdom [of Kent], till the lawful king, Wihtred, the son of Egbert, being settled in the throne, by his piety and zeal delivered his nation from foreign invasion.” (HE IV, 26).

Following the West Saxon invasion in 686, Mul, brother of the West Saxon king Cædwalla, apparently ruled as king in Kent – a later Kentish charter (S10) refers to his reign. A charter (S233), recording a grant of land at Hoo in Kent to an Abbot Ecgbald, made by Cædwalla, suggests that the West Saxons had East Saxon assistance in their takeover of Kent – the East Saxon king Sigehere is featured in the witness-list, and within the body of the document there is a reference to Sigehere’s conquest of Kent. Perhaps Mul shared the rule of Kent with Sigehere. Be that as it may, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that, in 687: “Mul was burnt in Kent, and 12 other men with him; and in that year Cædwalla again ravaged Kent.”  Cædwalla may have been seriously ill, however, and the next year he abdicated and travelled to Rome, where he died.

Oswine is only known from charters. There are three in his name: S12 (which is dated July 689), S13 and S14. The latter two are witnessed by Oswine’s co-ruler, Swæfheard. In S13, dated 27th January 690, Oswine is said to be in the second year of his reign. Bede states (HE IV, 26) that, until the accession of “the lawful king”, i.e. Wihtred, son of King Egbert, Kent was ruled by “kings of doubtful title, or of foreign origin”. Oswine would appear to have been a descendant of Eormenred, brother of King Eorcenberht, so, presumably, it was Oswine who Bede had in mind when he used the phrase “of doubtful title”.[*]  There are possibly two charters in the name of Swæfheard (S10, S11), both of which are witnessed by Oswine. Swæfheard falls into Bede’s category “of foreign origin”. In S10, Swæfheard identifies himself as the son of, the East Saxon king, Sæbbi, and Sæbbi himself is a witness.[*] The indications are that this charter was issued on 1st March 689, and Swæfheard is said to be in the second year of his reign.[*] References in their charters (S12, S10) show that Æthelred, king of Mercia, had authority over both Oswine and Swæfheard. Perhaps, seizing the opportunity provided by the circumstances surrounding Cædwalla’s abdication, Æthelred and Sæbbi co-operated to expunge West Saxon influence from Kent, and establish their own nominees on the throne. At any rate, in late-690 or 691, Wihtred, Bede’s “lawful king”, would seem to have overthrown Oswine. Swæfheard, however, retained his share of the kingdom until at least 692, and possibly as late as 694.

According to Bede’s figures, Wihtred came to power in autumn 690. Other sources, though, indicate it was in 691.[*] At first Wihtred shared the rule of Kent with Swæfheard, son of the East Saxon king Sæbbi. Bede reports that, after the see of Canterbury had been vacant for almost two years – since the death of Archbishop Theodore on 19th September 690 – Berhtwald, abbot of Reculver, was elected to the post: “He was chosen bishop in the year of our Lord 692, on the first day of July, when Wihtred and Swæfheard were kings in Kent” (HE V, 8).  There is no mention of Swæfheard (nor any foreign overlord) in the earliest of Wihtred’s charters (S15), which is dated 17th July 694, so it would appear that between July 692 and July 694 Wihtred had become sole king of Kent – he had, in the words of Bede: “by his piety and zeal delivered his nation from foreign invasion.” (HE IV, 26).

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records, s.a. 694, that “the people of Kent” paid compensation to Ine, king of Wessex, “because they had formerly burned Mul.”  Mul had been killed in 687, having first been installed as king in Kent by his brother, Ine’s predecessor, Cædwalla.[*] The Chronicle continues Annal 694 with the comment: “And Wihtred succeeded to the kingdom of the people of Kent, and held it 33 winters.”  There are suspicions that this, apparently late, notice of Wihtred’s accession marks his emergence as Kent’s sole king.

On 6th September 695 (probably), Wihtred issued a law-code, which, amongst other things, granted tax-free status to the Church.[*] Ine also issued a law-code, and there are a couple of hints of communication between the two royal courts whilst the laws were being drafted.[*]

Wihtred would appear, from charter evidence, to have had three wives. In order: Cynegyth, who features in S15, dated 17th July 694; Æthelburh, who features in four charters (S16, S18, S19 and S21), and who seems to have been queen in the late-690s and, possibly, early-700s; Werburh, who features in the apparently genuine witness-list, dating from, or a little before, 716, that was added to a forged charter (S22) in the 9th century.

In his final report on Kentish affairs, Bede states:

In the year of our Lord 725 … Wihtred, the son of Egbert, king of the people of Kent, died on the ninth of the Kalends of May [23rd April], and left his three sons, Æthelberht, Eadberht, and Alric, heirs of that kingdom, which he had governed 34 years and a half.

HE V, 23

The witness-list of S22 identifies Werburh as Alric’s mother. If Alric ever reigned, there is no record of it. Symeon of Durham (HR) preserves a note, s.a. 732, though it should really be in 731, which states: “Alric and Esc, with many others, were slain on Thursday the 10th of the Kalends of September [23rd August].”[*]  Presumably this is the same Alric.

A charter dated 11th July 724 (S1180), i.e. before Wihtred’s death, records a grant of land made by Æthelberht, with his father’s consent, to Mildrith, abbess of Minster-in-Thanet. Æthelberht has no title, being simply styled “son of the glorious king Wihtred”, but presumably, since he was able to grant the land, he already had a share in the government of Kent. The earliest surviving charter issued by Æthelberht as king is dated 20th February 732 (S23). The earliest of his brother and co-ruler, Eadberht, is dated 14th October 727 (S26). It is evident that Æthelberht was the senior partner – a grant of land made by Eadberht required confirmation by Æthelberht (S27, dated April 738). Æthelberht (Æthelberht II) would appear to have ruled from Canterbury, in the east of the kingdom, whilst Eadberht (Eadberht I) ruled West Kent from Rochester.

Bede (HE V, 23) states that at the time he was writing, i.e. in 731, all the southern English kingdoms: “as far as the boundary formed by the river Humber, with their several kings” had become subject to Æthelbald, king of Mercia (d.757). Kentish charters reveal no sign of Æthelbald’s overlordship, but presumably it was as a result of his influence that, when Berhtwald, archbishop of Canterbury, died in 731, a Mercian priest, Tatwine, succeeded him. Similarly, after Tatwine’s death in 734, Nothhelm, a priest at London, was his successor, and after Nothhelm’s death in 739, his replacement, Cuthbert, was probably the former bishop of Hereford.

With the departure of Bede, Kentish history becomes rather vague. Charters indicate that joint kingship continued after the deaths of Æthelberht II and Eadberht I. A conjectural line of succession is shown below.

The appearance of, the Mercian king, Offa at Canterbury in 764, making a land-grant in his own name (S105), suggests that Kent was the first of the English kingdoms to succumb to his overlordship. It would seem he was still firmly in control a decade later – two charters (S110, S111) record land-grants he made to the archbishop of Canterbury in 774, without mention of any Kentish king.

In 776, given a passing mention by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: “the Mercians and the people of Kent fought at Otford [in Kent]”.  Henry of Huntingdon (HA IV, 23) flexes his imagination to give a fuller picture: “When there had been appalling slaughter on both sides, the famous Offa emerged victorious from the battle.”  It may well be, however, that it was in fact “the people of Kent” who were victorious. In a charter issued in or after 765 by Egbert (S37), Heahberht features as a witness, but no mention is made of Offa. Further, both Egbert and Heahberht minted silver pennies in their own names. So it would seem that at some stage after 765 the Kentish kings won their independence from Offa, and it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that they managed this at Otford.[*]

Egbert’s charters S35, dated 778, and S36, dated 779, have no references to any other monarch – neither Kentish co-king nor foreign overlord. The implication would seem to be that he was ruling Kent alone at this time.

A single charter, in an abbreviated version dated 784, of Ealhmund “king of Kent” survives (S38). Manuscript F of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was produced at Canterbury. Its compiler inserted a comment between the lines, in Latin, pertaining to the year 784: “At this time King Ealhmund reigned in Kent.”  It may well have been the same scribe who appended the same remark, but in Old English, to the end of Manuscript A’s annal 784. The source of the scribe’s information was probably a copy of the charter that now survives as S38. In Manuscript F, however, a margin note, written in Old English, says: “This King Ealhmund was father of Egbert [king of Wessex 802–839], and Egbert was father of Æthelwulf [king of Wessex 839–858].”  An Ealhmund does indeed appear as the father of Egbert and grandfather of Æthelwulf in genealogies found in Manuscript A of the Chronicle (in a preface and s.a. 855). Ealhmund is shown as the great-grandson of the brother of Ine (king of Wessex 688–726). Manuscript F’s identification of this Ealhmund of West Saxon pedigrees with the king of Kent, though unique, is generally accepted as being correct.

It is very clear from charters (S123, S125, S128, S129, S130, S131) that before the end of 785 Offa was in sole control of Kent – rather than acting as its overlord, he had annexed the kingdom. From later (i.e. after Offa’s death) charters (S155, S1259, S1264), it is apparent that Offa rescinded land-grants made by Egbert II: “King Offa took away the aforesaid land from our community, as if, in fact, Egbert were not allowed to bestow by charter lands by hereditary right.” (S1264).

In 787: “there was a contentious synod at Cealchythe [Chelsea], and Archbishop Jænberht resigned a part of his bishopric, and Hygeberht was chosen by King Offa”, reports the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (s.a. 785), somewhat cryptically. In fact, Offa had engineered the division of the archbishopric of Canterbury “on account of the enmity he had formed against the venerable Jænberht and the people of Kent”, says Offa’s eventual successor, Cenwulf, in a letter to Pope Leo III (795–816). The bishop of Lichfield, Hygeberht, was elevated to archbishop, and Jænberht, archbishop of Canterbury, had to cede his jurisdiction over several bishoprics to the new archbishop of Lichfield. Pope Leo, writing to King Cenwulf, says that his predecessor, Pope Hadrian I (772–795), had agreed to the division, and sent the pallium to Hygeberht, in response to Offa’s assertion: “that it was the united wish and unanimous petition of you all”.[*]  The eminent teacher, scholar and theologian, Alcuin, though, comments that the division: “was made, it seems, through a desire for power, not by any sensible consideration” (A49).  Jænberht, who, before becoming archbishop, had been abbot of St Augustine’s in Canterbury, died in 792, and was succeeded by Æthelheard, abbot of Louth in Lindsey.

In July of 796, King Offa of Mercia died, followed by his successor, his son Ecgfrith, before the end of the same year. The throne of Mercia was acquired by a distant relative named Cenwulf. These circumstances seem to have provided the opportunity for one Eadberht, “whose other name was Præn” (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 794), to establish himself on the throne of Kent.

Eadberht is almost certainly “the priest Odberht” who had found safe exile from Offa’s clutches at the court of Charlemagne. Odberht is discussed in a letter from Charlemagne to Offa.[*] It seems that Offa was attempting to secure Odberht’s extradition to England. Charlemagne sent Odberht, and others who had sought sanctuary with him from Offa (“exiles who in fear of death have taken refuge under the wings of our protection”), to Rome so they could put their own cases to the pope, with Æthelheard, archbishop of Canterbury, as Offa’s representative in Rome: “What could be safer for us than that the opinion of the apostolic authority should determine a case in which the views of others disagree?”  With that, the letter moves on to another subject.

Following Eadberht’s seizure of Kent, Archbishop Æthelheard fled to safety.

The new king of Mercia, Cenwulf, entered into correspondence with Pope Leo III (795–816) regarding the organisation of the English Church. Under Offa, and with the consent of Leo’s predecessor, Hadrian I (772–795), the archbishop of Canterbury’s jurisdiction had been divided, and a third archbishopric created at Lichfield. This arrangement, says Cenwulf, was objected to by “our bishops and certain most learned men among us”, since it contravened the structure of the Church outlined by Pope Gregory I (590–604). Gregory’s original intention was that there should be two archbishops: one in the South, located at London, and the other in the North, located at York. As events turned out, the southern archbishop’s seat became ensconced at Canterbury, and it wasn’t until 735 that York became a permanent archbishopric. At any rate, Cenwulf, in effect, suggested to Leo that the archbishopric of Lichfield should be abandoned, and that the southern archbishop should be transferred from Canterbury to London – London being firmly in Mercian hands. Leo defended Hadrian’s agreement to the division of the southern archbishop’s territory – saying Hadrian had been persuaded by the arguments of “your excellent king, Offa” – and ruled out the possibility of relocating the archbishop of Canterbury in London. Leo continues:

And concerning that letter which the most reverend and holy Æthelheard sent to us, just as your excellency requested, and perusing it more plainly, as was fitting, we have sent a reply more clearly to his Holiness: that as regards that apostate cleric who mounted the throne [i.e. Eadberht Præn], we, accounting him like Julian the Apostate, excommunicate and reject him, having regard to the safety of his soul. For if he should still persist in that wicked behaviour, be sure to inform us quickly, that we may send the apostolic reminder to all in general, both to princes and to all people dwelling in the island of Britain, exhorting them to expel him from his most wicked rule and procure the safety of his soul.[*]

In 798:

… Cenwulf, king of the Mercians, entering the province of the people of Kent with the whole force of his army, mightily devastated it, in a lamentable pillage, almost to its utter destruction. Eadberht, king of the people of Kent, was at the same time taken prisoner, whose eyes the king of the Mercians ordered to be put out, and his hands to be cut off without pity, on account of the arrogance and deceit of his people.

So says Symeon of Durham (HR).  Chronicle Manuscript F agrees with Symeon that Eadberht had is eyes put out and his hands cut off.[*]  William of Malmesbury does not record the maiming, but says that Eadberht was taken captive:

… fettered, and put in prison; but being soon afterwards set at liberty by his enemies, though not received by his own subjects, it is uncertain by what end he perished.

GR I §15

Later, William reveals that Cenwulf, “moved with feelings of pity”, had released Eadberht during the dedication ceremony of a new church at Winchcombe (Gloucestershire):

… he freed the captive king at the altar, and consoled him with liberty, thereby giving a memorable instance of his clemency. Cuthred, whom he had made king over the people of Kent, was present to applaud this act of royal munificence.

GR I §95

Cuthred is called Cenwulf’s brother in two charters: S157, dated 801, and S160, dated 804.

There had still been no resolution to the problem of the, now unwanted, third English archbishopric at Lichfield, which had, under Offa, been created to reduce the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Canterbury. Pope Leo III, though, had more pressing problems. As reported by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 797 (actually 799): “In this year the Romans cut out the tongue of Pope Leo, and put out his eyes, and drove him from his see; and then soon after, with the aid of God, he could see and speak, and was pope again as he had been before.”  Symeon of Durham (HR, s.a. 800) takes up the story: “Charles [Charlemagne], king of the Franks, of renowned valour, entered the walls of the city of Rome with a great multitude of his army, and remained there for some months … He also gave magnificent presents to the venerable pope Leo, and dispersed his adversaries; some he destroyed or condemned to banishment, some he killed, who wickedly raised a conspiracy against him… on the day of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ [25th December 800], this mighty emperor, with dukes and magistrates and soldiers, went to the church of the most holy prince of the apostles, where he was robed with the royal purple by the lord pope Leo, a crown of gold was placed on his head, and a sceptre in his hand. This dignity he deserved on that day to receive from every people, that he should be called, as he was, emperor of the whole world.”  Anyway, the archbishop of Canterbury, Æthelheard, travelled to Rome in 801, and persuaded Pope Leo to restore the see of Canterbury’s status. On 12th October 803, in a synod at a place called Clofesho (the location of which is not known, but Brixworth in Northamptonshire is a popular candidate), this was enacted and the archbishopric of Lichfield was abolished. Archbishop Æthelheard died in 805.

Cuthred died in 807. No immediate successor is evident. Cenwulf and, his successor, Ceolwulf ruled Kent directly. In charters, both Cenwulf (S164, dated 809) and Ceolwulf (S186, dated 822; S187, dated 823) are referred to as kings of Mercia and Kent.

King Ceolwulf of Mercia was deposed in 823. Around the same time, one Baldred, mainly known from his coinage, appears as king of Kent. He was probably installed by the new Mercian king, Beornwulf – indeed, his name suggests he was a relative of Beornwulf.

Baldred’s only mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is the report of his overthrow. In 825, Beornwulf was decisively defeated by Egbert, king of Wessex:

He [Egbert] then sent Æthelwulf his son, from the army, and Ealhstan his bishop, and Wulfheard his ealdorman, to Kent with a large force, and they drove Baldred the king north over the Thames; and the people of Kent, and those of Surrey, and the South Saxons, and the East Saxons, turned to him [Egbert], because they had formerly been unjustly forced from his kinsmen.[*] … and in this same year the East Angles slew Beornwulf, king of the Mercians.

The Chronicle places this entry two years early (that is, s.a. 823),[*] but it is also apparent that the events described begin in 825 and run on into 826. A Kentish charter shows that Beornwulf still had authority in Kent on 27th March 826 – S1267, issued on that date, is said to be in the third year of Beornwulf’s reign. It would seem likely, therefore, that Baldred was not expelled from Kent until 826.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports (s.a. 823, for 826) that: “the people of Kent, and those of Surrey, and the South Saxons, and the East Saxons” submitted to Egbert. These territories were grouped together to form a sub-kingdom of Wessex, initially ruled by, Egbert’s son, Æthelwulf. In 860, this sub-kingdom was integrated into Wessex proper.